36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 24
CONTENTS
Friday, November 19, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Third Reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1005
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| BARRY CUDMORE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1100
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S ELECTION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| CHECHNYA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1105
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| WEB JAM BELL
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| MANDATORY LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1110
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| FORT GARRY HORSE
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1120
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1125
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1135
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1140
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| DIABETES
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1145
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BANKING INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| PUBLIC PORTS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1150
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1155
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1200
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Response in Question Period
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
| Bill C-328 . Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| East Timor
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Incontinence Awareness Month
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1210
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Durham Harbour
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Museum of Civilization
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| China
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1235
1240
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1245
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1310
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1315
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1320
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1330
| NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1345
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1350
1355
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1400
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1405
1410
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1415
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1420
1425
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1430
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 24
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 19, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to
implement the agreement among the Government of Canada,
Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the
Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation,
and the Government of the United States of America concerning
co-operation on the civil international space station and to make
related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Industry,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Industry,
Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today
that I rise to begin third reading of Bill C-4, the civil
international space station agreement implementation act.
1005
As my colleagues in the House will recall from the second
reading debate, the international space station is the world's
most ambitious civil undertaking in the area of science and
technology. Canada is honoured and privileged to have played a
very crucial and central role in this program.
Over 40 flights of the U.S. space shuttle will be required to
loft this impressive outpost of humanity into orbit. Canada has
already embarked on this exciting adventure.
CSA astronaut Julie Payette flew to the space station in May of
this year. Next year, CSA astronauts Marc Garneau and Chris
Hadfield are scheduled to participate in missions to the space
station, ultimately delivering Canada's principle contribution:
the mobile servicing system, Canada's next generation, state of
the art space robot.
A project of such scope and grandeur required the definition of
a very elaborate management regime, negotiated over several years
and laid out in detail in the international agreement. This
multilateral treaty brings together 15 participating nations in a
truly global space station partnership.
In short, Bill C-4 implements our commitments under the
international agreement by bringing Canadian legislation in line
with that agreement. Let me point out that much of this text can
be implemented directly without changes to the existing law. In
other areas changes were clearly necessary.
First, and most importantly, Bill C-4 extends the application of
Canada's criminal code to the Canadians onboard the space station
and, in exceptional circumstances, to foreign nationals as well.
This is similar in principle to the other extraterritorial
applications of the criminal code, for example on high-sea oil
drilling platforms.
Clearly, however, there is something new and exciting about
extending the application of the Canada law beyond the immediate
borders of our planet. As the space station partners defined the
legal regime of the first truly international, collaborative,
crewed space vehicle, Canada was at the very heart of those
discussions. Through Bill C-4, Canada will enact into law the
principles it helped define.
The bill also ensures, for example, that Canadian law applies to
Canadians travelling to and from the space station, rather than
the law of the carrying countries.
Bill C-4 also ensures that information essential to meeting our
space station commitments is available to the Canadian government
and that any information provided to meet those commitments is
used exclusively for that and only that purpose.
My colleagues will also recall that during second reading in the
House, every party spoke strongly in favour of this outstanding
project and Canada's unique role, of course. During our
committee sessions, we were able to move quickly and, let me say,
competently through the bill.
I must take a moment now to thank my colleagues from both sides
of the House, in particular the members of the Standing Committee
on Industry, for their strong support behind the passage of the
legislation. The members of the committee co-operated
efficiently and while taking an earnest interest in the bill and
the ISS program did not delay its passage.
One amendment was proposed by the committee to section 10 of the
bill, an amendment which would ensure that any amendments to the
intergovernmental agreement would be laid before parliament so
that we are made aware of the evolving nature of Canada's ISS
related commitments.
Although technical in nature, this implementing legislation is a
crucial step on the path toward the ratification of the
intergovernmental agreement. Canada made a clear commitment to
the space station when it signed the agreement in January 1998.
Ratification will clear the path for Canada and ultimately for
all space station partners and open a new era of space
exploration: the operation and utilization of the world's
largest permanently inhabited laboratory station.
It is with great pride, Mr. Speaker, that I ask you today to
help bring this remarkable project to a close and make it indeed
a reality.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy today to participate in the debate on Bill C-4.
1010
The bill is now at third reading. The Reform Party is
interested in having this pass the House, proceed to the Senate
and receive royal assent so that we can implement Canada's
obligation under the agreement we signed with the other parties
to this agreement.
It is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-4, which the Reform
Party supports very heartily. It is a new and exciting frontier
which Canada is privileged to participate in.
Bill C-4 implements the agreement that Canada signed last year
with the United States, Japan, Russia and 11 countries of the
European Union. The agreement formulates Canada's participation
in the international space station.
The space station is a bold and exciting project which has
nations around the world working together in a spirit of
co-operation rather than rivalry. We have moved to a new point
in our world development where we are seeing more and more
international co-operation on many projects. I certainly welcome
it.
This is quite different than the environment that existed only
10 years ago when the collapse of the Soviet Union brought a new
era to world peace and world co-operation. We need to welcome
that spirit of co-operation that exists today. We know what
happened when we had 50 or more years of cold war and the
difficulties that led to, including the Berlin wall which divided
East and West Germany. We have seen in the papers just recently
the 10 year anniversary of the fall of the great wall. It
signified a change in direction that was very welcome in terms of
international co-operation.
I believe this is a step that will enhance co-operation. We
will have the ability to study our globe from the outlook of the
space station orbiting above the earth. I think this will be
very beneficial to Canada.
We have this spirit of co-operation. It is the largest science
and technology project in the history of humanity. Canadians
should be proud of the role we are playing and will continue to
play in this key role of its development.
In its final form, the station will cover an area as large as a
football field, weigh 450 tonnes and be clearly visible in the
night sky as it orbits the earth.
More and more young people are interested in astronomy and have
telescopes to observe the different constellations and stars. I
think it will be interesting that they will see pictures coming
back from the space station. They will see pictures of Canada's
involvement in building the space station. They will also be
able to use their telescopes to see the space station in the
night sky as it orbits the earth and does its good work.
The habitation modules and the laboratories will accommodate a
permanent international crew of seven astronauts dedicated to
advancements in areas of biotechnology, engineering, earth
observations and telecommunications. Those are all key areas in
which Canada is striving to develop new technology.
In my capacity as the critic for the area of industry, these are
all areas that we recognize in Canada as areas of growth for
Canadian business. The telecommunications industry is one that
Canada is very, very good at. Nortel comes to mind as a case in
point. According to an announcement last week, it is expanding
right here in the Ottawa.
Telecommunications in a large country like Canada is a very
important aspect. We are now able to have satellite phones with
connections in the Arctic. It does not really matter where we
live in Canada these days, we can develop a home based business
because of the ability of Canadians to be able to use the new
technologies that are developed through telecommunications. I
suggest that will be enhanced by the Canadian involvement in the
space station. I would think companies like Nortel and others
could take advantage of the space station to develop new
technologies, try them out, deliver them to the Canadian space
station and apply the scientific results that accrue from that.
The area of biotechnology is a very big industry in Canada these
days.
I know there is work being done at the University of Alberta in
Edmonton. It has an expanding role in agriculture, but not just
agriculture, and it is certainly one that I believe is going to
serve us well into the future.
1015
Again, this is an opportunity for Canadian companies to have a
vehicle for research and development, perhaps with some
co-operation through the labs that are on board with the United
States and Russia.
In terms of Earth observation, I will be speaking to that a bit
later, but I see that as an important aspect of this as well.
I am pleased to say that the Reform Party will support the
speedy passage of the bill. I recognize that there is some
urgency in getting it passed quickly to meet the commitments that
we have made to our partners in this project.
I have to say, though, that we have some concern about the way
these international agreements are developed and the role that
the House of Commons plays, or in this case does not play, in the
development of those agreements. I am not speaking only about
international agreements, I am also speaking about agreements
such as the one that was made between the government and the
Nisga'a people where there has been very little consultation in
places like British Columbia. Even here in parliament the
government brings the Nisga'a deal to us and has us rubber stamp
it without amendment.
We have concerns about the way these agreements are developed. I
know the former minister for international trade, Mr. Marchi,
decided that it was important to consult civil society.
Therefore, I think there is a new era developing in Canada in
terms of how we develop international agreements. The only
reason I am talking about it in light of the space station bill
is that it is just another example of an agreement that is
brought here. I know that amendments can and are being made in
this particular case, but the basic agreement was put in place
and brought here with the intent that parliament would just
approve it and not alter it in any meaningful way.
In this particular case I do not think we need to alter it in
any substantial way, but parliament would like to have the
ability to do that and not just act as a rubber stamp for
government. That is a concern that we have in the Reform Party.
The leader of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest, and many of my colleagues have a keen interest in the
area of space development. It is the new frontier. It is a
frontier that is probably comparable in many ways to the
industrial revolution, a frontier that was opened up by the steam
boat and trains back in the early 1800s in England, eventually
leading to development all over the world, in particular North
America. We know what happened when the steam locomotive was
developed, how it opened up Canada and the United States.
I had a distant relative who was involved in developing and in
fact was credited with being the first person to manufacture the
first locomotive and the first railway, George Stephenson, which
took place in northern England in the Newcastle area. He
observed that there was rail track on which coal cars were
hauling coal from the mines to the ocean for export. Those coal
cars were being pulled by oxen. At the same time there were
stream pumps being used in the mines.
My great great uncle was a 10 year old boy working in the mine.
His job eventually led to making sure the steam pump worked to
pump the water out of the mine. This man had a son, his only
son, Robert Stephenson, who became famous in his own right. He
had enough money to send his son to school. That was not a
common occurrence in those days in early England.
It is very significant that George Stephenson was illiterate.
He was the man who developed the steam locomotive which opened up
the world in terms of having railways across Canada, the United
States, Brazil and Europe, which enabled us to have speedy
transportation.
He scraped every cent together so that he could send his son
Robert to school. Robert came home with his books and George
Stephenson learned to read and write with the help of his eight
year old son. It is a very interesting story. His son went on
to do famous things. They worked together on the improved model
of the steam locomotive, the rocket, which is still on display in
northern England. Robert Stephenson built railways all over the
world. He built the railway bridge, the first bridge across the
St. Lawrence River in Canada, which was called the Victoria
Bridge. The bridge has been rebuilt and remains in the same
location.
1020
A number of us in the Reform Party are interested in this new
technology. I suggest that it is not much different from what
happened in the early days of the steam locomotive and the
industrial revolution. We are on the verge of a launch into
space. We are on the verge of being able to observe our planet
much better with our involvement in the space station and we will
learn a lot more about ourselves in the process.
I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to visit the NASA
space science centre in Houston. I saw some of the rockets that
boosted some of the early satellites into orbit, as well as the
early shuttles. I marvelled at the technology.
It is an exciting frontier. In 1957 Russia sent the first
satellite, Sputnik, into orbit and now we are co-operating with
that very country, which was formerly a communist country.
Russia had a tremendous difference in philosophy from that of the
United States and Canada. In just over 40 years we have moved
from the first satellite in orbit to co-operating with Russia to
build the international space station.
We have to be thankful that Russia is involved in this project.
It has the ability with its rockets to send up a lot of the
material that is needed to build this very big space station. It
takes a lot of capacity to do that. Russia has that capacity.
Even though it is having some difficulty these days financially,
we think it is going to meet its commitments in delivering its
part of the space station into orbit.
We have to be thankful to Russia for another reason. When it
joined the international space station project it insisted that
the orbit of the space station would fly on a more northerly
route from time to time. Over a period of one month the
international space station will vary its orbit from 52° south to
52° north. That is very good news for Canada because it will fly
over parts of Canada where it probably would not have flown if
Russia had not insisted that development take place. It wants to
observe its country as well and it is basically on the same
latitude as Canada.
The space station will be angled. It will be 400 kilometres
above the earth, and at 52° latitude we will be able to see a big
part of our country and observe what is happening.
Before I get to the reasons we are supporting this bill, I will
provide listeners with a bit of background as to when and how the
space station got its start. Its history goes back to 1984.
President Reagan of the United States directed NASA to develop
and place into orbit a permanently manned space station. At the
time, President Reagan invited friends and allies to participate
in its development and to share in its benefits.
People may remember President Reagan talking about the star wars
concept at the same time. That has not actually developed in any
meaningful way, but the space station is a survivor. The first
section of the space station has already been delivered into
orbit and different components are going to be set up and joined
together shortly.
At the Quebec summit in March 1985, Canada accepted the
invitation to confirm Canada's interest in the co-operation at a
summit meeting in Washington the following year. At the same
time, various other countries expressed interest in the project
and over the years signed memorandums of understanding.
1025
It was recognized that Russia could greatly enhance the
capabilities of the space station. Not only does it have the
boost capacity, it has a long list of accomplishments in the area
of human space flight and missions of long duration. Russian
astronauts have been in space for long periods of time and that
has greatly enhanced our ability to study whether we can have
permanent life on space stations in the future.
On December 6, 1993 Russia was invited to take part in the
project. Arrangements were then made for co-operation on human
space flight activities, including the Russia and United States
Mir shuttle program, to prepare for the building of the space
station.
Russia will derive benefits from this as well. Russia is a very
big country. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up, we
naturally think that Canada must be the largest country in the
world. Large parts of the Soviet Union broke away from Russia
when the mentality of the eastern bloc started to come apart. We
know of countries such as Ukraine which claimed independence on
its own. However, we have to recognize that even though that
happened, Russia is still twice as big as Canada, and Canada is
the second biggest country in the world. We have much land and
water to view from the space station, but Russia has even more
and I know its people would be greatly interested in using the
space station to do that. In fact, they are building a science
lab of their own to perform scientific studies.
On January 29, 1998 the countries got together and signed the
civil international space station agreement which established a
framework for the design, development, operation and utilization
of the space station. Bill C-4 seeks to implement the agreement
signed last year.
The international agreement that was signed by Canada, the
United States, Japan, Russia and 11 European countries contains
28 articles and an annex which summarizes the tasks to which the
various countries have committed themselves. In Canada's case
the space agency will provide three elements: a mobile servicing
centre, a special purpose dexterous manipulator, the new
generation Canadarm that is going to be used to put the space
station together and service it afterward, and space station
unique ground elements.
The articles lay out the objective and scope of the agreement,
international rights and obligations, ownership of the elements
and the equipment and the management of the space station. As
well, aspects of design and development are covered, the right to
provide qualified crew, transportation and right of access to the
space station and the provision of a communications network,
which are all important things that need to be settled early in
the project.
Each partner will bear the cost of fulfilling its respective
responsibilities under the agreement, including sharing on an
equitable basis a common systems operating cost and activities
attributed to the operation of the space station as a whole.
My understanding is that there has been some delay in the
project because of the involvement of the United States in the
lift capacity. The space shuttle program is undergoing repair
and some of the shuttles need fairly extensive work. On the
other side, the last couple of Russian delivery rockets have
failed to deliver satellites into space and have actually burned
up. There is some work to do to make sure that these important
components which they will be lifting into orbit will be able to
deliver the merchandise. It is very expensive technology that we
are delivering and we want to be absolutely sure that something
does not go awry. We do not want to have to start over again
with building different modules to replace anything that might
happen to be accidentally destroyed.
Everybody is pretty hopeful that after a short delay some of
these problems will be ironed out, we will be back on track and
the space station will be developed in an orderly manner.
1030
Article 19 of the agreement deals with the exchange of data and
goods. Each partner to the agreement agrees to transfer all
technical data and goods considered necessary for the fulfilment
of the responsibilities of the partners. Bill C-4 actually
contains provisions in clause 7, giving the agreement the power
to force companies, individuals and third parties that are not in
direct contractual relationship to the crown to release
information related to the space agency.
One might ask why that would be necessary. It is necessary in
the event that a company working under contract to the government
on a project is bought out by another company which may be
unwilling to honour the company's contractual obligations. The
partners did not want to be held up to ransom if that were to
happen. This is the reason for the particular clause.
Clause 8 of the bill provides safeguards to ensure that
documents so produced are not unduly communicated to other
parties. Because they will require these companies, if they are
bought out, to fulfil their contractual obligations, they want to
safeguard that they will not be produced and sent out, that the
information in those contractual arrangements will not be sort of
public knowledge, and that they would be guaranteed with some
process defined in clause 8.
While the exchange of information and scientific data is crucial
to the successful development of the entire project, the
protection of intellectual property rights is also very
important. We talked about this point in committee.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that we had
pretty speedy passage in committee of Bill C-4, but when the
space agency people appeared before the committee that was one of
the questions I raised because I think it is important that
intellectual property rights or any product development in the
space station be guaranteed.
There are many partners involved in the space station and many
people from different countries working there. It is absolutely
important that any research and development that leads to product
development or new service development is not stolen. It needs
to be protected. That is the reason we were concerned that
intellectual property rights have proper protection. We were
assured that was the case. The agreement contains article 21
which states the following:
For the purposes of intellectual property law, an activity
occurring in or on a Space Station flight element shall be deemed
to have occurred...in the territory of the Partner State of that
element's registry.
If a Canadian is developing it, it is essentially protected as
if it were developed in Canada. Normal patent procedures will
apply, which means that the person or entity first filing a
patent is the owner of that intellectual property.
The bill also contains amendments to the criminal code. The
amendments ensure that any criminal acts committed in space by a
Canadian crew member fall under Canadian law. While that is not
likely to happen, we did not know what developments could occur
there. We wanted to make that each country would try that
particular person under its own law. That is important for
Canada's well-being as well.
Canada's involvement in this matter goes goes back away.
Recently Julie Payette became the first Canadian to board the
first component of the space station. In the year 2000, which is
not far away, Marc Garneau will participate in his third space
mission as a crew member on the shuttle. He will be followed by
Chris Hatfield who will instal Canada's space station robotic
manipulator system, the new generation Canadarm, and the main
element of the mobile servicing system. It is called MSS for
short. Once installed, the MSS will move around the space
station doing assembly and repair work.
We learn a lot from nature. Even in flight itself we have
learned from nature. Here again they are sort of emulating how
the inchworm moves, and the new Canadarm will move in exactly the
same way. It will attach itself, loop, attach to the other end
and pick up. It will be able to assemble components of the space
station by moving around the space station as if it were an
inchworm doing its work.
Canadians will be able to see this happening as the space station
is developing.
1035
We are also contributing a vision system for the operators of
this remote manipulator. They have to be inside the space
station when they are doing it to minimize exposure to danger.
They will be doing this from a windowless space station, so there
is a need for a vision system.
On the ground the MSS operation complex at the Canadian Space
Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, will plan missions, monitor the
condition of the remote manipulator, and train the space station
crew in its use. The cost of designing, developing, operating
and launching the MSS into orbit is approximately $1.4 billion
over 20 years. That project actually started in 1984 so it
includes the years 1984 to 2004.
Approximately $3 per Canadian taxpayer per year is Canada's
contribution. Although Canada's contribution will be $1.4
billion, it is still relatively small in terms of the total
project at just 2.5%. It is important nonetheless. The 1999
federal budget provides the Canadian Space Agency with $430
million in new funds over three years, which stabilizes the
agency's budget at $300 million per year starting in the year
2002-03.
The scientific benefits for Canada from the space station will
be our ability to monitor the earth; to study our environment
including agriculture, crop monitoring and the Arctic ice pack;
and to aid navigation for shipping. These are all very important
elements. That is one reason we are so happy the deflection in
the orbit will take it to 52.5° north, which will probably fly
over somewhere between Red Deer and Edmonton, Alberta, on its
most northerly flight.
Canada is a very large country, as I said earlier. We have a
lot of land mass and water to monitor. We want to make sure, for
example, that our environment is being protected. We will have
the ability through the Canadian space station to do just that.
In terms of agriculture and crop monitoring, we will be able to
see where areas are under stress because of lack of moisture or
too much moisture. We will see where there is stress in terms of
erosion that is affecting agriculture over the years and will
design programs to fix it. Of course that is assuming there will
be any Canadian farmers to worry about in the future. Because
agriculture is in a very tough state right now the Liberal Party
needs to do some work to make sure that Canadian farmers are here
down the road in 10 years when the space station will be doing
the majority of its work.
I saw an interesting infrared picture one time of the
Canada-U.S. border taken from a satellite. This is the type of
monitoring we will be able to do. Some people asked how we could
see the 49th parallel between North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan
and Alberta, how we could tell that was the border. We could
tell because the infrared rays picked up what types of crops were
being grown.
It has to do with government policy. Government policy has its
shortcomings but one reason we can see the Canada-U.S. border is
that the United States subsidizes its grain farmers so
extensively that right up to the 49th parallel in North Dakota
and Montana grain crops were being grown. On the Alberta and
Saskatchewan side, the land was left in grass because there was
not sufficient money to encourage farmers to grown grain crops.
The different colours that showed up on the infrared picture
because of the different crops being grown showed the Canada-U.S.
border for hundreds of miles. That is the type of thing we will
be able to see from the Canadian space station.
Approximately 90% of Canada's investment is going into contracts
to Canadian firms. The rest is going to universities. Since
1987 over 150 contracts have been let for automation and robotics
technology development. During the space station's estimated 10
year lifespan Canada will be able to expand it research in
micro-gravity with applications into human disorders such as
osteoporosis and cancer. Canada will also continue its research
into protein crystallization in space for the medical industry.
1040
A very important element in Canada's involvement is that we have
the ability to do quite a bit of research to aid Canadians in the
future in terms of important studies into subjects like
osteoporosis. A lot of the female population at a certain age
suffers from this condition. The Russians who worked in space
for long periods of time have been studied as a result, because
the same conditions exist in space and space travel where
significant bone density loss occurs if a person stays too long.
It is an important area to Canada. How that happens and what
can be done to correct it will help an aging population in
Canada, and we have an aging population as baby boomers start to
work through our system.
Cancer research is very important work that will be done by
scientists on the space station. There will be co-operation with
other countries such as the United States in its space
laboratories.
Technologies that have already resulted from our space
involvement include the first robotic refuelling station. When
we are spending this amount of money, $1.4 billion, people have
to see some concrete physical example of how it helps us on an
everyday basis.
We live in a northern country. In northern Alberta, where I
come from, sometimes during the winter, in January, the
temperature reaches -40°C and even lower. We know that shopping
centres with indoor stores help to combat the cold. In downtown
Ottawa we can go through a network of malls for several blocks.
As a northern country we need to find ways to work with the
Canadian winter. The new technology for refuelling stations
being developed by a firm in British Columbia in partnership with
Shell is doing just that. While the first development is
actually in California, it is my understanding we can now drive
our cars to service stations and not even get out because a
robotic system fills the cars with fuel. I can imagine the
application and benefit of that when it is 45° below outside. We
will not have to get out of our cars and freeze a bit in the
process. There will be developments which apply to us and have
everyday application.
A Quebec firm applied space expertise to develop a digital
imaging system for x-rays which eliminates the need for
photographic film. In addition, a company in Newfoundland has
developed a sensitive skin, originally developed for space
robotic manipulators, that is now being applied to artificial
limbs and even car bumpers to control the release of airbags.
These are examples of technology we will be using on an everyday
basis. I believe many more of those kinds of advances will be
used in practical ways in our own country as a result of this
development.
Even in the horrific wars in which Canada has been involved in
the 20th century there have been technologies and new product
developments because of the need to win which have actually
benefited Canadians in civilian use. Various examples of
expertise have been developed in a warring fashion. Why can we
not have the same kind of development in the peaceful
co-operation that is taking place as a result of the
international space station?
I think international space station co-operation will be
expanded into the future. Although the space station's life is
scheduled to be only about 10 years, in talking to Mac Evans,
head of the Canadian Space Agency, and others, I am told that
there are components which will be obsolete in 10 years.
Because they are components, a shuttle flight can be sent up with
a new component. The old section that has become obsolete
because of the new technologies can be replaced with the new one.
Plug it in and it becomes part of the new space station. It will
be a continual process of upgrading over time.
1045
Many firms have succeeded in entering the international market
by landing contracts based on the expertise they have gained from
working on various aspects of the space project. Other firms are
helping partner countries with their own contribution to the
space station.
For example, the Ottawa company EMS Technologies recently won a
$9.5 million contract with Mitsubishi to supply electronics for
Japan's contribution to the space station. Ripples occur and
Canadians benefit beyond our own involvement. In this case we
are taking advantage of Japan's involvement by supplying it with
electronics for the space station itself.
It is clear that Canada's involvement has produced tremendous
returns so far. Satellites are being used for
telecommunications, as I said earlier, in such areas as our very
remote Arctic. I travelled in the Arctic a few years ago with
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade. People were using cell phones that had direct linkages to
satellites. They could talk to someone thousands of miles away
in the Arctic without using any wire control telephone system.
The wireless system takes advantage of the new technologies in
space provided by our satellites. Canada is continually putting
up more satellites to increase this capability.
It is important to us that we have this co-operation and that we
be involved with the space station. On our own we would never be
able to develop or fund a project of this magnitude. It is very
big. As I said, Canada's involvement amounts to 2.5%.
The potential for a meaningful contribution therefore has to
come from co-operating with others. The potential for this
meaningful contribution and rewarding spinoffs is very great. We
do not know where it is going to lead.
There have been unmanned flights to Mars to explore the surface
of that planet and there has been talk about a manned flight. We
hope that this international agreement and co-operation can lead
to other successful ventures in the future such as a manned
flight to Mars. I think there would have to be some new lift
capacity. My understanding is a trip to Mars and back takes about
three or four years which is a pretty significant investment of
time. I am not sure who would want to make that investment.
Our co-operation in the international space station is most
important for the young people of Canada. They will follow
Canada's achievements in space thereby sparking their interest in
the fields of science and technology.
Canada needs a very well educated population to compete in the
future. Our astronauts Julie Payette, Chris Hadfield and Marc
Garneau have been travelling around the country. They have
travelled to space and have worked to develop the space station.
Their interest will spark the interest of our young people to get
involved in science and perhaps work in that area in the future
themselves.
We do not need to be reminded that our future prosperity lies in
our ability to encourage the pursuit of knowledge for those
following behind us. As in the past, they are the building
blocks in scientific areas.
I want to inform the House that the Reform Party is supporting
this bill. We are very supportive of our involvement in the
space agency. My colleagues and I wish Canada well in the future
in whatever endeavours we might undertake in a co-operative
nature with other countries to explore far beyond where we are
now.
1050
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, let me reassure my colleagues that I will not be
taking the 40 minutes allotted to me, even though I could.
As a member of the industry committee, I am pleased to take part
in this debate on Bill C-4, to implement the agreement among
various countries concerning co-operation on the civil
international space station, entered into on January 29, 1998.
The Bloc Quebecois is also in favour of this bill, but the
government does not have much respect for us as
parliamentarians, in having us vote on an agreement entered into
nearly two years ago, right at the two year limit set for its
ratification. I say right at the two year limit because the
final date is January 29, 2000.
Since the House does not sit in January or over the holiday
period unless there is an emergency and the bill has to go to
the other House, we are really up against the deadline.
Imagine, as parliamentarians, what would happen if it did not go
through. The government has been spending money under this
agreement for two years. It would be a fine mess.
This is a pretty strange way to finish up this millennium.
It was precisely in order to avoid a repetition of such a thing
that my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry recently introduced
private member's Bill C-214. Its intent is to get parliament
more involved in ratifying treaties.
In his speech before this House, the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry indicated that the present Government of
Canada, like the previous one, appears to be following a British
tradition, one followed by member countries of the Commonwealth,
one that is not a practice in most other democratic countries.
I will not repeat what my colleague has said, but I will point
out that in the United States, surely the most advanced country
as far as space is concerned, a two-thirds vote of the Senate is
required for an agreement of this nature to be ratified by the
president.
We can see therefore we have a way to go in terms of democracy.
I have a question. Regardless of what the members opposite have
to say, is Canada still dependent on the British system, since
we retain many of the parliamentary rules and traditions of this
system?
We are dealing with space, therefore electronics and very
advanced science and technology. I have been in a number of
parliaments on delegation visits. In most western countries
that have parliaments, votes are taken electronically from the
desks of the members. They insert a smart card, and the
calculations are done automatically. They do this in the
States, as in many other countries.
We are debating a bill and will soon have to vote on it, rising
each in turn. It is perhaps a good thing that we all rise, but
the calculations must still be done manually in the best country
in the world, as the Prime Minister often says.
1055
In the best country in the world, it takes time. So much
time that an agreement, because there are so many bills to
debate, has to be ratified at the last minute. This isn archaic
way of managing a modern project.
What a poor way to encourage young people to become active in
politics. The government would like all young people to be
connected, through the schools and universities. The government
encourages Canadians to get connected, but is unable to connect
its own parliament.
Let us come back to this modern agreement on the civil
international space station, concluded nearly two years ago and
difficult to oppose, because it is already in operation.
This agreement contains 26 pages and is, in fact, part of the
bill, whereas the bill itself has only six pages. So, as the
bill is not very long, I trust members will allow me to read and
comment on a few clauses—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but since
it is now nearly 11 a.m., and he has some 33 or 34 minutes left
to speak, I think we could move on to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CHILDREN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 20 is national child day in Canada. This event is put
forth to recognize the importance of our children. All children
need to be loved, respected and supported to grow to their full
potential. We need to recognize their rights and their important
contributions to society.
Children are the future of our country and of the world. That is
why national child day is so important. We need to reflect on
their special needs and think of ways we can improve their
well-being.
November 20 is the anniversary of two historic events for
children. On this day in 1959 the United Nations adopted the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. In 1989 it
adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I urge all Canadians to celebrate national child day in their
own way. Listen to children, respect them and marvel at all they
have to offer. We need to recognize how important our children
really are to all of us and to Canada.
* * *
CHILDREN
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow is a special day in Canada. It is national child day.
The significance is heightened because 1999 is the 10th
anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
Efforts of organizations like Our Kids Foundation in Ottawa and
Results Canada help celebrate this special day.
In my riding of Dauphin—Swan River, efforts by the Coats for
Kids Campaign through the Dauphin Friendship Centre help assist
children in need.
Tomorrow is also the third annual national child day youth forum
on Parliament Hill. We welcome them.
Governments must recognize children as Canada's strength now and
in the future. Child poverty is a reality in this country. It
should be addressed in ways that strengthen and promote the
family unit.
Let us celebrate tomorrow with the fact that children are
unique. We need to listen to them. But let us make a point of
doing that not only tomorrow, but each and every day.
* * *
BARRY CUDMORE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
congratulate my fellow islander, Mr. Barry Cudmore, on his
induction into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame on October
27.
This honour follows decades of his being a positive force in
Island agriculture. Barry assisted farmers in dealing with
pressures from the public on environmental issues. He served as
president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture in both 1995
and 1996. He initiated a highly publicized pork giveaway in 1998
to show consumers how little the pork producers were getting for
their pork even though retailers were charging high prices for
the same product. He has also won swine productivity awards
numerous times since 1987.
Mr. Cudmore has also been active on the international stage. He
is a founding member of Farmers Helping Farmers, an organization
which has undertaken development projects in Kenya and Tanzania.
Again, congratulations to Barry and his family
* * *
1100
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Supreme Court of Canada, in refusing to rehear the Marshall
case, has reminded us of the importance of actually reading court
decisions before jumping to attack them.
The Marshall decision is deliberately limited to its own
specific facts, narrowly defined: the closed season in the eel
fishery in a part of New Brunswick. But the supreme court
decision has also reminded us that aboriginal rights, customary
and treaty-based, are legally subject to the constitution and the
charter of rights and have always to be balanced against other
competing individual or community rights.
Courts, parliamentarians, ministers and the parties themselves
each have their own distinct and separate but fully complementary
constitutional roles to play.
The lesson: think, instead of leaping to empty rhetoric.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S ELECTION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the thousands of
Canadian school children who voted this week in an election to
highlight the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These students learned about the value of basic rights, they
learned about the importance of democracy and they developed an
interest in current affairs.
Unfortunately, what should be a celebration of education and
democracy, is mired in controversy because of the extreme right
wing views of those in the Reform Party.
I was moved by the comment of a Calgary student on CBC radio
this morning. She said she was “slighted” by Reform allegations
that the vote somehow impinges on parental rights and the results
will be used by the Liberal government for some hidden agenda.
I fully agree with the student. One would think that the party
that prides itself in supporting so-called family values, would
recognize the importance of teaching our children about democracy
and basic human rights.
Then again, that would take common sense, something the Reform
Party does not have.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two weeks ago we launched a pay stub campaign to have Canadians
tell parliament about how much they are paying in federal tax.
We have received over 200 pay stubs from Canadians who are outraged.
One was from Adam Grabowski from Hamiota, Manitoba, a teacher
with 12 years experience, who said, “My last pay stub in October
showed that I grossed $4,412. Federal income tax takes $1,130
and for approximately 10 months of the year I lose $110 to
employment insurance and $140 to the CPP”. He is afraid that he
will not collect the CPP and he cannot claim employment
insurance. He said, “Even before I get a chance to pay into
other things that are supposed to help take care of my family, I
have to give almost $1,400 to the federal government. Because of
the debt we have, my wife and I have decided that only the kids
will get gifts this year for Christmas. We will not be buying
for ourselves or our extended family. So much for merry. There
is no money for it”.
He goes on to say that either his wife will have to leave the
kids and go to work or they will have to sell their house—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, November 20, is national child day.
The strength of our society will depend on the investments that
we, as a country, are now making in our families and in our
children. There is no greater priority for a government. This is
why we announced in the recent Speech from the Throne an
investment of over $7 billion, between now and next July, in
children's programs.
Also, Human Resources Development Canada is funding a study to
follow 23,999 Canadian children through various stages of their
lives.
I invite hon. members to join me in supporting national child
day and in showing that our children, who will become tomorrow's
leaders, are our priority today.
* * *
CHECHNYA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of
the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe ended
yesterday afternoon without Russia making any fundamental
compromise concerning the Chechen issue.
The bombings continue, civilians are being killed or displaced,
and Russia is still rejecting any negotiated solution. The
conflict could now spread to a whole region that is already
unstable, with Russia using antipersonnel mines in neighbouring
Georgia, which has asked to join NATO.
We must fight terrorists by arresting them, not by bombing
innocent people. It is now clear that the conflict is not
strictly a matter of internal Russian policy, but an issue of
international security.
1105
The timidity shown by the western world with Russia regarding an
armed conflict that has been raging for two months has had
disastrous consequences. Our commitment to peace and to the
security of people requires much stronger action.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after reading Reform's tax relief plan in
its brochure, Give Me a Break, I had to ask, what planet is the
Reform Party on? To live up to its rhetoric on the tax cuts
alone, it would cost $26 billion. To finance their prebudget
submission, it would cost $53 billion to cover the next three
years.
Where is the Reform Party going to get that money? Is it going
to finance it with borrowed money and an even higher debt in the
future?
Reform also thinks it would be wise to cancel Canada's UN
membership. I agree, give me a break. These guys are not only
out to lunch, they are not even on the same planet.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I used to
teach math, as you know. The other day I hauled out my
calculator and did a very simple calculation using what we call
ratio and proportion, computing a reduction in the number of
unemployed and the premiums.
I just did this using very rough figures and almost no
assumptions at all. Guess what? Those very rough numbers came
out to a premium needed of $2.05 per hundred. Amazing, because
that is identical to the number that the chief actuary of the
fund came up with. Yet the government continues to take $2.40
and it wants us to cheer.
One of the witnesses at the finance committee said that the
money was held in trust by the Canadian government on behalf of
people who might lose their jobs. He said that their failure to
do that is a breach of trust.
I call on the government to fix the problem, to fix it right and
to fix it soon.
* * *
[Translation]
WEB JAM BELL
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the House about a highly
innovative event, the great Web Jam Bell, taking place tomorrow,
November 20, on the occasion of national child day.
Today's Parent, Bell Canada and Health Canada are proud to
present the Web Jam Bell: 24 hours of live presentations on the
topics that interest families most, from 5 p.m. Saturday to 5
p.m. Sunday.
Parents and children are invited to take part in a huge
interactive symposium using RealVideo to watch presentations,
take part in discussions, obtain answers to their questions and
take part in surveys.
Between 11.30 p.m. and 8 a.m., there will be an all-night
opportunity to listen to and share advice with other parents,
along with the team of La ligue des parents.
This is a technological first in Quebec, made possible through
the co-operation of Bell and the untiring support of groups that
believe in the new technologies for communicating with parents
and families. Health Canada, Petit Monde, La ligue des parents,
Radio-Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
* * *
[English]
UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
is the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
1989 was also the year that the House of Commons voted
unanimously to pass a motion by NDP leader Ed Broadbent to
eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
These are noble concepts, but how have we fared when it comes to
putting words into action? In 1989, 14% of Canadian children
lived in poverty. In 1999, that figure is 21%, an increase of
50%.
Internationally, Canada still refuses to sign ILO Convention
No. 138, prohibiting labour by children under 14 years of age.
It refuses to ban the importation of goods made by child labour.
It refuses to push for rigid labour standards in international
trade agreements.
In summary, we are not doing that well in living up to the
spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It seems
that if we starve one child we can be thrown into jail for child
abuse, but if we deprive 1.5 million kids of the basic needs to
survive, the government calls it balancing the budget and it
might even get a person elected as prime minister.
* * *
[Translation]
MANDATORY LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
campaign calling on the government to make labelling of
genetically modified organisms mandatory continues, I would like
to make a few comments.
First of all, this campaign is aimed at consumers, without any
political overtones. They have the right to know what they have
in their shopping cart and they certainly have the right to know
what is on their plate.
The campaign warns farmers interested in the ongoing and long
term effects on the environment, soil and the water table about
these farming practices.
1110
The campaign is intended to alert religious groups, members of
ethnic groups and certain vegetarians with dietary restrictions.
For them, labelling is essential. The same goes for parents
concerned about the safety of the food their children eat,
particularly if they suffer from allergies to such things as
seafood.
Hence this demand, and Bill C-309 on mandatory labelling of
genetically modified foods.
I hope that most members of the House, who represent consumers,
will support this bill, in the interests of their constituents'
well-being.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was good news for eastern Quebec this morning. The
Government of Canada has announced the investment of $427,000,
which will help create 43 secure jobs.
RGB Technologies, founded in 1996, is being given assistance in
diversifying its activities in order to meet new requirements in
the technology market, thus creating 25 secure jobs in Rimouski.
Also, les Entreprises forestières Dany Savoie Inc. of
Bonaventure will be offering wood lot owners specialist forestry
services relating to harvesting and development of private wood
lots.
The Government of Canada has awarded this company $57,000 from
the Canada Job Creation Fund.
In addition, $120,000 will be going to the eastern Quebec
emergency call centre. This will create 12 secure jobs. The
government has invested in this expansion project the sum of—.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique Mactaquac.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Progressive Conservative caucus of Canada, I would like
to draw the House's attention to National Child Day.
On March 19, 1993, the Canadian government proclaimed November
20 as National Child Day, in order to commemorate two historical
events relating to children, the adoption in 1959 by the United
Nations of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and, in
1989, of the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
When this day is celebrated tomorrow, I invite all Canadians to
reflect on the needs of children as well as on how we can ensure
that they receive all of the guidance and love they require to
become responsible and healthy adults.
Let us take advantage of this day to express our respect,
affection and support for all those who represent the true
greatness of our county, our children. Let us also make it the
opportunity to remind the ineffectual Liberal government that is
in power at this time of the shockingly hard times still being
experience by a growing number of poor children in our country,
which is one of the best off in the world.
* * *
[English]
FORT GARRY HORSE
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 82 years
ago, on November 20, 1917, the Battle of Cambrai took place with
the aim of creating a breach through the German Hindenburg Line.
The Fort Garry Horse, as part of the Canadian Calvary Brigade,
was given the task of spearheading the assault and the special
mission of capturing a German corps headquarters behind the enemy
lines.
On that day, Lieutenant Harcus Strachan took command of B
Squadron when his commander was killed by machine-gun fire. With
his sword drawn, Lieutenant Strachan led a charge of 129 men on
horseback to destroy a German artillery battery. He won the
Victoria Cross, an astonishing feat of conspicuous bravery and
leadership during operations.
Today, the Fort Garry Horse continue to serve Canada with
distinction. In recent years, they have been on operations in
Cyprus, the Golan Heights, the Sinai and various missions in the
former Yugoslavia with the UN and NATO. The Garrys also helped
out at home during the 1997 Manitoba flood and the Pan-Am games
held last—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week we witnessed a landmark in health care in
Canada. Premier Klein recognized that the Canada Health Act is
broken, and he is trying to fix it.
There are currently 187,000 people on waiting lists for surgery
alone, and these people are waiting 12 weeks or more for their
surgery, more than they have ever waited in the recent history of
Canada.
The government has gutted the Canada health system. It has
ripped out $21 billion from health care in the country. What is
an example of that? In Quebec, cancer patients are being sent
south of the border to get the health care they require. In my
province, cancer patients are waiting two months to get radiation
therapy for cancer.
Premier Klein and Premier Harris are trying to fix the publicly
funded health care system. This government has been gutting it.
All we see from that side is rhetoric and trying to penalize
other people who are trying to fix the publicly funded health
system that this government has gutted.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday I had the misfortune of attending the
Indian affairs committee hearing on the Nisga'a treaty in Prince
George. Why taxpayers would pay to fly pro treaty witnesses from
Vancouver Island and the lower mainland to Prince George while
denying locals the opportunity to be heard is beyond me.
Since the government has proven the hearings to be the farce
that we feared, will the government now conduct a province-wide
referendum so that the people of British Columbia can have a say
on the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decisions of the committee with respect to witnesses
are the decisions of that group. They are not decisions of the
government.
Furthermore, the committee hearings are indications of how the
democratic processes of parliamentary government are working.
People are being heard at the committee hearings, including those
not favourable to the treaty. After the committee hearings are
completed, there will be further debate in the House at report
stage and third reading, as well as in the other place.
The democratic process based on our system of parliamentary
government is working and the Reform Party should admit that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal majority on the
committee decided who the witnesses were going to be.
In Prince George on Wednesday the committee only heard from four
witnesses all day, three of which were from southern British
Columbia. Even though three other organizations backed out at
the last minute, the committee chair denied representatives from
B.C. in Focus and the Central Interior Logging Association an
opportunity to speak.
Only the Nisga'a have had a direct vote on this treaty. Other
affected Indian bands have not been granted the same right.
Before it rams the Nisga'a treaty through this House, will the
government conduct a referendum so that all British Columbians,
aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can have a direct vote on
the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me say that the work of a committee, it is very
clear under our rules, is for the committee itself. The hon.
member should know that. He did not get here yesterday, although
he is acting like it.
Furthermore, we are not intending to ram this through the House.
We want to provide reasonable time for debate but we also need to
take decisions. Parliament is for debate but it is also for
decisions. We hope that we will have the support of the Reform
Party to let the democratic process based on our system of
parliamentary government work.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, why would the government spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to fly the committee to northern British Columbia and not
hear from people from that area directly affected by this treaty?
In fact, taxpayer money was spent to fly an author from
Vancouver to speak, yet the people from Prince George, the people
who took time off from work to attend those committee meetings,
were denied the right to be heard.
Does the government agree with the recently deposed premier of
B.C., Glen Clark, that the reason for denying a referendum to the
people of British Columbia is because the government knows that
it will fail?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should not try to rewrite history, even
if it is recent history.
As I understand it, the committee list was agreed to by all
committee members collectively. Second, it is the Reform Party
that insisted that the committee go to British Columbia. If the
Reform members do not like the fact that the committee is going
there and that it costs money, this is their fault.
In fact, what the member is complaining about shows that this
system works. We are willing to listen to the opposition, even
when its concerns are as poorly grounded as the Reform Party's. I
do not know why the hon. member is getting up today and saying
that we should not be spending money when the Reform Party asked
that this be done.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering the question about the
referendum. Support for the Nisga'a deal hardly extends beyond
the Liberal caucus room door. Both current and former B.C.
Liberal leaders have slammed it.
Gordon Campbell called the deal an unacceptable slight to
Canadians. Gordon Gibson said “Say no to a separate government
structure for Indians”. But these Ottawa Liberals want to ram
this deal through British Columbia.
Why will the Indian affairs minister not just admit that he is
afraid of holding a referendum because he knows it will fail?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
Reform Party continues to suggest that somehow there were no
meetings relating to the Nisga'a treaty.
I understand that during the provincial part of this whole
discussion, the province had 27 different meetings in different
communities in British Columbia.
In fact the longest debate in the history of the B.C. legislature
was on this particular agreement. There were over 500
consultations with interested groups when the Nisga'a agreement
was being debated when the AIP was in progress.
1120
I am not sure I understand where the member is coming from when
he says that B.C. people have not been heard. We have heard them
loud and clear.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for four questions now we have asked about the
referendum aspect of the Nisga'a deal and why the government will
not allow people from British Columbia the opportunity to have a
referendum on this deal. That is the question the minister is
avoiding, the Deputy Prime Minister is avoiding and the
government is avoiding.
Why will the government not just admit it is refusing to allow a
referendum on the Nisga'a deal because it knows it will lose?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat what I pointed out previously, that having
referendums on matters is not consistent with our democratic
approach to parliamentary government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, that is right. We handle our
approach based on the democratic principles inherited from Great
Britain. I do not know why the hon. member opposes our
democratic parliamentary system.
Speaking of leaders of the British Columbia Liberal Party
provincially and their views on this, I am sure Reform supporters
in British Columbia were not asked in a referendum whether the
Reform Party should be supporting the provincial Liberals. Why
did they not have a referendum on that?
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP has confirmed that the investigation on grants in the
audiovisual sector is targeting only one company, most likely
CINAR.
So far, however, two companies have been identified and there
are reasons to believe that others are involved.
Instead of restricting the investigation to just one company,
does the government not have a responsibility to broaden it to
the whole industry throughout the country?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allegations have been
circulating for over a month. When it all began, the government
asked the RCMP to investigate.
Again, if the Bloc leader has information that could be useful
to the investigation, we ask him to contact the RCMP directly.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we
had not reported here facts that had been checked and that were
verifiable, there would not even be an investigation, because
the other side does not want one, and that is the problem. They
may have things to hide.
We are asking for a Canada-wide investigation. The president of
Quebec's Union des artistes, Pierre Curzi, said it was important
to look at the whole industry.
If the government truly wants to shed light on this issue, does
it not agree that a Canada-wide investigation is required to look
at all of Telefilm's activities? The investigation must not
target just one company, whether in Vancouver, Toronto or
Montreal, but the whole industry. Stop hiding behind all the
investigations—
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask all members to address
the Chair.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not for us to tell
the RCMP how to conduct its investigations.
When allegations are made to us, we have a responsibility to ask
the RCMP to investigate. That is what we did.
That being said, members opposite are wrong if they think the
government does not care about the integrity of its funding
programs. We have always cared about that, and we will continue
to do so.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government clearly wants to hush the matter up.
It is refusing systematically to answer the many questions put to it.
It gives short shrift to information that the RCMP is
investigating only one firm, when the problem is much greater.
It is holding off following SODEC's example and calling on
Revenue Canada to look into this matter.
Why is this government refusing to investigate this entire
matter? Could it be because many friends of the Liberal Party
are involved?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really deplorable
to be hearing the allegations we are hearing this morning.
Allegations have been made. An investigation has been called
for. It is not for us to tell the RCMP how to carry out its
investigation. I hope that the member opposite realizes that.
1125
I have already said that the government is responsible for the
way its grant programs are administered, and it intends to see
to it that its responsibilities are properly discharged.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Micheline Charest has been involved in Liberal Party funding
operations and was appointed by the Prime Minister to the board
of the millennium scholarship fund.
The Minister of National Revenue who, until recently, practiced
in a firm of lawyers specializing in copyright, is refusing to
initiate an investigation by his department, unlike what has
been done in Quebec.
Given the scope of the problem and the troubling facts
undermining the government's credibility, is there no way to
initiate a cross-Canada investigation into the matter?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, an RCMP inquiry
is under way. I invite the member opposite to pass on all
relevant information he may have to the RCMP. In addition, the
government has always ensured that its programs were well and
honestly administered, and we have every intention of ensuring
that this continues to be the case.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
Statistics Canada report shows that poor families with children
are $1,500 per year worse off than when the Liberals took office.
Three-quarters of that drop is due to the government's vicious
cuts to unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, $1,500 can mean a
lot to a poor kid: decent breakfasts, warm boots, maybe a special
toy at Christmastime.
Why is the government taking this money from poor kids?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question gives me a chance to
reiterate the commitment that this government has to children and
to child poverty.
I would remind the hon. member that we invest $5 billion a year
through the Canada child tax benefit and another $2 billion a
year through the national child benefit. We invest $9 billion in
programs like Cap C and prenatal nutrition, in Inuit and
aboriginal community child care programs.
Not only do we have a commitment to continue that investment but
through the Speech from the Throne there will be significant additional
investments in children.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 1.4
million children are living in poverty. That is the Liberal
legacy, 1.4 million poor kids.
The minister knows perfectly well that the child tax benefit is
being clawed back from 64% of the poorest families in this
country. Where is the clapping? Where is the cheering?
Why will the government not set targets and timetables to
eliminate child poverty come hell or high water?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain what indeed is
happening with the national child benefit. In fact, the federal
government gives assistance to poor families through $1.7 billion,
soon to be $2
billion in income support. That allows the provinces to take
moneys and build a platform of services to support of our
children in low income families.
The big challenge that we have is giving opportunities to
low income families, many of whom are on social assistance.
Rather than facing the moral dilemma of leaving behind the services
that their children receive through that program to take work to
get into the economy and make a contribution and provide food for
their families—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
* * *
MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister
responsible for the millennium partnership program.
The Liberal minister of tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador has
charged that Newfoundland is getting shortchanged in this
program. In fact to date we have received less than 1% of
approved funding. It appears that projects are being approved in
one province, while similar projects are being rejected in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberal minister stated “This is
absolutely ridiculous, uncalled for and discriminatory”.
Will the minister give the assurance to the House and the people
of Newfoundland that Newfoundland applications are not being
discriminated against?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can give that assurance.
They are being looked at on their merits. We have already
approved projects with support of almost $1.5 million. I have
conveyed this information to the Newfoundland minister who has
gone back to the drawing board to check further into the basis
for his allegations.
I also want to say that we are striving for an overall balance
over the total length of the program. I should say that this is
not a per capita program. It is application driven and we
respond to applications.
I believe that over the life of the program Newfoundland will be
found—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
1130
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his answer and I would like to ask one
more question.
The final phase of applications for the millennium partnership
program has been announced. Will the minister also give his
commitment that all applications submitted from Newfoundland and
Labrador will be given a fair assessment and that applications
already rejected, such as the excellent ones from the
Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra and the Grand Concourse
Authority, will be reviewed to make absolutely certain that no
discrimination was involved?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure my hon. friend that none of the applications
from Newfoundland, or anywhere else in our country, have been
dealt with on the basis of discriminatory practices.
We look at all applications in light of the criteria in a fair
and equitable way, and we will continue to do so with respect to
Newfoundland applications.
As far as my hon. friend's other comments are concerned, I will
take them as a representation.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Premier Klein recognizes that the Canada Health Act
system is failing Canadians, particularly poor and middle class
Canadians. Now the Premier of Ontario has written to the Prime
Minister saying “Provincial governments have not cut health care
funding; the federal government has”.
My question is for the health minister. If the health minister
truly believes that putting more money into the health care
system will fix the system, will he restore the $21 billion the
government has taken out of health care?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are committed to having a high quality health care
system for all Canadians, and I wish Reformers had the same
commitment. Otherwise they would not complain about the $11.5
billion we have committed to help make sure we have that kind of
health care system.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about a Liberal quality health care system.
Some 188,000 people are on a waiting list. People in Quebec are
having to go down to the United States to get cancer treatments.
Emergency departments in Quebec are so full they are telling
people “Don't come to our emergency department”. That is
Liberal health care.
How can the government possibly penalize the provinces for
trying to save publicly funded health care when all it gives is
10% of the total cost of federal spending for health care today?
If that is the case, will the government restore the $21
billion—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the management of the health care system in each
province is under the control and direction of the provinces.
They have to take some responsibility for that management. We
are providing additional funding of $11.5 billion.
It is interesting to hear the hon. member on behalf of the
Reform Party calling for even more public spending. We
appreciate that support for what we are doing for health care
across the country, and we will take his comments as a very
sincere representation.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when
we questioned the government about its inability to reduce
poverty in Canada, the learned Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs explained that Quebec's referendum debate was
responsible for the increase in the number of poor children in
the country.
So we come back to this issue today. My question is for the
Deputy Prime Minister. Does the government agree with this
somewhat short-sighted analysis by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, according to which the number of poor
children in Canada has increased since 1993 because a referendum
was held in Quebec in 1995?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs indicated very clearly that political instability was
hurting the country's economy.
When the country's economy dips, it is naturally hard on the
poor and everyone else. If the member opposite does not
understand this, I am sure he is the only one here who does not.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have my
doubts, although they are not about the House leader, who has
put his foot in it. I find myself obliged to tell him that the
poorest place in Canada is Newfoundland and the maritimes.
To my knowledge, the last constitutional referendum in
Newfoundland took place in 1948. Is he telling us that the
effects have lasted 50 years?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member
asked about Newfoundland. In fact, in the last two years, it is
one of the provinces, if not the province, with the highest rate
of economic growth in Canada.
* * *
1135
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we continue to receive hundreds of paystubs from Canadians who
are fed up with having to spend half of their income to finance
the government's tax and spend habit.
People like Adam Grabowski, a teacher from Hamiota, Manitoba,
sent a paystub showing that income tax took 49% of his pay
or 54.7% when CPP and employment insurance premiums are included.
He wants to know why the government thinks it knows better how to
spend the money than he does on his family.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to cut
taxes. In the last budget it cut $16.5 billion. For a typical
family of four with a $65,000 income that is a 10% reduction in
federal taxes.
The government is committed to cutting taxes. In the economic
update the Minister of Finance invited comments on where Canada
will go in the future with our surpluses. Canadians will
participate in that debate. Our government is committed to more
tax reductions.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is the new Liberal math. I wonder if the member really
believes that there has been a 10% tax cut when everybody has
seen their tax burden increase.
Why are the disposable incomes of people shrinking if in fact
the tax burden has gone down? The member is talking about a
so-called reduction which has been overwhelmed by bracket creep
and the Canada pension plan increase.
Why do people like Adam Grabowski have to continue working
harder and making sacrifices when the government refuses to
provide real tax relief?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is calling for tax cuts, which we have
already begun doing and will do a lot more of.
His colleague from British Columbia just called for $21 billion
to be spent by the government on health care. Why do members of
that party not get their act together? They do not seem to
understand that there is a balance between these things.
We are pursuing a fair balance and we will continue both with
respect to tax cuts and investing in key priorities like health
care. In the meantime the Reform Party ought to go back behind
the curtains and get its act together.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday on RDI the Secretary of State for Science, Research
and Development stated that the government would be forced to do
something to avoid the dirty tricks that, according to him,
occurred during the last Quebec referendum.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are we to
understand from these words that the government has made its
decision to act, and all that remains to be determined is the
details on how a future Quebec referendum will be managed?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do have an answer on this, as
the hon. member suggests.
Of course, we do, I hope, all recognize the supreme court
decision on this which indicated that, if there were a
referendum, there must be a clear answer to an unambiguous
question and of course also subsequent negotiations if the first
two criteria were met.
Quite simply, we must repeat what has been said on a number of
occasions in the past. The hon. member has even referred to
this himself.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State said he had spoken of this with the Prime
Minister himself, and had reached the conclusion that action had
to be taken.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister confirm what the Secretary of
State has said: that the decision has indeed been reached to
introduce a federal bill relating to a future referendum in
Quebec?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is
aware of the procedure for introducing bills in this House.
When and if a bill is introduced in the House, notice is given
in the House and remains on the orders of the day for 48 hours.
Then the bill is introduced, not before.
Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
beef producers recently dodged a bullet when the USITC ruled that
Canadian cattle exports do not cause injury to the U.S. cattle
industry.
In order to avoid further challenges of this type the
international definition of dumping must be changed to reflect
predatory pricing and selling below home market prices rather
than the current definition.
Will the trade minister assure producers that he will
immediately renegotiate this definition, or will he continue to
leave our producers exposed to the threat of million dollar legal
battles?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going into important trade
negotiations and indeed a number of topics will be raised.
We are well aware of the cattle situation raised by the
opposition member. I can tell him that we are giving our full
attention to the cattle situation in our country and their export
to the United States in particular.
1140
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
the minister is paying attention to that he should pay a little
more attention in here. The fact is that the cattle industry in
Canada spent nearly $5 million in legal fees fighting these
complaints by protectionist American producers, money that did
not have to be spent if the government had implemented the
changes requested by Canadian producers. It could have spent
that money on research and promotion.
Why will the agriculture minister not implement the changes
recommended by industry, or is he content to do nothing and leave
Canadian producers again exposed to these multimillion dollar
battles?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that it
is not a situation of our doing nothing. We were supporting the
Canadian Cattlemen's Association in that challenge. The
government was there. I congratulate Canadian cattlemen for the
work they did. It was truly a team Canada effort.
There are different views on the way dumping or anti-dumping is
treated. Some of our sectors are import sensitive and some are
export sensitive. The horticultural industry has a different
view than the cattle industry. I had a meeting with the cattle
industry this week in that regard and it understands that too.
As my colleague the trade minister said, we will be working on
this matter as we go into the important start of the WTO.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Alberta
premier Ralph Klein pointed out that the federal government was
the one that made cuts in the health sector, not provincial
governments, and that it should restore that funding. This
comment is not from a mean-spirited separatist, but from the
premier of Alberta.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How many
stakeholders will have to repeat that message to the federal
government before it finally understands that it must restore
transfer payments to the provinces?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that Quebec is now among the
have not provinces. All this because of the BQ and PQ policy.
[English]
It is a tragedy that in this day and age the province of Quebec
takes more than 50% of the equalization payments. In the last
two or three budgets transfers to Quebec have increased
substantially with the CHST, with the equalization payments and
with the other transfers to Quebec.
I think the province of Quebec should look at its revenues,
which have been growing, and distribute some of its surpluses.
* * *
[Translation]
DIABETES
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between
one and two million Canadians are suffering from the
debilitating effects of diabetes, and the numbers are three
times higher among aboriginal people. Each year, 60,000 new
cases are diagnosed.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell
the House what the government is doing to fight diabetes?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we heard more good news from Health
Canada and our government this morning when the Minister of
Health announced in Montreal a national diabetes control
strategy with a budget of $115 million over five years, in
addition to the $60 million already committed in the budget
speech a few months ago.
Diabetes kills some 5,500 Canadians every year. The new strategy
will allow us to target diabetes, particularly among aboriginal
people. National chief Phil Fontaine—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the environment minister denied that Nick
Mulder, whom he appointed chair of the environmental review panel
for a Hamilton area expressway, is in a conflict of interest. Mr.
Mulder is a registered lobbyist for Environment Canada, DFO, and
the agency for the panel of which he is the chair.
Under law the minister has an obligation to appoint only panel
members who are unbiased and free from any conflict of interest.
The ethics commissioner and Ontario's attorney general are now
investigating Mr. Mulder. Why will the minister not remove Mr.
Mulder from this review panel?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave to the hon. member a few days ago
is correct. There is at the present time no reason to remove Mr.
Mulder.
There is, however, an investigation taking place by the ethics
commissioner to determine whether, prima facie, there is enough
information to start a formal inquiry under the lobbyist code of
conduct.
1145
The situation has not changed since I replied to my hon. friend
two days ago. The situation is that the ethics counsellor is
looking into this and in due course we will get his report.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the environment minister does not
want to listen to the facts. It is obvious that he is just
paying patronage to his own previous deputy minister while he was
the Minister of Transport. It is obvious that this is a
registered lobbyist of Environment Canada, the DFO and the agency
panel for which he is the chair.
Under the law, as I mentioned, the minister has an obligation to
appoint only panel members who are unbiased and free from any
conflict of interest. It is obvious that the ethics commissioner
of Ontario and the attorney general are investigating Mr. Mulder.
Even the member for Stoney Creek, in his own senior level, has
called for the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. minister can address himself to the
preamble.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the preamble with the comment that
there is an investigation into this to determine whether there is
any conflict of interest. That is exactly what the ethics
counsellor is now doing.
There is only a claim and a charge that there is some potential
for conflict of interest. It is being looked into appropriately
by the official who has this task. If he determines there is
enough information prima facie to launch a more formal inquiry he
will do so. But at this point it appears there is not even
enough to launch an inquiry under the code of conduct for
lobbyists.
* * *
BANKING INDUSTRY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We will recall that last year the big banks said that the sky
would fall if the mergers were not allowed. Do you remember
that, Mr. Speaker?
In any event, the Toronto-Dominion Bank now has announced an
incredible $3 billion profit for this year, the largest of any
bank in the history of this country, and now it wants to
eliminate 5,000 jobs.
I want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister would screw up his
courage and say that with a $3 billion profit these greedy CEOs
are not going to eliminate jobs in the banking industry in this
country.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record profits for the
Toronto-Dominion Bank that were announced are fueled by an
extraordinary gain by the sale of a subsidiary. That really
accounts for half of the $3 billion profit.
I should say that the 5,000 jobs the member refers to are having
to do with the Toronto-Dominion Bank's proposed acquisition of
Canada Trust. That would be over a three year period. That
proposal is right now being considered by the Competition Bureau
and by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, and that merger will not be approved without the
Minister of Finance's approval, and job losses are a very
important part of that equation.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the TD bank wants to spend some $8 billion to buy Canada
Trust, eliminate up to 5,000 jobs and, get this, close up to 275
branches.
What I want this morning from the government is a guarantee that
it will bring in a community investment act that, among other
things, will protect jobs and allow communities to veto the
closure of a branch in a community where that branch is needed.
Will the government do that? I want an answer from the Deputy
Prime Minister who speaks on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, half of the
Toronto-Dominion Bank's profit is fueled by the sale of the
subsidiary in the United States, so its profit is about normal.
In fact, banks contributed last year about $5 billion in tax
revenue to governments.
The government has been on the record as saying that the job
situation in the proposed merger of Canada Trust by the
Toronto-Dominion Bank will be of paramount interest to the
government. We are going to be watching that very carefully.
* * *
PUBLIC PORTS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, back in
August Transport Canada was considering a proposal to adjust all
existing public port fees by an increase of 15% per annum over
the next three years.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us whether this increase has
been approved or whether it is still under consideration?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is under consideration.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada has been slowly divesting itself of regional local ports.
By imposing such a significant increase upon its remaining public
ports, is the Minister of Transport not simply using undue
economic pressure to force local communities to bear the brunt of
the wharf divestiture program?
1150
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as a
representation on the issue.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
emission of greenhouse gases from our energy related industries
is a concern to all Canadians, especially in terms of our
obligations under the Kyoto arrangements. I would ask the
minister for an explanation in the House of what is being done in
the coal industry to develop this and to make our international
obligations a reality for Canadians.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
the question. The government is aware of how important the coal
industry is to the economy of our country. Any technology which
reduces greenhouse gas emissions in any way is good in terms of
our Kyoto commitments.
Just this week the federal government announced funding to
support a test project in Alberta that would see the testing of
the storage of CO2 in deep Alberta coal seams. If this works
out, not only will methane be released, which could be very
useful, but it will help us to achieve our objectives.
The partners include the Government of Alberta, the United
States, the United Kingdom and 15 private—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
reports coming from the WTO in Geneva indicate that a draft
agenda for the Seattle negotiations has reached a stalemate. As
it stands now the elimination of the export and domestic
production subsidies in the agricultural sector could be
sidelined as it will be up to various delegations in Seattle's
free for all to come up with an agenda. With 11 days remaining
before Seattle, why will the minister not guarantee Canadian
farmers that the elimination of agricultural subsidies will be
his number one priority?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear. This is
definitely a very important priority for our government. This is
at the top of our list of priorities for the WTO negotiations.
I am extremely pleased to tell the House that in early November
we developed under Canada's chairmanship a consensus of the 34
democratic countries of this hemisphere, the Americas, to support
our position to work very hard on the elimination of export
subsidies in the field of agriculture.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Paule Gauthier, the
Chair of SIRC, said that the antics of CSIS have created a
serious credibility problem for Canada internationally.
Does the solicitor general realize that, from the beginning of
this affair, his attitude and his pat answers about how very
concerned he was have done nothing to improve Canada's
credibility?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois' support for the security of the Canadian
government is very interesting. We appreciate this change in
policy.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, right
now 38% of the national highway system does not meet minimum
standards. These bad roads cause avoidable accidents that kill
over 200 Canadians a year. The national highway system has been
a federal responsibility since 1919 and the Liberal government
cannot blame the provinces for this.
Fixing the national highway system would cost 26 cents for every
dollar the Liberal government collects in gas taxes. Will it
commit in the next budget to invest at least this much in the
national highway system so that Canadians can drive home safely?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member's support for
upgrading the national highway system. As you know, Mr. Speaker,
in the throne speech we said that there would be an
infrastructure program with a transportation component. As to
how much money goes into that, it depends on the work the
Minister of Finance is currently doing in juggling other
priorities and other demands for the very valuable money that is
available. It is nice to have the NDP's support on this matter.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has just
appointed Emmanuel Triassi as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint's
board of directors.
Mr. Triassi is a generous donor to the Liberal Party of Canada;
in addition, he and the minister have been very good friends for
many years and belong to many of the same organizations.
1155
Apart from the fact that he is a good friend of the minister,
does Mr. Triassi have other qualifications justifying his
appointment as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint?
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not in absolute control of all the information on this
particular file, but all appointments, including those to the
mint, are made by choosing the most qualified person and the best
person for the job. I am sure that the person we have chosen
will do a very fine job.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, around
the world armed conflicts are increasingly taking place inside
countries instead of between countries.
What we are seeing more and more is that civilians are being
brutally targeted and hit by their brutal governments.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What is the
Government of Canada doing to put a stop to this nonsense around
the world?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
has been working vigorously in a number of fora to encourage
action regarding the need to improve the safety and security of
people. This was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne.
[Translation]
Following our initiative, the UN secretary general submitted a
report last September containing 40 recommendations for
improving the legal and physical protection of civilians
affected by armed conflicts around the world. The security
council unanimously adopted the resolution presented by Canada.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Wednesday the supreme court clarified the Marshall decision,
stating that native Indians had no treaty rights on natural
resources such as timber.
However, in response, the minister of Indian affairs stated that
the government plans to negotiate natural resources with the
native community.
Considering that under our constitution natural resources belong
to the province and the supreme court has just stated that
natives have no treaty rights on resources such as timber, what
exactly is it that the minister is going to negotiate with the
native community?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to
commence in the short time you will give me.
Quite frankly, the courts have said over and over again—and if
we read the clarification that the court made last week it says
very clearly—that the government should be sitting down with the
province and the first nations to negotiate modern day treaties
dealing with resources.
I do not know why I have to stand every day to explain to the
members things that are obvious in writing. If they would read
the treaty we could get on with giving the Nisga'a new economic
opportunity in this country.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the WTO
negotiations will be getting under way in Seattle on November
30.
Canada has met the commitments it made in the agricultural
sector under the GATT agreements. However, our other major
trading partners have yet to meet theirs, including in the area
of export subsidies and in market access rules.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Before negotiating, should he not demand that the other
countries meet their commitments instead of placing Canada's
farming industry in a vulnerable position?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lotbinière for his
excellent question, one that is highly relevant to Canada's
position at this point, as we move toward the World Trade
Organization negotiations.
This is in fact something we have noted. In Canada, we have
honoured the Marrakech commitments. We have even gone slightly
beyond, thus putting Canada in a very strong position to demand
in Seattle the elimination of subsidies in the farm sector,
export subsidies, because we respected our commitment as
concerns supply management.
So that will improve Canada's position in obtaining new
concessions from its partners.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Premiers Klein and Harris, backed up by the Reform
Party, want this country to retreat to the old, inefficient U.S.
style of health care, back to the dark ages where they checked
the purse before they checked the pulse.
The government has to be concerned about these developments
and must know it has to take immediate action. It has to hold
Alberta accountable for violating the principles of the Canada
Health Act.
It has to acknowledge that the only way to go forward, not
backward, is to pursue innovation and improvements within the
public health care system.
1200
Can the government do that? Can it make that commitment today?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was very
clear on this matter two days ago, before this House and in
public. He will be a strong defender of Canada's public health
system.
Mr. Klein has made proposals. The Minister of Health has agreed
to study them. It is pointless for Mr. Klein to raise his voice
and call the minister a hypocrite right now. The minister has
said he will study the proposal and, should it run contrary to
the Canadian public health system, the Minister of Health will
rigorously defend the basic principles of the public health
system.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
RESPONSE IN QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a response to an RCMP
question from the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I
mistakenly stated that the documents in the briefcase were not
project specific. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they were project
specific but they did not involve national security. I just
wanted to set the record straight.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some standing committees. If the House gives its
consent, I intend to move concurrence in the ninth report later
this day.
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full
parole by offenders serving two or more years.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for
seconding the bill.
I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill, formerly
designated Bill C-388 in the previous session, which seeks to
amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
There is no provision in the current legislation to prevent
offenders from withdrawing an application for parole at any time,
right up to the actual commencement of the hearing and then they
can reapply immediately.
As I said previously, many victims of crimes expend enormous
emotional and perhaps financial resources in preparing to attend
parole hearings which are frequently held far from their homes.
In addition, significant time, effort and money is expended by
authorities to facilitate the hearings. There is no good reason
why offenders should have complete control over a process that
burdens taxpayers and revictimizes victims.
These amendments will place a consequence on offenders who
withdraw applications for parole at the last moment for no good
reason. Unless there is reasonable and valid grounds for
withdrawal, the offender will be barred from reapplying for a
period of two years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Members know that
the introduction of a bill is normally just to summarize the
intent of the bill, not to defend or go beyond that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to present two petitions with 100 names on them. These
petitions are from concerned Canadians, mostly from my
constituency of Surrey Central.
The petition is about the development and safety of children put
into jeopardy because of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision that
made the possession of child pornography legal. The petitioners
are asking why parliament was not recalled immediately to invoke
section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, the
notwithstanding clause to override a B.C. court decision, and to
ensure that the possession of child pornography in B.C. is
illegal. The careless, heartless government that lacks vision is
constitutionally inept. The Liberals cannot change the
constitution, but this is their position. I am proud to present
it.
[Translation]
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a
petition signed by 854 residents of Quebec, and in particular
the Greater Montreal area.
The petitioners call upon the Canadian government, which has a
seat on the UN security council, to pressure the council to have
peacekeepers sent to East Timor as soon as possible.
This petition was signed before the House had reconvened and, in
the meantime, the United Nations has organized and sent to East
Timor a peacekeeping mission in which Canada is taking part.
I still thought, however, that it was important for me to table
this petition, since it reflects the concerns of many of our
constituents about the situation that prevailed at that time and
that still prevails, albeit to a lesser degree, in East Timor.
In the same spirit, I have the pleasure to present another
petition about the situation in East Timor, this one is signed
by 1,771 residents of Quebec, and in particular the Greater
Montreal area.
Stressing the many abuses committed against the East Timorese
people, the petitioners also indicate that these people have
democratically voted in favour of self-determination and the
results of these elections have been recognized by the Canadian
government.
Besides asking the Canadian government to urge the United
Nations to send peacekeepers to East Timor, the petitioners want
major economic sanctions to be taken against Indonesia.
On top of these two petitions, signed by a total of 2,625
Canadians, I will have the pleasure to directly hand over to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs 72 circular letters dealing with
this very same issue.
[English]
INCONTINENCE AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table in the House today a
petition from several hundred Canadians from across the country
calling on parliament to officially declare November as
Incontinence Awareness Month and to support local communities in
Canada in educating and informing constituents across the country
about incontinence.
I have one point that is very important. According to
statistics, in any group of 300 adult Canadians of all ages,
approximately 15 of them experience incontinence. I remind
everyone in the House that we have 301 adult Canadians sitting in
the House. I ask members to do the arithmetic and draw their own
conclusions.
Incontinence often leads to depression and isolation, and is,
for many care givers caring for an aging spouse, the last straw
before admission to a long term care facility. It is one of the
three leading causes of institutionalization.
It is my honour to table this petition in the House today.
1210
TAXATION
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.
In the first petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to
give Canadians a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25%
in federal taxes over the next three years, starting with the
next federal budget.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms or any other federal legislation which will provide for
the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our
constitution and our laws.
DURHAM HARBOUR
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is a privilege for me to
present to the House a petition bearing the signatures of
residents and users of the wharf facility in the community of
Durham Harbour, in the riding I have the honour to represent,
Madawaska—Restigouche.
The signees are asking that parliament authorize, with no
further delay, dredging work that is badly needed. Some work was
started in 1985 but was never completed. These people have
already shown much patience.
I therefore whole heartily support their request.
MUSEUM OF CIVILIZATION
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition draws to the attention of parliament that
Canadians from many backgrounds have been affected by crimes
against humanity. They pray and request parliament to support
Bill C-49, to recognize crimes against humanity and establish the
creation of an exhibition within the Canadian Museum of
Civilization.
CHINA
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition contains over 2,000 signatures. It
draws to the attention of parliament the ban by the Chinese
government of the Falun Gong practice. It calls upon parliament
to continue urging the Chinese government to release all arrested
Falun Gong practitioners, lift the ban, withdraw the
international arrest warrant against Mr. Li Hongzhi and achieve a
peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to implement
the agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of
Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of
Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the
Government of the United States of America concerning
co-operation on the civil international space station and to make
related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think I am going to use the 32 minutes I am allowed since
we are in favour of this bill.
However, as I mentioned in my remarks before question period, I
would like to reiterate our disappointment in the fact that we
are called upon now to discuss this bill to ratify an
international agreement reached nearly two years ago, when the
deadline for the ratification of the agreement is January 29,
2000. Since the House does not sit in January, parliamentarians
are really called upon to express their views on this bill at
the very last minute.
Perhaps I should address one particular aspect of this bill. It
seems to have become a habit, as I noticed myself last year with
Bill C-54, to include the substance of the bill in the schedule.
While the bill per se is only six pages long, the schedule
contains 26 pages.
There is a provision in the bill that says that, once the bill
passed, after nearly two years, the minister will only need an
order in council to amend the agreement through changes to the
schedule. It is as simple as that.
1215
Here we are, two years later, and this is the first time we hear
about that in the House. It might well be the last, even if the
agreement can be changed at the international level by different
partners.
I dare say that I find this rather highhanded. It may be a
matter of form rather than substance, but I would not like the
government to continue in that vein, because it would be
tantamount to gagging members of parliament.
This project, a civil international space station, is extremely
important, and the Bloc Quebecois obviously does not want to
unduly hold up the legislative process, because the impact of
this project in Quebec is quite significant.
I remind the House that the Canadian Space Agency is
headquartered in St. Hubert, near Montreal.
The space agency has offices in each province, but since its
headquarters are in St. Hubert, many businesses in the Montreal
area and in other regions in Quebec benefit from the spinoffs.
The bill itself is quite short; it is only 6 pages long. It
might be interesting to give a general idea of each one of its
clauses. When I have to address the House, I make a point of
reading all the clauses of a bill, even when there are many. In
this case, there are only 13, so we should be able to go through
them fairly quickly.
We have no problem with clause 1, which deals with the title of
the bill, since we are talking about the Civil International
Space Station Agreement Implementation Act.
I will ship the first part of clause 2, but I would draw the
attention of parliamentarians to the definition of “minister”. I
know it is commonly used in legislation. It is good to remind
people that we live in a so-called sovereign state.
The definition of “minister” reads “member or members of the
Queen's Privy Council of Canada.” This is the Queen of England
of course. It is good to remind ourselves that, although Canada
claims it is a sovereign state, it still maintains very clear
ties with the monarchy.
Clause 3 states “The purpose of this Act is to fulfill”—I emphasize
the word fulfill—“Canada's obligations under the agreement”. We
are talking about two years later.
Clause 4 states “This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of
Canada or a province.” Same as before.
Clause 5 states “The governor in council may designate one or
more members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as the
minister or ministers for the purpose of this act.” We have
no problem with this one either.
Clearly clause 6 gives a lot of power to the minister. It reads
“The minister may delegate any powers, duties and functions
to one or more persons”. One comment in this respect. I hope the
minister will not delegate any duty to the secret service agent
who lost his documents. We are talking about space and things
could go wrong.
Clause 7 states:
The Minister may send a notice to any person that the Minister
believes, on reasonable grounds, has information or documents
relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act,
requesting the person to provide, within any period that the
Minister specifies, that information or those documents to the
Minister or any person that the Minister designates.
That is very nice. Such notice could be sent to people who
might have important information on space research, many aspects
of which may be top secret.
Clause 8 reads as follows “No person in possession of information
or a document that has been provided under this act or the
agreement shall knowingly communicate it”. But there are two
exceptions.
1220
That is when the communication or access is in the public
interest or necessary for the administration or enforcement of
the act or the agreement.
Clause 9 states:
The Governor in Council may make regulations that the Governor
in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purpose of
this Act and giving effect to the Agreement—
The governor in council is the cabinet. I repeat, this
agreement can be changed merely by changing the schedule,
without going back to the House.
Clause 10 states:
The Minister shall, by order, amend the schedule to incorporate
any amendment to the Agreement—
As I just said, the agreement of parliament is not required.
Clause 11 is longer, so I will just give a summary.
Section 7 of the criminal code is amended to include offences
committed by a Canadian crew member even if he or she is in
space. Similarly, the law would apply to a crew member from a
partner state who commits an act or omission affecting the life
or security of a Canadian crew member or a flight element
belonging to Canada.
As for clause 12(3), it is worthwhile reading it in its entirety,
for it is not very long:
If the employee or the dependants referred to in subsection (1)
elect to claim compensation under this Act, Her Majesty shall be
subrogated to the rights of the employee or dependants and may,
subject to the Agreement implemented by the Civil International
Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, maintain an action
in the name of the employee or dependants or of Her Majesty
against the person against whom the action lies and any sum
recovered shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
As we can see, this is very vague. However, it is normal to have
recourse, but all this is subject to the approval of Her
Majesty, which is “subrogated to the rights of the employee or
dependants and may, subject to the agreement implemented—”
Clause 13 deals with the coming into force of the act.
The schedule, which is the agreement itself, is very
interesting. It mentions many things.
It indicates that the whole process began in 1984.
We are discussing the agreement now, in 1999, but the whole
process began in 1984. Since then, there was, among other
events, a meeting between the President of the United States and
the Prime Minister of Canada at the time. I will never forget
that meeting, which ended with the former Prime Minister and
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the U.S.
President, Mr. Reagan, bursting out in song together. At the
time, everyone recognized that Canada was very, very close to
the Americans.
I am pointing this out, because we recently travelled to Russia
to meet a Russian parliamentary committee on science and
technology, as part of an economic mission led by the Secretary
of State for Science, Research and Development. People asked
questions about the space station, because the Russians are
experiencing financial problems and are having difficulties
meeting the requirements of the agreement they signed in 1998.
The Russian parliamentarians' objections had to do with Canada
always appearing to be too close to the United States and to be
in agreement with the Americans.
Earlier, I mentioned our ties with the Commonwealth. The
Russians believed, and they were very blunt about it, that we
were too close to the Americans, and they had doubts about the
future of the space station. So much so that they insisted on
keeping a separate module, which is the exception on board this
particular space station. The Russians absolutely want a module
not accessible to the rest of the space station, because they do
not trust the Americans.
1225
Now, I will not go over all the other pages of this substantial
schedule, which deals with international rights and obligations,
management, intellectual property and, of course, research. The
latter is an important issue, because Canada is taking part in
this initiative. I think it is important that we preserve
intellectual property rights over the research Canada will have
invested in. The same thing goes for the other participating
countries.
I would like to underscore the special contribution of Canada to
this research project through the Canadian Space Agency, thanks
to the mobile servicing system.
People will ask “What is the mobile maintenance system?”. It is
the famous Canadarm, which will be able to move just about
anywhere in the station.
I was fascinated , during a visit I paid with the other members
of the Standing Committee on Industry to the space agency in St.
Hubert, by the way mobility is achieved. The Canadarm has two
hands, so to speak, and if it attaches itself to one part of the
station, the other hand can move about and attach itself to
another part of the station.
I saw that. I think that people can go and visit the centre.
They can see this discovery, which has put Canada and Quebec's
scientific community on the map, as they say, because this
system will be used not only for repairs but to assemble all of
the elements of the module.
Canada's participation is therefore vital to the construction of
the station.
I would also like to mention the role played by Quebecer Julie
Payette in a research expedition in the international space
station. She was the first Canadian to go there. Her
particular contribution was important, since she was the head of
the medical team, which obviously monitored the health and
physical condition of the astronauts and which carried out very
serious medical research.
Since the beginning of medical research in space, a number of
treatments for diseases have been found, thus improving health.
There are obviously a lot of questions about bone density and
balance. In short, it is very important.
This project, which will span over 20 years, requires a
$1.4 billion contribution by Canada. This may seem expensive, but
the economic benefits are estimated at over $6 billion.
An investment that will yield such substantial economic benefits
is a good investment. Overall, it will create 70,000 jobs, which
is significant. This is one reason that motivated us, in the
Bloc Quebecois, to support this bill. These jobs are not only in
the province of Quebec, since, as I said, the Canadian Space
Agency has divisions across the country. But Quebec is glad that
the agency has its headquarters in Saint-Hubert.
We are not talking only about public servant or researcher jobs
paid by the agency, but also about jobs in the private sector
and for people who do research on a contractual basis or who try
to apply research elements identified by the agency itself.
The application aspect is very important and it also creates a
lot of jobs.
1230
There will be enormous economic and scientific benefits in our
daily lives. Because of the financial limitations of a country
with 30 million people, the space agency has decided to limit its
activities to certain niches.
Besides the Canadarm and the mobile maintenance system I
mentioned earlier, the agency has become a world leader in
satellite communication. This is not necessarily related to this
particular project, but the Canadian Space Agency developed
RADARSAT, as well as other applications. Another project will be
launched shortly, which will contribute further to the
advancement of satellite communication.
This means that soon someone in the Sahara desert will actually
be able to speak on the phone with someone in Ottawa. They will
be able to communicate. This is no small thing.
And that is not all. Those interested in geography can expect
to see more accurate maps, because it will be possible to take
shots to within approximately two metres from the ground.
Agency representatives told us that the Russians and the
Americans do not want it to be any closer, apparently for
security reasons.
During my visit, I observed the seriousness of Agency employees,
especially their pride when astronauts from around the world
come to the training centre devoted solely to use of the
Canadarm.
All astronauts, whether they are Russian, American, European, or
Japanese, come to Saint-Hubert regularly for training. This is
great for the city of Saint-Hubert and for Quebec. It is also
good for Canada.
I would now like to talk about what I think is the most
important aspect of the civil international space station, and
that is co-operation among various countries. These include
Canada, the United States, Japan, Russia and European countries;
others could join eventually.
The word “partnership” appears throughout the agreement. It is
used very frequently. I think this is very important. This is
a step forward for the advancement of aerospace science. This
multilateral agreement has been quite a shot in the arm. Since
the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the
Russians have joined the expedition. I think this is good.
Speaking of history, this year the Canadian Space Agency, which
has its headquarters in Saint-Hubert, is celebrating its tenth
anniversary.
I will conclude on a political note. The word “partnership”
crops up everywhere in this agreement. Canada has agreed to
discuss an important agreement with other nations, but has said
in advance that it is not interested in discussing partnership
with Quebec. This government is prepared to talk with everyone
except Quebec. That is how much this government seems to care
about a wish expressed in 1995 by 49.6% of Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, the
civil international space station agreement implementation act.
This bill represents a key advancement in Canada's important role
in the development of the international space station and further
strengthens the very valuable level of international co-operation
that began under the previous Progressive Conservative
government.
1235
As a point of recognition the PC Party has supported this bill
from its inception as it is a further development in the process
that began under the leadership of Brian Mulroney. On this level
I must congratulate the minister for continuing his government's
commitment to the agenda set by the former prime minister.
Beyond furthering Canada's reputation as a major player in
international efforts, the bill provides for an important
contribution to the development of the Canadian scientific
community. However, it must be noted that this is but a scratch
in the surface of where we must go in order to further develop
our high tech industry which stretches well beyond our
responsibilities to the space program.
The bill is easy to support given the origins of its purpose.
Beyond this, it is one that is merely evidence of the Liberal
government's chronic, mediocre commitment to advancing the
Canadian context of technology. For instance, since 1993 the
government has steadily cut into the budget of the Canadian space
agency, reducing it from $378 million in the 1993-94 budget
period to $350 million this year and ultimately down to a level
of $300 million in the future.
As the developed world around us races toward the future the
Liberal government creeps along a path of complacent indifference
toward this most vital sector of our economy and of our
well-being. As our talented technology workers head south of the
border—incidentally, with the Prime Minister's full support—the
Canadian technology sector, stifled in large part by high
taxation, slips further and further behind our competitors.
As an example of the fast rate of change in the United States I
will point out the incomprehensible speed at which the technology
sector is advancing in the United States. Through innovation and
e-commerce, for example, Dell Computers is generating $30 million
per day in Internet sales every single day of the year. How does
it do it? Hard work and a system that rewards innovation and
growth.
As further evidence, in Santa Clara, California alone, 64
millionaires emerge every day from the competitive and rewarding
environment that is so vital in fostering this astronomical rate
of growth. These are two examples of many.
Why does this not occur in Canada? One need only look at this
bill to appreciate the cause. It has taken nearly two years for
the government to finally get Bill C-4 through parliament, just
barely making it for the international co-operation deadline in
January.
This slow rate of progress is not a confidence building
approach. Taking this long to get through a piece of legislation
which we all, in essence, support is remarkably
counterproductive, especially when one realizes that we should be
dealing with far more issues related to the technology sector.
The government must get off its duff and accept that we are
losing the great war for talent. Yes, the bill does provide
money for research and development to the technology sector, but
it is incredibly far from being enough. Everywhere else this
industry is in a brawl with no rules, whereas in Canada, among
the countless punitive regulations and taxes, the most telling
rule is “Leave if you don't like it”.
That is what our talent does. They do not wish to have to reply
to the question of “Where were you during the great enterprises
of Y2K?” by saying they were waiting for the Liberal government
to stop diddling over long overdue legislation and tax cuts. That
is why they leave. There is virtually no commitment to ensuring
that we give our massively talented workforce the tools to
prosper in the most important industry of the present and indeed
the future.
It should come as no surprise that the government waffles on
this issue. In fact it becomes more and more apparent that its
interest wanes when it is asked to support something it did not
create.
I strongly urge that the government take some leadership on this
issue. I do not offer this appeal on the basis that we begin
massive new spending projects. Quite the contrary, we need to
offer an environment that allows the technology industry to do
what it does best, innovate. However, it is hard to do so when
there is an increasing burden of taxation on the corporate sector
and on the individuals it employs. This is completely
unacceptable.
The only way we can bring Canada up to a far greater level of
productivity in technology is to slash taxes. We need to cut
taxes in a meaningful way for Canadian businesses and Canadians,
not as window dressing for the posterity of the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Finance.
1240
The government need not provide the capital if it is encouraging
the incentive. That incentive lies at the end of the day, when
the hard working and talented Canadian workers are able to see a
substantive reward for their efforts. Should this occur, should
we rise to the occasion, the government and the country will reap
the rewards of excellence.
My party and I fully support Bill C-4 and do not wish to further
delay this valuable piece of legislation. I will, however,
restate my message to the government that it best begin to change
this lethargic approach to the industry and get on the ball. It
has to recognize and respond to the rapid rate of change. It is
barely able to govern effectively with its present complacence
with regard to pressing issues which, as it happens, may
disqualify it from successfully governing for the future, and
that is the kind of leadership which the country so desperately
needs.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was most interested in the member's comments, in particular with
regard to the movement of our talent south.
I am not sure whether he saw the article in the Citizen
last weekend about Nortel's CEO. It was a very interesting
article about the amount of brain power that is moving south of
the border and the inability of our system to replace that
talent.
It is interesting that we also have a Prime Minister who says
there is not a brain drain in this country, that it is just a
myth. Yet, these high tech firms categorically state that they
cannot compete with the U.S., in particular because of the tax
structure. I certainly concur with the member's comments that we
are taxed out of our socks in this country.
How are we going to stop this brain drain? It fits with the
space station and it fits with the high technology arena that we
are in. Where does the hon. member see the solutions to stopping
the brain drain and getting the country on its feet again?
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his excellent question. It is not a simple one to answer, but
basically we are beside the greatest economy in the world. I do
not know why we are trying to forge a different economy of high
taxes when the United States encourages innovation and free
enterprise.
We have to get our taxes, both corporate and personal, more in
line. There is a whole new revolution going on, for example,
with Dell Computer and the e-commerce world. Ninety per cent of
Canadians today, when they are buying products on e-commerce, buy
them from the United States. They are not buying in Canada.
Dell is doing $30 million a day, every day of the year, and it
has just started.
We also have to encourage people that if they work hard they
will enjoy the fruits of their labour. For example, in Santa
Clara, 64 millionaires are created each day. I bet those people
for a year or so had the dream of becoming rich and knew that if
they worked hard, once they realized their aspirations they would
get to keep their money.
We seem to tax it away, do some sort of income averaging and
give the money to everyone. We have to encourage the
entrepreneurial spirit at the school level, and when people work
hard they should be able to keep their money. We have to reduce
taxes both at the corporate and personal levels.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1245
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read
the second time and referred to a standing committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, any time I
have the opportunity, I will stand up in defence of Canadian
taxpayers.
Those poor, beleaguered people are attacked at every turn by
government after government after government. It boggles the
mind to think that Canadian taxpayers give up over half of their
earnings just to fund their levels of government.
I have often said that if someone came into my house and took
half of everything I owned, I would probably phone the RCMP. I
would tell them to come and get this guy, take him away and lock
him up. Let us have some justice here. Probably most Canadians
would say, “Yes, you are entitled to do that. That is fair.
That is in defence of your property. That is stuff that you
bought with money you worked for and earned. The guy who went in
at night has no right to take it”.
The taxman comes in the daytime. He comes and takes everything
I earn. If I do not help him load the truck, I am the one that
goes to jail. If I do not co-operate with him loading up and
taking my stuff, I am considered to be some sort of a lesser
citizen because I will not take part in the scheme.
I guess should put this into balance. I suppose I should not
always talk about taxes like that, because it is a privilege to
pay taxes. I concur with what many people say, this is a
wonderful country. It is a privilege to live in Canada. I
believe it is a privilege to be a member of parliament in the
country. It is a privilege and an honour to stand in this place
in defence of the people who elected me and who are paying the
bill.
I hear from a lot of people in my riding and across the country
who say, “You know, I would not mind paying a fair amount of
taxes, but the taxes we pay are too much. We keep on paying
taxes on taxes”.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that we pay a lot of taxes
on taxes literally. For example, if we go to the gas station to
buy $10 worth of fuel for our cars, in the end that $10 actually
includes a portion of the federal gasoline tax and the provincial
gasoline tax. That price of $10, although I cannot remember the
last time I only bought $10 worth of gas at one stop, but that
$10 already contains a bunch of taxes.
What do we then get here? The government says that it wants to
charge GST on it. The GST is our famous gouge and screw tax. It
is added to everything, even to the tax portion of that gasoline.
Here we have money that we have earned and on which we have paid
income tax. We then take the part that is left and pay the
gasoline taxes. On those taxes, GST is added. When I say taxes
on taxes on taxes, it is literally true that we end up paying
taxes on taxes.
I am getting very close now to talking about municipal grants
because we want to talk about taxation collected by
municipalities. It is also true that when we pay our municipal
property taxes, in most instances the money we use to pay that
tax we have already paid income tax on.
We work like slaves, get some money and the federal and
provincial taxman keeps about half of it, on incremental income
for most Canadians these days.
With the half that we have left over we have to pay our municipal
taxes. This is the reason I introduced my private member's bill
that says that people who pay property taxes should be able to
deduct that amount from their taxable income. I do not think it
is right for Canadians to have to pay taxes on money they earn
for the sole purpose of paying taxes. It is enough already, as
my grandmother would say. It is just too much.
1250
Today we are talking about Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is also a bill
which has to do with how to distribute and move around money that
has been collected from taxpayers. It also has to do with
municipal taxes and other fees and charges that are paid by
different levels of government, in this case, the federal
government. I find it absolutely incredible that the money that
the taxpayer sends to Ottawa is used for all sorts of different
things.
Among other things, the Canadian government operates a number
of vehicles. We have thousands of dollars of real property. I
suppose that is a necessity, although sometimes I wonder whether
we have allowed that to get out of hand as well. It seems to me
that our government is larger than it ought to be because there
has not been any real accountability on the part of government on
how it spends money.
Obviously, when the federal government uses part of the facility
in a municipality to operate its buildings, it should also pay a
fair share of the municipal taxes. One could argue that there is
only one taxpayer. However, the fact of the matter is that this
is a way of relieving, at least partially, the burden of property
taxes on people in the municipalities. That is, in order to
provide the services and the infrastructure which also supports
the government facility, as it supports other businesses and
homes and apartments, this money is also used for these
government buildings and government services.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is fair that the
Canadian taxpayer should pay a fair share of the municipal taxes
because there is an increasing burden on municipalities to pay
for all of the things that are being downloaded by the
government.
This is a bill that will amend the Municipal Grants Act. It has
to do with how the federal government makes grants to
municipalities directly in lieu of taxes that it should be
paying.
Mr. Speaker, I know you had some anxiety as to whether or not I
was on topic, but I was indeed giving my preliminary lead-up to
the topic at hand today. I think I can probably promise you, Mr.
Speaker, that at least 95% of the time I will open my speech with
some sort of a statement that says it is time to cut taxes in the
country, so my preamble was most appropriate.
In this particular bill, there are a number of things which are
needed and are justified. It is a case where we have a number of
items that are probably worth supporting. We know, and this has
been the case for quite some time, that supplementary payments
can be made to municipalities in lieu of taxes. In other words,
in this country we do not permit one level of government to tax
another.
There are some exceptions to this. I have noticed lately that
federal government vehicles carry provincial licence plates.
Agreements have been reached on that, which is fair since those
vehicles utilize the roads of the province in which they are
stationed, for the most part.
1255
There are other things that have been permitted for quite some
time. The federal government, however, cannot be levied a tax.
If a municipality says that we have a federal court, a federal
taxation building or an EI office that is owned and operated or
leased by the federal government, normally if that were any other
lessee it would assess property taxes against that property. The
federal government, in order to be fair, has for a number of
years voluntarily paid a fair assessment to the different
municipalities. By doing this, it gets around that little rule
that one level of government may not tax another level of
government.
This particular bill has a couple of good features in it. It
will extend the ability of the federal government to make these
voluntary payments in other areas. For example, it would extend
it to making payments of interest in the event that the payment
was late.
I do not know if members have heard this rumour, but there are
some government departments that are continually late in their
payments. The Minister of Defence is here and maybe he can give
me a wave if I am wrong, but I have heard rumours that the
Department of National Defence spends millions of dollars every
year on late payments through the normal billing of expenses. It
is late in paying, so the supplier of the commodity that the
defence department has purchased just adds the usual carrying
charge to the late payment and the government pays it because it
is a legitimate payment. If it would be on the bit and pay its
bills promptly it would not have those interest payments.
In the case of municipalities, they also assess charges for late
payments, whether it is late payments for municipally owned
utilities or whether it is late payments on property taxes.
This particular bill would extend the ability of the government
to make voluntary payments in lieu of interest on payments which
are late. Again, I cannot really be against that. I think it is
fair to the municipalities, the ratepayers and the property
taxpayers in those particular municipalities where this applies.
There is another thing that happens. Sometimes the federal
government owns a property but does not use it all. Even though
it is owned by the government, it leases that same property out
to another third party. Almost always, those particular
contracts for lease include a clause that says that the lessee
must pay the property tax on that property. Sometimes these
people who lease the property are not diligent in their payments.
As a result, they go late. This particular bill will now, I
guess, stiff the taxpayer for the inability of the government at
whatever level to collect the rent and tax payments from the
individual or business that is leasing the property.
At any rate, it is a transfer of tax dollars from one location
to another. In this case, it is from the federal government to
the municipality. If the taxes are delinquent, this bill will
allow the federal government to voluntarily make that payment.
There are some kinds of structures that have been added to the
list. I would not disagree with that. Also, we now have a
committee of appeal.
However, I would like to bring to the attention of the House
that the Reform Party has a very good policy with respect to this
type of thing. I would like to read a page from the book. It
states:
The Reform Party will insist that all laws pertaining to
individuals and the private sector apply equally to the
Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, you will be totally amazed at how I am going to
weave the MP pension plan into this story. That principle
applying to the fairness of municipal taxation is a principle
that extends right across the board.
1300
I draw to the attention of members and anyone else who is
hearing or reading these words that in the pension plan for
members of parliament and senators, legislation is in place which
specifically exempts members of parliament from certain
provisions of the Income Tax Act. I meet many people who would
love to defer an additional 2% or 5% of their income for taxation
in some future years.
This is a violation of the Reform principle which says that all
laws which pertain to individuals and the private sector will
apply equally to individuals as well as to governments, as well
as to members of the government, including the employees, members
of parliament and senators. We have here a violation of that
principle. The MP pension plan is one of the most blatant
violations. Specific legislation was passed in this place to
exempt members from a law that applies to every other Canadian.
How could the Liberals have the gall to do that? I cannot
believe Canadian voters continue to send members to this place
who would do that type of thing. It boggles my mind.
The government is maintaining a special position in this bill.
Even though the Government of Canada will voluntarily pay taxes
to some municipalities on behalf of its buildings and structures,
it will not necessarily do it all the time.
One objection we have to the bill is that Canada Post is not
included. It is very much an arm of the government. The Canadian
mint, a crown corporation, is not included as having to
participate in this program. We think that is wrong. It should
apply to everyone equally.
The payment of grants in lieu of taxes is a very good program
but every once in a while a dispute arises. How would we solve a
dispute? There are a number of ways to resolve a dispute when
two people disagree. The best way is to sit down, talk about it,
negotiate it, figure out who is willing to bend which way and
come together on it. Every once in a while disputes become
serious and the federal or provincial courts become involved. We
try to resolve our differences at the court level by having a
judge and in some cases a jury look at the situation to try to
bring about justice.
There is a serious flaw in this bill. Even though when there is
a dispute there is a mechanism to solve it, lo and behold we find
that the board that is supposed to do this is appointed by the
minister. It is like getting into a boxing ring and finding out
that the opponent is also the referee. It does not bring a great
deal of fairness to the situation. This flaw should be corrected
before the bill is passed.
A second flaw is that board members make recommendations to the
minister. Is that not a surprise. First the minister appoints
the board members and then they make a recommendation to him. The
bill is clear. The minister may or may not accept their
recommendation.
If a municipality disagrees with the payment level or the
promptness of the payment being made by the federal government
and challenges it, the matter goes to the the board which hears
the case. The board may give some very good advice or it may
given rotten advice, we do not know which, but we hope the board
would try to be fair.
1305
I suppose the Prime Minister would hasten to tell us that just
because they were Liberals who were appointed to the board does
not mean that they will always make a wrong judgment, and I
suppose that would be a fair statement. They probably would not
always make a wrong judgment. In any case they make a
recommendation to the minister and then the minister has the
choice to take the recommendation or not.
In all fairness the minister and his officials would probably
read and study the recommendation. I would hope they would. I
hope the decision would not be arbitrary and capricious, but
there is nothing in the bill or the act that would prevent that
from happening. The minister could take their advice or he could
decline their advice and do whatever he wants. He would then
unilaterally say, “Sorry, we are not paying” and that would be
the end of the matter. There is no further appeal.
Those are some of the very serious flaws in the bill that should
be corrected. There should be some fairness built into this.
Arranging the affairs so that the person one is fighting with in
the boxing ring is also the referee is just not a very good way
to plan success.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the bedrock principles of our system is that
there is to be no taxation without representation.
At the municipal level, in my lifetime, that has been expanded
so that there is no residency without the right to
representation. Renters who pay their taxes indirectly are
allowed, just as landowners are, to have a vote on the activities
of their local government.
We have before the House a bill that flies squarely in the face
of that principle. It is called the ratification of the Nisga'a
treaty which will make it quite possible for a group of municipal
councillors, band councillors if you will, since the government
keeps telling us that what it is setting up is a form of
municipal government, to levy taxes. This group will be able to
levy taxes on any and all residents on the reserve irrespective
of what the persons being taxed may think or what they may want
to do. They will not have a voice in it because voting and the
choice of councillors will be limited only to people who have the
correct skin pigmentation. The fact that one may be living, doing
business or providing a service on the reserve will be totally
irrelevant.
We already have an example of this sort of thing on the Musqueam
reserve where in addition to the massive rent increases that we
hear so much about, there is also a silent and somewhat
unreported problem of taxation. The band is levying taxes to the
tune of about $6,000 per residence on the people who will
ultimately be dispossessed of their homes. They are doing this
without any recourse to democratic action. These people cannot
vote in any way on what their local government is doing with
respect to taxes.
Does my hon. colleague have any thoughts or suggestions on this
subject as to what might be done to ameliorate the problem?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question
because it has to do with how Bill C-10 impacts on the life and
times of municipal taxpayers. We are talking about municipal
taxpayers paying their bills to the municipality in which they
live or in which they own property.
The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has made an excellent
point. We have long held the principle that there cannot be
taxation without representation. There cannot be a body for
which we have no opportunity to vote and which can levy taxation
against us, make rules that actually part us from some of our
income. It is unconscionable.
He made mention of the fact that this is what is happening in
the treaty agreements in British Columbia.
I would take the point a little further than he did. There is
certainly an immediate and serious problem that needs to be
addressed.
1310
The government members, all those green foreheads as I refer to
them, are just not listening. They are not paying attention to
the genuine concerns we are bringing forward on behalf of the
people of British Columbia on this issue. I wish they would
listen because not only is there an immediate concern, but there
is the immediate huge injustice of people losing their own
property through a process over which they have no control and no
recourse. There is also a long term repercussion which I think
our children and our grandchildren are going to rue for years and
years to come.
To divide our population based on genetic make-up and to say
that different rules apply to different people because of their
particular genetic make-up, history teaches us that that is
dangerous. Common sense makes us aware that that is dangerous.
It is unfortunate with legislation like that which we have
before us today and legislation such as my colleague mentioned
that the government is totally blind and deaf. It will not see
the problem and it will not hear from the people. I find it
unconscionable that the government is actually contemplating not
even permitting the people of British Columbia to have a
referendum on what is going to make a tremendous difference to
their lives and their society, not only now but for years to
come.
I thank my colleague for an excellent question. That is the
type of thing I wish we could debate clearly and openly in the
House with a genuine willingness to listen and to make changes
when it becomes clear that there is inadequacy in the legislation
before us.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am a
bit disappointed in the comments by my hon. colleague.
I do not know if other members of the House get lists of the new
citizens of Canada. We get a list of the new citizens in our
ridings. I am always pleased when there is someone on it who I
have known for a number of years. I have a couple of friends who
have lived in Canada for 25 and 30 years. The other day I was
going through my list while I was sitting here listening to the
really important debates we have. I noticed that a couple of my
friends were on that list and I automatically thought great, two
more votes next election.
In spite of the fact that these friends had lived and worked in
Canada for 25 or 30 years and had paid taxes, they were not able
to vote on electing federal members. Why is that? Because we
recognize that until people become citizens of our country, we do
not allow them to vote for the governments.
Does he think it is fair that people move to Canada and are not
able to vote for a federal member of parliament unless they
become citizens? I think it is reasonable. Does he not think it
is reasonable as well, or does he think people should not have to
become citizens and be part of a community before they vote?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member
has said. I notice she did not in any way indicate that we would
first of all test the pigmentation of people's skin or genes
before we allow them to take up citizenship. It is totally
irrelevant to this situation.
I would add a further caution to what she has said. I will put
it in the form of a rhetorical question. Do we really want to
within the boundaries of our country have little countries all
over the place, here a country, there a country, here a country,
so that when we walk into those boundaries we cannot be a citizen
of that country unless we pass a racial test? I need to ask, is
that really where we want to take our country? I say as
emphatically as I can, no.
1315
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
municipalities across our great land are paying in terms of
employment insurance. As a result of that and the huge
overpayments this government is amassing, municipal governments
across the country are transferring municipal tax dollars to the
federal government.
One level of government is taxing another with municipal taxes
going into the federal coffers. What does the hon. member have
to say about that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have all sorts of government
politicians and bureaucrats playing around in the big mixing bowl
with taxpayer money. It is going here. It is going there. It
is going everywhere. Nobody really knows how much is going
where, and the level of accountability is altogether entirely too
low.
We have a principle in Canada that one level of government
cannot tax another. With all deference to my colleague, we have
a voluntary plan on the part of the federal government to carry
at least some part of the fair share of municipal taxation in
those municipalities which have facilities.
I do not think that is unfair. The money comes from the
taxpayer. Some municipalities have a preponderance of federal
government agencies, buildings or facilities, and it is not
totally unfair that should be done. However, the principle that
he has referred to must of course be maintained.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
always, I will start my comments on the bill by telling the folks
back home what it is all about.
Bill C-10 is an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. It talks
about administration. It talks about payments. It talks about
taxes. It talks about common tax due dates. It talks about
government leasing its properties to non-departmental third
parties. It mentions the Canada Post Corporation and goes into
the discretionary power of the federal government.
Let me make a few points about those subjects. We have a
situation where we have three levels of government, federal,
provincial and municipal, and this government is trying to
establish a fourth level of government. This is despite the fact
that the country is already overgoverned, despite the fact that
we have a $600 billion national debt, and despite the fact that
we have unfunded liabilities with the Canada pension plan that
will max out in 2017.
Despite the fact that we have all these concerns—and the
government certainly has a full plate if it were willing to deal
with it—it is creating a fourth level of government by what it
is doing with Nisga'a. That impinges because we have three
levels of government and we are already having difficulties. It
is troublesome at times to deal with those issues, especially for
the taxpayer, because there is one taxpayer and there are three
levels of government, and now we are to have four.
On top of that is the whole issue of taxation without
representation. That is exactly what will happen with the fourth
level of government that I mentioned. Not only will that happen
in the new level of government, but it will learn from the
previous ones. It will be picked up as precedent.
We have a situation where we have taxation without
representation going on right now with municipal governments. I
asked a question of one of my colleagues about the whole issue of
municipalities across the country that are paying more employment
insurance than they get back in return.
I am a taxpayer in Calgary. By contributing my money to
municipal taxes in Calgary I am paying for municipal workers in
the city of Calgary, and the overpayments this government is
collecting in employment insurance, in the EI fund, is therefore
going into federal coffers. The situation is the same for all
those who pay municipal taxes
It is absolutely unfair that the federal taxman is robbing money
out of municipal coffers across the country, especially when we
consider the federal government has cut back its transfers to the
provinces and therefore also cut back transfers to the
municipalities dependent upon provincial funds. That is a shame.
1320
This government continually says that it believes in some of the
programs that it holds high as sacred cows in the country, but
time after time it makes cuts to them. On top of that it raises
taxes. I could talk about the CPP tax hike and the EI taxes.
On top of that as well municipal governments are forced to go
ahead and overpay employment insurance for their employees. In
the city of Vancouver alone the people of Vancouver are
overcontributing over $2 million to the federal government. It
is not as though the people of British Columbia and the people of
Vancouver are not overtaxed as it is. On top of that $2 million
of their money are being transferred to the federal government.
That is an absolute shame.
The bill also includes appointments. I happen to be the Senate
and patronage critic of the official opposition. Patronage all
too often takes place in all aspects of government legislation.
There are thousands of positions, and this bill is no different,
that include patronage positions. People meet with the Prime
Minister on a regular basis to go ahead and dole out the precious
positions Liberals love to give to their friends. Part of what
the bill is about is appointments and patronage.
In 1990 this government said it would change things. When the
Prime Minister ran for election as leader of the Liberal Party he
said that things would be different under his rule. We do not
have that. The Liberals promised in the red book in 1993 and
again in 1997 that patronage would change.
As a matter of fact, the government House leader helped to
author the McGrath report in which he said that some of those
positions would be vetted by parliamentary committees which have
the ability to go into these matters and would love to be able to
scrutinize people based on the merits they have to hold their
positions. Instead, we continue to have this government push
forward its agenda of patronage.
It gets worse. It goes into the whole idea of tax sharing and
tax agreements. I have been in this place two years. The longer
I am here, the more I believe the provinces should divest
themselves of the tax sharing and tax agreements with the federal
government because they are done wrong by them. I applaud the
Government of Alberta for moving ahead. Within the next few
years it will go ahead and separate the tax collection situation
from Ottawa.
The federal government is collecting taxes and collecting taxes
for the federal government. That is a result of the first and
second world wars and the Great Depression when no other
government had the ability to meet the needs of the country in
those dire times.
Since that time the federal government has abused that
privilege. It has gone ahead and is using the money for buying
votes like it always does. It is cutting back on programs. It
entered into arrangements with the provincial governments on
things like health care, and I could name others, where it said
it would fund 50% of the programs. Instead it has cut, hacked
and slashed.
Every time it came to an election government members said
“Trust us, we will increase the money”. When push came to
shove, they cut and cut deeply, to the point where the provincial
Government of Alberta now receives only 15% for every dollar,
even though the federal government promised Ernest Manning and
that province when they entered into the agreement on health care
that they would receive 50%.
Government members have the gall to stand in this place to tell
us that they will somehow shove their way down the throat of the
Government of Alberta. The tail is wagging the dog. They are
only funding 15% of the show and they said they were committed to
50%. They preach high morals about how they want to defend this
and that, but they do not ante up with the cash. They continues
to cut. Shame on them.
1325
I also want to talk about the whole idea of government leases,
third party leases, mentioned in the bill. That is when the
government leases some of its properties to non-departmental
third parties. I will pose a general question, and I hope the
folks back home are listening.
If the federal government has more property than it needs to do
its job, why should it be going ahead and renting out the
property in competition with private sector renters? Taxpayers
have been calling for money for certain programs. Why does the
government not sell off the property, that taxpayer asset, and
give the money back to taxpayer programs or give taxpayers a long
awaited tax break?
If the federal government has assets or property it is not using
and is renting out right now, it should get rid of it. It should
be sold off and given back to the free market or given back to
the people. There is no reason the federal government needs to
continue to hang on to it.
Another aspect of the bill is that of the Canada Post
Corporation. It touches on that. It is another example of a
government institution that does not believe in competition and
will not allow anybody else to give it a fair shake for the
money.
T2P Overnight, a company in Calgary was willing to deliver
anywhere within the T2P postal code in Calgary for significantly
less money than what it costs for a first class stamp. The
company delivered overnight, in one day. Can we imagine Canada
Post Corporation promising the delivery of mail in one day and
doing it for less money?
They did not allow that. They shut the company down and said it
was competition for Canada Post. They could not handle it. As a
result they closed it. A private sector entrepreneur who wanted
to start up something offered a better level of service. It
could have provided an incentive and an example for the
government and for the Canada Post Corporation, but they would
not even allow competition. They would not even think about it.
As a result, an entrepreneur in the city of Calgary suffered for
it, jobs were lost and the government won.
The bill talks about arm's length relationships. Those arms
continue to grow and grow, not only in terms of the multiplicity
and the number of arms on this government beast but the length of
the government's arms. Everywhere we look the government wants
to establish longer arm's length relationships, because ministers
in the House do not want to have to stand and answer for their
own departments.
They would rather be able to stand and say “I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker, but that is not my department. It is not my department
that is responsible for that. It is that arm's length body, that
arm's length organization. I do not have anything to do with
that. It is not directly involving me. It is now independent”.
That is a joke. It is going on right now with Revenue Canada.
They wanted to go ahead and establish an arm's length
relationship. More and more they want to distance themselves
from the actual business of governing because they realizes they
are not doing it well. They realize they are squandering
taxpayer dollars, that they are not accountable, that they are
overtaxing people and that they are doing it poorly. As a result
they want to distance themselves from their poor record, from
their shoddy record.
Setting themselves up in some sort of arm's length relationship
is a code word for saying that ministers do not want to be
accountable for abrogating the whole idea of parliamentary
responsibility, the whole idea of the cabinet being accountable
to the country, and the whole idea of the minister being
responsible for the actions of all those employed beneath him.
Those are just some of the problems with the bill.
I will talk about priorities for a second. There is a real lack
of priorities around this place when we talk about bills like
this one with all their inherent flaws, and I went through them.
This type of thing occupies our time when instead they could be
talking about cutting taxes and coming forward with tax cuts.
They could be talking about employment insurance reform. They
could be talking about putting money back into health care. That
does not happen. Instead they talk about arm's length
relationships and cutting back on their accountability. Shame on
them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member will
have approximately seven minutes when next the bill comes to the
House.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1330
[English]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, a minimum of 20 per cent of federal excise tax revenues on
gasoline should be directed to joint federal and provincial
programs to upgrade or renew many sub-standard sections of the
national highway system.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion proposes that two cents from
the ten cents per litre federal excise tax on gasoline be
directed to joint federal and provincial programs to upgrade and
renew our crumbling national highway system.
I have addressed this issue many times both in and out of the
House. I was eagerly anticipating presentation of this motion
and I very deeply regret that today we will be going through this
silly charade of a debate with no opportunity for a vote on a
matter of great public interest.
Canada is the only developed country with no national highway
program or even a coherent national highways policy.
In 1992, a federal-provincial study identified 25,400
kilometres, including the Trans-Canada Highway and a few major
cross-border arteries, as the national highway system. However,
having been identified, the system has been almost totally
forgotten. There is no administrative framework and no federal
funding for maintaining or upgrading it.
Every year the federal government collects about $5 billion in
fuel excise taxes, including $4.3 billion specifically from
highway fuels. A miserable 4% of that lovely pot of money is
going to be reinvested in highways this year.
On November 4, 1998, in the Standing Committee on Transport, the
Minister of Transport readily admitted that there is a lack of
balance between federal fuel tax collected and federal
expenditures on roads. He said that the government needed the
money for other purposes. He stated, “I accept the general
thrust of your argument and it is something we have to work
toward as we progressively get the books in order”. The
government has been crowing about its huge projected revenue
surpluses, surpluses from usurious taxation, so the time has come
to invest in something of permanent national benefit. Show us
the money, Mr. Minister.
On February 7, 1997, in a transport committee report called, A
National Highway Renewal Strategy, it is mentioned that the
Minister of Finance had conceded that the dedicated tax concept
might be examined at such time as the government is generating
substantial surpluses. Show us the money, Mr. Minister.
That same finance minister has from time to time expressed his
distaste for the dedication of tax revenues and has indicated
that dedicated taxes are not the Canadian way. Apparently only
excessive taxes can be classified as truly Canadian. Actually
there are precedents for dedicated federal taxes. For example,
old age security and the air navigation system were both in the
past funded by dedicated taxes. Now, in spite of usurious
federal fuel taxes, there is no dedicated federal road
improvement fund in place.
Contrast this with the United States where federal fuel taxes go
into a highway trust fund, where the money is protected by a
budgetary firewall mandating that transportation infrastructure
spending cannot be reduced in order to finance other programs.
The U.S. transportation equity act provides each state with a
minimum guaranteed level of federal highway funding proportional
to each state's highway mileage.
The budget for six years is $217 billion U.S.
An equivalent expenditure proportional to Canada's population
would be $5.3 billion Canadian annually, not much more than we
have been paying every year into the fuel tax fund, or as fuel
taxes with nothing substantive to show for it.
1335
Our neighbours have not only identified a national highway
system, they fund it, as part of the program that I have just
described, to the tune of $29,000 per mile per year.
If we financed our much smaller so-called national highway
system at that rate, the annual cost in Canadian dollars would be
less than $700 million. With the $800 million that my motion
would yield, we could actually play catch-up on the worst parts
of the system before it deteriorates beyond the point of no
return. If we do nothing and total replacement becomes
necessary, tens of billions of dollars will have to be found
somewhere or we will have to revert to red river carts.
It is a national disgrace that the Trans-Canada Highway traffic
is routinely diverted south of the border to where the highways
are. Tens of millions of dollars in fuel taxes that could be used
to upgrade our system stay in the United States, together with
the costs of lodging, meals, repairs and incidentals.
Traffic does not just move south for comfort, convenience and
speed, but also for safety. Hundreds of people die every year in
Canada because of substandard highways. Almost every province
has at least one stretch of two-lane Trans-Canada Highway
referred to locally as the “death strip” or “death alley”. In
Saskatchewan, the death strip happens to be in my riding where a
113 kilometre segment has claimed 40 lives in the last 20 years.
The provincial government has just completed twinning a 27
kilometre piece of it, with no federal assistance, and plans to
complete this project in small segments over a period of several
years. To do that, it will have to take funds away from
secondary roads now being destroyed, thanks to federally-blessed
railway abandonments.
Ninety-five per cent of Canadian passenger miles and 24% per
cent of freight tonne miles move on the public road system which
is rapidly disintegrating under that heavy burden. Transferring
a mere two cents per litre from the ten cent federal excise tax
for the national highway system would not only solve some of our
arterial highway problems, but it would free up provincial funds
for other roads.
Yesterday I received an unsolicited and kind letter of support
from Mr. Brian Hunt, the president of the 3.2 million member
Canadian Automobile Association. I would like to quote a few
segments of his letter. He said:
—structurally sound highways improve safety, productivity and
trade. The National Highway System must be upgraded to ensure
continued economic growth and productivity across the country.
It's time the federal government paid serious attention to our
nation's transportation infrastructure...and commit to multi-year
funding for Canada's national transportation infrastructure.
That is from a member of the public who represents a very large
number of Canadians.
The government has always had a bottomless purse to pursue pork
barrel projects in the Prime Minister's riding, development aid
to despotic countries like China and useless initiatives such as
universal firearms registration. But, it has nothing for vital
communication links of any kind, much less highways.
One cannot see the condition of a highway from a Challenger jet
at 30,000 feet. I would recommend that a few cabinet ministers
jump into their limousines and try driving from here to
Vancouver. Perhaps then they would gain a little understanding
of the situation.
1340
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak today to the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
The motion proposes that the government dedicate a minimum of
20% of federal gasoline excise tax revenues to joint federal and
provincial programs to update or renew substandard sections of
the national highway system.
The government appreciates the hon. member's concern for the
national highway system and commends him for bringing this matter
to the attention of the House. I had the opportunity to work
closely with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands as co-vice
chairs of the Standing Committee on Transport for the House of
Commons. I know he has a keen interest in this topic as do many
of us on this side as well.
Before discussing the motion, however, I want to take a moment
to set the issue in context. Since the beginning of its first
mandate back in 1993, two of the government's ongoing priority
areas continue to be sound financial management and fairness in
the tax system. Balancing these two equally demanding
commitments has been a challenge for the government.
With order now restored to the nation's finances and targeted
tax relief provided in each budget since 1994, together with
broad based tax relief starting in 1998, the government will
continue to meet these commitments as resources become available.
[Translation]
Faced with these challenges, the government unfortunately cannot
agree to direct part of the revenues from the federal excise tax
on gasoline to upgrade or renew highways. Let me explain.
The earmarking of tax revenues, which is the focus of the motion
before us today, is a concern shared by many hon. members. The
government has several reasons not to direct tax revenues to
specific programs.
Earmarking tax revenues for a specific item would limit the
government's capacity to redirect federal expenditures according
to its changing priorities.
[English]
When the hon. member says that the Minister of Finance has
sanctioned dedicated taxes, he knows full well that this finance
minister has never been in favour of dedicated taxes. In fact,
it was our finance minister who appeared before the Standing
Committee on Transport and encouraged the committee to look at
public-private partnerships.
Revenues from federal taxes, including the excise tax on fuel
products, go into the consolidated revenue fund which is used to
support a broad range of federal programs that are enjoyed and
valued by all Canadians, programs such as health care, post
secondary education, seniors' benefits and national defence.
Another reason the government has avoided dedicating tax
revenues to specific programs is because earmarking can result in
some programs being overfunded while others suffer from
shortfalls. Making budgetary and long term investment decisions
under a program funded by earmarked taxes is difficult as
revenues from taxes fluctuate from year to year.
A third reason for avoiding earmarking revenues for certain
activities is that the government believes that potential
spending initiatives, including highways, should be evaluated
independently of tax sources and examined as competing
priorities.
As hon. members know, there are many demands today on the
government's scarce resources. Because of this, it is important
that the government remains firmly committed to sound financial
management. What the government intends to do is to continue to
follow a balanced approach to managing the wide range of
priorities.
1345
[Translation]
I would like to remind the hon. members of something else
because it is important. Highways fall under provincial
jurisdiction. I know that provincial governments are pressuring
the federal government to invest in highways.
[English]
However, hon. members will recall that the federal government
has assisted provinces in the past with provincial highway
construction projects through a series of federal-provincial cost
shared agreements. In addition, about one-third of the $2.425
billion federal contribution under the Canada infrastructure
works program went toward municipal roads and bridges.
Although many of these agreements are winding down, the federal
government intends to continue working with the provinces and
municipalities. In the October 12, 1999 Speech from the Throne,
the government announced its intention to implement a new
physical infrastructure program to invest in and improve our
nation's physical infrastructure.
The federal government stated in the throne speech that it will
work with other levels of government and the private sector to
reach agreement on a five year plan for improving physical
infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country by
the end of the year 2000. This agreement will set out shared
principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for all partners to
increase their resources directed toward infrastructure. It will
focus on such areas as transportation, as well as tourism,
telecommunications, culture, health and safety, and the
environment.
The answer for highways does not reside solely in seeking more
federal funding. In searching for solutions we need to be
creative.
As noted in the Speech from the Throne, one of the partners in
addressing the infrastructure challenges is the private sector.
While not a panacea, public-private partnerships warrant more
encouragement. When properly structured, they may provide roads
at a lower cost and more quickly than traditional procurement
methods.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I cannot support this motion for the reasons I
have stated. However, I want to thank the hon. member for
raising this important issue in the House. I also hope that the
hon. member will find some positive elements in some of the
ideas set out in the throne speech.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to rise to speak to the Reform motion before us today,
asking that a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on
gasoline be directed to joint federal and provincial programs.
My Liberal colleague opposite said that the government had no
money to intervene immediately, but he seemed to have forgotten
that it already has a surplus of several billions of dollars.
However, my speech will not deal with the Reform motion per se,
but rather with the high gas prices people have to pay these
days.
If I were to move a motion, it would be to reduce this tax to
deal with a glaring problem people have today, namely that if
the price of gas keeps on rising as it has, soon they will no
longer be able to drive their own cars.
In a riding like mine, Lotbinière, and in several other ridings
throughout Quebec, a car has become a necessity since, over the
past few years, inter-city bus networks have been dismantled one
by one, with the result that there is no longer any link between
smaller municipalities or with the major centres around the
riding of Lotbinière. If we lower taxes, therefore, it should be
with the consumers in mind.
As far as the issue of roads is concerned, it should be dealt
with through the infrastructure program soon, not only in
December 2000.
In the throne speech, the government made several commitments,
but they are all for the long term. The strategy of the Liberals
across the way reeks of electioneering. Everything is being
delayed until the end of the year 2000, so there will be goodies
left for the budget in 2001, because we know there will then be
an election campaign.
People have a good memory, and I hope they will keep it until
the next federal election. This government's approach to
everything is to keep people waiting, waiting for the programs
announced with regard to mothers and parental leave, waiting for
the infrastructure program.
1350
As for everything announced in the Speech from the Throne,
nothing has yet taken concrete form. The budget for the year
2000 will be more or less a rehash of the one for 1999.
We will have to wait for the 2001 budget to really find out what
the intentions of this government are. The unemployed will also
have to wait. The young people will have to wait. Everyone
will have to wait, with this government. I am going to come
back to the matter of reducing taxes, however.
In the present surplus situation we are in, it is high time the
federal government started thinking about the consumer. It is
high time the Liberal Party started thinking about the middle
class.
According to Canadian statistics, middle class incomes are
between $30,000 and $70,000. That is not the case in my region.
That is not the case in my riding.
Some members of our middle class earn only $18,000, $20,000 or
$25,000. Hardworking factory workers nearly faint when they see
what they have to pay at the gas pump. Nothing has been done by
this government to try to get this back to normal either.
Over the summer, gas prices were like a yo-yo. They could be 61
cents in the morning and 68 cents in the afternoon. They were as
low as 59 cents and as high as 70 cents. And nobody really
understood why the oil companies were doing this.
If the Liberal government wants at all cost to take humanitarian
action that will help consumers, it should reduce its excise
tax. It should indeed reduce its gasoline taxes so that
consumers can continue to use their own vehicle.
It is distressing to have people come to your office saying
“Listen, if this keeps on, I might be able to use my car for two
or three weeks or a month, but if the price of gas continues to
climb, I won't be able to”.
What will people do? They will feel isolated. They will feel
deprived of a vital tool, one they use every day.
The situation I am referring to must exist pretty well
everywhere in Canada as well, in regions similar to my own, in
ridings that are half rural and half urban.
Why is the government not acting? It has the surpluses to
respond to the Reform Party's motion. It should announce its
infrastructure program right away and not do as the President of
the Treasury Board did yesterday, put things off again to
December 2000.
In the meantime, vehicles are breaking down, and we are having a
hugely difficult time keeping a decent road system in Quebec and
in Canada.
When I hear the government say that roads come under provincial
jurisdiction, I am glad that it is beginning to understand the
constitution a little better.
But although it can see the difference when it comes time to
invest money in roads, I would like it to be as discerning with
respect to health, education and social programs. The hon.
member should talk to his caucus and persuade it to get out of
exclusively provincial jurisdictions and, while he is at it, ask
the caucus, the Prime Minister and cabinet to immediately
restore the transfer payments they have cut since 1993.
Here too I am almost certain that, if provincial governments had
available to them all the money cut from their budgets, if they
had all the money they needed, they too would come up with the
necessary funds to invest in a decent road system.
What we are seeing with this government is that, when it comes
to consumers, the middle class, and the unemployed, their
memories fail them and we are left hanging. So, yes to tax cuts
but for the benefit of consumers. As far as roads are concerned,
with the present surpluses, let the infrastructure program
announced by the President of the Treasury Board be implemented
now.
1355
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the
New Democratic Party transportation critic, it is an honour to
speak in support of this motion.
I begin by thanking the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands for bringing this motion before the House. I
put in a very similar motion about a year ago. I know the hon.
member submitted this motion when he was still his party's
transportation critic and I am glad to see he decided to follow
through in this area even though he is no longer the
transportation critic.
As any Canadian driver will tell us, the highways in our country
are in terrible shape. The Liberal government has abandoned its
duty to maintain safe and adequate roads. It has abandoned our
highways just as it has abandoned health care, education,
homeless children, first nations, farmers, the RCMP and so many
other vital areas.
We all know the finance minister said that he would balance the
budget come hell or high water. In my home province of Manitoba
we have seen high water in two disastrous floods and thanks to
the Liberal government, driving on our roads is hell.
Canada is the only country in the developed world that does not
have a national highway program. It is truly pathetic. When it
comes to highways, Canada is dead last. Not only are we last,
but we are not even close to most other countries we need to
compete with for investment.
The United States spends six times as much per kilometre as
Canada on maintaining and expanding its national highway system.
Britain spends four times as much per kilometre. Our G-7
competitors like Germany, France and Italy all spend five to ten
times as much as Canada does on their national highways systems.
It is important to point out exactly what we mean by the
national highway system. We are not talking about every road in
the country. The national highway system makes up 3% of Canada's
roads. This 3% of our highways carries over 25% of all highway
traffic in the country.
The national highway system has been a federal responsibility
ever since the Canadian Highways Act was passed in 1919. The
provinces are responsible for the other 97% of our roads. Is it
too much to ask that this Liberal government do its job and
maintain that measly 3% it is responsible for?
Because of the Liberal government's abandonment of highways, the
provinces have had to pick up the slack as best they can.
Unfortunately the provinces have also had to pick up the slack
for all the other Liberal government cuts, cuts to health care,
cuts to education, cuts to housing, cuts to policing. The
Liberal government has cut so much, the provinces have not been
able to keep up.
It should not be a shock but the regions that are getting ripped
off the most by the Liberal government are, as usual, the west
and the north. Between now and 2001 the four western provinces
and the three territories combined will only see $13 million in
Transport Canada money for highways, with $6 million going to
B.C., $5 million to the territories, and $2 million to
Saskatchewan. Manitoba and Alberta are not getting one red cent.
If we drive down the road in Manitoba and we have to stop on a
dime, we know for sure that it is a provincial dime because the
federal transport department invests not one red cent.
Why do we need good highways? Why is the national system
something the government needs to make a priority? There are
three main reasons: safety, the environment and the economy.
First I will talk about safety because it is the most important
reason. At a bare minimum Canadians should be able to drive
safely but many of our roads simply are not safe enough.
Thirty-eight per cent of the national highway system is
substandard. Right now over 1,100 bridges on the national
highway system need repair.
I am reminded of two summers ago during our summer recess. There
was an article in which a beaver was being blamed for the
breakdown of part of the Trans-Canada Highway. A beaver had made
a dam which had damaged the road. I thought, one would think
someone was out there maintaining that road, but no, the beaver
was blamed for the breakdown of the highway. It is like blaming
the cow for the spilled milk.
It is true that overall the number of deaths on Canadian roads
has been decreasing since the seventies, and that is a good
thing. The Liberal government points to this statistic and says,
“See, the roads are getting safer”. We know that is simply not
true. The government is misrepresenting the numbers.
1400
The reason the number of deaths on the roads has been dropping
since the seventies is because the rate of seatbelt use has gone
up and the rate of drunk driving has dropped.
If the Liberal government would bring the national highway
system up to a minimum standard, the number of accidents this
would prevent would save an average of 247 lives and 16,000
injuries every year. Even one preventable death or injury is too
many.
It is appalling that the Liberal government is continuing to
neglect our highways when Canadians are dying on our substandard
roads.
The second reason to improve highways is to help the
environment. Transportation fuel is responsible for over half of
our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. We have to bring this
down to meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement and stop
global warming.
Bringing the national highway system up to minimum standards
would save over 230 million litres of fuel each year. This alone
would not be enough to meet our commitments to stop global
warming, but it would be an important start.
We also need to switch to greener forms of transportation, such
as rail and mass transit, particularly in big cities. But many
Canadians, particularly in rural and northern areas like my
riding of Churchill, absolutely need to drive, so the Liberal
government has a responsibility to invest in highways.
The third reason to fix the national highway system is that of
economics. I do not expect the Liberal government to listen to
my arguments about the need to save Canadians' lives. If the
government really cared about saving Canadians' lives it would
not have cut health care by $25 billion since 1995. I also do
not expect it to listen to my arguments about saving the
environment because the Liberal government's record on the
environment is terrible. But I do know that the Liberal
government listens to the bottom-line economic arguments, so here
they are.
First, highways are good for business. Most of Canada's
manufactured goods are transported by road. Companies setting up
plants look for access to good roads. That is one of the reasons
the economy is now booming in the U.S., while many hundreds of
thousands of Canadians are still out of work.
The U.S. knows the benefits of investing in highways. Bad roads
also discourage tourism, which is an important industry in many
parts of our country. Many truckers and other travellers going
across Canada prefer to go south, cut across the U.S. and then
come back up to Canada. This means that on their trip they buy
U.S. gas, stay in U.S. motels, eat in U.S. restaurants and pay
taxes to the U.S. government instead of to the Canadian
government.
It would cost about $13 billion to bring the national highway
system to minimum standards. That is a lot of money, but if we
spread it out over a number of years it is something the
government could well afford within the budget surplus. Not only
that, in the long run improving our highways would save money,
not cost money. Preventable accidents cost more than $25 billion
each year in emergency health care for victims, long term health
care and other costs, such as property damage and lost
productivity.
The health care savings alone would pay for the cost of fixing
the national highway system, not to mention the benefits of the
increased economic activity that better roads would lead to,
particularly job creation, something Canadians badly need.
I conclude my remarks by repeating my support for the motion.
The Liberal government has abandoned its responsibility for
national highways. By doing so it has put the lives and health
of Canadians at risk. It has also squandered the many economic
benefits that come from having good highways.
The motion calls for dedicating a modest 20% of income from fuel
taxes to highway improvements. Normally I would not support
dedicated taxation. However, as we have seen with the way the
Liberal government has misused Canadians' employment insurance
money, we cannot trust the Liberal government to use Canadians'
money for what it is intended. Twenty per cent of fuel taxes is
a reasonable base line and the Liberal government has no excuse
not to invest at least that much in our highways.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the motion put
forward by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands which calls
for a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline
to be directed to federal and provincial programs to upgrade and
renew many substandard sections of the national highway system.
Our party supports the motion because highway renewal is
extremely important and must be a priority. An increased portion
of gasoline excise tax is one way of finding more of the
necessary resources.
A recent report commissioned by the council of ministers
responsible for transportation and highway safety shows that the
cost to bring the national highway system up to standard has
increased from approximately $12 billion in 1988 to $17.2 billion
in 1997.
1405
Our national highway system consists of approximately 25,000
kilometres of highways, including the Trans-Canada Highway, which
connects all of our capital cities, commercial and population
centres, and access points to our largest trading partner, the
United States. For decades the Government of Canada provided
funding through federal-provincial funding agreements for
highways. Over the last five years all of those agreements have
expired.
Federal government policy has allowed the railways over the last
15 years to decline and heavy truck traffic has taken the place
of the railways as the major product and commodity movers. This
federal policy has resulted in increased damage to our highways
as goods and services transfer from rail to highway trucks.
Pressure is increasing on the Government of Canada in conjunction
with the provinces and territories to reinvest in our
deteriorating highway system.
While there may be increasing consensus toward the need for
reinvestment, all options must be considered in order to achieve
the goal of improving our highways. Therefore, we are supportive
of the idea of directing more of the revenue generated from
gasoline excise tax toward upgrading the nation's highways.
This idea, however, is not new for us. My colleague, the PC
transport critic, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has
already recommended this plan to all provincial and territorial
ministers of transportation in their continuing discussions with
the federal Minister of Transport. The PC transport critic has
contacted all provincial and territorial ministers in calling on
the federal government to increase the portion of the tax
collected on gasoline and diesel fuel sales that is invested into
highways from the current 4% level to a 15% level.
This proposal would yield 15% of $6 billion collected each year,
for a total of $900 million. Considering that the estimated cost
for upgrading our present highway system is over $17 billion,
this funding alone, with matching provincial funding, would go a
long way toward correcting a problem that has been overlooked for
too long.
We have argued that asking for 15% of the total gas and diesel
tax to be returned to the highways is eminently fair and more
than reasonable. It would still enable 85% to be dedicated
toward general revenues. It is our belief that public opinion
would also be supportive of this measure and the federal
government would have a difficult time not going along with this
plan.
[Translation]
In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, there are two items at the
head of the agenda, including the Van Horne bridge, which has
been unsafe for years.
Construction and upgrade work on this bridge should have been
done several years ago. Now, the people of my riding of
Madawaska—Restigouche and especially of Campbellton who use the
bridge linking New Brunswick to Quebec are in danger, because
the bridge's structure has been neglected.
The public works department has been aware of the problem for
several years now, but again, the government has not responded.
The department had to reduce the number of heavy duty trucks on
this bridge used every day by Canadian consumers and citizens.
The other item that has me very concerned and that comes under
the motion put forward by my Reform colleague deals with the
major highway in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, to be more
precise in the Upper Madawaska Valley. The previous parliament
had voted moneys for the construction of a highway between the
economic sector of the Upper Madawaska Valley and the
Trans-Canada Highway.
1410
We all know what happened in this case with the government and
the then transport minister Doug Young. The government
transferred the money, and believe me, it was strictly for
partisan purposes. All the local stakeholders were unanimous:
the mayors, the people, the provincial government and even the
federal government had achieved a consensus on the need to build
this highway. Again, we saw money being transferred strictly for
partisan reasons.
I would like to tell the House again that a greater portion of
revenues from gasoline taxes should be used directly for highway
improvement in Canada, as members of the Progressive
Conservative Party have been requesting for a long time.
Another colleague of mine, the member for Brandon—Souris, also
brought forward in the House a motion asking that the federal
government apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales
to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada. Even
though this is not a new idea for our party, it does not mean it
should not be considered by the present government.
There is a consensus among Canada's premiers. I hope the
Government of Canada will respect that consensus.
[English]
Since 1994 the premiers have called on their federal partners to
ensure that money is reinvested. Many organizations across the
country are increasing their call on the government to act. The
mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the
Canadian Automobile Association are just a few of the groups that
are speaking out.
In addition, Canadians are recognizing more and more that the
federal government is spending too little on our roads. In a
national poll conducted in October, 81% of Canadians who were
asked thought that the government should be spending more money
toward improving our highways. As well, almost 90% said that we
have real safety concerns with the state of our highways.
There are many positive impacts of reinvesting, namely,
increasing the safety of our roads and the safety of our
citizens, which is something the government does not seem to be
able to see. This is extremely important when one considers the
high number of injuries and fatalities each year on our roadways.
Road accidents are the most serious transportation safety
problems that we face. They account for nearly 95% of all
transport related deaths. An improved highway system would also
provide the important economic spinoff of increased commercial
activity for business and increased tourism.
We support this motion and hope that the government will
seriously look at this type of proposal.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to support my colleague from Cypress
Hills—Grasslands in dedicating fuel tax revenues to highways.
I would like to start by describing a section of road:
non-existent shoulders and blind curves, a narrow road jammed
with tourists and commercial traffic made even more dangerous by
wildlife, steep grades and falling debris, some roadsides with
abrupt 500 metre drop-offs and no guardrails. Where would this
piece of highway be? Is it in the Cape Breton Highlands? Is it
in Newfoundland? Is it in a rural area of Ontario or Quebec?
An hon. member: It is not in Etobicoke.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: It is the Trans-Canada Highway between
Golden and Field, B.C. One would expect that this piece of road
would have been fixed. I have been driving it for probably four
decades and there has not been any great improvement in the road.
Imagine a two-lane road, the Trans-Canada Highway, that is that
dangerous and yet it has not been fixed. The question is, why?
Clearly it is a function of money.
Every province has its killer chunk of highway, as my hon.
colleague mentioned earlier. We all know that there is one where
each of us comes from. Whether it is down around Windsor, in the
maritimes or across the prairies, there are chunks of the main
highways of this country which are clearly dangerous. They are
killing people.
How are we going to address that? How are we going to fix that
up?
1415
There are a couple of ways. One is dedicated revenues, which I
agree with. I am not a big fan of dedicated revenues but I think
in this case it is correct. Another way would be toll roads. The
Americans do some of that. We tried it for example with the
Coquihalla highway which was built for Expo '86 basically to feed
the lower mainland during Expo. My understanding is that it has
been paid for seven times over. The provincial government is now
looking at it as a cash cow.
Toll roads have opportunities but they tend to get abused. Again
it brings up the question of double taxation because we are taxed
already on our fuel taxes. Why should we be then taxed to use
the road?
I would like to use the American model because I believe the
Americans have excellent roads. They have dedicated revenues.
They have found the prescription that is fair. My NDP colleague
was commenting earlier about areas like Manitoba that get no
revenues, that are getting no money this year in the budget. The
Americans solved that by doing it on the number of miles of
roads. Some poor areas such as Mississippi and Arkansas because
of their tax bases and their situations cannot afford to put the
money into roads, but the national system does it on a per mile
basis.
If we transferred that formula to Canada, where Saskatchewan and
Manitoba are having trouble in getting finances, this formula
would solve it. There would be dedicated revenues and the
national highway system would be fixed up. That is a good
formula we can look toward.
My colleague from the Liberal Party commented earlier that it
was in the budget and he is not supporting it but to my mind it
is too little too late. We have to address the system. Certainly
the budget is dedicating some revenue and I do not quarrel with
that, but it is not dedicating nearly enough revenue toward
highways. We are putting back about 5% of what we take in
taxation revenue just from fuel. That is wrong. Fuels are not a
cash cow. They simply need to be put back into the system.
There are areas like Windsor where 10,000 trucks a day are
coming across the bridge and are being dumped into downtown
Windsor. This is not a freeway system; basically they are
municipal roads. In situations like that, there is a bottleneck.
NAFTA is clearly going to expand and there will be more trucks.
We should fix the situation. We can deal with it with dedicated
revenues.
In many ways the government is missing the point. The point is
where do we direct our tax revenues from gasoline, from diesel?
Do they go into general revenues, into the main pot? Do they go,
as most of us in the House would agree with, back into the
highway system? We do not need a Cadillac system, the same as
that of the Americans. But we certainly do not need roads that
are going to be like those of a banana republic if we keep going
the way we have been for the next 10 years.
I support my colleague. It is a good idea. In fact, I would
ask unanimous consent of the House that this motion be votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Nanaimo—Alberni has asked the unanimous consent of the House
that this motion be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As members know, the last
five minutes are reserved for the
sponsor of the bill, but we have another five minutes available
for debate.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thought I would not have a chance to talk about this motion
today, but I am a very fortunate man.
Despite the fact the government will not allow a vote, would not
allow the will of the taxpayers to be done on this, I would like
to touch on a number of points.
Mr. Speaker, suppose I took a significant chunk of your money
and in return I gave you 6% back.
This is a special year and I will give you a special deal, Mr.
Speaker, because I like you. I will give you only 4% of that
money back. I will keep 96% of the money. You would probably say
that was not such a good deal. Mr. Speaker, you are a pretty
fiscally responsible fellow and you would probably say it was a
pretty bad deal. And that is exactly what has been happening in
our country with fuel taxes.
1420
Folks at home please pay attention because this is your tax
money at work. The federal government takes in excess of $4
billion of taxpayer funds. For every tank of gas that we buy, 10
cents on every litre goes to the federal government but we are
given a pittance back in terms of what is returned in our
highways.
We shake our heads sometimes and ask why did the government do
that? Why did the federal government put a 10 cent tax on
gasoline? We already pay many taxes.
Back in 1975 Petro-Canada was created, the nationalization of
Petrofina. And thank you Pierre Trudeau. Albertans loved the
prime minister for that, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. The
government taxed people 2.2 cents a litre. The funny thing about
government is that over time, it just continues to grow. It went
from 2.2 cents in order to fund Petro-Canada, Pierre Trudeau's
pet project, to become the 10 cent per litre tax that it is
today.
There are things known as dedicated taxes in this country. The
government will tell us that it does not believe in dedicated
taxes, but it sure believed in dedicated taxes when it came to
old age security. It believed in dedicated taxes when it came to
the air navigation system. But now the government is beyond
dedicated taxes and is into something noble called slush funds.
That is what the Liberal Party of Canada is into now. That party
does not like dedicated taxes.
Slush funds are way better for the Liberals. They can then take
the 96 cents out of every dollar we pay in fuel taxes and buy
votes from other folks. Why give the money back to the taxpayer?
Instead, they can give the money to special interest groups or
someone who is really going to appreciate it and give them
electoral support or work for them on election day. That is what
they do with the money.
That is my opinion, but what do the premiers have to say about
this? In 1994 at the annual premiers conference they said that
they did not like the system either. Provinces across the
country said that they were getting shafted and they wanted
something different.
I took part in a debate at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. Our
mayor was there. The provincial government, myself representing
the official opposition, and our mayor all said that not only 20%
but it would be really sweet if they could get 50% of the money
that goes into the federal coffers to be spent on the national
transportation system. But this year it is only going to be 4%, a
far cry from 20%.
I would like to point out to the people of Calgary that our
mayor Al Duerr would love to introduce a municipal fuel tax. As a
result of that debate, the provincial government coughed up the
money to give to the city of Calgary. As a result the mayor did
not get his way on a municipal fuel tax. Remember that the mayor
of Calgary is in favour of a municipal fuel tax. Do not forget
it next election day.
The federal government tries to say that this is a provincial
responsibility, that it is not its bailiwick any more. If it is
not the federal government's bailiwick, why is the federal
government taxing people 10 cents per litre and taking $4 billion
of their money? Leave it alone. It is the taxpayers' money. If
the federal government is not going to give money back to the
taxpayers in better roads, then it should not collect it in the
first place. If it is going to collect $4 billion and spend only
$200 million, leave the money in the taxpayers pockets.
Otherwise, direct that money toward the roads. I could go on
about why that would be a good thing to do, but my time is up.
1425
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a long, lonely
ride. It has been a ride over bad roads too, but that is another
issue.
I have been at this now since 1995. Occasionally, I get
whispers from the ministerial side that makes me think that I am
making headway. However, it always seems to be not one step
forward and two steps back, but one step forward and about five
steps back. We get a lot of rhetoric and a lot of talk about
infrastructure programs, but in the meantime the roads are
crumbling, people are dying and nothing is happening.
What the country needs is some action. What the country needs
is a Liberal like C.D. Howe to come back from the grave and show
these guys how to run a country. Instead, we have these effete
folks who like to have money to spend for their little projects:
their millennium projects, their patronage deals, the Prime
Minister's riding and the $800 million to subsidize the CBC
television network and so on. But, something of substance,
something we could look upon with pride and say “we built that,
that is the Canadian national highway system” has not happened.
I am afraid that as long as these folks continue to occupy those
chairs, it will not happen. We will still keep driving down to
the United States. If we want to go from Mississauga to
Vancouver, we start off through Michigan. This is the way it is.
This is Canada. This is what we have to show for the tens of
billions of dollars that have been sucked out of Canadian
truckers and private motorists over the last few decades. To do
what? To go into that great black hole known as general revenue,
but not to do anything useful for the country. We cannot drive
our cars safely on the national highway system.
I drove from Saskatchewan to Ottawa three years ago. While
driving across northern Ontario on the Trans-Canada Highway, I
lost a windshield and a shock absorber. Now that is beyond
disgraceful. We are almost into the 21st century and still we
cannot build a decent highway.
I have worked in a lot of third world countries. I can assure
members that in many of them the main trunk artery is a damn
sight better than the main trunk artery in Canada.
The hon. member for Etobicoke did contradict something I had
said in my presentation. I quoted from a report of the Standing
Committee on Transport, which in turn quoted the Minister of
Finance as saying “yes, maybe we could look at dedicated
revenue”. If the member does not believe me he can check that
himself in the government document. I know that it is baloney
because do I know this minister. If there is one thing he has it
is a hard head and his hard head does not allow for any input
from private members, from his caucus or from anybody else. He
does not like dedicated taxes. To use the American terminology,
when there is a fire wall around that money he cannot get his
greedy hands on it. That is the whole idea of a fire wall.
I hope that, some day before I die, I will live to see a highway
that one can safely and reasonably drive on, right from the
Atlantic to the Pacific. But, I get discouraged. We have our
surges in the country of activity. All of a sudden, back in the
late 1870s and early 1880s, we build a railroad. It was a
marvellous thing and we are still talking about it. From 1958 to
1962, we build a Trans-Canada Highway. It was a lot better then
than it is now because it had not had 30 years to fall apart.
1430
It is time we got out act together and started acting like a
modern industrialized state, did something useful and permanent,
and gave taxpayers something to show for all the money that is
being scooped up by the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being after 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until
Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)