36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 33
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BUSINESS MAP
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EQUALITY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1405
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2310 ARMY CADET CORPS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASTER SCIENTIFIC STATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETER RUDERMAN
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KATIMAVIK
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOLDEN WEDDING ANNIVERSARY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1410
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELGIN REGIMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EGYPT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG PRICES
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1415
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DAY OF THE CHILD
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1420
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1425
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PHARMACEUTICALS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1430
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONETARY POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG PATENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1440
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILITARY PROCUREMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1450
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1455
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1500
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINT OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1505
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Alcohol Consumption
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | East Timor
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Yukon Weather Station
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1510
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Retirement System
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1515
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1540
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1545
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1550
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1630
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1635
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1640
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1725
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD BENEFIT
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1730
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1750
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1805
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1830
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1835
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC Mine
|
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1840
![V](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 33
![](/web/20061116195142im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Halifax West.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN BUSINESS MAP
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
businesses wishing to compete in the global market often face
hurdles in obtaining timely information on financing, laws and
natural and human resources in the provinces and municipalities
in which they wish to invest.
To address these challenges, the Minister of Industry launched a
powerful new business support web site called the Canadian
Business Map. The Canadian Business Map provides links to over
3,500 municipal, provincial, national and international
government and private sector sites.
The introduction of this new product by Industry Canada shows
that this government recognizes the need to support Canadian
business in this competitive and information age.
* * *
EQUALITY
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberals it seems believe in nothing and therefore can stand for
absolutely everything.
Let us take equality. Liberals say that everyone in Canada is
equal. Their vision of equality however is summed up in George
Orwell's novel Animal Farm where he wrote that all animals
are created equal, only some are created more equal than others.
This represents the Liberal vision for Canada.
Equality is linked with unity and I suggest that Liberals start
thinking about the benefits of true equality.
Yesterday a majority of Canadian premiers added an official
aboriginal position to the Calgary declaration on national unity.
Now if the Liberal government believes in equality and national
unity, I invite it to take a stand here and ensure that
grassroots aboriginals, not just the leadership, have a say in
the Calgary declaration.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you: would not true equality be a tremendous
unifying principle for such a great country?
* * *
1405
2310 ARMY CADET CORPS
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish today to congratulate Sault Ste. Marie's number
2310 Army Cadet Corps on its upcoming 50th anniversary.
Since its establishment in 1948, the corps has given over 5,000
young Saultites a chance to develop leadership skills and improve
their physical fitness. It has also taught them civic
responsibility and respect for Canada's rich military history.
Past and present instructors at the 2310 can take pride in the
fact that they have helped prepare young Saultites for both the
challenges and opportunities of adult life.
It is for this reason that former Sault army cadets have met
with success in many walks of life. It is also for this reason
that the lessons learned by our cadets truly become lifelong
lessons.
I therefore invite all former cadets and their families to
participate in the corps' 50th—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
ASTER SCIENTIFIC STATION
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform you today that the
Aster scientific research station in Saint-Louis-du-Ha-Ha in the
Témiscouata region has received the Michael Smith award. This
award goes to Canadian and Quebec organizations that have
contributed to advancing, promoting and popularizing science.
The station's director, Guylaine Carrière, received the award
at a prize giving ceremony yesterday at the Science World Hot Seat
Theatre in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The achievements of the Aster scientific station are many.
They include the establishment of the Inforoute Globe-Trotter
summer camp in co-operation with the Conseil du loisir scientifique
de l'est du Québec and Industry Canada. There is as well the
Léonard workshop, which has enabled students in mechanical and
electrical engineering at the University of Quebec at Rimouski to
come in contact with an impressive range of engineering fields.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, my congratulations to the
entire dynamic team of the Aster scientific station in the
Témiscouata region.
* * *
[English]
PETER RUDERMAN
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize and
congratulate Mr. Peter Ruderman, a constituent of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for his tremendous volunteer efforts in
assisting a state-run medical fund to make a successful and
efficient transition to a private fund in Kazakhstan.
As a volunteer with the Canadian Executive Service Organization,
Mr. Ruderman shared his expertise on the organization of the
Canadian health care system through a series of lectures and
discussions with health care professionals.
Mr. Ruderman's work is an example of the spirit of volunteerism.
The people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore are proud of his efforts.
Congratulations, Mr. Ruderman.
* * *
[Translation]
KATIMAVIK
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
goals of Katimavik are simple: to allow young people to develop
through community service and to enable them to become aware of
their environment by knowing and understanding Canada better.
In other words, Katimavik allows a young person to share the
life of a Canadian family in a new community, to live differently,
to work for a non-profit organization and, generally, to improve
his or her skills in the other language. A real school of life, I
would say.
The student work exchanges we initiated in Brome—Missisquoi
two years ago must continue and develop along the same lines.
A number of colleagues in this House want to be part of this
student exchange program next summer. I head a committee working
on this, and I invite suggestions from all my colleagues.
If Katimavik could become the vehicle of choice for this
summertime exchange program, I think young people across Canada now
and in the future will be thanking Senator Jacques Hébert.
* * *
[English]
GOLDEN WEDDING ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to extend on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and
all of the people of Canada greetings and best wishes to Her
Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip on the
occasion of their Golden Wedding Anniversary. They were married
50 years ago tomorrow.
It was the 11th year of the reign of King George VI. Britain
was beset by economic problems. Monarchies and democracies in
half of Europe had fallen under the hammer of Soviet communism.
The empire, which Canada helped to defend through the dark days
of the second world war, was coming apart.
At 11.15 on the morning of November 20, 1947, Princess
Elizabeth, then 19 years old, set out from Buckingham Palace in
the Irish state coach from Westminster Abbey where she was given
in marriage by her father, the King, to 25-year old Royal Navy
Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten.
The Leader of the Official Opposition, Winston Churchill,
described the royal wedding of 1947 as “a flash of colour on the
hard road we have to travel”.
I join with all Canadians in marking this bright moment in a
year marked by tragedy for our royal family. God save the Queen.
* * *
1410
ELGIN REGIMENT
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand today in recognition of the Elgin regiment. This
fine military unit has recently received the official designation
as a combat engineering regiment of the 31st Canadian brigade
group.
The Elgin regiment dates back to 1866 with the establishment of
the 25th Elgin battalion of infantry. The regiment was called
out on active service on several occasions and served during
World Wars I and II, earning numerous battle honours. As an
engineering regiment, they now typically will participate in
cleaning land mines and building bridges as well as many other
ways of contributing to our peacekeeping mandate.
History has shown that the members of the Elgin regiment are
used to change. Serving first as an infantry battalion and
subsequently assuming armoured and reconnaissance status, the
Elgin regiment now embarks upon a new chapter in its long and
proud history as the 31st combat engineering regiment, the
Elgins.
I want to congratulate the members of this regiment and say that
I am proud to represent such a committed group of Canadian
citizens.
* * *
[Translation]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the only
Quebec MPs who are opposed to the proposal for independent
arbitration to settle the matter of GST harmonization in Quebec and
the $2 billion in compensation are the Liberal MPs.
All of the Quebec Liberal MPs in this House have spoken out
against the interests of their own constituents, against a
non-partisan process to settle the Ottawa-Quebec dispute, against
a unanimous request by the members of the socioeconomic summit in
Quebec, and against a position expressed by all of the provincial
premiers at St. Andrews.
All of the federal Liberal MPs for Quebec, who are again down
on all fours, have again shown how justified Quebeckers are in
their massive support of the only party devoted to defending their
interests in Ottawa: the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
EGYPT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
like everyone else, I was horrified by the shocking images
transmitted by Egyptian television after the carnage involving more
than 60 innocent tourists in front of the temple of Hatchepsut in
Luxor.
This massacre, for which the group al-Gamaa al-Islamiya has
taken credit, demonstrates just how irresponsible its perpetrators
are and, in the long run, accomplishes nothing except to push back
peace efforts.
I wish to express our sincere condolences to the relatives of
the victims, and to assure the Egyptian people of our support in
their fight against terrorism.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the beginning of the APEC summit in Vancouver. APEC
represents the fastest growing market in the world with a
combined GNP of over $22 trillion.
Many of Canada's trade links to the Asian markets have been
established by immigrants residing in B.C. Their efforts have
helped B.C. emerge as the eighth tiger of the Pacific.
As host, Canada has the opportunity to showcase Vancouver, North
America's third busiest port, which boasts a booming economy and
state of the art communication and transportation links. However,
if Canada is to truly prosper, this government must take the
necessary steps to remain competitive.
This government must lower personal, corporate and payroll taxes
which deter investment, growth and job creation. It must break
down interprovincial trade barriers which stifle growth and
inhibit international competitiveness.
There is no question that Canadians across the country will
benefit from increased trade with Asia-Pacific. The question is,
will the government be proactive, reduce taxes and prove to the
world that Canada is indeed open for business.
* * *
DRUG PRICES
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, skyrocketing drug costs are threatening the future of
medicare and putting an impossible burden on Canadians who need
medically necessary drugs.
Liberal policies are to blame. Instead of a responsible
program, what do we have, a complete flip-flop on Bill C-91 and
20-year patent protection for big brand name drug companies, a
whitewash of last spring's review of Bill C-91, the elimination
of the drug research bureau and now evidence that Industry Canada
edited the Ernst & Young audit of research commitments made by
PMAC.
Who is in charge? Why is the big brand name drug company
running this country? Today, on behalf of seniors everywhere and
Canadians who are concerned about the future of medicare, we call
on this government to ensure need, not greed, is the basis of
drug pricing policy in Canada.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government and the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans have obviously forgotten about the people in Atlantic
Canada who want to improve the economy of their local fishing
communities.
For the past six months, the Canso Trawlerman's Co-op Limited
has been actively pursuing an Enterprise Allocation to put 60
people in Nova Scotia back to work.
Since May of this year, these hard-working individuals in the
co-op have made every effort to get the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to meet with them in Canso, one of Atlantic Canada's
oldest and most historic fishing communities.
Unfortunately, the minister has refused these repeated requests.
Co-op members have nevertheless met with the minister's former
caucus colleague, who is now the current Premier of Nova Scotia,
in efforts to gain support for the co-op's cause.
1415
On behalf of the Canso Trawlerman's Co-op, I urge the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans to meet with the co-op members from Canso
to listen to their concerns and address these proposals in a
direct and positive manner. Time is of the essence. I bring
this to the House and I will hand deliver it to the minister
today.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DAY OF THE CHILD
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
the people of Canada will be marking the fifth National Day of the
Child.
This is an opportunity for us all to focus on the important
place children hold in our society. It is our responsibility as
members of Parliament, and in a number of cases also as parents and
grandparents, to ensure that each of our children in Canada does
not live in poverty, die of hunger, fall victim to sexual abuse, or
be exploited for the purpose of pornography or prostitution.
[English]
The National Crime Prevention Council which our government
established during its first mandate has provided us with
blueprints for developing and implementing prevention strategies
that invest in children and our youth.
[Translation]
I would like to draw particular attention to the exceptional
work done by the volunteers and administrators of the NGOs in my
riding of Ahuntsic, among them Alternatives Jeunesse, Maison
Buissonière, and the Centre Mariebourg. Speaking on behalf of all
the children of Ahuntsic, my congratulations to them all.
[English]
We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to leave this world
a little better. We do not own this world, we are only its
keepers for future generations.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for weeks Canadians have been enduring the threats and
counter threats of strikes and lockouts at Canada post. The
government says that negotiations will produce a settlement. But
last night we got the chief negotiator for Canada post and the
negotiators for the union wrestling on the floor in Hull. They
are going to be on WWF next.
My question to the Prime Minister is, why does the government
not get off the sidelines and legislate a labour dispute settling
mechanism for Canada post that works?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parties are discussing and apparently there was a
lively meeting yesterday. Those things happen once in a while.
But I think it is in the best interests of the workers that there
is a system of negotiated settlement, and we do hope there will
be one. They have a right to have a union and the right to
negotiate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, strikes, lockouts, even back to work legislation are
traditional instruments of the past and they do not work. None
of these are protecting the long term consumer interest and the
delivery of the mail.
We are asking the government why it does not use some creative
thinking to change the labour dispute settling mechanism, like
final offer arbitration. It used that in the dock strike in
1994. It is in the Transportation Act.
My question is, why will the government not legislate final
offer arbitration for Canada post?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, mostly because final offer arbitration does not work.
The government wants a collective agreement and it wants both
sides to sit down.
As the Prime Minister indicated, there was a lively meeting last
night. We want them to settle down and come up with a collective
agreement that will be better for CUPW, the post office and for
the people of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if final offer arbitration does not work, why is it the
mechanism that is included in the Canada Transportation Act to
settle disputes between shippers and the railways? Why is it in
its own legislation?
My question. If the government does not want to intervene in
the bargaining process, why does it not fix the process? Why
will the minister not act in the long term public interest and
legislate a long term solution to Canada post labour problems?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, collective agreements under the federal jurisdiction
have worked over 94% of the time. That is what the government
wants, a collective agreement that will be better for the people
of Canada.
That is what the government supports. We want them back at the
table to come up with an agreement that will serve us all well.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
first sitting day of this Parliament, I asked the Prime Minister if he
would be consulting Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration since Lucien
Bouchard was not going to. He said maybe.
I asked the same question a few weeks ago and was told that the
government was not planning anything in this regard.
When will consultations start in Quebec? Or is the Prime Minister
afraid of stepping on Lucien Bouchard's toes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
process is currently under way to hold consultations in all the other
provinces. We are waiting to see what the outcome will be. If it is
appropriate to consult Quebeckers afterwards, we will see to it.
But for the time being we think it best to wait and see what the
other provinces will decide. Then we will make a decision. We are not
saying that we will not hold consultations in Quebec but at the same
time we are not saying that we will.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions admitted something that ordinary Canadians
have always known. He said that the Liberals are “very familiar
with the fact that our income taxes are very high”. This is
quite an admission from the Liberals.
Now that we all know our taxes are very high, when will the
government do the responsible thing and bring in some tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the 1997 budget the government brought in $2 billion
worth of tax relief. We brought in tax relief for students. We
brought in tax relief for the physically disabled. We brought in
tax relief for poor families with children.
The real issue before the Canadian people is why the Reform
Party opposed that tax relief to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation said
we should be pleased because negotiations had resumed between the two
sides. Later in the evening, while the union announced that talks had
officially resumed, Canada Post officials were saying that negotiations
had broken down. We also know that a rather disgraceful incident took
place yesterday.
Can the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation tell
the House what has happened since yesterday to make things go sour?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we deplore the incident that
occurred late last night.
This morning, I asked the chairman of Canada Post to provide me
with a report, which I received around noon. From now on, the
corporation's director of labour relations, Raymond Poirier, will lead
the employer's negotiating team.
As for the negotiations, efforts are currently being made to get
the process under way again. Just before the incident, yesterday,
negotiations were going ahead. I hope they can be resumed this
afternoon.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
happened yesterday is that while the union was announcing that
negotiations were resuming, management was refusing to answer the
telephone, to talk to journalists and to discuss with the union.
Could the minister convey a message to his new negotiator and tell
him to stop these delaying tactics, to sit down and to negotiate in good
faith for once?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the two sides negotiated
continuously for over 24 hours.
Yesterday, in the evening, an incident which we deplore took place.
Since this morning, efforts are being made to get the two sides back to
the table.
I hope that by the end of the day they can go back to the table and
negotiate. The government's objective is to have a negotiated collective
agreement.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Since August, the minister responsible for Canada Post has
been warning the union that special legislation would be brought in
if there was a strike. This week again, the minister said that the
union's tough stand would result in the privatization of Canada
Post.
Will the minister admit that by promising back to work
legislation in the event of a strike, he is guaranteeing the
employer's bad faith and making it impossible to bargain in good
faith?
1425
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never promised back to work
legislation or privatization, on the contrary.
What I have been saying since last week, since there has been
the possibility of a strike or lock-out, is that right now Canada
Post is losing in excess of $10 million daily.
Clearly, if this goes on for several weeks, we will then have
a very serious situation on our hands and tough action will be
necessary. The government will assume its responsibilities.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not see
that his obvious bias in favour of the employer is making him the
leading cause of the present breakdown in negotiations?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am the minister
responsible for Canada Post. My responsibility is to make sure
that all Canadians receive the best postal service possible.
That is therefore what I am doing and I hope that the
opposition parties will be able to work with the government and ask
either the union or Canada Post to return to the bargaining table
and work out a contract.
* * *
[English]
PHARMACEUTICALS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
By the year 2000 Canadians will have paid over $600 million
extra for their prescription drugs, a penalty imposed on
Canadians because the government caved in to the multinational
drug lobby.
For 18 months the industry minister has kept reports of these
extra secret costs while the minister whispers sweet nothings
about a national pharmacare program.
Could the industry minister explain why the government always
sides with the big multinationals instead of taking care of
people who need drugs, the poor and the sick?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the drug patent policy is a controversial one. It was
reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons during the past
winter.
The purpose of the policy, from our point of view, is quite
simple. We will respect our international commitments under the
WTO to give 20 year patent protection for intellectual property,
not just for drugs but for all intellectual property.
We will try to endeavour to ensure that the moment the patent
protection ends mechanisms will be in place to ensure that
alternative drugs are there.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
intervention of the government and the minister into the work of
the parliamentary committee was a disgrace to democracy.
Canadians are paying heavily with their health and with their
pocketbooks for the minister's refusal to overhaul our drug
patent laws.
Will the government make it a priority to look after the weakest
members of our society instead of siding with the multinationals
which contribute to the coffers of the governing party? Or, did
the minister take an oath to serve the interests of the
multinational drug companies instead of the Canadian people?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised the question is in order, but I think it
is important to note that what has the NDP inflamed is really
only a very small portion of the total costs of health care in
the country, namely the differential that may exist between
patented medicines and non-patented medicines.
They obviously have no interest in respecting intellectual
property. Nor are they making any arguments based upon the laws
that stand, the regulations as they exist. Nor have they made
any practical, lawful suggestions to us that we could—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We are aware that the government's own actuary has reported that
the EI premiums need not be any higher than $2, as opposed to the
government's rate of $2.90. We know the government has
circulated this report to Canada's business community.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development share the same
information with the House of Commons today? If not, why not?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure to
what information the hon. member is referring. If she shared it
with me I could give her a more appropriate answer.
This is a very important file for the government as well as for
the Conservative Party. We could have a good discussion on this
very important issue.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
shocked to hear the minister say he does not know about his
actuarial report. Everybody else knows about it. The Canadian
business community knows about it.
High payroll taxes kill jobs. The government is refusing to
accept this and the advice of its own actuary which shows that EI
premiums could be cut significantly.
Will the minister, based on the actuarial report, reduce the EI
premiums immediately and table the report? And I have it, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: Let us not use any props in the House. If
the minister wants to answer the question, he may.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I did not know the
member was referring to that very public report, if the member
was asking for it. I thought the member was referring to a more
specific piece of information.
If the member is referring to that report, I can say the
government has already reduced the EI premium four times. Her
government was about to put it higher once again. That is what
it wanted. Thank God we have been around for awhile.
* * *
LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when it
comes to eating, even the snack pack cannot compete with Ted
Weatherill, the chair of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Mr.
Weatherill spent $148,000 on snacks in his first eight years as
chair. Yet the Liberal government is waiting six months in
investigation before it will consider his dismissal.
How many more $733 lunches for two in Paris does the minister
need before he cans this half million dollar man?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general will be reporting to the House on
the issue in the next couple of weeks. Until then I have no
comments on the issue.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at the Vancouver APEC summit the government is hosting among
others leaders from Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and China.
Canadians want the Minister of Foreign Affairs to loudly and
publicly raise our concerns about human right abuses with these
countries, not behind close doors but loudly and publicly.
While in opposition this minister was talking the talk. Now is
the time. Will he walk the walk?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I already reported to the House, last summer
specifically we were in Jakarta. We raised all the issues the
hon. member is concerned about.
As a result of raising those issues we came to an agreement to
establish a human rights dialogue. The first colloquium under
that dialogue was held two or three weeks ago for East Timor. The
questions concerning prisoners were all raised. For the first
time we had a number of NGOs involved.
I think that shows real constructive progress in terms of
dealing with human rights with Indonesia.
* * *
[Translation]
MONETARY POLICY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although the inflation rate has dropped to 1.5%, the Governor of the
Bank of Canada still fears the inflation ghost and has announced that he
will increase interest rates. Yet, the mandate of the central bank is
clear: it also has to look after employment, not just inflation.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. What is the minister
waiting for to call Governor Thiessen to order and force him to fulfil
the employment mandate provided for in the Bank of Canada Act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is well aware that interest rates are really a reflection of
inflation. It is necessary to reduce expectations. In fact, in the last
three weeks, long term rates have gone down.
So the question is based on a false premise. Interest rates are
down, and it is because of this government's monetary policy.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
a revelation!
Has the Minister of Finance, who during the 1995 referendum
campaign was saying that a sovereign Quebec would be in a losing
position because it would have no control over monetary policy, just
admitted candidly that even he has no control over monetary policy?
Is the Minister of Finance aware that his lack of monetary policy
in the last three years is hurting the unemployed in Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
member is so concerned about the economic situation in Quebec, perhaps
he should read the study by the French Ministry of the Economy, which
calls for a temporary lifting of the referendum burden.
1435
Perhaps he will listen to the French people who blame the whole
referendum question and the political uncertainty in Quebec for Canada's
high interest rates.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am going to ask another question on Kyoto today because we are
still waiting for real answers from the government. Before I ask
it, however, I am going to give the government's response, or at
least the tired old comments it has made to avoid giving a real
answer.
The environment minister will say what is Reform's plan, which
is typical of a government that has run out of ideas. Or, the
minister will say they are taking this very seriously, which is a
nice thought but does not answer the question I am about to ask.
The real question Canadians want to know is will the government
raise taxes to pay for the Kyoto agreement.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government will work with all
partners in Canada to implement a plan to deal with the issue
seriously, the real issue of climate change. There will be a
package of measures on the table and there will be a consensus in
the country about what we do.
What will the Reform Party do? Everybody in the country would
like to know. Their gases could be reduced.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we still
do not know what the government will do in Kyoto, and it is 13
days away.
We know two things, though. The government will sign a binding
agreement. It wants to be greener than the U.S. The Prime
Minister wants to be greener than the U.S. The minister will not
tell us what she will do and what the promises will be.
The first thing we want out of the government is a commitment on
how much the CO2 reductions will be. Next we want tabled in the
House what it will cost Canadians.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the conference in Kyoto the
federal government will make known its targets and timetables.
We will work out an implementation scheme with all of our
partners after Kyoto. All Canadians will be engaged in the issue
of reducing climate change.
Many of the measures that can be taken will be beneficial to the
economy of Canada. They will help all Canadians, not only in
their pocketbooks but also in their health.
* * *
[Translation]
DRUG PATENTS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this spring
the Standing Committee on Industry submitted its report on its
examination of Bill C-91 on the protection of drug patents. The
government is preparing its response to the report.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Could he confirm
that the government has no intention of shortening the 20 year
period drug patents are protected, by amending neither the act nor
the regulations, as the committee recommends in its unanimous
report?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said earlier and I confirm that we will honour our international
commitments. We will, in other words, honour the 20 year period
patents are protected.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear that, because according to some sources quoted in
today's papers, the Minister of Health wanted to change the
regulations on drug patents.
Would the Minister of Industry guarantee once again that the
term of drug patents will in no way be reduced by amendments to the
regulations?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the aim of the regulations was to give 20 years of protection to
drug patents and not to extend or lessen the protection. Any
changes to the regulations will be to—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The
hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are very concerned about the devastating effects of
alcohol and drug addiction on our native population.
1440
The auditor general again confirms the vastness of this problem.
For 10 years Health Canada has known of and done nothing to
correct the widespread abuse of easy access to prescription
drugs.
Given the inaction by this government, is it really the health
minister's policy to pay for and condone the illegal use of
prescription drugs within our aboriginal communities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member should know is what we said three weeks ago
when the auditor general's report was tabled, namely that we have
been at work in Health Canada for some years putting in place
across the land technology to ensure that pharmacists will be
able to ascertain that every prescription presented is legitimate
and should be filled.
That will be in place by the end of this calendar year. It will
save money and, more important, it will save lives.
* * *
TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's previous minister of health made two conflicting
promises. First in the interest of Canadians' health he promised
to ban sponsorship advertising of cigarettes. Then later under
pressure from the tobacco lobby he promised to reverse that ban
for auto racing events.
Which of these two promises does the current health minister
believe to be more in keeping with the obligations of a minister
of health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that this is a government that
respects all its commitments.
That includes first of all—
Some hon. members: GST, GST, GST.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health has about 15
seconds.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, our commitment to public
health in reducing the levels of smoking, especially among young
people, is well expressed in the Tobacco Act. We are proud of
that legislation. We will soon be spending effort in a
co-ordinated way across the country to educate young people about
the perils of smoking, to influence them in the choices they make
about—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
* * *
[Translation]
MILITARY PROCUREMENT
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence.
Yesterday, the minister confirmed that the government still
intended to purchase several billion dollars worth of military
equipment, such as tanks, submarines and so on.
Since there have already been special debates in this House on
significant issues, such as the deployment of troops to Bosnia,
Haiti and other places, why does the government stubbornly refuse
to hold a special debate on this issue, when several billion
dollars are at stake?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): These purchases, Mr. Speaker, have been around for
some period of time and certainly there has been every
opportunity for the opposition to ensure that discussions were
held and questions were in fact put on all these issues.
These matters are a point of making sure that we get the kind of
equipment, the kind of tools that our Canadian forces need to be
able to do their job.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent newspaper article quotes Lieutenant-General
Pike of the British army. He believes that the Canadian military
is not capable of engaging as a fighting force.
Can the Minister of National Defence confirm that the Canadian
military is indeed capable of any mission that it is asked to
perform? Will the Minister of National Defence tell General Pike
that his attitude is not suitable to lead a high profile campaign
in Bosnia and reaffirm that the Canadian military is second to
none in the world? Tell General Pike to take a hike.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): You bet, Mr. Speaker.
1445
When I was in Bosnia recently, I met with General Ramsay, a
British army officer who was in charge of the sector that the
Canadian troops are serving in. He had the highest praise for
the capability, the professionalism and the performance of the
Canadian troops in Bosnia and their humanitarian work. I think
that is more indicative of what the British army thinks.
In terms of Lieutenant-General Pike, it seems he does not think
that women can reflect—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey North.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some
months ago, the Minister of Justice tried to score points by
expressing an interest in improving the rights of victims. She
stated: “We have not done enough to accommodate the interests of
victims within the criminal justice system”.
On October 7 she mocked a statement from this side of the House
concerning a murdered woman by saying “and blah, blah, blah,
blah”. Now she has suggested an ombudsman for crime victims.
Will this proposed appointee actually be authorized to enforce
victims rights or will this just be another case of powerless
blah, blah, blah Liberal patronage?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member that this government takes very seriously the issue of
victims and victims rights. In fact, that is why I intend to
discuss this important issue with my provincial counterparts in
Montreal a week and a half from now.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the firearms act is being implemented in 1998. Manitoba
and three other provinces will not use provincial resources to
force law abiding citizens to register their recreational
firearms. This leaves the federal RCMP.
How does the solicitor general expect an understaffed,
underfunded RCMP to register millions of dastardly duck hunters?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP is fully prepared to do its job with regard to
firearms legislation. The regulations are being reviewed now and
the RCMP is fully prepared to do its job.
* * *
PORTS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
by now most of the members of this House and I am sure the
Minister of Transport have heard the disturbing news reports of
allegations made by Mr. Bruce Brine, the former director of the
Halifax ports police. He has made serious allegations of
corruption and fraud by senior officials within the Canada ports
police.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the
minister tell the House how much the minister knows about these
allegations, when he knew and what steps his ministry and Canada
Ports Corporation have undertaken to address these most—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by Ports Canada that there have
been allegations of wrongdoing involving the police detachment at
Halifax. This is now being looked into by the RCMP. Beyond that
I have no further information.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting that the minister has no further information.
On June 17, 1996 Mr. Brine met with senior officials of the
Canada Ports Corporation. At that meeting he detailed his
allegations of corruption.
Either the minister does not know about these allegations or someone
in the corporation saw fit not to tell him. Will the minister
assure the House that these allegations of criminal wrongdoing
will be thoroughly and impartially investigated and not covered
up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more thorough and impartial
investigation than the one being conducted by the RCMP. It
will take all these matters into consideration.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in 1995 the Department of Finance conducted a study on the impact
of the increase in CPP premiums between 1986 and 1995. The
department estimated that the increase in CPP premiums would lead
to a loss of some 26,000 jobs.
Could the Minister of Finance inform this House how many jobs
will be lost this time with a 70% CPP increase in premiums and is
there a job impact analysis?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the study demonstrates is that as a result of the
confidence that will be engendered in the Canada pension plan and
the confidence that workers can have it will be there for them
and over the long term this will lay a very strong foundation for
increased employment.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian workers had better keep their eyes open on this one.
[Translation]
Until now, the Minister of Finance has shown no interest
whatsoever in reducing employment insurance premiums. If these are
not reduced, the employment insurance account will have a $7
billion surplus, a $7 billion tax on jobs. When Canada pension plan
contributions are raised, still more jobs will be jeopardized.
1450
Would the Minister of Finance commit, once and for all, to
offset the increases in pension plan contributions by reducing
employment insurance premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Minister of Human Resources Development has already indicated,
we have cut employment insurance contributions every year since we
came to power. It must be pointed out that they were raised for
three years during the previous government.
At the same time, looking at CPP contributions, I can state
that it is true that, along with the provinces, we will be forced
to raise them. It is too bad that the previous government did not
act in 1984 when there was still time.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the implementation of the Nunavut government will take place on
April 1, 1999, and as part of the land claim agreement the public
service is to be staffed by a 50% Inuit workforce.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell
the House what steps her department is taking to ensure that
Inuit are full participants in the public service of Nunavut?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the creation of the new
territory of Nunavut is a priority for this government, as it is
for the people of the Eastern Arctic. It is our belief that the
success of this initiative will be dependent on the degree to
which Inuit people are part of the administration of that
government. To that end a unified human resource strategy has
been signed with all the parties.
I had the benefit of travelling with the hon. member to Iqaluit
to announce a $40 million federal investment to that strategy. To
date 800 Inuit people have received training under this program.
I know that in April 1999 we will welcome them to their
responsibility.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the 1997-1998 supplementary estimates, ACOA will
receive an extra $22 million for government handouts. That is in
addition to the pre-existing $250 million for government
handouts.
Last month former Liberal premier Frank McKenna stated that the
answer to the Atlantic problem is not more government handouts but
tax cuts for business. And the next day the prime minister agreed
by saying that the problem cannot be solved by sending money. So
why now the extra $22 million in government handouts?
Has the prime minister simply had a change of heart or is he
trying to buy his way back into the hearts of maritimers?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his
figures from. What the prime minister said in the Atlantic
visions conference was basically that the government supports
Atlantic Canada in every way and will do the best it can for its
recovery.
With respect to ACOA, I can spout a lot of statistics here but I
want to inform the House that in its relatively short existence,
ACOA has provided just short of 100,000 jobs, and I think that
speaks for itself.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
We know that the Americans are challenging the price of
Canadian milk for export. The World Trade Organization was hearing
the American complaint this morning. This is a major issue for
Quebec and Canadian dairy producers.
Does the minister intend to vigorously defend the dairy
producers of Quebec and Canada by taking a clear and firm stand in
the face of American claims?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes I will confirm that we will defend
the Canadian dairy industry vigorously. The government did that
successfully when the United States challenged us in the NAFTA
panel. We defended the industry vigorously. We succeeded then
and we will defend the industry vigorously today and in the
future.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House the minister of public Works
passionately said that he wanted a negotiated settlement between
Canada Post and CUPW. Last night the parties were that close to
a collective agreement.
Also last night Eda Irwin, the spokesperson for Canada Post,
then revealed to the press that she does not have a mandate to
negotiate with this union.
What is going on?
1455
For the sake of all Canadians and Canadian business, when will
this minister get off his chair and negotiate properly and give
Canada Post the mandate it requires to negotiate?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has a
mandate to negotiate and to have a negotiated settlement. As the
hon. member said, last night they were so close, and that is
true. We hope they can go back to the table and reach a
settlement.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we have received dozens of calls from Canadians who depend on
government assistance cheques but who have not received them this
month. One gentleman said that he did not have enough money to
purchase insulin because his EI cheque did not come. Last night
a lady from St. John's had to rush her son to the hospital but
did not have enough gas to get there.
How does the minister plan to immediately deliver these urgent
cheques, or is he hoping that Santa Claus will deliver them?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have looked very
carefully at this situation. Most of the cheques that my
department is delivering are going through the post. We made an
agreement last night with Canada Post which the postmen have
accepted to deliver all delayed cheques today and tomorrow in
case there is no agreement. That has been done.
As a responsible government and as a responsible department this
is what we have done because of the possibility of a strike. We
have organized 400 sites across the country for distribution in
case of such a strike.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Despite the efforts of others to dictate Canadian
foreign policy, Canada continues to develop a relationship with
Cuba.
Can the minister describe the latest developments in this
relationship and explain how both countries will benefit?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his timely question. In a
series of these bilateral agreements we signed a joint
declaration with the Cuban government which includes a series of
meetings on human rights issues. We have had very good meetings
on women's rights and children's rights. We are working with the
Cubans on developing a covenant signing for the United Nations,
another agreement on terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, you have received a delegation of Cuban
parliamentarians to help shape the legislative system and
legislative reforms in that country. It shows real progress in
constructive engagement.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, I recall a
conversation with a Hong Kong veteran. Tom spoke of the
brutality and torture he endured at the hands of the Japanese
army during enslavement. I find it unconscionable that our
government 52 years later has still not insisted that Japan, one
of the richest countries in the world, provide proper
compensation for this enslavement and forced labour.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government act now
for our Hong Kong veterans' dignity and arrange proper
compensation?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member in the sense of the
sacrifice the Hong Kong veterans made. Efforts have been made
for extra contribution but up to now they have not been
successful.
Hong Kong veterans are compensated by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in a fair manner. Depending on the circumstances of
their involvement in some cases they can get up to almost
$60,000.
* * *
[Translation]
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
read today in La Presse that the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration apparently misled 430 of its Quebec employees by
providing documents containing false information about work
reorganization.
How can the minister justify the questionable practices, which
have no precedent in the illustrious Canadian public service, of
her senior officials with respect to Quebec public servants?
1500
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, like many other federal departments, has undergone a
profound restructuring of its services on a nation-wide scale, and
each of the regions has gone about attaining the objectives of this
restructuring in its own way.
That having been said, certain employees dissatisfied with the
approach taken by the Montreal office have appealed to the Public
Service Commission and we intend to respect its decision.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, that marks the end of Oral
Question Period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw members' attention to the
presence in the gallery of the 1997 recipients of the Governor
General's literary awards.
[English]
These awards celebrate the achievements of our writers,
illustrators, translators and publishers and our testimony to
their talent.
I am going to introduce them by calling out their names. I
would appeal to you, my colleagues, to wait until I have finished
all their names and then I would like you to receive them on
behalf of the people of Canada.
My colleagues, the 1997 Governor General's literary awards
recipients are Jane Urquhart, Aude, Ian Ross, Dionne Brand,
Pierre Nepveu, Rachel Manley, Roland Viau, Howard Scott, Marie
José Thériault, Kit Pearson, Michael Noël and Barbara Reid.
These are our literary award recipients.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, following question period, I
am going to host our laureates in my chambers. I invite you all
to come and meet them at an informal reception.
* * *
POINT OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order that arises out of question period.
The Minister of Industry said in regard to a question asked by my
leader that he wondered why the question was in order.
In your wisdom, you did not rule the question out of order. That
is only appropriate seeing that the question that my leader asked
was exactly the same question that the current Prime Minister
asked on April 1, 1993—
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his information.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at
the International Conference on Governance for sustainable growth
and equity held at the United Nations headquarters in New York
July 28 to July 30, 1997.
* * *
1505
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today.
The first petition concerns the family. 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.
They also point out that the Income Tax Act does not take into
account the real cost of raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue tax initiatives to assist families who choose to provide
care in the home for preschool children.
ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition concerns the issue of alcohol consumption and
misuse.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems and, specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and
alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding
alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of
all alcoholic beverages.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions which I wish to present to the House.
The first petition totals 12 pages and contains over 300 names.
It has to do with the definition of marriage. It calls upon
Parliament not to change the definition of marriage in future
legislation.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is 23 pages in length and comes from the lower
mainland. It deals with the age of consent.
The petitioners ask that Parliament raise the age of consent
from 14 years of age to 16.
HEALTH
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
next petition is made up of 403 pages and contains some 9,000
signatures from people in British Columbia.
The petitioners ask that the government stop giving herbal,
alternative medicine people a hard time. They ask that they be
allowed to do their work. They have been doing it for thousands
of years so the petitioners request they be left alone.
I agree with these petitioners and it is a pleasure to present
these petitions on their behalf.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by Calgary residents
regarding the upcoming Kyoto conference on greenhouse gas
emissions.
A local newspaper gathered 6,500 signatures from people who
reject any tax that will drastically affect Alberta's energy
industry.
The petition which I am now presenting exhibits similar
concerns. It calls for a further review of this issue so that
effective solutions and a better definition of cost obligations
might be accomplished.
The petition urges the government not to sign any agreement
until these concerns are addressed.
EAST TIMOR
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition containing 350 names from Quadra
Island and the nearby area in my riding.
The petition states that despite the UN resolutions affirming
the rights of the East Timorese people to self-determination, the
Indonesian military has continued to occupy East Timor, inflicted
violence and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of East
Timorese.
The petitioners ask that the government support a UN referendum
for an independent East Timor, impose a ban on the sale of
military equipment to Indonesia and end all government funding
for the promotion of trade with Indonesia as long as it continues
to illegally occupy East Timor.
YUKON WEATHER STATION
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present to the House.
The first petition is from residents of the Yukon territory.
Our weather station, the only weather station in all of northern
Canada, has been operating for 50 years and is being closed. The
weather station is essential for extreme weather warnings, which
we need from November through March, for flood warnings and for
fire warnings.
Unfortunately, because the minister deemed it not necessary, it
is being closed.
The citizens of the Yukon are protesting that decision.
1510
JUSTICE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): The other petition has over
1,300 names on it and it is from the people from Alberta as well
as the Yukon. We are asking for the abolition of the use of
provocation as a defence.
The history comes from the middle ages, where men of equal class
were allowed to challenge each other to a duel and use
provocation as an excuse. It in no way fits in our society today
and it is unfairly and disproportionately used to defend in
spousal homicide.
I present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Yukon
and Alberta.
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased and proud to
present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg North
Centre and on behalf of other concerned Manitobans.
They petition this government with their concerns regarding
current and proposed changes to Canada's retirement system. In
specific terms, they petition this government to rescind Bill C-2
because it imposes such serious massive premiums hikes while
reducing benefits and because of concerns for the establishment
of an investment fund which will mean a loss of dollars in this
country and benefit to stockholders and bond dealers.
They also petition that this government call for and put in
place a national review of the retirement income system in Canada
in order to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system
today and tomorrow.
* * *
[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 Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that
all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 48 motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-4.
Motion No. 3 is the same as an amendment presented in committee.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(15) it has not been
selected.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group
No. 1, Motion No. 1 is in the form of a preamble and would
normally be ruled out of order. However, Bill C-4 was referred
to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order
73(1). Consequently the amendment will be allowed and will be
debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions No. 2, 31 and 41.
Group No. 4: Motions No. 4 to 19
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 20 to 30, 32, 33, 34, 45 and 47.
[Translation]
Group No. 6: Motions No. 35 to 40.
[English]
Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46 and 48.
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 Motion No. 1 to the House.
1515
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among all parties and I believe you will
find unanimous consent for an order of the House that would deem
all amendments that have been found in order to have been read by
the Chair and to have been duly moved and seconded and to further
provide that, when there is no further debate, the amendments
will be deemed to have been put and a recorded division
requested.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary to
the government House leader have the consent of the House to
introduce 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.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent from the House to replace
Motion No. 5 on the notice paper with a revised version. This
motion as it appears on the notice paper is incorrect as a result
of a typographical error.
The other parties have been consulted and I believe the Chair
will find unanimous consent to replace this motion with the
correct version.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. Does the House
give its consent to the substitution of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I assume the hon. member will be
handing a signed proposal to the Table without it having been
read at this time to the House. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Might I also ask, since the
parliamentary secretary's motion appears to cover all motions
placed on the notice paper, if it now covers the amended motion
submitted by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. Is
that also agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4 be amended by
adding before line 4 on page 1 the following:
“0.1 The Canadian Wheat Board Act is amended by replacing
the enacting phrase with the following:
WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian
economy; and
WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain produced in
Canada is an essential element of the agricultural sector of the
economy, and
WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to
coordinate such trade; and
WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant effect
on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of
the best financial return to them as its object and first
priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.
THEREFORE Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your personal intervention
to guarantee my right to have an independent legal expert from
legislative counsel draft my amendments to the bill. I am very
disappointed with the unilateral decision to have procedural
clerks drafting my amendments to government bills. Lawyers draft
the government bills and amendments, and members of the House
deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending my rights and privileges
and providing the independent confidential legal advice and
services I need to do my job as a legislator in the House.
It is a fundamental privilege of the House to decide on the
rules of the House. So far we have been denied the opportunity
to debate and vote on the quality and availability of essential
legal services for MPs to do their jobs.
We represent a substantial number of people. The amendments we
make are very important and deserve the proper consideration and
advice.
On behalf of my constituents I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your
personal intervention in this instance. It has made it possible
for me to better represent the interests of my constituents in
the House.
I also express my objection to the referring of bills to
committee before second reading. It was my experience that the
Liberal majority on the agriculture committee was no more open to
amendments than any Liberal dominated committee reviewing a bill
after second reading. That is a very serious concern because we
need that input. Unless the government allows for proper
critique of its legislation we are wasting our time in the House.
I hope that will change.
The government has subverted the original intent of referring a
bill to committee before approval in principle and is now using
this procedure to skip second reading debate and deny members an
opportunity to represent their constituents in the House. The
procedure was supposed to open up the democratic process, not
shut it down more than it already has.
I have introduced seven amendments to effectively address the
deficiencies in the bill. With these amendments I proposed the
following improvements to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I will
briefly go through them and hope to have an opportunity at a
later time to talk to each one.
1520
I put forth an amendment to add a preamble to the act and an
amendment to change the object of the act from orderly marketing
to maximizing the financial return to producers and three
consequential amendments to that.
I also put forth an amendment to allow producers to voluntarily
exclude one or more types of grain they produce from control of
the act for a minimum of five years. In addition to this opting
out clause my amendment would provide producers with the
opportunity to opt back in by giving the board two years notice.
Finally I put forth an amendment to introduce a five year sunset
clause which would repeal the act if it does not achieve its
stated objective of securing the best financial return to
producers. Talking about sunset clauses, that should be in all
legislation. If the legislation does not meet its stated
objective we should scrap it.
I would also like to speak to the four main proposals put
forward in the amendments: adding the preamble, making the first
priority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to secure the best
financial return for producers, to provide opting out and opting
back in provisions, and to provide a sunset clause.
I hope to speak to each of my amendments as they appear in the
appropriate grouping of amendments. First I will speak to the
preamble.
I introduced Motion No. 1 to correct a serious oversight. The
Canadian Wheat Board Act does not have a preamble. The act
current says “an act to provide the constitution and powers for
the Canadian Wheat Board”. If any act of parliament needs a
preamble it is this one.
For far too long the government has been saying what the
Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to be doing but has done a
pretty good job of keeping the real facts a secret. The board
says one thing and thousands of farmers disagree. Surely the
government cannot disagree with the preamble I have introduced in
the House today. If it does, I would like on record the points
it disagrees with and the points it would like to see amended.
That should be obvious.
Agriculture is the basic foundation stone for the Canadian
economy. Interprovincial and export trade of grain is an
essential element of our agricultural economy. I do not think
anyone can disagree with that, so I hope it will be approved.
It is necessary to organize and co-ordinate such trade. Whoever
co-ordinates this trade must have as a first priority the goal of
securing the best financial return for producers.
Who in the House can argue against that objective? The minister
responsible for the wheat board even said so in the House on
October 28, 1997. I quote what the minister said.
The Canadian Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts
the very best price it possibly can get for the farmers of
Canada.
If that is the case we should put it in writing. The board must
be accountable to producers for its performance and we should be
willing to say that.
These are far more than just motherhood statements. They set
the framework around which the act and the bill must be debated.
For the government to pass an act of such importance as giving a
government monopoly powers is asking for those powers to be
abused.
I respectfully request that all members of the House support the
inclusion of a preamble to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is a
serious oversight not to have it in there. This is the preamble
that should be included:
WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian
economy; and
WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain produced in
Canada is an essential element of the agricultural sector of the
economy, and
WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to
co-ordinate such trade; and
WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant effect
on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of
the best financial return to them as its object and first
priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.
The purpose of the amendments I have put forward is to protect
all farmers. The government always says that it is listening to
the majority of farmers.
In a democracy everyone must be protected and their rights must
be respected, which is included in the amendments I have put
forward. A significant number of producers are represented by
people on this side of the House. I appeal to the government to
listen to the amendments we are making. They are common sense
reasonable amendments and they should be considered.
1525
The attitude has been “Why should we provide proper legislative
counsel to the opposition? The government will not listen to our
amendments anyway”. They are asking why they should provide
resources. That attitude has to change. What we do in the House
is fundamental to preparing legislation all Canadians have to
live with. We need the best resources and the best legal advice
to make legislation what it should be.
Therefore we appeal to the government to give us the resources
and to consider the amendments we put forward. They are
reasonable amendments that address the concerns of the people we
represent.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to
respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
This is a very substantial piece of legislation, very important
to all Canadian grain producers. It is an important aspect of
the governance of that industry. That is why I am very proud to
support the legislation. In speaking to Bill C-4 it certainly
accomplishes the objectives set out by the minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The member for Yorkton—Melville criticized the government for
its decision to refer the legislation to committee before second
reading. I simply point out to the hon. member and to all
members present that it is a very unique and important method of
actually getting input from members.
Once adopted at second reading the spirit of the legislation
cannot be changed by the House. That is one reason the
government saw fit to adopt a method of referring legislation to
committee before second reading so that members would have ample
opportunity to look into the details of the bill and to provide
constructive and positive suggestions for change.
In criticizing this method of referring the legislation to
committee before second reading the member has criticized the
fact that he now has the opportunity to put forth his amendment.
Amending the preamble to any legislation would not be in order
after second reading. By actually referring the legislation to
committee before second reading the hon. member has the
opportunity to put forward his motion to amend.
I just say that as a point of clarification. That is the purpose
of that directive.
The hon. member's motion is to provide a change to the preamble
of the bill. That is basically what we are here to discuss. The
hon. member is providing an amendment to the enactment section of
the bill. What must be pointed out is that the original bill, as
proposed by the government and approved by committee, provides
substantial opportunity for the governance of the Canadian Wheat
Board by the producers themselves. Two-thirds of the board of
directors would be put in place by the producers and not by the
government.
1530
That is the form of governance I think the democratic process
should take. That is the form of governance I think the farmers
want and that is exactly what we heard in committee.
They wanted a stronger role for producers, and clearly
two-thirds of majority control of the board of directors for the
Canadian Wheat Board accomplishes that objective.
The purpose, if I were to anticipate for the member's motion
here, would be to add the preamble, to put specific restrictions
on the board of directors so that it would be somewhat encumbered
in its job and subject to what many would consider to be
frivolous lawsuits in the performance of its duties.
The preamble, as put forward, in essence accomplishes exactly
what the bill already accomplishes, with one critical difference.
It provides specific language, which I am sure opponents to the
Canadian Wheat Board would enjoy the opportunity to capitalize on
and to create quite a feeding frenzy by the legal community whose
members of certain jurisdictions would so aptly want to support
as opposed to supporting farmers.
I will rise not in support of this amendment to put a preamble
into the bill for the simple reason that I am extremely confident
that the bill itself accomplishes the goal of providing the
producers the opportunity through the process of annual meetings,
through the process of disclosure, through the process of
producers themselves maintaining their own majority control over
the processes of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are accomplishing
exactly what producers want us to accomplish.
That is a very important point and while I see some merit in the
spirit of what the member is trying to accomplish, quite frankly
and potentially a little naively what the amendment would
accomplish is probably a feeding frenzy by the legal community
trying to poke holes in the fact that the farmers themselves, the
producers, will now take a majority control, a majority position
on the wheat board. They are the ones who are most capable with a
majority position, a clear two-thirds, 10 out of 15, to guide the
report into the future.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in speaking favourably to Bill
C-4 in its original intent as passed by the committee of all
parliamentarians. It is a very good one.
When we get into these discussions about democracy and about
freedom of members to be able to practice their craft in the
House of Commons, something that I would simply remind the hon.
members opposite of is this. They criticized the fact that the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board chose to put
this legislation, with the consent of the House, before committee
before second reading so that the members who sat on the
committee with me could take a good solid look at the specifics
of the bill and have the opportunity to put forward constructive
changes before the bill was tabled and before the bill was
adopted at second reading.
What we are really seeing here is that members opposite are
criticizing the fact that they had the opportunity to participate
in the process. They are also criticizing the producers'
opportunity to participate in the process. They want to stifle
the ability of the producers who will be sitting on that board of
the Canadian Wheat Board. They want to stifle that opportunity
for those producers to be able to do their job in the best
interest of farmers.
Therefore I do not support the amendment. I suggest to the
members opposite that what they really should be focusing on here
is to let farmers, the ten members, the majority of members who
will be sitting on that board, do their job and let them provide
the Canadian Wheat Board with the leadership in concert with the
Government of Canada, in concert with all the people of Canada,
the best options for all farmers.
1535
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, can I not reply to some of the
false claims this member made?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member would like
to do that, but under the rules of the House, as he knows, on
debate on report stage amendments, each member has one 10 minute
intervention.
The hon. member will get an opportunity, I am sure, on the next
group when we get to it. He could expose whatever disagreement
he has with whichever hon. member who has made comments by that
time. By then there may be several. He will have a field day in
his next 10 minute intervention, I am sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I speak this afternoon to Bill C-4,
an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
The Liberal government headed by the Prime Minister, the
member for Saint-Maurice, thought that a slight revamping of the
more than 60-year-old Canadian Wheat Board, a body viewed with very
mixed feelings by grain producers themselves, it might be added,
would be a good idea.
Discontent in the three western provinces and in the Peace River
area was such that producers were on the verge of signing a general
petition calling for nothing less than the total abolition of the
board.
So, 18 months ago, the minister responsible for the board, a
western minister of course, tabled amendments in the form of Bill
C-72. We in this House devoted much effort to improving this bill.
But because of this government's lack of foresight, we are now, to
all intents and purposes, back at square one with Bill C-4.
My colleague in the Reform Party, the member for
Yorkton—Melville, is suggesting a preamble to Bill C-4 that I
feel I must approve. I will tell you why. When a bill seems to
be good, there is no need to shy away from saying so.
What interests me most in the motion put forward by the hon. member
from the Reform Party, is the preamble saying that agriculture
plays a vital role in Canada and especially in the three western
provinces and the Peace River region. Do you object to that, Mr.
Speaker? You agree with me that it is no crime to include that in
the preamble to the bill.
The interesting thing is that this organization, the Canadian
Wheat Board, has an important effect on grain producers and must,
accordingly, have as its object and first priority the securing of
the very best financial return for them. The Canadian Wheat Board
will have to be accountable to the grain producers for its
performance.
Mr. Speaker, can you look me in the eye and say that you
object to the Canadian Wheat Board making every effort to obtain
the best prices for our grain producers?
The Liberal government objects to having this in a preamble to the
bill. It makes no bloody sense. Worse yet, they are going to ask
the Canadian Wheat Board to account to grain producers for its
actions.
1540
The minister responsible is objecting. I fail to see why.
Bill C-4 does have good intentions. For instance, there is at
least some attempt to democratize the administration of the
Canadian Wheat Board, by having 10—not enough in my opinion, but
at least this is a first step in the right direction—of the 15
directors elected by universal suffrage by the grain producers.
That is a step forward.
In case it has been forgotten, there used to be five
commissioners, and all five were appointed by the governor in
council. These were generally five patronage appointments, not
necessarily five truly competent administrators.
When the colour of the government in power was blue, Conservatives
were appointed. Now, since it is red, we have just had the
announcement of a series of Department of Agriculture appointments,
and they are all Liberals. One was a bag man, one the chief
organizer, one had worked hard to get his boss, the Prime Minister,
elected as leader of his party. You will recall this, Mr. Speaker,
since you supported him too and got a little reward for it, since
you are now seated in the chair.
Bill C-4 is an attempt to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act
for the better—at least I hope it is for the better, and the
government is sincere—for the benefit of grain producers. So why
fear it?
I have just been listening to the words of the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
He said they were afraid they would have to tie the hands of the
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it a crime to tie their
hands and require them to obtain a better price? I do not think
so. Given that the board will be dealing with $6 billion or $7
billion, even a fraction of 1% will mean a better price. A
fraction of 1% of $7 billion means many many millions of dollars
that the board could come up with and put into the pockets of
producers.
I invite my colleagues in the government to have another look
at the proposed preamble. It is not because it was introduced by
the Bloc Quebecois that it is no good. It looks like the Liberals
think that if it is not their idea it is not good.
I do not want to have to reread the main part of this
preamble, but the part that interests me, once again, is the part
that would oblige the Canadian Wheat Board to obtain the best
possible return on grain. The board should also be accountable for
its performance.
So, a vote against this motion, the first on Bill C-4,
indicates a lack of transparency and a fear of working effectively
for western grain producers.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
very pleased to be taking part in this historic debate on Bill
C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, this
afternoon. Before I talk about the preamble before us, Motion
No. 1, I will respond to the comments made by the parliamentary
secretary about how privileged members who serve on the committee
should feel for the ability to come to the House and propose
amendments since the bill was referred to committee prior to
second reading.
1545
I would take more comfort in that if I had not felt as a member
of the standing committee that there was a rush to judgment
throughout the entire process. I do not recall specifically how
many groups appeared before the committee, but they were grouped
in threes and fours so that we could get through the bill in a
matter of two or three weeks. The amendments were rushed through
in one session. It was not a very effective way to consider a
bill of this magnitude which will have a long lasting impact on
Canadian grain producers.
With respect to the preamble put forward by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, he said that it is not motherhood. I think
that there is a lot of mom and apple pie in it. However, I also
think that there is nothing wrong with us saying that in a
preamble, as my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois articulated a
few moments ago.
The New Democratic Party and the CCF before it have always been
very strong supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board and we
continue to be strong supporters of it. What is wrong with
insisting that there be a preamble that makes it very clear? The
motion which is before us does that. It states what the vision
and mission of the Canadian Wheat Board is to be.
Those vision and mission statements are very much in vogue these
days. We see corporations and other groups doing it. What is
wrong with such a statement being in the preamble about what it
is that the Canadian Wheat Board is all about? It is a reference
point that producers and others can look to when seeking guidance
or when they have concerns.
Having said that, New Democrats believe that the wheat board has
been a very good marketer for Canadian grain producers over the
years. We see absolutely nothing illogical about having this as
the preamble and we will be supporting this particular motion
when it comes to a vote.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am somewhat reluctant to speak on this piece of legislation which
has gone through committee and returned to the floor of the
House. The reason I am reluctant is because we have been talking
about participation in the process, as the hon. member from the
governing benches indicated. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in
the opportunity we were given to participate in the process.
I am sure most Canadians recognize that this is probably the
most important piece of legislation which will affect the western
Canadian producer in this session of Parliament.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had an
opportunity to put forward legislation which in fact would take
the producers of western Canada into the 21st century, taking
into consideration the open global marketplace that we have
today. He certainly had an opportunity to put into place
legislation which would allow producers in western Canada to take
full advantage of the produce they are producing currently at
world prices.
The minister said that he was going to listen to all of those
people who were prepared to appear before the committee. He
wanted to hear their comments. He wanted to make sure their
comments were embodied in this legislation. Quite frankly, the
process that we went through in committee was, in my estimation,
a railroad job.
The legislation was put through committee in record time. We
were not allowed to listen to all of the opinions of all of the
people who wanted to come forward.
I will give the House two examples. In committee I put forward
an amendment to bring the minister back to the committee. The
minister said, in his own words, that he wanted to come back to
the committee after we had heard the witnesses to be able to hear
what positions were being taken by those individuals.
I asked the committee to extend the period of time that it was
sitting to invite the minister back and I was turned down on that
request. The minister I believe would have come back but the
committee did not want to waste the time to hear all of those
comments.
1550
I also suggested that there is a parallel organization called
the Ontario Wheat Board which has a fully elected board of
directors, which has certain freedoms for its own producers that
are not allowed in this particular piece of legislation. I would
have liked to have heard from those individuals. The Liberal
members of the government in committee would not allow us to
subpoena or bring those people before the committee to hear how
they operate.
As I said earlier, there was obviously an opportunity for the
legislation to do what it should have done for the next numbers
of years on behalf of our producers. I come from an area which
is referred to as the wheat city. This legislation is very
important. No one, I do not believe, really wanted to get rid of
the Canadian Wheat Board. All we wanted to do in this
legislation was to make sure that it is more competitive in
today's market and today's world.
As for this preamble, this amendment that is before us, Motion
No. 1, I cannot see why any member of this House, including the
government, would not support it. As the parliamentary secretary
indicated, the government wishes to have the producers in charge
of their own marketing corporation.
All this preamble says is that the corporation will be working
for the producers. Why not put that in the legislation so that
it is there and people and the corporation recognize it is for
the producers and not for the Government of Canada, not for the
Minister of Agriculture, nor for the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board?
My party will be supporting Motion No. 1. In fact it is
somewhat reminiscent of certain other motions that follow behind
this. I know we will be dealing with them at another time in
other areas.
I would also like to say that the government takes great pride
in saying that this new legislation will make the Canadian Wheat
Board accountable to producers, will make it transparent and
certainly will make it accountable.
Quite frankly, the only way it will be accountable is if it has
the full board of directors elected by the producers themselves
and not have five of those directors appointed by the federal
government.
There is another serious concern and that will be spoken to
later in the amendments with respect to the appointment of the
chief executive officer, the president. This will take many
hours of debate to make sure that the government recognizes that
an appointed CEO is just simply another arm of the federal
government and not accountable to the producers themselves.
I am very pleased to be able to stand here and suggest that
Motion No. 1 will be supported by my party when it comes to the
vote and if indeed the Canadian Wheat Board is accountable to the
producers, it should have that said specifically in the body of
the legislation. I cannot see why government would not allow
this to happen.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as with the hon. member from the fifth party who just
spoke, I am almost reluctant to speak to this bill in light of
what has transpired over the previous month.
As the hon. member articulated, this bill has been rushed
through from beginning to end. For the government to try to
pretend to the viewing public, to the Canadian people and in
particular to western Canadian farmers that it has used this
process to bypass second reading and to hustle this bill off to
committee, and it has used this process in order to try to better
the bill, is an absolute fallacy.
It is totally ridiculous when people take the time to view what
has really transpired over the last while.
1555
The way these amendments have been grouped is very odd. At some
point in time I would like to have it explained to me how they
came to be grouped the way they are. It is hard to rationalize
how they have placed some 48 amendments into the various seven
groupings.
Motion No. 1, which is the preamble, totally comprises Group No.
1 and was put forward by my hon. colleague from
Yorkton—Melville. Part of the motion states:
Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect
on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of
the best financial return to them as its object and first
priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.
That is the key part of the preamble put forward by my hon.
colleague for Yorkton—Melville. It sets the tone for the entire
bill. I am very pleased on behalf of the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville to note that we have support for his Motion No.
1 from the other three opposition parties. That is important.
The public recognizes that it is sometimes very difficult to get
unanimous support from all four opposition parties in this place.
All parties view this as a very important preamble. Although
some on the government side would say it is just motherhood and
apple pie, it does set the tone for the entire bill.
I will read a letter into the record that came to me from the
Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association that was sent to the
hon. Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. This
letter indicates the level of dissatisfaction with this bill that
exists within the farming community: “I append a copy of a news
clipping listing the organizations which support the inclusion
clause in Bill C-4. They are: the National Farmers Union,
Family Farm Foundation, Catholic Rural Life Ministry, Concerned
Farmers for Saving the Wheat Board and `several' Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool delegates of which there are 123 in total”.
It goes on to say: “The coalition against C-4 has the following
membership: the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Manitoba
Canola Growers Association, Flax Growers of Western Canada, Oat
Producers Association of Alberta, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers
Commission, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, Saskatchewan Canola Growers
Association, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association, Winnipeg Commodity Exchange,
Western Canadian Wheat Growers Associations”.
Then it poses the interesting question to the minister: which
of these groupings do you feel better represents the interests of
western Canadian farmers? If you believe—and it is hard for me
to think otherwise—that the second group better represents the
views of farmers, could you please explain to me why, against the
opposition of these groups, Bill C-4 still contains the inclusion
clause?” The letter is signed by Mr. Larry Maguire, President
of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Maguire did not write the
letter on behalf of one organization that the government would
care to discount by saying that it had always been anti-wheat
board and pro-free choice, pro-free marketing. He wrote it on
behalf of a coalition of many groups that represent literally
tens of thousands of farmers who are concerned not only about the
inclusion clause but about a lot of clauses and the very scope of
this legislation.
1600
First let me say at the outset that we will be debating
seven groups of amendments and many members I am sure will get up
seven times to speak to various facets of the legislation.
I hesitate to keep saying this because to a certain extent it
angers me as a former grain producer who grew grain for 20 years
under the Canadian Wheat Board. Reform is not opposed to the
Canadian Wheat Board. I say that because at times it seems that
some of our political adversaries like to paint us in that light.
Reform is not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to
see it improved, strengthened and address the real needs of
western Canadian grain farmers. Above all, we want the wheat
board to be accountable to the farmers. However, we do not see
that in this legislation.
I indicated during my 10 minute intervention before this bill
was shunted off to committee that first and foremost we want the
Canadian Wheat Board to be made voluntary. Until farmers have
the ability to opt in or opt out or market their grain through
the board or through the private sector, I do not think farmers
will really be supportive of the existence of the Canadian Wheat
Board as we know it now.
There were comments made earlier by my colleague from the New
Democratic Party about the groups of witnesses. I think all of
us on the opposition side at committee were very disappointed in
the process there, where witnesses who had travelled at
considerable expense and time to appear before the committee were
lumped together and there was not really an adequate chance to
listen to them and have an honest open debate and exchange of
information. It really puts pay to the argument by the
government that the reason why it superseded second reading and
put the bill off to committee was to try to better the bill. That
simply did not happen.
To show how divisive this bill is, it actually accomplished the
near impossible. The minister has accomplished the near
impossible. He has managed to alienate almost every single
Canadian farmer, every single person who is involved in grain
production and transportation in western Canada with this one
piece of legislation. To show just how divisive it is, imagine
the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee of 11 farmers itself
being split and the majority of those producers calling for the
complete withdrawal of the legislation.
I want to read an excerpt from the November 6 front page of the
Western Producer newspaper quoting the remarks of the chair
of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee: “Macklin
disputed government claims that one of the results of the
legislation will be to democratize the wheat board and turn power
over to farmers thought the two-thirds of board members they can
elect”. Then there is direct quote: “We think this new
structure will be more subject to political manipulation than the
old structure”.
I completely agree with that assessment. I think this bill is
not going to address the needs. In fact, it is going to continue
to sow the seeds of divisiveness in western Canada instead of
addressing the real needs out there.
1605
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must oppose
this particular amendment to the preamble.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Wayne Easter: If members will just give me a chance I
will explain why. It should be obvious. I cannot see why the
other parties have fell for this line by the Reform Party which
is just a strategy that over time, through legal challenges to
the board, will in fact undermine the board. That is the real
strategy here. Let us put it on the table and call a spade a
spade.
Before I go too far with the Reform Party opposite, I do want to
correct a matter that my friend, the hon. member for Frontenac,
said. He talked about the commissioners who have been
appointed to the wheat board over a number of years. He was
fairly critical of those appointments. I think the record shows
that the appointments by various governments of commissioners to
the wheat board over time have been excellent in that the wheat
board has always been able to return to producers the maximum
that is in the market and most times has outdone the open market.
As far as the motion by the member for Yorkton—Melville, what
does the preamble really mean? Let us be serious on this. How
does it really stand up in law? We know in the past, and it is
clearly on the record in many places, that the Reform Party has
never been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. It
gives it lip service but it tries to undermine it at every stead.
I believe it was last year when the barley producers were
violating the laws of Canada that some of these members opposite
were actually supporting those producers in terms of trucking
barley across the United States in a law breaking venture.
How can we trust the Reform Party in terms of what it is really
trying to do concerning this piece of legislation?
Maybe, as I said a moment ago, there is a subtle strategy at
work here by the Reform Party in which it is trying to use a
preamble to the bill to set the stage where the Canadian Wheat
Board will be challenged legally time and time again. Look at
the amendment. It reads “whereas, whereas, whereas”. Finally,
in the “therefor” we get to it stating the exact same thing as
the government is saying in terms of enacting the bill.
One usually uses “whereas” at a political convention for
resolutions. We are not doing this for a political convention.
This is a superior piece of marketing legislation for a marketing
organization that has always stood by the farm community. This
is legislation that empowers the Canadian Wheat Board and,
through empowering the Canadian Wheat Board, it empowers the
grain producers of western Canada to maximize returns in the
marketplace with, of course, as we have done in the past, the
backing of the Government of Canada in terms of guarantees on
borrowing, credit guarantees, initial price guarantees and the
authority to be a single desk seller and thereby be able to
maximize returns to producers in competition to other players in
the international marketplace.
Let us just take a moment in terms of the preamble and compare
it to what has happened in the past with the wheat board. I turn
to the Canadian Wheat Board 1995-96 annual report “Marketing for
the Future”. In a corporate profile this is what it said:
The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is the marketing agency for
western Canadian wheat and barley growers. The CWB markets these
grains in the Canadian market to more than 70 countries around
the world with the goal of attaining the best price possible.
That is what it says in its corporate profile now. It does not
need to be said in terms of preamble to the legislation. Annual
sales revenue ranges from $4 billion to $6 billion depending on
grain prices and the amount of delivery by farmers.
1610
This makes the Canadian Wheat Board the largest single wheat and
barley marketing corporation in the world. Imagine that,
marketing on behalf of Canadian producers with that kind of
market power and market authority. All proceeds from sales less
Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs are passed back to farmers.
In that sense western Canadian farmers are the Canadian Wheat
Board's only shareholders.
Let me again turn to the comments made earlier by friend from
Frontenac when he was critical of those wheat board
commissioners. We expect the new board will be able to do
similar things.
A performance evaluation, which was also outlined in this wheat
board report, indicates how well it has been able to do. That is
why we need this kind of legislation, so that it can continue to
do those kinds of things for western grain farmers. I quote: “A
performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year
showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as
quality of product, customer service, technical support and
dependability of supply”.
On the point of the dependability of supply, if we went with
some of the resolutions proposed by the Reform, you could not
assure yourself, as a marketing agency of supply, because you
would never really know what was happening with that supply area.
With the kind of authority we have under the wheat board you can
depend on that kind of supply and you can market intelligently,
not just boom and bust, as the members opposite are basically
saying we should do.
Another study study conducted by three economists showed that
the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system generates an
additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers,
thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness. It also showed the
Canadian Wheat Board provides a low cost marketing service to
farmers.
This shows what the Canadian Wheat Board has been able to do in
the past with appointed commissioners. This legislation,
although giving farmers more say in terms of the management of
the Canadian Wheat Board, sets the stage to ensure it has more
say and the kind of authority to continue to market in that way
into the foreseeable future.
Another point is how low, because of these efficiencies, the
Canadian Wheat Board is able to keep its administration expenses,
down to 0.7%. That is remarkable for one of the largest
marketers around.
We cannot support this legislation because I think the Reform
Party in this preamble is playing games. I am surprised the NDP
and the Bloc and the Tories fell for these kinds of subtleties.
Certainly these kinds of decisions are better left to the board
of directors to decide what is in the producers' best interest
rather than providing a heyday for lawyers bringing law suits
that challenge the Canadian Wheat Board decisions as not being in
the producers' interests.
That is the real game Reformers are playing. How many lawyers
are over there in your camp anyway? I thought you were trying to
represent producers here, not the legal community? That is what
I thought but obviously that is what you are up against.
Mr. John Reynolds: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, one
of the most elemental rules in this House is that we speak in the
third person rather than straight across the floor.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Point well taken. I
remind the member to please address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, much more pleasant in
any event to address my remarks to the Chair.
In closing I want to say that this piece of legislation is here
in the best interests of producers. We have had the hearings. I
have said three times that this preamble to the legislation is a
very subtle way in which the Reform Party is really trying to
undermine the real future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
1615
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be
relatively brief, given that everything is relative in this House.
A number of motions have been tabled during this debate on Bill C-4
and I do not want to anticipate, but I think the best is yet to come.
Beyond party politics, this motion reflects a global view which is,
all in all, beneficial to grain producers. The motion asserts the
importance of this legislation and takes us to the heart of the matter.
Just looking at the reactions this afternoon, the debate on Bill C-4
will definitely be lively.
It was the same thing in committee, which led us to think that it
is probably important to include Motion No. 1, which is a preamble to
the act. Some may feel it is redundant, but it is better to be safe than
sorry.
The number of witnesses heard is evidence of the interest in this
legislation. No one in this House is opposed to the Canadian Wheat
Board, but the views and the means to achieve our goals are quite
different. As for Motion No. 1, which we support, we can only be in
favour of trade coordination.
A coordinated marketing structure for agricultural products, both
at the interprovincial and at the international level—in the case of
exports—would benefit our producers.
I think we all want to see more powers in the hands of grain producers,
to make the decision making process more democratic.
I think that any business organization must try to achieve the best
performance. And these days, businesses must account for their
performance, that is to say, for their management practices. We want
grain producers and the agricultural sector as a whole, which is the
cornerstone of all our industries, to be as successful as possible.
In this context, I think that, if they were here today, grain
producers and all those who came forward would support this motion
because, as it stands, Motion No. 1 makes a lot of sense.
I would not call this a partisan strategy, far from it; call it an
overview of the debate on Bill C-4 and what is important to us.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a very
serious government bill that will affect certain parts of the
country, yet the government is not here to listen.
I do not believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will count the
members and let you know.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House today to
speak on a bill that I have looked at thoroughly.
It is appreciated that after 34 years I farmed and had a wheat
board permit book, I can finally say something on the issue.
1620
I was enthused when the hon. member for Malpeque started to talk
about the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board. He must have a
relative in Winkler, Manitoba. During the fair this summer I had
an office there and people came to talk to me. One gentleman
came in and asked me to support the wheat board.
I want to maintain the wheat board. I have always wanted to
keep the wheat board but I want to make it accountable and make
sure it gets the best prices for the farmer.
He wanted me to make sure the wheat board stayed. I asked him
how much wheat board grain he grew and whether he was a big
farmer because I did not know him. He had a quarter section and
a good job at Triple E, a mobile home manufacturer. He grew a
quarter of wheat board grain, mostly feed barley.
I asked him how many bushels he sold to the wheat board and his
answer was zero. He sold no grain to the wheat board. I then
asked why he was concerned about keeping the wheat board. It was
because he raised hogs and wanted to keep cheap feed prices.
The hon. member for Malpeque went from dairy to beef cattle. I
know why he wants to keep the wheat board. He wants to keep
cheap feed prices. That is the support the wheat board has.
It is amazing to hear him say that the wheat board is the main
gatherer of supplies. It has the supplies it can deliver. Why
do we have all our wheat board grain in bins, all the canola,
flax and lentils? Everything is gone. It has been sold at good
prices. Why do we have wheat board grains in the bins? There is
no money for that.
The member also talked about law breakers. The member for
Malpeque should explain which laws were broken. All they did was
sell their grain for a better price than they could get from the
wheat board. Is it criminal to get the best price for their
grain?
I can see why members opposite object to the preamble my hon.
colleague from Yorkton—Melville proposed. They do not want to
sell it for the best price. They are afraid to put that in the
preamble because somebody could challenge that statement.
Why did parliament originally pass the wheat board act? In the
1920s and the 1930s it was to provide competition to the grain
companies to get a better price for the farmers. Why has a
preamble never been included in the wheat board act? Why is it a
sin to put that preamble into an act that is supposed to protect
the interests of farmers? I would like that explained.
Why would we pass legislation in the House that does not
identify what it is all about? Why would we pass legislation if
we do not have the guts to include the preamble or to indicate
the intent of the bill, what it is supposed to do, and the bylaws
in the bill upon which regulations and rules have to be set?
Not everybody is a lawyer. We do not have any on this side. The
Liberals have lots of them so they should be able to identify the
intent of a bill. If they do not want to identify the intent,
why have it? It sounds ridiculous to me.
I was impressed by the hon. member from the Bloc. We have
always been classified as separatists; Reform members are
separatists. We can work together with our Bloc colleagues and
identify good and bad legislation. I appreciate those members in
the House who have the guts to say what is right and what is
wrong.
Why in the world would we pass legislation to divide the
country? If it is not unifying when Reform and Bloc members
agree on a bill, I do not know what is unifying. What are we to
say about that?
1625
What will hon. members from Ontario answer? Every member of its
wheat board is elected. Why should Manitoba, Alberta and
Saskatchewan have partially appointed boards? Why are Manitoba,
Alberta and Saskatchewan different from Ontario? Why can we not
elect all the directors and make them accountable to the farmers?
That is what should happen.
If they can give me a solitary reason why they should not be
elected when Ontario's board members are elected, I will agree
with them. As long as it gives different powers and different
regulations to different provinces, it only creates separatism
and hostility among certain parts of the country.
We have had enough of that. We have seen for three and a half
years in the House the divisiveness that is created when
different regions have different powers. Why do we want to
create another difference? I would like that explained to me. I
cannot see that happening in the bill, the way it is drafted.
I do not know why these people are afraid of identifying the
bill for what it is. If the bill does not give farmers the right
to sell their grain for the best price, it is not worth the paper
it is written on. It will do more harm than good.
I would like the House to support amendments such as the one
moved by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
I also express my appreciation to the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris. He did a very good job relating his feelings.
He is a member of the opposition who has an interest in farming.
He is located in a central community which benefits from the
farmers around it. He knows what he is talking about. He is not
just talking through his hat.
It has been a pleasure to say a few words. I am sure I will get
another chance when some of the other motions are being debated.
I encourage Liberal members to stay in the House and listen to
the debate. I see they have disappeared again. We can see from
that how much interest they have in the bill. We can see how
much they are concerned about what is happening in western
Canada. It is a shame there are only four or five members on
that side of the House when we are debating a bill of this
importance.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating an
important piece of legislation which will affect farmers out
west, and again members of the government have not shown up in
the House. I am calling for a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Okanagan—Shuswap has called for quorum. I do not see a quorum
so please ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:
1630
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would simply like
to point out that some disparaging remarks have been cast on
members of the House. I would like to point out that those
disparaging remarks, I think, should be retracted given the fact
that the Reform Party—
An hon. member: Do you want to debate that?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: —is in dereliction of their duties for
the simple reason that I see a party which has a caucus of over
50 members, but I only see four in front of me.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to debate this important bill in the House
today. We have seen quite a bit of activity here talking about
the low attendance in the House. I would agree that this is a
very important bill for western Canadian farmers and people
should be paying attention.
I would like to speak in support of my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville and his introduction of a preamble to Bill C-4.
The preamble I am interested in is the section where he says:
Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect
on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of
the best financial return to them as its object and first
priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.
Why would we want such a preamble introduced in the bill? I
suggest it is because under section 5 of the current bill, there
is no accountability to farmers. We did not have it in Bill
C-72, it was not in the previous Canadian Wheat Board Act and we
do not have it in this bill. This is an effort to try to bring
some accountability by the Canadian Wheat Board to its producers.
In the recent M-Jay Farms case, the Canadian Wheat Board argued
forcefully and successfully, I may add, that it is not
accountable to farmers. It has always taken this position in
court.
For example, in 1976 the Riske case, it found in favour of the
board and not in favour of accountability to farmers. When the
board is talking to farmers, however, it says quite the opposite.
The board should not be allowed to speak from both sides of its
mouth on this issue. Since the board is accountable to the
minister and not farmers, I wish that the minister would stop
letting the board misrepresent this position.
Mr. Hehn, Chief Commissioner of the board has said on many
occasions, and I will quote: “We look forward to a strong and
successful partnership with farmers of western Canada.” That is
in the Canadian Wheat Board annual report of 1994-95. “There
can be no partnership without accountability.” He also goes on
to say on another occasion: “It is your grain and your
marketing agency”, Grain Matters, January-February 1996—“With
no accountability, again this is an absolute falsehood.”
I quote the Chief Commissioner of the board: “We are looking
for ways to be more accountable to farmers.” Grain Matters,
May-June 1996. He said this at the very same time that the board
was before the courts arguing just the opposite.
In the grain case of the M-Jay Farms the board was arguing that
there is no accountability to farmers by the board. It is only
accountable to the ministers, and the courts found exactly that.
He goes on to say: “We are structured to do the job for
farmers” the Edmonton Journal, October 11, 1996. Had he
been totally truthful he would have said: “We are not
accountable to farmers and we are in court here today to prove
it.” And that is exactly what happened.
Furthermore there is nothing in the amendments to Bill C-4 that
would make the board accountable to farmers. I refer to the
board's section 5 which says, and I will read it. This part has
not been changed at all. Section 5 says: “The board is
incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner
interprovincial and export trade grain grown in Canada.” It says
nothing about accountability to farmers.
If I read the findings of the court in the M-Jay case, where it
ruled against M-Jay Farms, they said: “But the express purpose
of the act as set forward in section 5 is not the maximization of
profits for producers, but rather the orderly marketing of grain
grown in Canada in interprovincial and export trade.”
Essentially quoting section 5.
1635
They go on in the court case to say “Taken in this view I take
it that this statute is responsibility not to any individual
producers but rather to the minister under the act”. The
members on the other side ask us why we are trying to bring
accountability into this House, why we would ask for it in the
preamble to the act. We are doing it because they would not make
changes to section 5. The court has found consistently that
under section 5 the Canadian Wheat Board is not responsible to
farmers but to the Minister of Agriculture. Nothing has been
changed in the act. Section 5 has not been changed and therefore
there is no accountability.
An hon. member: Two-thirds of the board are farmers.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, the member for
Malpeque is making some noises from the other side. He is
talking about the structure of the board under this current
arrangement, but the board is still accountable to the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Two-thirds of the
members on the board are elected and one-third are appointed but
the chair of that board is appointed by the Minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board.
This government is totally out of touch with the debate in
western Canada concerning what is going on and what farmers want.
Farmers want a system in which they have a choice in how they
market their grain. I know a great many farmers who want to keep
the Canadian Wheat Board so they can pool their product, accept
an average price and use that vehicle. I also know a great
number of farmers who do not want to use that vehicle. They want
a dual system. They want to be outside of that monopoly. This
bill does not address that at all and I suggest it is doomed for
total failure.
There is no accountability in this act. When my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville said that the very least we can do in the
preamble to the act is to suggest that we must have
accountability to farmers rather than to the minister, we were
ridiculed by the other side. We were ridiculed by people who do
not have constituents under the Canadian Wheat Board
jurisdiction. I see a member who grows potatoes in P.E.I. I do
not see any move to try to include potatoes under the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. I see a lot of lawyers over there from Toronto
who are more interested in keeping control over Canadian farmers
than they are in serving their needs.
We have a system—
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The colleague opposite
keeps referring to individuals on this side and suggesting to the
Canadian people that there are lawyers and only lawyers on this
side who are listening to the debate. I think that is an
irrelevant point and he should not be calling attention
untruthfully to the composition of the people on this side of the
House. I am not a lawyer.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order. Resuming debate.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I see that the truth
hurts. It is very interesting that the people in the Liberal
Party who want to maintain the status quo of the Canadian Wheat
Board have even moved beyond the status quo of the Canadian Wheat
Board. They are now trying to have more crops included that
farmers are not asking to have included. Those very people are
not representing areas that are under the Canadian Wheat Board
jurisdiction.
What authority do they have to put a group of farmers in western
Canada under a system they do not even have in Ontario, Quebec,
Prince Edward Island, any areas where there is agriculture? I do
not think they should have that moral authority. When we ask
very simply that there should at least be some accountability
shown in the preamble to the act as in Motion No. 1, even there
the Liberals do not have enough dignity to say that they respect
farmers in western Canada, that they respect that there should be
some accountability. They even want to deny us that. It is
wrong and they will pay the price for it.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As of just after four
o'clock this afternoon Ottawa time, the people of Canada do not
have a postal service in this country. That is causing major
economic problems in this country.
1640
I ask the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of this House to
move to an emergency debate on this pressing national emergency
after the hour of adjournment of regular business this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are some
procedures to deal with matters of this kind. However, on the
other hand, the hon. member has asked for the unanimous consent
of the House. Does he have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There not being
unanimous consent, we will be resuming debate after I read this
order.
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
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—Criminal Code; the hon. member
for Frontenac—Mégantic—B.C. Mines.
Resuming debate.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consquential amendments to
others acts, and of Motion No. 1.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
At this point in the proceedings, we are debating the preamble
suggested by Reform Party members. For the party in power, and
especially for the member for Malpeque, I would like to read the
motion tabled by our friends in the Reform Party.
WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the
Canadian economy; and
WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain
produced in Canada is an essential element of the agricultural
sector of the economy; and
WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to
coordinate such trade; and
WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant
effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the
securing of the best financial return to them as its object
and first priority and must be accountable to them for its
performance;
THEREFORE Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as
follows:
I was surprised at the speech by the member for Malpeque, who
is opposed to such a preamble. This is not the first time a
preamble has been discussed. There was talk of a preamble when the
notion of distinct society was raised in connection with the Meech
Lake accord.
There was a preamble in which Quebec was described as a distinct
society.
I see the minister from West Island laughing. She lives in my
riding. She played an active role in that affair.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: From downtown Montreal.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: The funny thing is that the preamble had
no significance back then. Now, as the member for Malpeque sees
it, the preamble explains everything, is highly significant, and
could mislead the courts if they were called upon to interpret it.
1645
Just recently, a new proposal was made in western Canada,
about the unique character of Quebec, something comparable to the
Pacific salmon, and it was said that “maybe that could be added to
the preamble if a constitutional amendment is made”. Others said
“No, it would go at the end”. Regardless of whether it comes
before or after, I believe that a preamble has to give a general
idea of the legislative text.
Of course, the preamble per se is not a section of the act,
but a guide.
We know that the members of this new Canadian Wheat Board, or some
of them, are MPs who lost their seats in the last election, people
who will get their reward from the Prime Minister and the party in
power for their contribution to democratic debate on June 2. It
might not, however, be a bad thing to remind them in a preamble
that their primary authority is the farmers, the producers, not the
one responsible for appointing them to the board, particularly when
an act like this one is intended to last a good length of time,
since it is made to be longlasting, hoping that it is the best
possible.
If such is the case, if the government passes this legislation
to be in effect for a goodly length of time, hoping to apply it for
a long time, it is possible that its buddies who are appointed in
this first batch to the Canadian Wheat Board could turn up
elsewhere, be promoted to something else.
However, its friends or those who could be friends with the others
later on have to understand from reading the preamble of the bill
governing them that its priority and purpose is to look after the
interests of grain producers.
I do not understand why the member for Malpeque always rises
here, waving his arms about as if this were a personal issue, as if
it were an attack against him personally when we take apart and
criticize a bill that he is defending. I do not know why he does
not just use a little common sense. There must be common sense in
Malpeque too.
The hon. member for Malpeque should drop his habit of leaping
up and save his strength for other occasions, of which there are
many in political life.
Moreover, I want to say too that the bill does not require the
Canadian Wheat Board to be accountable to wheat producers. The
bill requires it to be cost effective, but who is going to decide
if it is cost effective? It is all very well to say the board will
be managed in a way that ensures its cost effectiveness, but who is
responsible for ensuring the cost effectiveness of the board? Is
it the appointed head of the wheat board, the person who appointed
the directors, friends of his political party? Or is it the
producers, who may be affected by the sometimes irrational
decisions and choices made by the administrators of public funds,
decisions that are even less rational because they are not
accountable to the people, the producers in this case?
I find the attitude displayed by the member for Malpeque,
despite the carryings on of my colleague opposite who is protecting
his chum and shares his views on the matter, in so vigorously
opposing what we propose to put in the preamble of the bill, is
mistaken and leaves that very impression with everyone including
the Liberals. A member rose on a point of order saying he had the
impression, from the way things were being dealt with, that the
members considered him dishonest. That does not come from us. I
was seated and had said nothing. If he thinks he is dishonest, it
has a lot more to do with his bill.
1650
The time may have come to focus on the bill and suggest that the
hon. member for Malpeque stop challenging virtue and peace, order and
good governance.
I can understand that the hon. member for Malpeque may want to sell
just about anything to anyone; that is his job as parliamentary
secretary. He can be made to say anything, that is his job, as he has to
protect his minister. But let us try to get across to him what is really
being asked by our colleagues in the Reform Party, with whom I seldom
agree, but agree with this time. Good common sense ideas can spring from
anywhere. I mentioned Malpeque, but they can also spring from western
Canada.
I think that they are absolutely right. Without being partisan
about this bill, I think it could be a good bill, a bill that does what
it is meant to do and a bill that can have a positive effect. There is
no need to get carried away and go on opposing the Reform proposal. As
a former political figure in Quebec, the late Maurice Bellemare, used to
say “What matters is not the size of the sledgehammer but the swing you
put in the handle”. He has put quite a bit of swing in demolishing
something that stands to reason and is founded in logic and necessity.
I urge all members of this House, especially those who feel as
uneasy about this bill as the hon. member who spoke earlier, who feel
attacked even though they are innocent—and they all are—, who feel
targeted by the bill and threatened by its consideration, to share their
feelings with the hon. member for Malpeque, who will inform his
minister, who will in turn inform whomsoever he pleases, as long as the
end result is that an interesting bill is brought back to us. If justice
is not done to grain producers, it should at least appear to be done.
That would be better than nothing. We cannot hope for more than that.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was not expecting to take part in the debate because
agriculture is an area of great expertise. I draw your attention
to members opposite who have just asked me to sit down. I
apparently in the opinion of some members opposite should not
speak because I am not directly involved in agriculture.
One of the reasons I am speaking is that I have sat here for
about an hour and a half listening to the debate, especially the
comments from the opposite side. Among the things that have been
said by those opposite is their suggestion that everyone on this
side is a lawyer as if somehow that is something reprehensible
and a reason for not commenting on legislation.
At the time that comment was made there were quite a number of
Liberal MPs on this side of the House, and I have to say none of
them were lawyers including myself.
Another thing I found reprehensible in the debate coming from
the other side was the suggestion from one member of the Reform
Party that because MPs may not be from the west, may not be from
the prairies and may not be directly associated with farmers
growing wheat, they somehow had no right to participate in a
debate on the bill. It is certainly true that I am from central
Ontario—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Bryden: Hansard will disclose that this
comment was made.
1655
I feel very strongly that it is a privilege to speak in the
House, on either side of the House, on the opposition side or on
the government side. We all have a duty to examine legislation
whether or not we have special expertise in the area under
debate.
The suggestion that only westerners can debate a wheat board
bill plays right into the hands of the separatists who would
suggest that the only people who can debate the future of Quebec
are people who live in Quebec. I reject that and I think most
Canadians reject it.
What I would like to contribute to this debate is what little I
can contribute to the debate. I would like to talk about the
question of preambles.
As I understand it, Motion No. 1 put forward by the official
opposition would establish a preamble to the bill. I am not a
lawyer and many members on the other side are not lawyers, but if
they would care to pick up the telephone and ask for advice, they
would discover that preambles do not count for anything in
legislation. Legislation begins where it states “Her Majesty,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, enacts”. The legislation follows that.
I have been campaigning on my side of the House to stop
government legislatures, bureaucrats, whoever writes the laws,
from writing preambles. Preambles are smokescreens. Preambles
are when the clauses in the legislation are not sufficiently
exact. The clauses do not say and do what the government is
convinced they will do.
We have the opposition suggesting that we should pass
legislation which carries on a tradition that really got rolling
in the 35th Parliament of smoke and mirrors through preambles.
What does it really mean if there is a preamble which states
“whereas agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian
economy?” What does that mean? What will it do for a judge?
Does it really matter? Will it affect how the law will be
interpreted? I suggest not.
It has no force on judges. My colleagues opposite can check it.
In the legal profession they call it the pious hope clause. It
has no binding implications for what the judge must do. The
judge must read after enacts.
There has been debate about the wording accountable to farmers
being in the preamble. This is where I will have to accuse my
colleagues opposite of not wanting to have a rational debate.
The phrase accountable to farmers sounds noble. I know it will
play very well in western Canada, but we are talking about
government legislation. We are talking about setting up a
federal government body. We are not setting up a provincial
body. We are not setting up a farmers union. We are setting up
a body that has to be responsible to the federal minister because
there is no other way of doing it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Bryden: They protest. What they are proposing
is unions. That party does not want government in Ottawa. It
does not want government in the provinces. It wants some sort of
people's parliament that can only translate into a union. As
usual, the Reform Part is on the same side as the Bloc Quebecois,
wishing to dismantle government institutions in favour of
regional institutions. That is an absolute formula for disaster
for the country.
Thank heavens you were not going away, Madam Speaker; I was a
little worried there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Bryden: Instead of the smoke and mirrors of a
false debate, of a phoney debate about a preamble that has no
force or about accountability that cannot exist, we are talking
about a government board that has producers on it. It is
accountable in the traditional way that government bodies are
accountable. They are accountable to their elected
representatives who are represented in turn by the minister.
1700
He, in his wisdom, has set up a board which does have
composition with farmers. That is the real debate. If the
members of the opposition really want to do something
constructive, then by all means they should have a debate that
criticizes clauses in the bill.
It is the clauses in the bill that will be ruled on by the
courts which actually govern how the bill will operate. Please,
a debate about a preamble that everyone knows is meaningless is
not really a serious debate at all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vegreville—Lakeland.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
have spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to correcting you on
that. The name of my constituency changed from Vegreville to
Lakeland and I am quite proud and delighted with this change.
I am also delighted that I can be here taking part in a debate
on a motion like this regarding a change to the preamble, which
was brought forth by the member for Yorkton—Melville.
I believe by bringing this amendment to the legislation before
the House, he has initiated some very important debate on an
extremely important issue. We need that and I am proud to be
able to represent the farmers of Lakeland constituency and I
believe beyond that to some extent on this extremely important
issue.
Before I get started on my comments, I would just like to make a
comment on the comments of the member for Hamilton—Wentworth.
One of the comments he made was that a preamble is needed only if
the legislation in unclear. He has got that right. This
legislation is unclear.
We have asked for clarification. We have suggested
clarification. We have put forth perhaps 30 amendments or more
to try to clarify this legislation. Had the government done its
job and had its members listened to farmers in the process, we
would not have to do that. We would have clear legislation.
Unfortunately we do not, therefore we have to debate this
preamble. In fact, one of the changes we called for was a change
to section 5 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 5 is the
part of the act that deals with who the board exists for. Section
5 says that the wheat board exists for the Government of Canada.
We proposed changes under Bill C-72. Bill C-4 is the
reincarnation of Bill C-72. We suggested a change to section 5
so that it would clearly state in that section that the wheat
board exists for the benefit of farmers.
This government has entirely refused to accept that change. I
am upset by that. Farmers in my constituency are upset by that
and this is a change we have to make to this legislation before
it is passed. We know it will be passed somewhere down the road.
We will do everything we can of course to see to it that this
bill does not pass because it is unacceptable. I want to get
right to the group of amendments that we are debating here, which
is the preamble. It was presented by the member for
Yorkton—Melville.
I hear the member for Malpeque across the floor shouting some
comments again. I want the record to show that it was that same
member for Malpeque who refused an emergency debate on ending the
postal strike just a few minutes ago in this House. I think that
is intolerable.
We should not have a postal strike in this country, but I
digressed. Let the record show that it was the member for
Malpeque who in fact refused that this House allow that debate.
Back to the group of amendments that we are debating. What this
group of amendments does is state clearly that the wheat board
exists to maximize profits to grain farmers in western Canada.
That is what this group of amendments will do and that is
important because the current wheat board act does not state
that.
In fact, it states clearly that the wheat board exists for the
pleasure of the Government of Canada. I want to talk a little
about that because there are some very important points to be
made. We cannot assume that the wheat board will always do what
is in the best interests of farmers.
I will go through a bit of history in the little time I have to
demonstrate that very clearly.
1705
I will start before the turn of the century. To market grain
for our farmers, we had a series of co-operatives spring up. The
Grain Growers was the first co-operative which became the United
Grain Growers down the road with several amalgamations. The
purpose of the growers was to maximize farmers' profits.
Later we had the prairie pools come in, Saskatchewan and
Alberta. The purpose of those organizations was a little
different. It was to maximize profits but also to share profits
equally amongst members, to pool, to do what the wheat board now
does. This was the purpose of the first prairie pools, to pool
profits. Something else other than just maximizing the
individual profit of a farmer came into the situation.
When we look a little farther down, in the late twenties what
happened was the prairie pools were getting into trouble with
their pooling. At the same time as holding back grain from
market, hoping the prices would rise, the pools also speculated
on the Winnipeg commodity exchange. Because of that they got
into severe economic difficulty and went to the Government of
Canada for a bailout. The bailout was the first version of the
Canadian Wheat Board. Even the first version of the Canadian
Wheat Board was not a monopoly. Farmers had a choice, which is
exactly what we are calling for.
One of the important cornerstones of the pools was for farmers
to have a choice. There would be no mandatory pooling in any
grain or within the members of the co-operative, no mandatory
pooling. That was something carried over to this first wheat
board.
It was during the war to help with the war effort. I think it
was somewhat justified although some people including people who
became very important members of the Liberal cabinet later, like
Mitchell Sharp, said that it was debatable whether the monopoly
should have been put in place. There certainly was debate about
that from Mitchell Sharp. In a book he wrote quite recently he
condemned the monopoly of the wheat board staying in place after
the war. He was somewhat less judgmental of the board during the
war. Even important Liberals in the not too distant past have
opposed this monopoly for the board.
Clearly the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board during the war
was not to maximize profits for farmers. The mandate was to get
grain for the war effort at affordable prices. That was clearly
the mandate.
Until the end of the war most Canadians, even a lot of farmers,
were willing to tolerate that. Farmers care about this country.
They were willing to do their share to help with the war effort,
more than their share. That is so true.
After the war the monopoly was maintained for five years.
Canadian farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars through the
maintenance of this monopoly. They had no choice but to market
through the monopoly, and again, it was to help the war effort.
Yet the burden was not spread amongst all members. After the war
farmers paid a dear price for the board not having the express
goal of maximizing profits. That was intolerable.
This monopoly was enshrined in the seventies into the wheat
board act. Since then we see that there is nothing that states
the purpose of the board is to maximize farmers' profit in the
act. That is why this preamble is so important. It is not
enough. We need it clearly stated in the wheat board act itself
that the reason for the wheat board existing is to maximize
profits. This legislation does nothing to help that situation.
I would like to close on a comment on what the debate is in
western Canada. The debate is not whether we keep the board or
not. A vast majority of Canadian western farmers want the board.
1710
However, they do not want the monopoly. They want the freedom
to choose whether they market through the board or around the
board through their grain company or on their own to a customer,
whether the customer be in Canada or somewhere else in the world.
That is the debate. Polls have shown that a majority of western
Canadian farmers favour giving farmers a choice in marketing
grain.
These polls have been tabled at committee and are available. The
proof is there. What we must do with this legislation is amend
it so that farmers have that choice, a choice which I think is
given to people in all other businesses, and the ability to
choose whether they want to market through this government
institution or in some other way.
I am looking forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments
to Bill C-4.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite a
bit older than you are so you probably do not remember The
Music Man. I remember in the musical The Music Man, the
guy came into town and he was going to help the young people in
that town. He quickly identified that one of the problems in
that town was the pool hall. I remember the song went “We've
got trouble right here in River City and it is because of pool,
That starts with p and that rhymes with t and that
spells trouble”.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have trouble right here in River City,
Ottawa, and the trouble is the power of the government to dictate
what Canadians have to do. I would say it starts with power. It
starts with p that rhymes with t and that spells
trouble.
Let me enlarge on what I am saying here. Here we have western
farmers who have not been given a choice to even express
themselves. We had this phoney ballot over there in the west
where instead of giving the farmers an opportunity to check on
the ballot a choice which many of them would have chosen, namely
a dual marketing system, that was refused to them by these
bureaucrats and autocrats here in Ottawa. Shall I call them the
dictators here in Ottawa because that is exactly what happened.
Instead, now the government is spinning this support for the
wheat board as a continuation of the unaccountable, autocratic
system that is there and that is not to the benefit of farmers.
We are talking here about group one, the first amendment, the
amendment to put in a preamble. One of those Liberals over there
said “Well, the preamble is meaningless”. I beg to differ.
Whenever a court rules, part of its thinking is how to determine
the intention of the legislators. If we declare what that
intention is in the preamble it can have great weight in a
court of law.
I would like to propose that the reason these Liberals do not
want this particular amendment to pass and why they will
autocratically with their party discipline overrule the common
sense of a few of the Liberals over there who might vote for
this is because its members must all vote together. It must
force this.
Just as a little aside, something which annoys the dickens out
of me is that here we are debating a very important issue and yet
the decision on whether or not to vote for this amendment is
going to be made by a person who, I venture to guess, will not
have heard a word of this debate this afternoon. That is wrong.
We have lawyers, non-farmers and people from Ontario and the
east who are not even covered by the wheat board. As a matter of
fact, I am led to believe that the marketing system of grain in
Ontario is by a fully elected board. If that is good enough for
the farmers in Ontario why should we say to the farmers in
western Canada “Oh, you don't know how to choose your own
president of your board. We had better get the minister to
appoint him”?
Do members know what I think? I think if the Liberals were to
put a preamble here they would say whereas the Liberal government
needs a place where it can appoint some of its friends and
buddies and whereas the government needs a home for some of the
failed Liberal candidates, therefore we should have a wheat board
so that we have a place where we can appoint some of these guys.
1715
Whereas we want to occasionally give these board members some
money that is maybe higher than what the poor taxpaying blokes in
Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba can afford, they want to
give these guys some of the big bucks and the big perks. Let's
make sure the books stay closed. Let's make sure that the
auditor general cannot touch it. Let's make sure that it is
totally hidden and it is not accountable.
They would say whereas we want to do that for our buddies, let's
make sure the farmers never find out. That is what their
preamble would look like. No wonder they are against the
preamble, because the preamble that is proposed by our member
here is one that would hold them fully accountable. It is a
preamble that would say the board exists for the farmers.
They keep saying this board is the best. Let the farmers
choose.
I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you have
had some business experience. I do not know whether you have had
any farm experience, but I happen to have. I grew up on a farm
in Saskatchewan. It just so happens that the wheat board covers
wheat and barley, but if the quality of that grain is down where
it sells for feed, then it does not necessarily have to go
through the wheat board. A farmer can purchase or sell the feed
grains outside of the wheat board.
This is going to amaze you. It will astound you. The Liberals
claim this wheat board is the best thing that ever happened to
western farmers, and yet I know of farmers who have taken their
high quality grain and voluntarily declared it to be feed
quality, the very lowest quality, because selling it as feed they
get more for it than if they sold it through the blinking wheat
board.
If that wheat board is serving the farmers under conditions like
that, then I have a bridge to sell you somewhere in the middle of
the Atlantic Ocean. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The wheat board has to have a purpose for being. Why would
there be any objection to having a preamble that says in simple
terminology this is the purpose for this wheat board? Why should
there be a wheat board without a stated purpose? That is really
the debate here and I think the reason that the Liberals are
opposed to this is they do not want the farmers to have it
explicitly given. The Liberals do not want them to find out the
truth about their purpose, motivation and the reason for the
existence.
Instead, we need this preamble so that when the farmers of the
prairies go to challenge the accountability of this wheat board
in court, the judges can look at that preamble and say the
purpose of this wheat board is to serve the farmers. The purpose
of this wheat board is to maximize their profits, not sell their
grain at beneath feed prices, but to get the maximum of profits.
The reason is that farming right now is very competitive. It is
difficult to make a living on the farm these days, and I know of
what I speak. My brother farms on land which I worked on when I
was a kid. He and his boys are farming way more land and they
are getting about three or four times the production per acre
that we did when I was a youngster. My brother is having a
harder time making ends meet than my dad ever did. Why is that
with three or four times the rate of production? It is because
the farmers do not have the freedom to take what is rightfully
their own and sell it where they want to sell it.
If the wheat board is doing its job, the wheat board will get
the business. There is no doubt about it. If I am a farmer and
I have some grain to sell, I am going to look at the different
places where I can sell it. If I get $2 a bushel here and $3
here and $4 here, unless there are some very strange extenuating
circumstances, I will pick the one that gives me the best price,
the $4 per bushel.
Let us say that there is a case where the farmer is offered by
the wheat board maybe $2 a bushel with the hope of a future
payment to make up the difference. That is how it works. Let us
say that farmer sees another place where he can get maybe $5 a
bushel right now, cash.
1720
I challenge the Liberals. There are two or three of them over
there who can think for themselves. Will they have the courage
to vote against their party and vote for common sense and say
yes, if the farmer wants to have the right to sell his grain
outside the wheat board he should have the right to do that?
That happens to be in my view almost a human right. Whose grain
is it? Who seeded it? Who prepared the soil? Who paid the taxes?
Who paid for the fuel? Who paid for the fertilizer? Who paid
for the tractors and the machinery? Who worked 18 hours a day?
Who prayed for rain? Who prayed for the locusts to go away? If
we can get rid of the Liberals and the locusts, the farmers will
have it made.
Let me be serious here at the end of my time. I really want to
appeal very seriously to the members over there. The people who
are making the decision on whether to vote for this are not
hearing these arguments. May they please use their heads. May
they please be independent in their thinking and vote for what is
right.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
the first opportunity I have had to rise in the House to speak. I
cannot think of a better subject to do it on. It is a subject
that I have grown up with all my life and heard about all my
life.
Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank the people
who helped put me here, the people who worked on my campaign and
the people who had enough courage to vote for me. I hope I do
not let them down.
It is with a feeling of responsibility that I rise today to
address the amendment to the wheat board act, Bill C-4, and in
particular Motion No. 1.
This wheat board act historically has been a subject of much
discussion in the constituency I represent, the constituency of
Lethbridge, and obviously right across the prairies. Quite
frankly, it has been a very divisive subject. It has pit rural
neighbour against rural neighbour and region against region. It
has caused a lot of hardship and a lot of hard feelings among the
farm families on the prairies, probably more than any other
subject.
There are grain farmers on the prairies who want to see the
Canadian Wheat Board completely dismantled. They are fed up with
the lack of accountability to the producers. That is what this is
all about. It is accountability to the producers, not
accountability to the government, and the lack of options that
these producers have to market their products.
We seem to be at an impasse here. The government has taken this
bill, it has worked with it and brought it back and it is still
not acceptable. Either the government continues to ignore the
demands of producers, while many grain farmers are
inappropriately fined and jailed, or it takes this sorry excuse
of a bill back to the drawing board, makes some serious
amendments and starts listening to the full scope of
recommendations by producers and even its own Western Grain
Marketing Panel.
When this government had the opportunity, why did it not change
this tired legislation? Why did it choose not to? Why instead
did it bring forward a half baked proposal that does not address
the critical problems that are facing beleaguered grain farmers
today?
If producers did not support the bill when it was Bill C-72
during the last Parliament, then they will not support this one.
This government cannot change things just by slapping another
number on it.
Sadly enough, perhaps this piece of recycled legislation is the
best the Liberals can come up with. Considering that the
Canadian Wheat Board controls $5 billion in sales, has
approximately 110 producers and that farm group after farm group
testified at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
that this is a seriously flawed piece of legislation—I have
letters from producer groups in western Canada explaining the
problems they see with the legislation and begging this
government to make changes—I guess I naively thought that the
government would come up with something better, make a more
serious effort on it.
In Bill C-4 the government has failed to prove to producers that
it is in the grain marketing business. The time is long overdue
for grain marketing to be treated with common sense using sound
marketing principles in order to bring maximum returns to the
producers for their products. That is what this bill should
address, maximum returns for the producer. A previous prime
minister even went on record in years past to say “why should we
sell this grain?”
1725
Monopolies in other industries are rarely tolerated, so why are
grain producers exceptions to the rule?
Thousands of grain farmers have spoken and Bill C-4 shows that
the government is not listening, which perhaps may help to
explain why it is rushed through committee.
The government has not shown producers that it will be
responsible to them through a completely producer elected board,
insisting instead on appointing the key members of that board.
The time has come for government to relinquish its monopoly on
grain marketing.
A fully effective board of directors is fully elected board of
directors if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard.
Subsequently, if the aforementioned amendment were adopted,
section 3.02(4) would be deleted since it would not be necessary
to specify equal powers between elected and non-elected
directors.
The government has insinuated all the way through the process,
and I heard the minister responsible say this, that the expertise
to run this board does not exist among the producers. They have
to have five appointed members because it is such a large
business. I suggest to the government that it look at some of
the operations these producers have if it wants to see efficiency
in operations. It could learn something and could maybe
incorporate some of those practices into the bill.
Just imagine if producers ran their operations like the
government does. We do not hear of too many farmers who are
running up huge deficits year after year, all the while adding to
a huge debtload. If only governments were held to the same
degree of accountability as producers.
The government has chosen to cherry pick through the
recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel, focusing on
the recommendations that fit its agenda and ignoring the
recommendations that fit the needs of producers. What happened to
all the recommendations that producers and the panel supported?
Why were the requests for marketing offices producers are asking
for ignored? Why is the government so afraid to put some options
on the table for producers? Why did the government not resolve
the contentious and divisive issue when it had the chance? Where
is the transparency that producers are demanding? The auditor
general is still denied access to the wheat board operations.
This in itself is ringing alarm bells with producer groups across
the country.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access
to Information Act. How can the directors act freely if they are
bound by this secrecy? Why will the Liberal government not come
clean?
What has the government done in Bill C-4 to address the
unbelievable problems in the grain transportation system in this
country? Absolutely nothing. This government never even
bothered to tackle the Canadian Wheat Board's role in grain
transportation anywhere in Bill C-4.
Problems and inefficiencies cost grain producers dearly every
crop year, year after year. The nightmare we experienced last
year must not become a legacy to the efficiency or the lack
thereof in our transportation system.
Why is it always the products of hardworking Canadian grain
farmers that sit on rail sidings? Why are the grain cars put on
sidings while other products continue to port? Could it be
because neither the rail company nor the wheat board is penalized
for late delivery? Could it be because the penalty goes directly
to the producer, becoming just another transportation tax for
producers to pay?
In closing, why when the Liberal government had the chance did
it not address these problems? Why when the Liberal government
had the chance, and took the time and went to the considerable
effort of setting up a panel to make recommendations in producing
the bill, did it not put to rest the suspicions of producers in
the divisive aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board?
The rural families of Canada and the prairies, families on both
sides of this issue, deserve far more.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 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]
CHILD BENEFIT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review
the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in September, I moved a motion asking the
government to review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
1730
I am now debating this motion as the spokesperson for the
Progressive Conservative Party. I thank the members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for recognizing the importance
of this issue, which is to help reduce child poverty.
First, let me explain the reasons that led me to table this motion.
We are all proud to be Canadians. As we know, to be a Canadian is to be
part of a society which is blessed with a quality of life, which is
based on fairness, and which enjoys sound economic development. We rely
on a Canadian way of doing things that promotes economic development and
social justice. We are recognized all over the world as the defenders of
tolerance and fairness.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Among all industrialized
countries, we come in second place in terms of the number of children
living in poverty, right behind the United States.
According to Campaign 2000, the changes that have occurred since
1989, when the government pledged to eliminate child poverty, look like
this: the number of children living in poverty has increased by 46%; the
number of two-parent families living in poverty has increased by 39%;
the number of single parent families has increased by 58%; the number of
children living in families where unemployment is chronic has increased
by 44%; the number of children living in families on welfare has
increased by 6% and, finally, the number of children living in
unaffordable housing has increased by 60%. These figures speak volumes.
The problem is serious. Today, almost 1.5 million children live in
poverty.
I urge all hon. members to join the fight against this lack of
equity. At the first ministers conference in June 1996, child poverty
was put on the national agenda as a priority. Almost all premiers in
Canada have asked their ministers responsible for social services to
co-operate with the federal government on a new integrated child benefit.
The Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced this
new benefit, and I congratulate him and his government on this
initiative. A decision has been made to review the benefit and the
respective roles of the federal, provincial and territorial governments
in child assistance. The federal government intends to transfer to
provincial and territorial governments the responsibility for helping
low income working families.
This function was filled by the earned income supplement, a program that
will be integrated with the child tax benefit.
All low income families in Canada will receive this new combined
benefit, whether the parents work or not. Provincial governments will no
longer have to pay extra benefits to families on welfare for the
dentist, the optometrist and many other services.
As I mentioned, the bill has not yet been announced. We all know it
will come into force next July, but nobody really knows what is in it.
It should define the role of the provinces. How much are they going to
spend to alleviate child poverty, and how are they going to spend it?
This undisclosed agreement is already called the reinvestment framework.
Why is it called that?
Because the federal government promised that the provinces would
reinvest as much as the federal government, on a proportional basis of
course, that is, the $6 billion invested by the government and maybe the
additional $850 million it promised to invest in the next mandate.
The federal government will hand bigger and more equitable cheques
to all low income Canadian families. It has defined its own role more
clearly, and we look forward to the reinvestment framework that will
define the role of the provinces and territories.
1735
Let us just say that this reinvestment framework will be, I hope,
of a comprehensive nature because no support measure can in itself solve
the problem of poverty. This is a vast problem that has to be addressed
from a comprehensive point of view. Children are poor because their
parents are poor.
Let us look at the report entitled “Improving Social Security in
Canada”. It shows how the Canadian family and its needs are changing. It
says, quite rightly, that most social programs were created in the 1950s
and 1960s, when the typical family included three children and two
parents: a father at work and a mother at home. Today, the average
family has less than two children, and both parents work.
Over the last 20 years, we have seen a steady increase in the
number of double income couples, the number of working mothers with
young children and the number of single parent families. Young parents
are more educated, but they have unstable jobs, often part time, and
without fringe benefits in most cases.
In 1990, the proportion of couples with school age children and
with both parents working was 70%, compared to 30% in 1950.
To have a decent standard of living today, families need a double
income. The family is changing, and support measures must change too.
Many changes are needed. We need quality child care. We need to make
support for the care of handicapped children more accessible.
Child care services must be flexible to fit work schedules and work
locations.
We have just seen how the social fabric of the family is changing,
but everything else around the family is changing too. We must also look
at community action programs for children. We must develop general
approaches to problems related to children, prioritize new approaches
and consolidate the ones that already exist, such as the community
action program for children.
With the breakdown of the social fabric and the solitude felt by
many people who live as shut ins in their apartments, not knowing their
neighbours, we must rely on community organizations to renew the ties
that have been lost and to rebuild our social fabric. We must help them,
and this help is also part of a comprehensive vision.
There are also prenatal nutrition programs, or assistance to
native communities, who are living in worrisome conditions, to say
the least. As well, there are parental and maternity benefits. As
I told you, the problem is extensive and must be examined in a
comprehensive manner, which includes asking ourselves whether we
really have achieved equality between the sexes because a legal
framework exists, or whether the reality of the matter is something
else again. Let us not forget that, of the 15.7% of children
living with a single parent, that parent is their mother in 92.8%
of cases, and that the vast majority of them, approximately 70%,
live in poverty.
The longitudinal survey on children and youth revealed that
one child in four is poor in Canada, that the economic disparity
between them differs widely from one region of the country to
another, that in Newfoundland one child in three lives under these
conditions as opposed to one in four or five elsewhere in the
country.
It is a sorry state of affairs.
How can these children do well in school? How many of them
arrive hungry, with no lunch or snack, having left chilly living
quarters in clothes as thin as their parents' wallets? How many?
One and a half million, one child in four. Under such conditions,
neither you nor I nor any of my colleagues would do well.
Finally, we come back to the improved and expanded federal
benefit. This benefit will mean that many families will have more
money to help them make ends meet, and for many of them the benefit
will play a vital role. But even the most generous benefit would
not stamp out child poverty, because even in its improved form the
benefit will still feel the effects of inflation next year.
I will, if I may, quote the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who said recently at a dinner with members of the
Laval chamber of commerce that by “putting our fiscal house in
order, Canada has regained some leeway and the ability to make
choices, important choices for society. And governing is about
making choices”.
1740
Later in his speech he said also “There cannot be any real and
strong economic union without having also a collaborative and dynamic
social union to support it. The national child benefit is the latest
example of this dynamic relationship between our social values and the
concrete initiatives that are taken. One thing is certain: children who
are cold and hungry when they arrive at school are in no condition to
learn. This is unfair. In Canada, this makes no sense. Children are our
future, the future of our society and the future of our economic
development”. And what he says is true.
The mechanism for the benefit is simple: the government will
increase the revenue of low income families.
As for the provinces, since they will have to pay less for social
assistance, they will be able to invest again in programs and services.
This is what the minister pointed out when he said “Each province will
benefit from greater flexibility. Quebec's flexibility, for example,
will increase by $150 million a year”.
But I would also like to point out that the people also need
flexibility. Just imagine, if the benefit were indexed to the cost of
living, the cost would increase by $170 million a year. That is $170
million the government saves each year, but it is also $170 million less
for the underprivileged every year. That is because there is no
protection for the child benefit. That is because the benefit is only
partially indexed.
Let me explain. The amount of the benefit is adjusted every year,
but only if inflation is above 3%.
Because inflation has remained under that level for a number of years
now, and following the upswing in the Canadian economy, there has never
been any increase or adjustment to their benefits.
Children are dependent on what governments decide. If we are giving
them something today, it is because we gave them nothing before. We are
only catching up. They have to be allowed to keep up with the cost of
living. Canadian families are suffering from declining purchasing power,
and the underprivileged have trouble meeting their family obligations.
The child benefit could be an important safeguard against the
devastating effects of child poverty, but the value of the benefit has
constantly declined over the last decade, because it is only partially
indexed to inflation.
The federal government spent $4.1 billion dollars in child
benefits in 1984, and $5.1 billion in 1994. This represents a 25%
increase compared to an increase of some 46% in the cost of living.
If the 1984 benefits had really been indexed to inflation, they
would have risen to $6 billion in 1994.
We understand that some decisions, such as setting a limit for
indexation, were based a a certain context. When this was adopted
in 1985 by the Conservative government of the day, the country was
emerging from the economic crisis of 1982, and needed to tighten up
its administration.
We were heading toward a financial dead end. This was what
the right decision had to be. But, as the Minister of Human
Resources has said, public finances have been put on a sounder
footing. Now we have to make societal choices.
To govern is to make choices, as the minister has said, but it is
also knowing how to adapt.
According to the Canadian council on social development, if we
add up all the 1% and 2% increases in inflation over recent years,
the loss for Canadian families represents 13% of total benefits.
This now ought to be addressed.
Inflation raises the nominal value of family income. Far more
families are moving over the income limit every year by receiving
the child benefit, even if the real value of their income has not
increased. The cumulative impact is a reduction in the child
benefit of some $150 to $170 million yearly. As a consequence, an
additional investment in the benefit system merely replaces what
has been lost in recent years.
There is a way of counteracting this effect of inflation, and
it is to agree to examine the level of indexation, which is why I
rise to defend this motion today.
In 1996, the government recognized that the same situation for
our seniors' benefits needed remedying. I am therefore asking that
we do as much for our children.
1745
I would like to conclude by reminding the House that we must
tell our children that they are important to us. We must remind
them that the intention in 1989 of eliminating child poverty by the
year 2000 still stands. We must not forget, hon. members of
Parliament, that we must be fair in the choices we make in society.
We must not forget that it is the children living in poverty today
who will be turning the wheels of the economy tomorrow. We must
not forget to be fair in the way we consider the future.
Now that Canada's economy seems to be back on track, we must
remember that we can now look ahead and put social justice in this
country back in balance. To this end, we must present all of our
children and their families with an honest and a realistic schedule
for resolving the problem of child poverty.
We must remind federal, provincial and territorial authorities
that, if they do not work together in carrying out their
responsibilities and their duties toward those who are most
disadvantaged, we will not resolve the problem.
I am not really trying to move them along, but for a number of
years we have produced endless reports and studies and I think it
is high time to show the million and a half children living in
poverty that their country is trying to find ways to improve their
situation. Let us give them the means we consider necessary to
resolve their situation, and later on they will come to recognize
our good intentions.
Let us try to give our children a healthy space to develop.
A balance between federal, provincial and territorial governments
and getting things in hand in the community will lead to the
establishment of effective structures that will put an end to the
devastating effect of poverty on children.
I call on the members of this House, therefore, in order to
eliminate the negative effect of inflation, to review the level at
which the child benefit is indexed, as they did with seniors'
benefits.
Let us reclaim Canada's title of champion of social justice.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to this private member's motion which recommends that the
government review the level at which the Child Tax Benefit is
indexed.
I am unable to support the motion and in the few minutes
available to me I would like to explain my reasons. Before I
begin I want to emphasize that the government continues to place
a very high priority on making assistance available to families
with children, particularly those at the low and modest income
levels.
Let me take a moment to explain how the indexing provisions work
with respect to the child tax benefit. Under the Income Tax Act
the child tax benefit is partially indexed on an annual basis. It
goes up each year by the amount the consumer index exceeds 3%.
Many of my colleagues will recall that this policy of partial
indexation was introduced to help address the severe fiscal
problems facing the federal government.
Partial indexation of the child tax benefit is consistent with
how other elements of the personal tax system are treated. For
example, the basic personal credit, the spousal credit and the
tax brackets are all partially indexed. This is a policy which
applies broadly across the tax system.
The Income Tax Act has been amended a number of times to allow
for the child tax benefit discretionary increases. In actual
fact the motion before us today should be considered as a
proposal to amend the Income Tax Act and move to full indexation
of the child tax benefit base and threshold.
As hon. members know the only realistic alternative to
discretionary increases is the full indexation of the child tax
benefit. While the government fully supports the broader goal of
increasing assistance to families with children, let us not
forget that with an inflation rate of 1.6% per year, restoring
full indexation of the child tax benefit would cost the federal
government about $160 million per year. In addition, it would be
difficult to restore full indexation to some tax parameters and
not others.
The federal revenue implications of moving to full indexation of
all tax parameters are quite substantial, with a cost of $850
million a year.
The cost is cumulative, so it means that it will be $850 million
in year one, $1.7 billion in year two, and so on. Such revenue
losses could threaten the government's program to restore fiscal
balance. Because of these potential fiscal costs the government
is unable to support the motion.
1750
However, I assure the House that the government will review the
policy of partial indexation once our fiscal position makes it
possible to do so. In the meantime the government is committed
to targeting additional assistance to priority areas like
families.
In the last two budgets, for example, the government increased
by $850 million the assistance provided to low income families
through the child tax benefit. Since July 1997 over 720,000 low
income working families have received increased benefits as a
result of restructuring and enriching the working income
supplement.
Maximum benefits increased from $500 per family to $605 for the
first child, $405 for the second child and $330 for each
additional child. Next July these benefits will be extended to
all low income families as part of the joint federal-provincial
initiative known as the national child benefit system.
The national child benefit system has three key objectives: to
prevent and reduce child poverty, to improve work incentives and
to simplify administration.
Under the national child benefit system the federal government
will assume a larger role in providing basic income support to
families with children. The provinces and territories will make
corresponding reductions to the child component of their social
assistance payments and reinvest all the savings in complementary
programs and other benefits and services for low income families.
For the lowest income families the proposed increases in the
child tax benefit represent a 50% increase in federal benefits.
Before closing I remind hon. members the government has promised
a further enrichment of child benefits of the same magnitude
during its mandate. As I stated earlier, these actions
demonstrate that assistance to families with children,
particularly low and modest income families, is and will continue
to be a priority of the government.
Let me repeat that the government will review the policy of
partial indexation once it is fiscally appropriate to do so. For
these reasons I am unable to support the motion before the House.
I encourage all my colleagues to do the same and not support the
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is as pleasure for me to speak today to
the motion moved by the member for Shefford, which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should review the
level at which the child benefit is indexed.
One can question the brevity of this motion, the strength of its
wording or the message to be conveyed, but the fact remains that it is
interesting to be able to debate this issue.
This is rather ironic. Members will recall that the present
partial indexation was introduced by the Tory government of the day.
This partial indexation works as follows. It was decided that as long as
the inflation rate did not reach 3%, there would be no indexation. This
means that, since 1992, there has been no indexation whatsoever.
Therefore, families have been systematically losing money at a higher
rate than the real inflation rate, because if the real inflation rate
had been taken into account, the child benefit would have been increased
accordingly. Right now, there is no indexation. For the families
involved this represent a shortfall of $850 million.
What is even more ironic is that the Liberals have been pursuing
the same policy.
1755
But in 1992, the current Deputy Prime Minister stated “The
government talks about this new child benefit program it has come up
with, but let us look at this program. In fact, a family with a $40,000
annual income will only receive $44 more each year. Within three years,
this benefit will be reduced by 10% and, in ten years, most families
will no longer be receiving any assistance because this benefit is not
indexed for inflation”. That is what the current Deputy Prime Minister
said in February 1992.
When the Liberals came to power, they picked up where the
Conservative government left off. They chose not to change this
situation.
According to the Caledon Institute, which conducts quality social
analyses, the child tax benefit is infected by the partial deindexation
virus.
It is a losing proposition for all families. Those that were
entitled to benefits lose out on full deindexation, but low income
families are much harder hit. In their case, whatever amount is not
indexed represents money they cannot depend on for their daily
requirements. This is a correction the Liberals failed to make and
should have made when they came to office again in 1993. Today, they are
being reminded of that fact the motion put forward by the Conservative
member.
It will also be remembered that, before 1984, the family policy
included family allowance payments, child tax credits and exemptions for
dependent children.
In 1984, some $6.7 billion was paid out under this family policy.
With the changes introduced in 1997, this amount had gone down to
$5.1 billion, which means a $1.6 billion cut in payments made to
families over 13 years. So, the $850 million that the human resources
development minister said would be put back into the system will only
partly offset the cuts made since 1993. That is why we may feel it is
very relevant to take a good look at the child benefit indexation rate.
I take this opportunity to remind you of the somewhat prophetic
words of Benoît Tremblay, who said in 1992—he was the member for
Rosemont at the time—that it was tantamount to giving up on having a
real family policy.
We are moving away from a family-based policy toward a policy designed
to fight poverty, but we are no longer doing so by using an integrated
approach that would allow families in Quebec and Canada to enjoy
adequate benefits.
Mr. Tremblay said “The perverse effects will be felt
gradually”.
These perverse effects have indeed become reality. What the Deputy Prime
Minister said in 1992 did happen, and now we are facing a situation
where, from year to year—because we are not about to see a 3% rate of
inflation in the coming years—the same thing will systematically
occur.
This means that, at the rate things are going, the $850 million
shortfall generated between 1992 and 1997 may well exceed $1 billion by
the year 2000.
It also means that over an equivalent period in the future, let us say
until the year 2002, the shortfall for families will total $1.5 billion.
It is therefore urgent to look at the situation and to make up for
this shortfall generated by a decision which was made by the
Conservatives and maintained by the Liberals, and which now has a major
negative impact on all families in Quebec and Canada.
The hon. member for Shefford is right in saying that the government
should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
She is right, but I think we should do more than to review the
level at which the child benefit is indexed.
We should actually look at the possibility of fully indexing the child
benefit. The government would then realize that, as far as this House is
concerned, full indexation is the solution.
It must be remembered that the 3% rule came into effect following
years during which the inflation rate had stood at 10%, 12%, 8%, 6% and
5%. Three per cent seemed very reasonable then. It was truly felt that
automatic indexation would take place year after year. But this was not
the case.
1800
We have seen inflation rates of 2.%, 2.5% and 2.8%, but it is the
general inflation rate that counts. It can happen in a given year that
the cost of living for daily necessities increases by more than 3%, but
there is no indexing because the general cost of living index is less
than 3%. So year after year, families have been absorbing this.
When we ask why there is an increasing number of poor children, why
there is an increasing number of families who cannot make ends meet and
why we are in the process of building a split society, the answer I
would say is that we have been slowly undermining the middle class by
eliminating a benefit that allowed people to have an adequate standard
of living and reamin above the poverty line.
Therefore, we can say because of all this that we have a policy
that discourages families with children, that the family policy has been
replaced by the fight against poverty, but this does nothing to further
the objective of a true family policy.
The government likes to say that it cares for children and that it
wants to fight child poverty, but the $850 million that it is promising
to invest will only partially remedy the shortfall. An amount of $1.5
billion was mentioned earlier. So there will still be a lot of room for
improvement.
To achieve this, to ensure that the motion by the member for
Shefford can be more effective, I will propose an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words
after the word “review” and substituting the following:
“the possibility of fully indexing the child benefit.”
So the final version of the motion would read:
That in the opinion of
this House, the government should review the level at which
child benefit is indexed.
Therefore, in this period of prebudgetary consultations, the
government will be able to determine the figures and make the
assessments necessary to ensure fairness once again, to give our
families a chance, and to send the message that we want families to take
their rightful place and to have the financial means to provide an
adequate education for their children. We have to restore full
indexation and thus prevent a recurrence of the unfairness we have
today, when inflation rates of 1.2%, 2% or 2.5% are depriving families
of these benefits.
I will end with this and I would like to submit my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the amendment is in order.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when there is a debate about the welfare of Canadians,
particularly young people, everyone is very interested. I
commend my colleague from Shefford for bringing forward her
private member's motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review
the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
1805
An amendment has been proposed by the Bloc to bring the level to
full indexation.
As we are all aware as Canadians, or at least most of us who
have had families, the child benefits payable in Canada have
undergone many changes during the past two decades. The 1985
budget, which is about 12 years ago, subjected the entire child
benefit system to partial indexing. That is what the member for
Shefford is suggesting we need to study.
Benefits increase only if inflation exceeds 3%. Since the Bank
of the Canada and the Government of Canada have made a commitment
not to allow inflation to go over 3%, what we essentially have is
no benefit increases even though there are inflation increases,
which means that the value of the benefit is steadily eroding.
This partial deindexing has now been in place for 12 years. It
really amounts to an automatic annual tax increase. This is
because inflation still erodes the value of the benefit and
erodes the value of the threshold at which maximum benefits are
paid. There is a double whammy which increases the tax payable
for families with children.
Neither the child benefit nor its threshold of $25,921 for
maximum payment is fully protected against inflation. The value
of the benefit has steadily declined for 12 years.
The Liberal government is doing a lot of breast beating about
child poverty and how it will attack it. It is very interesting
the government has done nothing about something that has eroded
the disposable income in the hands of families who have to look
after children.
Unbelievable though it might be, the parliamentary secretary
just said “We would like to do things like this but we will
oppose the motion because there will be a fiscal cost to this”.
He is really saying “We need the tax bucks, so forget it”. This
keeps eroding the income of poor families who then produce the
poor children the Liberals say they care so much about. Sometimes
we do wonder if it is not true that Liberalism simply is saying
the right thing but doing nothing.
The partial deindexing of the child benefit like the partial
deindexing of the so-called refundable GST credit and the partial
deindexing of the personal income tax system is regressive. We
use these buzz words a lot, but it really means that it hits poor
people more than it hits higher income people. This falls most
heavily on the working poor, the very ones with the poor
children, the child poverty the Liberals have said they will do
so much about.
These tax increases are not transparent. The Liberals can say
one thing and do another. It is very easy for them to hide this
tax increase. Although it happens every year the tax increase is
never debated in the House and most Canadians do not even realize
it is going on. It is like the bracket creep we keep talking
about. It is the same sort of thing.
One of Canada's leading social critics says that this amounts to
social policy by stealth. I find repugnant that this is from a
government, from a party that is always talking about compassion
for the poor and the downtrodden. It says it will help those most
in need and to redistribute the social benefits of the country to
those who need them the most.
Yet what do we find? We find policy after policy after policy,
including the current increases in the Canada pension plan
premium, which fall most heavily on those least able to pay
penalizing the families and the children most in need of the
extra dollars the government is sucking out.
1810
This erosion of net family income continues in many ways. The
child benefit is only one example. It results in higher and
higher taxes.
The average Canadian family has suffered a $3,000 drop in real
income since the Liberals took office in 1993. If the Liberals
had actually said their policies would cost $3,000 more a year by
the time they were out of office, how many Canadians would have
voted for that?
What did the Liberals get elected on? Jobs, jobs, jobs. They
were also to get rid of the GST. They did neither. They dropped
the average Canadian family income by $3,000. No wonder there is
child poverty. Now the Liberals can ride to the rescue and say
that they will certainly do something about it. They caused it,
so they should do something about it.
Between 1951 and 1973 real family incomes more than doubled, but
since the mid-1970s total family earnings in real dollars
adjusted for inflation have actually not improved at all. This
in spite of the fact that more and more two people in a family
are working. There is less ability for parents to make choices
about caring for their own children because they simply need the
extra dollars from both of them working.
Despite the rising numbers of dual income families, total
inflation adjusted after tax incomes have fallen by $2,733 per
worker since 1984. This is simply unacceptable. It is no wonder
families do not have enough money to feed and clothe their kids,
to pay the mortgage or the rent, and to make sure that their
children have the necessities of life. It is because the
government thinks it is more necessary for the government to have
the money than for the children to have it.
This is incredible. I hope nobody misses this fact. Canadian
taxpayers must start paying taxes at an income level of about
$6,460. If they make that grand sum of $6,460 per year the
government says “All right, guys, start paying up”. Who can
live on $6,000? Somehow government thinks that if they make over
that they owe the government something.
A family of four at an income level of $11,800 has to pay income
tax. It is brutal, absolutely brutal. Under the seniors benefit
the government says they do not have to pay tax for a family
income of $11,000, but a family of four has to pay tax. No wonder
there are poor children and families in the country. Yet every
year the government wants more. It takes more and more. I am
happy, Mr. Speaker, that you and many other members of the House
care about this matter.
The average Canadian family spends more in taxes than on food,
clothing and shelter combined. In 1996 Statistics Canada said
the average Canadian family spent $21,000 on taxes but only
$17,000 on food, clothing and shelter. Government takes more out
of us than we have left to look after our needs.
The Liberal government is simply increasing the rate. It has an
insatiable appetite for tax dollars. That is why we call the
finance minister a taxaholic. That is exactly what he is. One
bottle is not enough any more. It has to be more and more every
year.
The Reform Party simply says enough is enough. When Canadians
make money they should be able to keep the amount necessary to
feed their children, to clothe their families and to provide them
with shelter and the necessities of life.
The government takes a whole chunk of the money Canadians need
to look after their families and then says that it is giving some
back. The parliamentary secretary just said they would like to
give more if they could afford it. They will someday but in the
meantime they cannot because they have fiscal costs. It would
cost them too much. They need our money.
We have to start giving Canadians tax relief. Government does
not have the right to take more and more money.
1815
We need to give Canadians tax relief. We need to look at things
like this indexation.
We support the motion of this member and hope the House will as
well.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the child
benefit. It is an issue that is very important for children and
families in this country. I would like to congratulate the member
for Shefford on her decision to move this motion. On behalf of all
my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to indicate
our support for the motion as amended by the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
This motion is clearly an important one for all of us to be
debating in this House. It calls for a review of the indexing of
the child tax benefit. It is a very important initiative that
should be part—and I add, a part—of a number of changes to the
child tax benefit and to a whole range of initiatives dealing
with children's needs and children's poverty in this country.
It is clear that the child tax benefit will erode over time if
it remains partially indexed. A portion of its gains will be
lost to inflation each year. The inflation over 3% formula, in
operation for more than a decade, means that the value of child
benefit declines in real terms by 3% each year as well.
As the member for the Reform just mentioned, it is in fact
“social policy by stealth”, as so aptly put by Ken Battle of
the Caledon Institute. As my colleague from the Bloc pointed
out, the origin of this problem does rest with the Progressive
Conservatives. Let us keep in mind that the Tories introduced
this negative feature into federal benefits, into the personal
income tax system and the refundable GST credit, and it is the
Liberals who have continued this policy.
Without a doubt in our mind, this government, the Liberal
government today, must move quickly to reindex benefits to
inflation to stop this decline.
As I said at the outset, this is about one benefit, one
initiative important to our goal, a goal I believe we all hold in
common: to reduce child poverty, but it should be recognized as
only a beginning. We must have in this country a comprehensive
strategy to reduce child poverty that includes specifically
setting targets for reducing unemployment.
How can we have a strategy to reduce child poverty unless we
reduce unemployment? In fact, no strategy to reduce child
poverty can be complete without a real target for reducing
unemployment and a will to meet those targets.
Statistically speaking, it should be noted that for every 1%
drop in the unemployment rate, 72,000 children can be lifted out
of poverty.
There is another element that must be part of any strategy to
address child poverty in this country today. That initiative is
something that has been promised so many times over by
Progressive Conservatives and Liberals in this country in
election after election after election and then put on the back
burner. That must be raised again to the forefront of our
political agenda, and that of course is affordable child care.
The child tax benefit is structured to impel low income mothers
into the workforce without providing funding for quality child
care options.
1820
The federal government should be ashamed of its decision time
and time again to keep this issue on the back burner despite
clear commitments, especially in the 1993 election, to ensure
that this country would have a national child care plan to
provide quality, affordable, accessible spaces for families right
across this country.
There is no discussion initiated at present by the federal
government around this issue at all. There is no hint of any
plans from the Liberal government to strengthen child care as a
complement to the child benefit.
How can we address child poverty? How can we assist families
cope in these very difficult times unless we make very serious
inroads in the provision of such a valuable service for this
country?
The statistics speak for themselves. For all the time the
Liberals have been in power and failed to keep their promise on a
national child care plan, failed in providing a meaningful social
assistance program in this country and failed in so many other
respects, in that time 200,000 more children have fallen below
the poverty line.
More and more families, especially single parent families headed
by women with small children, are struggling on a day to day
basis and falling further and further behind.
It is absolutely imperative for this House, for this Parliament
to look at the child benefit in a much bigger context. The $600
million in new federal spending announced in the 1997 budget is
only a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars the
federal government spends on other programs, the additional
billions the federal government hands out in tax expenditures and
the $7 billion Ottawa has cut from federal social transfers to
the provinces under the CHST.
The national child benefit, however important, does not really
offer any new gains. It merely substitutes ground already lost.
As a result of a decision in the late 1980s to partly remove
inflation protection from the existing child tax benefit, its
value has been eroding by up to $150 million a year.
The government's announcement of $850 million down payment or
$600 million in the new federal spending will only serve to bring
poor families closer to where they were when the Liberals took
power in 1993.
Many of the provinces today are pushing for a further commitment
of $2.5 billion into the fund by the year 2000. Certainly it is
our hope and I hope the hope of many other members in this House
that this government, the Liberal government, will move ahead
with such a commitment.
Without a commitment to a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda, the
child benefit is but a band-aid solution that actually acts to
depress wages and further marginalize poor people.
Children are poor because their parents are poor. Eliminating
child and family poverty will require a concerted effort on all
our parts. It will require and demand a comprehensive strategy
from the federal Liberal government that would include many
essentials, that would include job creation, housing, child care,
training and post-secondary education.
We have no hesitation in supporting the motion today,
particularly as amended by the Bloc to ensure full indexation of
the national child benefit. However, we want to register our
concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy from the
Liberal government and use this opportunity to call on the
government to come forward with a meaningful comprehensive
strategy.
We must act now in order to put Canada back on track to meeting
the all-party goal, members will remember, introduced in this
House in 1989 by the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, a goal that
said we must end child poverty by the year 2000.
1825
Well, we are awfully close to the year 2000 and we have only
seen child poverty worsen in this country. It is getting more
serious with each day that passes because of a failure on the
part of our national government to take up this issue and put in
place a comprehensive strategy that gets at the roots of the
problem.
Let us use this opportunity today to recommit ourselves to that
goal to eliminate child poverty from this country as quickly as
we can.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to debate the motion of the hon. member for
Shefford. I congratulate her for bringing this matter to the
House. It is something we are all concerned about and that is
the issue of child poverty.
We talked a lot tonight about the issue of inflation and how we
need to adjust child tax credits for that. I would like to come
at this from a different angle.
It was not that long ago that not all of our legislation,
through the income tax system, was totally indexed to the rate of
inflation. In fact, we lived in inflationary times. Peoples'
wage agreements and various other aspects of their financial
lives were tied to the consumer price index.
I suggest that that creates an inflationary spiral. In other
words, every time the rate of inflation went up, everybody's
income went up, child tax credits went up, everything else went
up and it similarly impacted on inflation. I cannot help but
impress on the member how devastating that inflationary time we
lived in not long ago was to low income families. They are the
ones who are less likely to be able to adjust to the dramatic
rising costs of living, their rent, food, et cetera.
That is one aspect I want to address on why I oppose the
member's motion. I believe that if we move in this specific area
of child tax benefits, we will similarly be obligated to do the
same thing throughout the whole income tax system. You cannot
very well argue that at one point is a necessity and yet at
another point it is not.
If you look at it in broad terms you will also see that this
would create over $850 million in lost tax revenues. Not only
that, it also brings us back into this inflationary economy which
will have a tremendous dilatory effect on low income families.
The government is concerned about the issue of child poverty.
We did in fact inject $850 million into the envelope of an
enhanced child tax benefit system for working income families.
As we speak members of both federal and provincial governments
are debating the issue of how to deliver this program within
provincial envelopes.
I am happy to see that one of the things our government is
insisting on is that there be an accountability package that goes
with it. In other words, it is not simply money locked into an
envelope of a benefit package but there is some way as a country
we can measure the success of those programs. In other words,
there is some way to measure if child malnutrition has been
improved.
These are things that are not so easy to jump up and be in
favour of and implement. They take time and effort and
dedication.
1830
I am very pleased to be part of a party and a government
dedicated to the issue of child poverty, trying to find ways not
only to get money out to those families most in need but also to
ensure that money gets to those children to alleviate the very
problems that some of the members have brought out here today.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. It being 6.30 p.m., the
period set aside for Private Members' Business has now ended and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the Order Paper.
[English]
When the House resumes consideration of this matter, the hon.
member for Durham will have five minutes remaining in his speech.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to see you in the chair
this evening.
I rise today on a very serious issue dealing with impaired
driving in Canada. Last October 24, I asked the Minister of
Justice if she would table rapidly amendments to the Criminal
Code dealing with this serious issue. I also asked her if she
would commit to concrete steps on behalf of the government to
review the Criminal Code, roadside procedures, and enact a
victims bill of rights in unison with an effort to combat drunk
driving in Canada.
The minister to date has not committed to either of those
requests. One thing that we have seen in the past is that her
predecessor and, I would submit, the current Minister of Justice
have given lip service to amendments in this area. They have
often talked of it and they have appeased, I would suggest, to
some degree victims rights groups and those concerned with this
issue by giving the appearance of wanting to do something about
it, seeming very sincere and genuine in their efforts.
However, to date we have not seen anything concrete either by
way of a legislative initiative or even the time spent in talking
to these groups.
If there is anything that has become clear over the past number
of months in this House on the issue of impaired driving it is
that the statistics and the effect on the ground that impaired
drivers have on the roads and highways throughout the country and
on the lives of Canadians are significant. The statistics are
absolutely shocking when one delves into them.
The minister in her answers to the questions indicated that she
was waiting for a report to be tabled by the transportation
department. As well, she was waiting to meet further with her
provincial counterparts. I again suggest that this is a delay
because it is very clear that none of these individuals in the
Department of Transport or her provincial counterparts can effect
an immediate change to the Criminal Code of Canada. That
responsibility lies with the minister herself.
I reiterate today what I have said previously. In my mind, the
Minister of Justice has an opportunity to do something and to do
something quickly.
I want to suggest a few things in the time I have. The
statistics I have indicated have been stated time and time again:
4.5 persons killed in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the
week, 365 days of the year. Impaired drivers injure or kill over
300 people in Canada every day. In 1995 alone, 519 people were
killed across the country by impaired drivers. These are shocking
statistics.
It is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk
every time a person gets behind the wheel, regardless of the
level of intoxication.
It is time to do something and quickly. The most effective way
to do that is to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code that
would strengthen police ability to deal with impaired driving.
Nothing has been done to date.
I suggest there are concrete things the government can do today.
As a start it would be to lower the blood alcohol concentration
that is criminal in this country, to review the Criminal Code
with respect to reasonable and probable grounds required by
police officers so that they might investigate crash sites
involving death and serious bodily harm. That evidence of an
accident would, in and of itself, be grounds for police officers
to make a demand.
1835
The government could change the language in the Criminal Code to
reflect the seriousness of impaired driving accidents involving
death and the suggestion would be to characterize it as vehicular
homicide. If nothing else, this would emphasize the seriousness
of the offence.
The creation of these new standards would also go hand in hand
with the enactment of a victims bill of rights which would
include and enhance greater participation of victims in the
criminal trial process.
If the Minister of Justice is committed to this issue and is
prepared to do more than just lip service then these issues will
be brought up further in the justice committee and will be acted
on rather than simply given fair comment and ongoing debate.
This is something the government must take a leadership role in.
The Canadian public has spoken very clearly. Eighty per cent of
people in this country want the government to act on these
issues.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
point out to the hon. member that things are not as simple as he
puts them. There has been much discussion in this House on this
issue. Despite what the hon. member said, we are on the record as
saying this is a serious issue and we are taking it very
seriously. The minister will be taking it up with her provincial
counterparts.
I remind the hon. member, as a member of the justice committee,
that the justice committee has already stated that we will be
dealing with the issue of drinking and driving as well as with
the issue of victims rights.
[Translation]
This debate shows that it is obvious that impaired driving is
a problem we dearly want to see resolved, whatever our political
persuasion. Although members do not all agree on the best
solutions to this problem, they all share the same goal, which is
to reduce the number of cases of impaired driving.
[English]
Recent statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics were released yesterday. The rate of persons charged
with impaired driving in 1996 went down by 7% from what it was
the previous year. The 1996 rate showed a marked decrease of 47%
compared with the 1986 rate. That does not mean we are proud of
these statistics or that we should all say the problem has been
solved, but contrary to the statistics mentioned by the hon.
member, these recently released statistics indicate the rate of
persons charged with impaired driving has gone down. For 1996
all the jurisdictions in Canada reported a decrease in the rate
of persons charged with impaired driving.
The centre stated that in looking at the adult court survey data
included in the Juristat that unlike other offences under the
Criminal Code, persons charged with impaired driving are more
likely to be found guilty.
The minister is very committed to bringing forth some solutions
to this problem. She will be—
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary
secretary. The member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on November 4, I reminded the Minister of Human Resources
Development that 300 miners in Black Lake had lost their jobs, that
their average age was 52, that the region is suffering high
unemployment, and that these workers were calling for a modified
POWA program.
Louise Harel in Quebec is in agreement. Jean Dupéré, the
president of Lab Chrysotile, is in agreement. Only our Minister of
Human Resources Development in Ottawa is refusing to budge.
The minister should sit down and take a serious look at the
issue of these men from the BC mine in Black Lake. Black Lake is
four kilometres from Thetford, and the small a asbestos region is
not the same as the large A Asbestos region.
The guys from the BC mine are not workers from British Columbia, as
the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International
Cooperation claims.
Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development himself
not reply to our questions regarding the creation of a modified
POWA program for the workers of the BC mine? The department is
completely adrift.
1840
All the big shots in the Liberal Party are getting involved: the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation,
and tonight, the reply will probably come from the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
That is why they think the BC Mine workers are from British
Columbia and that is also why the minister himself is wrong in
portraying the city of Asbestos as the capital of the asbestos industry.
The minister should leave the war veterans aside and take care of
the BC Mine veterans.
Furthermore, he should address the issue of cooperation between Quebec
and Canada instead of letting the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Cooperation stumble in his place.
The people in the Black Lake region would be better served if
cabinet knew that Black Lake is not Asbestos and that the BC Mine is in
Black Lake and not in British Columbia.
Most of these workers are over 50 and they are entitled to a
modified POWA because, on March 7, 1996, an application to that effect
was submitted to the Minister of Human Resources Development;
furthermore, the program must be modified because Jean Dupéré is ready
to make his own contribution to this POWA.
So I am very eager to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Justice.
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister, despite the fact that he is not here, is sensitive,
open and always willing to listen to Canadians.
As we have previously indicated, the government recognizes
difficulties experienced by Canadians who lose their jobs,
particularly those affected by the closing of the mine in Black
Lake, in the hon. member's riding. However, this layoff cannot
be considered under the program for older workers adjustment.
[Translation]
The POWA ended last March because, among other things, it was not
fair and equitable to all older workers in Quebec and Canada. The
program was offered only in some provinces. The Government of Canada
assumed 70% of the cost and the provinces 30%. There were so many
restrictions to the program that a good number of older workers simply
could not qualify.
The government generously offered almost $3 million to help the
miners at the British Canadian miner re-enter the workforce. The
Department of Human Resources Development went from passive income
support to proactive measures in order to help workers re-enter the
workforce.
Provinces also worked along that line.
[English]
The employer has always indicated its willingness to help
workers. The Government of Quebec is prepared to pay its 30%
share of a program which no longer exists because of its
inequities.
[Translation]
Our government wants to work in co-operation with the company and
the province of Quebec for the benefit of Quebec workers.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)