36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 47
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 9, 1997
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Finance—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1005
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Income Tax Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-17. Report stage
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1020
| Mr. René Laurin |
1025
| Mr. John Williams |
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1030
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1035
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12
|
1040
1045
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1050
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1055
| Mr. John Williams |
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
1100
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| Motion No. 10
|
| (Motion No. 11 withdrawn)
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1105
1110
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Williams |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
| Report stage
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1125
1130
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1135
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1140
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1145
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1150
1155
| Division on amendment to Motion No. 10 deferred
|
| Suspension of Sitting
|
| Sitting Resumed
|
1220
1230
(Division 61)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 62)
| Amendment to Motion No. 10 negatived
|
1235
(Division 63)
| Motion No. 10 agreed to
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. John Manley |
(Division 64)
| Third reading
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1255
1300
1305
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1310
1315
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1345
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1350
1355
| Division on motion deferred.
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1400
| TELECARE
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| KIMBERLEY JUNIOR DYNAMITERS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| PHILIPPE BOISCLAIR
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| ALGERIA
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1405
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| FAMILY VIOLENCE
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| CANADIAN MARCONI COMPANY
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1410
| CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| GEORGE PINLAC, JR.
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| CAMPAIGN FUNDS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HARVEY SMITH
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1415
| ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON SUPPORT PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Ms. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. John Manley |
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1450
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| KYOTO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
| SHIP BUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Third reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1505
1510
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1515
1520
1525
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. John Solomon |
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1600
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1620
| Suspension of Sitting
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1630
| Sitting resumed
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| REVOCATION OF MANDATE OF INQUIRY COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion
|
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1650
| Mr. Ted White |
1655
1700
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1705
| Mr. David Price |
1710
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1715
1720
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1730
| Sitting Resumed
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
|
| Motion for concurrence and amendment
|
1800
(Division 65)
| Amendment negatived
|
1805
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| CANADA MARINE ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Third reading
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
(Division 66)
| Motion agreed to
|
1810
| AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
|
| Motion No. 6
|
1820
(Division 67)
| Motion agreed to
|
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-17. Third reading
|
1830
(Division 68)
| Motion agreed to.
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1835
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1840
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Youth
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1845
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Tobacco Legislation
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1850
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1855
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1900
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1905
| POWA
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1910
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
| The Economy
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1915
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 47
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 9, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on the
question of privilege raised on Friday, November 28, 1997 by the hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and on Monday, December 1, 1997
by the hon. member for Markham.
1005
[English]
The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley raised the
matter of a premature disclosure and newspaper publication of
part of the draft report of the Standing Committee on Finance
concerning pre-budget consultations.
The hon. member for Markham also objected to the premature
disclosure of the draft report and to the fact that some
committee members had been denied access to the draft report
until after the occurrence of the leak. The hon. member for
Markham further claimed that the delay in providing him with the
draft report interfered with his ability to carry out his
functions as a committee member in examining the draft and
preparing, if necessary, a dissenting opinion.
I thank the hon. members for bringing these matters to the
attention of the House. I would also thank the other hon.
members who raised points related to these questions for the
Chair's consideration.
[Translation]
Let me begin by saying that the matter of the premature disclosure
of committee documents is one which has been raised on a number of
occasions in the past few weeks. The Chair has clearly set out the
principle that committee matters should be raised on the floor of the
House as a result of the presentation of a report from the committee
concerning them.
[English]
There is a further principle related to premature disclosure of
committee documents which Speaker Jerome used as the basis for a
ruling given on October 22, 1975. No potential breach of in
camera proceedings can be taken up without a specific allegation
of misconduct directed against particular individuals.
I refer hon. members to citation 877(2) of Beauchesne's, 6th
Edition, which clearly states that a complaint concerning
premature publication of a committee report is incomplete without
reference to the specific source responsible for the disclosure
of the report. In consequence, I cannot find that this matter
constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege at this time.
With respect to the issue concerning the preparation of
dissenting opinions, Standing Order 108(1)(a), which gives
committees the power to append dissenting or supplementary
opinions, is permissive in nature. It is up to each committee to
decide whether or not dissenting opinions should be appended to a
report and the form that they should take. However, when a
committee has taken the decision to permit the appending of such
opinions, it is only reasonable that that decision should be
reflected in its work plan. Any adjustments to that work plan
must be made in a spirit of fairness to all members of the
committee. The majority must allow reasonable time for
dissenting opinions to be submitted.
Concerning the question of access to draft material by members
of a committee, I once again remind members that committees are
masters of their own affairs. As such they are free to order
their proceedings as they see fit. At the same time, the Chair
is troubled by the fact that some members may feel unable to
adequately perform their parliamentary duties.
Drafts of committee documents, whether they are prepared by
government members or opposition members, should always be made
equally accessible to all members. I know that all members value
the collegial nature of the work that is carried out by
committees of this House. I remind the committee chairs that
good working relations require that all members be able to
present their views and contribute appropriately to the committee
process.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. members for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley and Markham for having brought these matters to the attention of
the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
from a number of Canadians, including some from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the National Forum on Health in
its section on investing that the Income Tax Act does not take
into account the real cost of raising children when one provides
direct parental care in the home.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue tax initiatives that will eliminate this tax
discrimination against families who provide direct parental care
to their children in the home.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on
behalf of people in the riding of Medicine Hat.
People are very concerned that the government is funding groups
to consider the removal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Therefore, the petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty
of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act,
the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the
Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax
Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments
Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, laid upon the
table on Monday, December 8, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to
amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find unanimous consent for an order that all
questions necessary for the disposal of the report stage of Bill
C-17 be put at 12 p.m. today, that any divisions requested
thereon not be deferred, and that the House proceed to the third
reading stage immediately after completing the report stage, and
that all questions to dispose of that stage be put no later than
1.59 p.m. with any division that may be requested deferred until
the conclusion of Government Orders this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a point of
order. At this stage of the report, I tabled two amendments that were
not approved by the Chair and I would like to make my case before the
House. One of these amendments concerns clause 1 and the other concerns
clause 8.
I wanted to include a definition of “basic telecommunications
services”, as this expression is used for the first time in the
Telecommunications Act. There is a definition of “telecommunications
services” but not of “basic telecommunications services”.
This new expression appears for the first time in Bill C-17.
I wanted to amend clause 8 to include a definition, specifying that
this definition also applies to the telecommunications services required
by any person who wishes to participate fully in Canadian society. This
is not adding anything new to the objectives of the Telecommunications
Act as stated in section 7 of the act.
I respectfully submit that my amendments should be accepted as they
are required because there is no definition of what constitutes basic
telecommunications services and the intent underlying my amendments is
in keeping with the objectives of the policy stated in section 7 of the
Telecommunications Act.
1020
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
hon. members who may not be aware, in a situation such as this
the Chair makes a ruling based on whether a motion changes or
introduces a new aspect to the legislation.
After consideration with table officers and carefully looking at
it, the last three lines which state that it shall ensure that
the definition covers the telecommunications services needed by
any person who wishes to participate fully in Canadian society do
in fact broaden the legislation beyond the scope that was
initially considered.
Therefore the Chair rules that the motion is not in order.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The motion included two parts. The first one asked that the
expression “basic telecommunications services” be defined. I would be
surprised if the House said it is not interested in finding out what
“basic services” means. I do not think it is the case.
The first part could at least be deemed to be in order, and I would
ask for the consent of the House to at least accept that first part, so
as to have a definition of what is meant by basic services.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was the basis
of our conversation. The suggestion of a definition is
appropriate. It is the amplification of what the definition
should be that the Chair had difficulty with.
If you will give me just a moment, I will confer with table
officers and make sure that we do this correctly.
1025
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, I draw your attention to Standing Order 10:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum—. No Debate
shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision
shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
I am wondering why we are debating a ruling that you have
already given.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The reason we are
debating a ruling that has already been made is that in the
opinion of the Chair it is the appropriate thing to do.
As a point of clarification for hon. members, the member for
Mercier presented a notice of motion which was done legitimately,
the way it should be done. The Chair had difficulty with one
aspect of the motion.
If the member for Mercier is prepared to remove item (c), then
with the concurrence of the House the Chair would be prepared to
accept the motion as amended.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been our experience at one time or another that to negotiate
some of these items across the floor of the House without all the
pertinent information is rather difficult to say the least.
However, in the spirit of co-operation that already exists on
this bill, and I know that an order has already been accepted in
terms of putting limitations on the time of debate at report
stage, I wonder if there might be a willingness if it is deemed
possible by the Chair to resume the debate at report stage. And
while we have some resources and officials from the department we
could look at the matter raised by the hon. member for Mercier
and see if in fact there is a possibility of raising the matter
she raised in the first motion which has not been deemed
acceptable at this time.
We will put whatever resources we have out disposal forward and
see if there is room to accept the motion being put forward. I
wonder if we should not pursue the debate. We are actually
taking up some very valuable time on the matter while we are
negotiating across the floor of the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to remove the
third item in the amendment to clause 8 if it is going to facilitate the
debate. We could then proceed with Motion No. 1. I agree to remove the
third item in the second motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The chief government
whip has offered to the House a very effective means of doing
what we need to do and to make sure all members are aware of the
exactly what is going on. If the hon. member for Mercier would
make available to other parties the amended version, in concert
with the chief government whip, we will get into debate and then
revisit this at the appropriate time.
1030
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
thought I heard you say it is the motion on clause 8 that poses a
problem in its third part.
Therefore, my understanding is that we can proceed with the
amendment to clause 1, since I said I was prepared to remove item (c)
dealing with clause 8, because it creates a problem. By the time we get
to clause 8, the clerks will have given us their opinion. I do not want
to unduly delay the business of the House, and I thank you for your
patience.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The difficulty is
that the motions are linked. We will proceed, as the Chair
originally suggested, with the chief government whip, with
representatives of other parties, and then we will come back to
it.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 15
motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report
stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act
and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1,
Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12; Group No. 2, Motion No. 8;
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 9 to 11; Group No. 4, Motion No. 13;
and Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting. I shall now propose Motions Nos.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 to the House.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I would ask at this time that we seek
unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the Reform motions on
the order paper today.
After consultation with the government we feel it would be in
order for us to withdraw our motions at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have been
instructed that we do not require unanimous consent. The mover
of the motion has asked that those motions be withdrawn. They
will be withdrawn.
(Motions Nos. 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15 withdrawn)
1035
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by
replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 2
with the following:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
8 to 13 on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 15
on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-17,
in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 2 with
the following:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 24
and 25 on page 2 with the following:
“(2) The Commission may”
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 with
the following:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing
line 4 on page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing
lines 13 to 18 on page
5 with the following:
“(b.1) prescribing classes of telecommunications service
licences:
(b.2) requiring telecommunications service licensees to publish
their licences or otherwise make them available for public
inspection;”
She said: Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Quebecois said it was prepared
to support the bill, which deprives Teleglobe and Telesat of their
monopoly, it did so for two reasons. First, because in the negotiations
with the World Trade Organization, Canada insisted that ownership remain
primarily Canadian, something which we feel is extremely important.
Second, because in its original bill, the government increased its
powers and those of the CRTC.
At the time, I made it clear that we felt the minister and the CRTC
do not make sufficient use of their powers to protect consumers. At the
same time, it is obvious that if neither the minister nor the CRTC have
adequate powers, they cannot do anything for consumers. This is why we
agreed with the spirit of the bill, in its original form.
Our committee heard officials from several major telecommunications
companies currently providing services to Quebec and Canada, but not to
the international community. They told us repeatedly that they did not
want to be subjected to a licensing regime. They wanted such a licensing
regime for international companies that will now be allowed to bring
their cable services to Quebec and Canada, but not for them, because it
would be too costly.
The committee also heard consumer groups from Quebec and Canada.
They told us that, on the contrary, a licensing regime for international
and national telecommunications companies at the beginning of this
period of deregulation and end of monopolies was the best guarantee that
consumers would know what to expect when they got services from one of
these major companies.
Consumers are currently facing a difficult situation. Advertising
in the telecommunications sector is second to none and consumers do not
know what to expect. They do not always know their rights either, and it
is not easy to take action, even with the CRTC in place.
1040
Under such conditions, consumer associations said that they would
agree with a licensing regime. The CRTC also testified and stated that
although it agreed with the first version of the act and with a
licensing regime, it was because it was not required to implement a
licensing regime for all classes of services, since it could choose and
since this regime could contain a number of requirements that would even
facilitate the application of the Telecommunications Act.
So in fact we did not hear any evidence on this, except perhaps the
concerns expressed by companies presently operating in Canada and in
Quebec that regulations would become more intrusive, but it seems to us
that this concern is contradicted by what the CRTC said when it claimed
that, on the contrary, this would make enforcement less intrusive, more
simple, and more predictable.
So under such conditions, we did not hear any evidence that can
convince us to support the amendment that the government agreed with. I
must admit that this may seem strange, but we prefer the spirit of the
initial version and this is the reason why, in the case of the clauses
that you listed, we have re-established the original intent.
But I would like to add something that I consider extremely
important. It is the fact that the field of national and international
telecommunications is changing extremely rapidly, both at the
technological level and the service delivery level. The population
cannot keep up with all these changes.
So it is important, even if we think we can foresee what will happen in
two years, that the CRTC have this ability to determine the types of
licences in a field that is changing so quickly, without having to have
the legislation amended.
Therefore, we did not hear any evidence that can convince us to
support this amendment. We understand and we respect the objectives of
these large corporations, which wanted to limit licensing to
international companies, but we think that these companies could
understand at any rate that the CRTC took a direction that even the
consumers find regrettable and are trying to deal with by stating that
their rights must be respected.
It should be remembered, and I will probably repeat this today,
that for the consumers, deregulation and competition have resulted in a
rapid rise in rates.
Consumers are being told that by going forward with deregulation, by not
interfering in the market and by opening it to competition, all problems
will be solved and it will become a dream world, but they are not quite
ready to believe this.
It should be pointed out that when the departments were redesigned
in 1993, in fact under former Prime Minister Kim Campbell during her
brief period as head of the government, and whose initiatives seem to
suit the present government very well, the Department of Industry became
of course a department for microeconomic development, but also the
department responsible for protecting consumer rights. So we believe
that in this respect, the department and the minister should ensure that
Canadian companies can develop in a competitive environment, but, more
importantly, they should also ensure that this environment does not have
a negative effect on consumers.
So I wish to point out again that the field of telecommunications
is changing extremely rapidly. It is an area where international
players, through partnerships, mergers, and stock purchases are in fact
constantly changing, even if it seems that Canadian features are being
kept. Their international image, if I can explain it like this, is
constantly changing.
1045
Therefore I cannot understand why the department did not insist and
explain to the large corporations that it had not intended to unduly
compromise liberalization policies that enhance competition, as long as
this competition continues to ensure that the people will receive
services that are affordable, accessible and reliable.
In fact, we realize now that reliability is a problem. There have
been problems in Quebec, we know that there have been problems elsewhere
also, and so the CRTC should be given the means to react differently
than with the piecemeal approach it now has. This is what we considered
and still consider to be the proper course of action, and we are
disappointed that the government has changed its mind on this.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I would like to move a motion which
clarifies the previous motion the House agreed to earlier this
day.
Further to the order made earlier, I understand that it is the
will of the House that, if any debate on any group of amendments
finishes before 12 noon, any division on that group would be
postponed until 12 noon and the House would proceed with the
subsequent groups.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Agreed.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and
points that have been brought forward by the member for Mercier.
She has proposed a number of amendments to the licensing
provisions basically found in clauses 3 and 7. The substance of
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are to expand the
scope of licensing powers of the CRTC from international services
to the wording that existed prior to the amendments and agreed to
by the committee, in which the CRTC had broad authority to
license both international and domestic providers.
I want to point out that we did have an extensive review of this
bill at the Standing Committee on Industry. Every witness spoke
on this subject during the committee review. It was the opinion
of the committee and the main concerns of the parties that
appeared before the committee that the licensing provision in
this bill at this time be limited to international services.
We listened to a number of witnesses express their strong
support for the introduction of a licensing regime for
international services but express great reservation about the
use of the power for domestic services. Others argued for the
retention of the broad powers, such as the Bloc with its
amendments here today.
As the House knows, with any knew regulatory tool there are
costs and benefits. With respect to the international services
there is clear evidence that such a tool is necessary. While
there will be compliance costs, they are small compared to the
benefits of making sure that the changes of the Teleglobe
monopoly to an international competition is made properly.
We acknowledge that there would be some benefit to have
licensing authority for domestic services. However, we already
have a fairly well developed regulatory framework. It is not
clear on the additional costs and benefits and which one
outweighs the other.
We heard very clearly that in its work in telecommunications,
which is an environment that changes and advances every day and
an environment that we as Canadians need to be leaders in, the
CRTC has been moving away from regulating everything to making
sure there is competition in that arena.
1050
We listened to all the arguments made in committee. The decision
to restrict the power to international service was taken after
hearing all of the parties. We believe at this time that it is
the right decision. It is most important that we get on with our
requirements on adhering to the various telecommunications
treaties that we have signed.
I would be against this amendment. I understand very clearly the
member's concerns which she has brought forward, but I advise the
House that we would be against this amendment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think this is an important circumstance in the list of amendments
the hon. member has brought forward. It is important for a
couple of key reasons.
The first is that we need to ask ourselves a question as we did
in committee concerning the issue of international licensing as
opposed to domestic licensing. What really are we trying to
accomplish and what is the cost benefit of doing so?
As has been mentioned previously by the hon. member on the other
side, numerous presenters at committee expressed concern around
adding a new layer of domestic licensing to telecommunications
service providers. Yet we could find no clear justification for
adding this new level of licensing.
Today under the CRTC, the Telecommunications Act and the
Competition Act, there are already vehicles through which the
government can deal with any problems in the industry. These
vehicles that currently exist if exercised expediently are all
that are needed. To layer a new level of licensing on to
business interests in the telecommunications industry which are
currently not under a licensing regime is just an expansion of a
bureaucracy for no clear benefit. That is what became so evident
in the committee.
I believe that is why we stand against these particular
amendments put forward by the Bloc member.
We always have to ask and we are going to continue to ask the
question, whenever there is some new overlay of regulation or
licensing and the cost that is involved in adding the new
licensing or administrative overlay, what is the benefit derived
for the consumer. Somebody is going to have to pay for this
licensing process. Someone is going to have to administer it.
Ultimately we know who that someone is. It is the taxpayer. It
may be passed on to industry, but industry just flows that back
to the consumer. One way or the other the taxpayer or the
consumer funds these new regulatory regimes that are layered on
top of the ones that are already there.
That was my concern in committee and it remains my concern.
Unless we can demonstrate a very clear payback to the consumer
for having these new licensing powers or licensing restrictions
placed on players who currently do not have them and have not had
them, and there have been no significant problems that cannot be
dealt with through existing legislation, then we should not
entertain adding a new level of bureaucracy to what is already
there.
Even at the international level there is some question as to how
long the need for licensing will be there if we are truly moving
to global competition. We feel it is a valid question to examine
how long we will need the licensing regime at the international
level.
In general, my thrust is to let us make the current restrictions
and legislation which is there today and surrounds this industry
effective, instead of adding on new layers of bureaucracy to try
to add new restrictions to the industry. It is already doing
quite well without it.
1055
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to debate Bill C-17, which deals with the
privatization of Teleglobe Canada. It allows the marketplace to
enter into the delivery of telephone call service to our
international friends, clients and so on.
I basically want to talk this morning about the fact that we are
glad to see the government has agreed this time to open up to
competition and to ensure that the free market forces are allowed
to play in this particular issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With the greatest
respect to the hon. member for St. Albert, we are debating
Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12. We have quite a number to
go through. Perhaps if we have debate of a more general nature,
it might be left to the end to ensure that we have an opportunity
to debate the motions.
I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the motions
that are being debated rather than to have them too general in
nature at this point.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I hate to enter into
debate with the Chair, but we seem to have some new rules coming
along here where we are to be specific to the amendments being
proposed and which are on the table today at this particular
moment, rather than perhaps speaking on a more general issue.
I would ask the Chair to clarify if this is a new rule that is
being imposed upon members, in essence to curtail the debate to
the amendments and amendments only.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, if
this is a new rule, then it is a new rule that should have been
here long ago.
We are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12. When we
get into third reading then we can have a general debate. Right
now at this moment we are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion
No. 12. We will go on to Motions Nos. 8, 9 to 11, 13, then 14
and 15. If there is any time left over, then we will get into
debate of a more general nature.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you may rule me
out of order as I continue with my speech. I will continue on
the basis I had originally intended, on the path that I had set
out on, which is to talk more about the fundamentals since I will
not be around this afternoon in order to deal with the more—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With the greatest of
respect to the member for St. Albert, it is not the Chair's
problem that the member will not be here later today for the
debate on third reading.
On debate on Motions Nos. 1 to 7.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Are you saying that you are ruling my speech out of
order?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for St.
Albert is out of order.
Debate on Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and 12. Is the House ready for
the question on Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and 12?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7 and 12.
1100
Motion No. 8 will not be proceeded with.
We will proceed to Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 10 and 11. Motion
No. 9 will not be proceeded with. We are now debating Motions
Nos. 10 and 11.
Hon. Gilbert Normand (for the Ministry of Industry) moved:
That
Bill C-17, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 33 on
page 3 with the following:
“46.1 The Commission may, if it determines that to do so
would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian
telecommunications networks,
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
ask that Motion No. ll be withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly, Motion
No. 11 will be withdrawn. If the hon. member for Mercier would
like to amend Motion No. 10, she would have the right to do so in
debate.
We are now debating Motion 10. Group No. 3 no longer includes
Motion Nos. 9 or 11. It is exclusively Motion No. 10.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this section had a lot of
debate in the Standing Committee on Industry. When we were doing
some rewriting we had second thoughts, that what appeared in
writing was not exactly what we meant. Following the committee
we had discussions with as many of the groups as possible to make
sure that we had in writing was exactly what we had agreed on in
committee.
Therefore this amendment is being brought forward to reflect
what we had thought the decisions were by the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, I ask that Motion No. 11 be withdrawn and made into an
amendment to Motion No. 10, which would read as follows:
46.1 The Commission may, if it determines that to do so
would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian
telecommunications networks and is consistent with the public
interest,
I move this amendment because, during debate in committee—
1105
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is necessary that
the hon. member for Mercier make her amendment in writing and
submit the amendment at the table.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I now wish to speak to
Motion No. 10, while my colleague writes out this amendment, which
uses the same wording as Motion No. 11.
On the substance, this new provision is, in fact, an amendment
to the wording in the initial bill. But it is not merely
technical. Once again, consumers told us that, with the
termination of monopolies over national service—that is what we
are talking about, we are no longer talking about international
service—there are problems with 9-1-1 service. There are problems
with telephone directories.
There are problems with companies deciding to transfer subscribers
to another company with no warning.
There is therefore a need to ensure what is known technically
as interoperation. But it is not just a question of interoperation
of cables, whether they are fibre-optic or whatever. It is a
question of services. Consumers are saying that what is needed is
not just to facilitate interoperation, but to ensure a continued
focus on public interest.
If we look at all the other clauses that give this clause
meaning, what we see is that the CRTC will have authority to
delegate to others, to a third party. In order to ensure that this
third party does not focus solely on efficiency, on reducing costs
to a minimum, but that it also focuses on public interest, this
must be spelled out.
Otherwise, if it had not been spelled out that it was for the
purpose of facilitating interoperation, it could have been said
that in any event there was provision for it in the spirit of the
law.
If, in taking this approach, we want to address public
interest, the CRTC must be given the mandate, in this particular
clause, of ensuring that there is a continued focus on public
interest in the way the CRTC will manage or transfer to third
parties this responsibility of administering databases. This is
extremely important. There can be secrecy surrounding databases:
looking after directories, operating a 9-1-1 service, or other
services not yet available. It is extremely important that public
interest be included.
I urge my colleagues, from all parties in the House, to
support this amendment, which adds something not to the CRTC's
spirit but to its mandate in these particular cases. These are
cases affecting ordinary citizens.
There is the need to look out for the public interest.
It seems to me that there is no reason to object. On the
contrary, it seems to me that it would even be to the political
advantage of all my colleagues to say that, in this particular
instance, where we are naturally ensuring the best competition
between businesses, we are not, at the same time, forgetting about
members of the public, who are faced with the new situation of
having to deal with several companies providing local, long
distance and now international services. They may well be
receiving sales pitches in three different areas. There will
perhaps be problems with 9-1-1 service, with directories, with
databases and other services.
I urge my colleagues from all parties in the House to speak if
they wish, but to be sure to support this amendment, which I think
is essential.
1110
The signal to liberalize, if, of course, it presumes we
recognize that the economy is changing, is an extremely bad one
unless accompanied by a greater interest in defending consumers,
because these large companies exist only because of consumers; they
are service companies. We must therefore ensure that, in the
upheaval surrounding the termination of monopolies, consumers at
least can count on their interests not being abandoned.
Therefore I move:
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
will certainly be interested to review the amendment put forward
by the hon. member from the Bloc. I think it is an interesting
concept and we will be giving it full consideration.
I am particularly appreciative of the opportunity to speak to
this amendment which has come forward.
The impact of this part of the bill is very significant. The
concern which many of the presenters at the industry committee
had pertained to this section of the proposed legislation.
Prior to this amendment the proposed legislation gave new, broad
sweeping administrative powers to the CRTC which some witnesses
referred to as a blank cheque or as being open ended.
To quote from the proposed legislation, prior to the amendment,
at subclause 46.1 of clause 6:
And it goes on to define what that means. It continues:
That was how the subclause read prior to the amendment. At that
stage the commission could administer any other activity related
to the provision of telecommunications services.
It is not too surprising that so many witnesses saw this as
being a blank cheque to the regulator. This is an open door to
more regulation, not at all consistent with Reform's longstanding
call for less government interference and less micro management
of the telecommunications marketplace by the CRTC.
In fact, it is not consistent with the minister's statement
concerning this legislation in the House on November 4 when he
referred to this legislation as a step forward in the
government's strategy to promote competition, innovation and
growth in Canada's telecommunications industry. He also stated
that the objective of the legislation was to free Canada's
telecommunications and information technology sectors to be
competitive, dynamic industries.
We should all take note that the majority of witnesses to the
industry committee were also concerned about these broad sweeping
powers being given to the regulator. This kind of thing, where
regulators can change the rules at any time in the middle of the
game, chases players away. It does not attract them. The
business interests in the telecommunications industry are no
different and that was made abundantly clear to the industry
committee.
This is not to cast aspersions on the hardworking individuals
currently charged with the task of carrying out the regulations,
it is simply a recognition of the nature of bureaucracies.
It is inherently easier for them to grow than to shrink and the
open ended approach to the legislation, without this amendment,
provided a whole new growth opportunity to the CRTC, a
bureaucracy which in our view is already far too extensive.
1115
How does the amendment to clause 6 paragraph 46.1 address this
point? The amendment serves to clarify and define the new
administrative powers of the CRTC. I would have liked, though,
to see it go even further in clarifying its administrative
powers. However the amendment is a move in the right direction.
The restriction applied is that the CRTC may only consider using
its new administrative powers when it can clearly be demonstrated
that it would “facilitate the interoperation of Canadian
telecommunications networks”.
Telecommunications advancements have driven the changes we are
all witnessing in this industry. Competition has driven down
prices, rewarded efficiency and stimulated new markets and
innovation. Some practices which were acceptable in the past are
no longer practical. Some common services carried out by the
incumbent telephone companies may be better administered by a
third party which serves all the Canadian telecommunications
network of common Canadian carriers.
Long distance and local switch network competition creates a
valid argument for a neutral third party to administer things
like the North American numbering plan, which will manage the
assignment and portability of area codes and telephone numbers.
In other areas is the need for a third party to administer
funding mechanisms by which long distance revenues of the various
carriers contribute to the support of local switch network
service.
It has been suggested that some portion of common administrative
functions concerning 911 or directory services might also some
day be included as part of the third party administrative
functions.
These administrative third parties, if and when they are
created, will be under the regulatory oversight of the CRTC.
Therefore the amendment constrains the commission to only getting
involved in administrative functions which will clearly serve to
facilitate some common aspect of network interoperability per the
kinds of examples given. This is better than the wide open “any
other activities” wording of the unamended version of the
legislation.
I point out to the government, the CRTC and the industry another
constraint which is applicable to the amendment. Section 7 of
the Telecommunication Act deals with Canadian telecommunications
policy. Item (f) in this section requires that the policy must
foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of
telecommunications services and ensure that regulation where
required is efficient and effective.
These new administrative bodies must be designed with management
processes that reward efficiency and effectiveness. This is
doubly important to the industry as well because the legislation
in clause 6, section 46.4, allows for those performing these
delegated administrative functions on behalf of the industry to
charge the industry participants for the services provided.
Ultimately, though, we recognize that these costs would be
passed on to the consumer, which further underlines the
commission's responsibility to build in competitive business
models rather than government oriented models for those entities
which perform the common telecommunications network functions. It
would reward those who increase the quality of service for lower
cost rather than those who would have bureaucracy grow and always
spend the budget plus a bit more.
In summary, the amendment constrains the open ended blank cheque
which concerned us and the industry when the minister first put
forward the legislation. It constrains the administrative powers
of the CRTC and delegates it to only those areas which can
demonstrably be shown to facilitate interoperation of the
Canadian telecommunications network to move from a monopolistic
environment to a more open ended and competitive model.
Therefore I will be recommending that we support this amendment.
1120
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate on Motion No. 10 we have the amendment of the hon. member
for Mercier.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Are we debating the amendment or Motion No.
10 which is the original amendment?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are debating the
original motion and the amendment is on the floor. We are now
debating the amendment. Because the amendment amends the
original motion, the Chair will be fairly generous in its
interpretation of relevance for the benefit of members who wish
to speak.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a totally different
subject.
I think you would find consent in the House to propose the
following motion to compensate for the fact that earlier this
week the late show was cancelled and a number of people were
deprived of an opportunity to make their statements and receive a
further response. With the consent of the House I would like to
move:
That on Tuesday, December 9, and Wednesday, December 10,
proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall last for not more
that 42 minutes in order to permit discussion of seven items.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend
the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; of Motion No. 10; and of the amendment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear you will allow a bit of latitude on relevance. I was
a little dismayed that you ruled the speech I was giving before
out of order before you had an opportunity to hear it.
However, I will talk about Motion No. 10 and the amendment. As
the member for Calgary Centre pointed out, the commission has
wide-ranging powers regarding the administration of databases,
information, numbering resources, et cetera, and can make any
order with respect to these databases. Mr. Speaker, as you will
understand, I am talking about Motion No. 10 as amended—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair must make
it absolutely clear that the motion has not yet been amended.
There are motions in amendment which have yet to be voted on. It
is incorrect to suggest that the motion has been amended.
We are talking about Motion No. 10 and the amendment. It was
pointed out by the table officer that I should make that clear.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I still do not have it
exactly clear. I have heard that the member for Mercier has
moved a motion to amend the amendment.
I am not exactly sure when the amendment will be before the
House. I am wondering why we are talking about the main motion
when we know an amendment is coming forward to change it. We
have not decided whether the amendment will go forward. It
leaves us in a bit of an awkward position, I am sure you will
agree, Mr. Speaker.
1125
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are debating the
group. Because the group encompasses everything within it, we
can be sufficiently broad in context that it will allow the hon.
member for St. Albert to wax eloquent for at least another seven
minutes.
Mr. John Williams: I appreciate that clarification, Mr.
Speaker.
Motion No. 10 gives the CRTC wide latitude and almost unlimited
powers, if not unlimited powers, regarding the regulation of
these issues.
I want to make a point on the question of accountability. Who
holds the CRTC accountable? Being a quasi-judicial body we all
know that it is not accountable to anybody other than its members
who sit at the government's pleasure and can be replaced if it is
felt that they are not fulfilling their obligations in a manner
the government would deem appropriate.
We saw that last week when the chairman of the Canada Labour
Relations Board was deemed to be participating in bad behaviour
and now the government has taken action to remove him from his
position.
Accountability is the issue. Motion No. 10 talks about giving a
group of unknown, unelected and unaccountable people complete and
absolute authority over matters that have great importance to
Canadians as they conduct modern ways of communicating through
telephone and so on.
Accountability is near and dear to my heart. I think of what
happened, for example, in NavCan. The federal government, in its
wisdom or lack thereof, decided that it would create an
organization. We thought it was privatization. It was called
privatization by the government. When we looked at the situation
we learned that it was nothing close to privatization in any way,
shape or form. Basically it was government by another format,
government without accountability. That is exactly what we have
in Motion No. 10. The CRTC has government without
accountability.
Again, if I can use NavCan as an example, the government set up
that organization on an uncompetitive basis. I give the Minister
of Industry some credit, because Teleglobe has now been
privatized and is allowed to operate in a competitive
environment. NavCan was one of the bungles by the Department of
Transport which decided that privatization did not mean
competition. As a result we see an organization with none of the
constrictions of having to live up to a competitive environment.
In fact it has been given a monopoly in perpetuity.
Those types of decisions being made by government are totally
inappropriate. I am glad to see that the same has not happened
here.
I also look at NavCan and see that the competitive environment
does not apply because it has been given a perpetual monopoly. I
wonder what kinds of accountability have been put in place.
Unfortunately I see none.
In Motion No. 10 we are seeing much of the same thing. There is
very little in the way of accountability. When we take a look at
NavCan we find out there are no shareholders because it is a not
for profit organization. It has no shareholders to be accountable
to.
Who is on the board of directors? The airlines and the players
are on the board, but they are accountable to someone other than
the people who have to pay. The Canadian travelling public is
being taxed to pay for the navigation service and has absolutely
no say whatsoever in the decision making of the organization.
We have no say in the decision making of the CRTC in Motion No.
10. Therein lies the relevance of the argument that sometimes
accountability is very important in this country. Accountability
is very important in democracy.
1130
The government is giving the CRTC these wide ranging powers, and
I quoted them earlier, to determine any matter and make any order
with respect to databases. It is pretty far ranging. It is this
need for more accountability that I think has got to be inherent
in the process as the government looks at alternative service
deliveries, this being one in Teleglobe Canada.
The idea of privatization of the organization I think is very
good. That is where we are moving in this interconnected world
in which we live. We need to open up the business which the
government has been in for so many years and has become stifled
with over-regulation and stifled with bureaucratic
administration. It is more than time to take these issues and
allow the competitive forces to winnow out the waste,
mismanagement and the inefficiencies to ensure that the Canadian
public are given the best opportunities, the best service and the
best quality at the best price. That can never happen within
government.
While we continue to give organizations such as the CRTC these
wide ranging, unfettered powers which allow them the entire scope
to dictate, enforce and impose their own vision of what they
think the market wants, I sometimes have a great deal of
difficulty agreeing with that.
I listened to the amendment put forth by the member for Mercier
which says that it has to be consistent with the benefits of the
Canadian public or words to that effect. I understand that it
puts some constraint on the CRTC. I think the motion therefore
is well deserving of its merit. It is time that we brought some
of these organizations to account.
The fundamental debate of accountability is growing today.
People are wrestling with how we can build that in to ensure that
the government's programs and decisions truly reflect what the
public wants and are not ossified in a situation where we are
stuck with yesterday's decisions even though the opportunities
and technology allow for far better ways to provide the same
service to the general public.
That is what I am concerned about. I used to be a small
business person and service, quality and price were always
important to my clientele. As far as I am aware, these things
are important to every Canadian who wants better service and
better quality at less price, if that is at all possible.
I am concerned about this blanket sweeping authority that we are
giving to the CRTC in Motion No. 10. It is time that we try to
rein in these commissions which have been given this blanket
authority to ensure that they are accountable also in some way,
shape or form. They have to listen to people. They have an
obligation to ensure that they are effective in the way that they
do their business.
That is what I am saying about accountability. It is all
pervasive. It is time that we looked at ways to ensure that the
CRTC and other organizations meet the public demand.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to stand and discuss a couple of the amendments in
this debate that really are of concern to us as Progressive
Conservatives. I will speak later at length on the bill but I
want to address the two amendments in particular that we are
concerned about. The first one was addressed by the previous
speaker. We share the same concerns about power given to the
CRTC and other regulatory bodies and also to the governor in
council.
Our concern about the first amendment we were to deal with was
the proposed licensing for all carriers.
The committee heard many witnesses who argued that this was an
additional and unnecessary burden placed on the national industry
which was already functioning well without it. Again, more
burden, more paperwork, and it contradicts the whole purpose of
the bill which is to privatize, commercialize and decentralize.
1135
We will now move on to the second amendment about the governor
in council which in the original bill was allowed to prescribe
changes in any area as it relates to the provision of
telecommunication services—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With apologies to
the hon. member, I have already asked other members to stick to
the amendment that is being debated right now, which is No. 10.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some
comments on the remarks made by the previous speaker. I
understand the the member for St. Albert always wishes to
discredit various tribunals and legislative bodies that we have
in the country. However, we heard very clearly from the users,
the stakeholders, the people who will be involved in reducing or
eliminating the monopoly of Teleglobe Canada.
It is important to know the rules for having a level playing
field. Although I understand his objective, I do not think it
was relevant to the debate.
Another item is the amendment to the motion which states that in
the public interest, each of the bodies or tribunals that we have
set up, whether it is for telecommunications or other sectors
across Canada, part of their mandate is to act in the public
interest.
My concern with the amendment to the motion would be to call
into question if the public interest should be held in this
motion only and not in the rest of the act. As I stated earlier,
each one of the administrative bodies are there to act in the
public interest. My concern would be that the perception is
given that the CRTC does not act in the public interest.
I do not think that the hon. member for Mercier meant that.
However, it could be implied that the concern is for the public
interest only in that section. Therefore, I have a great concern
that the comment is made only in that section. Maybe we need to
make sure and to reconfirm administrative acts and tribunals so
that it is very clear that it is being done in the public
interest.
I was a little unsure about the point made by the member from
the Conservative Party. I think we have gone beyond the points
he was trying to make. Therefore, I cannot respond.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to make a few contributions to the
amendment to the government amendment made by the member for
Mercier.
Basically, the purpose of that amendment is to ensure that when
the CRTC carries out its operations that it does so in a way
which will facilitate the interoperation of Canadian
telecommunications networks and also acts in the public interest.
We plainly have an ideological dispute in place as to the
function of regulation and of operating markets and how we make
sure that markets operate in the public interest.
Generally, markets will operate in the public interest. However,
in other instances they will not and as a government and as a
people we have to be prepared to ensure that markets which
allocate resources and products in our community and in the
country do so in a way which is in harmony with the public
interest.
1140
There is no sense in having an economy that works contrary to
the public interest. One of the problems of the position taken
by the speaker on behalf of the Reform Party, the member for St.
Albert, of course, is that he would permit ideology to dictate
common sense. We surely cannot in any sensible debate allow
theory that does not work to apply to a situation in a way that
would be contrary to the public interest.
I think what we have is a situation in which Teleglobe and
indeed the telecommunications industry as a whole have exciting
opportunities both here at home and abroad. It will be faced
with important challenges as the world market is opened up and
the Canadian market is further opened.
It is everybody's hope that Teleglobe survives, thrives, does
well and creates more jobs in Canada and more profits that will
of course be taxable in Canada and indeed provides a good service
to not only Canadian users of telephones, indeed almost every
Canadian, but also is competitive in the world economy.
In the context of that and in the context of moving into what is
unchartered territory, we have to ensure that the Canadian public
interest is also protected.
I take the point of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Industry that we should ensure that all regulation be in the
public interest. Of course, that is true. However, I do not
think it hurts to remind us that when we do regulate, when we do
have an overseeing of agency which is designed to ensure that the
industry in question being regulated is in fact operating in the
public interest, it does not hurt us to be reminded that that
agency should function in that way.
Indeed, flowing again from the comments of the member for St.
Albert, his views seem to be that regulation is never in the
public interest. If only for him we might have an amendment
which reminds Canadians that we have the public interest at heart
when we look at making sure that markets work.
In the instance that markets work effectively for Canadians,
then we can leave them alone. We perhaps do not need to regulate
very much the market for the buying and selling of bicycles. When
we are dealing with something of this sort, we do have to ensure
that Canadians are protected. That is the purpose behind this
amendment, and I support it.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be speaking to the amendment to Motion No. 10 which deals
with the addition of the public interest phraseology into the
amendment.
I applaud the member from the Bloc in bringing this forward. I
think it is an interesting initiative and in general I support
the idea that we need to make sure these quasi-judicial bodies
like the CRTC are in fact operating in the public interest.
I think she has some legitimate concerns to question whether or
not they actually are. I am not sure that this is the best way
to deal with that concern, but I do applaud her for bringing it
forward.
Why I share her concern regarding whether the CRTC is actually
operating in the public interest is not so much really with the
telecommunications side, but I certainly do share her concern in
general when it applies to the CRTC on the broadcast side.
For example, we have a decision coming out of the CRTC in the
next week or two where again they will be ruling on the ability
for single faith channels to be broadcast within Canada. Whereas
just recently they did approve a Playboy channel to be broadcast
in Canada, they are eliminating single faith channels from being
broadcast in Canada, continually turning down that decision.
It will be very interesting to see if the CRTC will actually
allow those Canadians who are pursuing this kind of broadcast
channel to be allowed to have access to that.
This is the kind of accountability that I believe the member for
St. Albert was calling for, accountable back to the people.
1145
To say that we are always operating in the public interest, as
per the member's motion here, I think that can be demonstrated to
not always be the case by these quasi-judicial bodies. People who
are part of the public need to have some input into the process
to say what is in their best interest. It seems to be that there
has been some disconnection from the public interest as expressed
by the public and what is actually happening here. I hope that we
see some change from the CRTC particularly having to do with the
broadcast side of it.
Yes, we do need to make sure that the public interest is part of
the CRTC's mandate. I concur with the member from the other side
though that by adding the public interest in this clause you
would tend to want to add the public interest to every single
clause in the entire act. I would think it should be implied
that the CRTC is acting in the public interest throughout the
act. To put it in one section and not have it in all the others
tends to suggest that the other sections are not acting in the
public interest.
I would suggest that maybe this is not the best way to approach
it but I do concur with the member's intent. Beyond just adding
the words “public interest”, what we really need and for a long
time what this party has been calling for is a complete review of
how the CRTC exercises its decisions that are in the public
interest. There is some substantial breakdown there that needs
to be dealt with on behalf of Canadians.
That is what we are primarily calling for in relation to this
motion on the floor today. Again, I applaud the member but I
think this might not be the best approach. We would call for a
comprehensive review of the CRTC's mandate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I understand the
hon. member for Mercier has already spoken to this group of
motions, but the Chair will accept the member for Mercier
speaking again because the amendment to the motion was made at
the conclusion of the member's dissertation.
The hon. member for Mercier.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to waste the House's time, but simply to respond to some of
the arguments I have heard to the effect that inclusion of the
public interest in this clause might suggest that it does not apply
elsewhere.
I would like to simply point out that, when the government
amendment states “if it determines that to do so would facilitate
the interoperation of Canadian television networks”, I believe that
“facilitating the interoperation of Canadian television
networks”
is also a general mandate of the CRTC. Yet they take the trouble
to mention facilitating interoperation.
Since a specific mandate is given, which is one of the seven
elements of the Canadian telecommunications strategy, I find—and
I believe there are a number of us that do—that it is not enough
to state that interoperation must be facilitated, in areas
affecting services to individuals in a changing world of
communications. It is also important to look after the public
interest.
If there is a risk to the public interest, there is also one
for interoperation. We do not want to suggest that, elsewhere, it
is not necessary to facilitate interoperation of networks.
I believe that this amendment is fully justified and I would
appreciate it if the government side were also concerned about the
public interest.
1150
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the
attention of the Chair that an amendment was submitted by the hon.
member for Mercier, which was moved to the end of the debate for a
decision as to whether you would accept it or not. The amendment
addressed inclusion of a definition of basic services.
You appeared to say just now that, if the hon. member for
Mercier removed the last part of her resolution, you were prepared
to accept it. I would ask you therefore to follow up on that,
please, because the hon. member has agreed to remove the last part
of her resolution.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for Joliette for bringing that to the attention of the
Chair.
The motion which was originally put by the member for Mercier
included three parts. There was some discussion as to whether or
not the motion would be deemed acceptable if it were amended by
the member to remove the third part. To do so we would have had
to have had agreement of all hon. members because the motion was
changed for technical reasons. That agreement was not
forthcoming. Therefore the motion was out of order. The
previous ruling that the motion was out of order will not be
changed. The motion remains out of order.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not
believe that the House has been asked to consent on acceptance or
refusal of the motion. I do not believe that it was done at that
time. If, in your opinion, it has not been done, I would request,
through you, the consent of the House so that this motion may be
moved.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was at that
time trying to accommodate the member for Mercier on the motion.
For the Chair to be able to accommodate the amendment would have
required the consent of all parties. That consent was not
forthcoming. Therefore the Chair is not able to accept the
motion. The motion is out of order. That is the end of it.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment to Motion No. 10.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
On a point of order the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some members
here, I want to make it very clear that we know exactly what we
are voting on. If I may do so for clarification, it is my
understanding that at this point we are voting on the amendment
proposed by the Bloc to Motion No. 10 but not on Motion 10
itself. Is that correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is correct.
1155
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A recorded division
on the amendment to Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
For the benefit of members of the House, because motions were
withdrawn by those who presented them, Group No. 4 which consists
of Motion No. 13, and Group No. 5 which consists of Motions Nos.
14 and 15, have been withdrawn and will not be dealt with.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few
minutes left until noon. May I suggest that we suspend the
sitting of the House until noon and that you call the question at
that time.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly, the
House is suspended until 12 noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.53 a.m.)
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the
report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
1220
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on
this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive and
Motion No. 12.
1230
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp – 37
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 216
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Loubier
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 defeated.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 10.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members who voted on the preceding motion to be recorded as
voting on the motion currently before the House, with the Liberal
members voting no.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party
will be voting yes to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative
Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 199
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Loubier
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to Motion No. 10
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
1235
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic
Party will be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 199
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Loubier
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 carried.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous support
for the members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as
voting on the motion now before the House, with the Liberal members
voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the government in waiting
over here would like to vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be
voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 236
|
NAYS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Hardy
| Lill
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Stoffer
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 18
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Loubier
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. John Manley moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 has had a lot of
debate in committee.
1240
Telecommunications are the nerve impulses of the global economy
in the emerging information society. Information of all sorts
from all areas span the globe in a matter of seconds.
Changes in communications over the last number of years have
been very rapid. No nation can survive without it. No nation
can hope to compete in the global economy without the most up to
date telecommunications systems.
The telecommunications sector is vital to the Canadian economy.
It is the key to our international competitiveness and an
important source of high quality jobs.
Not only did employment in telecommunications increase 15%
between 1994-95 but the sector also generated revenues of some
$22 billion. The sector accounts for over 145,000 high quality
jobs and 3.4% of the GDP. It will be our key growth sector in the
economy of the next century.
Much of that growth is due to the liberalization in domestic
telecommunications that began some 13 years ago and has already
greatly benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications
companies.
The liberalization began with the licensing of competitive
cellular telephone service in 1984. It moved forward with the
privatization of Teleglobe in 1987 and Telesat in 1992. It
advanced again with the introduction of long distance competition
in 1992 and the passage of the new Telecommunications Act in
1993.
In a little over a decade, Canada has moved from a highly
regulated telecommunications environment to one where competition
can flourish.
Over the past three and a half years this government has
continued to remove barriers to competition within Canada,
modernizing the legislative framework that governs information
and communication technologies.
This liberalization can serve as a model for countries that have
yet to make the transition from monopoly to competition based
services. It has equipped Canada with one of the world's most
competitive policy frameworks as well as an independent
telecommunications regulator.
It has also stimulated the development of new products and
services, more consumer choice, increased economic growth and job
creation, considering the licensing of new wireless services,
personal communications services in 1995 and local multipoint
communications services in 1996.
We saw a launch of Canada's first local multipoint
communications systems site just last spring. LMCS is a wireless
broad band system capable of carrying basic and advanced
communications services.
It will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the
information highway and offers a wide array of multimedia
services. It will soon provide Canadian consumers with a
competitive alternative to existing cable and telephone services.
The companies providing LMCS expect to invest over $1 billion
and create 8,000 jobs within the next five years. Few would
argue that the liberalization of basic telecommunications
services has benefited Canadians but Canada is not the only
nation moving to liberalize its telecommunications industry.
1245
In fact, we are part of a world-wide trend. The bill now before
the House extends the liberalization begun in our domestic
telecommunications industry to the international arena. It
clears the way for the implementation of an agreement that Canada
concluded last February, the GATS agreement on basic
telecommunications.
Many of the changes can be implemented administratively. Others
require legislation. The bill provides the legal framework
needed to implement the changes that require legislation.
I want to acknowledge the contribution to this bill by the House
Standing Committee on Industry. This process resulted in
amendments which improve a good bill. I must compliment all of
the participants for their forthright and direct debate on
putting their points forward and assisting in moulding this bill
into the bill that is before the House today.
The government consulted extensively with industry and the
provinces before negotiating the agreement and numerous witnesses
voiced their opinions during the committee's review. The
agreement eliminates many restrictions in the international
telecommunications industry, liberalizing trade and investment.
It covers basic telecommunications services, which include voice
and data but not broadcasting.
Under the agreement, Canada committed to eliminating monopolies
in the two areas still closed to competition: overseas telephone
service and fixed satellite services. The bill therefore amends
the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
Teleglobe's monopoly will end October 1, 1998. Telesat's
monopoly will end March 1, 2000. Canada also agreed to remove
foreign ownership restrictions in satellite earth stations and
the landing of international submarine cables. This agreement
will benefit both Canadian telecommunications companies and
consumers.
Telecommunications companies will benefit through greater access
to important markets. For example, the agreement gives Canadian
companies full access to the U.S. market in basic
telecommunications services. The use of reciprocity tests by the
U.S. Federal Communications Commission will be severely
curtailed.
Canadian companies will be able to invest up to 100% in
telecommunications firms in many foreign markets. Canadian
companies will also gain new access to the markets of developing
nations. Another benefit is access to the WTO dispute settlement
process which provides the safeguards needed to ensure that
countries live up to their commitments.
The provision of telecommunications services will be governed by
clear rules and disputes between WTO members will be resolved in
a timely manner through this effective and timely process.
This bill also strengthens our ability to keep pace with a
rapidly changing telecommunications environment. The CRTC will
ensure that international telecommunications carriers are
licensed according to Canadian rules and regulations in a manner
that is consistent with WTO rules so as to ensure a level playing
field for all market participants.
Just as domestic liberalization of telecommunications has
benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies, we
can expect to see similar benefits arising from the GATS
agreement. The agreement is expected eventually to result in
less expensive international long distance telephone rates as
competition increases in the overseas long distance market.
It will also stimulate telecommunications investment around the
world, generating new opportunities for Canadian
telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers.
Not only will Canadian telecommunications companies be able to
compete for a piece of the international telecommunications pie,
but the pie will get bigger.
This will produce more jobs and economic growth for Canada and
support a strong, innovative domestic telecommunications sector,
one that will deliver more and better services to Canadians at
lower costs.
1250
Two areas of concern for Canada were not affected by this
agreement. Canada took an explicit reservation to allow us to
maintain our current overall foreign investment regulations in
telecommunications. This investment regime has seen major
foreign firms such as AT&T; and Sprint make significant
investments in Canadian firms while ensuring that they remain
Canadian owned and controlled. In addition, Canada has no
ownership restrictions for resellers which compares well with the
current situation in Japan, Europe and the United States.
Canadian culture is also protected as the agreement does not
cover broadcasting, which continues to be covered by the
Broadcasting Act. One of the reasons broadcasting was excluded
was to ensure the protection of Canadian culture.
The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications follows closely
on the Information Technology Agreement which liberalized trade
and information technology equipment. Under that agreement, 40
governments agreed to phase out all tariffs on computers,
software, telecom products and semiconductors beginning July 1,
1997 and eliminate them by the year 2000. These 40 economies
account for 85% of the world's annual $500 billion U.S. trade in
IT products.
Information technology plays a key role in our economy. These
products are the building blocks of most industrial and business
processes. Canadian users of information technology products are
expected to benefit as tariff barriers fall. Together these two
agreements provide a springboard for economic growth and
development in the next century. They cover international
business worth over a trillion dollars U.S. Their combined
effect will spur telecommunications investments around the world,
increasing opportunities for Canadian telecommunications service
providers and equipment manufacturers.
Not only are they good for Canadians and Canadian companies,
they contribute to international development by making
information products and telecommunications services more
affordable. Canada's open and competitive telecommunications
market has produced highly competitive Canadian companies which
are well prepared to take advantage of the new business
opportunities created by these agreements. This is essential for
Canada's continued competitiveness and economic health because,
as much as we have accomplished, other countries are challenging
us.
New communications and information technologies are remaking the
world around us. If we do not want Canada to be left behind, we
have to prepare ourselves for the new reality. Canada has long
been a world leader in providing its citizens with access to
broadcasting and basic telecommunication services, such as the
telephone. In fact, we have virtually universal access to these
core networks and services, with safeguards to ensure that
Canadians retain access to these services in a competitive
environment.
The combined forces of technology and trade liberalization are
opening new frontiers, creating challenges that we can barely
imagine. The opportunities are there for Canada to seize, but
only if we move decisively and quickly to take advantage of them.
Canada will benefit as a result of the GATS agreement. I urge
the House to move on this bill which is needed to implement the
agreement with all due speed. I thank my fellow colleagues for
their great contribution in debate, in committee and in this
House to make sure that this bill gets passed.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17 as it enters its
final stage in this House.
1255
On the whole, I believe the bill makes some positive changes
within the telecommunications industry, both within Canada and
internationally.
I appreciate that within the industry committee specific changes
were made to the legislation which allowed for some key
improvements that were badly needed.
Before I speak to the specifics of the legislation, I believe it
would be wise to paint the context within which this legislation
fits. By doing this we will be better able to understand its
significance.
It is no longer news to say we are in the information age or the
information revolution. Alvin Toffler, in his book “The Third
Wave”, 15 years ago foresaw the forces thrusting us into the
information age. I would suggest that we have only just entered
it.
The advances in information technologies, both in computing and
telecommunications, will continue to reshape our work, our social
structures and generally our lives for some years to come.
Today we have just begun to experience the impacts of the
information age. We are still developing new coping and
information processing norms.
Some examples are that we no longer telephone a place to reach a
person. Increasingly we simply call the person and connect
directly with him or her. This can happen anywhere in North
America. In fact, it can happen in most places in the world.
Voice and data mailboxes have removed time dependency on
conversation. Magazines have gone from 10 national magazines to
hundreds, if not thousands, on news, sports and specialty issues.
Television has gone from a two to five channel universe to a 200
to 500 channel universe.
The numbers of those accessing the Internet is growing
exponentially. With new information comes new ideas and in turn
new data information packages result. Globally we are
overwhelmed with information inputs.
I heard some years back that an engineer who graduates today
from a four-year undergraduate program will be required to
complete his degree effectively three more times in a 30 year
career just to stay current.
I also remember a statistic of some years back that if you took
all the information in the world today and assembled it, 20 years
from today it would amount to 3% of the total.
The opportunities in this information age and information
explosion are as significant as the social pressures it produces.
The information age is transforming our world. Truly, it is a
global phenomenon.
The ability to move information around the globe at the speed of
light is improving daily. The digitization of voice, data and
raw broadcast information, combined with fibre, wireless and
satellite transmission technologies, multiplexing and compression
techniques are making government policy shaped in the
monopolistic earlier days of telephony and broadcast increasingly
obsolete.
Government protectionist policies which attempt to stop or
contain information at the border are becoming increasingly
ineffective. Attempts by governments such as ours to continue to
separate telecommunications information from broadcast
information will become increasingly ludicrous.
As telecom and broadcast technologies converge through
digitization, common transmission and delivery media, the ability
to separate legislation for broadcast bits of data from
telecommunications bits of data in transmission and delivery
facilities will become unworkable.
Thankfully, Canadian technology in telecommunications and
broadcast is state of the art in the world. We have the
opportunity to benefit from our product expertise like few other
nations in the world. A strong, proactive, Canadian pursuit of
global markets is the best line of defence for Canadian
sovereignty at home when compared to the old protectionist
approach.
It is within these realities that we are considering the modest
changes proposed by Bill C-17. The primary purpose of Bill C-17
is to allow for the gradual winding down of the monopoly
positions held by Teleglobe and Telesat. This will allow others
to legally carry long distance telephone traffic into and out of
Canada. Conversely, as part of the World Trade Organization and
the GATT agreements, it will allow Canadian companies to more
fully participate in international long distance markets.
1300
The bill simply keeps us in the game and is more of a cautious,
follow the leader approach than anything demonstrating a longer
term vision.
The Reform Party has long been committed to increased
competition in the telecommunications industries. We support the
move to an open marketplace which is not hindered by the expense
and overhead of undue government interference.
In general the legislation is improved by the committee process
and the amendment today moves the industry in the right
direction.
Even though 69 countries representing 90% of the current
international long distance market signed on to the WTO
agreement, Bill C-17 still calls for new international licensing
which basically is there to protect Canadian incumbents from the
new international players who may choose to provide service to
Canadians.
Conversely, these international entities will also place
protective licensing regimes in their own countries. Therefore
we do not have true global competition but rather mutually
agreeable licensing regimes between countries, usually intended
to protect incumbent carriers in each country. The consumer
would be better served where true reciprocity and open
participation existed rather than international licensing.
Technological advancements may eclipse licensing requirements
and render them obsolete within a few years anyway. Even though
I believe a sunset clause, which would provide an opportunity to
review the licensing regime through reciprocal international
agreements some time in the future, would send a stimulating
signal to Canadian industry to be competitively aggressive at
home and abroad, this would in turn serve to strengthen the
companies and better serve the Canadian consumer in the long run.
Unfortunately the government would not consider the inclusion of
a sunset clause. Thankfully though, due to the work done in the
industry committee, the licensing regime is now restricted only
to international long distance carriers rather than a new
licensing regime for both domestic and international service
providers as called for in the original legislation.
A second component of the proposed legislation applies more to
the domestic market operation than to the international long
distance marketplace. The change I am referring to is the new
administrative oversight powers granted to the CRTC by the
legislation.
Let me make it clear that the Reform Party supports the
efficient operation of the marketplace and a regulatory
environment that promotes competition. Thus, with the
competition in the domestic long distance market and the
development of competition in the local switched network market,
the allowance for some measure of third party administrative
function for common network interoperability makes some sense.
For example, it makes sense that a third party administration of
the North American telephone numbering program rather than the
incumbent telephone companies be responsible for this activity.
There will likely be other administrative entities established to
address other network interoperability concerns.
The CRTC is given the power to establish and oversee these
entities. Clearly the refinement to the original legislation
which allows for broad new sweeping powers to the CRTC has been
addressed and the administrative powers are now restricted to
issues of network interoperability. Without this change we could
not have supported the bill.
Even with the restricted administrative powers granted to the
CRTC by the legislation, we would encourage the government to do
the following. First, it should hold to its stated preference
for less regulation and only entertain administration functions
on behalf of the industry when the industry calls for the
administrative body to take on the work.
Second, consistent with section 7 of the Telecommunications Act,
it should set a management structure in place which rewards
efficiency and cost effectiveness for any administrative body
that is established.
1305
Third, it should ensure as per the legislation that the costs of
the administrative functions are borne by the industry and not
the taxpayer. This should be done on a pay for services basis by
participating industry players.
The end of the Teleglobe monopoly will not only allow
competition from abroad to place downward pressure on overseas
callings but will enable Canadian companies to enter the huge
global marketplace, which is estimated to be worth $800 billion
as compared to our $18 billion domestically. The legislation
will result in the end of the Teleglobe monopoly.
The bill originally called for a domestic and international
licensing regime. In committee Reform pushed hard to limit the
licensing regime to international telecommunications services so
we would not see the reregulation of domestic services. These
changes were made in committee.
We also pushed hard to limit the blank cheque powers granted to
the CRTC in the original bill. The clauses in question were
amended to better define the CRTC powers so they are not expanded
from the current jurisdiction but can only delegate necessary
functions to facilitate the interoperation of the Canadian
telecommunications network.
The bill is a step in the right direction in so far as it
promotes competition and partially removes outdated foreign
ownership restrictions that date back to the protectionist world
of old. However, more work could be done in eliminating the
foreign ownership restrictions for Canadian telecommunications
carriers.
While positive to an extent the bill is not far sighted in terms
of where the telecommunications industry is going but is catching
up to today's realities. Increased globalization will soon cause
additional pressures on our domestic telecommunications policy.
It is too bad Bill C-17 does not look further ahead.
Bill C-17, though imperfect, should be passed for the benefits
it brings forth, which will enable the Canadian industry to
better prepare for an ever changing marketplace.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the time
of second reading, the Bloc announced its support for the bill,
which, need I point out, puts an end to the monopoly enjoyed by the
international telecommunications carrier Teleglobe and to Telesat's
monopoly over Canadian satellites.
We did so because in its initial bill, the government
increased the powers of the minister and the CRTC in international
telecommunications now that restrictions have been lifted and it
took the opportunity to dust off the Telecommunications Act in the
light of the new conditions of this lifting of restrictions in the
domestic market.
Between second reading, report stage and third reading the
government yielded. Despite some concerns and reservations we will
support the bill. Since the end of Teleglobe's monopoly was
announced some time ago and the company itself, whose head office
is in Montreal, sought the end of its monopoly, we will support the
bill at third reading, although we have many concerns.
1310
Fortunately, to reach this point, the government, and we will
encourage it to continue on the same path, had some difficulties,
which we must acknowledge, in negotiations with the World Trade
Organization. It continues to insist on a majority of Canadian
ownership of national telecommunications, although the majority has
shrunk and can be circumvented in many ways through corporate
ownership with the majority of shares of Canadian companies owned
by American or other foreign companies.
However, I will take the opportunity to express my concerns
and tell you that I and the Bloc will use all the means at our
disposal to ensure that Canada does not let itself slide down the
slippery slope to total deregulation.
I should say right off that the Bloc Quebec sorely regrets
Quebec's lack of powers in the fields of communications and
telecommunications. The Supreme Court dashed all our hopes,
although history shows that Quebec was at the forefront in the late
1930s.
However, since we have no direct powers, we cannot act
directly. I would also say that perhaps we are even more concerned
about what the Telecommunications Act calls Canadian sovereignty,
because it is unfortunately through this that Quebec sovereignty
can be protected.
I have heard optimistic speeches on the liberalization of
telecommunications, the impact of deregulation and our confidence in our
large corporations. I admire large corporations like Teleglobe and
Nortel, and their entrepreneurial spirit, but at the same time I do not
want to overlook the fact that Canada is dwarfed by the United States
and that, as dynamic and promising as it may be, Teleglobe remains a
minor player on the North American and international markets. Teleglobe
is undoubtedly a dynamic company, but this does not mean nothing can go
wrong.
The telecommunications market is expanding, if not booming. And
what we are going through in this area is similar to what was
experienced during the industrial revolution at the turn of the century.
In such a booming market, there can be fierce competition but it cannot
last because large corporations have this natural tendency to try to
make a deal one way or another and try to make it legal.
Bear in mind that the first consumer actions in response to the
industrial revolution were aimed at preventing trusts, at preventing
collusion between big companies. I am not saying this is wrong. There is
no right or wrong in economics, only market forces. And market forces
are ruthless. If you want to be part of the game, you have to be in the
game. But when the market in question is a public services market, the
lawmaker cannot assume that consumers will be well served by competition
and—
1315
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. If this bill is really important to the
government, I think the least that we could expect is quorum. I
think if you look, the government does not have quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his intent, although I must say this threw me off a bit.
I was saying that the first actions taken by consumers in the early
1900s were against trusts, against this kind of collusion between large
corporations. It is not that they are bad; they are part of the market
and are striving to be the strongest possible.
When the market in question is a public services market and one as
important as the telecommunications market, the government must maintain
if not increase its power to ensure—and I quote a portion of section
7 of the Canadian Telecommunications Act and I reiterate that I would
very much like it to be Quebec telecommunications—that this
Telecommunications Act is essential to protect the sovereignty of
Canada.
We ought therefore to be extremely vigilant. The remarks I have
heard about reviewing the role of the CRTC are cause for concern. Of
course, there are aspects of the commission that may seem irksome. One
may not agree with its direction, but the fact remains that it plays a
crucial role.
In spite of the concerns I will outline, the Bloc Quebecois will
support Bill C-17.
While we support this bill, it must be pointed out that full
liberalization of international telecommunications will represent a
major challenge, for Teleglobe in particular. Let me tell you that this
is an area where employees fear for their jobs. The government may have
guaranteed that the head office would remain in Montreal and guaranteed
the pension fund, but employees fear for their jobs.
I can say that, for the longest time, Teleglobe, which is
considered a flagship of the telecommunications industry in Canada, was
a publicly owned corporation, a public service fully owned by the
government. As such, it made several major discoveries. Its engineering
team was renowned. Naturally, privatization opened new doors, but it
should be pointed out that it was a flagship telecommunications
corporation and that it become one when it was a crown corporation.
Our concerns have to do with the proposed amendments to the
Telecommunications Act, and the lot of consumers in particular. With
this bill, the government does more than give Teleglobe its freedom, so
to speak, or put an end to a monopoly.
It is a freedom not without risk, but it is the choice of the company
and of the government. It is a choice that was difficult not to make,
given the international context and the negotiations at the World Trade
Organization.
1320
But, in the original draft, the government also seized the
opportunity to review the powers granted to the CRTC and give it the
additional power to issue licences, according to various classes, to all
telecommunications service providers. However, somewhere along the line,
at committee stage, the government withdrew the power it wanted to give
the CRTC.
It did so because major national telecommunications companies, such as
Bell and AT&T;, came and expressed concern that we were trying to do too
much. They said that the CRTC already had all the necessary powers, that
it was not good to pile layer upon layer of regulations, and that things
were fine the way they were. I also heard the CRTC representative say
that even if the CRTC had the power to require licences in respect of
each class, it did not mean that such power would be used from the very
beginning.
It seemed to us to make real sense to have the CRTC hold this
power, should relations between national telecommunications businesses,
telephone companies and consumers deteriorate. Also, it might be felt
that the problems were too enormous, and that the resellers who, until
now, were not subject to the regulations, were assuming a major role.
So, it was a good idea to have the CRTC retain the power to require
licenses from companies interested in providing local and long distance
telephone services.
The good thing with licenses is that consumers know exactly what to
expect. Currently, the situation is very confusing for consumers.
Telephone services have become essential services. Since people have not
given up their telephone services in spite of the rate increases, it can
be said that such services are now truly essential.
A person living on their own, aged 70 or 80—or 56—and whose
family is not nearby, even if they are not ill, but all the more so
if they are, views a telephone with its 9-1-1 and 4-1-1 numbers as
absolutely essential.
What we have observed, and what consumers have told us—and
this was the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Association
des consommateurs du Québec—was that they first became aware of
the termination of monopolies, of so-called liberalization and the
benefits of competition, when they were charged higher rates for
basic residential services, which had tended to drop. That, then,
is a real concern.
In Bill C-17, the government has a provision, which we support
and on which we commend it as well, which is the clause allowing
the creation of a fund to which all providers must contribute and
which will make it possible to ensure basic telephone services.
1325
But there is a snag, a big one that I have tried to remedy,
which is that basic telephone service is not defined in Bill C-17
or in the Telecommunications Act, and this poses a problem.
Just as, under the circumstances, I want Teleglobe to be happy
with the conditions imposed on it for competing in the
international market and going to the U.S., so it is important that
private consumers, those relying on the telephone as an essential
service, not be powerless when faced with rate increases and
scaled-down basic services. This is why I wanted to see the CRTC
at least obliged to define basic service.
As I was unable to achieve that here, I will try elsewhere.
There will have to be a debate at the CRTC on what constitutes
basic telephone services, because this affects ordinary private
citizens, who are now lost among the benefits of competition, all
the expensive advertising they receive for various local,
long-distance and, probably soon, international telephone
services.
What I am saying is that it seems to me that this gives the
Minister of Industry—not only he is the Minister of Industry but,
with the reform of that department, he is also responsible for
administering the Consumer Protection Act—additional obligations.
In addition to being able to issue orders in council aimed at the CRTC
in order to promote competition, the minister can also use such orders
to strike a balance between liberalization, services to consumers and
the cost of these services.
In fact, consumer representatives told us in committee that the
only effects of competition they have seen so far are increases in core
services. I will give you a concrete example: the increase in monthly
local telephone rates, for each city, in 1992—I will start with
Montreal—was $13.70. The rate today with the increase allowed is
$21.30. This is a rather large increase. The proposed increase is $22
effective January 1, 1998 and $27 by the year 2002.
What we have been told by the CRTC is that consumers are to be
compensated for such increases through lower long distance rates.
What consumer associations and other institutions told us—and I asked
a question about this in committee, but I did not receive a satisfactory
answer—is that to qualify for a reduction in long distance rates, they
must first spend $40 on such calls. This will not benefit the people who
have the greatest needs and whose income is the lowest. It is true that
this benefits large users and companies, but the small consumer, the
ordinary citizen with a low income who needs this service has to be
protected. This is our role here in the House of Commons.
Liberalization is fine, but it should not be at any cost and under
any conditions. This is what we have to be careful about.
This is why during this Parliament you will certainly see me rise, as
long as I am my party's critic in this area, to speak not only about
business development, which is very important, about the creation of
companies, small and medium-size, which is also very important, but also
to speak for the consumer. It is only by doing this that we can create
the conditions required for a humane society, where many people are
already being excluded and where the gap between the rich and the poor
is getting wider. This is the reality created by the latest cuts in
services.
This is the reality created by the initiatives to reduce the deficit. It
is not the people who are better off who paid for the fight against the
deficit, it is the people who could afford it the least. They are the
ones who paid for the effort to reduce the deficit. They made a major
contribution. And now, they are paying again because of the
liberalization of the economy and of services.
1330
Consumer associations pointed out another issue, and it is in
relation to this that I was disappointed that my amendment was not
accepted by the government. Consumer associations representatives stated
that it was important that core services be defined.
I have already spoken of this and will come back to it, but they
also say, and it is important, that where services like 9-1-1,
information, telephone directories and other data are concerned,
where reliability and confidentiality are concerned, it will be
important from now on in this telephone service in which there are
no longer just monopolies on which conditions can be imposed, for
there to be neutral organizations under the supervision of the CRTC
which can continue to look after the interests of consumers.
I greatly regret that, while the government has maintained
such things as 9-1-1, directories and numbering, it has not agreed
to include the point that this must not only facilitate
interoperation—which, it seems to me was already part of its
mandate under the seven major principles in clause 7 on
telecommunications—but also ensure that the public interest be
served.
It is important to state this because the CRTC has received orders
from the government that competitivity must be ensured, yes, but
not to the detriment of the consumer. This is why, in the case of
these services which have to be managed effectively, that is to say
properly and efficiently, or in other words at the best cost, the
public interest must also be served.
Consumers were also concerned that resellers be regulated, as
well as national service distributors. The fact that the CRTC has
had its licensing power removed takes one part of its leverage away
from it. As for the question whether, with the new definition of
telecommunications, telecommunicator and telecommunications service
provider, resellers are covered, I have been told they are.
At least the CRTC has one point of leverage left, but it will have
to operate on a piecemeal basis, instead of making clear from the
start the conditions under which these businesses may operate.
I will point out to you, moreover, that the only reseller we
heard said it was totally in agreement with the licensing power,
which was aimed precisely at establishing normal rules of
competition.
As for customer protection, there is one aspect on which I
touched in my speech on second reading, and will touch upon again
here, the protection of confidential information. The CRTC is
mandated to ensure confidentiality, and that is fortunate. But
does it have the means to do so? That is another matter.
I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to point out that the
fact that Canada does not have legislation to protect personal and
confidential information makes it an unreliable partner for other
countries which have such legislation, despite its boast of being
good in a number of fields.
1335
So, perhaps you know that the European Union, which has
adopted such protection, and which exchanges confidential
information with countries it is sure will protect the information,
can make such exchanges only with Quebec, because Canada does not
have legislation to protect confidential information.
You know right away that I am going to say Quebec has the best
legislation in North America, and I am proud of it. I hope the
federal government will establish such legislation for
interprovincial matters, without putting its big feet into Quebec's
jurisdiction.
That could be done by making Quebec's and doubtless other
provinces' legislation effective in a number of areas, but I want
to point out that there is a real problem, as a representative of
the consumers' association pointed out to the committee.
This person indicated that people have complained of problems
they had with telephone companies exchanging subscriber lists.
That does not make a whole lot of sense, but that is what they are
doing. It should be stopped. These people complained to the
Quebec consumer protection office and were told it was a federal
matter. There is a real problem. We know subscriber lists are
exchanged just as we know—and it is a small part—about very
powerful telecommunications networks.
I went to visit Teleglobe and I was flabbergasted. They are
advanced, they are effective, and they are good but, at the same
time, I can see how invasive of individuals' private lives the
information they have could be if it were used by just anyone.
There is a definite risk if anyone can do as they wish in this area
of jurisdiction.
I will conclude by again lamenting that Quebec does not have
jurisdiction over either communications or telecommunications,
although this does not come within the purview of the House. The
telecommunications revolution now under way will, in a few years,
mean that the information highway will soon be much more than just
a means of voice or data communication, but will also play a major
role in the communication of culture. As McLuhan used to say, the
medium is the message.
When the technical platform becomes identified with the
message, then for a people such as the Quebec people, who have a
culture to protect in North America, the fact of having no
jurisdiction over communications, in the broader sense which takes
in telecommunications, is extremely dangerous.
I could go on at some length about how I find this
regrettable. I am going to come back to it as often as I can, but
I will take this opportunity to say, in order to capture the
public's attention, that this telecommunications and communications
revolution is as important as the industrial revolution. We do not
even see clearly the full impact of the bill being passed today.
I do not believe anyone who tells me they know exactly what the
impact will be.
1340
This is also true of those in the business sector. Technology
is evolving so fast, and this technology affects privacy, ownership
and economic, social and cultural development. So, in this regard,
I will always want to be more cautious than not, and I think that
that is the role of lawmakers.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-17. I feel like I am in
a time warp. Perhaps it is deja vu all over again, only
backwards. I remember sitting here years ago when the government
members formed the opposition. They opposed measures like this.
Now that they are in government they are supporting them.
Many of these measures were originally proposed and instigated
by the Progressive Conservative government 10 years ago. At that
time Liberals were vehemently opposed to them. The Teleglobe
divestiture bill was introduced in March 1987 and the Liberals
voted against it. They said it was an awful thing, it would hurt
Canada, it was bad for Canada, we cannot have free trade of this
sort of thing.
In December 1991 a bill was introduced to privatize Telesat
Canada. Again the Liberals voted against it. They said it was a
terrible thing, we need all this protection.
The telecommunications bill was introduced in 1993 and again the
Liberals opposed it.
All the aspects of the bill we are debating today enhance and
endorse the proposals we made in 1987, 1991 and 1993. They go
even further than we went. It is another example of a flip-flop,
a change of direction on behalf of the Liberals who opposed the
GST so strongly and then all of a sudden adopted it as their own.
They love it. They want it. They have tried to expand it and
they have tried to foist it on the provinces.
We all know the Liberals stood in the House hour after hour,
night after night, pounding the table against free trade. Now
they have enhanced, endorsed and expanded it. They want to
expand it even further.
The next thing we will see happen, I predict, is the EH-101
helicopter position which we adopted. We ordered the helicopters
and the Liberals cancelled them. It will be really interesting
to see what decision they come up with. Certainly the search and
rescue people and the people in our military want the EH-101
helicopters. That was a decision made by us and changed by the
Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the Liberals again
follow the Conservative lead. They have certainly established a
consistent pattern of following that lead. They can say what they
like, but actions speak louder than words, and their actions
truly say we endorse Conservative policies and love them and
think they are great.
I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-17. From the outset I
would like to say that because it was our idea in the first place
and because we support the general thrust of it and the fact that
it makes the business much more competitive and viable, we are
going to support the bill. The Conservative Party will be voting
in favour of it.
Bill C-17 implements many of the commitments made by Canada
under the agreement on basic telecommunications to the general
agreement on trade and services, which again is a form of free
trade that was opposed by the Liberals when in opposition. When
we are back there in a few more years we will probably be doing
the same thing again.
This agreement was negotiated among 68 nations. It liberalizes
international trade in basic telecommunications. It enhances
freer trade in the telecommunications sector and it opens
opportunities for Canadian businesses. It makes it more
competitive which will bring down the price for consumers.
Everyone wins with this bill.
Under the terms of the agreement, Canada is committed to end the
carrier monopolies and to remove certain restrictions on foreign
ownership. In return, the other signatory countries will open up
their markets to us. Our companies, which have proven to be very
competitive in this field, will be able to compete in other
countries which they are now locked out of.
Obviously this is good for Canada. That is why Progressive
Conservatives support the bill.
There were a few concerns which we had. Fortunately the
Minister of Industry made some amendments after hearing testimony
from the users and the people in the industry. Appropriate
amendments were made, and we even supported them.
The first amendment which we were really concerned with dealt
with licensing only for international carriers. Bill C-17
originally proposed licensing for all carriers.
1345
However, the committee had many witnesses argue that this is an
additional and unnecessary burden placed on a national industry
which was already functioning well without it and contradicts the
whole bill. We believe this will continue to be the case even
under the terms of this new bill and, therefore, licensing for
national carriers would be unnecessary.
The second major amendment put forward deals with clause 46.1(b)
where the governor in council may prescribe changes in any area
that is related to the provision of telecommunication services by
Canadian carriers. Witnesses again came before the committee and
argued that this would provide the commission with powers well
beyond the intent of the legislation and far beyond what they
needed.
The amendment now in place deletes that clause altogether and it
proposes a more specific description of the powers of the
commission to be placed in the preamble to limit their power and
leave the decision making up to the users and the people
affected.
These major amendments were primarily industry driven and we
support them. We believe they offer a greater degree of freedom
for the industry to compete and there is now much less regulatory
burden than originally proposed, while maintaining adequate
protection for consumers.
We have also believed this industry would thrive under a
framework we established when we were the Progressive
Conservative government and authorized the Telecommunications Act
and privatized Telesat and Teleglobe in the first place. The
proof today is in the success we have witnessed in this growth
industry. Certainly Canada is one of the major leaders in the
whole world in this sector and has been able to access these
markets and foreign markets through these approaches. Our
industry has already taken on the telecommunications world.
We are confident they will succeed and consumers will benefit
from the competitive pricing in both national and international
services.
When the Minister of Industry spoke on this bill during second
reading on November 4, 1997 he said “The purpose of Bill C-17 is
to pursue the liberalization of Canadian telecommunications which
started more than 10 years ago and has already benefited
Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies”. That was
really nice praise from the Liberal Minister of Industry for the
Progressive Conservatives who initiated this whole process in the
first place. Certainly it is encouraging for us to see the
Liberal government adopt and proceed with them and even take them
further than we did.
That ends my remarks. We will be supporting this bill. We
approve of it in principle and we approve of it in particular.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-17,
an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe
Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
We know that as part of its WTO and GATS basic
telecommunications commitments, Canada agreed to substantially
liberalize its international services market. These commitments
include, among other things, ending Teleglobe Canada's monopoly
on overseas traffic next October 1 and removing traffic routing
rules for all international services by December 31, 1999. Bill
C-17 is the legislation that puts these commitments into legal
effect.
I would like to begin today by saying a few words about
Teleglobe Canada. Most of us will know that Teleglobe Canada
provides international telecommunications services for Canadians
by routing calls to and from approximately 240 countries and
territories. The fiscal year 1996 was a year of unprecedented
growth for Teleglobe as a global provider of overseas
telecommunications services.
Teleglobe has announced that it has reached major milestones in
its international development and in the expansion of its
customer base. This was achieved through—and I think we all
agree—intensive sales records, geographic expansion, new product
launches and the optimization of Teleglobe's global network.
As a result of all this, in 1996 traffic and earnings for
Teleglobe increased substantially and its market capitalization
doubled. In addition, Teleglobe International has established
its presence as a network operator in three of the largest long
distance markets in the world: the U.S., Germany and the U.K. I
am sure that in 1998 we will see Teleglobe continue its U.S.
expansion and develop new traffic sources in Europe, Asia and
Latin America.
Teleglobe, as we know, views this legislation and the
liberalization of this market as extremely positive for both
consumers and industry participants since it believes it will
stimulate further innovation and demand for international
services. This is in the context of Teleglobe losing its
monopoly and being thrown fully into what is now a very, very
competitive international market.
1350
Teleglobe is clearly poised for the new business opportunities
that are resulting from this continuing trend. Teleglobe is
indeed a company of which Canadians should be proud. It has been
made clear this is a company that is not simply content with just
surviving in the global economy. It wants to lead the field of
telecommunications, and this enthusiastic, positive and
optimistic message comes through loud and clear from Teleglobe.
I will comment on how important this positive approach is as we
in Canada go about building a first class economy capable of
taking on and beating the world and yet at the same time
maintaining a desirable level of social cohesion and community.
This of course is not an easy task. I come at this question
fresh from our experiences in my home province and in the belief
that what has happened in Saskatchewan under the NDP government
of Premier Romanow presents useful lessons to Canada as a whole.
I will relate a few words about how we might more effectively
co-ordinate our economy as we move into this new global
environment, or not so new global environment now. The economy
of one small prairie province is not the Canadian economy. But a
province that went from the brink of bankruptcy to the first
balanced budget in Canada, which has had consistently the lowest
unemployment rate in the country and leads Canada's economic
indicators across the board must have done something right.
It started from the premise that at heart society represents a
commitment by those in it to share in the future together, shared
opportunity and shared responsibility. This has always been the
Canadian way and must—without being Pollyannaish—be our guide
as we strive to build a modern world class economy in Canada, as
we strive to prepare to meet the economic challenges of the new
millennium and to tackle the social and economic challenges of
injustice and inefficiency, of mass unemployment and poverty.
This must be done in an increasingly integrated global market,
not by turning the clock back, not by evading the changes that
have taken place in the global economy or even by just tolerating
them, but by understanding, mastering and exploiting them to our
advantage, by taking charge of change and making it work for all
of us and by ensuring Canadians are equipped to prosper with
change.
This question could be merely rhetorical but what should we be
doing differently? What will work? It is of critical importance
for our national mindset for us all to be outward looking,
optimistic and confident. An important part of becoming world
leaders is the confidence that we can do it, but we have to keep
raising the bar and clearing it. Teleglobe is a good example of
that approach.
Here is what Saskatchewan did which is entirely in keeping with
what the new labour government in Britain has done and indeed
with what social democrats all over the world have done. It is a
partnership process driven by the belief that we are all in this
together, this being the task of building a world class economy
and we being governments, business, labour, communities,
educational institutions, aboriginal peoples, all of us. No more
sterile debates about public purses, private market versus state,
employer versus employee, regulation or deregulation, them and
us.
What has happened in Saskatchewan? As I say, I recommend this
approach to the federal government. Stakeholders in partnership
discussed and mapped out a vision, a future for that economy, not
a plan but rather a direction and a set of goals based on
identified strengths and weaknesses. These goals included job
creation targets and what the economy should look like in 10
years.
Through the same partnership process came the identification of
what was needed in order to get there, how to strengthen our
strengths and address our weaknesses. Once again on partnership,
assigning who could best do what was needed: government, private
sector, educational institutions, et cetera. It has been a
process of vision and tasks to attain that vision crafted in
partnership, and it has worked.
Yogi Berra, the famous baseball wit said “if you don't know
where you're going, you might end up somewhere else”. I would
recommend this partnership approach, which is in place in all
successful economies around the world, to the industry minister
and to the federal government. We need not just consultation but
real partnership so we know where we are going and how we are
going to get there.
There is a fair bit to do as we know. Canada's wealth creating
base is not large enough. Our levels of investment in skills are
insufficient and we have a significant innovation gap. We all
know only too well the crushing consequences of poverty and
unemployment and underemployment as examples. If governments
cannot solve these problems alone, then neither can the private
sector, nor can any of the stakeholders alone.
A modern and effective economic approach needs to provide the
framework in which these challenges can be met and conquered and
to build the partnerships necessary for success. It is time to
break out of the past and address today's and tomorrow's
questions with contemporary answers.
1355
The federal government has a critically important activist role
in this regard, activist but different from in the past. We must
continue to ensure that we have the very best of opportunities
for Canadians in terms of job opportunities and the very best
opportunities for those who create those jobs in our economy, the
private sector.
While I believe that the market economy is the best mechanism
generally for allocating the vast majority of resources and
markets and, therefore, can and do work in the public interest, I
do not think that in all circumstances they guarantee it. Here is
a good example. The market economy is in the public interest,
but the public interest is not satisfied just by having a market
economy.
There are public policy goals that the market cannot achieve. We
all know that: education, health care, regional policy. The
trick of course is to ensure that government intervention works
to better achieve its purpose than with the market actions alone.
This legislation is an example. While Canada has liberalized
its telecommunications market, there is still clearly a need for
rules to ensure an orderly marketplace and to ensure that the
objectives of the Telecommunications Act continue.
I think it is fair to say that WTO and the GATS agreement and
the accompanying liberalization of Canada's international
telecommunications services market will actually result in the
entry of many more companies, both domestic and foreign, into the
already competitive Canada-U.S. market and Canada-overseas
market.
Our concern here is that these developments, along with the
long-term downward trend and long-distance carriage council, make
it increasingly possible for companies to circumvent Canadian
telecommunications policy and therefore we need to ensure that we
guard against that.
I think it is fair to say that some of the clauses in the bill,
clauses 1, 3 and 7, would give the CRTC authority to introduce
the licensing regime to ensure that our telecommunications
policies are respected and for acting competitive safeguards to
be put in place to prevent operators from exploiting differences
and the different degrees that market openness exists between
countries to gain an unfair advantage.
Let me conclude in the minute that I have left to indicate that
Bill C-17 flowed from a number of free trade agreements and free
trade type agreements that it puts into place to the commitments
that Canada made in those deals.
These are agreements that ignore critically important issues
such as the environment and labour standards and the protection
of social programs, all very serious concerns to all Canadians.
As a result, we seem not to have learned very much from these
activities as these circumstances that are in the MAI show. That
being said—
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 1.57 p.m. pursuant
to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the
House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: My colleagues, pursuant to order made
earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until later
this day at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders.
It being 2 p.m., we will proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote that volunteerism is the
foundation of the civil society.
I am happy to report to the House that the spirit of volunteerism
is alive and well in Winnipeg South.
1400
Last month I attended two receptions for volunteers at the
Dakota and Greendale community clubs. Without these volunteers
who quietly go about running the community centres without
adulation or acclaim, there would be no hockey, no soccer, no
baseball, no dance, no recreational activities for seniors.
I believe, as Jeremy Rifkin and many others do, that volunteers
such as the ones from the Greendale and Dakota community clubs
serve as a third pillar which complements the role of government
and the private sector in our society.
At this festive time of the year it is appropriate to recognize
the efforts of those who make things a little better for others.
So, to the many civic-minded volunteers who undertake work of
such importance to the quality of life in my riding, I simply
want to say thank you.
* * *
TELECARE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the Stratford and district
Telecare organization.
Since 1979 Telecare has been a source of comfort for those in
the Stratford area who are in a personal crisis. Highly trained
volunteers provide a 24 hour a day, non-judgmental, caring,
listening service for the lonely, distressed and suicidal. They
also give reassurance calls to those who need them, enhancing
their ability to remain independent in their own homes.
[Translation]
On behalf of the whole community, I would like to thank the 75 or
more volunteers who devote their time to helping their fellow citizens.
[English]
On behalf of the community, I wish to thank the 75-plus
volunteers who generously give their time for the well-being of
others.
* * *
KIMBERLEY JUNIOR DYNAMITERS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
20 years ago the Kimberley Senior Dynamiters won the Allan Cup.
Today the Kimberley Junior Dynamiters are carrying on the
tradition by breaking the longstanding record of 27 wins in a row
which was previously set by the Kitchener Rangers. Twenty-eight
wins in a row for the Kimberley Junior Dynamiters.
New coach Tim Tisdale has taken the Dynamiters from worst to
first in just two years. His assistant coach is Jerry Banks.
My constituency boasts a proud history of world class hockey
players. Rob and Scott Neidermeyer, Tom Rennie, Jim Hiller, Don
and Bob Murdok, Jason Marshall, John Klemm, Glen Cochrane, Frank,
Danny, Derrick and Cory Spring, Jason Weimer, Dave Schtchnard,
Steve Yzerman, Mike McBain, Joel Savage, Jay McNeill, Xavier
Majic, Shane Churla, Bill Lindsay, Randy Petruk, Craig Stahl and
Bruce Holoway are just a few that members might recognize.
The Creston Valley Thunder are to be congratulated for their
victory as Kimberley's 29th opponent. This is the kind of hockey
that makes all Canadians proud.
* * *
[Translation]
PHILIPPE BOISCLAIR
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Philippe
Boisclair, a young man of 17 from Saint-Agapit de Lotbinière, is
presently going through a unique experience.
In fact, since last September, he is attending one of the United
World Colleges, an organization chaired by Nelson Mandela. He is our
first student to be admitted into such a college.
Philippe is a born communicator and is participating in this
international program so that he can have contacts with teachers and
students throughout the world. The people of the riding of Lotbinière
are proud to have such a young man who is making a difference
internationally.
As the member for Lotbinière, I encourage young people to seek such
experiences, because they are the ones who will be leading Quebec
society tomorrow.
* * *
ALGERIA
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege to inform this House that last weekend, when they gathered in
Quebec City for their biennial convention, the 700 delegates of the
Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec Section, unanimously adopted a
resolution calling for peace in Algeria.
This resolution was proposed by Liberal supporters from the riding
of Laval West, which I have the honour to represent in this House.
Canada plays a leading role in the world for the protection of
democracy and of human rights. It is important that this House support
international initiatives aiming at stopping these massacres.
Algeria is Canada's main economic partner in Africa.
This serious problem has to be raised as quickly as possible before the
proper authorities in the United Nations and the European Parliament so
that these massacres will stop.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approximately 120,000 people in the
Ottawa region live below the poverty line and around 30,000 of
them receive food assistance every month. Nearly half of those
receiving food are children.
1405
To help some of those in need during the holiday season, the
parliamentary interns with the support of the Canadian Bankers
Association have decided to organize a food drive. The food
drive will take place between December 8 and 12. Boxes will be
placed for the collection of non-perishable foods in five
locations: the offices of the hon. members for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lac-Saint-Louis, Hillsborough,
Calgary Southeast and Halifax West.
The parliamentary interns are also going to visit our offices
for a reminder and to collect food or money for the food bank. We
invite everybody working on the Hill to be generous. Many
families count on our support.
* * *
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
said that giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Three decades of Liberal and Tory governments intoxicated from
swilling the taxpayers' hard earned money, carousing from one
spending program to the next has left Canadians with a painful
debt hangover.
While it appears that the Liberals have at last sworn off the
stuff at least for now, Canadians know that their dependency
problem has not been licked. At the very next opportunity they
will sneak off to some dark corner of the budget, knock the top
off a bottle of taxpayers' green and succumb to the stupor of
fiscal inebriation.
Canadians know that a return to such substance abuse endangers
the health of the country. They will not accept their government
falling off the wagon. That is why at the next federal election
they are going to send these tax and spend Liberals into
paroxysms of withdrawal for an extended stay at the nearest
fiscal detox centre and elect a sober Reform government.
* * *
FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
reflect on the words of the hon. Margaret Norrie-McCain from the
memorial service for the 14 young women murdered in Montreal, it
is clear that we must now acknowledge Marc Lepine as a victim of
violence himself.
Mrs. McCain has made an urgent plea. The American model of more
jails and more police will not address the most important cause
of the Montreal massacre.
The catastrophic impact of family violence on children's
emotional development and self-esteem is now well documented. We
must do more in support of the important work of people like Dr.
Paul Steinhauer of Voices for Children and Dr. Fraser Mustard and
Mrs. McCain in the establishment of such places like Beatrice
House, which will provide real and holistic solutions for
protecting children from family violence.
My colleague, the member for Moncton, was co-chair of the Crime
Prevention Council where it was made clear that crime prevention
must begin with preventing the genesis of criminals who, upon
examination, almost always have come from violent homes.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
cause for concern because this morning, the Canadian Council on Social
Development revealed that the number of children living in poverty is
constantly increasing, even if unemployment is down slightly.
Contrary to all the negative stereotypes we are familiar with,
poverty does not strike only people who are on welfare or who are
jobless, but also workers with a low income.
Of even greater concern is the report's conclusion that the gap
between the rich and the poor is increasing.
Canada's record in this area is dismal because it is sixth among the ten
most industrialized nations, considering that the income of the
wealthiest 20% of the population is seven times greater than the income
of the poorest 20%.
The federal government wants us to believe that the $850 million in
support for poor children will compensate the billions of dollars that
it took from their parents by cutting social transfers and employment
insurance.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN MARCONI COMPANY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday I was pleased to announce a $1.1 million investment in the
Canadian Marconi Company of Kanata through the Technology
Partnerships Canada program. The repayable investment will be
used by CMC to develop a display control unit for the United
States Army's medical evacuation helicopter the Black Hawk.
Not only will this cutting edge technology create 20 new jobs,
maintain 15 existing jobs and generate $47 million in export
sales, it will also open the door to new opportunities by
enabling CMC to become a prominent avionics integrator.
Congratulations to the Canadian Marconi Company and the federal
government for proving once again that building partnerships
between government and the private sector can only increase
Canada's competitiveness in the knowledge based economy.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
festive season is upon us and with it the sad reality that party
goers may get behind the wheel of their car drunk, endangering
their lives and the lives of their passengers and innocent
Canadians.
1410
In Ontario alcohol related offences jumped 22% in the first week
of the police holiday RIDE program over the same period last
year. In just one week 146 people were charged with drinking and
driving.
Impaired driving is the largest single criminal cause of death
in this country. Every six hours someone is killed by a drunk
driver and yet nothing has been done at the federal level to
address this serious problem.
MADD Canada has repeatedly made demands for changes to the
Criminal Code in an effort to deter drinking and driving and
protect the lives of innocent Canadians. To date their demands
have fallen on deaf ears.
As a result, provinces such as Alberta and Ontario, not the
federal government, are leading the way to make those who drive
while impaired face stiffer penalties.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they tell me
that today there was a smile on the face of the statue of Maurice
Duplessis in front of the Quebec National Assembly.
Why is that? Because the separatist government has decided to
resort to a method worthy of the Duplessis era, namely to cut off
universities and research centres if they receive funding from the
Government of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation in
particular.
That is the latest bright idea of the Bloc's head office in
Quebec City, where they had run out of ideas for stirring up the
Government of Canada.
So here we are, back to the old dark days in Quebec.
University administrators are, understandably, not comfortable
with the situation. Researchers do not like separatist politicians
trying to make political hay at their expense. The federal program
was, moreover, created in keeping with the rules and meets
community concerns.
Because of the challenges of research and the strong
competition in this area of activity, Canada is forced to step up
its efforts to create a comfortable niche for itself. Quebec must
not push the sector of high technology and innovation aside.
Another fine opportunity for the development of Quebec has been
lost by the separatists.
* * *
[English]
GEORGE PINLAC, JR.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
July 9, 1995, 15 year old George James Pinlac was at Winnipeg
Beach with friends when he heard cries for help from a young boy
who was trying to retrieve a beach ball from outside the roped
area.
Noting that the victim had trouble staying afloat, George
immediately dropped what he was doing and swam to his rescue. As
George attempted to grab hold, the panicked boy clutched him by
the neck and forced him under the water. Tragically both George
and the other teenager drowned.
On December 5 this year, George's selfless act of courage was
honoured as the Governor General presented his parents, George
Senior and Felicidad Pinlac of Winnipeg, with a posthumous medal
of bravery.
Just as the whole community mourned when young George was lost,
we all watched with admiration as his proud parents were honoured
with this moving tribute. George Pinlac Jr. forfeited his own
life to help another. His lasting legacy will be his rare and
uncommon bravery.
* * *
[Translation]
CAMPAIGN FUNDS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's
Journal de Montréal, in an article over the byline of Martin
Leclerc, we read:
Interesting news—six Bloc members have deviated from the party
line.
Last spring, no fewer than six Bloc MPs did not respect “the
great heritage of René Lévesque” and deviated from their party line
by accepting campaign contributions from companies.
In the 1997 elections, the hon. member for Drummond accepted
several thousand dollars from a number of companies, including
Cascades, which contributed $5,000 to her campaign fund.
Corporate donations are not illegal federally, but the Bloc
has always maintained that it would prefer to adhere to the Quebec
legislation on private donations.
The Bloc has, moreover, taken care not to reveal that five
more of its Quebec MPs violated the spirit of the Quebec
legislation by receiving several thousand dollars from businesses
in 1997.
* * *
[English]
HARVEY SMITH
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Harvey Smith is just 16 years old and already he has earned a
place in the Newfoundland history books under the category of
scholars.
The level three student at St. Bernard's All Grade School in St.
Bernard's, Newfoundland will be off to Trinity College,
Cambridge, England next September with a three year $90,000
scholarship. He won the Canadian Cambridge Scholarship last month
beating out more than 450 other top Canadian undergraduate
students in a rigorous test.
Harvey Smith is the first Newfoundlander to win this prestigious
scholarship. He is also the youngest to win it and the first
from a regular public school.
This is not the first award Harvey Smith has received for his
amazing scholastic skills. Recently the Department of National
Defence brought him to Ottawa to the Peacekeeping Monument where
they launched a book Harvey had written entitled Siad. It
earned Harvey the Prism award, designed to encourage young
Canadians to write and national defence had 15,000 copies of the
book printed for distribution to schools throughout Canada.
At Cambridge, Harvey will study biochemistry and molecular
biology and hopes to one day contribute to a Canadian team of
researchers in developing a cure for cancer.
* * *
1415
ONTARIO
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
excuse me while I take one minute to be provincial.
The premier of Ontario is proving daily that balancing a budget
and instituting tax cuts at the same time creates chaos and
doublespeak.
Later this week I will be delivering thousands of individual
petitions, addressed to His Excellency the Governor General,
calling for an election in Ontario now. When something like Bill
160, ominously called the education quality improvement act,
takes $1.6 billion out of education and this is called an
improvement, something has to give. In this case parents will
give: money for pencils, books, school equipment, bussing. The
list goes on and on.
If well educated people represent our future, someone should
advise Mr. Harris that education does not improve when the system
is fiscally dead.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KYOTO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Kyoto conference wraps up tomorrow and delegates
will be finalizing details on an accord that can dramatically
affect Canadians for years. The prime minister said he would
sign this deal and be legally bound by it.
I have a very specific question to the prime minister about the
costs of complying with the Kyoto deal. Did the federal
government commission studies estimating the impact of this deal
on jobs, taxes and economic growth and, if so, will the prime
minister make those studies public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nations are meeting in Kyoto at this moment to face one
of the most difficult problems the world is facing at this time,
climate change. There are very important negotiations among
developed and developing nations at this time.
We have submitted a proposition that is a very reasonable one
and we hope that we will obtain many of the points that have been
made. But at this time it has not concluded and in terms of
costs, we will have to face the same situation as our competitors
because if we have an agreement, it will be signed by everybody
and everybody will have to contribute.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister did not answer my question. He does
not want to talk about the costs of the emission levels he is
committing to in Kyoto because he is afraid of the public
reaction to those costs. We know that reducing emission levels
to the Liberal level could reduce Canada's economic growth rates
by 2% to 3%.
So instead of these evasive answers, I ask the prime minister
again will he present this House with the economic studies which
his government must have done before setting those Kyoto targets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about 2% or 3%
of growth, some have suggested that and it is over a period of 15
to 20 years. We have to look at the other side of the coin as
well.
Canada can be very innovative. We can develop new technology
and we can turn it to the advantage of Canada if we get the
system of points. For example, if we export natural gas to the
United States and other nations we could earn points. Because we
can produce non-polluting elements of energy, Canada will be
better off and in a more competitive position than others.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting, but we are asking
where is the study that backs up or verifies what the prime
minister is saying.
I can understand the government's wanting to hide from this
question. It is afraid of the impacts with the Canadian public
if it finds out the costs involved in this deal.
I ask the prime minister again will he provide this House with
the economic studies of the impact on jobs and economic growth of
what he is committing to in Kyoto?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition would like for us to
give a prediction, a very exact prediction, or perhaps a change
of 2% in GDP over 20 years when this year we will probably do 1%
more than predicted at the beginning of the year.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this kind of nonsense is just absurd when the prime minister
thinks that the Canadian public is going to be paying more out of
its pockets.
1420
We know that major decisions like the Kyoto deal have to go
through a very detailed economic analysis before cabinet makes a
decision on them.
For example, the iron and steel industries will suffer huge
losses. That means thousands of families will have to move long
distances and try to find new jobs.
Where is the study that talks about the cost of Kyoto? Why are
the prime minister and the government keeping the bad news such a
secret?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we produce steel in Canada with the Kyoto deal we
will have exactly the same challenge as the Americans who produce
steel with the Kyoto deal, the same challenge as the Japanese who
produce steel with the Kyoto deal and other countries which
produce steel with the Kyoto deal.
We have an international obligation to ensure that the globe
survives this crisis.
We have a policy. They just want to protect a little sector of
one industry in Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would remind the prime minister that the United States is
certainly at a different latitude than Canada. He may not have
paid attention to that.
This government is keeping the cost of Kyoto silent to
Canadians. Literally tens of thousands of jobs will be
destroyed: 12,000 perhaps in the coal industry, 56,000 perhaps
in the oil and gas sector. These are people. These are not just
numbers or some little sector the prime minister is talking
about.
Where is the study that proves these sad stories? What is with
the secrecy of this government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she is throwing figures in the air which are based on
nothing.
Canada is a country which will respect its international
obligations. We will not be a Parliament that does not accept
its responsibilities around the world. If the Americans, the
Japanese, the Europeans and the world sign, Canada will sign.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
all the finance ministers are united in calling on Ottawa to
compensate the provinces for the transfer payments cut by the
federal government to reduce its deficit before introducing new
programs in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Does the prime minister, who says he is always looking for
consensus, not think that he should respect the consensus expressed
by the finance ministers and compensate the provinces for lost
transfer payments in the areas of health, education and social
services before rushing into any new spending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's responsibility was to ensure that Canada's fiscal
house was in order.
We have cut transfer payments, but this year we have restored
the cash component to $12.5 billion, as recommended by the national
forum on health, because this is the level necessary for a good
system in Canada.
When we made cuts, we did so in everyone's best interests.
That is why provincial governments are now saving hundreds of
millions of dollars in interest on their debt. It is because we
have succeeded in lowering interest rates below U.S. rates.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what the prime minister is telling us is that, instead of cutting
$48.4 billion, he will cut $41.7 billion. That reminds me of
something I read in the newspaper recently.
A thief was sentenced by a court for having stolen $48 out of
the pocket of an honest citizen. Even though he gave him back $6
a little later, the judge still found him guilty.
I ask the prime minister whether he is not doing the same
thing with the provinces right now.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the total transferred by the federal government to provincial
governments, in particular to the Government of Quebec, represents
a large part of Quebec's budget. That is how our system works.
There are certain provinces that do not receive transfer payments,
but because Quebec's revenue is lower than that of other provinces,
it benefits from the transfer payment system. It receives large
payments, and these payments have continued to go up since 1993.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this
government came to power in 1993, its main decisions have been to cut
over $11 billion in education, in health and in social assistance, and
over $3 billion a year in the unemployment insurance program. These are
all policies that are having a cruel effect on the poorest in our
society.
1425
My question is for the prime minister. How can this government
justify its continued attack against the poor and how long does it
intend to maintain this policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have cut much less than what the member is saying here and we have
restored the government's financial stability. That is why we have
succeeded, with these programs, in creating the proper environment that
has allowed, since this government came to power, unemployment to drop
from 11.4% in January 1994 to 9% today and to put our country's finances
on the best footing in the western world.
This is good for everyone, and especially the poor because they
will have greater opportunities, since Canada is in better shape than
before.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a time when
food banks cannot meet the demand during this Christmas season, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, as the technocrat that he is,
refuses to recognize the devastating effects of his employment insurance
program.
What words will we have to use to make the government understand
that there are people who will have nothing on the table at Christmas
because they were excluded from employment insurance by the Minister of
Human Resources Development and reduced to poverty by this government?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system that we have implemented is a system
which, far from being condemned all over the world as being inefficient
and damaging to the economy, is now a system which, on the contrary,
helps people return to the labour market.
We have increased to $2.7 billion the funding for initiatives to
help people return to the labour market. What the people are requesting
are not only passive measures and initiatives to support income. What
people want are jobs, and this is what the government wants to give
them.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
Reuse, reduce and recycle are not normally fundamentals of
Liberal economics. Yesterday the finance minister reused one of
his old decisions. He tried to reuse it to fool Canadians into
believing he is investing new money in health and social
programs.
Today we invite the prime minister to practice the remaining
r principles. Will he reduce the $2.4 billion in social
transfer cuts he has made this year and will he recycle his worn
out red book promises into something Canadians can use?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the Minister of Finance did is restore the cash
transfer payments to the provinces to the level recommended by
the forum on health. It stated that if we restored the $12.5
billion in transfer payments it would be enough to operate these
programs. This is exactly what we have done.
We cut when we needed to cut and now that we are doing better we
have restored the $12.5 billion in cash transfers to the
provinces. Now that the economy is performing well, the
provinces are making more money because the tax points are
producing more—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
are no new dollars and no more cash and the prime minister knows
it. Despite all his comforting words and his soothing
reassurances, report after report shows that our children are at
greater risk, slipping deeper and deeper into poverty.
Is the prime minister ready to stop the double talk? Is he
ready to go to the first ministers conference with specific
proposals to help our kids? Is he ready to show them the money,
new money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proposing to put $850 million into tax credits for
children next year. We want to make sure that the money the
provinces are spending now on child poverty is maintained in the
same program because we do not want this money lost in the
shuffle. There will be $850 million next year and another $850
million before the end of our term.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
least we can say is the prime minister has a lot of nerve telling
the provincial governments he does not want the money to be lost
in the shuffle after he guaranteed funding for health care and
cut it by 35%.
Yesterday his ministers of finance and health played a practical
joke on provincial governments with their smoke and mirrors show.
1430
Could the prime minister confirm today the real fact that seven
out of ten provinces over the next six years will see a net
reduction in cash transfers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a formula that when tax points increase there
is less need for cash transfers. At this time we did what was
proposed in a document called “Let the Future Begin” at page 25
where it stated “A Jean Charest government will restore the
level of the cash portion of the—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will be happy to know that after pursuing many of our
past ideas he has now decided to pursue our new ones.
Will the prime minister take up, on behalf of Canadians, the
offer of the provinces to enter into a partnership on standards
and delivery of health care services? He will find ideas for a
Canadian covenant in “Let the Future Begin”. Will he put that
idea on the table at the first ministers conference?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week, we are meeting with representatives of the provincial
governments in order to hold discussions aimed at forging a
partnership so as to guarantee mobility and provide Canadians with
social programs which are as equivalent as possible, regardless of
what part of the country they are in. That is what we are doing.
That is why we are organizing a conference on Friday to address
child poverty and other social programs, as announced in my letter
to the premiers last week.
* * *
[English]
KYOTO
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is ignoring our questions. The government is
proposing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, government members may
think it is a joke when tens of thousands of people will possibly
lose their jobs because of the Kyoto accord. Obviously the
government must have done some internal studies to determine the
impact of the Kyoto accord on the Canadian economy.
My question is for the prime minister once again. Where are
those internal studies? How many jobs will be lost? How high
will gas prices rise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us sign the treaty. We said that there would be a
cost over a period of 20 years, but there will be a much bigger
cost if we are irresponsible and do not face the challenges
facing the world today.
The member should meet, as I have met, some leaders of island
countries who are afraid that in the next 50 years their
countries will disappear under water.
They do not want to look at facts. They just want to protect
the interests that they have with people who gave them money to
come here.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of Canadian jobs are at stake. The Liberals say that
the economic cost of not implementing the Kyoto deal will be
higher than not going ahead with it.
If they do not know how much the Kyoto deal will cost in the
first place, how can they say it is less expensive than not
implementing the Kyoto deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I should explain to the people across the floor
that it will be an international agreement. If there is a cost,
and I say there will be a cost, it will be exactly the same cost
to every nation signing on the dotted line.
We are already in a better position than the Americans because
we are relatively better than they are. If we accept to do
exactly as they are doing, we will finish better than they will
because we are already ahead of them. Our competitive position
will not be impaired by the Kyoto deal.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Human Resources Development was boasting that women
were the primary beneficiaries of his employment insurance reform.
One might say the minister is living on another planet.
Women's groups have criticized this reform, which is leaving them
poorer.
Will the minister recognize that while an additional 500,000
people, primarily women, are contributing to employment insurance,
women, we learned from his department, are receiving $300 million
less than last year in benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, women have received a large
proportion of these benefits. The system was changed specifically
to help the very large number of women working part time, who in a
system of weeks worked were not covered, whereas they are on the
basis of hours worked.
Could the hon. member tell us that there is a family income
supplement to help those with children and that 67% of the
supplement goes to women on employment insurance? These measures
in our employment insurance reform are very favourable to women.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister deny that the women who choose to look after their
children and subsequently return to the labour market after being
away for two years have to work between 30% and 117% more hours in
order to be entitled to the same benefits as regular benefit
recipients? Will he acknowledge that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier the opposition was
describing me as a technocrat. I have to say that I am not enough
of a technocrat yet to understand the percentages of the
percentages the member was referring to.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Guimond: He is not at all concerned about women.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: What I can say is that for the first
time—
Mr. Michel Gauthier: He is nothing but a technocrat.
Mrs. Monique Guay: He could care less about women.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, for the first time
since our reform of employment insurance, women leaving the
labour market to care for their children will have access to
active re-employment benefits to help them a whole lot more.
* * *
[English]
KYOTO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister just said that the costs of
implementing the Kyoto treaty would be exactly the same for every
nation. That cannot possibly be. Those costs are dependent on
the size and the energy intensity of each economy.
On what study did the prime minister base his assertion that the
costs of implementing Kyoto would be exactly the same for every
country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody will have to be at the same level. At the
moment the Americans will have to cut 12 points to get to zero.
Perhaps I should have said we have to cut 9 points. No, I was
wrong. It will be easier for Canada to go to zero than it will
be for the Americans because we are in a better position than
they are.
Every country will have to make a contribution. Nobody can
escape. Nobody can go back to the proposition that the earth is
flat. It is round and everything we do affects the others. We
have to live with that reality, which is why we are in Kyoto. We
have invited the provinces to be there—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is unbelievable. In the past the prime minister
asked the House to believe some pretty unbelievable things, but
surely he is not asking Canadians to believe that his government
made a commitment to this international deal without studying the
economic impacts on Canada. He cannot be asking us to believe
that.
Where is the study on which he is basing these assertions about
the cost of the Kyoto deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few years ago at the meeting in Rio Canada made a
commitment to be at the 1990 level by the year 2000. The leader
of the Progressive Conservative Party was there. It made a
commitment.
We are asking Canadians to have the level that is projected for
the year 2000, by 2007 or 2008.
The cost is less than what was committed to some years ago in
Rio. I recognize, as did the government of the day, that it is
an important problem for every country.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I wonder if
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cares more about women. No
fewer than 200 Quebec women are without support payments because Ottawa
still has not approved the draft agreement between France and Quebec on
this subject.
In accordance with the principle of extending Quebec's
jurisdiction, will Ottawa finally see reason and stop standing in the
way of an agreement between France and Quebec on this subject?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want Quebec to be covered under the Canada-France
convention. We suggested very simple changes to Quebec in order to
resolve the matter. Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec does not
want to see the matter resolved. It does not want a convention. It does
recognize we are responsible for the Canada-France agreement under the
terms of the umbrella arrangements. I am certainly prepared to negotiate
with the Government of Quebec, but it refuses to negotiate.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
cannot be party to an agreement between Canada and France when it has
already negotiated an international agreement with France.
Does the minister not realize that his radical position goes
against the position taken by the previous federal government and the
Quebec Liberal Party and the resolution unanimously endorsed by the
Quebec National Assembly?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the facts are simply that we negotiated an agreement
on social matters with the Government of France. The Government
of Quebec absolutely refused to be part of any consultation in
arriving at the accord.
The French government said clearly that any agreement between a
province and the Government of France must come under that
accord, and the Quebec government refuses to have it come under
that accord.
Frankly the Government of Quebec is simply trying to make
another case, another argument for separatism, when it does not
apply because it is a province of Canada.
* * *
KYOTO
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians cannot believe what they are hearing from the prime
minister today. Virtually every major economic think tank in the
country projected serious economic costs to all Canadians if we
sign on to legally binding emissions limits in the Kyoto deal.
Could the prime minister, instead of avoiding the question
again, tell the House whether or not his government has projected
the possible economic ramifications of the Kyoto deal? Has it
done a study? If so, where is it and will he table it today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am replying to the same question. Almost every party
in the House has a position on this. Only the Reform Party, as I
said last week, has no policy on that. It just has its
interests.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
partisan rhetoric like that may have been fine four weeks ago,
but right now our delegation is in Kyoto making decisions that
will affect the economic livelihood of hundreds of thousands of
Canadian families. The government has a responsibility to tell
us what the consequences will be.
Will it do that and stop reflecting the responsibility to the
opposition when it belongs to the government? What are the costs
of the Kyoto deal? How many people will lose their jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago all the provincial governments and the
federal government met. Everybody agreed that we should have a
target of going to the 1990 level by the year 2010. At the same
time they said—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is getting as difficult for
me to hear the answers as I know it is for you.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by dragging its
feet on the issue of tobacco sponsorship, the government is killing
sports and cultural events in Canada, particularly in Quebec. What a
mess.
Instead of wasting its time pondering the various options without
ever making a decision, should the minister not do like the European
Union and impose an eight-year moratorium to give the organizers of
these events time to reorganize?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made a
commitment, we are working to fulfil it and we will do so, but it is a
complex issue. Some legal considerations must be taken into account, and
we must comply with the Constitution.
We will take action when we are ready to do so, not when instructed
by tobacco companies.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could have torn off my clothes when I heard about the PQ
government's threat to cut funding to universities and research centres
that receive subsidies from the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
However, like a good Liberal, I refrained from doing so. Instead,
I will put a question to the Minister of Industry: How will he reassure
the universities and researchers who are being threatened and
blackmailed by the PQ government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope
the hon. member will not tear off her clothes.
This is yet another example of the Quebec government's bickering.
The PQ is trying to prevent Quebec researchers from doing innovative
work in their province. The federal government has a tradition of
subsidizing research and development in universities and research
centres. We now have the most important foundation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
[English]
KYOTO
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have a reasonable question when it comes to the Kyoto
deal. Single moms would like to know how much more it is going
to cost them at the gas pump to put gas in their car. Families
that are trying to put bread on the table want to know how much
it is going to cost their family.
Surely the government did an economic study on the impact of
Kyoto. Can the Prime Minister tell us now where is the study and
can he produce it today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied many times to this question. I do not
have to repeat it all the time. It is evident that this party
has no position at all on the environment. It is well noted by
all the parties and by the people of Canada that they do not care
much about the environment. We do.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we do care and we believe there must be a balance between the
environment and economic stability in this country.
What we are asking is a very simple question. How did the
government base its planning on the Kyoto deal? It has had
three, four, five positions now. Does it have an economic study
or not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): We have
discussed that with the provinces. All the provincial
governments and the federal government have agreed that something
has to be done, that we have to meet the level of 1990 sooner or
later. It was agreed. In Canada there is only a little gang
that does not believe we have to meet that commitment and I am
looking at them.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today another report portrays the tragedy of a million and a
half Canadian children living in poverty.
1450
Last week it was food bank usage that doubled. The week before
it was child poverty that had increased 58%. They all say that
the child benefit is woefully inadequate.
In negotiations with ministers, will the Prime Minister commit
to real targets to eliminate poverty and provide the resources to
meet those targets?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the Canadian
Council on Social Development for the report it tabled this
morning. Its information is always very useful to the
government.
The member is wrong when she says that every one of those
reports condemned the government. Last week Campaign 2000
indicated that the national child benefit which we were setting
up was exactly the way we should be working. The Government of
Canada is working on income through the child tax credit. The
provinces will be delivering programs in services, $1.7 billion
over the next few years. That is quite a bit.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has clearly not heard what those reports are saying.
Will he at least recognize the disastrous performance of the
government's youth employment strategy. Since the strategy was
announced in 1996, 26,000 fewer young people are working. Instead
of defending a failed strategy, will the minister put an
effective plan for jobs for young people together now?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have just had the best
six months and youth unemployment declined to 16.1%. This is the
best we have had in 10 years.
Our youth employment strategy is working. Tomorrow I will be
working with the Career Edge people to make sure that the private
sector people do their part as well. The provinces also want to
do their share. Things are going well. We are addressing it as
a societal problem because they are the best educated we have
ever produced.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the government is
the only party in this House not to recognize poverty as an emergency.
My question is for the prime minister. Until recently, Canada had
always shown great compassion for the underprivileged. But with the
reduction in transfer payments to the provinces and the tightening up of
requirements for employment insurance, there is an increasing number of
poor people.
Should the government not be turning once again to basic needs, to
what must be done to find clothing, food and shelter for the poorest
Canadians?
When will the government support the organizations that are trying to
deal with these urgent needs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, poverty in Canada is a great concern to us and we
are fighting against it. In fact, my colleagues, the Minister of Health
and the Minister of Finance, announced yesterday $1.5 billion more at
the community level.
Last year, my colleague at the Department of Health provided $100
million more for the Child Community Action Program. Much money has been
invested in the national child benefit. We realize that more has to be
done. We realize that poverty is a tremendous problem here, and we are
taking appropriate action.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that
this is not easy to understand.
This government was elected on promises,
including that it would scrap everything, scrap free trade, scrap the
GST, scrap the helicopter deal, which, until now, has cost us close to
$1 billion in delays, and even to scrap the country with Plan B plus.
What is the minister doing to fight suffering? Can the minister
tell us how much money his government has provided for down-to-earth
things like soup kitchens?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have implemented several very important tax
credits over the last several years, and, through these credits, we have
encouraged a large number of players in the private sector who are
associated with volunteer organizations.
In addition to encouraging and supporting soup kitchens through the
partnerships that we have with volunteer organizations, we are seeking
to create an environment for the economy, and this of course is not
understood by our friends from the Conservative Party because of the
extremely bad management that prevailed under them. We had to overcome
a deficit of $42 billion. I think that too many Canadians are still
having a difficult time, but there are better days ahead.
* * *
1455
TRADE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for International Trade.
Some international economists have warned that the recent crisis
in the Asian markets could have a negative impact on foreign
companies doing business in that part of the world. Why is it
that we are attempting to get countries in the Asia-Pacific to
open their markets if it will have negative consequences for
Canadian firms?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his very insightful question. It demonstrates that
he understands that what happens in other parts of the world
affects Canada. That is why we are in Kyoto. That is why we are
pursuing trade liberalization around the world. We are not going
to let a temporary blip in the economies of other countries deter
us from pursuing that as far as we possibly can.
Canada is part of the world now and it is time the opposition
parties recognized that.
* * *
KYOTO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has steadfastly refused today to
provide the House with the studies on which his government has
based the economic impacts of Kyoto. We can only assume,
therefore, that there are no studies, that the government
actually went ahead and made these commitments on emission levels
without a study of the economic impacts.
Just so we are crystal clear, is the Prime Minister saying that
the government has no study on the economic impacts of the Kyoto
deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have looked at all the aspects of the preoccupation
of the Leader of the Opposition. I said that there will be some
figures. A lot of figures were used.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned 3% of GDP over a period
of 20 years. In reality, there will be a lot more fluctuation in
GDP predictions over two or three years. We had to face the
reality that this is a global problem. What is important is to
make sure that Canada is not in an unfavourable position—
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board President has obviously learned his negotiating
skills from the minister responsible for Canada Post. Exaggerating
union demands, discrediting union leaders, and blaming union
members for the breakdown in negotiations are quite the bargaining
techniques.
In the pay equity issue, why is the Treasury Board President
walking away from the bargaining table and blaming the unions for
the fact that a settlement has not been reached, instead of
negotiating in good faith?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must
say that I was sorry to see that the union has more than doubled
the amount of its pay equity demands; it has gone from the $2
billion they first mentioned to $5.3 billion. I think this is
clear evidence of the union's bad faith.
It is clear they do not want to negotiate and I think that,
unfortunately, for the good of employees, it would be much better
if the offer were submitted to them directly. I have challenged
the union to put our offer to their employees so that they could
vote on it.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow is international human rights day. However, there is
little to celebrate after this government's shameful performance
at the APEC summit last month.
We learned this week that Musqueam Chief Gail Sparrow's address
to APEC representatives was cancelled at the last minute, not
because of the length of her speech as government officials
stated, but because of her intention to raise the human rights
question.
Will the Prime Minister come clean and apologize for the
government's blatant and unjustified censorship of Chief
Sparrow's speech?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the APEC leaders'
meeting, in recognition of the important role which our
aboriginal community has played in Canada, was held at the Museum
of Anthropology, which is one of Canada's finest exhibitions.
Furthermore, Chief Sparrow was given the opportunity to meet
every single APEC leader directly and personally and talk to
them, an honour afforded only to the Prime Minister himself. She
was given the distinction of being able to meet and talk directly
with all APEC leaders.
* * *
1500
SHIP BUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
A few weeks ago, the minister asked me for some information from
the ship-building industry that he could review before looking at
a ship building policy.
My question is for this wonderful, handsome minister. Has he
had an opportunity to review this information and will he now
look at a ship building policy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find myself confused. I thought at first the question
was for the Minister of Industry.
We have looked very carefully at all the suggestions but I have
yet to consult my colleagues on them. I point out to the hon.
member, as I have done privately as well, that the tax breaks
constitute a subsidy, that special tax rules constitute a form of
subsidy, and that we are endeavouring in each industrial sector
to create sectors that are competitive and therefore able to win
in international markets without subsidies.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-5, an act respecting co-operatives, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
speak to third reading of Bill C-5, respecting the Canada
Co-operatives Act.
The House will recall that second reading debate was on the
principles of the bill. I use the term debate very loosely
because, as it turned out, every party had something good to say
about Bill C-5 and it won the support of both sides of the House.
An hon. member: Especially the NDP.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: My colleague says “Especially the
NDP”. I am glad he is with us.
This support was continued in committee. I thank members of the
Standing Committee on Industry for their work in preparing the
bill for third reading.
1505
The bill has three overall objectives. The first is to
revitalize corporate governance rules in relation to
co-operatives. It does this by providing access to modern
corporate tools that other businesses already have through
framework legislation such as the Canada Business Corporations
Act, the Bank Act or the Co-operative Credit Associations Act
which governs financial co-ops.
Bill C-5 enables co-operatives to incorporate as a right. This
eliminates ministerial discretion as well as the current complex
procedures that now govern incorporation of co-ops. It reduces
the cost of incorporation for both co-operatives and the
government. It places co-operatives and business corporations on
the same level playing field.
The bill gives co-operatives the capacity, rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person similar to what business
corporations now have. Co-operatives no longer have to specify
their fundamental purpose in their articles or to abide by the
limited list of powers set out in the current act. This helps
co-operatives compete fairly. It simplifies incorporation
procedures and clarifies the boundaries within which a
co-operative may act.
The bill before us also changes the rules concerning the
nomination and the election of directors as well as the duties
and liabilities of those directors. For example, the existing
act requires a fixed number of directors and specifies there may
be no less than three. Bill C-5 gives co-operatives the right to
establish the number of directors in their articles although it
still specifies there may be no less than three.
The current act requires that a director must be a member of the
co-operative. The bill requires that two-thirds of directors
must be representatives of the members. This allows more
flexibility by the co-operatives to make their own decisions
within boundaries.
In today's competitive economy it is important for co-operatives
to recruit the best possible people, to serve directors and to
help guide co-operatives. These changes were requested by the
co-operative sector to help it attract the expertise it required
to the board of directors.
Bill C-5 makes the statutory duties and the fiduciary duties of
directors of co-operatives consistent with the statutory duties
of directors found in other corporate legislation. It provides a
due diligence defence for directors in situations where they may
be personally liable.
The second overall objective of the bill is to provide
co-operatives with new financing opportunities, something the
co-operatives were restricted in, in the past.
The co-operatives will be able to compete in capital markets
with entities that already have access to equity investment.
Under the bill membership shares can be issued with or without
par value. This is a change from the existing act where
membership shares can only be issued at par.
The bill allows flexibility so co-operatives can choose to
maintain traditional co-operative practices such as par value
membership shares or to realize a gain through no par value
membership shares. This allows the flexibility for co-operatives
to decide how they want to operate within the boundaries.
Bill C-5 gives co-ops the ability to issue investment shares to
the public. Investment shareholders are given rights and
protections similar to those provided under the Canada Business
Corporations Act. This gives co-operatives the flexibility they
need to raise capital and puts them on a level playing field with
other business entities.
1510
For example, although incorporated in the province of
Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is now listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange. I remind the House that SaskPool shares
have been available for over a year now. The equity investment
the wheat pool has acquired in capital markets has enabled it to
embark on a very aggressive and visionary expansion plan.
A third overall objective of Bill C-5 is to strengthen the
features that define and distinguish co-operatives. We do not
seek to change the principles that have provided the foundation
for the co-op movement in Canada. Rather we want to protect the
differences between co-ops and business corporations.
Under Bill C-5 co-operatives must satisfy the test of being
organized, operated and administered on a co-operative basis
before they can incorporate. This incorporation test protects
the uniqueness of the co-operative enterprise in Canada.
One of the most fundamental principles of a co-op is that its
members control its decisions. Under the bill before us members
continue to make the bylaws as they do in the current act. This
is different from the Canada Business Corporations Act where
directors make the bylaws.
Members have considerable power to restrict the power of
directors. They have remedies in cases of acts of corporate
oppression and a right of dissent in the face of fundamental
changes to the structure of the co-operative. Members have
rights to call special meetings and they have rights to make
proposals at the meetings.
Let me summarize by saying that three objectives guide the bill
before us. First, we want to revitalize corporate governance
rules. Second, we want to provide access to new ways for co-ops
to raise financing. Third, we want to do all this without
compromising the principles of co-operatives. Indeed we want to
strengthen their distinctive features.
Bill C-5 strikes a balance among all three of these objectives.
It was originally designed by the co-op sector. It has seen a
number of improvements, both in consultation with other
stakeholders and in committee.
The co-operation of members of the standing committee in terms
of hearing from stakeholders, especially stakeholders who helped
in designing the bill, and of helping us to proceed with the bill
in committee is very important. It preserves the intent and the
fundamental foundation of co-ops, yet allows them to participate
in the marketplace on a level playing field.
The bill deserves the support of the House. I hope this
afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C-5 and to support it
to completion.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-5, the Canada
Co-operatives Act.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member across the way, I
concur there was a great deal of co-operation both in committee
and with the co-operatives in preparing the bill. The
legislation was prompted by a request from the Canadian
Co-Operatives Association to the government to consider specific
recommendations which would update current legislative provisions
for co-operatives.
What has been an encouraging note for me in this whole process,
being relatively a new member of the House, is that I was able to
observe an amount of responsiveness on the part of the government
to the requests of those involved in the co-operatives industry.
Certainly the co-operatives themselves demonstrated some
responsiveness with regard to the bill.
1515
What I witnessed there was that the co-operative structure is
built around a membership which holds the management of the
co-operatives accountable. It was instructive to me and perhaps
it will be to this House. The system they use there, where
membership puts in place the management and then in turn holds
them accountable, is something I would like to speak to a little
bit here this afternoon.
The co-operative management and its members realized that their
livelihood was at risk if they did not make some changes to how
they raise capital and how they are able to compete against other
entities in the markets in which they are involved.
Therefore, they moved ahead to seek this change to the
legislation which would allow them access to capital, would allow
them to change their corporate structure through amalgamation and
restructuring for greater efficiencies and for the long term
investment community to get involved in co-operatives as well.
It was this foresight that was driven basically by the
membership and through the management that opened the door to
this legislation.
The encouraging part in all of this is that the change was
really driven through accountability back to the membership of
the co-ops.
I think what is instructive here for us today is that in many
ways there is a parallel that can be drawn between this process
and what is going on in Canada today. The people of Canada are
in a sense the membership that we report to.
It is interesting that the membership has been calling out for
some changes here in this House and in the legislative structure
that Canadians have to live within so that they too can survive
for the long term and plan effectively for their future.
I am not sure that our management team here, particularly on the
other side, is hearing Canadians on some of these critical
issues. What I want to refer to briefly, and it ties back to the
co-operators bill throughout this talk, is the fact that right
now we are facing 16% youth unemployment in Canada. This creates
challenges for our young people. As well the current increases
to the CPP seem to almost add to the challenge that our young
people have in obtaining jobs with these high payroll taxes.
We are already taxed, as we have heard in this House many times,
at the highest level in the G-7 countries. Even with all of this
tax, the increases in tax, the new payroll taxes and high
unemployment, we still have a debt of $600 billion. We have
heard that the interest is $43 billion a year.
Just taking more taxes has not kept us out of debt. In fact, we
have gone into debt even as taxes have increased. It is not
surprising that the membership, the people of Canada, is saying
that it is time to make some management changes and change the
way that the legislation allows them to plan for their future.
We have had a lengthy discussion about some of the proposals we
put on the plate for changes to CPP which to date have not been
heard by the party on the other side.
We listened intently to the throne speech, hoping to see what
Canadians have been calling for, that is paying down the debt and
tax relief.
What we saw primarily was 29 new spending initiatives on the
part of this government. No, that is not what the people of
Canada are asking for.
I recently commissioned a survey in my riding so that I could
stay in touch with my membership or my constituents. It is
consistent with what we are finding in some national polling that
has been done. I will refer to it briefly.
Less than 1% of the respondents to a survey in my constituency
felt that the government should embark on any kind of increased
spending program. It was a very small amount. However, 78% of
the respondents surveyed want debt retirement as a priority of
the government that finds itself in a surplus situation.
1520
Debt retirement was very much number one. We see this in some
of the other national surveys that have come out. The remaining
respondents, about 22%, wanted tax relief after debt retirement.
My constituents do not feel that allowing the government to
spend, spend, spend is the choice that should be made at this
time. I encourage the finance minister to resist any pressures
from within his caucus and party to move to an increased spending
program.
My call is consistent with what we have recently heard from the
premiers who came to Ottawa, to strongly encourage him to resist
the Liberal temptation to fix all our problems with more
government expenditure. We have had enough of that. It is not
the way to solve many of these problems.
In fact, my constituents told me in the recent survey that they
are diametrically opposed to the path which this government is
intent on following. Eighty-two percent of my respondents, and I
think this is consistent with many Canadians across the nation,
felt perfectly confident that they can manage and invest their
retirement funds better than the CPP investment board and
supported the idea of a super RRSP which they would own and which
is insulated from government manipulation.
The people in my riding are making the connection that big
government results in big tax bills. Given that connection, they
do not want big government.
Consistent with this we are finding that Canadians are coming to
the realization, as did the members of the co-op, that in order
to survive and be strong for the long term, in order to have the
best possible opportunities for all Canadians as they enter into
the 21st century, there has been enough of the tax and spend
approach of the previous two governments. They are saying that
taking more from Canadians and giving it to the government and
the government taking its administrative overhead portion and
then deciding who should get back the revenue is not the way to
solve many of the issues facing Canada today.
They are saying that it is time for changes. The priority is,
first, pay down the debt and get it under control because our
interest charges on that debt are $43 billion a year. Some
studies we have done tell us that interest for one year alone
would pay for 4 million young people to go through a four year
university degree program.
Another idea that helps us to understand how much the debt is
costing at $43 billion a year is that it is enough money to fund
the operation of every hospital in Canada for two years. However,
at this time we are trying to sustain a health care system that
is at risk.
This tax and spend approach that the co-op membership realized
is the same as Canadians are realizing, that it is putting at
risk our social programs. It is putting at risk the care and
social security programs that we could have for less fortunate
Canadians. It is putting at risk much of what we hold dear as
Canadians.
In summary, there is a hopeful note in all of this, particularly
with this bill. I admit that the updated Canada Cooperatives
Act is a good example of how government can respond to the
requirements of the private sector. It gives me some hope that
it is still possible for government to respond to the voices of
individual Canadians who are calling for some common sense in
regard to the fiscal management issues of this nation.
The Canada Cooperatives Act succeeds in modernizing Canada's
co-operative movement by providing it with the financial tools it
requires to compete effectively in the marketplace and remain a
vital component of the Canadian economy; in many ways exactly
what Canadians are asking for. At the same time, the legislation
respects and retains the traditions and the integrity of the
co-operative movement in Canada.
1525
I think it is significant that the hon. member across the way
gave some of the accolades to the members of the industry who
participated so fully in the formulation of this legislation. I
believe that is the key.
It is when we hear the people who are going to be affected by
the legislation when we shape it, the likelihood of us hitting
the target is much more enhanced. On that note I feel that this
particular bill is one that I will remember as a positive
illustration of how our Canadian government can work for the
benefit of both industry and hopefully one day for the citizens
of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to state, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, on this third reading
that we too will be supporting this bill, which modernizes the
Canada Co-operatives Act.
It is important to point out that Quebec has a very strong
co-operative movement. Of the 2,973 co-operatives in Quebec,
according to the most recent statistics of the Secrétariat aux
coopératives, only six are covered by the Canadian legislation.
It is important to point this out right at the start, in order to
explain that, regardless of certain reservations I and the
co-operatives of Quebec may have had at the start, after the work
in committee, and because there were negotiations held in
complete equality between the Canadian Federation of
Co-operatives and the Conseil québécois des coopératives, I am
pleased to state that we will be fully supporting this bill,
setting aside those reservations and concerns.
Obviously, I need to explain a bit about what I mean when I
refer to reservations and concerns. It must be stated that the
Canadian Federation of Co-operatives, in creating this process, a
process focussed on calling for new legislation from the federal
government, has proceeded democratically through consultation,
and made its request. The request was granted. The Federation
consulted the Quebec co-operatives and finally came to agree with
the bill drafted by the government legal specialists.
What the Canadian Co-operative Association was doing was to
modernize the Canada Co-operative Act, and this must be said, as
others have before me: co-operatives in this world we are living
in, especially the big ones, have to compete in the market with the
big businesses and multinationals and find themselves obliged to
have capital it was hard for them to acquire under previous
Canadian legislation, and this was also true of previous Quebec
legislation.
1530
The Canadian Co-operative Association wanted its members to
have, and some of my colleagues will tell you about this, the means
to ensure that this different form of business, a co-operative
business, something that is eminently desirable in our society,
could survive in a highly competitive environment.
I would like to use third reading of this bill to draw
attention to a kerfuffle that occurred when the committee submitted
its report to the House. The kerfuffle arose because the
government proposed an amendment, which apparently deprived members
of the power to permanently replace resigning members of boards of
directors.
I say apparently because government members noted, after I spoke,
that the law clerks had made an error and that, without this
amendment, two sentences in the bill would have been contradictory.
I want to point it out, since, because examination in
committee was on a consensual basis, I felt obliged at third
reading to oppose an amendment by the government that had not been
debated, that was not submitted to us and that ran totally counter
to the spirit of co-operation. I did my work, but in the end it
enabled us to see that the legislation did contain another
provision permitting the members to retain their power.
I will now move on to the next stage in my speech, which is to
take this opportunity to stress the importance in Quebec of the
co-operative movement.
It is interesting to note that I am doing so based on the document put
together by the Cooperatives Secretariat, which comes under federal
jurisdiction. It contains statistics on all Canadian cooperatives in
Quebec and the other provinces.
It is very interesting to see that, in Quebec, there are 2,973
associations, including financial cooperatives, the Desjardins
cooperatives as we call them at home. In all of Canada, there are 7,870
cooperatives. This means that 38% of all Canadian cooperatives are in
Quebec. In terms of membership, there are 6,210,000 coop members in
Quebec out of 14 million for Canada as a whole. Here again, Quebec's
share exceeds 42%, even though, I repeat, less than 25% of the Canadian
population now lives in Quebec.
Cooperatives in Quebec report sales of $9 billion, which represents
slightly more than 25% of the Canadian total.
As we know, in western Canada, there are large cooperatives, especially
those involved in the production and sale of wheat. In terms of assets,
Quebec accounts for $54 billion or 33%, compared to $156 billion in the
rest of Canada. That too is a very large amount.
In fact, I think it is fair to say—and my hon. colleagues agreed
with me—that Quebec is fertile ground for cooperatives. Naturally, a
major player is the Mouvement Desjardins, the Desjardins financial
cooperative movement, but it is not the only one. There are also other
types of cooperatives in Quebec as in the other provinces. It is
important to note this. We seldom talk about this different yet
important aspect of our economy, so let us take this opportunity to do
so.
1535
There are 204 consumer cooperatives in Quebec, 76 purchasing
cooperatives, 48 marketing cooperatives, 5 fishermen's cooperatives, 96
producers' cooperatives, 1,221 service cooperatives, 1,318 caisses
populaires and a few others. Some of these coops have been operating for
a long time.
It is important—I would need more time than I have today at the
rate at which things are going today—to at least mention that the
cooperative movement was instrumental in ensuring Quebec's economic
development, especially at a time when the economy was dominated by the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
In fact, when we look at today's major Quebec-owned businesses, we
notice that two public institutions were instrumental in developing a
mixed economy in our province, that is a capitalistic and a co-operative
economy. I am referring to the Caisse de dépôt et placement, and to the
co-operatives. Among Quebec's major businesses, in addition to financial
institutions, we find the Fédérée, which employs 5,000 people, and which
plays a key role in food production, consumption and processing. There
is also Natrel and others. I will not name them all, but there are quite
a few.
I want to say a word about some co-operatives that we seldom talk
about. Those found on the island of Montreal are representative. There
are co-ops in the education, housing and agri-food sectors.
There are also caisses populaires of a different type, such as the
Coopérative de consommation des employés d'Hydro-Québec, and the new
Coopérative des services télématiques Centre René-Lévesque. There is a
co-op that offers Internet servers to all social and community
organizations in the Montreal region.
There is a type of co-op that does not get enough publicity,
that does not get enough support. Yet, this type of co-op helps
“create jobs” in a world where unemployment is rampant, including
for professionals and people who have great qualifications. I am
referring to workers' co-operatives.
All the other co-operatives that I mentioned are co-ops whose members
get together to give themselves services, including housing and consumer
services, to transform products which they produce, or to have access to
an Internet server. However, workers' co-ops are unusual in that their
members get together to create work for themselves.
This type of co-op is more difficult to establish, because while
its members must act like entrepreneurs and make their businesses
succeed by producing, by selling, by developing a market and by being
competitive, they are also employees governed by a collective form of
management that is different from that of other businesses, including
co-ops in which members are the employers but not the employees.
1540
When this type of co-operative is implemented, it allows
businesses to get through severe financial difficulties. We are
familiar with some in Montreal, and elsewhere in the province, who
have survived the depression and increased the number of jobs,
major firms such as the printing co-operative Harpel. These co-operatives
are a testimony to the fact that it is possible, even in
this day and age, to develop a business that is both competitive
and profitable, allowing its employees to have a life, allowing
them to experience other kinds of labour relations and of
management, and allowing the workers who have joined together to
create jobs for themselves.
I repeat that we in the Block support this Bill C-5, an Act
respecting co-operatives.
After discussions between equals, the Conseil québécois des
coopératives agreed to support this bill, which affects only six
co-operatives in Quebec but may, if they come to operate in several
provinces, apply to other co-operatives currently operating only in
Quebec.
We are therefore pleased to support this bill, even if the co-operators
who called for it know that there are risks in allowing
members in co-operatives who are in fact not members but holders of
capital, who are providing assistance to the co-operative in
competing with other businesses, while at the same time helping
themselves through the profits they can earn as a result.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House as a New Democratic
Party member to speak at third reading of Bill C-5, an act
respecting co-operatives. I am also pleased to see that the
legislation enjoys the support of all five parties in the House
of Commons, reflecting perhaps that the co-operative spirit is
becoming a pan-Canadian value.
I say that because in Saskatchewan the co-operative spirit has
been alive and well for a number of generations. As a matter of
fact, we in Saskatchewan view the world in a very clear way when
it comes to using economic utensils to develop economies and to
keep people working.
It is the view of the New Democratic Party that our economy is
composed of three engines. There is the engine of government
which generates and creates economic activity to a certain
extent. There is a second engine of the economy, the private
sector, which generates and creates economic activity in jobs and
revenues. In Saskatchewan in particular but across this country,
the NDP believes, a third engine of economic activity in our
economy is the co-operative movement. We feel the co-op approach
to life is a very important approach and one that basically
allows people to do things collectively in a co-operative way
that they cannot do individually.
We feel very strongly that Bill C-5 addresses some of the
challenges which the co-op movement is now facing, the
modernization of co-ops, the modernization of the economy, the
more competitive nature of corporations and businesses competing
with our co-ops around the country.
1545
The co-op movement is very important when it comes to world
trade. We have been involved in very significant things with
respect to economic development in this country through co-ops
that we normally would not do. The co-op movement has been very
significant in the international and global economy. We did not
call it the globalization of our economy, but the corporations
that were involved and structured as co-ops, like the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, were actually trading in the
international marketplace for decades before the terms
globalization and global economy became the catch words of those
who wish to do business all over the world.
I am very pleased this afternoon to acknowledge a neighbour of
mine in the gallery. He lives on my street. He is visiting
Ottawa on business. I am very pleased to see him here because
not very often do we get to speak directly to some of our
constituents. I am very pleased that he is here. I am not sure
if he is impressed or not, but we will see what happens during
the course of my remarks.
This co-op bill is one which I think has gone through a very
comprehensive process in terms of looking at how we can modernize
co-ops, how we can assist them in meeting some of these very
significant economic global challenges.
I am pleased to note the co-operative manner in which the needs
of the Manitoba and Alberta pools were negotiated with other
members of the co-op movement so that a jointly recommended
amendment could be proposed in the industry committee at clause
by clause and it was basically approved. In addition, there were
a further five technical amendments at committee and two more
technical amendments at report stage in the House which all
parties supported.
Before getting into more of those items, I want to talk very
briefly about another example of how important co-ops were in
Saskatchewan in particular. That is my example because I
represent a constituency in Saskatchewan.
There was a problem a number of years ago with gas pricing and
oil pricing and availability of energy in our province. The
large oil companies, Imperial Oil and Shell, had the refineries
and they were gouging our farmers. They could not get their
crops in the fields and seeded because of the high prices. There
was a huge hurdle to farming economically in our province.
In the 1940s a number of people got together and put together
about $40,000. They established Consumers Co-operative
Refineries Limited. In essence using resources that they
collected in their own neighbourhoods and communities in the
province of Saskatchewan, they built from scratch the Consumers
Co-operative Refineries which still exists today.
As a matter of fact, the refinery is valued at somewhere around
$1 billion Canadian. It refines about 50,000 barrels of oil on a
daily basis. It not only has a refining capacity, but it has an
upgrading capacity as well. It can take the very thick crude and
upgrade it through a process, and then refine it in a refinery
which is right next to it and make all the things that are made
from a barrel of oil. Many people do not realize that 10,000
different products can be made from a barrel of oil.
What I am getting at is that the people of Saskatchewan were
confronted with the problem of price gouging. They developed a
technology among themselves. They collected their own resources
and built a refinery to the point now where it is worth a
significant amount to our economy. It employs about 250 people
annually.
The president of the union is the spouse of my constituency
assistant. His name is Bob Johnson. Bob has been president
before, but remains president of the union. With his colleagues
at the co-op refinery, he contributes significantly to the
economy of our province. They are able to do this as a result of
significantly strong co-operative principles. I remind members
that those principles are based on the fact that individuals can
do collectively what they cannot do individually.
This is an example that has been very significant in our
province.
1550
Another example I want to share with my colleagues in the House
of Commons and other people who are watching is that the co-op
movement is not dying. It is actually a very strong, vibrant,
growing movement not only in Canada but in other parts of the
world.
As a matter of fact, I was visiting one of the 37 communities in
my constituency, the community of Strasbourg just last spring. At
a public meeting there were a number of speakers. One of the
speakers was from the co-op college at the University of
Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. There was a slide show. It was about
the new economic approach in the land of free enterprise, the
United States of America, to solve some of the unemployment
problems, to solve some of the dying rural community problems in
the United States of America.
The slide show was about the co-op movement that is a “new”
economic utensil the Americans are now discovering and using
quite dramatically in a very positive way. The slide show talked
about a midwestern community with a population of about 6,000. It
had had a very significant decline in its population over the
years. It was in the midwest in an agricultural community. Young
people were being educated and then were moving to other parts of
the United States and finding jobs and earning a living.
As a group of people who got together as a community they asked,
how do we stop this drain of our young people? How do we stop
the drain of jobs from our community? How do we enhance and prop
up and get our rural economy back on its feet? Somebody had the
bright idea of forming a co-op.
They formed a co-op and started with a bison farm. They started
raising bisons in a co-operative way. Then they expanded to hog
production, to grain and to a furniture factory. They started a
co-op for house building and contracting and also established a
buying co-op where they could buy materials at contractor prices.
With respect to Bill C-5, this is a very applicable example.
This shows that Bill C-5 which we are talking about today is
modernizing the approach and the economic tools that co-ops can
use similar to those in the midwestern American city I am talking
about where they discovered this new movement of co-operation.
Do you know what that community is doing now? They are hiring
the children of the founders of this co-op for jobs which pay
very significantly. They are managing these hog production
plants. They are managing the grain and farm production
operations. They are managing the furniture factory and other
factories they have established on a co-operative basis.
Of course at the slide presentation in Strasbourg, Saskatchewan,
everybody at the public meeting was saying, “We have been
members of co-ops for 50 years. That is exactly what we have been
doing and that is how we have been able to sustain a reasonable
quality of life in our community”. I might say that Strasbourg
is a very significant community in my constituency.
As my party's spokesperson for co-ops I have been contacted by a
number of co-op members in particular on this bill, many of whom
support the bill but a few of them do not. Let me take a few
minutes now to address some of their concerns which were brought
to my attention.
In the first place, some were merely the result of some
misinformation, for example, that the bill applied to all co-ops
or that it compelled all co-ops to raise investment equity. In
fact as we know, the bill applies to only about 51 federally
chartered non-financial co-ops as did its 1970 predecessor. It
does not compel any of them to pursue any financing option their
members have not already approved. It simply enables them to
choose from a few more options.
It is also true that a few people philosophically do not believe
a co-op should raise investment capital. It is a deeply held
conviction of a minority of people who are also uncomfortable
with changes at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Of course, for
members who might recall this, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is
provincially chartered so that when the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
wanted to expand its economic base to pursue value added
processing of its primary production of grain and hogs and cattle
and other things, they decided to expand in a number of areas.
The members of the co-op who control the co-op decided that they
would go to the markets. They made an amendment to provincial
legislation, as we are doing with this Bill C-5 for other co-ops,
to enable them to go to the market for more capital.
I might add that since this was done the shares of Sask Wheat
Pool have increased in value. The members of the wheat pool who
did not buy shares still control the company. The wheat pool is
actually doing a very good job.
1555
As a matter of fact just yesterday it was announced that the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which is the principal shareholder of
Fletcher Meats has now bought Harvest Meats, a meat processing
factory in Yorkton, Saskatchewan. It employs a number of people
and is a very successful plant.
That adds value to the products which members of the wheat pool
and other farmers in Saskatchewan believe are important to our
economy. It adds value in the sense that it provides jobs to
people living in Saskatchewan. It also provides more profits for
those who are members of the pool from which patronage can be
shared.
Patronage of course in a co-op is different than patronage in
the Government of Canada. Patronage in the Government of Canada
is where the government of the day appoints people of its liking
to highly paid positions. In many cases they are not accountable
but they perform functions in the country. Patronage in a co-op
is when a member supports the co-op and purchases goods from the
co-op. They patronize the co-op and earn some value from doing
that. When they leave the co-op they have an asset which is
theirs as a result of their patronizing their co-op.
With respect to the wheat pool, I believe that members of the
large co-ops, the ones which are federally charted, since they
carry out business in more than one province, need to have some
choices available to them to take on the multinationals which are
increasingly taking them on.
I was speaking with the minister of agriculture for
Saskatchewan, Eric Upshall, the other day about this debate. He
pointed out that the wheat pool has been responsible for millions
of dollars of investment coming into our province in the last few
years which as a result has created many jobs. He told me about
a number of the details, one of which I shared with the House a
few moments ago.
At the same time the pool's market has been targeted by the
American multinational Archer-Daniels-Midland. The pool has
needed to finance the upgrading of a lot of its capital to meet
this challenge, at the very time when a large number of farmers
are retiring and withdrawing their capital from the pools.
I also believe the co-op movement has demonstrated that the
majority of its members support having this option available to
them under Bill C-5.
Evidence was presented before the industry committee about the
extent of the consultation process undertaken in the co-op sector
prior to the tabling of a model bill with the government.
A first round of consultations took place at the grassroots
level about what changes were needed in the bill. This resulted
in the development of a first position, which was then sent back
for a second round of consultations, all within the co-op
movement. After the co-ops and the federal Department of Industry
and the co-op secretariat at the Department of Agriculture agreed
to a draft piece of legislation, industry and the co-op
secretariat then conducted a round of national consultation
hearings themselves.
The resulting legislation is thus the product of consultation,
consensus, constructive engagements and co-operation. Such a
process does not guarantee unanimity, but I believe it reflects a
sincerely genuine effort to obtain the input and support of as
many co-op members as possible.
The bill also greatly strengthens the rights of co-op members. I
am sure that co-op members of all points of view will be making
use of these rights if their co-ops debate such new approaches
and agree to pursue them under Bill C-5.
In summary, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we would like
to see this bill move forward as quickly as possible. We applaud
the efforts of co-ops across the country to bring forward
proposals to modernize their governing legislation and to meet
the challenge of taking on the multinationals which are
increasingly moving into Canadian markets.
We support a vibrant and thriving co-op movement and believe
this bill will assist in enhancing that goal.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question
for the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I
appreciated his input in the committee with respect to the
importance of co-ops. He helped us to understand co-ops.
I want to ensure that although we are opening up the boundaries
in which co-ops can participate, we will still maintain the
principles of the co-ops as he has many times described them to
me.
1600
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his question.
In my view the bill does not really affect the principles of
co-ops, the principle of open membership or the principle of one
member one vote. Members of the co-op will still control the
direction of their particular co-op, even though they may take
advantage of these economic utensils.
The principle of doing collectively what cannot be done
individually will always be around in a co-op. The bill will
assist co-ops on the larger scale in dealing with competition
from international corporations and in expanding their co-ops in
a vertically integrated way as other multinationals have done in
the past.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I once again speak to Bill C-5, which I
have debated in the House of Commons twice before.
I will repeat one comment that I started off with the last time.
When I was elected to the House of Commons I told myself and my
constituents that when good legislation was put forward by the
government I would congratulate the government on it and not
simply be destructive in my criticism but be constructive.
I say to the government and to the Minister of Industry that
this is a very good piece of legislation. It allows
co-operatives to go forward into the 21st century with the
ability to make necessary changes to be competitive not only
within themselves but with other industries.
Brandon—Souris is the home of almost everything. The House has
been privy to my rantings with respect to all the good things
that have happened in my community. We are also the home of a
number of very successful co-operatives. Members may be aware
that the co-operative movement came to us from western Canada.
Co-operatives involved people organizing around the common goal,
usually not for profit but for the economic benefit of all their
members.
Co-operatives promote grassroots development, led by people
rather than by government. They are a reflection of local people
taking the initiative to understand the problems they face and to
develop solutions. Co-operatives find their roots in community
based enterprise around the world, and certainly in Canada.
The principles of the 1970 Canada Co-operatives Association Act
were based on provincial legislation dating back to the early
20th century. While the provinces have been updating their
co-operative legislation over the years, there have been no
changes to modernize the framework of the federal act since its
inception.
As a result, in March 1996 the Canadian Co-operatives
Association and its francophone counterpart jointly submitted
recommendations to modernize the federal act. The proposals were
the product of consultations with both their memberships. As
previously mentioned, the most notable feature was the changes
that most closely aligned the Canadian Co-operatives Association
Act with the Canada Business Corporations Act. Both associations
agreed these changes enable co-operatives to modernize their
operations to better compete in the domestic and international
markets on a level playing field.
Bill C-5 deals with a number of very innovative changes to that
legislation. The legislation came out of consultations,
consensus and the co-operation of an organization that brought
forward to government, in a very long process over five years,
what it felt was necessary for the co-operative movement to
continue into the 21st century.
As we are well aware, a number of changes are required to compete
in this globalized world in which we now live. It was done, as I
said, in full co-operation with the membership.
1605
One issue they dealt with was the form of capitalization a
co-operative could now do. The co-operative has a larger scope
in adopting the structure between traditional and open market
approaches, providing greater flexibility in establishing methods
for members to finance their co-operatives.
The bill attempts to balance the rights of members with those of
corporate directors, which is very important.
Bill C-5 makes changes to the rules governing membership by
removing all restrictions. The rules are now solely determined
by the co-operative and are laid out in its charter bylaws. This
means membership would be open to all, provided current members
approve.
Bill C-5 makes changes to the rules governing the issuing of
shares. The conditions of issuing membership shares are set out
in the incorporation charter.
Bill C-5 will permit co-operatives with share capital to issue
investment shares to their members and to the public, provided
the members have agreed to do so and have set out the rules in
the charter bylaws.
Traditionally co-ops have looked only to their members to
finance their operations. This means that co-operatives can now
become more competitive with their capitalization. I speak of
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, a very prime example of what a very
progressive co-operative can do in the competitive market.
The proposed changes equip the industry with the tools necessary
for raising badly needed capital investment. It is a response,
for instance, to declining membership investment, resulting in
co-ops not being able to upgrade existing expensive and outdated
infrastructure. This policy follows changes adopted by some of
the provinces.
I point out that Bill C-5 is not a controversial bill, as I said
earlier. It was done with co-operation and with consultation. We
in the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the
bill.
Agreement between all parties on the bill was slow as it took
over as five year period to develop, but I believe they achieved
a reasonable compromise with minor amendments at report stage.
Overall the bill is a positive step in bringing co-operatives
into the 21st century by making them more flexible, efficient and
competitive.
The changes in Bill C-5 are wide scale adjustments but I am
confident overall co-op membership, some 4.5 million Canadians,
will benefit.
That being said, this gives us a very good model by which to
develop legislation: listen to the people, listen to the
industry that is being affected and put into legislation the
necessary changes that allow it to adapt.
I will make an analogy between that and another piece of
legislation brought to the floor of the House recently in which I
have been involved. I will make a comparison between Bill C-5,
which I have already said is an excellent model that has worked
extremely well, and Bill C-4 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-4, unlike Bill C-5, does not have a common goal that
provides for the economic benefit of its members, the producers
of the Canadian Wheat Board. Unfortunately Bill C-4 did not have
the same consultative process as Bill C-5 has had. In committee
we were told we had to rush Bill C-4 through without having the
proper consultation because it had to get to third reading before
the Christmas sitting was over.
It was sent to committee where we had to get it through. Bill
C-5 took time, took legislative opportunity, to make sure
adjustments were made. Bill C-4 did not come about in that
fashion. Bill C-4, unlike Bill C-5, does not take the initiative
to understand the problems producers face or to develop
solutions.
Bill C-5 did that. We listened to what the industry was saying
about what it needed for the future, for the 21st century.
Unfortunately the government did not understand the problems
facing producers and did not put into place the necessary
legislation to deal with those problems into the 21st century.
Bill C-4, unlike Bill C-5, does not allow farmers to decide in
their best interest to ban together to gain better control over
the marketing of their products.
In Bill C-5 the membership makes the rules. The membership is
the owners.
In Bill C-4 that is not the case. The government still maintains
ownership. The elected board of directors is only 10 out of 15
and the chief executive officer will be appointed by government.
It does not allow the producers, the major stakeholders, to have
a say on how they will be operated.
1610
Bill C-4 unlike Bill C-5 has not updated its legislation and
modernized its framework to adjust to the 21st century since the
inception of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935. Unfortunately
Bill C-4 does not allow the producers to have a voluntary or opt
in, opt out situation.
I am making an analogy between Bill C-5 and Bill C-4. I
appreciate the model which has been put forward in Bill C-5.
Unfortunately it has not been carried through. Unlike Bill C-5
the proposals in Bill C-4 were not the product of consultation
with all stakeholders. The government already predetermined the
options of producers before they were even allowed to speak in
committee.
As I said earlier, the committee would not allow members or
stakeholders to come forward to speak to a very important piece
of legislation that would control their operations for the next
numbers of years.
Bill C-4, unlike Bill C-5, fails to modernize the operations of
farmers so they can better compete in domestic and international
markets on a level playing field. Bill C-5 allows for the
co-operatives to compete on a level playing field with private
corporations. It allows them to modernize with more capital. It
allows them to make sure that they will be competitive and in
business come the 21st century. Bill C-4 unfortunately does not
allow producers to do that.
Bill C-4, unlike Bill C-5, does not speak to the wishes
expressed by the majority of farmers. Bill C-5 took that into
consideration. They sat down will all the stakeholders, talked
to them and listened to them to put in place the right piece of
legislation that would allow them to do that. Bill C-4 would
not.
Bill C-4 and Bill C-5 could do so much for farmers. Bill C-5
achieves this with great success while Bill C-4 fails miserably.
I hope the government over the holiday season has a change of
heart and starts to listen to farmers, particularly those in
western Canada, and does the right thing by providing Bill C-4
with the much needed tools that farmers want to compete in the
21st century, much as Bill C-5 does.
The co-operative movement is a very important movement in my
community. During the question and answer period the last time I
rose to speak, a question was asked by another member as to
whether a member of a co-operative could speak honestly about it.
I can stand here today and proudly say that I am a member of a
co-operative. We have one in Brandon, Manitoba, to which I
belong. It is the best way to provide that service.
I do not wish to prolong debate longer than necessary. I
believe all parties are in agreement with this piece of
legislation, which is unusual in the House. The Progressive
Conservative Party recognizes that in some instances the
government listens. In some instances it will let the people be
a part of the legislation that is necessary to govern them. We
will be supporting the legislation when it comes to the vote.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax
West, Aboriginal affairs; the hon. member for Vancouver East,
Youth; the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Tobacco
legislation; the hon. member for Charlotte, Aboriginal affairs; the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Fisheries; the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, POWA; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, The
economy.
1615
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to my colleague. He belongs to a co-operative.
Good for him. I too belong to a co-operative, a food
co-operative. As the member so eloquently said, it is rare that
the House can almost unanimously support a bill.
Co-operatives are very important in our society. Fifteen or
so years ago, in my region, we set up a food co-operative. Several
food co-operatives were set up at the same time in Quebec, but many
of them are closed now.
I know that my colleague has some good experience in this
area. I put the following question to him: Why do some and even
many co-operatives have trouble staying alive, surviving, and why
are there so few really vigorous co-operatives in certain areas?
I would like him to tell me about his experience.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I am learning to speak French, but
I have difficulty answering in that language.
[English]
I would suspect that the co-operative is no different than any
other business venture. It depends on the people who are
involved in the management of the co-operative. It is obviously
involved with the business acumen and experience that people have
as to how good the co-operative is itself. Some co-operatives do
not succeed. In some cases it is probably because of
undercapitalization, underfinancing. That is usually the reason
most businesses fail regardless of whether they are a
co-operative movement or in the private sector.
I said initially in my opening comments that in our particular
case co-operatives are a feel of the communities. The
communities and the people develop the co-operatives. It depends
on the motivation of those individuals as to how successful those
enterprises are going to be.
I can honestly say that in western Canada the co-operative
movement was very successful because people helped people work
with people. It was a grassroots movement. The profits that
came from the development of that business were put back into the
business. I would suspect it is a bit of a culture that came
from that particular co-operative movement and perhaps the
opportunity to have better capitalization when they went into the
enterprise in the first place.
That would be my opinion. There are any number of reasons why
some are good and some are not good.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to
seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice,
private members' hour shall commence this day at 4.30 p.m.,
provided that all divisions standing deferred to the time of
expiry shall be called at 5.30 p.m. and proceedings pursuant to
Standing Order 38 shall be taken up immediately thereafter.
In other words the adjournment proceedings will occur
immediately after the votes to be taken at 5.30 p.m.
If there is consent for putting this motion and carrying it,
then I will subsequently propose to suspend until 4.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
The Deputy Speaker: Carried.
(Motion agreed to)
1620
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find consent to suspend until 4.30
p.m. in order to proceed with private members' hour.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we suspend the
sitting until 4.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The sitting is suspended.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.20 p.m.
1630
[Translation]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 4.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
REVOCATION OF MANDATE OF INQUIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
obtain the consent of two-thirds of the said House before
revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am tabling today, Motion M-20,
refers directly to events that occurred during the 35th
Parliament and that continue to have repercussions today. The aim
of this motion is to correct a practice by the government opposite
and by the governments before it.
My motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
obtain the consent of two-thirds of the said House before
revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.
You will understand that this motion is in reaction to the
problems that occurred during the course of the latest commissions
of inquiry set up by the government, more specifically, the Somalia
inquiry.
You will recall that on July 2, the Minister of National Defence
published the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of
Canadian Forces to Somalia, better known as the Létourneau Commission.
The work of that commission became extremely important because of the
events that were being revealed, but also because the media was
following it closely.
In their final report, the commissioners expressed strongly their
concern over the major obstacles they had to face in carrying out the
work of the commission. So that the scope and the importance of my
motion can really be understood, I will quote some parts of the report,
including from the chairman of that commission, Mr. Justice Létourneau.
Mr. Justice Létourneau said:
The Inquiries Act provides the authority to subpoena
witnesses, hear testimony, hire expert counsel and advisers,
and assess evidence. Under normal circumstances, such powers
should have given us the confidence to present our findings
without qualification. However, on January 10, 1997, while
Parliament was adjourned—
Mr. Justice Létourneau continued:
—the Minister of National Defence announced that cabinet had
decided that this inquiry had gone on long enough, that all
hearings must be cut off on or about March 31, 1997, and that
a report with recommendations was required by June 30, 1997.
This was the response of the government to our letter
setting out reporting date options and requesting an extension
until at least December 31, 1997, a period of time that would
have allowed us to conclude our search for the truth.
You must realize that the Létourneau Commission only had one
objective, and it was to uncover the truth on extremely serious events
surrounding actions by people in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Justice Létourneau continued:
The unexpected decision to impose a sudden time
constraint on an inquiry of this magnitude is without
precedent in Canada. There is no question that it has
compromised and limited our search for the truth. It will also
inhibit and delay corrective action to the very system that
allowed the events to occur in the first place.
He continued, and this is important also:
As our investigation progressed, we were able to move
closer to the key centres of responsibility as we moved up the
chain of command. Unfortunately, the Minister's decision of
January 10, 1997, eliminated any possibility of taking this
course to its logical conclusion—
The minister, the Liberal cabinet, realizing that the
investigations and the search for the truth carried out by Mr. Justice
Létourneau were getting dangerously closer to the political decisions of
that government, announced in January, on January 10 more precisely,
that it had decided to put an end to the commission's work.
Need I remind this House that the commissioners were appointed by
the Minister of National Defence, by the government opposite?
1635
These commissioners can certainly not be said to be big, bad
separatists or sovereignists who were there to break up the country.
They were appointed by the government to seek out the truth. It would be
one thing if he had been the only commissioner to make such remarks, but
there were three of them saying the same thing.
One of them, Peter Desbarats, even wrote a book entitled Somalia
Cover-Up, from which I would also like to quote, because he goes even
further than Mr. Justice Létourneau. He wrote:
Before we had a chance to resume hearings in January, after
the Christmas holiday, on January 10, the Minister of National
Defence announced that the commission would wrap up the hearings by
the end of March and table a final report by the end of June—This
announcement floored us all. I expected the Minister of
National Defence to give us one or two months less than what we
asked for, but the decision to put an end to the inquiry was
unprecedented. Even four decades of watching politicians did not
prepare me for this.
This is not a man totally unfamiliar with how things are done in
Ottawa. This is a man who studied political and governmental decisions
extensively and was familiar with procedure. After all, he had been
appointed to the commission on the basis of his great qualifications.
He wrote in his book that he simply could not believe that the
Minister of National Defence would decide to suddenly end the inquiry,
without warning, when it was so close to its goal of finding out exactly
what had happened. So, the commissioners were about to uncover the truth
when the government opposite, in a move that could almost be called
dictatorial, put en end to the inquiry.
He also wrote, and I will end with this excerpt:
When observing my two fellow commissioners, I came to appreciate
the expression—and this is very important—“judicial
independence” as a reality.
A government that acts so as to affect the independence of a public
inquiry can only be foreign to our political traditions and
jeopardize the principles of accountability.
This commissioner in the Somalia inquiry says that the government
jeopardized the principles of accountability. This is a very harsh
judgment. The author made a comparison with our American neighbours. As
we know, Americans are very structured too. They have many commissions
of inquiry, even more than here. We also know that the president enjoys
a very strong central power. The author points out that:
In the United States, even a president could not stop the
Watergate investigation.
Here, a simple cabinet can put a stop to a federal inquiry for
political reasons, and no one gets upset about it.
As for the in-depth analysis of the motion, all agree that public
inquiries are essential elements of a democratic system. It is a
universally recognized principle that, without the existence of public
inquiries, administrative democracy would be meaningless. These
inquiries are tools at the service of those who are governed, that is
the citizens, to monitor their administrative institutions. They are
tools given to Canadians and Quebeckers to know what goes on in the
federal apparatus, since we are in the federal Parliament.
It is not the first time we look at this issue and at the powers of
commissions of inquiry.
In 1977, the Canadian Law Reform Commission described public
inquiries as “a complement to the essential agencies of the state.
They can investigate the government itself, a task which must of
course be the mandate of a body outside the executive and the
public service”.
The quasi-judicial process of which commissions of inquiry are
a part is a major guarantee of objectivity, which is of
considerable importance when an agency must assess the exigencies
of public interest. By setting up boards or commissions with
quasi-judiciary powers, the lawmakers institute a mechanism of
preliminary investigation and participation by the governed in
administrative action.
1640
But these inquiries must be left to follow their course
without undue interference by the government. This requires
respect for the independence of the judiciary.
And what is the independence of the judiciary? I refer to it
because it has already been addressed in this House. It must be
understood that what I am proposing in Motion M-20 is a solution to
establish some semblance of credibility in our democratic
institutions, which suffer from undue interference by the
government in the process of public inquiries. It must therefore
be understood that the very principle of the independence of the
judiciary is what justifies the adoption of this motion.
In other words, once a government creates a commission of inquiry,
because the situation requires it, because the situation is so
important that a commission of inquiry is required, the
commissioners must have complete freedom to conduct the inquiry.
And, among other things, the government should have seen to it
that Mr. Justice Létourneau, a man with training, a highly credible
individual with a law degree and many qualifications, had complete
freedom to conduct the inquiry, to ask questions. Above all, there
must be guarantees that the executive arm or the government will
not interfere.
The legislation, because this is governed by section 2 of the
Inquiries Act, stipulates that the governor in council may,
whenever the governor in council deems it expedient, cause inquiry
to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good
government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public
business thereof.
When we look at the powers given the commissioner of a commission
of inquiry, we see that the process must have been considered
quasi-judicial. And there is a difference between a commission of
inquiry and a decision by the superior court, for example, or the
supreme court or the court of appeal.
For instance, commissioners have powers to summon witnesses,
powers to enforce, and certain special powers associated with the
inquiry, such as entering offices, examining documents or whatever.
In addition, section 12 of the legislation stipulates that
commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being
investigated under this act to be represented by counsel. And in
the Somalia inquiry we saw that, whenever members of the Canadian
Armed Forces appeared before the commission, they were all
accompanied by a lawyer, which is provided for in the act and which
was completely legal.
This shows that a commission of inquiry is something very serious.
We must give as much power as possible to those who hear witnesses and
who search for the truth.
In conclusion, those who were here during the 35th Parliament,
those who witnessed the whole debate on the Somalia inquiry, those who
saw certain things the government did during the Krever inquiry and
those who witnessed certain things in the past all feel that commissions
of inquiry deserve the close attention of the members of this House.
Commissions of inquiry deserve that we remove, once and for all, the
possibility for the executive branch, the cabinet or a minister to
suddenly revoke the mandate of a commission as important as the Somalia
inquiry.
To support motion M-20 is to support the improvement of procedures
regarding public inquiries.
To support motion M-20 is to ensure that our institutions truly reflect
the concern of Canadians and Quebeckers to maintain a sound and
sustainable administrative democracy. To support motion M-20 is to
choose to know the truth rather than to let the interests of the
bureaucracy take precedence. To support motion M-20 is to give Canadians
and Quebeckers an opportunity to adequately take part in the affairs of
our society.
To those who are about to speak against this motion, or who do not
really support it, I will simply say that to oppose motion M-20 is to
allow the government opposite to once again muzzle commissions of
inquiry.
1645
To oppose Motion M-20 is to say that responsible individuals
who agree to chair similar commissions could find themselves
overnight with less time or insufficient time to really achieve the
goal sought, that is, the truth.
To oppose the motion is to allow those who mock their
integrity to move beyond all control.
I am convinced that this House, given the appropriateness of
the purpose and the fact that the motion is an attempt to find a
better approach in this House, will see that its sole purpose is
“to obtain the consent of two-thirds of this House”. That means
that people on both sides of the House must speak before a
commission of inquiry is terminated.
Once a government decides to set up a commission of inquiry,
I think it is up to the House of Commons to decide with the pros
and cons of a debate here in the House whether the commission
should be terminated.
I think that democracy in general would be the winner if this
House passed the motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to speak to Bloc Motion No. 20 concerning
commissions of inquiry. I listened with great interest to the
remarks of the member for Berthier—Montcalm.
Inquiries of various sorts are a fundamental concern for both
Parliament itself, this House, and for the government. Such
inquiries are important tools which both Parliament and the
government can use to deal with special issues, special problems,
special concerns of particular times in our history. Parliament
itself has extensive authority in this area.
In addition to the inquiries which we are discussing under this
motion, which are set up under the Inquiries Act, Parliament has
extensive authority to set up a committee or committees to
conduct inquiries into any area of concern to members. These
committees have the usual full control of the House.
Recently there was the special joint committee on the
constitution which was chaired by the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party. That is an example of a committee which was
set up as a national base for an inquiry.
In addition, as the member has said, under the Inquiries Act the
government, as distinct from Parliament, has the authority to
establish commissions of inquiry. In this case a commission of
inquiry is created by an order in council under the statutory
authority of the governor in council. This provides the terms of
reference, the names of the commissioner or commissioners, and
establishes the timeframe for the work of the commission.
That is important. The government of the day, under the
Inquiries Act, sets up an inquiry. It gives it its terms of
reference and, as the member said, appoints the commissioners.
From that point the inquiry runs as an autonomous,
quasi-judicial body. It is the arm's length characteristic of
these inquiries which is a very important feature.
The member rightly pointed out, and described extremely well,
the great powers which commissioners have once such a commission
of inquiry is set up and running.
Therefore, these are arm's length bodies which the government of
the day uses to look at special matters in the public interest.
They are set up by law in a very particular way. Any change to
the overall mandate of such a commission requires a new order in
council.
The Inquiries Act recognizes that the government has a role in
ensuring that the operation of a commission of inquiry is
consistent with its mandate.
Commissions of inquiry have been widely used by governments
throughout the history of this Parliament and have been an
important source of information and policy development.
1650
I notice that the hon. member mentioned just two or three
commissions of inquiry, but since Confederation there have been
over 350 public inquiries under part I of the Inquiries Act. A
considerable number of these have had major impacts on Canadian
public policy.
I would mention the Rowell-Sirois commission on
dominion-provincial relations,the MacMillan inquiry into banking
and currency, the famous Laurendeau-Dunton commission on
bilingualism and biculturalism which has had such an important
effect ever since and that was in the 1960s on the way this
government operates in a bilingual and bicultural way.
I could also mention the McDonald commission into certain
activities of the RCMP. Another in the late sixties was the Bird
commission on the status of women. That for the government of
the day was a conscious effort to look into gender issues, into
issues of equality. Again, right through debates in this Chamber
to this very day I think we have seen the impact of the Bird
commission and the way the government of the day took the time in
the sixties to look at gender issues in a broad way really for
the first time in our society.
Another I would mention is the Donald S. MacDonald commission on
the economic union in the 1980s.
All of those commissions are examples, as I mentioned, from 350
which have had a considerable impact on public policy in Canada
since Confederation.
This government is committed to making sure that the terms of
reference, the budget and the time limits for completion are made
as clear as possible for any commission of inquiry to reduce the
risk of undue delays and expenses.
To conclude, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm for his interest in this important matter.
Commissions of inquiry are an important matter. It is a very
important aspect of life in this country.
I would suggest in considering this motion members should take
note of the need to maintain the balance which exists in the
Inquiries Act that provides the government with the ability to
establish inquiries into public policy matters and not just with
that power to establish them, but with the responsibility to
ensure the efficient conduct of these inquiries.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak in favour of the motion put forth by the
member for Berthier—Montcalm. I am supportive of the general
aim of this motion because it allows the important decision of
whether to revoke the mandate of an inquiry commission to be made
by the elected members of this House rather than in secret by the
government.
The need for such a motion arises from the fact that commissions
of inquiry are often investigating situations or events that took
place as a result of a government action. Leaving the power to
shut down the inquiry in the government's hands clearly puts it
in a conflict of interest.
In addition, members of an inquiry commission are undoubtedly
aware that their mandate could be terminated if they uncover
information that is embarrassing to the government. We have
actually seen that happen already. They have no incentive really
to investigate in such areas. If anything, there is an incentive
to not investigate in areas that might uncover things
embarrassing to the government. How can an inquiry be expected
to carry out its job properly under such conditions, even when
the most conscientious and honest people are conducting that
inquiry?
The government member mentioned that there have been over 300
commissions of inquiry. He gave a few examples of some which
produced reports consistent, I would say, with government policy
of the day and so they were acted upon. The vast majority simply
end up gathering dust like the petitions to this place on shelves
or in vaults somewhere without ever seeing the light of day.
Our constituents send petitions to this place thinking that we
are going to act upon the requests that are in those petitions.
As all members of this House know, they simply end up in the
vaults of this place along with petitions that have been
gathering since the turn of the century with no action ever being
taken and the government taking the position that because it
cannot verify the signatures, the petitions are hardly worth
taking any notice of.
1655
When Reform first came to this place we suggested there be one
day a month set aside just to discuss the largest petitions
submitted to this place. That would at least show constituents
that we care. That has never happened. Similar things happen to
these inquiries. They just disappear.
One of the most recent and glaring examples of the need for
reform, which was mentioned by the member for Berthier—Montcalm,
was the shutting down of the Somalia inquiry by the former
defence minister, Doug Young. It became very apparent from
questions asked by Reform members during question period in the
last Parliament that there really was no legitimate reason for
revoking the mandate of the inquiry and that his only motivation
was to prevent any proof of a government cover-up being made
public.
Surely the power to halt an inquiry like that should not rest
with the minister of the department that is under investigation,
as was the case in that instance. The voters of the minister's
riding administered the ultimate punishment to him in the 1997
election by replacing him. We will never know whether it was
because he shut down the Somalia inquiry, but there was some
reason they removed him from his position.
Unfortunately, the decision to revoke the mandate of an inquiry
commission is only one of many important decisions that are made
behind closed doors by the government, often by order in council.
Take, for example, the decisions made by the subcommittee on
private members' bills which decides whether a bill will be
votable or not. It is bad enough that bills can even be declared
non-votable, let alone the fact that the government can make the
decisions about those bills in secret with no minutes and no
explanation.
Before I rose to speak in the House I called the deputy speaker
in New Zealand, who is a personal friend of mine, to ask him some
questions about a private member's motion I took to the
subcommittee yesterday. In passing, I mentioned that I was
struggling to get the motion made votable. He was aghast that we
still have non-votable bills and motions in this place for
private members' business because in New Zealand they are all
votable.
This motion has been deemed non-votable by the committee. This
creates the suspicion that the government really does not want to
address the issue by seeing the reaction of members to the
motion. It could be quite embarrassing. With this in mind and
in the interests of democracy, this may be an appropriate moment
to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion
votable. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to make the motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
North Vancouver has moved for unanimous consent that the motion
of the member for Berthier—Montcalm be made votable. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for North Vancouver.
Mr. Ted White: Well, no surprises there, Mr. Speaker. As
usual, members from the government side demonstrated their
commitment to democracy in this place by rejecting a votable
motion.
Just as shutting down an inquiry can be used as a way of
protecting the government agenda, designating a bill or a motion
non-votable is an effective way for the government to stop the
advance of a measure that may be popular with the public but may
not fit into the agenda of the government, the Liberal party
line.
In this way the government is able to stop a popular bill from
becoming law without having to go through the embarrassing
process of voting against it. It is a shame that we do not have
the opportunity to have public votes where our constituents can
watch us cast our judgment on such issues.
An especially interesting aspect of this motion is that it would
require a two-thirds majority rather than a simple 50% plus 1.
While I am in favour of the general purpose of the motion, the
two-thirds figure seems to have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily.
It was possibly selected in order to make the motion effective
against the present government, although I find it strange that a
Bloc MP would have chosen this threshold.
Consider for a moment what would happen in this Parliament if
the Bloc wanted to help the government shut down a commission of
inquiry. With the present balance of power in this House, the
Bloc and the government combined would not be able to shut down
that inquiry without the support of at least one other member,
which reduces the influence of the Bloc in that regard.
The second interesting aspect of the percentage chosen is the
present insistence by the Bloc that the result of a 50% plus 1
vote in Quebec is decisive in terms of a sovereignty vote.
1700
Yet it adopts a two-thirds requirement to disband a commission
of inquiry; two-thirds to disband a commission of inquiry, 50%
plus one to disband the country.
That having been said, as I indicated at the beginning of this
speech, I am in favour of the general thrust of the motion. The
appropriate percentage vote is certainly up for discussion.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon, which says
the government should obtain the consent of two-thirds of the
members of this House before revoking the mandate of a commission
of inquiry. I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm for bring the motion forward. I assure him at
the outset of my support of this bill.
Everyone I think knows what is behind this motion and that is
the Somalia commission which the member has upper most on his
mind and our minds. The Canadian peacekeeping mission to Somalia
and the subsequent muzzling of the commission of inquiry by the
Liberal government opposite constitute a sad and tragic episode
in Canadian history.
As we know now, something went horribly wrong in Somalia. Some
Canadian soldiers sent there to keep the peace became the
torturers and murderers of the very people they were sent to
help. I know that only a very few Canadian soldiers were
involved, but we cannot deny or hide under a rug what happened
there. Nor can we deny the ugly strain of racism that showed
itself in at least one of our regiments stationed in Somalia.
This behaviour was appalling enough. What is even more shocking
is the cover-up that occurred, a cover-up that included some of
our senior defence personnel. I think it is worth recalling how
we found out about the tortures and killings in Somalia and about
the cover-up.
We first learned about it through some enterprising news
reporters. I congratulate members of my former profession and I
would single out Michael MacAuliffe from CBC radio for bringing
this unsavoury information to light in this country. We learned
more when soldiers with a conscience blew the whistle as well.
Throughout all this the upper echelons of the military
establishment continued to stonewall and, even worse, to destroy
some documents and tamper with others. We were not getting the
full story on Somalia, so in 1994 the Liberal government named a
commission of inquiry.
Initially the Liberals were great truth seekers and democrats.
One might summarize that they enjoyed having a commission of
inquiry probing into events that occurred during the term of the
previous Mulroney government. We all watched as the commission
began its work. We watched the stonewalling and obfuscation by
military brass and their attempts to avoid having the real story
come out. This subterfuge and these attempts at evasion prolonged
the hearings and frustrated the commissioners.
The commission and its proceedings also began to frighten the
Liberal government. They were now well into their term. They
did not want to see the defence department's dirty linen washed
in public, particularly in the run-up to the federal election of
this last June. We all know what happened. In the run-up the
Liberals ordered the Somalia commission shut down as of June 30.
One of the three Somalia commissioners, Peter Desbarats, a
former distinguished journalist and now an instructor of
journalism at the University of Western Ontario, described that
shutdown as “one of the most brazen cover-ups and denials of
responsibly in the history of this country”. He also called the
Liberal action a “brazen cover-up and a denial of
responsibility”.
Because the inquiry was snuffed out we will never know exactly
what happened in Somalia, and we will never really know who was
responsible for the ensuing cover-up. Exchange of information is
the oxygen of a free and democratic society. By shutting down
the Somalia inquiry the Liberals deprived of that vital oxygen in
this instance.
To the best of my knowledge this is the first time ever that a
federal government has shut down a commission of inquiry in
mid-term. In his remarks earlier the parliamentary secretary,
who had done some extensive research, talked about 350
commissions of inquiry, royal commissions, et cetera, but I did
not hear him say how many had ever been shut down by the
government. I think our research is correct on this.
1705
This is the first time in the history of the country that a
commission of inquiry has been closed down before it finished its
work. It is profoundly undemocratic and it set a very dangerous
precedent for the future.
I want to remind members opposite of just how valuable
commissions of inquiry and royal commissions have been in the
nation's history. In the 1930s, for example, the Rowell-Sirois
commission looked deeply into federal-provincial relations in
this country. That commission did groundbreaking work and its
recommendations set the stage for a social contract that vastly
improved life for millions of Canadians. This was extremely
important to people in the province of Saskatchewan, where I come
from, who had been ravaged by the depression.
The Rowell-Sirois commission was an embarrassment to the federal
government of the day because Ottawa had been sitting back and
appeared content to continue to sit back and allow Canadians to
suffer through that horrible depression. The royal commissioners
had a very different idea and outlined it. As I said, it was an
embarrassment to the government but it certainly did not move to
shut down the commission.
What the Liberals did in this present context in snuffing out
Somalia was self-serving and undemocratic. In political terms
the issues here are arrogance and accountability. The Liberals
believe they were born to govern and think they can do almost
anything and get away with it. They paid for this arrogance,
however, in the last election. Despite pre-election polls that
indicated that it was going to be a cakewalk, they only won a
narrow majority and only one seat in the province of
Saskatchewan. They should be asking themselves why this happened.
This arrogant and unaccountable government has to be contained.
It is for this reason that I support the motion of the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm which states the government should
obtain the consent of two-thirds of the members of the House
before revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.
I want to remark on the hon. member's choice of the 66% figure.
Government appoints a royal commission or commission of inquiry
for a reason. Once appointed the commission should remain free
of interference and be able to complete its work.
This private member's bill states that it should take more than
a simple majority vote to shut a commission down. For this
reason I support the 66% figure used by the hon. member. I also
add parenthetically that a 66% vote would also make a good deal
of sense when we talk about certain referenda in this country
that could eventually break it up.
For the moment I will contain my thoughts on that and simply say
that I support the hon. member's motion regarding commissions of
inquiry and congratulate him for bringing it forward today.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to speak to this motion today. However, it saddens
me that we in this House have to stand here and debate a motion
that seems so obvious. Unfortunately it does not seem obvious to
this government. In fact, it is this government that has made it
necessary to introduce this motion by behaving in an
irresponsible manner.
I am speaking in particular of the Somalia commission inquiry.
As members know, the Somalia inquiry was shut down for political
and personal reasons earlier this year which is what brings us
here today.
Unfortunately closing down the Somalia inquiry proved that it is
not incumbent on the government to do the right thing. In that
instance the government did the wrong thing. I will speak about
Somalia more in a moment.
First I want to tell this House that we do support this motion.
We support this motion for the simple reason that public
inquiries are not called on a whim. Inquiry commissions are
created because there is a public concern that needs to be
addressed. As elected officials in this House, it is incumbent
on all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me
that if there is a good enough reason to begin an inquiry
commission then there is probably a real reason to complete an
inquiry commission.
Of course there might be real reasons to cut short an inquiry.
If I could I would like to outline some of the reasons why a
government, maybe this government, might want to end a public
inquiry. First, the inquiry might start revealing information
the government does not want heard because it might prove
embarrassing.
Second, one of the people being investigated by the commission
might just be the brother-in-law of Canada's vice regal.
Third, there might just be an election looming and the
government might just want to ignore the inquiry and get on with
business or the business of getting re-election.
These are very important reasons to shut down a public inquiry. I
hope members will understand my point.
1710
It is sad to say it was so easy for this government to shut down
Somalia. This motion will ensure that there are real reasons to
shut down a public inquiry. If I could I would like to quickly
outline what was the cost in real terms of prematurely shutting
down the Somalia commission.
Robert Fowler, then deputy minister of defence and now Canada's
ambassador to the United Nations, says that on March 19 he told
minister Kim Campbell and acting chief of staff Richard Clair
that Somali teenager Shidane Arone had died three days earlier as
a result of foul play at the hands of Canadians.
Richard Clair, then acting chief of staff to the minister of
defence, Kim Campbell, says he did discuss the death with Fowler
and vice-admiral Larry Murray, then vice-chief of defence staff,
on March 19 but nobody mentioned foul play.
He said at the time that to him the death was still a mystery.
The right hon. Kim Campbell, then minister of defence, says that
she was aware that there was an investigation going on March 17.
She knows this because she received a briefing note on that day.
In that briefing note the death of the Somali is listed as
perplexing and that Canadian forces had acted appropriately. The
right hon. Kim Campbell also knew from the same briefing book
that Corporal Matchee had tried to kill himself because “he had
roughed him up”, meaning Shidane Arone. The truth was he beat
him to death.
It was not until March 30, 11 days later, that minister Kim
Campbell learned that there was an investigation into the death.
Because the Somalia inquiry was cut short, this has never been
resolved.
The result is that Canada's fine military has been dragged
through the mud and still there is no resolution. The result is
that Canadians have less faith in their public servants as Robert
Fowler remains Canada's ambassador to the United Nations and
Larry Murray has just been appointed ADM in the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Still there is no resolution. The result
is that Canadians do not know what the true story is, and still
there is no resolution.
This is evidence enough that the government lost the right to
unilaterally end a public inquiry. If it is not, I would like to
refer to the words of one of Canada's most respected sons, Chief
Justice Brian Dickson.
In a speech given just last month Chief Justice Dickson said:
“Something is drastically wrong when the public feels that its
military is incompetent and led by an inept, if not corrupt,
hierarchy”. It was not fair to the dead Somalis whose death has
not been fully understood.
Ending the Somalia inquiry early was not fair to the military,
which needed a just resolution. And it was not fair to Canadians
who deserve to have faith in their public institutions.
I want to close today by informing this House that the
government is still scared, but of what I do not know. Less than
two weeks ago I submitted a motion to the defence and veterans
affairs committee.
I would like to read the motion: “That the committee invite the
three Somalia commissioners to appear before the committee to
speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need for a
Vigilant Parliament”'. I am sad to say that this motion was
voted down. What are they hiding?
When this motion is passed, the government will not be able to
hide so easily. Again, we do support this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As is customary, the
last few minutes of the debate are reserved for the mover of the
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
me start by saying that the position taken by the government on Motion
M-20 did not come as too much of a surprise.
To take a different position would have been tantamount for it to
admit it made the wrong decision regarding the Somalia inquiry. It would
also be against their principles, that is to act to cover something up.
If there is one thing that this government does not seek it is to shed
light on certain administrative decisions.
I am not too surprised that the government is not in favour of this
motion.
Something worries me and bothers me to some extent, though, and that is
the fact that, when a member of the official opposition asked that my
motion be made into a votable item, government members said no.
1715
In a way, that both surprises me and does not surprise me, because
we must understand that, with the support of the Reform Party, the NDP
and the Conservative Party, all that would have been required for my
motion to pass would have been the support of five Liberal members. I
can understand that, to be on the safe side, they would rather this
motion not be put forward or not be voted on in this House, just in case
there were five members on their side who would vote against the party
line, as some have done on other issues.
I would like to thank the opposition parties, that is to say the
Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive-Conservative
Party, for truly grasping the meaning and, more importantly, the
significance of this motion.
What I heard was also repeated often and dealt directly with the
objective I was pursuing, namely the legitimacy of the commission, the
importance of knowing the truth, the search for that truth and the
protection of the population. I think that all opposition parties
understood that. It is unfortunate that the government opposite is
refusing to be responsive to an extremely important issue.
The government often says that opposition members are here only to
criticize and do nothing that is positive. I think that this was an
opportunity for the government to acknowledge that an opposition member
was right on an extremely important issue, namely that when a commission
of inquiry is created, considering how important that is, a vote of two
thirds in the House should be required to end the inquiry. This is how
the opposition parties are being thanked.
There is perhaps only one thing that they did not understand, and
I would like to come back to that briefly.
Members from the Reform Party and from the NDP mentioned that they did
not really understand, at least the Reform Party did not, the two thirds
requirement, for two reasons. The first was that this would limit the
influence of the Bloc Quebecois on government decisions because the Bloc
Quebecois does not have enough members to bring about an end to the
commission.
In this respect, it was not undue influence that I was looking for
with this motion, but fairness, and I think that the two thirds rule
would allow to demonstrate clearly that all members in this House wish
to end or to continue an inquiry. My objective was absolutely not to
give the Bloc Quebecois special influence over Parliament. I believe
that with 44 members, we have more than enough to do to represent
Quebeckers properly.
The other point that bothers me a bit more, and I would like
to mention this, is that members of the Reform Party and the NDP
claimed not to understand why it took 66% to terminate a commission
or allow it to continue, while it took 50% plus one in the case of
a referendum for Quebec to become a sovereign nation. I hope that
they said this off the top of their heads, that they did not think
before they spoke.
I believe very sincerely that there is a difference between a
vote by elected officials on an administrative matter, such as the
continuation or termination of a commission of inquiry, whether it
is important, as I was saying, or not, and the democratic vote of
a people. I think there is a fundamental difference between the
decision of a people and an administrative decision.
I did not pluck the two-thirds rule out of thin air. All
members know, if they listen to their constituents occasionally,
that in order for non-profit organizations to be able to change
their by-laws they often require the consent of two-thirds of their
general assembly. This is not a criterion selected out of the
blue, but one that I think is generally recognized in
administrative circles.
However, 50% plus one in a democracy is a criterion that is
also recognized internationally. When a people vote in an election
or a referendum, the majority, the 50% plus one, rules.
There is nothing contradictory about this and I think that, if
members give a little thought to their position, to what they have
just said, they will understand that there is a fundamental
difference between the two, and that the 50% plus one is the
principle that Quebeckers defend each time a referendum is held in
Quebec.
I will close with that. I again offer the government an
opportunity to agree to a vote on this motion.
1720
Once again, I ask the government to agree to put Motion M-20
to a vote, so that we may really know what this House of elected
representatives, this House representing Canada and Quebec, among
others, thinks of the motion I am moving.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that this
motion be made votable.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm has requested that his motion before the House
be deemed votable.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired and the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask for unanimous consent to suspend the House
until the vote at 5.30
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the wish of
the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.22 p.m.)
1730
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It
being 5.30 o'clock the House will resume the sitting and
recognize the House leader of the official opposition on a point
of order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to ask that you consider taking the vote on the amendment
to the concurrence motion on the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the same way as the
House takes votes in Private Members' Business.
While votes on committee reports are normally taken by party,
this report and the amendment contain matters of such importance
to private members that the vote should not be taken by party.
Private members will never make any headway in the House if we
allow this vote to be subject to the determination of the
government whip. He represents the cabinet and we all know that
the cabinet is not very supportive of increasing the influence of
private members in the House.
Prior to taking the vote tonight I ask again that it be taken in
the way that we normally do in the House in Private Members'
Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just so that the
Chair is clear, the House leader of the official opposition has
asked that the vote to be taken on the amendment to the
concurrence motion be taken in the same manner as a vote in
Private Members' Business. Is the Chair correct?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, you are well trained in the
Chair's duties. You are absolutely correct.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion of the House leader of the official opposition. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
consent.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
The House resumed from December 5 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.33 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment to Government Business No. 10.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 50
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 209
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Goodale
| Loubier
|
Sauvageau
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1805
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the
House to proceed to a vote on the main motion of the member for
Elk Island. The motion is that the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be now concurred in.
That report contains some positive changes to the way that
Private Members' Business operates which many members in this
House are anxiously awaiting to be adopted. If we do not move
forward with a vote on this matter tonight, then the report will
become part of Government Orders which would be wrong since it
deals with Private Members' Business.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move that
the 13th report of the procedure and House affairs committee be
now concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
proceed with putting the question on the main motion at this
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
The next recorded division is on the motion at the third reading
stage of Bill C-9.
* * *
CANADA MARINE ACT
The House resumed from December 5 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports
competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for
the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain
harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence
Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime
trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending
and repealing other acts as a consequence, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent for the following. Members who voted on the previous
motion with the exception of the member for Mississauga West who
left the Chamber but I also request that you add the members for
Mississauga East, Mississauga South, Sarnia—Lambton,
Huron—Bruce and Kitchener—Waterloo so that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent
to proceed in the way suggested by the chief government whip?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anybody to
add. The Reform Party will be voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the members of
our party will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of
Christmas, I will be supporting the government on this measure.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
voting against the government on this vote.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Thunder Bay—Nipigon left because he did
not want to vote on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Then I guess the name of the hon.
member for Thunder Bay—Nipigon will not appear on the list.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 203
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 58
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Goodale
| Loubier
|
Sauvageau
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion adopted.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1810
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
(NEWFOUNDLAND)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The next deferred recorded division
is on Motion No. 6 under Government Business.
1820
During the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: Could the hon. member for
Scarborough—Agincourt please indicate whether he is voting yea
or nay on this motion.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to
be recorded as no.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was an
error in the last counting of my vote. I would like my vote to
be recorded as no on the last motion. I would seek the unanimous
consent of the House to have it recorded as no.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the hon. member's
vote will be counted as a no?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 211
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Comuzzi
| Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gallaway
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Lowther
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Peric
| Price
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Steckle
| Stinson
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Vellacott
| Wayne
|
Williams – 53
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Goodale
| Loubier
|
Sauvageau
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an
act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act, be read the third time and
passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The next recorded division is on the
motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-17.
1830
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
18Abbott Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 240
|
NAYS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Mancini
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
| Stoffer
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 18
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Copps
| Goodale
| Loubier
|
Sauvageau
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the process of applying votes earlier I was
registered as voting in favour of Bill C-9. I should be recorded
as not voting on Bill C-9. In the words of the chief government
whip last week, I should be “deleted”.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the Minister of
Finance's name be deleted and the vote on Bill C-9 agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1835
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the
New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs critic, I am deeply
troubled by this government's continuing silence regarding the
royal commission's final report and recommendations. Obviously
there is a pressing need to radically redefine the relationship
between aboriginal peoples and the federal government.
The tragic events of recent years at Oka and Ipperwash prove how
urgently action is needed. As time continues to pass, aboriginal
peoples and other Canadians are left with the impression that
this government has no clear idea of what should be done.
The New Democratic Party has for a long time been calling on the
government to put an end to the dependency and marginalization of
aboriginal peoples. As the royal commission clearly stated, to
recognize our mistakes is the first step toward a new
relationship based on mutual respect.
There is compelling information in the royal commission's report
about systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuses in
residential schools, all in the name of our government's
assimilationist policies.
To make sure justice is done to the victims of abuse would be
one small remedy which would begin an essential healing process.
Formal apologies and compensation were offered to Japanese
Canadians for treatment during the second world war. Now is the
time for apologies to and the healing of aboriginal peoples.
I strongly believe that a true partnership cannot be achieved
without mutual respect and recognition. The royal commission
stressed the importance of recognizing that aboriginal peoples in
Canada form distinct nations and, as such, have a right to
fashion their societies in ways which reflect their values and
cultures. I certainly share this vision.
In that sense, both explicit constitutional recognition and
concrete actions to implement the inherent right to
self-government are essential.
The government finally established a policy regarding
self-government negotiations in 1995. These negotiations are a
first step to replacing the paternalistic relationship
established under the Indian Act, but the unacceptable
requirement of exchanging treaty rights for extinguishment of
aboriginal rights is still part of the negotiation process. How
could we have a relationship based on trust and mutual respect
with such a policy?
I also share the view of the royal commission that aboriginal
governments must be considered as a third legitimate government,
like the provinces and the federal government. Nations are not
like municipalities and this should be reflected in these
agreements.
Aboriginal nations should be able to decide which power they
want to exercise in accordance with the charter of rights and
freedoms and the fundamental principles of the Canadian
constitution.
Given the dramatic situation regarding health, education,
housing and the employment of aboriginal peoples on and off
reserve, these are a matter of priority.
Aboriginal peoples are better placed than anyone else to find
solutions adapted to their own realities and traditions, but the
government must not simply transfer its responsibilities and run.
This situation must be addressed in true collaboration.
Another important aspect of restructuring the relationship is to
establish a fair base for dispute settlement. The NDP is a long
time supporter of an independent land claims commission. Such a
commission should have a tribunal-like decision power and report
its activities to Parliament.
A land base is essential to the exercise of self-government. The
NDP supports the process presently in place for the creation of
Nunavut. It is also important that the Métis people, who have
been ignored by governments since the last century, be recognized
as having full aboriginal rights and a land and resource base to
exercise self-government.
I could go on for hours talking about the changes which I
believe are necessary to correct centuries of abuses and wrong
policies. My colleagues in the NDP certainly share the view that
the very principle of a new relationship based on mutual respect
lies in our ability to listen to aboriginal peoples. History
cannot be forgotten, but we can certainly act on it to create a
better future.
1840
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West on
behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
concerning the government's response to the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples.
The government has every intention of publicly responding to the
RCAP report in the near future. Contrary to the hon. member's
belief, the government has not been silent on this matter. Over
the last year we have been consulting partners while undertaking
an in-depth government-wide review of the commission's
recommendations.
This is a lengthy, serious and important document that cannot be
implemented overnight. The government is committed to making
significant structural change in its relationship with aboriginal
peoples. Therefore, we cannot proceed in isolation. Many
partners, aboriginal people, provincial and territorial
governments and the private sector and other interested parties
are involved in the development of responses to the
recommendations.
The royal commission set out a 20 year program for change. It
would be a disservice to the commission and the aboriginal people
if we responded to the report in haste or without thorough
consultation.
Let me also add that many of the changes recommended by RCAP are
already in place or under way. For example, this government
recently expressed its commitment to the creation of a national
aboriginal health institute, which was called for by RCAP.
This government will not table a response for the sake of
tabling a response. We want to address the many issues raised in
the RCAP report in a manner that is reasonable and that best
serves aboriginal people. We want to table the right response to
address the needs of aboriginal people.
YOUTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this year two reports on sexually exploited youth were
released in British Columbia. In September the Downtown Eastside
Youth Activity Society released a report examining the situation
in the Downtown, Eastside and Strathcona neighbourhoods in my
constituency of Vancouver East.
In November a similar report of the sexually exploited youth
committee of the Capital Regional District released a report on
the situation in Victoria and the surrounding communities.
Both reports came to a similar conclusion. That conclusion is
that we cannot isolate the problem of sexually exploited youth
from other problems that face our communities and our young
people.
In the Victoria study, poverty and homelessness emerged as key
issues. Two-thirds of the youths surveyed reported that they
were afraid of not having enough money to survive. Almost half
of them said that they were living on the street when they first
became involved in the sex trade. One-third reported trading
sexual favours for a place to sleep.
Housing and poverty were also identified as the problem in the
Vancouver study. The difficulty sex trade workers have getting
housing and other services contributes to their isolation and
makes it harder for sexually exploited youths to get off the
street.
Both studies found high levels of drug use among sexually
exploited youth. In Victoria 25% were intravenous drug users. In
Vancouver the figure was 75%.
The most appalling finding of the study was the number of
sexually exploited youth who had been sexually abused prior to
their entry into the sex trade. Between 70% and 95% of youth
surveyed in Vancouver were sexually abused prior to their entry
into the sex trade.
In both studies the picture painted of sexually exploited youth
was one of young people who felt betrayed by society and who were
struggling to survive. These young people are extremely
marginalized.
We understand that there are no quick fixes. We do need
solutions that make it easier for exploited youth to leave the
sex trade and easier for them to survive until they make the
decision to leave.
Among the measures which were put forward in these reports was a
network of safe houses, a witness protection program to ensure
the safety of sexually exploited youth involved in court
proceedings, a change in the age of consent and changes in the
law to allow more successful prosecutions against those who
sexually exploit children and youth. I will be working with the
local community on these particular issues in the New Year.
In addition, there are concerns about how we address some of the
problems facing these youths, including homelessness and the
treatment of drug addiction. Action on the solutions to these
studies identified does require the active co-operation of the
federal government. I would urgently ask the federal government
to examine these reports with a view to assisting with solutions.
1845
The fact is that the federal government has abandoned social
housing. We have not set any targets on poverty. There is no
doubt that increasing numbers of children are now at risk.
Many of the young people in the sex trade have completely lost
faith with all government and with all authorities. We have to
be committed to this. There have been too many reports produced
and they all say the same thing, that increasing numbers of our
young people are at risk.
It is time for this government to take action to provide
housing, to end poverty, to provide better services, to provide
better treatment programs for addiction, to assist these sexually
exploited youth.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the involvement of young people in prostitution is a serious and
tragic problem that has become more evident over recent years as
the hon. member says. I want to thank the hon. member for
bringing this to the attention of the House. It is particularly
troublesome because young people by virtue of their age and legal
status are more vulnerable than adults to danger, exploitation
and abuse.
The federal government is extremely concerned about this
problem, despite what the member said. For this reason it
introduced Bill C-27, which Parliament passed last spring, to
address some of the issues surrounding the involvement of young
people in prostitution.
These new laws are intended to give the police more efficient
means to enforce the offence of obtaining the sexual services of
a person under the age of 18.
In addition to easing the burden of young witnesses in
prostitution related cases, Parliament also created a very severe
penalty for those procurers who use violence or intimidation
against youth involved in prostitution.
One thing is clear, however. Criminal law alone will never
suffice to eradicate child and youth prostitution. It is a
community problem that must be dealt with on many fronts,
including the areas of social policy and education as the hon.
member indicated.
It is only by co-operating together at all levels, federal,
provincial and territorial, that we will be able to tackle the
root causes underlying the involvement of youth. It is
anticipated that in late December, the
federal-provincial-territorial working group on prostitution will
be presenting to the federal, provincial and territorial
ministers responsible for justice, its recommendations on
legislation and policy practices concerning prostitution related
activities.
A status report was presented recently at the federal-provincial
meeting in early December in Montreal. The issue of child sexual
exploitation was a matter of concern to ministers. At the urging
of British Columbia, the Minister of Justice agreed to draft
amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen enforcement efforts
against those who buy sex from children.
Also, the British Columbia and other provincial ministers
further requested to increase the age of consent to sexual
activity to 16. This also will be seriously considered.
Therefore we will be coming back to the House with some
recommendations.
[Translation]
TOBACCO LEGISLATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago, I asked the health minister what he intended to do to help
sports and cultural events, which are facing a transition period that is
way too short. As we know, I was alluding to the harmful and undesirable
effects of Bill C-71.
We supported the objectives pursued in the fight against tobacco
consumption through this legislation. However, we think the means used
to achieve these goals are not appropriate.
The three major producers concerned by the issue of sponsorship
invest $31 million annually, which is nothing to sneeze at, and are
facing an extremely sensitive situation. First, because the act is very
coercive.
The European Union decided to grant a seven-year transition period.
Perhaps tobacco producers must stop sponsoring events. I agree that the
issue must be considered, but it is not true that sports and cultural
events should disappear, and I am referring to major events that have a
very significant impact for large cities such as Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver.
Under the current wording of the act, which we were urged to pass
in the last Parliament, sponsorship by tobacco producers will be
prohibited as of next October.
1850
This is an extremely thoughtless move fraught with consequences,
because you can understand that it is not possible for the Jazz
Festival, the Grand Prix in Trois-Rivières and the open golf
championship to find partners who will invest several million dollars in
sponsorhsip on a notice as short as a few months.
Let me tell you that, compared to what was done elsewhere in terms
of the planning period provided, other countries had concerns similar to
the ones the Minister of Health has about tobacco use and the bad
influence publicity may have on young people.
Yesterday, in a press conference, and again today, we were reminded that
the European Union, which is confronted with a rather similar problem,
has given sponsors seven years to withdraw.
Why is this period so important? Because tobacco companies are the
main sponsors. When $5 million, $6 million or $7 million are invested to
support a sports or cultural event, this has a significant impact and
taking away this support without first finding new sponsors is not an
alternative, and I hope the government will reconsider.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last spring
the government acknowledged the concerns of the organizers of the
Grand Prix of Canada in Montreal and the Molson Indy in Toronto
and Vancouver. These concerns were about the potential impact of
the Tobacco Act's restrictions on the promotion of motor sport
events that receive support from tobacco companies.
The former health minister committed to finalizing before the
end of 1997 consultations with motor sports promoters and to
present amendments that will respect the international standards
concerning the use of logos on cars, drivers, pit crews and
transport equipment. The former minister also stated that this
could be done in a manner consistent with the charter and our
health objectives.
The Tobacco Act gives the government authority to regulate the
production, promotion, labelling and sale of tobacco products and
the access by minors to tobacco products. The act is part of the
federal government's broad strategy to reduce the use of tobacco
in Canada. This strategy includes legislation, research, public
education and tax policy.
The government took the direction of the supreme court with
respect to the freedom of expression that must be accorded the
tobacco industry to communicate with adult consumers. The
government also listened to the concerns of arts and sports
groups and we incorporated a transition period to allow these
groups to find alternative sponsors.
The Minister of Health has been involved in consultations with
affected parties on both sides of the issue. An amendment will
be prepared that will meet the commitment made last spring.
There are three criteria any amendment to the act must be
weighed against: international standards, the charter of rights
and freedoms, and our health objectives. The charter and our
health objectives are fundamental considerations and the issue of
international standards is also important. We must ensure that
any change to the act reflects these considerations and we will
see that this is done.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
November 25 I asked a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development. That question was in relation to the
Indian First Nation in Oromocto.
The issue at hand here is the mismanagement of funds at the
Indian nation. As a result of the mismanagement of those funds
this Indian nation finds itself $1.3 million in debt. Even after
a cash advance of $464,000 it is still going through
difficulties. Some of those difficulties have to be addressed
immediately. I hope when the parliamentary secretary responds he
can tell me that they have been addressed.
Up until now, council members, band staff and others have gone
for five weeks and longer without any pay. Employees of the band
have been laid off, including the band's police constable. The
power bill has not been paid and the health facilities are shut
down. Young people are also suffering. For the young people who
are attending university, some of their tuition and the moneys
they need to continue their education have been cut off because
of this mismanagement.
1855
It reaches beyond the band as well. The Oromocto band with the
assistance of the departments of Indian affairs and northern
development and fisheries have moved into the commercial fishery
and we all support that. It is to make the band self-sufficient.
Everyone of us supports that.
The difficulty is that neither the department of Indian affairs
nor the fisheries department want to take responsibility for
moneys that are still owing the private sector in the fishing
communities in southern New Brunswick. It has left some of those
people in a very difficult position. That $1.3 million the band
owes, if you wish, the moneys which they do not have to pay their
bills, reaches outside the Indian community as well.
The question that I had for the minister on November 25 was to
see if she could expedite a process to relieve this difficulty
both on and off the reserve. That is the point I am making here
this evening as well. I am hoping that can be resolved. I did
mention previously that they did have a cash advance of $464,000
but that still has not paid the bills in the private sector in
southern New Brunswick nor all of the bills on the reserve.
I am hoping that a resolution to this can be found somewhere. I
think it has to be the tightening of the regulations between
departments and the drafting of some of these guidelines when we
attempt to move our native people into the traditional fisheries.
Bureaucrats at both fisheries and Indian affairs and northern
development are making these proposals and drafting this
legislation with the appropriate guidelines but apparently those
guidelines do not work. They fall short of the line and the
reporting procedures do not work.
As a result of this delay we are moving into the Christmas
season of all times to see people going without and they are
hurting both on and off the reserve. I am hoping that the
parliamentary secretary can respond favourably tonight and tell
us that yes indeed those guidelines have been tightened and yes
indeed this problem has been recognized and will be resolved very
shortly.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for
Charlotte.
Financial accountability for federal funds is assured through
the ongoing monitoring of terms and conditions for funding
arrangements and annual audited financial statements.
Officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development have received the Oromocto First Nation audit for the
1996-97 fiscal year. Band members accepted the audit at a duly
convened band meeting on November 24, 1997.
Departmental officials spent the week of November 24, 1997 on
the reserve attending meetings dealing with co-management and the
band's financial position. Officials worked in an advisory
capacity for the First Nation on several issues and met with the
band council. These meetings proved to be very productive. The
department is currently working with the First Nation to assist
in implementing the auditor's recommendations.
While the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has been working with the First Nation through a co-manager, the
current financial situation at Oromocto indicates a need for
outside intervention. The department has contracted the services
of a third party to work with the First Nation.
This will ensure there is the required financial control on the
reserve and accountability to both the department and the First
Nation community members. Further, the third party and a
recovery team from DIAND will assist in strengthening the
capacity of the Oromocto First Nation so that it will be able to
assume control in the long term.
It is also important to keep in mind that First Nations are not
federal agencies. While First Nations do receive and administer
funds from the department for specific purposes, they may enter
into contractual agreements with other parties. These are
private transactions and as such, a First Nation is responsible
for dealing with issues that arise between it and another party.
Departmental officials continue to work with the Oromocto First
Nation to ensure that essential services are being met for
eligible community members.
1900
First nations support the need for audited financial information
for management and accountability purposes. The department
reviews the audits and various reports. The funding agreements
make provision for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to take remedial action where a problem exists.
It is important to note that 82% of first nations and first
nations organizations are managing below the line above which
intervention is required.
FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, over two months ago I rose in the House to ask a
question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the
devastating plight of B.C. fishers and coastal communities.
I asked the minister what leadership he was prepared to show to
assist fishers who lost their jobs, their livelihoods and in many
cases their hope as a result of the impact of the Mifflin plan.
At that time over two months ago the minister said that the
member should be patient. The patience of British Columbians has
run out. The hopes of British Columbians, particularly in
coastal communities and particularly fishers, are fast running
out.
Just this week we heard from the daughter of one of those
fishers. She is a 13 year old girl named Julie Nygren whose
father and mother have been involved in fishing for many years.
She says:
It's hard to understand why our government won't stand up to the
Americans and tell them it isn't fair to take our salmon.
Referring to the minister she says:
It seems that he isn't doing enough for B.C., or for Canada. He's
almost on the American side.
I wonder where the minister is. He is from British Columbia,
yet time and time again when it comes to speaking out for British
Columbia too often he is attacking British Columbia, attacking
the premier of British Columbia, and speaking up for the United
States.
The Community Fisheries Development Centre has put a proposal
before the government, before the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, urging an
active labour market transition program to put the people who
have lost their jobs as a result of the Mifflin plan back to
work. It is not a TAGS program. It is an active labour market
program to find training certification programs to get them
involved in restoring habitat, for example.
Recently the federal auditor general pointed out that the
federal fisheries department had been very lax in standing up for
fisheries habitat. Instead of finger pointing I urge the
government to come up with a program that gets the scientists to
work together collaboratively, federally and provincially, to
restore habitat and put people back to work.
I also appeal to the federal Liberal government, in addition to
supporting the $375 million transition program, to take a strong
and constructive stand on the ongoing concern around the salmon
treaty. I appeal to the government to join the British Columbia
lawsuit. B.C. fisheries minister Corky Evans has appealed to the
federal government to stand up, get involved and speak out on
behalf of the people of British Columbia.
I note that the Government of Canada joined a lawsuit earlier on
behalf of United States tribes. I wonder why it is that it is
not prepared to do the same thing with respect to the people of
British Columbia.
Finally, I appeal to the Government of Canada to speak out
against the proposed seizure of fish boats by the Alaskans and to
recognize that it would be a very destructive step at this very
sensitive time when the eminent persons, Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr.
Strangway, are attempting to arrive at a solution.
The stakeholder process has failed. What we need is political
leadership at the highest possible level: the prime minister's
office, the minister's office and the office of the president of
the United States. We need strong transition programs but we
also need a government that is prepared to stand up to ensure
that the principles of the salmon treaty, particularly the equity
principle, is respected and that B.C. coastal communities and
fishers are able to live with dignity.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first
explain that the B.C. community development program the member
mentions does not refer to a Human Resources Development Canada
program.
1905
The Community Fisheries Development Centre is a non-profit
organization which aims to improve existing skills in fishing
communities and support the development of new skills so that
people displaced from fishing can find new or supplementary work.
The CFDC has delivered many of the government's programs and
services to the fishing industry and industry workers in British
Columbia. Local human resources development officials work
closely with the CFDC on the design and implementation of both
employment assistance and a job creation project. HRDC will
continue to use the services of the centre as the need arises.
From the beginning, the role of Human Resources Development
Canada has been to assist west coast fisheries workers adjust to
the structural changes to their industry and the poor fishing
seasons of the past two years. HRDC has used a strategic
approach to address the challenges of the industry. Together
with local community and industry partners in the fishing sector,
the government has ensured that services offered met the
individual needs of affected workers.
Over the past two years the government has committed over $22
million, funding 129 projects to assist over 3,600 people. While
some of the reasons employment assistance is needed have changed
from the previous two years, the government will continue to work
closely with industry associations to develop and deliver both
short term and long term interventions to help individual fishers
and coastal communities.
Human Resources Development Canada will build on the work of the
past two years to ensure that helping fishing industry workers
remains a priority.
Let me assure the House that all projects have helped improve
the employability of individual workers. Local officials have
received very positive feedback from workers, unions and local
communities about the value of the assistance offered by the
Government of Canada. This was reflected in the recent report of
the Community Fisheries Development Centre summarizing its work
with Human Resources Development Canada.
[Translation]
POWA
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to refer here to a question that I asked the Minister of
Human Resources Development on November 27 last.
To ensure that everyone understands the background, I will remind
the House what that question was:
The minister recently said that BC mine workers were not
interested in a POWA.
Yet, these workers are currently protesting in front of the
minister's Montreal office. They are asking for a modified
POWA.
That is the term I used, “a modified POWA”.
Given the repeated requests made by the former BC mine
workers, will the minister finally see the light and take the
necessary steps to ensure their financial security?
That was my question. Here is what the Minister of Human Resources
Development answered:
<—and he was showing a document—
—to a letter, dated the 27 and signed by the union president,
which I am prepared to table in the House. It says clearly
that the workers want an improved POWA, that they are not
interested in a traditional POWA, only in an improved one.
Therefore this has nothing to do with what the hon. member is
asking for.
Will the minister finally show a bit of compassion and stop playing
with words? I am asking for a modified POWA, and he is saying that what
the workers want is an improved POWA. It is the same thing.
Whether we call it an improved POWA, a modified POWA, I could not
care less, but was is important is that he wake up and that he give to
the BC mine workers what they are entitled to.
I call it a modified POWA for the simple reason that Jean Dupéré,
the president of Lab Chrysotile, is willing to contribute a considerable
amount to the program that existed before, the POWA. Furthermore, Louise
Harel wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell him
that she was to ready to match any contribution that the minister might
make.
The minister is an intelligent man. He has already proven that in
the past. Why is he playing with the intelligence of BC mine workers by
speaking of improved instead of modified?
1910
If I had used the term “improved POWA”, he would have said “They do
not want an improved POWA, they want a modified POWA”. The minister is
not lying, of course I am not allowed to say this here, but he is
playing with words, to a certain extent.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, by showing a letter
from Mr. Laliberté, the president of the workers who were paid by the
hour, tried to undermine his credibility, and I found this extremely
regrettable. What the workers of the former BC mine want is an improved
POWA. If he does not like the word “improved”, he can use a similar
word, I repeat that I really do not care. The fact is that Jean Dupéré
is ready to contribute a substantial amount of money.
As for myself, right now, I want to tell all the BC mine workers
that I will never let them down in their attempt to get an improved or
a modified POWA.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who will be answering later, will show a bit more
compassion than—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Human Resources Development has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has asked this question on a number of occasions. He
knows very well that the government is concerned about the
situation of Black Lake miners and that it was among the first to
come to their aid.
The Minister of Human Resources Development indicated in the
House on several occasions that he has set aside nearly $3
million to help the miners remain active members of the labour
force. The member across the way has repeatedly asked the
government to help the miners through the program for older
workers adjustment. The fact is, and the hon. member knows this,
POWA no longer exists. POWA ended last March because it was not
fair or equitable to all the workers in Quebec or elsewhere.
This cost shared program was only offered in some provinces and
contained so many restrictions that many older workers simply
could not qualify. Furthermore, POWA offered only passive income
support and did nothing to help workers adapt to a changing
labour force.
Instead of continuing to offer such ineffective support, forward
looking governments like ours are focusing their efforts to offer
Canadians active measures which will help workers improve their
skills so they remain in the labour force and can adapt to a
changing work place and a changing economy.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is very sensitive to
the needs of these individuals, so much so that he met with their
representatives on October 29, 1997. The workers informed the
minister that POWA did not meet their expectations and asked that
special measures be taken along the lines of those adopted by the
Government of Quebec in similar situations.
Our government is ready to work with the province and the
employer to help these workers, but it cannot help them through a
program which no longer exists. The government is offering the
workers $3 million worth of active measures including target late
subsidies, self-employment assistance and skills development.
These are the kinds of improvements and the kinds of issues that
we would like to bring forward. We ask the member to bring that
back to the people in his riding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, before
we go to the next member, in a previous dissertation an hon.
member came perilously close to what I would consider to be
unparliamentary language.
I did not intervene at the time, but I want it very clearly put
on the record that even in a back-handed manner we do not refer
to other hon. members as liars under any circumstance.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a growing gap between the health of the economy and the
well-being of Canadians according to a recent report on an
experimental index of social health developed by Human Resources
Development Canada.
This index suggests that since the late 1970s improvements in
the economy have not been matched by increases in the social
well-being of Canadians. On the contrary, it shows that as the
economy has grown Canadian social health has in fact declined.
The index is composed of 15 indicators, some of which apply to
all age groups. Others such as infant mortality, teen suicide,
weekly earnings of adults and poverty among the elderly apply to
specific age groups.
1915
I think this suggests that it is not enough to take care of the
economy and then just assume that the economy will take care of
the welfare and well-being of individuals. The government needs
to be and must be more proactive to ensure the well-being of all
Canadians.
What exactly does the parliamentary secretary of human resources
development suggest be done by the federal government to narrow
this gap and to ensure that, as the economy moves up, so too does
the well-being of all Canadians?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is quite concerned with the social well-being of
Canadians and believes in stimulating public discussion on this
very important issue.
Indeed this was the very purpose of the study mentioned by the
hon. member. The member should note, however, that there was no
consensus on how to best measure social well-being. In fact, the
study itself explicitly rejects the idea that the index on social
health is the only or even the best way to measure social
well-being.
Nonetheless, as the hon. member suggests in his question, the
Government of Canada has a key role to play in social areas and
in levelling the playing field for all Canadians. Canadians
demand that we live up to this responsibility and it is a
challenge we will gladly meet.
This is why, in the Speech from the Throne, it was clearly
stated that budgetary surpluses would be split on a 50:50 basis
over the course of the second mandate, with half going to
investments in social and economic priorities and half going to a
combination of tax reductions and debt repayment.
The fact is this government has brought order to the nation's
finances. We have put our fiscal house in order and in this way
we have regained the ability to address the priorities of
Canadians, that is, our children and youth, our health care and
education, our communities and our knowledge and creativity.
We will continue to make social investments responsibly and with
vigilance in strengthening the economy and working with our
partners to solve the problem of unemployment, particularly youth
unemployment, building a better future for our children by
working with the provinces on a new national child benefit and a
national children's agenda, ensuring Canadians get the education
and skills they need to find jobs and work in new industries and
ensuring that persons with disabilities have the tools they need
to fully participate in society.
This government is committed to working effectively and
efficiently with all its partners to modernize social programs
for the 21st century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)