36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 42
CONTENTS
Friday, December 17, 1999
1000
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATIONAL HIGHWAY POLICY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Motion
|
1005
1010
1015
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1020
1025
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1030
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1035
1040
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1045
| Mr. John Bryden |
1050
1055
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADA
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1100
| FESTIVAL OF EID UL-FITR
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| DR. WILBERT KEON
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| FAMILY SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| WILMOT TOWNSHIP
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1105
| BIRDS OF A FEATHER
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| HOLIDAY MESSAGE
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| HOLIDAY MESSAGE
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1110
| HOLIDAY MESSAGE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1125
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CANDU REACTOR
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1130
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1135
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1140
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| SOCIAL TRANSFERS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1145
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE CROWN
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1150
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| AIRLINES
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1155
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FOOD LABELLING
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1200
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| PARKS
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Del and Bev Hoffman
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1205
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1210
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-411. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-412. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1215
| OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-413. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-414. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-415. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1220
| Canada Post Corporation Act
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Adoptive Parents
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Parks Canada
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Children
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1225
| Goods and Services Tax
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Food Labelling
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Natural Health Products
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 42
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 17, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among all political parties and I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the House shall take up the Private Members' Business
scheduled for today from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and the House shall
adjourn at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings later this day.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY POLICY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
establish a National Highway Policy in partnership with the
provinces to ensure the long term viability of our national
highway system in light of the nature of our country, our
geography and our culture which demands a consistent and uniform
highway system.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand before
the House today to debate Motion No. 102. I would like to point
out that this is the last private member's motion of the century.
I brought this motion to the House two and a half years ago and I
always wondered why it was held up so long. I now know why. The
best has been kept until the last. What a way to end the century
by talking about a new highway system to lead us into the new
millennium.
My motion is very simple. I call on the government to establish
a funding program to restore and improve the national highway
system. It has truly fallen into disarray over the last few
years with no funding program in place, no long range planning,
no planning at all and no arrangement for the provinces or anyone
to plan ahead.
The present situation we have for funding highways in the
country, which needs highways so desperately, is a very ad hoc
system. Currently, the Department of Transport and the
parliamentary transport committee estimate that it will take $17
billion to restore our highway system. This is not to improve it
but just to restore it and make up for the money that has not
been spent on the highways over the last seven or eight years.
It is agreed that approximately 38% to 40% of our national
highway system is now in a declined situation, which is not up to
standard and not acceptable. Seven hundred and ninety bridges on
our national highway system have been identified as in need of
major strengthening and repair. There are no current funding
programs available. This is the situation we presently have in
the country.
The old policy we had up until approximately 1993-94 was a
program where the federal government would sign agreements with
the provinces on an ad hoc basis. They would negotiate them
one-on-one and come up with a 50:50 program to fund highways in
some provinces but not do the same thing in others.
This was very inconsistent and very short term with no long range
planning. It did not allow the provinces to plan for
communities, traffic patterns, or to take advantage of our free
trade programs and everything else that we have established in
the country and that are so important.
1005
What is wrong with not having a highway funding program? I want
to hone in on Atlantic Canada for a minute because it is a true
example of what can happen without a highway funding program.
In Atlantic Canada, with no money to build highways and no
program, the provinces got creative and established toll highways
in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These two provinces
target the traffic from other provinces for revenues to their
coffers. A lot of people have complained about these toll
projects. It is not just a matter of paying the toll. Part of
the deal for both the highway in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is
that the legislatures in their respective provinces passed
legislation to prevent people from using public highways that ran
parallel to the toll highway. Even though the taxpayers pay for
these highways, they cannot use them. They are forced onto the
toll highways by legislation even though these are provincially
and federally funded highways that were built decades ago. This
is very offensive to the people. This is not only offensive to
the people and to me, but also to all three auditor generals. The
auditor general of New Brunswick, the auditor general of Nova
Scotia and even the Auditor General of Canada have taken
exception to these things.
The auditor general of Nova Scotia was the first to point out
the problems. He blew the whistle on the Nova Scotia toll
highway when two ministers, one federal and one provincial,
transferred $26 million from the federal-provincial highway
program to their own ridings. I will not go into the details,
but the auditor general blew the whistle and forced them to put
the money back into the highway fund.
An hon. member: Was that Dave Dingwall?
Mr. Bill Casey: It was Dave Dingwall, and Ritchie Mann
who was the minister of transportation in the province of Nova
Scotia. They transferred these funds in a very inappropriate
manner and the auditor general of Nova Scotia blew the whistle.
The federal auditor general has also blown the whistle on toll
highways. The auditor general has written a whole book on the
highway program in general but on the toll highways in
particular. It goes on and on and lists different things that
were done and not done and that should not have been done.
Here are a couple of comments the auditor general made.
“Transport Canada has failed to exercise the controls entrenched
in the agreements under which these investments were made. We
found that it has failed to discharge the leadership
responsibility to co-ordinate information for the government on
federal highway spending overall”. In other words, the federal
auditor general said that it was chaos. He honed in particularly
on the toll highways in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Just two weeks ago, the auditor general of New Brunswick joined
the auditor general of Nova Scotia and the Auditor General of
Canada. In his report he accuses the provincial Liberal
government of New Brunswick of not even giving adequate
consideration to options or anything else, that it just dove into
this toll highway system for entirely political purposes. The
auditor general has listed a long range of failings in the New
Brunswick highway deal.
An hon. member: Wasn't that Doug Young?
Mr. Bill Casey: Yes. The report of the New Brunswick
auditor general, Daryl Wilson, yesterday leaves little doubt that
the former Liberal government painted itself into a corner with
the Moncton to Fredericton and Moncton to Saint John toll highway
deal by failing to explore several alternative options. Again,
when there are no federal funding programs, no national standards
and no set of rules to follow, the provinces will get creative.
We have two inappropriate deals in Atlantic Canada, one in Nova
Scotia and one in New Brunswick. Again I say, this is not only
me finding fault, it is all three auditor generals. There are no
more auditor generals to find fault with it. Everyone of them
have found fault with these programs. That is what happens when
we do not have a federal funding program.
The problem is really serious now. It is getting to the point
where action has to be taken. Two years ago, the minister said
that highway refunding was a top priority for him, but he has
done nothing about it. As I said earlier, 38% of Canada's
national highway system is now deemed in need of major repair,
estimated at $17 billion.
Why do we have this problem? For one thing, highways do not
deteriorate on a straight line basis. They stay solid for some
time. When they start to deteriorate, they deteriorate quickly.
If they are not maintained, they will go beyond the point of no
repair and then must be replaced.
Because there has been very little maintenance in the last five
or six years on highways in Canada, we find ourselves with some
very serious problems.
1010
Another reason is that there has been no funding program for the
last five years. I believe the last programs were signed by the
Conservatives. I am not sure of that, but I think that is
exactly right.
The next government policy that has caused these problems is the
policy to reduce the number of trains that take heavy freight and
heavy tariffs from coast to coast. By reducing the train routes
and tearing up short lines all over the country, it has forced
traffic and goods onto the highways. This means bigger trucks,
more trucks and more damage to the highways. That is another
government policy that has built on this.
Another one is simply that the international truck traffic has
tripled in 10 years, up 300%. Again, that means more trucks,
bigger trucks, more damage, worn out highways, rutted highways,
broken highways and unsafe highways. Although I talked about
Atlantic Canada a lot earlier, this is not only Atlantic Canada.
I have just picked a couple of highways that are particularly
infamous for their problems.
Quebec highway 75 from Quebec City to Chicoutimi is an example
of a very dangerous highway. This highway has not been fixed and
instead of fixing it, they have increased the policing to make
sure people go real slow because the highway is deficient, not
adequate and cannot handle the traffic.
In Alberta, highway 2 south and highway 1 east, which was
designed for much less traffic than they experience now, cannot
handle it.
Then, of course, there is the infamous highway 401 in Windsor
where there have been so many tragic accidents. Even in the new
territory of Nunavut, there is no road link and no highway system
at all. This is an issue that goes coast to coast, involves
every province and every territory.
When I was first assigned the duty of transport critic, I wrote
every minister of transportation in every province and asked them
what their number one problem was. Every single one of them who
answered said that highway funding was the number one problem.
An hon. member: Potholes.
Mr. Bill Casey: Potholes, right. Potholes on the road to
the millennium.
The auditor general also agrees that it is the number one
problem. He confirmed that it will take $17 billion to restore,
not improve, our highway system to a standard that is acceptable.
Two years ago, the minister laid out highway spending as his
number one priority. It has not happened. Nothing has happened.
There have been Department of Transport studies and even
Federation of Canadian Municipalities studies. A couple of years
ago, the transport committee wrote a very indepth report stating
that the highways needed a great deal of repair.
It is interesting that even the Liberal members of parliament,
about a month ago, wrote a report called “Catching Tomorrow's
Wave”, calling for government investment in highways. They
condemned toll highways. These were written by Atlantic Canadian
members of parliament. I do not know where they were when the
Liberals were building these toll highways, but we did not hear
anything from them then. Now they have discovered that those
highways are not good for the economy and are not an appropriate
way to fund highways.
Our number one competitor in the global economy has recognized
the problem. The United States has just recently identified and
dedicated $36 billion only over six years to improve the system.
Where we are is that we do not have a system at all. Our system
is in disarray. Our highway funding system was abandoned years
ago. Our competitors are getting ahead of us and that is where
we are.
An hon. member: Where's the gasoline tax in this?
Mr. Bill Casey: My proposal is very simple and it does
involve the gasoline and diesel tax. It amounts to dedicating
15% of the gas and diesel oil tax to a highway funding pool. This
pool would be available to the provinces on the condition that
they match it dollar for dollar. In this way, it is user pay
because the taxes are only paid for by the people who buy gas and
diesel oil. It will leave 85% for the Minister of Finance to put
in general revenues. It will allow long term planning by the
provinces so they can plan five, ten and fifteen years ahead and
know they will have funding available.
A tax of 15% on gas and diesel fuel yields about $700 million a
year. If that is matched with the provinces' equal contribution,
it would come to about $1.4 billion a year to go into highways.
Spread over 10 to 12 years, that would restore our highway
system, our bridges and our main transportation system to the
level it should be as identified by the auditor general.
It would not mean any new taxes. It would provide safe
highways. It would make us globally competitive and would
certainly address our transportation needs. User pay is
politically acceptable. It is a great plan. It is nice and
simple. I advocate this as my proposal.
Before I close my remarks, I wish everybody a merry Christmas
and a happy new year to the staff, all members of parliament here
today and all citizens watching on television.
1015
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have
this opportunity to discuss the issue of national highway policy.
The motion by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester is
another indication of the importance that Canadians attach to our
national highway system. Indeed, the concern about Canada's
surface transportation infrastructure is shared by all. Ensuring
the mobility of persons and goods across Canada is critical to
the quality of life for individual Canadians and to maintaining
Canada's competitiveness in the global economy.
Historically the highway system has played a major role in the
development of the Canadian economy. The recent Speech from the
Throne credited our highway system, along with other achievements
such as the national railway, the postal system and national
cultural institutions, for providing the foundations for our
quality of life.
The Prime Minister also touched on this aspect in his response
to the Speech from the Throne. He mentioned that Canada has been
characterized as a triumph of will over geography and economics.
This is indeed true of Canada's surface transportation system.
The building of the Trans-Canada Highway and the railway system
are the most obvious examples.
Highways are indeed the backbone of Canada's transportation
systems. Highways, roads and streets play a vital role in
Canada's internal trade and international commerce, from the
initial shipment of raw material to the delivery of final
products to the market.
Studies show that highways support about 90% of all intercity
passenger trips and 75% of Canadian freight shipments by value.
Approximately 4.5 billion vehicle kilometres of this travel occur
on the national highway system.
The importance of transportation to our industrial sector is
indisputable. In particular, transportation represents a large
portion of the export costs of traditional Canadian commodities;
for example, 45% for coal exports and 30% for lumber exports.
We all know that highway infrastructure is very costly to build
and maintain. We also are aware that the existing system is
deteriorating rapidly and that rehabilitation costs will continue
to rise the longer we delay our efforts.
The challenge before governments is to ensure a proper balance
between a safe and efficient surface transportation system versus
other competing government priorities. We need to acknowledge
that significant benefits can be gained from such strategic
investments.
The council of ministers responsible for transportation and
highway safety commissioned a multi-year national highway policy
study in 1987. This study established a national highway system,
which accounts for approximately 24,400 kilometres of Canada's
existing highways.
The study also concluded that the estimated cost of upgrading
this national highway system amounted to approximately $14
billion in 1992.
In June 1997 a federal-provincial-territorial working group,
again under the auspices of the council of ministers for
transportation and highway safety, was formed to update the 1988
national highway policy study. The new study, entitled
“National Highway System—Condition and Investment Needs
Update”, was released in December 1998. The study found that
federal-provincial-territorial governments had invested over $8
billion in capital improvements in the national highway system
since 1988 and that annual expenditures on the system were
currently twice the levels reported in 1988.
The study concluded that despite a doubling of annual
expenditures in the last decade, and correction to some of the
deficiencies of the system, the condition of the national highway
system had not improved significantly. When measured against the
same standards used in 1988, the length of the system judged to
be deficient had increased by 30%.
The cost of correcting the identified current deficiencies of
the national highway system was estimated at $17.4 billion in
1998, an increase of over $3 billion in less than 10 years.
In support of increased funding to rehabilitate the national
highway system, the study provided an indication of the benefits
that would accrue from an upgraded highway system. Over a 25
year horizon, the expected present values of benefits of the
highway system investment program were estimated to exceed $30
billion, comprised of $22 billion in travel time savings, $5.8
billion in highway safety improvements, $2.9 billion in reduced
vehicle operating costs and $1.3 billion in network benefits.
1020
Reduced congestion and improved highway conditions could be
expected to reduce the number of fatal traffic accidents by up to
247 per year and injury accidents by up to 16,000 per year.
Improving the national highway system would also be expected to
reduce fuel consumption by up to 236 million litres per year.
The study further indicated that a review of literature and
international experience provided strong evidence that investment
in highways can generate significant productivity growth and
support economic development.
Although they have jurisdictional responsibility over most of
the national highway system, the provinces and territories have
indicated that their governments cannot fully fund the repairs
and improvements that are urgently needed. They have asked the
federal government for financial assistance to help preserve and
develop the existing highway system. This is something which I
know the Minister of Transport has been seriously studying.
At the recent annual conference in Quebec City in August,
premiers and territorial leaders called on the federal government
to initiate an infrastructure improvement program in which
highways would be a major component.
The August 11 communique enunciated six principles for an
infrastructure investment program. The premiers and territorial
leaders indicated that infrastructure investment should be
flexible enough to address other transportation priorities, such
as trade corridors, border crossings, intermodal facilities,
urban transit and intelligent transportation systems.
In his August 11 press release in response, the Minister of
Transport welcomed the agreement by the premiers and territorial
leaders on the development and maintenance of a strong
infrastructure base, with transportation as a key component. He
indicated that the development of a strategy to renew Canada's
national transportation infrastructure in a sustainable fashion
has been a top priority for him.
The minister agreed that governments should look beyond the
rehabilitation of key highways of national significance. He also
agreed with the need to address other transportation issues, such
as those identified by the premiers and territorial leaders.
Discussions concerning highway investments have also taken place
at the federal level. In June 1996 the Standing Committee on
Transport received a reference from the House of Commons to study
the economic relationship, efficiencies and linkages among
transportation, trade and tourism.
Recognizing that highway transportation will remain the dominant
mode in support of Canada's economic activities, the committee
chose to focus primarily on the renewal of our national highway
system and its relationship to trade and tourism.
In its final report, submitted in February 1997, the Standing
Committee on Transport recommended that the federal government
make a long term commitment of at least the current level of
annual federal expenditures on highways to finance a national
highway renewal program.
Members on both sides of the House know that the issue of tolls
has been a major concern for the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester. I would like to inform the House that a
great deal of work has been done on this issue this past summer.
Officials from Transport Canada have been exploring with their
provincial and territorial counterparts the terms and conditions
of a proposed highway toll policy that would be applicable when
the federal government contributes to a particular highway
project. If and when federal highway funding becomes available,
the minister would be prepared to outline a policy on tolls.
As the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester is aware, the
recent Speech from the Throne announced a five year
infrastructure program to improve physical infrastructure in both
urban and rural regions across Canada. The Speech from the
Throne clearly identified transportation infrastructure as a
component of this program, but it is too early in the process to
speculate on details. What is quite evident is that the $17
billion needs of the national highway system are far in excess of
what the federal and provincial governments can collectively
address.
Furthermore, when combined with the needs for other
infrastructure programs, such as roads, bridges, transit, sewer,
water, tourism and so on, funding requirements for the entire
system are really significant.
Both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's speech
in response stressed the need for collaboration as the issues
facing our diverse society grow in their complexity. The Prime
Minister stated that the role of a national government today is
to represent the future to the present. It is to focus on those
areas where it can make a real difference.
The development and maintenance of a strong basic
infrastructure, as well as a knowledge infrastructure, is a key
component of a competitive economy for the 21st century. All
aspects of the infrastructure plan must be well planned to meet
the needs of the modern economy.
1025
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No.
102, presented by my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester.
I appreciate the sentiment of my colleague's motion, but I
really do not think it goes far enough. It views our highway
system as a parochial system. Going into a new century, we have
to look at what is really needed, and that is a seamless,
integrated, continental transportation policy. Canada has to be
a player in the development of that policy. There is no doubt
that highways are a key component of this integrated
transportation continental system.
I am a little concerned. Once again we have heard the
parliamentary secretary speak about the studies; the years of
studies that governments, provincial and federal, have been
doing. I believe that Canadians want us to stop the studies. We
have all the information that we need. Let us get on with
improving our highway system.
Our Trans-Canada Highway is the counterpart for the American
interstate highway program. The commitment that the U.S. federal
government has made to its highway program is in the
neighbourhood of $218 billion over six years, and it is financing
the program through gas taxes.
In our country the government does not transfer the revenues
that are collected through gas taxes to the transportation
system, to the highway system and to the users, the people who
pay the tax to the system they use.
We are talking about commercial traffic, which has increased, as
my colleague has said, 300 times or 30 times or 3 times. The
number is irrelevant. The system is gridlocked because of the
increase in commercial traffic. It is not only commercial
traffic; it is also tourist traffic. In Canada we encourage
tourism. It is one of our largest industries. Tourists must be
able to access those things that we are selling. There is growth
in commercial traffic, there is growth in tourist traffic, and
the government is studying the issue.
We need to talk about reality. Government last year collected
$4.5 billion in gas tax, but it spent only $150 million on
highways. That is 3% of the revenue that was generated.
Our current highway system is dilapidated and dangerous. When
polled, 83% of Canadians identified safety as the number one
issue when talking about the national highway system. They feel
that their personal safety is at risk when they travel our
national highways. That is a shame.
We only have to look at Highway 17, which is 30 miles west of
Ottawa. It is part of our national highway system. It is called
the killer strip because of all the fatal accidents that happen
at the point where the lanes go from four to two.
In February 1997, when considering the national highway renewal
strategy, the transport committee found that upgrading the system
would reduce traffic fatalities by 4% and prevent an additional
2,300 personal injury accidents. If we were to transpose that
into our health care system, the savings would be astronomical.
The report states that every dollar invested in safety related
road improvements would save $2.70 in crash costs. That is not
in health costs; that is in crash costs.
For six years the government has been talking about
infrastructure, but rather than putting money into our
transportation infrastructure it chose to put the money into such
things as recreational facilities like bocce courts.
1030
Now I ask, how does a bocce court give a foundation to the
economic well-being of our country? It is nice to have those
recreation facilities and they are needed in communities, but the
priority of the federal government should not be in recreation
facilities. It should be in maintaining and improving our
national highway system which leads into a continental highway
system and which increases our economic output and the economic
stability of our country.
Highways are not just pavement. They are an integral part of
our economy and the continental economy we have developed through
the free trade agreement and NAFTA.
It is getting to the point where the government can no longer
delay. I was at a conference in Niagara. There was great concern
over the congestion in that part of Ontario that services the
free trade agreement and NAFTA commerce over the Ambassador
Bridge, the Peace Bridge, Fort Erie and all those areas. The
gridlock that is occurring in that part of Ontario around
Toronto, Sarnia and Windsor is starting to create not only
hazards but delays and congestion that costs all of us consumers
money.
It is also costing the environment. When trucks are lined up
trying to go over a bridge or trying to get from point A to
point B, they are idling and putting a lot of emissions
into the air. I would think that from an environmental point of
view improving our highways would certainly be advantageous.
Part of our transportation system also includes urban areas.
That congestion in urban areas has to be dealt with as well.
Highway 401 is one of the busiest stretches, if not the busiest
highway in the world. Traffic has increased dramatically,
especially the truck traffic, but the infrastructure has not
increased or changed at all.
A person can now drive from Toronto to Miami and hit only 14
stoplights. Thirteen of them are in Windsor. If we could spend
some energy on trying to get that flow of traffic going, I am
sure the economic benefits to our country would be enormous.
The government announced in its throne speech that it was
finally going to do something, but it is talking about spending
the next year, 2000, talking to the various players and the
provinces before it actually does anything or spends any money.
That is not good enough.
It is time that the federal government sat down with provincial
and municipal governments and worked out an integrated, seamless,
transportation policy that includes all levels of government and
the various modes of transportation. We need to think planes,
trains and automobiles as well as ships and put them all into one
transportation policy. We need to figure out how they can
enhance each other, how they can be made more efficient and how
they can operate on a continental basis rather than on a country
basis.
That is why we in the official opposition are calling for the
federal government to work with the provinces, the municipalities
and the private sector, as well as our NAFTA partners to plan, to
implement and to figure out some way of funding a seamless,
integrated continental transportation system for the 21st
century.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on
Motion No. 102 put forward by the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester.
First, I want to say that this motion should be deemed
admissible only if it is agreed that Quebec would oversee the
new policy being promoted in the motion.
1035
Quebec has a comprehensive transportation policy with very
specific priorities and goals. Members may remember the meeting
of Canada's premiers held in Quebec City last autumn and
hosted by the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard. The premiers
unanimously agreed to ask the federal government to start
reinvesting in a national highway strategy. They did not ask the
federal government to intrude in areas of provincial
jurisdiction but only wanted Ottawa to do its share where the
national highway system is concerned.
Some of the highways in my area of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean lead
outside our region.
I am referring to highway 175 as well as highway 169 in the Parc
des Laurentides. I have often put questions to the Minister of
Transport in this House and I have sent him letters asking him
to reinvest in this national highway.
Since 1996 the Canadian government has refused to renew the
strategic highway improvement program. In Quebec, half of the
costs of this program were covered by the province and the other
half by the federal government. Ottawa did not renew its
financial contribution.
Like the former Quebec transport minister, Jacques Brassard, and
the current Quebec transport minister, Guy Chevrette, I have
asked the transport minister again and again to renew the
program.
Each time, the Minister of Transport's answer was that we needed
a national agreement. There was national agreement at the last
meeting of the premiers and leaders of the territories.
I do not understand why this government always ignores every
region's concerns about the infrastructure necessary for
regional development.
Many years ago, this government stopped subsidizing the
railways. What happened? An increasing number of heavy trucks
travel our highways. Heavy trucks crowd our highways. Access is
more difficult and there are fewer opportunities because our
system was not really designed to handle the effects of
globalization, as I said, in the Parc des Laurentides.
This government withdrew its financial support for railways,
airports and shipping. What happened? All major firms are now
shipping their products by truck.
Highways are under provincial jurisdiction. This government
withdrew from an area where it should have been working with the
provinces.
I think the proposal is the obvious solution but I
encourage the member to demand that the government let the
provinces implement the agreement, which is part of his
proposal.
We will have to stop thinking that the government has the
authority to intrude in all areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Ottawa needs to understand what the provinces expect from it. It
collects taxes in each and every province, so it needs to
contribute to highway improvement.
I must say that I will support the proposal provided the
provinces are in charge of its implementation. I hope the
government will listen to us. In 1998, all provincial transport
ministers submitted a five-year proposal to the federal Minister
of Transport. It was a comprehensive proposal whereby, over a
five-year period, the federal government and the provinces would
have invested $16 billion in a joint national highway building
and improvement plan.
1040
Once again, the government, through the Minister of Transport,
told the provinces that they would have to talk to their finance
ministers and their premiers. It is always the same old song we
get from the government through the Minister of Transport.
As we move toward the new millennium, the government is bragging
about the astronomical surpluses it is expecting after slashing
transfers to the provinces and bleeding the middle class dry. It
has refused to index the tax tables. It grabbed the EI
surpluses, which actually belong to workers and employers.
I think the federal government must start acting and stop
prevaricating constantly adding new conditions to the legitimate
and justifiable requests of the provinces and the population of
this country.
I hope this motion will serve as a wake-up call to the
government, whose ears must be stopped up. I think it is normal
and that the provinces ought to have full jurisdiction. Then and
only then will I be able to support the motion of my hon.
colleague.
I want to take the opportunity to wish all my hon. colleagues in
this House and everyone listening to the debate a happy new year
and a very pleasant holiday season.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
commend my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester on his
motion. Numerous members have talked today about the substandard
highways we are dealing with and about the disrepair of our
highways, that it is going to take $17 billion to bring them back
to where they should be. For example, there should be four lanes
when the traffic warrants so we do not have the killer highway
that is just outside of Ottawa.
There is no question that people nationwide realize there is a
problem. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been
pushing to have dollars go into a national highway policy as well
as into assistance with other infrastructure and highways
throughout the country. The government has failed to do that.
This is another area in which the government lacks any vision
whatsoever. It lacks any sound vision as to where Canada should
be going. It is literally letting the nation fall apart in front
of us with the underfunding of health care, the underfunding of
education, with the EI surplus where dollars have been taken away
from the EI fund and from the unemployed, those not able to get
enough work. Money has been taken from the Canada pension plan.
The government sings its praises on a wonderful surplus but fails
to put anything back into the country.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester indicates it would be
done with the partnership of the provinces. I do not think there
is any question that if we are going to have a nation where the
people can go from one end to the other, whether it be north,
south, east, west, in any direction they choose to go, they need
to feel comfortable and safe when they are travelling our highway
system. They want to know that when they go through Saskatchewan
there will be safe roads, that when they hit Manitoba they can
continue on the same. They do not want to hit that provincial
boundary and say, “Now we are going through New Brunswick, we
are going to hit a toll highway, we are going to have to pay for
it and my taxpayer dollars have already done that”.
They want to know that highway is safe. In order to not pay to
go on that highway they will have to go on an unsafe road.
Canadians deserve to feel safe throughout the country, and they
have in the past, but over the last 10 or 15 years it has
gradually deteriorated. The point I want to make in that regard
is it started during the time that the party of the member for
Cumberland—Colchester was the government of the country. It
failed to put funding in place as well. I do not want him to
feel that it is all hunky-dory and rosy on his side over there
and just blame it on the other side because they are both at
fault.
1045
Both those parties have failed when they had the opportunity to
ensure that funding was there. If they want to use the gas
taxes, by all means let them do it. In the past my party and I
have not supported dedicated taxes. However, government time and
time again does not put dollars into services and infrastructure.
Then we start to think that we need legislation which says the
government has to put money there. It will have to do that. It
has failed to show Canadian people a true commitment to providing
for the country, to ensuring that the dollars are going where
they should be going.
Canadians do not argue about paying taxes. I do not know about
the people here, but if I pay my taxes and education is there,
health care is there, and we have decent roads and decent
services, we will not hear Canadians complaining. They do not
mind paying for what they get.
We all work hard and we do not want everything for nothing. We
will pay our taxes but we want services in return. When our
money goes to the federal government and we do not get it back in
any kind of service that is when we get disgruntled. That is
when we get parties like the Reform Party saying “Scrap the
taxes. Scrap everything”.
What did the hon. member from the Reform Party say? No money is
to go into recreational facilities. Can hon. members imagine
putting no money into recreational facilities? It is common
knowledge that every dollar spent in recreational facilities for
youth in our communities will save $7 in the future on problems
that may result from children not having somewhere to go and
getting into lives of crime because they do not have things to
do. When they become adults a good number of them will end up in
jail because they did not have enough things to do when they were
younger. This blanket statement of no funding for recreational
facilities is wrong.
We need a cohesive country where we have dollars supporting all
these different programs: infrastructure, recreational
facilities, highways and post-secondary education. We need
funding in all those areas.
Although I commend the hon. member and support his motion, I
wanted to make those points. We had a much similar debate just a
few weeks ago with the suggestion of dedicated taxes. As I said,
the problems are there. There is probably about a $17 billion
cost to improve our national highway structure. We certainly
need a national highway policy and we need a national
transportation policy. There is no question. We heard it all
here today. With all of us knowing it, surely some good can come
out of the discussion we have had over and over again and we will
see the government make a real commitment to the country.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is the last day of the 1900s and to end it in
Private Members' Business with a discussion on roads is one of
the most significant moments in this parliament, because this
parliament has demonstrated throughout this century that it is
one of the finest political institutions in the world and one of
the most democratic.
With the permission of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I
would like to make a few remarks that pertain more to the end of
the millennium than they do to roads. Some years ago I found
myself alone travelling in Tunisia and I came across a ruined
Roman city in the mountains, right on the edge of the mountains
in Tunisia, next to the desert. This city probably had a
population of about 20,000 or 30,000 and it was far more dramatic
than Pompeii.
For those Canadians who may have travelled in north Africa, they
will know that the Roman ruins and Roman cities are very well
preserved in north Africa. One can actually walk down the
streets of these cities and feel as though one is back 2,000
years, because the streets are there, the shops are there and the
aqueducts are there. The only thing that is missing is the
people.
I point out that 2,000 years ago the world was not that much
different than it is today. In fact, there are eerie
coincidences between the state of the world 2,000 years ago and
the state we find the world in today. I point out that at that
time, the time of the city that I walked through, Rome ruled the
world. Rome was the superpower and from Rome it ruled all the
civilized world. Roman culture was everywhere.
1050
I point out that we have the same type of situation now, 2,000
years later, when we have another superpower, the United States,
that not only is its political influence felt everywhere but so
too is its cultural influence. That was precisely the situation
that existed 2,000 years ago.
Indeed Rome was known for its military might. Not only was it
tremendously far advanced in the military technology of the day,
in the type of weapons the Roman soldiers used and the catapults
and the other kinds of siege weapons that the Romans had
developed, but it had a tremendous martial spirit so the quality
of its soldiers was what basically kept the peace in the world of
2,000 years ago.
We cannot help but be struck by the parallel that the United
States again has a similar military power, an all pervasive
military power. Yet we have to remember that pervasive military
power has been tested, as it was later in Rome, in places like
Yugoslavia and Somalia.
What has been found, as was the case 2,000 years ago, is that
all the military technology in the world does not save a nation
when it has problems with its soldiers losing the esprit de
corps, shall we say, and that happened in Rome. We see that
again happening in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia where
despite all the technology the Americans and the United Nations,
if you will, were not able to control the type of independence
movement that occurred in these countries. Indeed, that is
precisely what happened in the Roman world.
Then we had a kind of global free trade 2,000 years ago.
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to ask a question of relevance here. If this individual is
speaking on a national highway's program, I fail to see the
connection.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I understand the hon.
member's point of order but, as the hon. member said earlier, he
has the contentment of the member for Cumberland—Colchester to
deviate a bit from the subject.
Mr. John Bryden: I am sorry that the Reform Party takes
such an attitude when this is a very historic moment. I will go
quickly through it.
Two thousand years ago global free trade existed. It is what we
had in the Roman world, tremendous prosperity because based on
Rome the entire world was in a situation where trade was centred
on Rome and Rome became very wealthy but prosperity existed all
around the Mediterranean rim.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, we have precisely the same
situation now. We remember what happened to Rome. Eventually
global free trade in Roman times collapsed. I suggest to you,
Madam Speaker, we have to remember as we go into the next
millennium that what we see before us in terms of global free
trade is only temporary. We should be worried as Canadians and
people of the world of the consequences when eventually global
free trade collapses in this world in this millennium. We will
see it, I am sure, in the coming years.
We also have the parallel of climate change. Two thousand years
ago in the Roman world in north Africa the desert was green. Of
course the reason why the cities are empty in north Africa is
that there was a major climate change that occurred after the
year 2000.
Finally is the parallel and so singular between 2,000 years ago
and today is the fact that 2,000 years ago there was a vacuum in
religion. There was a vacuum in organized religion. They
accepted gods as being set aside for the rationalism of
Hellenistic Greece, of Aristotle. We know that the world as it
existed then had fragmented into cults and we know then that led
to the foundation 2,000 years ago of two great religions, because
2,000 years ago was the birth of Jesus Christ and a few centuries
later Muhammad arrived on the scene and we now, 2,000 years
later, have two great religions of the world.
I just wanted to take note that we are entering into the new
millennium. It is an exciting new millennium and I think that
this country of all the countries is the best suited for it
because we leave this century stronger than when we began.
I believe our democracy and this parliament has demonstrated with
the civility of our debate, even in the independence questions,
that we are a model to the rest of the world and that we stand
the best chances—
1055
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
again we have switched Speakers. I welcome you back to the
chair. I want to say how pleased and honoured I am to be
sponsoring the last private member's motion of the century. It
is even called Motion No. 102. Highway 102 goes through my
riding, which is kind of coincidental.
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington questioned whether his
speech was relevant. He was talking about the roads of 2,000
years ago. I thought that was relevant because a lot of the time
when I am on the highways in Nova Scotia they feel as if they are
2,000 years old, considering the condition they are in. That is
why we are here today to talk about a federal-provincial funding
program for highways.
As a coincidence, in my previous presentation I talked about
toll highways. While I was speaking, the new premier of New
Brunswick, the honourable Bernard Lord, announced that he agreed
in principle with the highway development company, Maritime Road
Development, the company of former minister Doug Young. They
have agreed in principle to take the tolls off the New Brunswick
roads which is a big step, considering the auditor general's
reports both federally and provincially are against this concept.
That leaves Nova Scotia with the only toll highway left on the
Trans-Canada Highway.
During some of the comments I was thinking that there should be
a caution sign at the beginning of any toll highway in Nova
Scotia for politicians that reads tolls can be hazardous to our
health. In New Brunswick the Liberals put tolls on the
Trans-Canada Highway and they were soundly defeated in the next
election. In Nova Scotia the Liberals put tolls on a highway and
in the next election they were soundly defeated. In Nova Scotia
there were 11 federal Liberal MPs before the last election and
they were all defeated. A government should be very careful
before it puts tolls on highways in Canada.
I want to come back to the point that we definitely need a
highway funding program. We need a national transportation
system program that the provinces and all parties involved can
use for long range planning; predicting the future; planning
their communities, their routes, safety issues and certainly
pollution issues; and planning all other things that are
appropriate.
As I said in the motion, because of our geography it is of the
utmost importance for Canada to have a proper transportation
system, especially a national highway system. It should be a
priority, as the minister has said over and over again, but he
has not done anything about it.
In closing this debate we urge the minister to make it a
priority and actually do something about it because there is a
total vacuum of transportation policy with respect to our
national highway system.
I thank all colleagues from all parties for participating in the
debate. I really appreciate it. We have heard some excellent
debate and some excellent ideas. I wish one and all a merry
Christmas and a happy new year and a great century.
The Speaker: The time provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped
from the order paper.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we prepare to close down, I would like to wish a
happy holiday to all the people of Canada.
In particular, I would like to invite the sovereignists to take
the time to reflect, more specifically to reflect on this
opportunity and privilege we all have to live in such a great
country, such a free country, a county with so much to be
shared, to reflect on the reality, recognized the world over, of
Canada's strengths: economic, social and cultural.
My wish to the sovereignists is that they may open their eyes
and realize, finally, that our freedom is a treasure, one we
must guard jealously, for fear of losing it forever.
I wish the sovereignists a happy holiday season.
* * *
1100
[English]
FESTIVAL OF EID UL-FITR
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since early December, Muslims in Canada have been fasting during
this month of Ramadan, a month of blessing marked by prayers and
charity.
I have had the honour of joining in the celebrations over the
years. The Muslim community has made a tremendous contribution
in enriching Canada. Their involvement with other Canadians in
academic, professional, artistic and cultural sectors is what has
helped make Canada the number one country in the world.
Ramadan ends with the Festival of Eid Ul-Fitr which means
breaking the fast. Eid is celebrated after the sighting of the
new crescent on the previous evening. As Eid falls in January
and the House of Commons will be closed, I take this opportunity
on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of
the Reform Party to wish all Muslims “Eid Mubarak”.
I would also like to extend to all Canadians season's greetings,
and on the dawn of the new millennium, our best wishes.
* * *
DR. WILBERT KEON
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness we learned yesterday that
Dr. Wilbert Keon resigned as the director of the University of
Ottawa Heart Institute.
Dr. Keon was born and raised in my riding in the beautiful town
of Sheenboro. He followed his brother's footsteps in the medical
profession and is today a world renowned heart specialist.
We have all met people who have been helped either by Dr. Keon
himself or by the skilful team he helped train at the heart
institute which he founded. In my own family, Dr. Keon operated
on two of my brothers, one as recently as last June.
To Dr. Keon, his wife Anne and his family, we offer our support
in this difficult time.
The Speaker: My colleague, I very rarely intervene but I
agree with you wholeheartedly. Dr. Keon is a treasure to us in
Canada. I hope that he will not give up his responsibilities and
will keep going working for us here in this country.
* * *
FAMILY SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to share with Canadians the great work being performed by the
fine group of people at Family Service Canada.
As an advocacy group, they work with service agencies,
governments, corporations, unions and parents. Together they are
developing a strong and lasting commitment to ensure the
well-being of our children. They also work to provide important
information on leadership, training and resources to meet the
changing demands of our constituents.
Every year one way in which Family Service Canada draws
attention to the needs, achievements and diversities of Canadian
families is through National Family Week. The United Nations has
declared the year 2000 as the International Year for the Culture
of Peace. This will be the theme used by Family Service Canada
to celebrate the coming National Family Week.
I ask all members to support the wonderful work of Family
Service Canada.
* * *
WILMOT TOWNSHIP
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today it is an honour for me to rise and advise my colleagues of
a significant event in the township of Wilmot located in my great
riding of Waterloo—Wellington in the heart of Ontario.
The residents of Wilmot township will celebrate its 150th
anniversary in the year 2000. Wilmot township holds a special
place in my heart and my family's history. I was born, raised
and still live on the family farm, my ancestors having first
settled there in 1827. I also served there as a municipal
councillor and as mayor of the municipality.
The 150th anniversary celebrations will include the opening of
the Oasis in the Centre Park. This park will be located on the
site of the original town hall where in 1850 my
great-great-grandfather served as the first Clerk.
Not only will the park commemorate the history of the township
by providing a place to reflect on the rich heritage of the
township, but also the park will serve as a place to contemplate
the yet unwritten history of the next millennium.
I would ask all my colleagues to join me in this great
celebration and applaud the township of Wilmot on its 150th
anniversary.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with my heart filled with gratitude for a large
segment of our society that contributes in a significant way to
this being the best country in the world in which to live.
I am referring to caring, compassionate individuals who
unselfishly donate their time, their energy, their skills and
often financial support to support worthy community endeavours.
It is this group with representatives from every segment of our
society who create a meaningful spirit of community.
When people help people without expectation for remuneration, we
are witnessing the purest form of brotherly love. I am referring
to the countless number of volunteers we find in every community
from coast to coast to coast.
1105
On behalf of the government and my fellow colleagues in the
House of Commons and all Canadians, we wish them the very best.
May the spirit prosper and prevail.
* * *
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at
the Calgary Zoo today the environment minister will be pointing
out some endangered species that are moving toward extinction,
particularly in Calgary. He will likely be pointing out that the
dodo bird is gone but a related species, the Joe-Joe bird, is
also nearing extinction.
The Joe-Joe bird, sometimes called the Clark, is more
comfortable nesting in the capital region, but it has recently
attempted a migration to the west. Strange, self-destructive
behaviour is unique to this bird particularly in the west. The
top down feeding approach of the Joe-Joe bird means it can never
contact the grassroots which is so essential for nourishment in
the west. The future does not look good for the Joe-Joe bird.
I hope the environment minister does not fail to mention the
great similarity between the Joe-Joe bird and the gobbling Grit
goose. The Grit goose is like the Joe-Joe bird in that its
behaviour threatens its survival. The Grit goose takes from
others and overeats to the point where it cannot move and
eventually dies from its own weight. Surprisingly, the eggs that
are laid by the Joe-Joe bird and the Grit goose are so similar
that we cannot tell them apart.
Perhaps some endangered species are not worth saving. The loss
of these two might actually help the Canadian environment.
* * *
[Translation]
GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
General Motors of Boisbriand has just been awarded the prix
Grande mention in the major manufacturing category. This prize
was awarded by the Quebec department of industry and commerce.
To quote the mayor of Boisbriand, “This award is a tribute to
the efforts of the 1,500 men and women who work in this plant to
provide the consumer with a truly top quality product”.
Yet imagine, these skilled workers are likely to end up jobless
before long, because the plant is scheduled to close down within
months, despite the efforts of the Government of Quebec.
Will this situation finally strike a chord with the federal
government? Given the human and economic aspects of the
situation, and the fact that public funds have been invested in
maintaining these jobs, I again strongly urge the federal
government to assume its responsibilities. Time is of the
essence.
* * *
[English]
HOLIDAY MESSAGE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
holiday season is a time when Canadians gather to renew the
cherished bonds of family and friendship; to look back on the
year and indeed the century coming to a close; to look ahead with
anticipation to the new year and the next millennium that
beckons. Most important, it is a time to reflect on our many
blessings as a people and our nation.
Let us be thankful for our prosperity, our matchless natural
beauty, our rich diversity, above all, our sense that we are
truly a family and that Canada is our home. No matter where we
live we care about each other and work together. That is our
proud history and our bright future.
May the goodwill of the season inspire us to embrace both the
challenges and opportunities ahead with spirit and enthusiasm, to
keep a special place in our thoughts for those of our Canadian
families who are less fortunate and to reach out to them during
the holidays and in the year to come.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the
official opposition to thank the staff of the House of Commons
for their hard work and dedication to this institution.
We are all charged with the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the Canadian democratic process. Each of us plays an
important part on that team. I would like to thank the clerks,
the librarians, the translators, the cleaning staff, the postal
workers, the security guards, the bus drivers and especially the
food services staff who try to ensure that we are eating right
when we are so far from home and sometimes work such crazy hours.
I would like to make special mention of four ladies from the
Centre Block cafeteria who are always out for their morning smoke
at 7.15 a.m. when I come in. Lise, Adele, Nicole and Carole
never fail to brighten my day with their good nature and cheery
dispositions.
I wish all of the staff and their families a joyful and restful
holiday season. Their hard work does not go unnoticed. I ask
all members to join with me to show our appreciation.
* * *
HOLIDAY MESSAGE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the last day of sittings of the 36th
Parliament for this century and millennium. This extra special
holiday season is therefore an appropriate time to give thanks
for our country, for all of the bounty, benefits and privileges
of the good life that we as Canadians enjoy.
As the member for Sault Ste. Marie it is also appropriate to
give thanks for all of the forces that have shaped my hometown of
Sault Ste. Marie, for all of the efforts of the many people who
have grown our city into an extraordinary community. I
particularly recognize one man, an American, whose efforts grew
the population of Sault Ste. Marie from 3,000 to over 30,000 in
just eight years.
Francis H. Clerke established a steel mill, paper mill, power
plant, street car system and much more. These are the industries
our town continues to depend on to this day. May his spirit take
up permanent residence in our city and may his can do attitude
infect the future generations of the citizens of Sault Ste.
Marie.
1110
Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noël to all.
* * *
HOLIDAY MESSAGE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on this last parliamentary day of 1999 I would like to share with
the House the dream that I and my colleagues have for the new
millennium and for the century about to begin.
We have a dream that someday soon and the sooner the better,
human beings will abolish all nuclear weapons and indeed all
weapons of mass destruction.
We have a dream that poverty at home and abroad will be
eliminated and that someday human beings and human community will
be valued above all other values and not be always secondary to
the profit strategies of multinational corporations and wealthy
individuals.
We have a dream that humanity will repent of the ways in which
we are now cruising complacently toward planetary ecological
disaster and that creation will in fact be preserved for endless
millenniums to come.
It is from such dreams that one derives the will to carry on the
political struggle and New Democrats commit ourselves to do just
that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to
wish all members of the House a Merry Christmas and a Happy New
Year. Let us pray that the Y2K anxiety proves to be unfounded
and that all goes well on January 1, 2000.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like all the
people of Quebec, the people in the riding of Lotbinière are
outraged at this latest attack by the federal government on the
democratic institutions of Quebec.
Bill C-20 resembles the unilateral patriation of the constitution
in 1982. The same federal politicians have once again decided
to thwart democracy in Quebec. But nothing will prevent
Quebecers from continuing their pursuit of sovereignty.
In 1918, the Right Hon. Joseph Napoléon Francoeur, the MLA for
Lotbinière at the time, already had what the people of Quebec
needed. In his now famous motion, he said “This House is of the
opinion that the Province of Quebec would be prepared to agree
to break away from the Confederation set up in 1867 if, in the
other provinces, it is felt that Quebec is an obstacle to the
Union, and to the progress and development of Canada”.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Wayne
Gretzky's recent retirement may have left a significant void in
the NHL but there are plenty of Burlington and area youngsters
willing to step up and fill his skates. After all, Gretzky made
his mark as a skinny 10 year old offensive sensation in
Burlington's Golden Horseshoe Invitational Hockey Tournament.
Hotels and restaurants will be packed as Burlington plays host
to the 32nd annual tournament this December 27 to 30. With 105
entries, triple A players in all divisions will have a chance to
strut their stuff in some tough competition.
Over 200 volunteers have been preparing a wonderful welcome for
teams from Canada, the United States and even a team from
Finland. Local arenas will be packed with supportive parents,
happy fans and joyous children.
And everyone wins. Profits are put back into sponsorship for
the teams and participants are eligible for a Golden Horseshoe
Invitational scholarship.
This tournament is an important part of the holiday festivities
in Burlington. I wish all participating teams the very best of
luck in the tournament. Have fun, play safe, play well.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, on this
the last sitting day of the House of Commons in this century, it
is time to reflect on the issues that face Canadians.
We have an unemployment rate that is 70% higher than that of the
U.S., the highest personal income tax in the G-7, the second
highest corporate taxes of the OECD, the highest personal debt
rates in the history of our country, and the fastest growing
personal debt rates of any country in the G-7. Personal
disposable income has dropped 8% in the 1990s and has increased
by 10% in the U.S.
Why is the finance minister off to Berlin this week to chair the
G-20 meetings when there is so much repair work to be done here
at home?
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to invite all members of the House of Commons to
welcome home 1,300 Canadian forces personnel who during the past
six months have been making an important contribution in Kosovo.
They include members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light
Infantry, Lord Strathcona's Horse and 408 Tactical Helicopter
Squadron.
The men and women of these units have worked hard to create a
stable and secure environment in Kosovo. They have delivered
humanitarian aid, restored public services and helped to
re-establish civilian institutions.
Our well-trained professional military has made a significant
contribution to international peace and security.
CF members have also touched the lives of thousands of Kosovars
by building schools, houses, medical clinics, upgrading roads,
providing de-mining assistance and helping to provide the
essentials of life, such as medical aid, food and fresh water.
1115
I am sure all members of the House join me in offering
congratulations on a job well done. Seasons greetings to CF
members, their families and Canadians everywhere.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Amazingly,
Mr. Speaker, one-third of all the donors to the Prime Minister's
1997 campaign got federal government grants, loans or contracts.
But the case of Fermco Industries is particularly interesting.
Fermco gave more than $6,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign
and to the Liberal's campaign. Even though the company is in a
Bloc held riding, the Prime Minister's office intervened to
ensure it got a transitional jobs fund grant.
Other than $6,000 in donations, why would the Prime Minister's
office intervene in the local affairs of the Bloc member?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this morning, the federal government announced
almost three quarters of a billion dollars in assistance to
alleviate homelessness and help prevent homelessness. The
program is working in co-operation with the other levels of
government.
I do not know why the hon. member did not get up and
congratulate the government for this initiative instead of making
these useless insinuations and innuendoes. It just shows how
bankrupt his party is of any real interest in helping Canadians.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are wondering why the Deputy Prime Minister did not
get up and answer the question. Let us try again.
Fermco's TJF grant came through despite strong objections by
senior human resources officials. The Prime Minister's office
did an end run around normal procedures and ensured that a major
donor got a just reward.
The Prime Minister, of course, says that he was just trying to
create jobs. However, is it the common practice of the Prime
Minister to intervene on behalf of all TJF applicants or just
when they donate thousands of dollars to his campaign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the common practice of the government is
to work with communities with high unemployment to ensure that
they have the opportunities that the rest of Canada has to
benefit from the successes of our great country.
Is it right for us to invest in communities in Quebec to ensure
the their citizens have opportunities to work? It is. Is it
right for us to invest in communities in Atlantic Canada to
ensure their citizens have opportunities to work? It absolutely
is.
Is it right for us to invest in communities in northern British
Columbia to ensure that citizens of Canada have opportunities to
work. It is, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two non-answers and the government is asking the
questions when it is supposed to be answering them. Let us try
again.
The Prime Minister has a pretty impressive investment plan
going. If a company wants federal government money, all it has
to do is donate to the Prime Minister's campaign. It does not
even have to be in his riding. There is a 33% chance that the
company will hit the jackpot and, boy, are the rewards sweet.
Fermco donated over $6,000 and ended up with $200,000 in a TJF
grant despite the fact that a senior official had strong
objections.
I ask the Prime Minister, is there a threshold on the amount a
company has to donate or will the Prime Minister bend the rules
for any size donation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): We have
heard the unwarranted, sleazy slur typical of—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. Deputy Prime Minister to stay
away from words like sleazy on a day like this.
Hon. Herb Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from
the word, but it is still an unwarranted slur. It is unjustified
to suggest there is any improper link. The hon. member should
not be saying things like that because they are wrong and
unwarranted.
I am sure the Prime Minister wants to do the right thing for
every part of Canada, including Quebec, including ridings held by
the Bloc and including ridings held by Reform members. That is
why he is the Prime Minister.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we hit one
nerve, let us try another one.
Premier Harris sent the Prime Minister a letter today forcefully
highlighting that payroll taxes are going up January 1. These
tax hikes will cost 22,500 jobs in Ontario alone. I will quote
from the letter. It says “Canadians are entitled to keep more
of the money they earn”.
1120
Why is the government hiking payroll taxes on January 1?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is exactly
what we have done. When we took office, EI premiums were at
$3.07 heading to $3.30. We have cut them six times since then.
They are now down to $2.40. This is progress and we will
continue.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Premier
Harris says that the taxes are going up January 1, and that is
true. The chief actuary said that it was not the feeble little
$2.40 that these guys are talking about, but down as low as $2.
Will the government listen to Premier Harris and the chief
watchdog, the actuary of Canada, or will it give a millennium
present to Canadians: another tax hike on January 1?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are the ones
who cut the EI by over $5 billion a year. We cut it, but not as
Reform wanted, which was for the employers only.
Talk about the presents, here are the presents: GDP up 4.7%,
consumer spending up 4.8%, business investment up 11.3%, exports
up 15%, trade surplus at $7.8 billion, the current account is in
surplus. I could go on, but it is not even Christmas.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec government has always recognized the rights of the Quebec
anglophone minority and of aboriginal peoples.
It has also always said that it would negotiate in good faith
with Canada once sovereignty got the necessary support. That
being said, the only possible interpretation of the democratic
principle is that of 50% plus one.
Will the federal government not have the constitutional
obligation to negotiate with Quebec once this support is
obtained, if more than 50% of Quebecers support sovereignty?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois leader for his question in
this last question period of the millennium, because it gives me
an opportunity to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a great
philosopher, a great thinker of democracy who has had a
tremendous influence on the last third of our millennium. He
said “The more important and serious the issue, the closer to
unanimity the prevailing opinion must be”.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
would have to look at all the applications of Rousseau's
philosophy. He also advocated a private tutor for each student,
instead of schools. There is a bit of utopia in all this. Is the
government telling us that we would need unanimity?
I would like to hear the minister tell us why the democratic
rule of 50% plus one, which applied to Newfoundland in 1948,
would now be rejected in the case of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois leader misunderstood me. “The more
important and serious the issue, the closer to unanimity the
prevailing opinion must be”.
This is not the unanimity rule, it is simply the fundamental
rule, the fundamental democratic principle that guided the
supreme court when it said that a clear majority would be
required to create an obligation to negotiate something as
serious and important as secession.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
unanimity is important, certainly there is no unanimity in this
House in favour of the minister's bill, far from it.
Furthermore, questioning the rule of 50% plus one is a position
that the minister will not be able to maintain for long, because
it is contrary to the democratic tradition in Quebec and in
Canada.
Could the minister tell us how his government could give greater
weight to the losing votes in a referendum, by claiming that
there were not enough winning votes?
1125
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if 50% plus one were the only way of defining
democracy, does the member realize that the Reform Party would
then be right, that 50% plus one should apply in all
circumstances, including the case where more than 50% plus one,
and very probably much more than 50% plus one, of Northern
aboriginal populations were to vote to stay in Canada? They
would then have the right to stay.
That is what he is saying, because the 50% plus one rule is
supposed to be sacred and entrenched. But it should apply for
everyone, not just him, but everyone.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
go back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was also
a musician and I hope that the minister will be listening to
some music over the holidays because music has a calming
influence.
Would the minister now agree that he should be aware that, come
what may, the future of Canada depends above all on respect for
the rules of democracy and that he should therefore, in 2000, go
back to strict respect for the 50% plus one rule, in the absence
of any other rule in the Constitution of Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when France's Prime Minister Jospin was asked, in the
presence of the Premier of Quebec, whether a Canadian province
could separate with a vote of 50% plus one, he first replied
that it was not up to him, as the Prime Minister of France, to
answer such a question.
Second, he said “You know, 50% plus one is not a principle.
Democracy is a principle”.
* * *
[English]
CANDU REACTOR
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
many Canadians were concerned some weeks ago when the Prime
Minister uncritically dismissed the concern that many Canadians
have about the selling of a Candu reactor to Turkey.
Given the fact that we have a virtual moratorium on building
nuclear reactors here in Canada, why do we insist and why does
the Prime Minister insist on exporting a technology that we have
already rejected any further here at home, and, in particular,
selling it to a country which is earthquake prone and therefore
much more at risk from having nuclear reactors?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a well known
fact that Canadian nuclear technology is the best in the world.
If approval is given for the sale of a Canadian reactor to
Turkey, it will be located in a safe location, a long way from
any of the difficult locations where there have been earthquakes.
I am very confident that the very best results will take place.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that earthquakes in any part of Turkey would
threaten nuclear reactors in other parts of Turkey. If this
technology is so good, why are we not using it ourselves anymore?
Why is it that we have a virtual moratorium on building nuclear
reactors in this country?
It is a bit like the way in which we now sell insecticides and
pesticides to other countries which we have banned in this
country. Why do we continue this unethical behaviour of trying
to con other countries into buying technologies that we will not
even use ourselves?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to go back to the drawing board
with his question because he has his facts wrong. We have not
banned the use of our Candu technology in Canada. As the hon.
parliamentary secretary has said, it is the most advanced in the
world. I do not know why my hon. friend is not willing to
recognize this achievement in Canadian science and research and
development.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Premier
Harris is right. The federal government is planning on taking
$560 million from the workers and employers of Ontario.
Why is this government, during a season of giving, preparing to
take more from Ontario workers and employers, some $560 million?
Why is the government playing Scrooge in this the Christmas
season?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply
remind the hon. member that the increase in the CPP was agreed to
by Ernie Eves and Stockwell Day.
Having said that, I am very pleased to be able to take this
question on behalf of our finance minister, the minister who has
already cut personal income taxes by 10%, the minister who put
forth Canada's six point program for reform of the international
financial architecture, the minister who was appointed head of
the G-20.
All Canadians can indeed be proud of the global role of
international financial leadership played by our government.
1130
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
is cold comfort to the 22,500 people who will lose their jobs in
Ontario, according to the C. D. Howe Institute, because of this
payroll tax hike. Will the government listen to the premier of
Ontario, stop this tax hike and save 22,500 Ontario jobs?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member
wants to talk about jobs, there have been 760,000 new jobs
created in Canada over the past two years and over 1.7 million
since this government took office.
With the Reform Party in free fall and with the Tories unclear
about even a clear question, it is absolutely no surprise that on
Canada's political highway the united alternative is nothing but
road kill.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Ontario court of appeal in the Bavinski decision stated that
there must be a new trial when the key crown witness recants or,
in other words, gives false evidence. In a similar case, the
Hache case, the Nova Scotia court of appeal came to the same
decision. In both Bavinski and Hache new trials were ordered.
Patrick Kelly has been in prison for 16 years based on the
testimony of a witness who now says that her evidence was untrue.
Why will the Minister of Justice not use her power to order a new
trial for Mr. Kelly, or at the very least refer his case to the
Supreme Court of Canada?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Kelly's section 690 application was referred to the Ontario
court of appeal. In May of this year the court, in a two to one
decision, responded to two questions on the reference by advising
the minister that none of the new information presented to the
minister would be admissible on appeal. I appreciate that the
court of appeal examined the facts very carefully and presented
reasoned judgment.
Further submissions have been received by Mr. Kelly's counsel
and they are presently being considered by the justice minister
and the department, and a decision will be made fairly and
objectively in the near future.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is telling Canadians that her proposed
changes to the young offenders law will make young lawbreakers
more accountable for their crimes. The youth sentence for crimes
such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault is now a
maximum of three years. The minister wants to reduce that to a
maximum of two years, plus one year in the community under
supervision. That is probation. Most Canadians would see that
as less accountability.
Is this really getting tough on violent crime? Where is the
increased accountability in releasing violent offenders from
custody earlier than they are now?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the primary purpose of the new youth criminal justice bill is the
protection of the public. We are doing this by accountability,
fairness and rehabilitative measures.
Many factors go into a decision. In the new bill the government
is proposing that adult sentences may be applied to children
younger than 16 and 17. In this case an adult sentence may be
applicable in the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the speech
by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the conditions
for recognition of the next Quebec referendum has added far more
to people's confusion, rather than dispelling it.
How can the minister seriously claim that the Quebec National
Assembly retains its freedom to draft the question of its
choice, when, in the same breath, he is saying that, if the
question is not to his liking, he will not follow up on it?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, there is a whereas clause in the bill indicating
that the legislative assembly of a province may ask the question
it wants of voters in a referendum, absolutely whatever it
wants. But it will take more than just any question to bring the
Government of Canada to a negotiating table in order to address
breaking apart a country and stripping from one-quarter of the
Canadian population, the Quebecers, their entire connection with
Canada.
Only a clear question which would lead the people to clearly
state their desire to cease to be part of Canada could justify
such serious negotiations.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister not admit that, under the pretext of clarity, he is
expressing with this bill his intolerance of Quebec's
undertaking and is sowing the seeds of confusion, by setting the
conditions for the next referendum in advance, when he has
absolutely no business setting such conditions?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Speaking of clarity, Mr. Speaker, here is something very clear
that was said by the Premier of Quebec on October 19, 1999 and
will enlighten this House “According to what we have just
learned from a political science expert who has studied the
matter, partnership represents a seven or eight percentage point
gain in popular support”.
* * *
1135
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I was in Manitoba with the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food listening to the farm community
pleading for help from the federal government. Yes, there really
is a farm disaster. Even the United Church of Canada and the
Manitoba Interfaith Council are helping in this crisis. This
plea for help is not being heard in Ottawa. One billion dollars
sits idle in the AIDA program.
Will the food producers of this country have to get their food
from food banks down the road?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the
government put forward nearly $1.1 billion in a two year program.
It was estimated at the beginning that an amount of that would be
required as a result of the 1998 business year and, therefore,
with the targeted approach that everybody asked for, it would go
to producers in 1999. As a result, in the 1999 business year the
remainder of the money would go to the next year.
I can assure the hon. member that all of the money will go to
the producers.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, leaky condo owners in British Columbia
are desperately looking for help. The Liberal silent seven in
B.C. are not heard because they are embarrassed by the party's
eastern mindset.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has offered
$75 million in loans, but at high bank rates. The federal
government is legally culpable on this one, along with others.
The province of B.C. is doing its part and many municipalities
are doing what they can.
Why is there helpful disaster relief for Quebec, Ontario and
Manitoba, but nothing for British Columbia? When will the
minister show leadership, do what is needed and help rescue
thousands of homeowners? When will the government do its share?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
CMHC has spent over $1 million on research and information to
address the leaky condo problem through publications, educational
programs and seminars. It has offered the $75 million at
reasonable interest rates and it has not been taken up by the
Government of British Columbia.
I will repeat what I said before. Bureaucrats have warned the
Government of British Columbia about its ridiculous policies on
these condos. One person said: “My concerns stem from what
appears to be a blind pursuit of energy conservation to the
complete exclusion of all else, jeopardizing both the health of
occupants and structural integrity”. This was written by Mr.
Currie in 1991 in a letter to the housing minister of B.C.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
who was appointed six months ago, set up all kinds of partisan
committees to look at the glaring flaws in the employment
insurance program.
Can the minister assure us that she will soon announce
corrective measures to provide an adequate income to the
unemployed when they are between jobs?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are focused
on making sure that Canadians do have opportunities to work. We
have good job numbers. We have the lowest unemployment rate in
almost two decades. We have the lowest unemployment rate since
the early 1970s for women. We are focused on making sure that
all Canadians benefit from the ever increasing and improving
economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, among those hardest hit by the minister's
program are seasonal workers who, whether the economy is doing
well or not, are temporarily out of work every year.
Could the minister assure us, before the Christmas holiday, that
immediate measures will be taken for these workers who, since
1997, have been getting poorer and poorer because of the Liberal
employment insurance reform?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with seasonal workers, both
in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. When I speak with them their
interest is to find alternatives for themselves and their
children. They understand the importance of seasonal work, but
they also want to ensure in their areas that there is a diverse
economy, that there is a bright future and that their children
can remain in their areas and be able to contribute to the
broader Canadian success.
* * *
1140
TRANSPORT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The national highway system is a network of primary roads that
provide for interprovincial and international trade and travel.
All, not part of Highway 97 in B.C. qualifies as being part of
the national highway system.
When will the Minister of Transport designate all of Highway 97
in B.C. as being part of the national highway system?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon.
member that last year, and even this year, the leaders of each
province and territory met regarding this problem. They have
identified 24,400 kilometres in the current national highway
system.
The leaders of the government in that province have clearly
specified which kilometres will belong to the national highway
system.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hardly any farmers qualified for the government's recent aid
package. The government has not protected them against foreign
subsidies that are killing family farms in Canada. Today the
environment minister will announce new endangered species
legislation.
How can Canadians believe that the government is going to
protect farmers from losses under this new law when it has not
protected our farmers from foreign subsidies?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a convoluted
question. However, I think the essence of it is the fact that
farmers in this country are doing a fine job and are working very
hard to protect species.
We believe that protecting species is everyone's responsibility
and that no one should bear an undue proportion of the burden.
There will be compensation for people whose livelihoods are
affected by protecting a species.
My read is that farmers are working very hard and they will
continue to work with us to do the right thing.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL TRANSFERS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
report by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Finance does not include any recommendation to restore social
transfers to the provinces, in spite of the consensus among all
the finance ministers of the country and the priority given to
this issue by the public.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Does the Minister of Finance, who has always had a say in the
report by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Finance, intend to also dodge the issue in his upcoming budget
and thus continue to contribute to the crisis in Canada's health
sector?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon.
member that in our last budget we allocated $11.5 billion to
health.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
winter is approaching, and this is the last day, we hope, that
the House will be sitting this year and this millennium, I would
like to know what the Government of Canada is doing to help with
the homelessness crisis in this country. Do we have to wait
until the next millennium?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I respond, I want to thank
my colleagues on the government side of the House who have worked
so hard and so long with the Minister of Labour, who is
co-ordinating the federal response to this issue.
I would also like to point out that this morning, together with
her cabinet colleagues and members of caucus, she announced a
$753 million investment. Three-quarters of a billion dollars
will be directed toward the public to alleviate the homeless
situation in the country.
The government is addressing the situation. There will be $305
million directed toward a new program, the supporting community
initiatives program, which will work with our partners in the
provinces, in municipalities, and with NGOs to support best
practice and to get the best bang for the buck.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again we see an unco-ordinated Liberal government
that fails to integrate a science based approach with the
environment.
Last week the fisheries minister said that we are going to
manage oceans in a way that will stop people who pollute the
oceans. That means going after municipalities which put raw
sewage into the oceans.
1145
Since the environment minister does not classify raw sewage as
pollution, why does the fisheries minister?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister knows that every
situation has to be addressed on its own merits and its own
conditions.
He is working with the municipalities. He is working with the
Ministry of the Environment in order to come up with the best
solution and the best way to treat this very important issue.
* * *
THE CROWN
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is continuing its sneaky underhanded policy of
sidelining the crown as the symbol of Canada's—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary
Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the government is
continuing its underhanded policy of sidelining the crown as the
main symbol of Canada's sovereignty and history.
Last month the government surreptitiously removed the crown from
the uniforms of customs officers and removed pictures of our head
of state from customs clearance areas, replacing them with the
man who would be king, the Prime Minister.
Why does the government not just fess up and admit that these
changes are part of its hidden republican agenda to scrap the
crown?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if that is the last question of
the millennium for the hon. member, I am really wondering why he
does not have anything else to ask.
There is no such intention on the part of the government.
Obviously the Revenue Canada agency has been created. Obviously
the logo of the agency and everything else that goes with it have
been applied to uniforms and all other property of the agency in
question. For the hon. member to suggest that there is a
so-called surreptitious attempt to do away with the crown is
nonsense.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, new numbers released by the Canadian Institute for
Health Information show that Canadians are paying more and more
out of their own pockets for health care.
What are they paying it on? They are shelling out for much
needed drug coverage and for home care. Both are expenses which
the government promised to address by way of national programs.
In the 1997 red book the government promised a national drug
care plan as part of the medicare system. Further, the Minister
of Health said “I go so far as to say that home care is
fundamental to saving medicare”.
Will the government finally live up to its commitment for a
national home care and drug care plan?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has
been working very closely with the provinces to initiate a
pharmacare and a home care program that would be universal across
the country.
Perhaps the member has the ability to convince her colleagues in
British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to buy into our
process. We certainly would like to. The minister has already
indicated that he would like to see it move a lot quicker, but
without the provinces willing to help us in this regard we cannot
get to where we would like to go as soon as we could.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it now seems likely that we will end this year and this
millennium without a penny flowing to a single victim of
hepatitis C. It appears that the hepatitis C compensation
package has been put on hold once again and the government is not
prepared to step in, stop the legal wrangling and flow the cash.
Is the government prepared to end this sorry chapter in Canadian
history by paying before 1999 is over what it promised and by
starting the new millennium with the commitment of fair
compensation for all victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware,
these negotiations have been ongoing with the provinces for a
number of years now. Once the provinces and the federal
government have agreement then the money will flow.
* * *
AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. On August 27,
1998, the Department of Transport signed an agreement with the
Halifax International Airport Authority which included the
statement: “Transport Canada agrees to continue to be
responsible for the pyritic slate runoff existing prior to the
transfer date.”
I asked this question on Wednesday and the minister said there
had been another agreement signed but did not answer my question.
Why did the government renege on this signed contract with the
Halifax International Airport Authority?
1150
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is quite aware of
the fact that in this situation the government has been working
very closely with the airport authority. An agreement has been
made with the government and the process will continue until it
is completely resolved.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that is not an answer. With all due respect, I want an
answer. This is the fourth time I have asked the question. I
simply want to know why the Government of Canada reneged on a
signed contract with the Halifax International Airport Authority.
If the parliamentary secretary does not know, will he commit to
report back to the House on why the agreement of August 27 was
broken?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has clearly
indicated that the government has reneged after signing a
contract. I would like the full country to know, including the
member, that the government never reneges on a signed contract.
* * *
WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of
State for Western Diversification which relates to WD's
activities in Saskatchewan.
I know that his department is very active there, but could the
secretary of state tell us about some of the things his office is
doing in the great province of Saskatchewan?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number
of examples come to mind. In the Canada infrastructure works
program there was a federal share of $69 million; Synchrotron,
the Canadian light source, almost $100 million; the
Saskatchewan-WD partnership, $24 million; and the Moose Jaw base
closure, another $4 million.
There are community futures development corporations in the
rural areas. There are the women's enterprise centres. The
operating and loans fund injects another $10 million. There is
still a lot to do and we will do it.
* * *
AIRLINES
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 16,000 Canadian Airline employees are
being used as bargaining chips as Air Canada negotiates with the
federal government. Air Canada apparently wants an airline
industry where there are no government restrictions on its
operations but plenty of restrictions on the creation of any
serious competition.
What steps is the minister or his associate taking to protect
the interests of the Canadian travelling public and the 16,000
Canadian Airline employees whose careers are in jeopardy?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to everyone
present that the hon. member was a very conscientious, dedicated
contributor to the policy recommendations which came out of the
transportation committee.
What is going on at the present time? There are ongoing
deliberations between the private concerns and the competition
bureau. When the entire process is settled we will share the
information not only with the hon. member but with everyone else
concerned.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my last
question of this millennium is the following.
In the matter of the millennium scholarships, the federal
government is in possession of the Quebec student associations'
agreement with the Quebec ministry of education's proposal to
ensure that they will have access to these scholarships.
Can the minister assure us that her government will give its
agreement to the proposal submitted to the Foundation, as we
find ourselves only 15 days from that new millennium?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the entry point of
the new millennium to talk about the millennium scholarships, to
see that the Bloc has finally agreed that they are a very
important piece of our partnership together, and to say that the
foundation recently announced, in advance of its original
timeframe, 70,000 grants to needy students across the country.
I have received on behalf of the foundation the suggestion from
Mr. Legault in his proposal. I am glad to say that our officials
are working to look at its details. I am very optimistic that we
will be able to have an agreement with the Government of Quebec.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
number of homeless Canadians froze last winter. Another winter
is here with hundreds of thousands of Canadians without homes or
in substandard or inadequate housing. It took a year for the
government to announce any funding to try to avoid deaths this
winter. I hope it is not too late.
If the government is to avoid yearly quick fixes, we need a
national housing strategy which ensures at least a $1 billion
investment for the next 10 years to provide enough housing for
all Canadians.
1155
The economic spinoffs and social benefits of this housing
investment would greatly reduce the overall cost. Will the
government commit to this investment?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised in that $753
million is a significant investment on top of the $1.9 billion
the government already spends on housing.
The member opposite would know that the situation with the
homeless is multifaceted and multijurisdictional. The government
is addressing the root causes and trying to alleviate
homelessness. That is more than housing. That is access to
appropriate care and a continuum of services. We are addressing
the problem.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, here is a whale of a tale. A coast guard ship was
called off search and rescue standby, stripped of its helicopter
pad to make room for a dance floor, and dispatched on a party
cruise for Correctional Service Canada. The party was dubbed a
special project, given its own special assignment code and cost
close to $7,000 for such essentials as liquor and lobster tails.
During the cruise a fatality occurred in the waters off
Newfoundland. Why were senior CSC officials tripping the light
fantastic on the deck of a lifesaving vessel at the expense of
taxpayers while potentially putting people's lives at risk?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has already made it clear
that all the rules and guidelines will be followed in the future
and this kind of use of coast guard vessels will not happen
again.
The hon. member might want to check around in his own caucus to
see if any of his caucus members have ever been on one of those
trips.
* * *
FOOD LABELLING
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question may be one of the last of the
century and the millennium. It is for the minister of
agriculture.
I have had many inquiries in my riding about what the federal
government intends to do about the labelling of food derived from
biotechnology or genetically modified products. What does the
minister intend to do about this issue?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know this is a very important issue.
The Canadian consumer wants to know. The Canadian consumer has a
right to know.
That is why the government, the industry, the Consumers'
Association of Canada, the Canadian Council of Grocery
Distributors and many other organizations are working with the
Canadian Standards Council to put together a set of criteria
which is meaningful, enforceable and can be used in labelling
food.
That is an important step that has to be taken so that it is
meaningful, credible and enforceable and supports the desires and
needs of the Canadian consumer.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will ask
the finance minister a question. If he changes the subject to
talk about something else, I will assume that he has no
reasonable explanation.
In our finance committee hearings a number of presenters called
the excessive EI premiums a breach of trust. The act does not
permit the minister to use EI as a source of general revenue. Why
does the finance minister not just take the premiums down to
$2.05 as recommended by the chief actuary?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
hon. member that the three commissioners were the ones who agreed
that this was within the preamble and the precepts of the act.
Having said that, our government has taken EI premiums down from
$3.07 to $2.40, a reduction of close to $5 billion a year. Unlike
the Reform Party we made those cuts for the workers, not just for
the employers alone the way it has advocated.
* * *
[Translation]
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has introduced a bill to create the Canadian
institutes of health research.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of increased
investment in biomedical research. In the case of the
institutes of health research, however, the government has just
created additional structures that will reflect its health
research priorities.
Can the Minister of Health make a commitment before this House
that no institute of health research will be designated in
Quebec without its government's consent?
1200
[English]
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, anything that has to do with Quebec and the improvement
of health care will be discussed with the province of Quebec.
* * *
PARKS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks
will be creating a picture on the devastating effect of program
review on national parks in this country. The situation across
Canada has deteriorated from a lack of research and
interpretative personnel to threats of a lack of buffer zones
around our cherished national parks.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage commit the support from
the cabinet and support our national parks in the new millennium?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister of agriculture and high seas
hijinks wants to hallucinate further.
It is obvious that the demands for a $4 million jet are not
enough for CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup, he needs to hobnob on
the high seas. The jet-setting Mr. Ingstrup is living the
lifestyle of the rich and famous while taxpayers foot the bill.
The solicitor general must take responsibility for this lavish
corrections commissioner. Did he know or did he authorize such a
waste of taxpayers' dollars? And if public safety is such a
number one priority as we have heard ad nauseam, what will the
solicitor general do to ensure that this type of accountability
occurs against such appalling folly?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since it will be
Christmas very shortly, I would like to take advantage of this
question to deplore once again the overtones of the lack of
confidence from my colleagues toward the civil service in Canada.
It is one of the most trained and dedicated civil services in
the world. It is one of the most loyal civil services in the
world.
I wish them and their families the very, very best for the
Christmas season and next year.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this is the last question
period in this particular session.
I wish all of you would take some time in the next few weeks to
be with your families and to reinvigorate yourselves. In a
specific way, I wish all of you a happy new year. I wish for
this institution a happy new century. I wish for the Canadian
people a happy millennium. Enjoy your time off.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
DEL AND BEV HOFFMAN
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Del Hoffman and his wife Bev were killed in northern Mexico this
week by four American bank robbers. The semi-retired couple were
vacationing in Mexico. They were brutally murdered for their RV,
credit cards and cash. The generous couple were also carrying
clothing and bicycles for poor Mexican children.
Both Del and Bev were big-hearted loving people and their warmth
was infectious. Their family and friends are devastated.
On behalf of my constituency and my colleagues in the House, I
offer our deepest sympathy. Bev and Del Hoffman will be greatly
missed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the parliamentary secretary who answered
the question with respect to the leaky condos in British Columbia
quoted from a document. She said she was quoting a civil
servant. I am assuming that this was some sort of an official
document she quoted from, given that she cited a civil servant as
being the source of the quote. Would she table what she was
quoting from for the benefit of all of us who are concerned about
the leaky condos problem in British Columbia?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, a document will be tabled
shortly.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege for which I have already given the Chair
notice.
My question of privilege arises from news reports on Wednesday,
December 15 in the Ottawa Citizen, Edmonton Journal
and National Post each of which made reference to the
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled
Thursday, December 16 in the House.
I draw the Speaker's attention to the following quote which
appeared in each of these newspapers cited.
It stated:
To accommodate the treaty right the government should encourage
native participation in the fishery through a program which
provides native fishermen with a down payment on a licence and
vessel and a competitive loan to cover the outstanding value of
the assets purchased.
1205
Each newspaper identified that statement as one section of the
report.
I would draw to the Speaker's attention the recommendation
section of the Reform Party's minority report as appended to the
committee report. In that section there appears a quote on page
43 which is identical to the one I have read.
I further point out that even I as chair did not have access to
that minority report until Thursday, December 16 and that
appeared in the paper on Wednesday, December 15.
I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that in two of
the newspaper accounts, the title of the report for which that
quotation was supposedly extracted was provided to the media as
“The Marshall Decision and Beyond: Implications for the
Management of Atlantic Fisheries”. That title as provided to
the media is of course the title of the report as tabled in the
House.
Neither the title of the report nor the contents of the Reform
Party's minority report were disclosed in any way by the
committee in public session. Both of these were provided to the
media without the consent of the committee and therefore in
violation of the rules of the House.
It is my contention that providing the media with what was
attributed as being part of the standing committee's report has
violated the privileges not only of the members who dedicated
themselves to the work of this committee but to all members of
the House.
My remarks are not directed toward the contents which were
contained in the Reform Party's minority report. My concern is
that someone provided the media with that minority report and
obviously implied that what they were providing was part of the
committee's report. That was done, I would submit, intentionally
and maliciously.
I conclude by saying that this unfortunately is not the first
time a report of the standing committee on fisheries has been
leaked to the media prior to its being tabled in the House. The
difference this time is that there appears to be little doubt, in
fact absolutely no doubt, as to the source of the violation of
the privileges of the members of the House.
If the Speaker finds that I have a prima facie case of
privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
The Speaker: My colleagues, on this particular point that
is being brought forward, I notice that no member is named in
this question of privilege. As such, we cannot get any response
from one of our members.
I have said a few times in the House and outside that the House
itself and its members must look to each other with the type of
respect so that this type of thing will not happen, as in any
other leak of documents. Unless and until the procedural
committee or indeed the House informs me as to what can be done
about this generally, we have to rely on the members themselves
to police themselves to see that this does not happen.
Once again, I appeal to all hon. members that if they are on
committees and there are reports, that if they have possession of
these reports they should not be releasing them until the
committee that they are with approves the report so that it can
be released hopefully in the House, but at least not prematurely.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on the same question of privilege, I do not want to be too cute
about it, but on the same day that we are talking about leaky
condos, we call attention once again to the leaky parliamentary
culture that we have here.
I just want to make the point that it is not just committee
reports that are being leaked, that is reprehensible enough, but
there has also been a persistent strategy on the part of the
government to leak its own proposals before parliament gets to
know about them.
We get a kind of tit for tat culture here. It is not good for
the institution. It is not good for anybody.
1210
I just wanted to agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that everyone has
the responsibility not to behave in this particular way, whether
they are members of committees or whether they are cabinet
ministers who leak things to the press before they tell
parliament about it.
The Speaker: I see the member for Elk Island is on his
feet. I assume he wants to add one or two sentences to this point
and then I will close it down.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
appreciate this because I have been on the finance committee now
for two years. I think every committee report has been leaked
beforehand. Even the most recent one on the prebudget hearings
was leaked the day before. The quotations in the paper said “a
Liberal member who did not want to be identified said” and there
were direct quotations from it. It is a great problem and I
really wish we could solve it.
The Speaker: I see we have the support of the House.
Now we just have to put it into action.
I suggest to the hon. member that the fisheries committee should
inquire and report back to the House. The hon. member is on the
committee but unless an individual is named in the House, then
there is little that I can do as Speaker of the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to nine
petitions.
* * *
TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-411, an act to confirm the rights of
taxpayers and establish the office for taxpayer protection.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill for
first reading. It would create a taxpayers' bill of rights to
more clearly entrench in law the rights to due process, and
presumption of innocence on the part of taxpayers in the tax
collection and assessment process, and also to create an office
for taxpayer protection which would act as an ombudsman for
taxpayers, especially those who cannot afford the services of tax
lawyers to defend their legal rights.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-412, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(exemption from taxation of 50% of U.S. social security payments
to Canadian residents).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to reintroduce
this bill. It was previously on the Order Paper in the last
session of parliament. It seeks to re-establish tax equity for
Canadian residents who pay taxes on social security payments
received from the U.S. government. These taxpayers have been
forced to incur an 85% tax increase as a result of the fourth tax
protocol between Canada and the United States. There are seniors
on fixed incomes who cannot afford this outrageous increase. This
bill would rectify that problem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-413, an act to promote the observance of two
minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is becoming a habit today. This is
a bill which I introduced in the last session. It had been
debated but was not deemed votable notwithstanding the fact that
it has the support of the Royal Canadian Legion and all the
veterans' organizations in Canada. We have also received the
signatures of some 55,000 Canadians in petitions in support of
the bill. I do hope this will be given proper consideration by
the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-414, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(allowances paid to elected officials).
He said: Madam Speaker, I promise this is my last bill today.
This will probably not be a very popular bill in this place, but
it will be popular among Canadians because it seeks to eliminate
the special provision in the Income Tax Act which allows
politicians alone, elected members of parliament, senators, MPPs,
et cetera, to exempt the equivalent of a third of their taxable
income from the taxes we impose on everyone else. It essentially
calls for the same standard of taxation in terms of the laws that
we impose on all Canadians. I think that this is in the interest
of equity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-415, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (wearing of war decorations).
She said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow
relatives of deceased veterans to wear on Remembrance Day at
public functions or ceremonies commemorating veterans any order,
decoration or medal that is awarded to such veterans for war
services without facing criminal sanctions.
I draw to the attention of the House that the bill is exactly
the same as the bill that was adopted at first reading in the
last session of the House last spring. The only difference is
that it now bears my name and that of the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I present petitions today with many hundreds of
signatures, which are just the first instalment of more than
9,000 signatures that have been collected in Manitoba by the
Campaign 2000 committee, the Campaign 2000 network and the Social
Planning Council of Winnipeg in the campaign against child
poverty.
The petitioners remind the House that one in five children live
in poverty, that on November 24, 1989 the House of Commons
unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year
2000, and that since 1989 the number of poor children in Canada
has increased by 60%.
Therefore, these petitioners call on parliament to use federal
budget 2000 to introduce a multiyear plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
1220
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
two petitions on exactly the same subject so I will just read it
once.
The petitioners petition parliament to repeal subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a petition with over 300 signatures calling
on parliament to use the federal budget 2000 to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canadian children in
conformity with the resolution which was adopted unanimously in
the House of Commons on November 24, 1989 to end child poverty in
Canada by the year 2000. It is my honour to table this.
[Translation]
ADOPTIVE PARENTS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first was signed
by 25 people, who are calling on the House to recognize the
contribution of adoptive parents and the costs they incur when
they adopt.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to pass Bill C-505
introduced by the member for Calgary Centre, which proposes a
tax deduction for expenses related to the adoption of a child.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speakerm the second petition, which I am merely presenting, is
signed by a number of people calling on the House to keep
section 43 of the Criminal Code, and not to spend any more money
on having it repealed under the federal Court Challenges
Program.
I repeat that I am merely presenting this petition.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
submit to the House today another several thousand signatures to
be combined with the largest petition the House has seen,
fourfold, of any other petition in the House. It deals with the
issue of upholding the law around child pornography.
The petitioners are from across the country and are petitioning
parliament, and indirectly the courts, to do everything possible
to uphold the law to keep child pornography illegal in this
country. This whole thing could have been avoided if we had
moved on using part of the charter that allows us to use the
notwithstanding clause.
PARKS CANADA
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
my constituents of Waskesiu, Shellbrook, Debden, Canwood, Big
River, Spiritwood and throughout the north, along with park
enthusiasts in Saskatchewan and throughout Canada, are alarmed by
the devastating effects of Parks Canada budget cuts.
The petitioners call on the government to provide adequate
resources to maintain the Narrows Camp Ground in the Prince
Albert National Park.
CHILDREN
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of Calgary
concerning children and the way the government has not lived up
to obligations regarding children.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too am
both honoured and distressed at presenting a petition from my
constituents and those from surrounding areas on the issue of
child pornography.
The petitioners are distressed at the inaction of the government
to protect our children. They ask that the government take
whatever measures are necessary in order to reinstate the law in
that regard.
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my second
petition has to do with taxes. I have 132 names, added to
thousands, that are calling for this government in the next
budget to give a substantial tax relief of at least 25% in
federal taxes over the next three years.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
a petition signed by 27 residents of the greater Montreal area,
including the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which I have the
honour to represent in this House.
The petitioners point out that rural route mail couriers cannot
resort to collective bargaining to improve their salaries and
working conditions.
All too often, these workers earn less than minimum wage and
their working conditions are those of an era we thought was gone
forever. By contrast, their private sector colleagues who also
deliver the mail in rural areas enjoy the right to collective
bargaining, like Canada Post employees.
1225
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to repeal subsection
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which deprives rural
route mail couriers of their right to collective bargaining.
It seems obvious to me that the government must take action as
quickly as possible to end the discrimination that continues to
exist against rural route mail couriers.
[English]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have two petitions to present today. The first is from my
constituents in Nanaimo—Alberni.
They ask that parliament exempt from the GST the cost of spaying
and neutering animals in order to reduce the overpopulation of
unwanted dogs and cats.
FOOD LABELLING
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from 577 constituents within my riding.
They request that parliament enact legislation requiring
manufacturers and growers to label genetically altered foods and
seeds.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have in hand 400 pages with approximately 10,000 signatures to
add to the hundreds of thousands of signatures of Canadians who
are horrified by pornography which depicts children.
They are astounded by the legal determination that possession of
such pornography is not criminal. It is amazing to me to see how
these petitions keep on coming.
NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
petition I am presenting today contains hundreds of signatures.
The petitioners are asking for more freedom as it relates to
harmless natural health products.
CANADA POST
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am presenting a petition today which calls upon
parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporations Act.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 52 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 52—Mr. John Duncan:
Has logging in Canada caused the extinction of any species of
flora or fauna of which the department is aware and, if so, which
species have become extinct and what proof does the department
have of their extinction?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): The
Department of Environment is not aware of any species of flora or
fauna that went extinct as determined by the committee on the
status of endangered wildlife in Canada due to logging
activities.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There has been consultation among the parties dealing with the
previously considered request of the national defence and
veterans affairs committee to travel during the month of January
to four U.S. defence installations and on a budget approved by
the liaison committee's budget subcommittee. I think there would
be unanimous consent to approve that travel.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday,
February 7, 2000, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)
and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.28 p.m.)