EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 141
CONTENTS
Friday, October 23, 1998
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-41. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1010
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1055
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMILY STOWE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1100
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPACE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1105
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONE GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JEAN RAFA
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1110
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR ATLANTIC
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KICK DRUGS OUT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1115
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1120
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1135
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICEBREAKING ON ST. LAWRENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1140
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1145
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1150
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1155
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1200
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Reproductive and Genetic Technologies
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1205
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Indonesia
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grandparents Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1210
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-41. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1230
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1235
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 141
![](/web/20061116181622im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 23, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied
by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I recognize that five members
did not stand. However, there was an understanding that we would
have a recorded vote. I think the House would agree that a fifth
member was deemed to have stood.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday.
1005
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker,
on the same matter, there have been discussions with
representatives of all parties that the division on the amendment
brought forward by the Reform member would take place on Tuesday,
October 27, at the end of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in this manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the
Standing Orders, the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that Bill C-41, an act to
amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, 10 years ago the legislation governing
the mint was amended to allow it to become a full commercial
crown corporation. It is now time to review the legislation to
bring it up to date, to reflect market realities and to provide
the mint with the power to meet the challenges of the future.
Its mandate is to provide Canadians with high quality, cost
effective circulation coins while operating profitably. It also
manufactures and markets high quality collector coins and foreign
circulation coinage.
Indeed, Canadians can be proud of the fact that last year the
mint produced one billion coins for 16 different countries. By
the end of this year the total will rise to an awesome two
billions coins.
This global business, which on average accounts for 70% of the
mint's revenue, works to reduce the overall cost of Canadian
circulation coinage.
The mint not only covers its costs, but returns a profit to its
shareholder, the Government of Canada. Last year that profit
reached an admirable $4.1 million.
I trust that hon. members will agree with me that the Royal
Canadian Mint is a source of national pride, providing an
essential service to the Canadian economy while creating the
beautiful coins that help celebrate proud symbols of our
nationhood.
The mint's strategic vision is to be a world leader in minting
through people, innovation and quality. The proposed changes to
the Royal Canadian Mint Act that we are discussing today are
essential for the mint's achievement of this strategic vision.
[Translation]
Let us get into these amendments a little more. To modernize the
act, we propose that the process for approving coins be
simplified so that the Royal Canadian Mint can meet market needs
more quickly. The markets for these coins are extremely
competitive and constantly changing.
Investors buy coins of various denominations and degrees of
purity. Collectors and people shopping for a gift expect to have
a large selection of models, denominations and metals to choose
from.
In order to keep generating revenues for Canadians, the mint
requires a legislative framework allowing it to respond quickly
and efficiently, to take advantage of opportunities on the
market for coins not intended for circulation.
1010
These are in large part coins made of precious metals to
celebrate or commemorate major national events and sold to coin
collectors and enthusiasts across Canada and around the world.
Our proposed amendments would give the mint the power to set and
change any of the coins' features except their design. It would
still be up to the minister responsible for the mint to approve
coin design. These amendments would streamline the mint's
decision-making process, so that it can stay attuned to the
market and continue to be client centred while at the same time
retaining control over coin design.
Indeed, coin design would continue to be decided by an elected
representative. As I said previously, the mint's mandate is to
supply Canadians with circulating coins that are of high
quality, cost effective and delivered on time.
The proposed amendments will rationalize the approval process,
thus improving the mint's capacity to fulfil its mandate.
I want to assure the House that, with respect to the coins
Canadians use on an everyday basis, elected representatives and
the minister responsible before this House will continue to have
the last word.
[English]
Therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to support this
legislation and send it to committee where we can look at it
clause by clause and hear witnesses. After a good debate in
committee we can come back to the House for a final debate and
accelerate the process so the mint can make the necessary
decisions in order that Canadians and the rest of the world will
continue to enjoy the high quality of the coinage produced by the
Royal Canadian Mint.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
an honour to rise to debate this bill. The hon. minister alluded
to the pride that Canadians have in the various minted coins we
use and in those coins that are collected by investors and coin
collectors. We are all proud of the Canadian coins.
I will address certain aspects of the bill. I will first look
at the object of the Canadian mint. Then I will look at the
present legislation and the provisions that currently exist for
the operation of the mint. Then I will compare those provisions
with what the bill is proposing to change.
I draw the attention of the House, for review purposes, to the
object of the mint. According to the act that established the
Royal Canadian Mint, the object of the mint is “to mint coins in
anticipation of profit and other related activities”. The act
goes on to detail rather specifically exactly what the mint is to
do. Its legislative powers are as indicated in the object.
It continues:
In order to carry out this mandate, the Mint may exercise any or
all of the following powers:—
We need to look specifically at these powers because they are
quite different when the proposed legislative changes are taken
into consideration.
They are:
To produce and arrange for the production and the supply of coins
of the currency of Canada; to produce coins of the currency of
countries other than Canada; to melt, assay and refine gold,
silver and other precious metals; to buy and sell gold, silver
and other metals; to assay, refine, store and otherwise deal with
gold, silver and other metals for the account of Her Majesty and
others; to prepare and store shipments of coin, gold, silver and
other metals and to move such shipments to or from the Mint; to
make medals, plaques and other devices; to borrow or lease
precious metals that it requires for the purpose of its
operations; to acquire, hold and alienate real property or any
interest therein; to make grants in lieu of taxes to any
municipality in Canada in amounts not exceeding the taxes that
might be levied by that municipality in respect of real property
under the administration and control of the Mint if the Mint were
not an agent of Her Majesty; and to do all other things that are
incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and the
exercise of the power of the Mint.
1015
That is a pretty comprehensive list. The mint has in its
corporate plan 1996-2000 indicated rather clearly how it has
translated those particular powers into its operation. I would
like to read into the record exactly what the mint has said in
that report:
Canada's national mint, the Royal Canadian Mint, is one of the
world's foremost producers of circulation, collector and bullion
investment coinage. It is one of the largest gold refiners in
the world. The mint is highly respected, in Canada and
internationally, for the high quality and variety of its products
and services. Its numismatic and precious metal investment
coins, all promoting Canada, are sold in over 60,000 retail
outlets worldwide.
Some might wonder what this numismatic business is. Numismatic
has to do with coins and with people who collect coins or who
invest in coins. It has to do with precious metals that are not
in general circulation but that are there for a very special
commemorative purpose or some other reason. They are made of
special metals and have a value.
The report goes on:
The Royal Canadian Mint is designated a Schedule III-II crown
corporation under the Financial Administration Act. The mint
reports to parliament through the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
The mint manufactures all of the circulation coinage used in
Canada and manages the supporting distribution systems for the
Minister of Finance. It also carries out research on coinage
demand.
I draw attention to that sentence because what has happened here
is going to come up a little later in my speech.
Furthermore, the mint develops proposals to introduce high
quality, less costly metals or metal alloys in Canadian coinage
in order to reduce costs and improve seigniorage for the
Government.
This has to do with the circulation of coins that actually have
an intrinsic value lower than their face value, the penny for
example. We go on to the nickel, the dime and so on.
The mint is also concerned about the security of supply and
price competitiveness of coinage metals used in Canadian coinage.
In recent years the mint's commercial activities have been
impacted by intensive international competition, changing
investment markets, economic slowdowns and recessions. After
consistently producing profits annually from the time of its
incorporation in 1969, the mint experienced an operating loss of
$3.475 million in 1994
The minister told us that in the last year it had a profit.
That is good.
In order to address this situation they produced this plan, the
turnaround plan. That plan is now operating and, according to
the minister's numbers, apparently is working all right.
That is a very interesting development. We now look into
exactly what has happened in that turnaround plan and what the
government is proposing to do in introducing this new
legislation.
The minister told us the purpose of the legislation and as far
as the statement went, it was accurate and complete. I think we
need to commend the minister for some of the aspects of that
statement.
I would now like to read the summary contained in the bill
itself:
This enactment amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act to update the
terminology for coins in order to reflect the markets served
rather than the metals of which the coins are composed.
The amendments simplify the process for issuing coins by giving
additional powers to the mint and to the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services.
This is the core of this bill. The mint is given the capacity of
a natural person and the power to incorporate subsidiaries and to
acquire and dispose of interests in other entities. Other
amendments of an administrative nature are also enacted.
It is that central part that we want to draw some attention to
right now. As the mint has gone along and looked at the existing
legislation, its current interpretation and application of that
legislation, it has issued a mission statement.
That mission statement has three parts. First, to provide
quality coinage at a reasonable cost to enable the Government of
Canada to meet the needs of Canadians.
1020
Second, to manufacture and market on a worldwide basis high
quality collector circulation coinage and precious metal
investment products and market refinery services.
It is pretty clear that in the coinage part of this operation we
are not in a growth industry. It is a mature stable industry.
That comment will become a little clearer as to its significance
as we move along into examining this bill.
I would now like to look at the provisions of the new bill and
read into the record the new powers that are being given to the
mint under this act. We are dealing here with section 4(1).
Remember what we said the powers of the mint were before. Here
are the new powers:
In carrying out its objects, the mint has the rights, powers and
privileges and the capacity of a natural person and may in
particular
(a) procure the incorporation, dissolution or amalgamation of
subsidiaries and acquire or dispose of any shares in them;
(b) acquire and dispose of any interest in any entity by any
means; and
(c) generally do all the things that are incidental or conducive
to the exercise of its powers with respect to
(i) coins of the currency of Canada,
(ii) coins of the currency of countries other than Canada,
(iii) gold, silver and other metals and,
(iv) medals, plaques, tokens and other objects made or partially
made of metal.
I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that
the powers of the mint have now been expanded very dramatically.
We need to ask ourselves questions such as what are these
activities that are incidental t, or that are conducive to the
mint's carrying out its activities.
One thing is very clear already. The mint is in the refining
business. It is my understanding that the Canadian mint refines
more gold than any other refinery in Canada. It is clearly in
the business of refining gold.
We need to ask ourselves is it also in the business then of
buying and selling metals. Clearly it is. The act is very clear
that it may buy and sell metals. But very closely allied to this
is the full commodities market. The futures market is a very
volatile market. There are people in the business who tend to
hedge their positions in order to protect certain prices.
But it also means that the mint has the power, according to this
act, to get not only into the business of hedging itself against
future price fluctuations but to actually get into the act of
participation in that market. Can it now buy or sell futures
contracts, for example, not necessarily only to look after its
own interests but also to actually declare a profit in simply
buying and selling contracts on the futures market?
I do not believe that is the intention but the point is the act
allows this kind of activity on the part of the mint. I think
that is far too much power because whose money is at risk here?
Ultimately it is our money that is at risk.
Let me indicate how significant the hedging program can be.
Canada's largest gold producer is Barrick, a Toronto based
corporation. This is a report in the Globe and Mail October
22. There is a lot of information in here but I will read just
one paragraph:
As a result of its gold hedging program, Barrick was able to sell
its gold during the third quarter at an average of $400 an ounce,
compared with the market price of $290 an ounce. During the
third quarter of 1997, Barrick sold its gold for $420 an ounce,
compared with the market price of $324 an ounce.
Barrick has sold forward 10.4 million ounces of gold at an
average price of $400 an ounce.
There is a good example of what the mining corporations are
doing in the marketplace and what the hedging program has to do
with the futures commodities market. While there are some very
positive things for the investors in a company like Barrick there
are also advantages to the mint's buying gold on the futures
market at a lower price and to guarantee a particular price in
the future. There is a speculative element in here as well.
1025
Will the mint be circumscribed in its activities so it does not
get into this speculative market?
Why is this significant? It is significant because of the
subsequent amendment that happens later in the act. The
subsequent amendment is section 20(1):
The mint may, for the attainment of its objects, borrow money
from the consolidated revenue fund or any other source, but the
total amount outstanding at any time may not exceed 75 million
dollars or such greater amount as may be specified in an
appropriation act.
We have to be thankful I guess for small mercies. At least it
is limited to $75 million. It was $50 million. It has now
increased by $25 million which really means that the public
treasury of Canada can be attached to the tune of $75 million.
That is our money. That is taxpayer money.
When that is allowed to take place and if the mint can borrow
money to get into the buying and selling of precious metals, and
it clearly says it may, and if it gets into the futures market it
can get into some serious trouble. I would hope the management
will not ever do that but the point is the act does not protect
the Canadian public from that activity and I think it should do
so. It is our money at risk.
It can be argued that it has been able to do that in the past.
There is some indication that the mint has borrowed money in the
past. The most recent expansion of the stamping plant being
added to the mint in Winnipeg is being done with financing to the
tune of about $30 million outside of the Canadian consolidated
treasury. While that may be true, and I think it is true because
there is an indication that it is so, the fact remains the mint
has an indebtedness of $30 million. If it will need more money it
can go to the consolidated treasury fund for whatever money it
needs up to $75 million given the new provisions of the act.
Could the mint get into the mining business itself, in other
words buy mining stock? Somebody would say that is a stretch.
It is in one sense with the operation of the mint but go back to
the powers of the mint and it has all the powers of a natural
person.
The interesting thing is that it may acquire and dispose of any
interest in any entity by any means, any means as broad as the
imagination. One has to be really careful about looking at that
and asking what it can get involved in.
I hope that is not the intent. I am sure it is not but
nevertheless I think we have to write the act in such a way that
there are protections against that kind of thing.
I want to go to the heart of the issue which really has to do
with the business of the powers there. I just read a few of them
and I want to ask the people of Canada should the Government of
Canada be in direct competition or get into an area that private
enterprise has demonstrated it can do. There is no doubt that the
Canadian mint has to have the exclusive authority to stamp the
actual coin with the currency in circulation. It must have that
because that is the government's control of the currency
operating in Canada. But that has nothing to say with the
production of the plating of coins or of stamping coins in the
first place. We have at least one corporation in Canada that has
been doing this for a lot longer than the mint.
Should the government own a corporation that can be in direct
competition with private enterprise? I am unalterably opposed to
anything that the government does that the people can do as well
or better. There is clear evidence that they can do so. What is
some of the evidence?
First, right now before the courts of Canada there is a suit
charging the mint with infringing on the patents that are held by
the corporation we mentioned, Westaim.
That suit is currently alive and unfortunately I am unable to go
into the details of the suit. The fact remains there is a patent
that is being infringed upon, at least that is what the contest
is, by the mint which is owned by private enterprise.
1030
If we look at that sort of suit that is going on in the courts,
we look at the balance of powers that exist in this court case
now. All the power of the government and all the resources of
the government are now pitted against one little corporation. It
is not fair. It is an unbalanced situation. Why should
government or a corporation of the government ever get into the
position of stealing something from another company that is
protected by a patent, by the legislation that the government
itself has.
Canada can be proud of the number of innovative ideas that have
come from scientists. The National Research Council for example
has all kinds of patents which have developed and have advanced
the technology and have advanced the science of the world. We
can be proud of those kinds of things.
Now one of these companies has developed one of those patents
and lo and behold one of the crown corporations says “That is
mine now”. It is not fair. It should not happen. We will go no
further on this but it is very important that we recognize these
things.
The second issue is whether there is a need for more coin
stamping capacity in Canada. As I stand here today there is
reason to believe with considerable confidence that there is
right now a 30% overcapacity in the generation of coins to be
engraved officially by governments. That includes the current
demand of the Eurocoin.
When the Eurocoin demand comes out, and we know what the
problem is, that causes an upward spike in the demand. When that
disappears that overcapacity will increase beyond the 30% that
exists at the present time. Yet the mint is expanding in a
market that is adequately served at the present time. Why? The
argument is that it is a business decision.
It may be a business decision but it looks to me that it is a
lousy business decision because something is going to happen.
Either the mint is going to have trouble or this other company is
going to be in trouble or they are both going to be in trouble.
We cannot expect a company to succeed and profit when in fact
there is an overcapacity. Somewhere along the line there has to
be a balance between the supply and the demand that is out there.
In fact we get to the point where we ask ourselves, who is in
charge here? Is the minister in charge? Is the government in
charge? Or is it the mint that is in charge?
Who made the decision to build this plant and add to the
capacity of the mint in Winnipeg? Was that done by the minister?
Was it done by the government? Was it done by the finance
minister? Or was it done by the bureaucrats at the mint? We do
not know. It is not clear at this point. These are the kinds of
questions that must be answered before we agree to this
particular change in the legislation.
It is clear that as the powers of the mint are expanded, and I
have just indicated how much they are being expanded, that the
mint can indeed thumb its nose so to speak at the government or
at the minister and say “This is what we are going to do because
we have the powers of a natural person”.
We need to go beyond this. We need to ask ourselves how
successful crown corporations have been.
We cannot help but look at Petrofina and now Petro-Canada and
the cost that was to the taxpayer and how efficiently that was
run. Canadian National Railways became a private corporation
recently. It is now starting to make money. It did not before.
It was a drain on the public treasury. Canada Post has had a lot
of difficulty in its labour relations which still are not
completely settled. I have to commend the minister on what is
happening now with the dispute with the franchises and Canada
Post. There is progress being made, but it is not complete.
We really have to ask ourselves what is the best relationship.
We need to move ahead with positive aggression. We need to move
ahead with balance and we need to move ahead with fairness.
There are specific concerns in this bill which I have
illustrated.
1035
In conclusion I would simply remind members that the powers
granted to the mint are too broad. The exposure to risk by the
expanded powers to the Canadian taxpayer and to the Canadian
treasury should be circumscribed at least. It is to $75 million
but it is too high. The government should never do things that
individuals can do as well or better themselves. The people can
do it and we should not be in that kind of business to provide
competition for them.
The bill needs to be amended. There are some housekeeping
elements in the bill that the minister has alluded to which I
think we need to support. In fact they need to go ahead.
However, there are other aspects of the bill that should be
looked at very seriously and amended to come into focus so we can
have strong private enterprise in the country and at the same
time within a framework that is clearly guided by government
principles and rules which make it possible for private
enterprise to be strong, profitable and which reward innovation
and entrepreneurship.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin my intervention on Bill C-41, the purpose of which
is to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, by
stating that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself do
not disapprove of its ultimate objective, which is to update and
enhance the flexibility of the Royal Canadian Mint Act. This is
a legitimate objective, and one that is hard to oppose.
We must, however, ensure that amending the act to that end does
not create conditions which might bring with them other problems
that are far more serious than those we wish to solve.
On reading the bill as introduced, one is justified in having
concerns about certain proposed amendments to the Royal Canadian
Mint Act and the Currency Act.
When we speak of money, whether its issue or its circulation,
confidence between the partners is essential. That confidence
is born out of the assurance that each partner has of the total
honesty of the other.
The very mission of the Royal Canadian Mint requires this
institution to have a spotless image and reputation, both in
fact and in appearance. That is why the present legislation
contains some very clear provisions requiring the administrators
of the Royal Canadian Mint not to place themselves in a position
of real or apparent conflict of interest.
These strict prohibitions are normal and necessary, because the
very image and interests of the Royal Canadian Mint, and of
Canada as well, depend on it. They have certainly proven
useful, because the Royal Canadian Mint has, until now, always
enjoyed a solid reputation for integrity. Unfortunately, I
believe most sincerely that, if we do not amend some of the
clauses of Bill C-41, we are putting that reputation at risk.
As it now stands, Bill C-41 weakens the legal framework that is
in place to prevent any conflict of interest at the Mint. By
authorizing the Mint to create subsidiaries, the administrators
of which would not be held to the same arm's length
requirements, we are allowing it to circumvent the law and we
are creating a dangerous opening.
Unless it is amended, the bill is nothing short of an open
invitation to patronage and dubious operations. Indeed, clause 2
amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act in a significant way, by
allowing the Mint, in carrying out its objects, to procure the
incorporation, dissolution or amalgamation of subsidiaries and
acquire or dispose of any shares in them; to acquire and dispose
of any interest in any entity by any means; and generally do all
things that are incidental or conducive to the exercise of its
powers with respect to coins of the currency of Canada, coins of
the currency of countries other than Canada, gold, silver and
other metals, and medals, plaques, tokens and other objects made
or partially made of metal.
1040
My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and myself support the
government's will to modernize the Royal Canadian Mint Act to
make this institution more functional. However, it is obvious
that some changes must be made to Bill C-41, otherwise its
current wording could lead to illicit operations, which is
definitely not the objective pursued.
Clause 2 is a fundamental provision of the bill, since it allows
the Royal Canadian Mint, in carrying out its objects, to create
subsidiaries, to sell any shares in them to anyone, and to buy
back such shares from anyone.
Another power the Mint will acquire, still under the heading of
carrying out its objectives, is that of buying or selling shares
or interests in listed and unlisted companies, anywhere in the
world. Finally, this bill will give the Royal Canadian Mint the
power to amalgamate its own subsidiaries with each other or with
other companies.
Clearly, clause 2 as written is an invitation to patronage and
dubious dealings and its scope must be reined in.
The real danger lies in the expression “in carrying out its
objects” in clause 4 of the bill, referring to the Mint's power
to buy, sell, borrow, lease, store and refine gold, silver and
other precious and non-precious metals.
If Bill C-41 is passed, it would mean that each of these
operations could be performed by one company, a subsidiary,
some, a majority or all of whose shares would not be owned by
the Royal Canadian Mint.
Clearly, this government institution would have the power to
offload an important part of its responsibilities, to the
benefit of a private company over which Canada's elected
representatives, and therefore the public, would have no
control. The creation of such private subsidiaries, with power
to buy, sell and transform assets, presenting a highly
speculative dimension that would be very profitable in the wrong
hands, makes no sense whatsoever.
The opening provided by Bill C-41 provides too many opportunities
for criminals specialized in bribery and patronage, so many that
there is no doubt whatsoever, unless clause 2 is modified to
limit its scope, that there will be a scandal, sooner or later,
which will cast a shadow on the credibility of the Royal
Canadian Mint.
If we pass clause 2 of Bill C-41 without adding the necessary
limitations, the Parliament of Canada is merely paving the way
for certain criminals who specialize in dodgy economic dealings.
Let me tell you today that, sooner or later, this government
will live to regret it.
There is absolutely no way we can empower the Royal Canadian
Mint to hand over to whomever it wishes such important
responsibilities as the purchase, sale, borrowing, leasing,
storage and refining of gold or other precious metals, because
the possibilities of conflict of interest and corruption are so
obvious.
Let us take the example of the Mint's frequent mandate of
striking gold coinage for other countries.
1045
In carrying out its objects and under clause 2 of Bill C-41, the
Royal Mint, required to buy the gold necessary to strike coins
ordered by other countries, may incorporate a private subsidiary
anywhere in the world to do so.
In all likelihood, this subsidiary would want to find gold at
the lowest possible price before making its purchase. It would
then strike the coins requested and sell them while the value of
the gold market is on the rise and therefore very profitable for
the private company and all the more so for the shareholders.
We can continue with this example by imagining that the private
subsidiary buys the gold at $200 an ounce in 2001, reselling it
transformed into collectors' coins in 2003 when the value of
gold has risen to $300 an ounce. The company would therefore
record significant profits, thereby increasing the value of the
stock of the subsidiary created with the blessing of the Royal
Canadian Mint and so much profit for the subsidiary
shareholders.
Who would the shareholders be? What private or corporate
individuals would benefit from this measure and this manna? The
answers to this question are particularly important, since Bill
C-41, we must not forget, empowers the mint to sell shares in
its subsidiary to those it wishes and at a price of its
choosing.
Ultimately, there is nothing to prevent the mint from selling
shares in its subsidiary to friends or friends of friends
through numbered companies or not. If this is not a path to
patronage or other dubious activities, I would like to know what
it is.
Far be it from me to suggest that such a door be opened
voluntarily. However, consciously or unconsciously, the end is
the same. My colleagues will not doubt agree with me that, in
this areas as in many others, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.
Prevention will necessitate limiting the scope of clause 2 of
Bill C-41 to prevent conflicts of interest and the unjustified
and undue enrichment of individuals in latent or apparent
conflict of interest because of the mint's power to create
private subsidiaries.
To do so, we must abandon the idea of giving the Royal Mint the
power to create private subsidiaries afforded it in Bill C-41.
If indeed it were worthwhile for the Royal Canadian Mint to
assign some of its responsibilities to its subsidiaries, we
should make sure these subsidiaries are above suspicion.
The best way to do this is by amending Bill C-41 to exclude any
possibility that a subsidiary be established by private
interests. The legislation must provide that any new subsidiary
of the Royal Canadian Mint should be a legally incorporated,
recognized national or international body such as a chartered
bank.
If we want the Royal Canadian Mint to remain highly credible and
reputable and prevent its reputation from being tarnished by
second-rate subsidiaries, it goes without saying that potential
contenders should be subject to certain restrictions.
The probity of the Royal Canadian Mint is beyond price and, in
order to preserve it, Bill C-41 must be amended to ensure that
the executives of any potential subsidiary care as much about
the probity of their own organization.
1050
Following the same logic, it appears essential to me that Bill
C-41 be amended to have the provisions dealing with real or
apparent conflict of interest for mint directors also apply to
the directors of its subsidiaries, which is unfortunately not
the case at present.
I will conclude by reminding the House that my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois and I do not disagree with the objective of
modernizing the Royal Canadian Mint Act and making it more
functional.
But unless the necessary amendments are made to Bill C-41 to
remedy a number of obvious flaws mentioned earlier, we will not
be able to support it because the loopholes we have identified
in the legislation would have far too serious consequences.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP I would like to make a few comments about
Bill C-41. I will begin by saying, somewhat in the same vein as
the spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois, that we are not opposed
to the bill in a certain sense but we have some concerns which I
would like to put on record.
Before I do so, having listened to the hon. member from the
Reform Party speak to the bill, I would like to say that whatever
concerns we have about the bill we certainly do not share the
general critique and opposition of the Reform Party to the very
existence of crown corporations that I heard coming from the hon.
member from the Reform Party.
It was unfortunate to hear the member from the Reform Party cite
the privatization of CN as a good thing. I wonder whether the
3,000 people who were just laid off by CN to increase CN
shareholder value share the views of the hon. member from the
Reform Party that the privatization of CN and the behaviour that
comes from privatization, for example the fixation with
increasing and maintaining shareholder value at the expense of
employees, at the expense of communities and at the expense of
the country's transportation infrastructure. I wonder if they
share the hon. member's approval of that kind of behaviour on the
part of CN.
It would seem to me that at one point when CN was a crown
corporation it was not tearing up rail lines through western
Canada, the very rail lines that some of the member's colleagues
come to the defence of and say “Please don't tear up those rail
lines. Our community needs those rail lines”. One of the
reasons they are being torn up is that CN no longer feels it has
a mandate or a responsibility to do things in the interest of
prairie communities or the infrastructure in western Canada. I
would certainly ask the hon. member from the Reform Party to
rethink his position about the value of privatization.
With respect to Bill C-41, there are elements of the bill which
have to do with modernizing the role of the mint. There are
elements of the bill which are purely of a housekeeping nature.
We have some concerns, some of which have already been mentioned.
On the whole notion that the mint would be able to create these
subsidiaries, I think the member from the Bloc, and perhaps the
Reform Party member, rightly pointed out that this merits more
examination in committee as to what would be the limits to these
subsidiaries, what parameters would they be instructed to operate
within, and what would be their nature.
How could we amend the legislation so as to prevent, as the
member from the Bloc rightly pointed out, any opportunity being
created for temptation to corrupt, patronage or any other
activity that might bring into disrepute the reputation of the
mint which has a sterling, no pun intended, reputation and
certainly one which my colleagues and I would like to preserve.
1055
The question of the subsidiaries needs to be looked at. Perhaps
some helpful amendments to clause 2 would be in order. The whole
question of conflict of interest has already been raised. How
can the bill either be amended or extended, have things added to
it which would deal with the possibilities of conflict of
interest in the new regime the government is setting up?
The question of the 15 day notice period should be looked at if
the mint is about to do something different. I believe it is
only with circulating coins. I do not think 15 days is adequate.
Fifteen days is like a blink of an eye in terms of the ability of
the public to know what is going on, to have discussions within
and among political parties, and to get feedback from the
business community as to what the effect of any change in a
circulated coin might be.
It is very inadequate to say that parliament only requires a 15
day notice and then the government could proceed through order in
council. It is certainly something the committee should look at.
It is just not enough time. We all know, from being around here,
that if we want the people who are to be affected by any such
change to have an opportunity for input that 15 days is simply
not enough.
I would like to say that we certainly do not share the aversion
of my Reform Party colleagues for the expansion of the mint in
Winnipeg. We do not see the expansion of the mint and of this
activity in the public sector as the kind of evil thing the
Reform Party seems to behold it as.
I am familiar with the work of the mint in Winnipeg. It is not
in my riding but it is close by. The locating of the new coin
plating plant there and the expansion of that facility is not
something we are opposed to, but we want all this to be done in a
way that does not create opportunities for scandals and mistakes
down the line which might eventually call into question either
the reputation or the existence of the mint. At the same time as
we do not share the Reform Party objection to crown corporations,
we do not want to see the activities of this crown corporation
privatized in a different way through the creation of these
subsidiaries.
There is more than one way to privatize. I want to say to the
minister that we are not exactly convinced there is no hidden
agenda. Let us get the bill into committee and have a look at
these things to see if we can improve it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now proceed
to Statements by Members. The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona will have about 12 minutes in debate plus
questions and comments after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EMILY STOWE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October is Women's History Month. This year's theme is
entrepreneurship and unpaid work. In honour of this celebration
my constituents and I want to recognize the achievements of Emily
Stowe, an entrepreneur pioneer who played a landmark role in our
history.
She was born in Upper Canada in 1831. Although it was a time
when employment opportunities for women were very limited, she
became a teacher, a doctor, a wife, a mother and a leader.
In 1863 her husband contracted tuberculosis and she sought
medical training. The Toronto School of Medicine did not accept
women so Emily had to attend a medical school in the U.S.A. When
she returned to Toronto, Dr. Stowe became the first woman in
Canada to openly practise medicine.
She was committed to equality, was an advocate for women and a
founding member of the Canadian Women's Suffragette Association.
Her remarkable achievements are recognized in Scarborough at the
Emily Stowe Shelter for Women, which provides a home for women
and children at risk.
1100
Emily Stowe was indeed a pioneer and entrepreneur and an
inspiration in the movement for women's equality which continues
to this day.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
victims of sexual abuse frequently suffer for the rest of their
lives as a result of the insidious, despicable acts perpetrated
on them by their attackers. The last thing victims want to do is
to shed public light on their darkest of experiences.
This week I had the honour of once again meeting Sheldon
Kennedy. Sheldon has demonstrated an extraordinary amount of
courage in speaking out against his attacker and this cancerous
criminal activity which impacts on our youngsters.
At the October 21 parole hearing the government let Sheldon
Kennedy and every other victim of sexual abuse down. Instead of
punishing the pedophile who attacked Sheldon the government chose
to grant him parole after a mere 20 months in jail.
Sheldon will carry the scars of the abuse for the rest of his
life. His attacker will be a free man in six months. There is,
however, a positive side to this story. Sheldon can hold his
head high knowing he did the right thing. He has taken a stand
against this terrible crime so others do not have to suffer.
Canada can be proud of Sheldon Kennedy.
* * *
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is in the middle of celebrating National Science
and Technology Week. I point out that Canada has made a
commitment to become the world's smartest natural resources
developer, the most high tech, the most environmentally friendly,
the most socially responsible and indeed the most productive.
Natural Resources Canada provides the scientific knowledge to
position Canada as a world leader in wise management of our
natural resources. With industrial, university and government
partners it also carries out research to exploit new
technologies, products and services.
During National Science and Technology Week, Natural Resources
Canada makes a special effort to open its doors to the community,
particularly to students to communicate the importance of science
and technology in the natural resources sector.
More and more Canadians look to science and technology to
improve their lives and to address important issues such as
climate change.
* * *
SPACE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in these
days of technological achievement countries are racing to open
new frontiers. The sky is no longer the limit. Thousands of
satellites circulate around our planet and thousands of others
are lost in space. Since the 1960s there have been many space
missions, some of which were not completed.
Members may remember in 1978 when a Russian spy satellite
containing 100 pounds of uranium plunged through the atmosphere
over the Northwest Territories. Members may also remember in
1996 when part of a Russian space probe plunged into the Pacific
ocean. At this very moment thousands of pieces of broken space
equipment are circulating above us with many more to come.
With 434 days to the new millennium Canada should take the lead
and co-ordinate efforts with other interested countries to clean
up space. We have over 5,000 intelligent experts who work in
space and related industries. These men and women are the best
in the world. With their support I am confident we can pass on
to our children an even better future.
* * *
GASOLINE
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in Toronto the federal government announced it will
introduce regulations to reduce the level of sulphur in the
gasoline sold in Canada. Scientists agree that sulphur causes
emissions which contribute to air pollution.
In a report released last summer the Ontario Medical Association
revealed that 1,800 people die prematurely in Ontario each year
as a result of air pollution. Many more get sick and require
hospitalization.
Over a period of 20 years it is estimated that low sulphur
gasoline would prevent 2,100 premature deaths, 93,000 cases of
bronchitis in children, 5 million other health related incidents
such as asthma attacks and 11 million acute respiratory symptoms
such as severe coughs and new cases of pneumonia and croup.
The facts are in. The evidence is clear. The initiative that
was announced today will improve the quality of the air Canadians
breathe and will help Canadians enjoy healthier lives.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the finance minister needed any more evidence that there exists a
desperate need for tax relief in this country, it was delivered
by the Centre for Social Justice.
The recently released study highlighted some very interesting
points. One wonders how the minister responds to the fact that
working class Canadian families are working harder than they did
10 years ago but have less to show for their extra efforts.
What about the fact that between 1989 and 1996 the average
Canadian family saw its income decline by over $4,000. Is this
the type of society we want to live in and pass on to our
children? A tax break for middle and lower income Canadians is
needed immediately.
1105
This would be an important first step toward reducing the
poverty which currently exists.
My advice to the finance minister is to read the report and go
back to the drawing board.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE GAMES
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the
14th to the 24th of July 2001, Canada will welcome more than
3,000 international performers and athletes to the Ottawa-Hull
region, for the IV Francophone Games.
The Francophone Games are a unique international sports and
cultural event open to the citizens of the 49 countries that are
part of La Francophonie. Athletes from several nations
representing various cultures and speaking different languages
will get together in a friendly spirit of competition and will
have an opportunity to display their artistic and athletic
talents.
[English]
I encourage all members of the House to share in this
excitement. When crossing the interprovincial bridge connecting
Ottawa to Hull look up and see the countdown panel. As of today
it is 996 days away.
* * *
[Translation]
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in early
September, the United Nations Development Program submitted its
world report on human development. This report, which used to
serve as a political smoke screen to hide a country's social
reality, will now have to be viewed as an indispensable tool to
expose false political claims.
Indeed, the report indicates that the gap between rich and poor
is a contemporary reality. It clearly states that, in the
industrialized countries, it remains necessary to eradicate
poverty and meet the basic needs of everyone. In fact, it is a
shame that these objectives have still not been achieved in the
richest countries.
Incidentally, the UN tells us that, when it comes to human
poverty, Canada ranks 10th out of the 17 OECD members. There are
more people living below the poverty line in Canada than in the
Scandinavian countries, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, France
and Italy.
A study released this week confirms that this trend is
continuing, in spite of the government's rhetoric. It is high
time the government increased social transfers and improved the
employment insurance program.
* * *
THE LATE JEAN RAFA
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
singer Jean Rafa, of Nuits de Montréal fame, died yesterday at
the age of 88. An artist and entertainer, Mr. Rafa had hosted
many variety broadcasts since coming to Quebec in 1948.
Quebeckers adopted him as one of their own, and it was he who
was responsible for popularizing pétanque in the province. But
he was best known for his infectious joie de vivre and as a
popular host on numerous television shows. He also went on many
tours of Quebec.
In short, we will treasure wonderful memories of this artist and
singer, who enchanted almost everyone with his zest for life and
his love of Quebec, a love that I share.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food appeared
before the standing committee yesterday. This was an opportunity
for him to begin to address the serious concerns of farmers
today. He failed to do so.
The minister could offer no assurances to farmers that he will
immediately deal with the current farm income crisis.
Furthermore, he offered no guarantees to producers of grain or
livestock that he has a plan to address our competitors' unfair
subsidies.
The minister is looking the other way as the Europeans and
Americans increase their subsidies. New subsidies further drive
down world prices while ensuring that our competitors' farmers
will survive the commodity price collapse.
The next budget must contain provisions that will help our
farmers through the crisis. It is very disturbing that the
minister has not offered assurances that he will stand up for
them within cabinet. All the minister has to offer is more
meetings and more talk.
* * *
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to express my absolute disbelief of the actions of
the leader of the Reform Party during the 1995 referendum.
It has been revealed that while the federal government along
with ordinary Canadians from across our country were fighting
tooth and nail to keep our country together, the Reform leader
was scheming to take advantage of a separatist win.
United States Ambassador James Blanchard recently revealed that
the Reform leader approached him and other foreign governments
with a plan to dismantle Canada after supposedly a separatist
victory. This is inexcusable.
It was the Reform Party that was so indignant when it learned of
the former Bloc Quebecois member's letter campaign to solicit
Canadian armed forces to join a new Quebec. What a hypocrisy.
In front of the cameras it denounces a separatist cause but
behind the scenes it works to undermine the federal government's
effort to keep the country together.
The Reform leader's thirst for power seems to have no
boundaries, not even the boundaries called Canada. Shame on him.
* * *
1110
AIR ATLANTIC
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow will be a sad day in aviation history in Canada
as Air Atlantic shuts its doors and 525 of the finest people
working in the airline industry from Atlantic Canada will lose
their jobs.
These employees provided superb customer service and are
responsible for Air Atlantic's impeccable safety record. What is
the response from this federal government? The Minister of
Labour turns himself into the minister of business and grants
International Marine Products a waiver from the Canada Labour
Code. This is the Liberal government's slap in the face to
hardworking and dedicated employees.
As a former airline employee for over 18 years, and behalf of
all New Democrats across this country, I would like to wish the
outstanding employees and all their families all the best in
their future endeavours.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we recently learned that the Minister of Finance was going to
campaign door-to-door to help out Jean Charest during the next
election campaign in Quebec.
That is all very fine and well, but the Minister of Finance
probably now feels he must explain to the public why the same
Quebeckers he advised not to elect a Charest government at the
federal level last year should now elect one today. Unless the
answer can be found on last Monday's political satire program La
fin du monde est à 7 heures.
That was how we found out the Liberal Party of Quebec is looking
for greenery to decorate its convention hall.
The Liberal Party of Quebec even paid for the travel and meals
of so-called supporters willing to cheer loudly for Mr. Charest
in front of the television cameras. Perhaps the Minister of
Finance would like his own Liberalmobile with unlimited mileage
to make the trip to Old Orchard Beach to meet the production
team of La fin du monde, which is enjoying the Liberal Party's
generosity.
The only distressing thing for the minister in all this is that
the Liberal Party of Quebec now seems to prefer canvassing with
Mike Harris's Conservatives, rather than with members of the
federal Liberal Party.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is Women's History Month, an opportunity for Canadians
from coast to coast to honour women whose efforts have made a
difference in our society.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Claire Heggtveit of Nepean, is a
woman who has dedicated her life and work to the principle of
equality.
Earlier this week Mrs. Heggtveit was one of five women honoured
with the 1998 Persons Case Award which recognizes outstanding
contributions toward promoting equality for women in Canada.
As an economist, she was vital in developing a statistical
framework during the 1960s and 1970s which aided the federal
government in assessing the quality of women's health and
socioeconomic status. She also completed a Canadian survey for
the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, the first
national focus on family planning, abortion and divorce.
All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to women like Mrs.
Heggtveit who have helped move this country along the road to
true equality.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, an
emergency debate was held this week in the Nova Scotia
legislature to debate the crisis faced by Nova Scotia farmers who
have suffered their second consecutive severe summer drought.
The summer of 1997 was the driest growing season in nearly 40
years and 1998 has been even worse. The effects of the drought
are extensive, including reduced milk production, reduced apple,
vegetable, berry and potato crops. Higher feed crops are now
threatening our beef industry.
The economic hardship for farmers is extraordinarily serious.
Many will soon be on the verge of bankruptcy. Federal support
programs like NISA are simply not meeting the needs of Atlantic
Canadian farmers in crisis. Immediate financial assistance is
essential to prevent many from going out of business.
This is no time for finger pointing between federal and
provincial governments. Both levels of government must respond
immediately to the crisis facing the Nova Scotia agricultural
industry.
I urge this government to immediately assist these farmers in
crisis.
* * *
KICK DRUGS OUT OF CANADA
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today it is my pleasure to inform colleagues about a
truly good news story.
Patterned after and with the approval of a successful program in
the United States, a pilot project has been launched in my
hometown. Kick Drugs Out of America was the brainchild of
Hollywood legend and martial arts superstar Chuck Norris. His
dream was to create a drug prevention foundation aimed at
America's youth. That dream became a reality eight years ago and
now Darrell Marsh from Fort St. John has brought the vision
north.
By teaching respect for others, instilling self-discipline and
motivation, setting and achieving goals, building self-esteem and
developing courage, Kick Drugs Out of Canada will better
equip students to make the right choices.
Those children identified at risk and enrolled in this community
sponsored initiative will develop the values and skills necessary
to combat the peer pressure which all too often would push them
into a life of drugs, crime and violence, and it will not cost
the government one red cent.
* * *
1115
SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, five years ago the baby daughter of John and Cory
Rossiter went to sleep in her crib and never woke up. Thirty
years ago Cathy Loucks also lost her baby to sudden infant death
syndrome. These three have now re-established the Ottawa-Carleton
chapter of the Canadian SIDS Foundation.
At their fundraiser last night we were able to celebrate that
the Back to Sleep campaign of the foundation has cut infant
deaths from SIDS by over 40% in Canada. But much more needs to be
done to increase awareness and knowledge about this silent killer
that takes the lives of more than 200 well cared for, healthy
children every year.
I congratulate and thank these brave parents for turning their
pain into the hope for other parents that they may avoid the
tragedy of SIDS.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today a Vancouver newspaper reported that APEC
commission chairman Gerald Morin was overheard in a Prince Albert
casino saying that the RCMP would take the fall for APEC.
Apparently he made his judgment even before the commission
hearings started.
Will the Prime Minister end this fiasco and strike a new
independent judicial inquiry to look into the entire APEC affair,
including the Prime Minister's own personal involvement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that at 8.30 a.m. Vancouver time, which is
11.30 a.m. our time, the commission will make a statement about
the matter which has been touched on in the Vancouver Sun
article. I think we should wait and see what that statement is.
In the meantime I want to reiterate that the commission has been
set up by legislation passed by this parliament. This government
has no authority under that legislation to direct the internal
management of the commission or how it carries out its work. It
is up to the commission to hold its hearings and decide how to
carry them out.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is utter nonsense and the Deputy Prime Minister
knows it.
The Prime Minister has tried to scuttle the APEC investigation
from day one. He refuses to answer questions in parliament. He
refuses to testify before the commission. His gossipy solicitor
general publicly said that the RCMP would take the fall for the
Liberals. He paid for his lawyers but not the students' lawyers.
He is withholding key evidence, including police audiotapes. And
now reportedly, the commission chairman himself has scuttled
things yet again.
We do not need to wait. When will he strike a new independent
judicial inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
wrong. The Prime Minister has not withheld any audiotapes. The
Prime Minister has not tried to scuttle the commission.
We want to see the commission do its work. Senior
representatives of the Prime Minister's office are ready to
testify before the commission. The commission is an independent
body as set up by this parliament.
Why does the hon. member not want to let the commission do its
work?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the so-called independent commission
is not going to be able to do its work. It is not going to be
able to get to the bottom of this.
It is unbelievable to see the lengths to which this government
will go to cover up this embarrassing situation. The Prime
Minister's office directed the pepper spraying of innocent
students and then he tried to cover it up. Then he tried to
cover up the cover-up with this toothless RCMP commission. Since
that did not work, now he is trying to cover everything up.
Reform asked for an independent inquiry as long ago as September
23, exactly one month ago. I ask again, will this government
restore public trust and strike—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy
Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to reject the unwarranted and inaccurate premises
of the hon. member's question.
This commission as set up by this parliament is independent of
the government. It is at arm's length from it. In fact if a
commission was set up as demanded by the hon. member, it would be
set up by this government which would set its terms of reference
and appoint its members. Whereas the commission is set up for a
permanent period and it decides whether to hold its inquiry and
its own terms of reference.
Why does the hon. member not accept the independence of the
commission and let it do its work and not try to sabotage that
work through unwarranted—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the independence of this inquiry was put in jeopardy a long time
ago by the solicitor general and by the Prime Minister's office.
Gerald Morin was overheard prejudging the APEC inquiry and the
government has filed a complaint about bias. The solicitor
general was heard doing exactly the same thing and it was
business as usual.
Why the double standard? With the solicitor general's loose
lips nothing happens, and then with Gerald Morin's everything
grinds to a halt. Why the double standard?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no double standard here. The solicitor general
is not a member of the commission. He is not a member of the
panel. He has no authority under the act passed by this
parliament to direct the commission. He is at arm's length from
it.
Concerning the allegations about Mr. Morin, we will know more
about that once the commission makes its statement at 11:30 a.m.
Why do we not wait to see what is said and whether the hon.
member has some basis for his claims. He has no basis for them
now.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the process is in jeopardy and has been from the start
because of the solicitor general's comments. Now we hear the
commissioner saying exactly the same kinds of things.
It was business as usual when the solicitor general, the boss of
this whole inquiry, went forward and said those damaging things.
Now the process has ground to a halt. There is a double
standard. Why the double standard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why can the hon. member not at least amend his question
in the light of my answer?
There is no double standard. The solicitor general is not a
member of the commission. He is not part of the inquiry. He
cannot direct the inquiry.
As far as the allegations about Mr. Morin in the press today are
concerned, let us hear whether or not they are substantiated once
we have the statement of the commission later this morning.
In any event, whatever the statement is, it does not change the
fact that this government has not been given the authority by
parliament to direct the work of the commission. It is
independent. It is at arm's length from the government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We learn that the chair of the “Peppergate” commission has
apparently turned out to be as chatty as the Solicitor General
and has also prejudged the outcome of his own investigation even
before it has begun. In this case, it was not on a plane, but
in a casino.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the government
learned in October that Mr. Morin was blabbing last March?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we will have to await the statement by the commission,
which will be made within half an hour. Once the statement has
been made public, it will be easier to comment on the matter in
detail.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
really feels like a circus.
What is behind these sudden revelations of Mr. Morin's blabbing.
Are we to understand that the government is preparing to use Mr.
Morin as a scapegoat to mask the mistakes made by the Prime
Minister and his Solicitor General?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is not our intention to hide the facts in this matter. The
circus atmosphere is the hon. member's creation and she should
be criticized for creating this atmosphere, which is hindering
the work of the commission.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is turning itself into an object of ridicule.
After the Solicitor General's blabbing, the Prime Minister's
sophisticated remarks on the respective merits of baseball bats
and pepper spray, and the government's refusal to pay the
students' legal fees, it would now appear that the commission's
chair is as chatty as the Solicitor General. This is turning
into a farce.
When will the government finally admit that no one believes it
any more when it says that the commission has all the means and
the credibility necessary to shed light on what really happened
in Vancouver?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very difficult for me to comment on the hon. member's
allegations before the commission issues its statement.
Once this statement is released, it will be easier for us, on
both sides of the House, to make comments.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is high time a different
approach was used and the whole matter put into the hands of a
proper public commission of inquiry with full powers, so we can
finally get to the bottom of the Liberal Peppergate scandal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
reject the premise of the hon. member's question. There is no
Liberal scandal. We want to do things properly in this matter.
I must add that, while criticizing the government, the member is
asking the same government to set up a commission, appoint its
members and determine its mandate. That is a double standard.
1125
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission has apparently
prejudged the outcome of the APEC inquiry. If confirmed, he has
no choice but to resign. In the case of the solicitor general he
has clearly prejudged the inquiry outcome and he has no choice
but to resign.
When will the Prime Minister do the right thing? When will he
fire the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest the leader of the NDP not just read her
scripted question but pay attention to my answer.
The solicitor general is not part of the commission. He is not
a member of the commission. He did not create the commission. He
has no authority under the law passed by this parliament to
direct it.
We do not know exactly what Mr. Morin is supposed to have done.
We have not heard the statement of the commission. Let us wait
and hear what is said. Then it will be easier to comment on this
important matter in the way that it deserves.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was reading from the news
reports. Today he is trying to reject them or to ridicule them.
Forget the double-talk. Forget the double standards. Just fire
the solicitor general. When will the Prime Minister do that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not criticizing the news reports. All I say is
that rather than the news reports, in this case we are going to
have a statement from the commission very soon at which time it
will be easier to comment on this matter.
When it comes to double-talk and double standards, the hon.
member sets a good standard herself here.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we all
know in this House things must not only be right, they must
appear to be right.
Today in the Vancouver Sun there are allegations that
Gerald Morin, the chair of the public complaints commission, a
Liberal government appointee, prejudged the outcome of the APEC
inquiry. This comes after similar allegations of the solicitor
general and we all know that is true.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister will the government remove this
truth seeking exercise from the hands of the Liberal appointees
and put it in the hands of an impartial, apolitical—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy
Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because of the law passed by this parliament the
commission has full authority to look into any complaints brought
before it and to set the way it does so by public hearing or
otherwise. Parliament has not given the government any authority
to withdraw this matter from the commission. That is a fact.
As far as setting up another kind of inquiry, the hon. member as
I said in a previous answer, is asking the very government she is
criticizing to take this step, to set up the inquiry, to appoint
a commissioner to set its terms of reference. Thanks for the vote
of confidence in the government.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, for weeks the opposition has been saying that the
public complaints commission does not have the mandate or the
moral authority to investigate political interference. For weeks
the Liberals have done everything to hide behind this flawed
process, from the solicitor general's loose lips to the
government's refusal to fund the students.
Now that the commission itself is becoming discredited, the
outcome flawed, will the government commit to openness and
appoint a judicial inquiry?
This smacks of cover-up. What is the government hiding?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is hiding nothing in this matter.
We do not know yet exactly what the commission is going to say
about the allegations. Surely it makes sense to hear what the
commission has to say about this matter.
Again I want to thank the hon. member for his vote of
confidence, as is the case with his interim leader, in the
government. If any commission is going to be set up other than
the work being done by the public complaints commission, that
commission would be set up by this very same government under the
relevant statute. Again, thanks for the vote of confidence.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to restore public faith in the government and to get to the
bottom of the APEC cover-up, the person looking into this whole
affair should be completely independent and free from any
possible manipulations.
The new investigation has to have proper rules of evidence and
the right to subpoena any evidence and any person, including the
Prime Minister himself.
Will the Prime Minister strike an independent judicial inquiry
to look into this whole affair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the law passed by this parliament, the public
complaints commission is a permanent body.
It has wide authority and wide powers to carry out investigations
in the way it sees fit. I think one should recognize these wide
powers and not try to undermine the work of the commission as it
is barely getting underway.
1130
Once again, I thank the Reform Party for its vote of confidence
in the government. It is asking for something that this very
government it is criticizing would have to do. Thanks again for
the vote of confidence.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister is stonewalling again. An independent
judicial inquiry is desperately needed to clear the poisoned air
surrounding the APEC inquiry.
Canadians have lost faith in an inquiry due to loose lips,
inappropriate comments by the Prime Minister and alleged
government interference. Canadians are tired of this comedy of
errors.
Will the government strike a new independent judicial inquiry?
Yes or no.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I object to the premise of the hon. member's question.
Instead of stonewalling, I always try to be helpful to the House
in answering questions.
Once again we have a confirmation of the Reform Party of its
faith in the government. It criticized the government for its
role in this matter and yet it wants it to set up a commission.
[Translation]
Once again, I thank the Reform Party for its vote of confidence.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that if the money is
available, health care will definitely be a priority. Now, five
months into the current fiscal year, the surplus has already
reached $8 billion.
Since money is available, and considering there are pressing
needs in the health sector right across the country, what excuse
will the Minister of Health make up to avoid asking the Minister
of Finance to immediately allocate the available money to
health?
[English]
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad
this question was asked. Both the finance minister and the Prime
Minister have made it very clear that health care in Canada is
one of the priorities that will be considered at the time of the
next budget. We look forward to the support of the opposition
for the measures that we bring forth.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking about the next budget; we are talking about taking
action today, with today's surpluses, to care for the sick
today.
Can the Minister of Health give us the assurance that any
federal reinvestment in health will be done through transfer
payments and not through new high visibility programs such as
the millennium scholarship fund?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to accept the
hon. member's suggestions but, as I just mentioned, health care
for all Canadians is a priority of this government, and we will
address the situation in the next budget, as is our custom.
I should point out to the hon. member that we have already
increased transfers to the provinces for health care by $1.5
billion.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
assure the Deputy Prime Minister that the Reform Party has no
confidence in how this commission is operating or in the
government's interference into that commission's work.
According to the solicitor general, the RCMP will take the fall
for the APEC fiasco. Now the commission chairman states the same
thing, that the RCMP will take the fall for the APEC fiasco.
Canadians, on the other hand, know better. The blame lies at
the Prime Minister's feet—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Deputy Prime
Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): I am sorry,
Mr. Speaker. I had not realized that the hon. member had
actually asked a question.
I want to say that the government has not interfered in the work
of the commission; just the opposite. We have tried to ensure in
our comments in the House that the independence of the commission
is recognized, especially by the opposition parties.
While the hon. member has no confidence in the government, his
colleagues on his behalf have expressed that confidence by asking
the very government he criticizes to set up another commission of
inquiry.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that we are not listening
to his answers over here.
He says that the government has no control over this independent
public complaints commission. His government appointed these
people to the commission. If they are not doing their job, if
they are prejudiced, it is up to him to get rid of these people
and set up another inquiry.
1135
The next commission will be headed by a judge and a judge cannot
be fired once he is appointed. That is a person we want to have
on the inquiry.
Will you now commit to bringing us an inquiry that is
independent, headed by a judge of the Superior Court of Canada?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I ask members to
direct their questions through the Chair.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has tied himself up in such a pretzel
type twisting arrangement of knots it is hard to see the sense in
his question.
I want to say that on the one hand the hon. member wants
political interference in the public complaints commission. The
people are appointed for a term. They are at arm's length from
the government. Yet he wants another commission set up and,
whoever is on it, the length of the life of that commission would
be set by the government.
The hon. member as I said has turned himself, through his
question, into a human pretzel.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING ON ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister wants to charge ships using the St. Lawrence River
for 80% of icebreaking fees when they are responsible for only
50% of the total costs of commercial icebreaking. Does the
minister realize that he will be making private shipping on the
St. Lawrence pay for its maritime competitors?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what we are attempting to do is to have those using
icebreaking services pay 17.5% of the cost. That is not a lot
to ask.
Let us not forget that transport ships must travel through the
waters off Newfoundland to reach the St. Lawrence River.
Obviously, it is fair that the ships themselves must pay the
fees, up to a maximum of 17.5%.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, he thinks
it is fair to make them pay 80% when the normal rate should be
50%.
The shipping industry agrees with recovering 17% of costs. Is
the minister aware that the unequal distribution of the bill
among regions is completely unfair to Quebec?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I told the member that we want the people and
businesses using the services and the shipping industry to pay
only 17.5% of the cost.
The Bloc Quebecois' suggestion of an increase in rates for ships
using the St. Lawrence River will mean that those travelling to
the Port of Quebec City will pay dearly indeed.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that the solicitor
general has nothing to do with this public inquiry. As a former
solicitor general he knows better than to say that, because the
solicitor general did decide to go with the commission and not
hold a full judicial inquiry where all actors in this fiasco
would have their say.
Will the Prime Minister end this fiasco and strike a new
independent judicial inquiry to look into this entire APEC
affair, including the Prime Minister's and the solicitor
general's involvement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is in part because I was solicitor general that I
think I can speak about this matter with respect to the work of
the commission on a more factual basis than the Reform member.
The solicitor general today did not set up this inquiry. The
inquiry was set up by the arm's length permanent independent
public complaints commission. It set up the inquiry. It set the
terms of reference. It is up to it and not the solicitor general
or the government to say how it carries out the inquiry and how
long it will last. Surely this is an indication of independence
that the hon. member should support instead of in an unwarranted
way criticizing the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the APEC issue is about the
constitutional rights of Canadians: the right to speak out
against injustice, the right not to be arrested for only
political purposes, and the right to fair process before a
tribunal. These things have all been suspended by the government.
Now the fix appears to be in and the commission has been
adjourned to November 16.
We do not know where this is going to go. We need a judicial
inquiry to clean up this mess.
1140
What will the government do to restore the constitutional rights
of Canadians that it has tossed aside?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned constitutional
rights.
I thought he would have added to his question praise for the
Prime Minister for his work in establishing the charter of rights
and freedoms. It is there. It is in force. It protects
Canadians. The Prime Minister should be praised by the hon.
member when he asks his questions for his work in establishing,
protecting, maintaining and upholding that very charter of
rights.
* * *
[Translation]
PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
answer the Minister of Human Resources Development gave yesterday
to my question on POWA was totally unacceptable.
On the one hand, the minister claims to be concerned about the
older workers who have been laid off, while on the other hand he
is asking them to settle for active measures he feels are more
equitable.
Will the minister admit that these active measures are
inadequate, indeed totally unsuited to the realities of the
labour market for older workers who have been laid off, and that
they require special income support measures, to which his
government committed in 1996?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear here.
First of all, it must be pointed out that the majority of older
workers are holding their own very well in today's economy. The
jobless rate for workers over the age of 55 has dropped from 9%
to 6.3%.
It is extremely important to consider the reality that the
majority of older workers are managing very well. For the
others, it is clear that our government is concerned about their
situation and is seeking to work with them to help them back into
the work force.
* * *
[English]
LABOUR
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
construction trade labour groups are anxiously awaiting the
government to deliver on its commitment to implement the fair
wage schedule.
On behalf of the Minister of Labour could the government House
leader tell the House what is the status of this important
government initiative and when it will be implemented?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on August 5 the Minister of
Labour appointed Mr. Douglas Stanley to conduct a comprehensive
review of this issue. We expect to receive Mr. Stanley's finding
and recommendations shortly, possibly as early as next week.
Once we receive these recommendations my colleague, the Minister
of Labour, intends to act as expeditiously as he always does.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
just heard a few moments ago that the chair of the public
complaints commission denied the allegation against him and he is
staying on as chair. We also heard that they are adjourning the
commission meetings until November 16.
Justice delayed is justice denied. When will the government
bring forth justice for these people and establish an independent
judicial inquiry? Will the government do it right away, now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think a correction should be made. I have just been
told that it is not the chair of the public complaints
commission. It is the chair of the panel who has denied
categorically the allegations made against him.
I have also been told that the issues arising out of the
allegations according to the chair of the panel, Mr. Morin, will
be referred to the federal court. The panel has been recessed
until November 16.
I have just had this information conveyed to me. It is public
information as the hon. member has in part conveyed to the House.
I have not had a chance to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Gerald Morin was overheard in a casino prejudging the outcomes.
The solicitor general did exactly the same thing. Loose lips. I
would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
In view of the prejudging of the solicitor general and Gerald
Morin, which is serious enough that the chair even acknowledged
it was that kind of comment, would the solicitor general strike
immediately an independent judicial inquiry, or is he still
saying that he has confidence in the present inquiry?
1145
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this whole process has been created through an act
passed by this parliament. If the hon. member wants to reflect
on an act of parliament he is entitled to do so. I do not intend
to make that reflection.
I would also add that I have been advised that Mr. Morin has
categorically rejected the allegations against him, as confirmed
by his colleague who asked the previous question. Why does he
not listen to his hon. friend's question? He will learn
something.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
at the beginning of question period the Deputy Prime Minister
said “Pay attention to my answer”. We did. He said “We will
wait for a statement from the commission and when we know what is
happening we will make a judgment”.
We know what is happening. Justice has been denied to the
students who sought answers. The commission is mired in
distrust. It is adjourned until November 16. The matter has
been referred to the federal court.
When will he set up a judicial inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it could be argued that there is some sense in
waiting to hear what the federal court says about this matter.
If he wants some independent comment, surely it comes from the
federal court.
Also, if there is an atmosphere of distrust, I have to say that
this was created in an unfair and unwarranted way by the kinds of
questions asked by the hon. member.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is my understanding that the allegations about the comments
the commissioner made came from the government's lawyer.
If that is the situation, when did the government know about
these allegations and why did it not deal with them initially?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the lawyers for the
government acted in a perfectly responsible way in this matter,
bringing the allegations to the attention of the commission
counsel.
This is the proper step to have taken. I am surprised the hon.
member has not risen to praise the government's lawyers for their
responsible actions.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The New Brunswick government has just revealed that its new toll
highway through the province will generate a profit of $321
million at the expense of other provinces. This creates a major
interprovincial trade barrier. It means that New Brunswick will
be exploiting Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland.
In committee the minister said that he has the authority to
regulate all interprovincial trade when that trade extends from
one province to another. Will the minister clarify the source of
his authority and does that authority apply to interprovincial
highways?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should know, and I am sure he does, that
the designing, building, financing and operating of highways is
within the provincial jurisdiction.
It is true that federal-provincial highway agreements have not
contemplated the use of tolls. The hon. member has raised this
in the House a number of times before and I have said that he
raised a good public policy question that should be examined.
Perhaps the Standing Committee on Transport could examine it. It
is being examined by a council of deputy ministers from across
the country and their report should be made public very soon.
We are sorry about the dispute in Atlantic Canada, but hopefully
it can be resolved in an amicable way.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the minister that there is some urgency to the
situation because the provinces of Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland are now preparing lawsuits against New Brunswick for
forcing trucks bound for their provinces through the toll booths.
The lawsuit will pit three provinces against each other in a
region that needs total co-operation, not division and
confrontation.
Considering the regulatory authority that the minister holds
over these interprovincial trade links, will the minister take a
leadership role, bring the four provinces involved together to
find a political solution, rather than go through a costly,
protracted, painful legal battle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there is an agreement on
internal trade that has been reached between the federal
government and the provincial governments. My interpretation of
the transportation provisions of that particular agreement is
that what is happening on the east coast is fully within the
ambit of that agreement.
Is the Conservative Party asking the Government of Canada to
walk away from that agreement on internal trade and use its
constitutional powers, which would cause quite a fuss across the
country? Is the Tory party asking us to do that?
* * *
1150
INDUSTRY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Minister of Industry opened a new $6.4
million industry partnership facility at the National Research
Council in Ottawa to support the start-up of the high tech
industry.
What is the government doing to ensure that the work of the
National Research Council of Canada is of direct benefit to
communities across Canada?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within its national vision and
role, the National Research Council has become recognized as one
of the leading advocates of new research facilities. Special
programs and collaborations across this country have resulted in
additional prime examples of NRC's work in the regions, such as
the Biotechnology Research Institute's impact on the
bio-pharmaceutical industry in Montreal, the Plant Biotechnology
Institute in Saskatoon and the role of the Institute for Marine
Dynamics in St. John's, Newfoundland, which have all had a
positive effect on Canadians across Canada.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister has charged some people here as being
pretzel-like. I will tell this House where the pretzel is. The
pretzel is over on that side where truth and integrity have been
put into jeopardy. We now have the commissioner saying “Look, I
have to be investigated because I deny that I ever said anything
wrong”. Canadians are waiting for truth and justice to take
place.
When will the Deputy Prime Minister appoint an independent
judicial inquiry to look into things, get the truth on the table,
establish integrity and get fairness and justice into this
inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this commission and its work is independent, pursuant to
the law passed by this parliament.
A situation has arisen which the commission has asked the
federal court to examine. Let us hear what the federal court has
to say about this. Certainly we want to see this looked into
thoroughly so that any appropriate action that is necessary can
be taken. Let us wait to hear what the federal court has to say
about the statement made today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now there
is a new refrain we are going to have to get used to: “Wait for
the court”. Before that, it was “Wait for the commission”.
It is obvious that the commission is an annoyance to the
government. Based on mere allegations not made under oath, the
chair of the commission has just suspended proceedings until
November 16, a date which coincides with the Prime Minister's
departure on a long trip out of the country.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that there has been no
governmental pressure or intervention of any kind?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Yes. Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
recent Labrador helicopter crash killed six Canadian crew, 12 Sea
King crashes killed 7 Canadians and Chinooks were sold to the
Netherlands at a loss of millions.
Instead of gambling with more Canadian lives in proven unsafe
Sea Kings over one-third of a century old, will this government
now provide safer options for our military and civilians that
come to terms with this government's fatal mismanagement of the
search and rescue helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not gamble with people's lives.
Safety is our utmost concern; safety for our crews and safety for
those Canadians who require the search and rescue operations that
we will continue to operate using safe equipment.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, denials, delays and police fall guys are becoming
this government's trademark.
The chair of the panel, Gerald Morin, has just publicly denied
these allegations, saying that he did not speak publicly about
APEC and prejudice the inquiry. We heard similar denials from
the solicitor general in response to his prejudicial remarks.
When will we see some shred of accountability and respect for a
credible process like a judicial inquiry from this government?
Let us get on with it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the House leader for the Conservative
Party for endorsing the vote of confidence his leader gave to
this government because if there is another inquiry the only
authority this government has is under the Inquiries Act which
means that the government would set up the inquiry, the
government would appoint the commissioner, the government would
set out the terms of reference and the government would establish
the length of the life of the commission.
I do not see how the hon. member can be on the one hand
criticizing the government for its alleged role in this matter
and on the other hand asking the government to take the action he
wants.
Thanks again for the vote of confidence. I hope it is recorded
on the record.
* * *
1155
UNITED NATIONS DAY
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
I ask the minister if he could tell this House what the
department has planned for United Nations Day to honour the men
and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who served on UN missions?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is United Nations Day and I
cannot think of a more appropriate way to commemorate it than to
honour our peacekeepers, those Canadian men and women who have
served in UN missions abroad, some 107 of them who have lost
their lives.
I invite all members of the House to join us tomorrow morning at
the peacekeeping monument on Sussex Drive at 9 a.m. for a
commemorative service as we honour those who have worn the blue
beret.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Gerald Morin's denials are not enough. All we have
heard in this House are denials, denials and more denials from
the solicitor general to the Prime Minister. Canadians have lost
confidence in the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
Will Canadians also have to lose confidence in this government,
or is this government going to appoint a public judicial inquiry
and do the right thing for Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I question the premise of the hon. member's question.
The answers of the ministers on this side of the House have been
informative and factual, and certainly not only denials.
Secondly, I question the premise that Canadians have lost
confidence in the independent Public Complaints Commission.
I do want to thank the member again for confirming the vote of
confidence of the Reform Party in the government when again he
asked the government to set up an inquiry.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Because it runs a public service, Aéroports de Montréal is
accountable to no one. It is the same with Nav Canada and the
millennium scholarships. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
would also be almost completely free of parliamentary control
and unaccountable.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is acceptable to limit
Parliament's control when it comes to issues so important to the
public interest?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Aéroports de Montréal
and other corporations throughout the country.
A bill was passed here in the House of Commons creating a
non-profit corporation to run airports. This corporation is
subject to an act of Parliament. I therefore think there is
accountability in this case.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment. The Marwell tar pit is
located in the centre of the city of Whitehorse, Yukon and it has
been designated a contaminated site. For decades it has been
draining toxins, including PCBs, into the water system. A man
was trapped and died in the tar pit.
Under these conditions I would like the minister to make a
commitment to clean up this tar pit.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to take the
information from the hon. member, to look into the situation and
to take whatever appropriate action is necessary. I would like
to thank the hon. member for her question.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
two months we have heard in this House the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister dancing their fancy legal footwork trying
to hide the Prime Minister's involvement in the APEC inquiry.
The developments today are the last straw. Canadians have
absolutely no confidence in this inquiry. Canadians have no
confidence in this Liberal government on this issue. When are we
going to have a full-fledged judicial inquiry to get to the
truth?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. Do
I look like someone capable of fancy footwork?
I would say to the hon. member, please get real. I am trying to
give straightforward, useful answers and in that context I want
to say to the hon. member thanks again for the vote of confidence
in this government when he calls upon it to set up an independent
inquiry.
1200
We have an independent body created by this parliament in the
form of the public complaints commission. Please remember that.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have been following the recent crisis in Kosovo with
great concern. It is important to remember the tremendous human
costs caused by such conflicts. There are currently 200,000
refugees who have fled to avoid the conflict. What steps have
been taken to provide for these people?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the refugees of Kosovo are facing a very difficult
winter. As a result of that, yesterday I announced we would send
$2 million in humanitarian assistance through such NGOs as CARE
Canada, the International Red Cross and the world food program.
This is in addition to $1 million in humanitarian assistance we
sent over the spring and summer.
All of us should be very concerned and continue to support these
refugees as they face a terrible time.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to ten petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition signed
by residents primarily from the area of Williams Lake. These
petitioners request that parliament amend the Marriage Act so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from citizens of the general Peterborough area. They
are concerned about the fact that 4.5 Canadians are killed every
day as a result of alcohol related vehicular crashes. They
humbly pray that parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code
so that any crash resulting in injury constitutes reasonable and
probable grounds for blood or breath testing of drivers and that
law enforcement agencies are able to use the latest technologies
for roadside testing.
They urge the federal government to strongly support and provide
encouragement to jurisdictions to continue to introduce
administrative sanctions against drinking and driving.
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a second petition which is from petitioners in the Peterborough
area who are concerned that Bill C-47 that bans human cloning and
prohibits some activities surrounding new reproductive and
genetic technologies in Canada has lapsed.
1205
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation
regarding a ban on human cloning. They point to the need to
legislate in the area of reproductive and genetic technologies to
ensure the health and safety of those affected by such practices.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents here in the national capital
region who are calling on parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the
right of spouses, parents and grandparents for access to or
custody of the children or the child.
INDONESIA
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am presenting a petition today that has been signed by
individuals in my riding and many individuals outside my riding.
It simply asks parliament to appeal to the president and the
entire Government of Indonesia basically to protect the human
rights of the ethnic Chinese in that country and to call an end
to racial and religious discrimination in Indonesia.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of petitions here concerning the MAI, which we
all know is dead. Nevertheless these petitioners would want to
note, as they do in their petitions, that the government should
reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the
government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the
world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that
protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments
to act in the public interest, instead of looking for other
venues such as the World Trade Organization or the FTAA to
replicate NAFTA.
The government should be rethinking NAFTA and particularly those
elements of it that the rest of the industrialized world was so
reluctant to adopt. Why should Canada be one of the few nations
in the world to be exposed to such unacceptable provisions?
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three brief petitions for the House today. The first has to
do with human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that this year is the 50th anniversary of universal human rights.
Whereas Canada is an internationally recognized leader promoting
human rights around the world, the petitioners call on Canada to
appeal for action by leaders of countries where human rights are
not being protected and to seek to bring to justice those
responsible for the violation of internationally recognized human
rights.
CRTC
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the CRTC. The petitioners
want to bring to the attention of the House that the CRTC has
refused a licence for religious television broadcasters but did
license the Playboy channel. They want to bring to the attention
of the House that parliament should review the mandate of the
CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will
encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The final
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with our police officers and
firefighters. The petitioners would like to draw to the
attention of the House that our police officers and firefighters
are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as
they discharge their duties and that the employment benefits of
police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of
duty are often not sufficient to care for their surviving
families.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers, being police
officers and firefighters, who are killed in the line of duty.
GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. These petitions
are signed by grandparents who following the death, separation or
divorce of their children no longer have access to their
grandchildren. They request parliament to amend the Divorce Act
so that they will therefore from now on have access to or custody
of their grandchildren.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 110 and 127.
.[Text]
Question No. 110—Mr. Chris Axworthy:
With regards to the four recently acquired British
submarines, what are the precise figures for: (a) the
installation of the Air Independent Propulsion (A.I.P.) refit;
(b) the new communications systems; (c) shore facilities;
(d) modifications to meet Canadians standards; and (e) the
total overall cost of the submarines?
The Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
The UPHOLDER project was recenlty approved by the Treasury Board
at a total of $750 million current year 1998-99. The project
consist of $610 million current year 1998-99, for the U.K.
package—submarines, trainers, technical data, crew training, and
initial spares and $140 million current year 1998-99 for other
project costs—essential Canadian modifications, infrastructure,
including the repatriation of the trainers, project management
and contingency.
The cost of the new communications systems, shore
facilities—trainers—and modifications to meet Canadian
standards are budgeted for within the $140 million, current year
1998-99, envelope for other project costs. Precise costs for
these requirements will not be known until detailed definition
and contract negotiations are completed.
The installation of an air independent propulsion system is not
part of the UPHOLDER project. AIP is currently at the “proof of
concept” stage at Ballard Power Systems in Vancouver. To date,
the Department of National Defence's investment in the research
and development amounts to approximately $8 million.
The full development of a submarine AIP system, including its
installation in the four submarines, is estimated at potentially
several hundred million dollars over an 18-year period. As the
estimate is for planning purposes only, and will have to be
carefully evaluated for affordability within the defence services
program, the estimate cannot de released publicly at this time.
Question No. 127—Mr. Lee Morrison:
How much money was collected for each of the user fees levied by
Transport Canada and its agencies for fiscal years 1995-96,
1996-97 and 1997-98?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1210
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an
act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
particularly like the emphasis on the hon. member. I appreciate
being back in the House and having you in the chair. I know you
so enjoy the opportunity of listening to the position of the
Progressive Conservative Party on any piece of legislation, but
particularly on Bill C-41 which is an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.
I find it interesting to follow the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona. It shows the diverse views in the House of
Commons. Obviously it also shows that philosophically there are
many differences in positions put forward.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona indicated earlier it
would be much better to have many more public services and public
organizations and he talked about CN and its privatization. I
can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona would prefer to nationalize Coca-Cola and
have all such services provided by government as opposed to
private sector corporations.
Bill C-41 was introduced in the House on May 7, 1998. From the
beginning our party has opposed the bill and we will continue to
oppose the bill. The bill would allow the construction of the
Royal Canadian Mint's new plant to manufacture coin blanks to
compete with a plant that is already in the private sector. We
believe that the mint has not been forthcoming with Canadians on
the new facility.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona spoke glowingly about the
potential opportunities for the new plant. It is interesting
that the plant is adjacent to the member's riding. It is also
interesting that the plant is located in the riding of a minister
of the crown, a member of the government, the foreign affairs
minister.
Let us talk about the bill just a little bit. The minister
mentioned that we have great pride in our Canadian currency and
our mint. That is true. I suggest that this can still be
maintained without having to put forward a capital expenditure of
some $30 million to compete with the private sector. The private
sector company mentioned by the Reform Party was Westaim which I
will get to a little bit later.
I would say philosophically, and the government has said so
itself in previous comments, that what the private sector can
provide should be provided by the private sector and not by
government. There should not be direct competition between the
government and the private sector.
The bill will go back to committee. The minister also said let
us take it to committee, discuss it, look at it, make the
necessary changes and bring it back to the House. I would
appreciate that that happened, but unfortunately I have lost a
bit of my confidence and faith in the committee process. When
members of the opposition put forward amendments to legislation
that will make the legislation better for all Canadians, it seems
that the committee does not bring forward those amendments.
In this case I wish beyond hope the committee would listen to
what I consider to be very logical amendments that would be
brought forward and amend the bill to improve it. As mentioned
by a number of other previous speakers there are very serious
areas of concern with respect to Bill C-41. I will review some
of the facts and arguments members of my party have discussed in
this case.
Through Bill C-41 the Liberal government has moved to increase
the borrowing authority of the Royal Canadian Mint allowing it to
build a coin plating plant, another patronage plum in the
backyard of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This facility would
put the mint into direct competition with Westaim of Fort
Saskatchewan, Alberta.
1215
Because the world market for coin blanks is shrinking, either
Westaim will be forced out of business and 110 employees will be
in jeopardy or else the Royal Canadian Mint's new venture will go
down in flames. Taxpayers will be on the hook for those
additional operating costs as well as debt servicing costs of an
additional $30 million for a plant.
We have a corporation right now that provides the service to the
Royal Canadian Mint. That corporation will be in jeopardy. Why
is it put in jeopardy? Because a $30 million expenditure of
indirect Canadian taxpayer dollars will go to compete against the
private sector corporation. It is not a level playing field.
Westaim is a legitimate successful Canadian business that has
supplied the Royal Canadian Mint with coin blanks for 35 years. I
wish the members from the NDP would listen. There are 110
employees in this corporation who may well be in jeopardy if this
plan of the Royal Canadian Mint goes ahead.
The entry of the Royal Canadian Mint into the industry would
jeopardize this Westaim division and its employees. Industry
experts agree that the market for coin blanks will experience a
slight blip in demand for the Eurodollar, which is to come on in
the next number of years, and then continue its steady decline as
electronic transactions become more popular and the need for
coinage and paper currency declines.
This is not some crystal ball gazing. This is reality. There
is not going to be a need for the coin blanks, the currency,
because of electronic transfers. We are now going to have
overcapacity within the system with the Royal Canadian Mint
having to compete with this private sector. The new coin plating
plant will not only replace Westaim as the source of coin blanks
but will compete in the world market.
The costs of getting the mint into the coin blank business are
enormous. The $30 million announcement is just to build the
plant. Start-up costs are substantial for a new competitor in
the mature to declining market.
The mint will have to compete against established, experienced
well entrenched competition that has years to build expertise and
economies of scale. Not only will the Royal Canadian Mint have
to continue with a high cost structure but it will, like any
brand new business, make mistakes.
We recognize that any time government gets into business, there
are many inefficiencies and many mistakes. We expect that the
mistakes will come at the cost to the Royal Canadian Mint and
indirectly back to Canadian taxpayers.
The Reform member mentioned 30% overcapacity. That overcapacity
in the industry right now is between 30% and 40%.
With the entry of the mint into this market, it will likely
either drive Westaim and the 110 employees out of business or
else go spectacularly down in an inefficient operation with
capital losses and operating losses to the Canadian public.
Even though there is no direct subsidy being proposed in this
venture because all moneys spent by a crown corporation reduce
dividends paid back to the crown, ultimately the taxpayers are
the ones who pay.
Westaim still has an unresolved lawsuit against the mint
involving the softening process necessary to make the coin
blanks. The mint cannot legally proceed with this venture unless
it settles both these outstanding matters, yet construction
started in March.
There was no funding available to the Royal Canadian Mint under
law to start the construction of the plant. However, the
construction of the plant began in March 1997.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member should check his facts. I think what he just
said is false.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, that
is not a point of order; it is debate.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister
can debate that point when he gets the opportunity. I can also
suggest that there is a lawsuit outstanding which is factual.
There are infringements being suggested against Westaim at this
point.
1220
So let us listen again. A plant is being built yet it does not
have the patent opportunity to develop the blanks it wants to
produce for the world market. Yet the plant is being constructed
as we speak right now. If this were a business it would have
been bankrupt a long time ago, but it is a crown corporation.
Getting government right is a Liberal government policy that has
been in place since 1993. Among other things it stipulates that
where the private sector can provide a service equal or superior
to a government department or agency, then government should not
be in the business. This venture violates the Liberal government
policy. This government has said on many occasions that if the
private sector can provide the service then government should
stay out of it. It is unfortunate that the government does not
follow its own rules or its own policy in this situation.
The only reason this is being allowed to happen is that this is
a patronage plum in Manitoba. I am from Manitoba and I would
love to see as many things happen in Manitoba as possible. But I
wish to see them happen only according to good business practice.
This is not one of those. I suggest very strongly that this
change to the legislation is simply trying to assist a business
practice that should not have gone ahead in the first place.
One does not have to look any further than the fiasco the
Liberal government created in the oil industry in the 1970s to
know that it does not make any sense for the government to take
over part of an existing industry and to compete with private
companies. Back then the Liberals nationalized Petrofina and
created the national energy program. This hurt the industry,
cost jobs and taxpayers ended up paying out millions of dollars
unnecessarily. To a lesser degree this same problem will happen
with the Royal Canadian Mint competing against the private
sector.
As I have indicated, every bit of information we have seen
reinforces our view that this scheme of the mint will put Westaim
and its employees out of business and cost Canadians millions of
dollars. This bill would take away from parliament and by
extension Canadians the opportunity for a full and public
discussion on any proposed changes to Canada's coinage. It would
be left up to cabinet to be approved in secret, behind closed
doors. The bill would require that parliament be informed of the
changes but it would not be the decision of the people or their
representatives. The decision would be solely that of cabinet.
Neither would there be any requirement that Canadians be
consulted before any changes are implemented.
In the near future it is quite possible that parliament may be
asked to consider replacing a five dollar bill with a five dollar
coin. It is also possible that this House may be asked to remove
the penny from circulation. Because we all use these coins,
these changes would affect all Canadians. At the present time
under the Royal Canadian Mint Act coins can only be introduced
into or removed from circulation by an act of parliament. The
minister said today in the House that it will be elected
representatives, that it will be the ministers of the government,
that it will be an order in council, that it will not be an act
of this parliament. That is not only a shame, it is very
dangerous in my opinion.
Under the Royal Canadian Mint Act coins can only be introduced
or removed by parliament. That is the where that decision should
remain. That will be one of the amendments when the bill goes
before committee. The government will have to look at that
amendment very seriously as it considers changing this proposed
legislation.
Based on our experience with the introduction of the one dollar
and two dollar coins in the last decade, we can expect that
Canadians would want an opportunity for a full and public debate
on any proposed changes to their money, not cabinet's money, not
government's money, their money. By requiring that parliament
pass a law to implement such changes, the present legislation
process allows for this. Any bill to introduce or remove a coin
would have to receive three readings in both the Commons and the
Senate. It would have to pass through two committees that could
interview witnesses or hold public hearings before they give
approval. This would not be the case if this legislation were to
pass.
I will give the government three reasons why this bill should
not pass in the form in which it has been presented. It violates
the existing government policy of getting government right. I
hope the government is listening. That policy was first launched
in 1994 by Treasury Board. That initiative examines how existing
government services can best be delivered to Canadians.
1225
Government services that can best be delivered by the provinces,
by the private sectors or that no longer have public policy
purpose are divested. Building a new plating facility would put
the Government of Canada in competition against its own current
policy.
Second, it exposes scarce tax dollars to needless risk. The
venture would put the Canadian government into a start-up
business in a sunset industry where there is already a
substantial oversupply in the market. Take business risks but we
do so in a planned, orderly fashion. Look at the marketplace.
Look at the cost of operation. Look at the capital requirements.
Then say can we make money at this or not. In this particular
business it is our opinion that the Canadian mint will be hard
pressed to make this a paying operation of the business.
Last and probably most important, and even my colleagues in the
NDP would agree with me, this particular operation puts in
jeopardy 110 to 120 jobs at Westaim. I suspect putting any job
in jeopardy would not be supported by any party of this House.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, he mentioned that you had the honour of sitting in the
big seat and listening to his diatribe. I get tired of listening
to it. We all know he is going to vote for Joe Clark tomorrow.
There are no new ideas coming from the Conservative Party,
especially the member from Manitoba.
He falsely accused the most hon. member in the House, the member
for Winnipeg—Transcona, about wanting to privatize Coca-Cola.
The actual issue is that after CN was privatized and has made
money, it just laid off another 3,000 employees and their
families. Volvo, a profitable corporation, laid off 223
employees. Air Atlantic laid off 525. The list goes on and on.
He remarked about people being laid off from profitable
corporations, and the list goes on about what these corporations
do in Canada, with absolutely no respect for the employees and
their families.
I would like his comment on the fact that he is against crown
corporations and against any kind of government intervention in
companies and for the decency and honour for the employees. What
does he have to say about profitable corporations that make a lot
of money but continue to lay off employees, disrupt their
families and only pay interest to their shareholders?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, as I said when I first
stood up, philosophically the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and
I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs with respect to
privatization and nationalization of services.
I did not accuse the member for Winnipeg—Transcona of wanting
to nationalize Coca-Cola. I suggested that corporations may well
not be one of the finest words in the vocabulary of the NDP
government. Corporations are a very important and necessary
engine of our economy in Canada.
Not only philosophically do Progressive Conservatives and the
NDP differ but the hon. member who posed the question may have
some difficulty arguing with himself right now. Quite frankly
what is going is going to jeopardize 110 jobs. These are jobs in
the private sector. We talk about CN, we talk about Volvo, we
talk about other corporations laying off people. Why is it the
hon. member has no heart for the 110 people who are already
employed in this industry? It is an industry that has
overcapacity. When there is too much capacity in the marketplace
there are going to be layoffs. These people are going to be
jeopardized by that.
Why is the hon. member worried about other jobs and other
corporations but in this particular case, where it is proven, he
does not have any compassion for these 110 people?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I simply cannot believe my ears.
I would like to ask the lone Tory from the west which candidate
he is going to vote for tomorrow in the PC leadership campaign.
I could not believe, quite frankly, that he would be voting for
Joe Who. If he is, if that is indeed true, it really calls into
question not only his opinion about leadership for his failing
party but his opinion about everything, including the bill under
discussion.
1230
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to, as a
paid political announcement, mention at all that there will be a
leadership vote for the Progressive Conservatives tomorrow night,
October 24. I stand here very proudly and inform the members of
the House that yes, I do support the Right Hon. Joe Clark as the
next leader of the Progressive Conservatives.
The hon. member also suggested that as the lone Tory in western
Canada I take some great pride in being that lone Tory. I would
like to see where the members are for the Reform Party in
Ontario. I see they are perhaps a little lacking in that area of
the rest of Canada, including Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic
provinces.
On Monday there will hopefully be a new leader of the
Progressive Conservatives. Our policy will remain Conservative
policy. If it were our government in place, this piece of
legislation would not be before the House right now.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is getting very interesting but maybe a little off
topic. Just to prove how far off base the Conservatives are, we
have a tremendous candidate running for the Conservatives with a
new vision, with new ideas, who would probably make a tremendous
prime minister, but the only Conservative from Brandon—Souris
will not support this gentleman.
I would ask the hon. member if Mr. Pallister wins the leadership
whether he will be prepared to resign his seat so that he can
really become the leader of the Conservatives.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, thank you for an
opportunity to rebut. The hon. member said “we have a candidate
running in the leadership”. I take it the hon. member has now
taken back his Progressive Conservative membership, because he
obviously includes himself in our party.
He also suggested that if Brian Pallister should win I should
give up my seat. I seem to understand, now that the hon. member
is so infatuated with this member, that he now calls himself one
of us. He comes from that same riding. Perhaps it would be best
if that member for Portage—Lisgar gave up his seat so that the
new leader of the party could run.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the lone
Tory in Manitoba that when it comes to anybody being laid off in
this country, losing their job, the one party they can always
count on for support is the New Democratic Party of Canada.
The hon. member mentioned the 110 jobs that are apparently going
to be lost because of this bill. I would like him to clarify
where exactly in the bill it states that and how does he come to
his conclusions.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, once again if the member
was listening I said these 110 jobs are in jeopardy. The reason
they are in jeopardy is unfair, unlevel playing field competition
with government to private sector corporations. That is what I
said and that is what is in the bill. Borrowing has now increased
to $75 million under the bill to the Royal Canadian Mint or to
the Royal Canadian Mint Act. There are inequities with respect to
government competition with the private sector. Yes, 110 jobs
are in jeopardy because of this act.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important that we put this issue to rest
here. It is important that everyone understands that the hon.
member for Portage—Lisgar defeated Brian Pallister in the last
election. The member for Brandon—Souris should be the one to
resign in the event that Mr. Pallister wins leadership, because
the member for Portage—Lisgar, the Reform member, would again
win in a byelection because he did win by 1,500 votes over the
Conservative candidate. Unless the Conservative candidate wants
to come back for a second defeat, so be it.
1235
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I think the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris needs to work the mint into his
response.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, we are kind of getting
off topic. However, I do enjoy the bit of banter between
Reformers and Progressive Conservatives. It seems they have some
concern that perhaps there may well be some more Progressive
Conservatives in western Canada to augment their strength in the
other parts of this country.
As the member for Portage—Lisgar won by only 1,500 votes, I
would suspect that he would want to make sure that if there is a
new leader and Brian Pallister should be that leader he would
take the opportunity of putting his seat on the line to ensure
that the new leader, Brian Pallister, finds his seat in
Portage—Lisgar.
I am sure the member for Portage—Lisgar would like to take the
challenge because he is a man of integrity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with
representatives of all the parties and I believe you would find
consent to defer the recorded division requested on second
reading of Bill C-41 to the expiry of Government Orders on
Tuesday, October 27, 1998.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find the
consent of the House to see the clock as being 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.37 p.m.)