36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 21
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
1005
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Québec East—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1010
1015
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-317. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-318. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1020
| PETITIONS
|
| National Drug Strategy
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| St. John's Harbour
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Parental Rights
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1025
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Food Industries
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion
|
1030
1035
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1040
| Amendment
|
1045
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1050
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1055
1100
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1105
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1125
1130
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1135
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1140
1145
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1150
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1155
| Mr. John Bryden |
1200
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. John Herron |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1220
1225
| Mr. John Bryden |
1230
1235
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1240
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1245
1250
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1255
1300
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1305
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1310
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1315
1320
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1325
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1330
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1335
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1340
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1345
1350
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BUSINESS REGISTRATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1355
| INTERNATIONAL DAY OF TOLERANCE
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| SASKATOON—ROSETOWN—BIGGAR
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1400
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| VISIT TO AFRICA
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| LOUIS RIEL
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| NIOBEC MINE
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1405
| 1998 ICE STORM
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| BYELECTIONS
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| 1979 MISSISSAUGA TRAIN DERAILMENT
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1410
| LOUIS RIEL
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1435
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| EARTHQUAKE IN TURKEY
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1445
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1450
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CITIZENSHIP
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ORGAN DONATIONS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1500
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1525
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1530
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1600
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1605
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1630
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1635
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1700
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1705
| Mr. John Cummins |
1710
1715
1720
1725
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ORGAN DONATION ACT
|
| Bill C-227. Second reading
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1745
1750
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1755
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1815
1820
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1825
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| APEC Inquiry
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1830
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 21
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR QUÉBEC EAST—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: On Monday, November 1, 1999, the hon. member
for Québec East raised a question of privilege concerning the
breach of his privileges in relation to a civil suit launched
against him by a senator who accused him of distributing
defamatory material.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member
for raising the matter.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, the opposition House leader,
the Progressive Conservative House leader, the Bloc Quebecois
House leader and whip of the Bloc Quebecois for their
contributions on this matter.
The hon. member indicated that a lawsuit was launched against
him by a senator following the distribution to his constituents
of a bulk mailing of 16 pages on the subject of the Senate. His
question of privilege concerned the involvement of the Senate in
the lawsuit and the belief that this involvement was an
aggressive act against the House of Commons and a breach of his
privilege of freedom of speech as an elected member of this
House. He alleged that there had been direct or indirect
involvement of the Senate in the lawsuit and that this
constituted an attack on the authority and dignity of the House
of Commons.
There are a number of things that I wish to deal with at this
time.
First, I want to underline that I will make no comment on the
civil case that is now before the courts since this would be
inappropriate and not in keeping with our longstanding
practices. Second, I do not believe that the Speaker should
comment on decisions the Board of Internal Economy may or may
not have taken. I am sure that all members will appreciate and
understand that the House is certainly not a court of appeal for
decisions taken by that body. Indeed, while questions can be
addressed to the Board of Internal Economy representatives
during question period, the House through the Parliament of
Canada Act, has mandated the Board of Internal Economy as the
final authority in these matters.
[English]
I will however comment on the contention that the hon. member's
parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech has been breached.
Erskine May suggests on page 143 of the 20th edition that:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which
might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for
contempt being in its nature discretionary...It may be stated
generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes
either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions,
or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House
in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly
or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a
contempt, even though there is no precedent of the offence.
[Translation]
Any attempt to intimidate a member with a view to influencing
his or her parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege. Let
me reiterate for all members that privilege is a fundamental
principle of parliamentary law.
[English]
In the 22nd edition of Erskine May, page 65, parliamentary
privilege is defined as:
—the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of
Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without
which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed
those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
[Translation]
The position put forward by the hon. member for Québec East
suggests that the senator has made an explicit effort to
intimidate him by limiting his freedom of speech.
1010
As all hon. members know, the privilege of freedom of speech is
so fundamental that this House could not discharge its
constitutional duties without it. May goes on to state in the
19th edition that, “Freedom of Speech is a privilege essential
to every free council or legislature”.
All members must realize, however, that there are very real
limits to parliamentary privilege. Speaker Jerome, when
speaking on the limits of parliamentary privilege in his ruling
of February 20, 1975 added:
The consequences of extending that definition of privilege to
innumerable areas outside this chamber into which the work of an
MP might carry him, and particularly to the great number of
grievances he might encounter in the course of that work, would
run contrary to the basic concept of privilege.
Let me stress that, in order to have a breach of the hon.
member's privileges, the matter complained of must be directly
related to a proceeding in parliament. If a member is indeed
subjected to threats and intimidation, he or she is clearly
hindered in the fulfilment of the parliamentary responsibilities
for which he or she was elected.
The crucial question that must be determined is “What
constitutes proceedings in parliament?”
[English]
Erskine May in the 19th edition, at page 87, characterizes
“proceedings of parliament” in the following manner:
An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by
speech, but also by various recognized kinds of formal action,
such as voting, giving notice of a motion, etc., or presenting a
petition or a report from a Committee, most of such actions being
time-saving substitutes for speaking.
[Translation]
Joseph Maingot clearly states on page 315 of his book
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, and I quote:
It may be pointed out that in regard to this privilege, a
Member's privilege of freedom of speech concerns speaking in the
House or Assembly or in a committee. In addition, the Member is
also protected when carrying out those duties, as a Member of
the House, that have a nexus with a parliamentary proceeding.
However, when the Member performs such duties to his
constituents and his party the fulfilment of which do not
involve a parliamentary proceeding, the Member is not so
protected.
I believe that my predecessor, Speaker Fraser, stated matters
succinctly on June 10, 1993:
What a Member says outside the House about anyone is subject to
the laws of the land relating to libel or slander as it would be
for any other Canadian—if indeed the comments are actionable.
What Members say in the Chamber, however, is protected by
privilege.
Although I view the types of charges raised by the hon. member
with great importance, my role as Speaker is limited to dealing
strictly with breaches of privilege that occur during
proceedings in parliament. In the words of Joseph Maingot on
page 105 in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada:
It is necessary for something to be said or done in the
transaction of a “proceeding in Parliament” before the Member
has Parliamentary immunity.
Since the incident referred to concerns information contained in
a document distributed by the hon. member to his constituents,
it is quite clear that this did not take place during
proceedings in parliament and is therefore not protected by
privilege.
In addition, with respect to the complaint the hon. member for
Quebec East has against the senator, I must underline that the
House has no authority over the Senate. In the 22nd
edition of May, on page 149 it is stated and I quote:
Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other,
neither House can claim, much less exercise, any authority over
a Member or officer of the other, and thus cannot punish any
breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by such Member or
officer. If a complaint is made against a Member or officer of
the other House, the appropriate course of action is to examine
the facts and then lay a statement of the evidence before the
House of which the person complained of is a Member or officer.
1015
For the reasons stated above, I must rule that the matter does
not constitute a prima facie case of privilege, nor a contempt
of parliament.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development and
pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the pleasure to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to the
recommendations of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities, entitled “Beyond the Numbers: The Future of the
Social Insurance Number System in Canada”.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-317, an act to change the name of the electoral
district of Lac-Saint-Jean.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table a bill to
change the name of the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean to
Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.
On polling, 70% of my constituents were in favour of changing
the name so the Saguenay portion of my riding could be
representing in the riding's name.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-318, an act to require the establishment of
national training and certification standards for trades that
receive apprenticeship training.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to
establish national training and certification standards for all
apprenticeship trades. It would improve labour mobility and, I
believe, encourage our young people to take up apprentice
occupations at a time when there is a real shortage in the
construction industry.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been discussions among House leaders of the parties and I
think you would find consent for adoption of the following motion
dealing with speaking times for today's debate. The motion is in
the same form as that passed for the same purpose at earlier
sessions. I move:
That, during today's sitting the member proposing a motion on an
allotted day shall not speak for more than twenty minutes,
following which, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made
available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and
comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow
responses thereto, and immediately thereafter a representative of
each of the recognized parties, other than that of the member
proposing the motion, may be recognized to speak for not more
than ten minutes, following which, in each case, a period not
exceeding five minutes shall be made available, if required, to
allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters
relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
1020
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to present. The first deals with drugs in
our society and is attempting to register concern in the House of
Commons concerning drugs.
The petitioners ask parliament to develop a co-ordinated
national drug strategy that works effectively at the street
level, funded fully to ensure that those addicted receive the
necessary health care and rehabilitative treatment, and that
those who sell and traffic drugs be prosecuted to the full extent
of the law.
TAXATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to table a second petition which calls upon parliament to
give Canadian taxpayers a break by instituting tax relief of at
least 25% in federal taxes over the next two years, starting with
the next federal budget.
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of 75 people from the city of St.
John's. The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House
to the polluted condition of St. John's Harbour.
The petitioners request that the House encourage the federal,
provincial and relevant municipal governments to financially
support the sewage treatment system required for the St. John's
Harbour cleanup.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present
petitions today on various issues.
The first petition contains over 1,000 names of people from my
riding who call upon parliament to invoke the notwithstanding
clause to ensure that we have a law against child pornography in
Canada.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is also from my riding. The petitioners call
upon parliament to ensure that parliament retain the supremacy of
God within the charter of rights and freedoms.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls upon parliament to recognize the traditional
definition of marriage as the union of a single man and a single
woman.
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are approximately 500 names on the fourth petition. The
petitioners ask parliament to affirm the right of parents to
discipline their children as they so choose, so long as they do
not overstep the traditional bounds, and they call upon
parliament to retain section 43 of the criminal code as it is
currently worded.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour of presenting a petition signed by concerned citizens of
the greater Toronto area.
Canada is a multicultural country and immigrants greatly
contribute to multiculturalism in Canada. For a person who is in
desperate need to sponsor their family, it is impossible for him
or her to pay the $500 processing fee, plus an additional $975
landing fee per person.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to ask the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review the existing
fee structure and combine the landing fee and the processing fee
into one, eliminating the other and lowering it to $500 per
applicant.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5 and 32.
.[Text]
Question No. 5—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to Order in Council No. 11 passed on November 29,
1994 declaring a series of firearms as prohibited weapons
effective January 1, 1995, what has the government determined to
be: (a) the total number and type of firearms confiscated under
OIC No. 11; (b) the total number and type of firearms confiscated
for which compensation was given to the owner; (c) the rationale
or reason behind the issuance of such compensation; (d) the total
number and type of firearms confiscated for which compensation
was not given to the owner; and (e) the rationale or reason why
no such compensation was provided?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): It should first
be noted that the firearms which were declared prohibited weapons
under Order No. 11, SOR/94-744 were not all appropriated but some
were in fact voluntarily handed over by their owners. Owners who
did not voluntarily turn over their firearms were not eligible
for any payment.
(a) 60 firearms in total: 19 American Arms AP9, 12 Benelli M1
Super 90, 2 Benelli M3 Super 90, 3 Claridge Hi-Tec, 1 Enfield
MP-45, 3 Franchi Spas 12, 3 Franchi Spas 15, 1 Grendel P30, 1
Harrington & Richardson Premier, 1 Heckler and Koch Super 90, 1
Heckler and Koch SP89, 1 Inland Man. Div. M-2 Carbine, 9
Interdynamic KG99, 1 Intratec Tec-22, 1 Intratec Tec-9, and 1
Sten Mark II.
(b) 47 firearms in total, for which compensation was given to
owners: 17 American Arms AP9, 11 Benelli M1 Super 90, 2 Benelli
M3 Super 90, 3 Claridge Hi-Tec, 1 Franchi Spas 12, 2 Franchi Spas
15, 1 Grendel P30, 1 Heckler and Koch Super 90, and 9
Interdynamics KG99.
(c) A letter was sent to firearms owners by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police to notify them that their firearms had been
declared prohibited weapons under Order No. 11, SOR/94-744. The
letter advised them to voluntarily hand over their weapons to the
authorities and that they would be eligible for compensation for
firearms returned voluntarily. In order to receive compensation
owners were also required to do the following: sign a notice of
waiver; provide their surname, given name, date of birth, address
and telephone number; provide the make, model and serial number
of the returned firearm; and indicate the month and year in which
the firearm was acquired.
(d) 13 firearms in total without compensation to owners: 2
American Arms AP9, 1 Benelli M1 Super 90, 1 Enfield MP-45, 2
Franchi Spas 12, 1 Franchi Spas 15, 1 Harrington & Richardson
Premier, 1 Heckler and Koch SP89, 1 Inland Man. Div. M-2 Carbine,
1 Intratec Tec-22, 1 Intratec Tec-9, and 1 Sten Mark II.
(e) The following are reasons for lack of compensation: 2 of
these firearms were seized and there was a destruction order from
the court; 8 of these firearms were not listed in Order No. 11,
SOR/94-744; 7 of these firearms were already prohibited, 2 under
section 84 of the Criminal Code and 1 is a restrictive weapon;
and 3 files are still pending.
Question No. 32—Mr. John Cummins:
Has the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, when considering cases
from veterans claiming that mefloquine use was a contributing
cause of their disability, ever: (a) declined to hear further
evidence from veterans deployed to Somalia detailing medical
problems relating to mefloquine use amongs soldiers; (b)
declined to recognize that a veteran had suffered a disability
related to mefloquine use in either Somalia or Rwanda because it
had no evidence from the Canadian Forces showing that the veteran
had complained of mefloquine side effects while in Somalia; (c)
found that mefloquine was not a contributing factor in a
disability suffered by a veteran who had been deployed to either
Somalia or Rwanda; (d) found it had no evidence of mefloquine use
by veterans who been deployed to Somalia;
(e) found it had no evidence of side effects from mefloquine
use by veterans who had been deployed to Somalia; (f) found it
had no evidence to indicate that mefloquine caused emotional
problems that would affect decision making capabilities of
veterans who had been deployed to Somalia; (g) dismissed a
claim from a veteran deployed to Somalia on the basis that
emotional problems resulting from mefloquine only occur in
situations where it is being used in the treatment of malaria and
not for the prevention of malaria; (h) found it had no evidence
to indicate that mefloquine caused suicidal ideation in veterans
who had been deployed to Somalia or Rwanda; and in each case, if
so, what measures were taken to ensure that the board had
received all available data from the Canadian Forces and the
Health Protection Branch of Health Canada?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): The Veterans Review and Appeal Board advises that it
adjudicated over 49,000 cases in the past five years and does not
track the nature of the evidence presented in support of claims.
As such, the board cannot respond with certainty about what
evidence may or may not have been given to the board in the
course of a specific appeal. Recently a case where there was some
evidence concerning the drug mefloquine on file was the subject
of a federal court judicial review. The federal court referred
the case back to the board to be redecided in accordance with
the instruction of the court on how the board must interpret the
pension Act. The only issue before the board was an issue of
statutory interpretation. No additional evidence was necessary in
order to render a fully favourable decision. The appellant's
representative was advised of this and a decision was issued.
The board obeyed the directions of the federal court. At three
hearings before this board and the former Canadian Pension
Commission and one hearing before the federal court, this
appelant was represented by lawyers from the Bureau of Pensions
Advocates. The appelant, who at all stages had legal counsel,
decided what evidence to place before the board in support of the
claim.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1025
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FOOD INDUSTRIES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That this House regrets the failure of the government to
recognize the importance of Canada's food industries:
(a) by failing to provide leadership, a long-term vision and
workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors;
(b) by not adequately preparing for the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in R. v Marshall which acknowledged fishing,
hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal Peoples; and
(c) by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's
agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing
subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic
disasters, and an inadequate long-term national safety net, the
result of which has contributed greatly to increased financial
and mental stresses on family farms and in fishing communities;
and, therefore, this House urges the government to give
consideration to the immediate and long-term needs of Canada's
agriculture and fishing industries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would ask the Chair to
recognize that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
West Nova, who will be speaking to the issue of fisheries. I
will be speaking to the issue of agriculture.
I am very pleased to stand today and present the motion on
behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion points
to the failure of the federal government over the past six years
to properly manage Canada's resource based industries, fisheries
and agriculture, and to give them the priority they deserve.
This motion is about more than simply agriculture and fisheries,
although we will use those as the examples, and certainly bad
examples as demonstrated by the government.
The motion speaks to the lack of the ability of the government
to manage. It speaks to the lack of leadership and vision, not
only for agriculture and fisheries, but also the quality of life
for Canadians who reside in rural communities throughout this
great country of ours.
It speaks to the inability of the government to put forward the
understanding that these areas of our economy are vital and
important to Canadians. Our natural resources, particularly
agriculture and fisheries, but also forestry and mining, have
been the backbone of the country over the last century. They
have been dropped down on the priority list to where it has
almost been negligence on behalf of the government not to
identify these areas as having a higher priority.
The federal government has failed to recognize the importance of
our food industries. It has failed to provide clear direction,
leadership, long term vision and workable solutions for our
fishery and agriculture sectors.
The government has an opportunity today in debate in the House
to finally show that it will be committed to the immediate and
long term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries.
The government has been noticeably absent in its commitment over
the past six years.
I will speak with some authority on the agriculture industry. I
will begin today's debate speaking to that area.
There is a simple reality. Farm families and rural communities
across Canada are paying a very high price for having a Liberal
government unchallenged and uncaring in Ottawa. There is a long
pattern of neglect, but the past few years have shown just how
dramatically issues of importance to rural Canada have fallen off
the government's agenda.
The family farm is a way of life. Food production is a source
of life. The two are interconnected and the survival of both is
fundamental to the well-being of every Canadian. The federal
government must act now to maintain the viability of Canadian
farms and Canadian fishing industries in villages throughout the
country.
It is time the Liberal government realized that agriculture is
important to this country as a supplier of the best food in the
world.
1030
The United States and the European Union have identified
agriculture as being a priority in the support systems that have
been set up to make sure that farms are retained within their
societies. Our government has not done so. I would like to hear
what it believes the future of these two vital industries will be
having been neglected for the past six years.
Agriculture is one of the most efficient industries in Canada.
Our reputation in the world is strong. We have 10% of the
world's farmland. The growing globe will always need more to eat
and will always find new ways to use agricultural products.
Canadian producers are in the best position to take advantage of
this bright future. But if we fail to support our producers, if
we fail to invest in agriculture and ensure its long term
stability, that advantage will disappear. We will have to import
foodstuffs in order to feed our population as opposed to
depending on a reliable domestic food supply.
We need to recognize and emphasize the natural strength of this
region. Canada has a rich future in value added industries if we
develop the natural resources to which that value is added. One
of the differences between the Liberal Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party is we understand that agriculture and natural
resources are still the fundamental building blocks of our
Canadian economy.
I would like to comment now on the Liberal government's lack of
leadership in addressing this very important issue. The throne
speech is one example of how void the government is when it comes
to any long term vision for Canadian resource based industries.
There was no reference to what the current government proposes to
do to maintain a viable agriculture and agri-food sector while
that sector continues to suffer through one of the worst
financial crunches since the 1930s.
The throne speech was devoid of any recognition of the
agricultural situation that we as Canadians now find ourselves
in. That is an absolute shame. I do not know if that speaks to
the government's philosophy or lack thereof or to the inability
of the minister to get that priority to the cabinet table.
In the advent of our current government's sudden focus on
technology as the wave of the future, it has unfortunately
disregarded the fact that agriculture's sustainability remains
one of the basic needs of any country in the world, particularly
Canada. The agricultural sector in Canada is facing increasing
subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic
disasters and an inadequate national safety net program while the
government stands idle.
For example, for every $1 farmers in Canada receive on a per
capita basis, their competitors in the United States and in
Europe receive more than $2.50 in support from their governments.
This does not include the $8.6 billion farm aid package recently
approved by the United States, a move that will double direct
payments to farmers in that country this year.
In February 1993 the minister of agriculture stated when he was
in opposition:
GRIP and NISA, which are long term safety net programs, are being
tried and are being worked with. So far in many areas they have
been insufficient. They have been a disappointment to the
farmers and the industry.
That is a quote from Hansard in 1993.
It is safe to say that most farmers today would take GRIP and
NISA over AIDA, the disastrous program that has been put forward
by the Liberal government. GRIP and NISA had vision, had long
term understanding as to the safety net project. The GRIP
program was taken away by the government and not replaced by any
long term safety net program.
It is also sad to see the minister of agriculture using
desperate attempts to gain sympathy from the agriculture
community for his dismal record. He talks of taking a tough love
approach. Perhaps the minister would like to expand on the
definition of a tough love approach. Does it mean that
agriculture, farmers and producers in our country are to stand
alone or fall together? Is that the tough love approach the
minister wishes to take?
It is also sad to see the minister pit farmer against farmer. I
will not quote what was reported in a newspaper recently, but the
issue was that there were others in the farm community who did
not want to bail out any of their counterparts in the industry.
That is not true. From what I have seen and heard having talked
with my producers on a regular basis, there is a collegiality
among producers. They want to have a long term vision, a long
term program, a long term viability and understanding of this
industry. We have none of that.
1035
I do not know if we are going to end up with 1,000 producers
producing all that is necessary for domestic production. Is that
where the government wishes to go? If it is, there is more than
just farm production at risk. There is a quality of life and a
way of life in rural Canada.
I am very proud to say that I come from a rural community, as
does my colleague from West Nova who deals with the fishery. I
deal with agriculture. It is a way of life. It is the way that
we live, a quality of life that we wish to retain. That vision,
that understanding, that philosophy and that ideology has to be
put forward in programs and must be accepted by the government of
the day. If the government of the day cannot develop those
programs, be assured that the next government under the
Progressive Conservative Party will understand that, as did the
previous Conservative government in 1993. The next government
will put forward those programs, that vision, that philosophy and
the ideology that will support rural Canada as opposed to
destroying it.
I will now acquiesce to my colleague from West Nova to deal with
the issue of aquaculture and fisheries.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great regret and a deep sense of frustration that I rise before
the House to denounce the government's failure to adequately
respond to the growing crisis that exists within our rural areas
which depend almost exclusively on Canada's food industries to
earn their livelihoods.
The PC Party has consistently called upon the government to act
in the best interests of our farmers and fishers, yet our calls
for assistance have basically fallen upon deaf ears. Our party
is using our supply day motion to once again draw the attention
of the government to the economic hardships that exist within our
farming and fishing communities. The farm crisis in our western
provinces and the recent crisis in the Atlantic fishery are prime
examples of the government's failure to address the growing
crisis in these two primary industries.
In his remarks, my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris
effectively identified the serious problems facing our western
farmers. Without an adequate long term federal aid program, many
of our western farmers will be facing economic ruin. Despite
numerous pleas for help from my hon. colleague along with those
coming from the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the
federal government, in particular its minister of agriculture,
has simply introduced a band-aid solution that will do little to
ensure the long term survival of our prairie farmers.
Perhaps overshadowed during the whole debate has been the
equally serious crisis facing our Nova Scotia farmers. After
three consecutive seasons of drought conditions, they find
themselves wondering whether they will have a future for
themselves and their families in this industry.
The AIDA program looked at the last three years to determine if
there would be a benefit. The farmers who live in my
constituency have been experiencing drought conditions for the
last three years, but they have been unable to get any benefits
from the AIDA program. That is only one of the issues and one of
the examples of what is facing our farmers in southwestern Nova
Scotia. That is not acceptable. What is being produced by these
farmers is valuable not just from a food point of view but as an
economic benefit as well.
Many Canadians are alarmed by the constant brain drain that is
occurring in this country. There has been a continuous exodus of
some of Canada's finest young minds who see a better future for
themselves in the U.S. This situation is having a profound
effect on our farming community. Our youth must see a future for
themselves within the farming industry, yet this will only happen
if the government starts to take the problem facing our farming
industry seriously.
I do not think anything could epitomize more the government's
lack of leadership than its recent handling of the supreme court
decision in the Donald Marshall Jr. case. Despite having years
to prepare for any consequences the supreme court decision would
have, we sadly witnessed a total lack of understanding of this
situation by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who was
undoubtedly misguided and ill prepared to respond to the fear and
anger that accompanied the court decision.
1040
Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was not prepared to
immediately respond to the Donald Marshall decision continues to
baffle everyone involved in the industry. It is beyond all
comprehension why the minister failed to have a plan in place
that would have responded to the decision. Now the minister
would argue that he was prepared and that he did have a solution
in hand, but the facts would tend to show otherwise.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on September
17 yet the minister only released a statement on September 20,
which in effect says he did not know he had to study it. For
three days there were no comments. Obviously native fishers were
more prepared for the decision than the minister as they began
setting lobster traps almost immediately following the decision.
While tensions in Atlantic Canada continued to rise as a result
of the supreme court decision, the minister of fisheries
continued to reassure us that a solution was in hand. On October
1 he announced that he would seek a short term deal with the
native community for a moratorium that would not rule out acting
unilaterally if a decision was not reached. The chiefs acted on
their own without the minister's assistance and introduced their
own moratorium, which in most instances was maintained throughout
the crisis.
Native chiefs, like our fisheries representatives, recognized
the inability of the minister to show any kind of leadership in
the dispute. Even the Prime Minister recognized the seriousness
of the situation when he suggested that the government could ask
the supreme court to suspend its decision. Obviously he realized
that his minister of fisheries had fumbled the ball on this very
serious issue and was looking for a way out of a very tense
situation that was threatening to erupt into violence in the
Atlantic provinces.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
openly disagreed regarding the solution to the Atlantic fishery
crisis. If native and non-native fishers were looking for any
type of leadership following the supreme court decision, they
quickly realized that they were not going to find it within the
ranks of the federal government.
On October 15 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the
appointment of Mr. James MacKenzie to negotiate an agreement that
would allow native and non-native fishers to share the resource.
Almost a full month after the decision we discovered that the
only solution that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had in
response to the crisis was to appoint an independent negotiator.
If this was the best the minister could offer, why did he not
appoint this individual immediately following the ruling? Why
did he only act following unfortunate acts of violence?
Native and non-native leaders within my constituency deserve
much credit for coming to a temporary agreement over the fishery
in lobster fishing area 34. They recognized that the government
was either ill prepared, or even worse, did not care what
happened to the fishery. They agreed to solve the problems
themselves and they deserve much credit for reducing the tensions
that exist in our area.
It is obvious that the minister of fisheries has no idea how to
resolve the fisheries crisis and now he appoints Mr. MacKenzie to
try to defuse the growing tension among native and non-native
groups. Unfortunately he failed to provide Mr. MacKenzie with
any terms of reference. It was almost seven weeks before Mr.
MacKenzie's terms of reference were made public. That again
shows the total lack of preparedness.
Why should the industry respect anything that comes out of the
minister's mouth when he continues to show his total ineptitude
in handling the situation? The minister of fisheries continues
to say that this situation can only be resolved through
consultation. I agree, but what is consultation worth if the
minister refuses to listen to any of it?
For instance, over the last few years the minister has been
threatening to increase the size of lobster to protect stocks.
Our fishery representatives have agreed to do V-notching instead
until such time and further scientific evidence can show that
this system is not effective. The minister has yet to agree to
this request but instead appears willing to put further hardship
on our fishers by unilaterally imposing an increased lobster
size. Now our fishers are faced with an increase in the number
of fishers plus an increase in the size of lobsters which could
result in a serious decline in revenue.
The lobster fishery is vital to our local economy as is our
farming industry. It is time that our government began
recognizing the importance of the food industry to the overall
economy before it is too late.
I would like to conclude my remarks by moving an amendment to
the opposition motion. I move:
1045
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for my colleague for West Nova who has been and will
continue to be very involved in the fisheries issue, particularly
as it now unfolds with the Marshall decision.
We do not need to look too far in the distant future to know
that perhaps at some point in time the minister of fisheries will
have a position of power. Knowing full well what was going on in
the supreme court with respect to Marshall, would my colleague
have tried to put into place some planning, some strategy for
best case and worst case scenarios? Or, would he simply have
done what the government has done and wait until all this
unfolded with no strategy and no plan?
If so, how would he have seen this play out as opposed to having
the violence that we have seen and the inability of government to
negotiate after the fact? What would he have seen as a better
resolution to the issue?
That speaks directly to the motion: the lack of management, the
inability to be able to put forward plans and to mitigate issues
and situations which have happened in the past with respect to
fisheries, agriculture, port disputes, lumber disputes, pork
disputes and beef disputes. We have had them all. How would my
hon. colleague have tried to come up with something better as a
strategy or plan than what happened?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy my hon.
colleague asked that question. I do not know if it is my
involvement some years ago with the Boy Scout movement or if it
is my personal way of doing things from my business background,
but I like knowing or at least being prepared for what is coming,
be it good or bad. I always try to prepare.
It is for this reason that I just cannot fathom why the minister
of fisheries was not prepared. He said that it could have gone
many ways. There were two obvious ways that it could have gone:
either the decision was in favour of Donald Marshall or it was
not.
If it were in favour of Donald Marshall there were things that
could have been done. He could have been prepared. He could
have come down to the affected areas and said that they had a
plan, that they were working with both sides, that they would
work with them and iron out some kind of solution at least in the
long term so they could work toward a longer term solution to the
problem. Had it gone the other side, the native community would
have had some concerns. Obviously negotiations would have been
needed there.
However, there was none of that. There was no preparedness. It
took seven weeks to show the terms of reference for the
negotiator, almost a month to appoint a negotiator, and three
days to make an initial announcement on the decision. That is
total unpreparedness. It is not acceptable and this is ongoing.
1050
I was speaking with a friend shortly after the decision came
down. I said it blew me away that the government did not have a
solution in place. He said that was how it was, that there was
never a solution, only band-aids one after another.
That is not a solution. There has to be one. We need a
government that thinks forward, not just puts out the fires as
they happen.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out to my colleague on the opposite side that
the supreme court decision with respect to Marshall was a divided
decision. There was a minority of the judges that ruled in
entirely the opposite.
I would like to ask him that had the Marshall issue been an
issue before parliament instead of before the supreme court, how
would he have come down. Would he have come down on the side of
the majority decision of the judges, that is to extend the rights
to the aboriginals over the lobster fishery, or would he have
come down on the side of the minority which said that this was
not appropriate? How would he have voted had this been an issue
before parliament?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question. I respect the spirit in which it was asked, but I
think there is a clear difference between what the government did
and what this party would do.
We would not have had this decision go to the supreme court but
would have dealt with the issue in parliament so that it could
have been debated. Then we would have gone back to the parties
involved and negotiated a settlement. We would not have put it
in the hands of the supreme court.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate
in the debate today and to provide some of the details of the
government's response to the serious financial situation facing
many Canadian farmers today.
I do not want to diminish or underestimate the level of the
crisis for a number of producers in Canada today, but I do want
to say as well that overall our agriculture and agrifood sector
is strong. It is and will continue to make a major contribution
to the Canadian economy.
This past year, however, has not been easy for many producers.
We understand that very fully. They have been struggling against
a number of things. They have been struggling against low
commodity prices that are in effect around the world. They have
been struggling because of the fallout of the Asian economy and
some of the markets that have been lost there. They have been
struggling because of those reduced markets. They have been
struggling because of excessive moisture in some cases and in
others lack of moisture in certain parts of the country. All
these issues have combined to have a serious impact on the
economies of many producers, particularly those in the grain,
oilseed and hog industries.
However under the government's leadership, and with the
co-operation of the provincial governments and farm
organizations, we have come together to respond to the situation.
I remind the House and Canadians again that about a year ago the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris and his party were recommending
that the government should come to the assistance of Canadian
farmers to the extent of $276 million, I believe it was. I
remind the House that the government has come to the assistance
of producers in a number of ways, one of which has been $1.07
billion or close to $1.1 billion to assist producers, which is
just about four times what the hon. member's party said it would
give. Thank goodness it is not in power, but I think we
understand why.
Those members can say all they want, but I remind everybody of
the situation in 1993 when their party ended its reign of terror
and left Canada taking in $120 billion a year and spending $162
billion a year, the largest single deficit in the history of
Canada.
We were for all technical purposes bankrupt because of nine years
in which they were in power, adding to a situation they took over
but a situation they promised Canadians they would fix but only
made considerably worse.
1055
The member for West Nova made reference to the fact that farmers
in Nova Scotia had been suffering from drought for two or three
years. Shortly after I became minister I reminded the producers
and the government there that a crop insurance program needed to
be in place to assist in the forage industry, for example. They
did not do that when they had the first drought. They did not do
that when they had the second drought. Now they are working on
it and I praise them for it. They have now had three years of
experience in that regard. It shows a lack of understanding by
hon. members in that some of these matters are under the control
of the provinces, and I assume the hon. member is encouraging the
provincial government in that province.
The member for Brandon—Souris also made comments with reference
to GRIP. GRIP was not all bad and was not all good, but I ask
him to ask some of the provinces like the province of
Saskatchewan why they cancelled GRIP. This is one of the
reasons, and not the only one, that a number of farmers in
Saskatchewan are in very grave difficulty. Other provinces kept
a portion or a GRIP-type program which has been working very well
for them.
In February of this year our government moved to aid Canadian
farmers by putting in place the agriculture income disaster
program. That program is funded 60% by the federal government
and 40% by the provincial government. The first announcement on
the program will support Canadian farmers with contributions to
the extent of $1.5 billion in addition to the $1 billion per year
in safety net programs already in place. That took place after
extensive consultations with the National Safety Nets Advisory
Committee made up of representatives of all major farm
commodities. That announcement was made last year.
In early November of this year we made an additional
announcement of another $170 million from the 60% federal
portion. We made some further changes to assist, to deepen and
to broaden the coverage of the program, bringing the total
federal support close to $1.1 billion.
We are encouraging the provinces to join in the standard 60:40
support to the program. That has taken place over the years and
has become accepted by everyone. We are telling the provinces
that if they do not wish to put it forward to support the aid
program they can do it with equivalent measures. We presume and
expect that relationship will continue.
I admit the AIDA program may not be perfect but it has proven to
help many Canadian farmers withstand the crisis they are facing.
Over 51,000 applications have been received. More than $370
million have been paid out so far for 1998.
I assure the House and Canadian farmers that the total money
will be paid out. We have made changes to ensure that. If
necessary, we will continue to make changes to the program to
ensure that. I do know and admit that the money did not flow as
quickly as we all would like it to. There are applications which
have to take place so that we can direct the money to those who
need it. I also assure members that in the very near future the
remainder of the money for 1998 will be paid out.
For example, in Saskatchewan to date over 8,000 farmers have
received over $80 million. I should add that if the province
agrees to participate in covering the changes that we made
recently to negative margins, over the two years of the program
our estimates are that it will move to about $585 million to
assist producers in the province of Saskatchewan alone.
1100
I should also mention other changes we have made in response to
the comments of the safety nets advisory committee. They include
changes to the reference period, to how we treat family labour,
to the choice of accounting system and I could go on. We have
also made changes to the advance payments so that farmers can, at
this time, apply for 60% of their anticipated requirement for
1999 so that we can get them more cash to help them.
This past summer we made access easier and faster to crop
insurance. We made changes to the NISA program so that
withdrawals from and deposits to are improved. As a result, over
41,000 more Canadian farmers have access to that fund, and I
could go on. That made available another $117 million.
I remind everyone that there are still, for example, in the
province of Saskatchewan, over 26,000 farmers who have triggered
withdrawals from the NISA program as a result of their 1998
business year, and there is over $280 million still available. I
encourage them to participate in that program.
I could go on but I will sum up by saying that we have continued
and we will continue to support our farmers with effective and
flexible safety nets. We will continue to work with them and for
them to find additional ways to support and strengthen rural
agricultural Canada and rural Canada in general.
We will continue the dialogue with the provinces and the farm
groups. We will be working with them to put in place a longer
term agricultural disaster assistance program, one that will work
effectively and invaluably with the NISA program, crop insurance
program and all other programs at the present time. I am
confident that we can work with the sector to strengthen and
improve the agriculture in rural Canada.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great opportunity to be able to question a government minister on
any issue, and especially one of the importance that our farmers
have been experiencing throughout the country, whether it was a
commodity issue that took place last year or the farm income
crisis which they have currently.
My question to the hon. minister is quite simple. When it comes
to hog farmers in the province of New Brunswick, and I am
speaking primarily about the ones in my riding, they are very
clear in terms of having a long range program for disaster relief
and in terms of what AIDA is filling as a stop gap to complement
NISA. Would the minister now say that the abolition of the GRIP
program was a clear and utter mistake?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of
programs in the past that were discussed by all sectors of the
industry. At one time the pork industry was involved in a
national tripartite stabilization program. Over the years it was
discussed that some changes could be made to that. As the hon.
member said, a GRIP program was put in. It was basically a whole
farm program that was there.
The bottom line is that for a number of reasons, some because of
the industry itself, some because of the way in which the
provinces felt about the program, and yes, some because of
discussions with the federal government, some of these programs
have been changed. That is why we are looking at a full analysis
and a review of the safety net programs that are there and a long
term program to put in place to assist producers over a long term
period.
There may be very well be benefits carried forward from some of
the thoughts and ideas in the GRIP program. It too was not
perfect. If it had been perfect it would still be there. The
bottom line is that because it was not what everybody wanted,
there have been some changes as we see today.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in my
riding there are a number of farmers who have applied for AIDA.
Very few, if any, that I know of have received any funding. Most
of them have been denied. Many have come to my office with the
forms and I can honestly say that I have never seen such
complicated, ridiculous types of forms that farmers are expected
to fill in to accomplish this task of making an application.
1105
I have an accounting degree and I can understand why accountants
are having such severe problem with it. Why is the government
making this so complicated for the average farmer? Why is it
using, according to Stats Canada, 1997 stats in order to make
decisions regarding AIDA? This is 1999. Why are we using dated
stats to deny farmers this support?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the requests from the
provincial governments and the industry beginning about a year
ago was that there needed to be some support to recognize the
precipitous drops in incomes, particularly those in the grains
and hog industries, relative to the three previous years 1997,
1996 and 1995.
I have reminded the House before that the forms that the hon.
member is referring to are, yes, seven pages long. I will not go
into them, but they ask farmers to give beginning inventory,
ending inventory, expenses, income, accounts receivable, et
cetera.
As a government, we have a responsibility. The hon. member and
his party often remind us of the responsibility we have in the
way in which we expend taxpayers' money. We said, the industry
said and the provinces said that they wanted the resources
available targeted to those who were in need.
The program that was put in place supported and supports someone
if their gross margin drops below 70% of what their gross margin
had averaged for the three previous years. I can only assume
that the individuals who came in to see the hon. member did not
trigger the criteria of gross margins being below 70% of what
they had averaged for the three previous reference years.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have one clarification. The minister continually suggests that
the proposed program that we came forward with and the $276
million is in fact true. That was a federal contribution not
inclusive of the provincial contributions. It was also six months
prior to when this minister even realized that there was a
problem.
I should also tell the House that it was tied into a long term
program, which I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food would like to be able to say that he has it well in
hand, but would he admit that it is not well in hand?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, it shows how up to date
our party and our government is compared to the hon. member's
party. He may have come forward with those figures but we came
forward in the end with $1.1 billion four times.
He knows full well that there are discussions going on in
co-operation with the provinces, the safety nets advisory
committee and the industry to put in place the long term safety
net program. Yes, we do have it in hand. Yes, we are consulting
with the industry. Yes, we will be taking direction and
consultation with them as it should be.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is a pleasure to have the minister present today for
the debate. Being the fine gentleman that he is, I am certain he
would be pleased to stick around for another five minutes for an
extension on questions. I would ask for the unanimous consent of
the House for that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions and comments to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do have to leave for a
cabinet meeting, but if the members wish me to stay for five more
minutes I will.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the
Progressive Conservative Party on the Liberal government's
failure to recognize the importance of Canada's food industry.
In the three issues that will be put before the House today, I
want to stress the second one, namely, that the government was
not properly prepared for the “decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada in R. v Marshall, which acknowledged fishing, hunting
and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples”. The
peoples referred to are, specifically, the Malecite and the
Mi'kmaq.
1110
Looking at the events, it is true the Liberal government over
there was not prepared to face the music. The proof is that the
decision was brought down around the middle of September and the
incidents with the native fishermen began only toward the end of
September or the beginning of October.
During the hearings the Standing Committee on Fisheries started
holding as soon as the House resumed in mid-October, we realized,
when we heard what the aboriginal witnesses were saying, that
they had approached the Canadian government many times. They had
done so as early as last spring in order to be ready with a Plan
B, if ever the Canadian government were to lose in court.
I also know that they did so during the summer, in order to
still have the possibility of preparing a Plan B.
The Canadian government rejected this each time, preferring to
believe that only its version of the story would hold any
weight. Now it has to be acknowledged that the Canadian
government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been
left high and dry, one might say.
During last week's recess, there was another event that proved
that the Canadian government is totally off track. Mr.
Thériault was hired to assist Mr. MacKenzie in the negotiations,
in order to provide the maritimes fishermen with representation
in these negotiations, because the so-called traditional fishing
communities did not feel that the chief negotiator was listening
to and understanding them.
I might add that we only learned of the few lines defining the
mandate of Mr. MacKenzie at the time of the announcement of his
assistant's appointment.
This indicates, once again, the extent of the government's lack
of preparedness for the situation.
More serious in this situation is the fact that the minister is
splitting the mandate to negotiate. The government is talking
about trying to reach short term agreements with the aboriginal
peoples on fishing starting this winter and early spring to
enable aboriginal fisher to get along with traditional fishers.
This is a praiseworthy goal, but the short and the long term are
being totally separated, and this fact is causing concern among
the fishers.
I would like to clarify something here. The government wants to
introduce new players into the lobster fishing industry, which
is already quite full. There is no more room, and all the
industry players agree that, if new fishers are to be brought
in, others must be withdrawn.
I wonder, therefore, what meaning the short term agreements with
the native bands have. Fishers deciding to pull out give their
most valuable possession, their fishing site, to someone else.
It is a vital part of them. Who would give away a vital part of
one's self just like that, when told it is just for the short
term? The example is perhaps a bit strong, but, when one gives
part of one's self away, it can never be replaced. It is a bit
like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
An essentially irreversible process is under way. It is going
to be very difficult for those fishers who voluntarily decide to
return their licenses to Fisheries and Oceans to change their
mind. On that basis, how will it be possible to reconcile the
long term process the minister has initiated?
What I understand is that the Government of Canada is giving the
Indian affairs minister the so called long term process,
because, the Marshall decision, the decision by the supreme
court that allows aboriginal peoples to exercise their fishing
rights, provides that the fishing must be for a moderate
livelihood, that fishing will enable the native bands to enjoy a
moderate livelihood.
1115
The supreme court does not define this expression. The report
of the Erasmus-Dussault commission suggests some possible
directions for the self-government so sought after by the first
nations. Seeing the Canadian government's failure to govern
when it comes to native affairs, the supreme court is giving it
a little push from behind, so to speak, saying “You must ensure
that native peoples have a decent livelihood, as seen through
modern lenses”. This is a new management expression.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been
tasked with forming a committee to look into the matter.
The committee's long-term mandate contains no clues as to the
nature of the short-term agreements to be worked out right now
for the fishery.
For example, concerning the three things mentioned in the
treaty, hunting, fishing and gathering, are we to understand
that a decent livelihood, which remains to be defined by the
committee led by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, will represent about 30%? Will it be 25%? What
will it be?
Second, will the Canadian government attempt to resolve native
concerns as much as possible insofar as the fishery is
concerned? Since we have no information on the progress that
has been made by the other committee, it is likely that the
fishing community will be asked to do a bit more.
When I refer to being asked to do more, the aboriginal people
started with what are called riparian fisheries, which require
less equipment. I am referring to lobster fishing, although
that is not the only catch in Canadian waters.
Are we to understand that other fisheries will also be invited
to help by suggesting a quantity of fish or a financial value to
determine what is a moderate livelihood?
All of these questions leave me highly perplexed. Does a
moderate livelihood refer to the financial aspect or to the
work? It must be very difficult to not have anything to occupy
one's time, to have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week free. If it
is only the financial aspect, what could be done within the
existing management agreements with the fishermen?
Here again, I am sceptical.
Is it up to one category of individuals, the fishers, to make
reparation for all the historical mistakes made by Canada? The
only way to do so would be through taxes, so that if ever
licences were to be withdrawn on a voluntary basis, the Canadian
taxpayers would know that they had to pay for part of the
mistake, because Canadian and Quebec fishers will have to be
compensated for having to withdraw in favour of the new players,
the aboriginal fishers.
It is unfortunate that we have so little time this morning to
address this subject. These few questions I have raised suggest
to us a lack of preparedness on the part of the Canadian
government. In my opinion, it is moving at a snail's pace in
resolving this problem, when the aboriginal people have been
knocking at the door for 240 years now. Since my time has run
out, I will now accept any questions from the other side.
1120
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak to the Conservative supply day
motion. It is an interesting motion which begins as follows:
“That this House regrets the failure of the government to
recognize the importance of Canada's food industries”. There
are several parts to it, all of which bear commenting upon.
First, the motion states that the government has failed to
provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for
Canada's fishery and agricultural sectors. Second, it states
that the government did not adequately prepare for the decision
of the supreme court in the Marshall case which acknowledged the
fishing, hunting and gathering rights of Canada's aboriginal
people. Third, it states what is perhaps most all encompassing
and to which I will direct most of my comments, that the
government has failed to address the serious problem of Canada's
agricultural producers who are suffering from increased
subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic
disasters and an inadequate long term national safety net, the
result of which has contributed greatly to increased financial
and mental stresses on family farms and fishing communities.
It is a welcome motion and I compliment my colleagues in the
Conservative Party. Although sometimes we have our differences,
on this motion it is interesting to see that there is some
commonality and concern for the farming and fishing communities.
The motion goes beyond that because the mover of the motion spoke
about the natural resources industries. He talked about the
mining industry, the forestry industry and rural communities.
Those are things about which all of us are concerned, in
particular those of us who come from rural communities. Because
of the crisis in the agricultural industry, my colleague from
Palliser attempted to introduce on October 12 an emergency debate
in the House to deal with the family farm and the crisis it was
facing. He wrote to the Speaker requesting permission to have an
emergency debate on the issue.
There is a crisis in the farming industry. There is a crisis in
the fishing industry and there is a crisis in our rural
communities that is simply not being addressed.
I ended my comments yesterday in the debate on the Cape Breton
Development Corporation Act by talking about the four carved
figures in the lobby of the House of Commons, the four faces
which represent the people who built this nation, one of which is
a farmer. Today in the prairies farmers are facing the worst
crisis since the 1930s. We have said it over and over.
Why are they facing the crisis? Some of it is beyond our
control, such as the natural weather conditions. It is certainly
not because of a lack of industry. My grandfather was a farmer
in Cape Breton. He used to say that even if a farmer intended to
loaf the day away, he would get up in time to have an early start
because that is the way farmers are. They get up early, they
work hard and they plan their day because they have respect for
their work. The carved face of the farmer in the lobby of the
House of Commons is a testament to the importance that government
once attributed to those who farmed in this country, in
particular in the prairie provinces, but also in my part of the
country, Cape Breton. There was a thriving farming community
there not very long ago. My grandfather was a farmer a
generation and a half ago.
Today farmers are suffering because of a lack of vision. The
Conservative Party is right. For every dollar of wheat sold, the
Canadian farmer now receives just 9 cents in subsidies, while
American farmers receive 38 cents in subsidies and European
farmers receive even more. They collect 56 cents in subsidies.
Given that absolutely unlevel playing field, is it any wonder
that the family farm is in crisis in this country?
Because of that crisis the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba
came to Ottawa to seek help. Part of what this country is all
about is an understanding that as one region in the country faces
hard times the other regions of the country assist.
It is a community. There is a sense that there is an
interdependence, sometimes from the east to the west, sometimes
from the west to the east. We give to each other when we can and
how we can, like a family. Sadly, the two premiers from the
western provinces returned to their provinces saying that they
had gone to Ottawa, to the national government, their partner, to
seek help and they were told to go home.
1125
Premier Romanow said “We are the voice of moderation. We are
the people who come to the government with an understanding of
what it is like to have to make tough decisions”. He talked
about national unity. Sometimes the government forgets that
national unity is tied to many factors. When people in one
region or community in the country feel that the national
government really does not give a hoot about their problem, it
does not bode well for participation in a civil society, which is
what we need if we are to enhance and move forward on the issue
of national unity. That is why Premier Romanow made those
remarks and that is why I echo them today.
In light of the debate we had yesterday, the federal government,
centred in Ottawa, has turned its back on the mining communities
in Cape Breton. That will not bode well when the federal
government comes looking for support for national unity on the
east coast.
When the farmers in the west and the east, who once had vibrant,
thriving industries, look to the federal government for support
and the support is not there, they have to question, when the
federal government comes looking for support, whether that
support will be there.
In moving his motion the Conservative member from Manitoba
talked about life in rural communities. I touched on that a bit
yesterday when I spoke about who we are as Cape Bretoners. I do
not think there is anything particularly unique about our
communities in the sense that we understand and help each other.
I believe that is shared by the farmers on the prairies. Those
of us who have had to struggle against the forces of nature
understand that there is a greater force, and the only way
communities survive is to link together and work together
shoulder to shoulder. Farmers understand that.
The problem is that when natural disasters and forces that are
overwhelming are compounded by a lack of vision on the part of
government, it leaves us in an even worse situation. As much as
the communities try to come together, policies that divide them
will do just that.
Much of the decision making is centred in urban centres, in
Toronto or Ottawa, where the importance and the contributions of
the rural communities are forgotten. I spent last week, when we
were in our ridings during constituency week, travelling the
rural parts of my riding. I spent time with farmers. Sadly, I
spent a lot of time driving by abandoned farms that were once
thriving farms in Cape Breton. I was fortunate enough to have
supper in the home of the Peters who have a farm in Margaree.
They talked about the kind of farming they were doing and how
their neighbour was struggling and looking for help because of
the dry weather, but there was no help coming from the
government.
I also spent time in the fishing communities. Fishing is
addressed in this motion. I congratulate the native leaders and
the non-native leaders in my part of the country who have
managed, despite the bungling of the federal government, to come
to some kind of agreement, or at least a moratorium, where they
can work things out.
In June of last year my colleagues from the NDP caucus who
represent ridings in Nova Scotia held a press conference. We
warned the government at that point that there was going to be a
crisis in the fishing industry if the government did not begin to
react.
1130
We had the government in court with the native community, which
had, prior to that, reached out and said “Let's negotiate”. It
is not as if it did not know there was going to be a decision. I
used to practise law. One thing I always did when I went to
court was I prepared for a win and prepared for a loss. In this
case, we see that the government did not prepare adequately at
all.
I congratulate the member who introduced the motion. I also
thank the Speaker for being indulgent in giving me a little extra
time.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the
member for Sydney—Victoria a question with regard to the
government not being prepared for the situation in agriculture.
We just had an agriculture standing committee meeting this
morning where we had representatives from the Royal Bank, which
is the largest lender in the agricultural field in Canada, and
the Farm Credit Corporation as witnesses in our attempt to find
out what the underlying causes are of the current crisis,
especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Their testimony was very surprising in a number of areas. The
witness from the Royal Bank said that he had just come back from
a North American banking conference in Colorado where at least
six American banks held up the NISA program as an example of
where the Americans should be going as far as farm safety nets
were concerned. Their views on AIDA were described as a program
for the times that addressed the situation as it exists today.
The Royal Bank representatives said that they have approximately
15,000 farmers dealing with their bank and that there are 350
farmers in arrears, and many of those they are not worried about.
With respect to NISA and AIDA, the people who are lending money
to farmers are not experiencing the crisis. They debunk the idea
that this is a crisis that could be comparable to the 1930s, the
dust bowl and the depression. The people who are lending the
money do have concerns but they are not in the crisis mode that a
lot of people in the opposition are who are around the prairie
provinces holding community meetings.
There are many farmers who will go bankrupt, but as was stated,
there are always people in businesses, whether it is farming, the
corner garage or whatever, who get into business and go out of
business. However, the people who are lending farmers the
dollars and who expect the dollars to be repaid are not in the
crisis mode that the motion is portraying. How would the member
respond to that?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I know that when the
Royal Bank speaks the government listens. I do hope that it
listens equally to the Farm Credit Corporation. I noticed that
there was a great deal of quoting in the question from the Royal
Bank of Canada. As I have said, I know that the shareholders in
the Royal Bank of Canada carry a fair amount of sway with the
Liberal government and that if the Royal Bank is happy with the
program, then of course the Liberal government will continue with
the program.
I would suggest that perhaps the government might want to listen
to some of the elected representatives of the farmers, and
instead of listening to the people who are lending the money it
listen perhaps to the people who are borrowing the money.
I am going to read what the premier of Saskatchewan had to say
about the last federal government announcement. Premier Roy
Romanow said:
Today's announcement amounts to some technical changes and a
very small top-up to AIDA. Our farmers have told us—
It was not the Royal Bank.
If it comes to a choice for me of deciding whether I am going to
listen to the Royal Bank or the premier of Saskatchewan, I will
choose the elected representative any time.
1135
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member from the NDP for the comments about the
Royal Bank and the Liberal government. The Liberals do seem to
listen to the opinions of the Royal Bank when it serves their
purpose, but when the bank had opinions with respect to mergers I
do not believe they listened.
The minister talked about provincial-federal co-operation.
Would the member agree that in this particular circumstance, with
respect to AIDA being foisted on the provincial governments, that
there was a lack of interest by the federal government when
Premier Romanow and Premier Doer came here to speak about the
crisis? Does the hon. member see a growing sense of
federal-provincial co-operation?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, no, there does not appear
to be any sense of federal-provincial co-operation when two
sitting premiers go back and are critical. These two premiers
arrived with all good intentions and were prepared to negotiate
knowing the ins and outs of negotiation. They are two
experienced representatives of the people who went back to their
provinces discounting the federal government. No, I do not think
it says much for federal-provincial co-operation.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to be able to address the issues brought
forward by my colleague from the Conservative Party regarding the
agrifood industry and agriculture in general.
The only problem with the wording of the supply motion “That
this House regrets the failure of the government—”, is that it
should be replaced with that this House is downright angry with
this government for its absolute failure to recognize the
importance of agriculture and the food industries in the
country. It has failed desperately to show any leadership.
This was demonstrated just recently when two premiers from the
provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba met with the government in
all sincerity doing their utmost to try to help the situations in
their provinces and were literally snubbed by the Liberal
government and our Prime Minister. I think that is totally
disgraceful and it should make us all very angry.
The government does not have any long term vision whatsoever.
It is bouncing around all over the place with different little
programs that never seem to quite work and never seem to fill
the bill of what needs to happen.
The one thing that needs to happen more than anything else is
that the government, for heaven's sake, must start to realize
the importance and significance of the food and agricultural
industries.
I am really tired of sitting in the House of Commons and voting
on agricultural issues that would be of benefit to our farmers
and fishermen and listening to courts making decisions, such as
the Marshall decision. The House sits here and votes on what
should happen, while 70 or 80 highfalutin Bay Street lawyers, who
probably do not realize that milk does come from a cow and not
from a carton, or that cereal is made from grain and does not
come out of a box, simply sit on that side of the House and vote
according to the wishes of their leader. They do not even know
what the issue really is. They do not realize how serious the
problem is.
Mr. John Bryden: Reformers aren't the only ones who are
farmers, you know.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Maybe the hon. member who is mouthing
off on that side of the House would like to talk about the 18 or
20 suicides that have occurred in the last few weeks in those
western provinces. Maybe he would like to mouth off about that
and talk about how insignificant what I am saying is or how we
are trying to support our agricultural industry and our farmers
in the west.
One thing the Liberal government is very good at is sitting in
the House of Commons and criticizing this side of the House
anytime we may wish to oppose its methods or its ways of handling
any kind of a crisis.
1140
The government has not prepared for this kind of an issue. It
has not made any preparation at all except to put a pile of money
on the table under a program that requires an absolute genius
accountant to fill out the forms.
I have gone over these forms with several farmers in my riding
and they are wondering what in the world they are to do with
them. The farmers have made an effort. Some of them have spent
$1,600 to $1,700 to hire an accountant to fill in the form and
mail it off, only to be rejected. I should not say they were all
rejected, because in the brilliance of the Liberal government, I
know of two farmers who received aid under the AIDA program. One
farmer received $9.05 and another received $3.60. Nobody really
understands what this program is all about.
I fail to understand why year after year we have to contend with
our products on the west coast not moving. I wonder if the
Liberal government is aware that many of the people who we do our
marketing with, in particular Japan, do a great deal of business
with farmers in my riding. Farmers ship various types of goods
in containers to Japan but Japan does not buy goods to store and
save for a rainy day. It does not have a storage system. It buys
on a continual basis. In other words, the flow of these products
must happen regularly and without a stoppage of any kind.
The Japanese people sent a document to my office indicating that
they were getting very tired of our country constantly stopping
the necessary flow of billions of dollars worth of goods that we
market. We are not satisfying our people on the other end
because we do not have a government that recognizes the
importance of keeping agricultural produce flowing to other parts
of the world and keeping the markets alive and well.
Instead, we go through motions year after year in the House to
try to put an end to work stoppages, lockouts or whatever the
case might be in order to get the ships loaded and the produce
out. Instead of addressing the issue as we should have done year
after year, for at least 20 years that I know of, we have to deal
with it on an as-it-happens basis. It continually hurts us. We
are now at the point where ships flag into the country before
ever arriving at port wanting to know exactly what the situation
is because they do not want to arrive if there is going to be any
kind of stoppage.
We are not protecting the industry at all. We do not have their
best interests at heart when we allow this to continually happen
year after year. It is on record.
Last week, Lynn Hardy, one of my constituents from Carstairs,
contacted my office with some very interesting information.
During a conversation with a Statistics Canada employee, her
husband asked the individual about statistics being touted by
both the Prime Minister and the agricultural minister as proof
that there is not a farm crisis. Mr. Hardy hoped to learn the
origin of these stats.
As it turned out, the employee said that they were very
disappointed in the Prime Minister and the agricultural minister
for using these stats since they dated back to 1997 and obviously
had nothing to do with today's crisis. For those who do not
remember, 1997 was a little better than average year, not to
mention that it was three years ago.
When will the Liberal government wake up and realize that first,
it is 1999 almost 2000, and second, there is a farm crisis?
These bogus excuses and these dated stats can no longer be used
to deny our farmers the much needed help that they need at this
time of crisis.
The very first thing the Liberal government must do is recognize
that the agricultural and food industries are the most important
industries in the land. That would really be a good start.
1145
Many farmers in my riding would like to know if some people are
turning down some of the things they voted on. I think of Bill
C-4 of a year or so ago when the government was adamant it was
doing the right thing and the farmers cried out that it was not
doing the right thing.
Why are they being ignored? They would like to know why their
voices are being ignored by the government. My only answer was
that 70 or 80 highfalutin Bay Street lawyers do not know what
they are doing and vote according to the wishes of their leader
instead of the wishes of the farming industry. That is the only
solution I could come up with.
Why have they not sent the Prime Minister, the agriculture
minister and the strongest contingent of cabinet ministers to the
WTO talks? They should go their with a firm hand demanding a
level playing field in the agricultural market. Why do we send
all the chief bureaucrats and all the do-little nothings in these
departments to handle the major task of getting a message out
that we care and are concerned about our farmers?
They sent a committee to the west to find out why Liberals are
not getting much support there. They did not listen very well.
We gave about a billions reasons when it came to wasteful
spending. We gave another billion reasons on overtaxation. The
final reason we gave them, in the words of farmers, was that
obviously we had a government that just did not care. I would
like to see that attitude changed.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as my fellow colleague from Sydney—Victoria mentioned,
both of us represent ridings that mirror each other in terms of
urban and rural.
When I talk with farmers in my constituency they talk about the
lack of commitment and leadership. Unfortunately for us in Cape
Breton we have been affected by the government's so-called
commitment to fishermen and its so-called commitment to farmers.
What we are told is that maybe we should broaden our tourism
base. I can see it now. We will have a tourist attraction where
rich Americans can drive by and look at our abandoned farms and
the way things used to be.
Some would say that there is and has been for a very long time a
serious attack on rural communities by starving them to death.
Does the member believe that the recent results of the byelection
in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a clear message to the Liberal
government from rural communities?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party
certainly did not do very well in that byelection. That should
be a message of some sort.
I will comment on the fact the government would like to make a
tourist industry out of a lot of these areas. In order to get a
good chunk of money in my riding for the agricultural industry we
only need to get a group of people together to haul in a bunch of
old machinery, old thrashing machines and equipment that is
outdated and maybe horse drawn. We would need a bunch of money
to refurbish them, paint them and put them in some kind of a
museum, and we would have dollars flowing like we would not
believe.
To prevent a disaster such as the suicides that are taking place
in the west because of the lack of concern and lack of care by
the government, there seems to be a real struggle to get any
recognition at all.
Let us paint our old thrashing machines, do all this fancy-dancy
stuff, put up a nice little museum in the name of the Government
of Canada, the Liberal Party—we might even put the Prime
Minister's name on it—and the dollars will flow, especially if
we send the heritage minister out there. We will get the dollars
going then. She is a good spender.
1150
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was the one who made the remark from this side on the
member's speech, but only because he was suggesting that some of
us on this side do not have farmers in our ridings that are in
trouble, and we do. I appreciate the passion with which he spoke
to this issue, but I want him to know that on this side of the
House we feel the same passion.
I want to take issue with another point in the hon. member's
speech. That is the suggestion that the fault of the problems
with the farmers is entirely that of the federal government. I
point out to him that the Saskatchewan auditor general recently
released a report that showed that the province of Saskatchewan
is claiming to be spending over $300 million on farm aid when in
fact half of that money is actually coming from the federal
government and from the producers. The auditor general pointed
out that many of the Saskatchewan government's claims of aid to
farmers is more than half in contributions coming from the
federal government.
Is it not possible that part of the problem, part of the
difficulty in which the farmers find themselves in Saskatchewan,
is due to their own government in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose anything is
possible. One thing that is not possible, it seems, is that it
is very difficult to get the actual amount of dollars brought to
the federal government through some form of taxation or another
of our farmers.
This is Ottawa. This is the federal government. We have a very
strong purpose in the food industry in protecting our farmers as
best we can and in providing for level playing fields. We are
not doing a very good job. We are not taking the leadership in
WTO with the firmness that we ought to be taking. We are not
negotiating for our people with the strength that we should be
able to do.
The government has not prepared a vision. It does not show
leadership and has failed to do so. Even the Government of
Saskatchewan has outshone the federal Liberal government. The
provincial governments have outshone it on a number of occasions.
I can guarantee the hon. member that this is true in Alberta.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Fundy—Royal.
It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to my party's motion
urging the government to give urgent consideration to the
immediate and long term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing
industries. The livelihood of many families in my riding depends
a lot on our natural resources.
The Liberal government has ignored the rural communities far too
long. Members on the other side of the House have waited for
crises to go on and on before trying inadequately to resolve
them. Rural Canadians have had enough. It is time for the
government to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable
solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors.
The government did not prepare for the Marshall decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada which acknowledged fishing, hunting and
gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal people. The government
should have prepared a plan for this decision.
We all knew the supreme court was to make a decision on this
case. This decision has effectively pitted native and non-native
fishers against each other as their leaders try to determine how
the lucrative lobster fishery should be regulated in light of the
recent supreme court ruling. Actually it has gone beyond native
and non-native fishers to communities fighting each other. That
is the sad situation we are seeing in Atlantic Canada right now.
Conservation is an important issue. We should not forget the
auditor general's warning last spring that the shellfish fishery
is in danger.
1155
[Translation]
Chapter 4 of the auditor general's report tabled on April 20
voiced some serious concerns about the way Fisheries and Oceans
Canada has been managing the lobster, scallop, snow crab and
shrimp fisheries.
According to the auditor general:
The absence of a formal fisheries policy that fully reflects
sustainability concepts means that decisions on resource use are
made on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis rather than as part of
an overall framework for achieving a sustainable fishery.
As we are doing here today, the auditor general decries the
government's lack of vision in the fisheries industry. In 1997
he expressed similar concerns about groundfish stocks. The
government did not learn a lesson from this, and now the
shellfish and crustacean fisheries are involved.
It is important for the government to realize that everything is
interrelated and that whole communities suffer when the crops or
the catches are poor. The fishermen, farmers and other workers
in these industries are seasonal workers and are therefore
victims of discrimination by our employment insurance system.
As if it were not enough to place these industries in a
precarious position, the government then refuses to give the
workers in them any proper assistance.
These workers, who pay into the program, often live in regions
where the economy is not active enough to allow them to find
work in the off season.
In my riding, there are a number of cases where people have no
income from January on. They have worked long and hard during
the season but do not have any money coming in for long periods
of time and cannot support their families because of the
discrimination this government practices toward them.
I recently visited the food banks in my riding of
Beauséjour-Petitcodiac. Everyone involved blamed the cuts to
employment insurance for the increase in users. This is a
serious situation.
[English]
I am urging the government to have a vision for rural Canada. I
realize it cannot have a vision for rural Canada until it
understands what rural Canada means, and it does not care enough
to try to learn. It does not have a vision.
Even if the government had a vision for rural Canada right now I
would be afraid of what that vision would be because until it
goes out to see what is happening in rural Canada it cannot have
a vision. We cannot treat with something that is not working. We
cannot treat sick people with medication if we do not know what
we are treating them for. We have to find out what is the
problem.
[Translation]
That is what we see going on in our regions and in our rural
communities. This is why the employment insurance program was
destroyed, was run in a way that no longer takes the needs of
our people into account. These people include fishers and
workers in factories, tourism and construction.
This government is refusing to understand what is going on. My
colleague from the Reform Party spoke of suicide among farmers.
It is sad to see that happening, and I can understand how sad it
is in the west at the moment with the suicide rate. I have seen
that happening in the Atlantic region since the start of the
employment insurance reforms. I know of people no longer with
us today, who killed themselves or whose heart gave out because
they no longer had an income and no longer met the requirements
to qualify for employment insurance.
There are now two major problems, and I wonder just when the
Liberal government is going to realize that we do not all live
in major urban centres. There is a Canada outside these
centres, rural Canada. The government has to accept and
recognize that and work with these communities. It is time this
government showed some leadership. This is what we need, and
the fact that we do not have it is sad.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out to the member opposite that
the two lower courts ruled the other way in the Marshall
decision. They ruled in the same direction as the minority
decision which decreed that aboriginals did not have a treaty
right to fish and hunt regardless of the laws of the Government
of Canada.
1200
That aside, I would like to ask the member opposite, just as I
asked the member for West Nova, were this an issue that had come
before this parliament for debate rather than before the supreme
court, how would she have voted? Would she have voted that the
aboriginals had unlimited rights to fish and hunt regardless of
the laws of the land, or would she have voted with the minority
judge of the supreme court and said that they did not have that
right? How would she have voted?
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that what we
should have been doing is negotiating it here. We should not let
the courts decide everything for us. What are we here for? We
have to listen to both sides. I do not think that only the
politicians sitting in here trying to decide for the rest of the
country is the way to go either. We have to negotiate outside.
The government had a chance to do that in February and again in
June. When the representative, Mr. Christmas, was here to
negotiate with the government, it refused to negotiate. The
government put all its eggs in the same basket and said the
supreme court will rule the other way. It did not happen that
way and the government did not have a plan B. That is why
we are in this situation today.
It is clear there could have been a very peaceful solution to
this but the government refused to look that way.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
privileged to have the opportunity to listen to the comments of
my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. She pointed out how
ill prepared the federal government has been on just about
everything it has done in general.
In particular, does the hon. member believe that it was complete
shortsightedness, if not blindness, for the federal government
not to have had in place interim regulations just in case the
Marshall decision went the other way?
Does the hon. member think that the government should have had
interim measures in place? Does the hon. member think that the
present Minister of the Environment, the then minister of
fisheries, should have given a political heads up to the now
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by saying that the Marshall case
might be a problem? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said
that he had never heard of the Marshall decision until the day
that it was announced.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, it shows again a lack of
understanding. Let us face it, the government has been ruling
with an iron fist. The Liberals are doing it their way or no way
at all and they do not really care what is happening across the
country. We have seen it with other portfolios. We have seen
how they have abandoned rural Canada, and let us face it, fishing
is in rural Canada. Did they care enough to have a plan B?
No, they did not and that is what we saw again. They could have
had something in place, but there was nothing. There was no plan
A, there was no plan B, there was no plan at all
because they just did not care.
To think that a minister was able to say “I did not know that
this was actually coming down”. When ministers change
ministries do they just leave and there is no adjustment period
with the work, especially with something as important as the
whole livelihood of our fishing industry and communities?
I am wondering what the government is doing now that we know
that the aboriginal peoples have on the table that they are going
after 30% to 50% of the Atlantic fishery. Is the government
aware of this? Is the government actually at the table? We have
been made aware by the representative for the aboriginal peoples
that they are going after 30% to 50% of the Atlantic fishery.
That is a very scary thought. I wonder what the government is
doing about it.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in today's debate. Every time I have the
opportunity to participate in debate and represent those
constituents who live in Fundy—Royal I am pleased to do so.
The problem is that the debate we are engaging in today is
essentially the abdication of government. It is a lack of
planning by the Liberal government particularly in two sectors,
fisheries and agriculture, and with respect to all the difficult
decisions which governments have to undertake.
1205
I would like to begin my speech by quoting Jeffrey Simpson of
the Globe and Mail on October 28, 1998. The Liberals have
no compass, no direction and no idea of where to take the
country. This intellectually lifeless government believes all
politics is administration, whereas it should be about policies,
ideas and values.
That is the debate we are engaging in today. The government
uses a 911 style of management, “We have a crisis, now we have
to deal with it”.
My father Murray Herron is a fine man. My father said the best
way to deal with a crisis was to avoid it in the first place by
having a plan to address it. I want to talk about the systematic
abdication and lack of planning of the Liberal government.
Almost two years ago to the day there were debates in the House
with respect to the Kyoto climate change conference. Two years
ago to the day this House admitted that we were not prepared with
a pan-Canadian position on targets, timelines and an
implementation strategy to address the serious issue of climate
change and how Canada would make its contribution. We went to
Kyoto with no plan. We came back with no plan. Two years later
in 1999, we still have not seen any sort of implementation
strategy from the Liberal government.
The Alberta government of Ralph Klein is one government that has
actually shown some leadership in getting the process to address
the issue of climate change going. It has taken some
initiatives.
Why do we not see some aggressive tax incentives to address
climate change? Why do we not see research and development
dollars for renewable sources of energy, or tax incentives for
energy efficiency initiatives? Those are things we could be doing
today so that industry could start delivering some early action
on that issue. The government has done nothing for two years in
that regard.
We also saw a systematic abdication of leadership in planning
with respect to the Marshall decision. We saw this two times,
first in February and later on in June when first nations from
Atlantic Canada approached officials in Ottawa to negotiate a
systematic and peaceful integration into the fishery as opposed
to going to the supreme court. The government loves to govern by
courts, not by parliament and not by letting elected officials
make the decisions. It would rather abdicate its role and let
the courts decide. Sometimes the courts decide things that make
it very difficult for us to manage.
On first nations issues in particular, there are three ways some
individuals might consider when dealing with treaty rights and
the rightful role first nations have in our society. First, some
individuals on the very extreme edge would advocate violence on
both sides. I am proud to say our society has advanced beyond
that stage. The second method is to let the courts decide
things. Sometimes we do not like the way the courts solve
things. The third way and the best way is to do it by peaceful
negotiation. The government had an opportunity to do this twice,
in February and in June when Mr. Christmas came to Ottawa for a
peaceful integration into the fishery, but again the Liberals
ducked it. They always duck hard issues.
Long gone are the days when we actually took on the hard and
difficult issues in order to build this nation.
Long gone are the days of leadership that brought forth
initiatives like free trade which took our trade ratio with the
Americans from $90 billion in 1988 to well over $260 billion
today. That was the result of leadership. Long gone are the days
when we had initiatives in terms of privatization, deregulation
and free trade. Now we have abdication and government by the
courts.
1210
We have also seen probably the most catastrophic incident in
terms of the federal government not having a plan on serious
issues. I am sure everyone remembers October 30, 1995, the date
of the referendum in the province of Quebec. Leading up to that
referendum the Prime Minister said “We have no problem.
Everything is under control. Don't worry, be happy”. We almost
lost our country. If it had not been for the positive initiative
of our former leader, the Hon. Jean J. Charest and his
contribution in that debate, we might have had a more serious
result.
When it comes to planning, the Prime Minister said that he would
take the initiative to recognize that Quebec was in fact a
distinct society, that we needed to recognize something that we
cherish which is two centuries old with respect to the language,
culture and civil code of the six million francophones who live
in the province of Quebec. That promise was made that night on
television. Since then the Liberals' plan for unifying our
country has been to take this issue to court, to make it a legal
issue as opposed to a political issue.
When our founding fathers built this country, they built it
because they knew we would be stronger together. A country is
built through common will and not through a legal decision about
whether or not we should exist. Do we have the right to break
up? The best thing the government could have done would be to
have had some very direct leadership in that regard.
We saw it in the currency crisis last year. When the commodity
crash took place primarily along the Pacific Rim, there were
negative implications for our country. The reaction of the Prime
Minister and the finance minister in terms of the currency crisis
was that it was not their fault, that things happen in the world.
I know my friends in the Reform Party, especially the member for
Lethbridge, very much agree with me that we could have sent some
very positive signals. Instead of saying that we would have a
surplus and put 50% on new spending and 50% on tax and debt
reduction, we could have made a very serious and deliberate plan
to reduce our debt to GDP ratio. We could have paid down the
debt in a very serious way which would have added ongoing value
to our currency and we could have been far more competitive in
that regard.
There is a trend happening. The Liberals were not ready for the
climate change initiative. They almost lost our country with
respect to the referendum. They were not prepared for the
Marshall decision. There was the currency crisis. Recently it
has been 911 management. We are heading into an election.
My friends on the Liberal side who are primarily from Atlantic
Canada came out with a report entitled “Catching the Wave: How
to Build a Better Atlantic Canada”. After they have been
defeated on an issue with respect to abandoning the tolls on a
toll highway which this federal government collaborated on, they
are saying that maybe tolls are not such a good idea. Again, they
make it up as they go.
We need a government of leadership, a government that actually
plans. We do not need initiatives that deal with issues as they
come up as crises. We need to deal with the very hard issues
that face this country. Let us pay down the debt. Let us lower
taxes. Let us grow this economy so we can compete in the next
millennium.
1215
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was just
wondering when I was listening to the speeches by the member for
Fundy—Royal and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac what
would have been their reaction if last February the government
had reacted to Mr. Christmas' request to open up the fishery to
the first nations of Atlantic Canada.
Can we imagine the howls of derision from members on that side
of the House, or from that member when she was on the other side
the House, if the government unilaterally gave away the fishing
rights to the aboriginals? Can we imagine the howls and
screaming that would be coming from the opposite benches that we
should be able to read the minds of the supreme court justices
the same as they were able to read the minds of the lower court
justices in Nova Scotia?
They are standing up holier than thou to say that we should have
been prepared, that we should have been able to read the minds of
the supreme court justices and that we should have shared
earlier, and maybe we should have, with the aboriginals.
Can we imagine what would have happened if DFO had called a
meeting to bring all sides together and said they would be
sharing the Atlantic fishery because Donald Marshall has a case
going to the courts and may lose it? Can we imagine what would
have happened if DFO pre-empted that decision by negotiating
something before the courts had a chance to see it? Can we
imagine what the reaction would have been from over there?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us right
now is to be able to say that it was okay not to be prepared,
that it was all right not to have a plan, that it was okay not to
have regulations in place just in case the Marshall decision went
in a direction the federal government was not happy with.
I am confused and a little worried about what the hon. member is
actually advocating. He is saying that the best way to deal with
the crisis is to let the courts decide and not have a plan. There
are bags of lawyers running around Ottawa all the time. I want
to say as well that it is an admirable profession, but the
government should not even ask any of them whether it should
actually have some regulations in place in case it goes sour. The
parliamentary secretary is advocating right now that not having a
plan is really the Liberal plan.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing time with the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington. I will address only the second paragraph
of the motion by the member for Brandon—Souris, that is to say
the issues concerning the supreme court, the Marshall decision on
fishing and other rights of aboriginal people.
The member for Brandon—Souris has distinguished himself in the
House as a member who has a whimsical sense of humour. It is
much appreciated. I wonder if perhaps some of his polemics in
the motion should not be interpreted in that light.
I would remind the hon. member concerned, however, that his
party was in office during the crucial period of nine years
almost immediately after the adoption of the charter of rights,
which included the saving of aboriginal rights still to be
defined by virtue of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982. There was a wonderful opportunity in a period of
historical transition to set in place sophisticated processes for
the elaboration and definition of those rights and of dispute
settlement and other machinery. It was an opportunity missed.
Somebody was asleep. It was the Rip Van Winkle philosophy.
The process has been engaged upon and for better or worse we
have to deal with it as it now arises. The motion, however, and
I accept it in this spirit, is directed toward trying to
establish policies, policy constructs, for the future in relation
to aboriginal and other rights.
1220
We need a debate on this issue. The last great venture was the
white paper of 1969 which had many brilliant and imaginative
ideas but for a number of reasons in the political climate at the
time it was judged unadoptable. It just did not command the
community support necessary to get it through.
In the intervening time a too pre-emptive concern with special
constitutional issues thought to relate to Quebec tended to kill
off discussion of other issues. I do not believe there is any
incompatibility between the two.
Although his purpose was directed toward Quebec provincial
politics, I signal in this regard the announcement yesterday by
the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve of a new plan for Quebec
constitutionalism. He recognized, for the first time explicitly
by a member of his party, that Quebec issues cannot be divorced
from issues of the aboriginal communities within Quebec. They
are part of the general society and must be part of the process.
My basic comment on this general issue is that it is illusory to
believe that any one federal institution, whether the courts, the
legislature, the executive, the administration and the civil
service separate from that, can have a monopoly of problem
solving powers or can even function usefully operating in
isolation from other institutions.
We are reminded of Jeremy Bentham's basic point, to which I have
had occasion to refer in other debates in the House, that there
is a constitutional company and that judges, cabinet ministers,
parliamentarians and administrators all function together. The
federal government has given an emphasis to consensual solutions
of the definition, extension and concretization of aboriginal
rights, and that means an emphasis on interpartes negotiations.
We have to recognize the practical limits to powers of
negotiation which go to issues of expertise, time and continuity.
There has always been a place for courts in the finding and
limiting the constitutional parameters in which any decisions
must be made.
Some issues, on examination, require very specific and detailed
research and weighing of complicated economic evidence. This
normally transcends the possibilities of parliamentarians, even
operating in standing committees. I would note the difficulties
of both the aboriginal affairs committee and the fisheries
committee in handling these technical issues.
These are issues that can be well addressed and may best be
addressed in courts, provided the lawyers are up to the task. We
need a better standard of performance by the lawyers presenting
cases before the court.
I do not see the sophistication in presentation of briefs. The
Brandeis Brief, named after the great Mr. Justice Brandeis,
details social and economic evidence of the implications of court
decisions including the practical consequences of those
decisions. If that is missing in judicial decisions, one of the
points to recognize is that it is missing because it is not
properly presented by the parties. The Brandeis Brief starts
first of all with the lawyers before the court and the judges
have to respond to that.
There is an opportunity for a more confident judicial role in
these matters. It is to be noted that the judges were not called
upon for advice when the adoption of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms was first considered. They were not asked
about their new role. It was inevitable a species of judicial
legislation would emerge, but they were not consulted. It is a
learning process.
Among changes for the future that I would like my colleagues in
the party opposite to address would be whether a contribution
could be made by creating specialized tribunals of first
instance. There is some unhappiness with the federal court in its
various divisions because it is viewed as an Ottawa body composed
of ex-civil servants and often ex-politicians but with an eastern
Canadian orientation.
1225
Would it be better to have special mixed claims tribunals as we
have internationally? Would it be better to endow provincial
supreme courts, which represent and reflect and understand local
opinion and issues, with the primary authority, subject to
appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada? This is where in a
larger policy context we could invite and receive contributions
in the debate as it continues before us.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am going to address all my remarks in this debate to
the proposition in the motion that the government should have
known that this decision with respect to the Marshall case would
be coming down.
The Marshall case, as members will recall, was the decision of
the supremem court, a majority decision whereby aboriginals were
given the right to fish commercially, rights that transcend the
laws that may apply to non-aboriginals, the laws of the land. Of
course we know the upshot. There was conflict and strife on the
east coast. I suggest that as a result of this decision of the
supreme court there will continue to be conflict and strife.
Earlier in this debate I asked the member for West Nova, who is
a member of the party that introduced this motion, how he would
have voted had this issue been debated in this House, in
parliament, rather than being dealt with and decided upon by the
supreme court. He dodged the question, I have to say. He did
not reply.
I submit that if the Marshall issue had come before this
parliament instead of before the supreme court, this parliament
would have decided against the decision that the supreme court
eventually came down with. I submit that this parliament
assembled, indeed I would suggest even the majority of members on
this side, would not have countenanced the decision that we have
from the supreme court which gives one group of people special
rights over the general population based, at the very best, on a
very facile and simplified reading of the historical accounts.
The very historian who came before the supreme court on which the
supreme court based its decision has said that his remarks were
taken entirely out of context by the supreme court.
What do we have here? We have a situation where five
individuals have come to a decision that has a profound impact on
the rest of Canadians. Indeed we have the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development saying that he thinks this
decision will extend to all resources, to mines, to hunting, to
anything imaginable. Of course that is going to lead to a lot of
problems, but we are led to understand that when the supreme
court rules it is a decision that we must abide by. I submit to
you, Madam Speaker, that it is not quite like that at all.
I have done a bit of research over the last few weeks. What I
have discovered is that Canada as a constitutional parliamentary
democracy does not have the supreme court in its constitution.
Unlike the United States, unlike India or Australia or New
Zealand or even Germany, for that matter, the supreme court is
not in the constitution. There is a passing reference to the
supreme court only in the charter of rights which says basically
that if the composition of the supreme court is to be changed
there has to be agreement by the two houses of this parliament.
The power of the supreme court, which we are led to believe we
as parliament cannot change, comes from an act of parliament, the
Supreme Court of Canada act. This act was passed in 1875. At
the time the constitution was being re-examined in 1982 this
parliament chose not to put the supreme court in the constitution
as it is in the United States, as it is in India, as it is in
just about every other democracy that has a constitution.
What that means, Madam Speaker, is the fathers of confederation,
circa 1982, were uncomfortable with the fact that if you put the
supreme court in the constitution then it becomes equally
powerful to parliament.
That is always the debate when it comes to democracies that have
constitutions and democracies that have parliamentary rule, as in
the case of Britain, the idea being that if there is not a
constitution, then parliament is supreme; if there is a
constitution, that divides the power, as happens under the
constitution of the United States where power is shared equally
by the legislature, the executive branch—that is, the
president—and the supreme court of the United States.
1230
In Canada we have no such thing because the supreme court is in
an act of the Parliament of Canada. It is not in the
constitution. Its powers are spelled out by an act of this
legislature, this House of Commons. That means that no matter
what, when the supreme court comes down with a decision it is a
decision in the context of this parliament. I would submit that
that decision at any time can be overruled by this parliament
because this parliament is supreme. It is above the supreme
court because the supreme court is a creature of this parliament
and not a creature of the constitution.
What do we have with this decision by the supreme court? We
have a decision in which only seven out of nine judges sat
because the court has the privilege to set its quorum. That is
in the legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada act. What we have is a
decision based on five members of the court ruling one way and
two members of the court ruling the other.
We are led to believe that this is a binding judgment of the
court, that we have to obey it, that this parliament is required
to obey that decision. But, Madam Speaker, would it surprise you
if I told you that in the Supreme Court of Canada act there is no mention
of a binding judgment? There is no mention of what constitutes a
binding judgment. There is no mention of whether a judgment
should be by majority, by minority, or whatever. We can assume
that if all judges agree, that would be a binding judgement.
But, when there is division, when they do not all agree,
particularly on a constitutional matter, then surely it should be
a subject for debate in this parliament.
Surely, when it is a constitutional issue affecting all
Canadians we cannot leave it. We cannot passively sit by and let
the supreme court judges rule, who control whom they hear, who
control the hours they sit, who control their quorum, who do not
have to consult parliament and, indeed, under the rules of
parliamentary privilege, do not even have to pay any attention to
anything that I say in the House. Because according to the rules
of parliamentary privilege, as interpreted by the supreme court,
an MP's opinion of the law does not affect the court's judgement
and the court does not have to take that opinion into account.
Thus we have a situation where we have a body of five—seven
individuals in this case—making a profound decision with respect
to all Canadians, a decision that is supposed to be binding on
this parliament, but in fact cannot be binding on parliament
because the Supreme Court of Canada act is legislation which was
created by parliament. While I would not want to overturn the
Marshall decision as it stands now with respect to the particular
incident, I submit that this parliament always has the power to
interpret the constitution.
I will make one other point. Madam Speaker, if you look at the
Supreme Court of Canada act, just to make sure you see where I am
coming from, you will see that the only mention in the Supreme
Court Act, as revised in 1983, to the supreme court judges
considering the constitution is when there are references by the
government to the court on constitutional matters. Those
references ask simply for an opinion. In the drafting of the
revised Supreme Court of Canada act this parliament was not
prepared to say that the Supreme Court of Canada, when it was
considering a reference from the government, would be a binding
judgment, and that, Madam Speaker, is the only section 53 of the
Supreme Court of Canada act.
I submit that the reason is, that particular section also allows
the Supreme Court of Canada to make judgments or express opinions
with respect to parliament.
1235
Madam Speaker, you have a situation where the fathers of
confederation, circa 1982, obviously perceived that this
parliament could not be subject to the Supreme Court of Canada,
it could not be below the Supreme Court of Canada, so they
ensured that when the Supreme Court of Canada made decisions with
respect to parliament or the constitution they were only
expressions of opinion. I suggest that parliament should take
the message from its predecessors, those who framed the Supreme
Court of Canada act as it exists now, and consider the supreme
court decisions when they are only majority decisions as being
for guidance only.
In the end, it is this parliament, this parliament, that has to
decide on constitutional issues.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
thank the member for the lesson on the history of the Supreme
Court of Canada. However, the last time I read this motion it
dealt with two principal issues concerning the importance of
Canada's food industry, namely the family farm and fishers who
earn their living fishing along our coasts.
The problem with the speech just given is that the government
would rather talk about bureaucracy and how court decisions are
made as opposed to providing leadership in terms of long term
safety nets and dealing with the farm income crisis. The
government should have been prepared for the Marshall decision in
the first place.
Can the member say the words farm and fishers?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, as the member should
know, I began my remarks by saying that I would confine them to
the Marshall decision.
I point out to him that paragraph (b) of the motion states that
the government did not adequately prepare for the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada v Marshall which acknowledged fishing,
hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples.
That is precisely what I spoke about. I wish the member would
have at least had the decency to listen.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Fundy—Royal has it all wrong.
The speech made by the member for Wentworth—Burlington is
probably one of the finest speeches I have heard in the House in
a long time. He has gone right to the nub of the issue. It is a
matter which is of great consequence to fishermen, not only on
the east coast but also on the west coast, and that is the impact
of the Marshall decision which was brought down by the Supreme
Court of Canada.
That decision has the ability to replace the existing fishermen,
especially in the lobster fishery on the east coast, with members
of the Mi'kmaq community. I do not think that was the intention
of the court necessarily, but certainly that has been the
interpretation of it.
What the member is contributing to the debate is very valuable
and worthwhile because he is addressing the key issue of how this
place can address that critical decision of the court and whether
there is room for the government to manoeuvre on this issue, and
manoeuvre it should for two very good reasons. One is to promote
or ensure that goodwill remains between the communities affected
by the decision, and the other of course is the well-being of the
resource if the government does not maintain its control.
With that in mind, how does the member think the government
should respond to the Marshall decision, given its impact on the
fishery?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I think the government
should regard the decision in Marshall as an appellate decision
and respect the decision, but not regard it as being instructive
on the broader constitutional issue.
I really do believe that the supreme court and the judges have
no right to dictate to this parliament. The evidence I put
forward is the very fact that the supreme court is not a
constitutional entity, it is a creature of this parliament, and
this parliament must make the final decisions when it comes to
constitutional interpretation.
1240
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince Albert.
We are here today to debate a motion presented by the
Conservative Party. The motion is quite wordy, as we might
expect. The first part of the motion states that this government
has failed to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable
solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors. The
motion could have stopped at “Canada” because the government
has failed to provide the leadership and long term vision for all
of Canada.
I will address my remarks to the crisis facing our agriculture
producers. The mismanagement we have seen on both coasts in the
fishery industry, the terrible turmoil that has been created by
the Marshall decision and by some of the policies put in place by
the government have certainly spilled over. Its lack of
determination and will to go on to the world stage to fight the
subsidies of the European Union and the protectionism of the
Americans has created a huge problem in our agriculture sector
right across the country.
There seems to be a genuine lack of understanding on the part of
the government concerning this situation. It took us a long
time, as the official opposition pounded away at the government,
to get it to realize there was a problem and to bring that issue
to the House. We did that through the form of a debate a year
ago and it continues to be a huge problem.
The premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Ottawa a week
or so ago. They do not do that very often. They came to explain
to the government that there is a huge crisis on the prairies in
agriculture. When they got here they were presented with some
new facts from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada saying that its
new numbers indicate there is no crisis. Numbers are numbers.
Even if we use these numbers, the projections for the year 2000
for total net income have declined from the 1994-98 average,
which was a $760 million return in Saskatchewan, to a projected
number of $267 million for July 2000. That is taking the total
net income of a province and chopping it to a third. How can we
possibly exist in the agricultural industry, in agricultural
provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and others,
when our net incomes are being cut to a third of what they were?
Getting past numbers, we are talking about the ability of our
family farms to sustain their livelihood, to feed their families
and to feed Canadians.
There was an article printed in the Minnedosa Tribune in
September that gives an idea of what has happened to the business
aspect of our family farms. There were comparisons made between
1974 and 1998 which relate everything back to bushels of grain.
In 1974 10 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. In
1998 155 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. To buy a
grain truck in 1974 cost 1,400 bushels. In 1998 16,000 bushels
of grain bought the same truck. To buy a combine in 1974 cost
6,500 bushels of grain. In 1998 it cost 96,000 bushels. How are
we supposed to maintain an agriculture industry with those kinds
of figures?
Subsidies in Europe and protectionism in the United States have
increased production so that the value of the crops produced is
lower. Had we not had bumper crops for many areas in the farm
sector this year things would be compounded severely. Thank
goodness we had bumper crops for many areas because they will
help us get through this terrible dip. However, it will not be a
long term solution.
Another aspect of this, brought to my attention by one of my
constituents a while ago, is the amount of money that is
generated by selling beer.
This goes on quite a bit but I just want to get this on the
record. One bushel of malt barley sells for $2.15. That is what
I sold my barley for this year. I sold it for feed, but it was
$2.15 a bushel. That bushel of malt barley makes 333 bottles. A
dozen beers sell for $17.50 a case, so 333 bottles would be 27
cases. That means a $485 return from one bushel of barley. At 50
bushels per acre, $24,000 per acre is being returned. On a
quarter section of land, that is almost $4 million that has been
created from the barley that the farmers get $2.15 a bushel for.
1245
Let us look at taxes. The NDP member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys has put forward a motion that the GST collected
on the sale of beer should be donated or directed toward National
Hockey League clubs. The GST generated on the beer produced from
one bushel is a little over $20 and he suggested that this money
should go to National Hockey League teams and to multimillionaire
players.
Would it not be nice if some of that money could be directed
back to the farmer? Would it not be nice if we could take the
$2.15 a bushel return to the farmer, take some of the GST and
give it back to the farmer and tell him he will now get $5 a
bushel? Instead, the hon. member suggested that it go to NHL
hockey players.
The government has put in place the AIDA program. I have more
figures. It is really interesting because some of the AIDA
programs are being administered by the provinces and some are
being administered by the federal government. The programs that
are being administered by the provinces have processed and paid
on 58% of the claims, whereas the ones administered by the
federal government have only paid on 37% of the claims put in.
It is almost a joke that the programs being administered by the
provinces are doing a better job of getting the money out to the
farmers than the federal government is. Why that should be is
beyond me, but I believe it is because of the bureaucracy. The
federal government has trouble handling these situations, whereas
the provinces are closer to the people and better able to
administer and are doing a far better job at getting the money
out to where it belongs.
Another issue I would like to put into this equation is the fuel
tax that comes out of the prairies every year and goes into the
federal treasury and does not come back.
In fiscal year 1998-99 the federal government collected
approximately $4.4 billion in transportation fuel taxes. Federal
expenditures on road infrastructure in the same year are
estimated at $198 million. That is a nickel back for every
dollar it collects in fuel tax to put into the roads. There is
another area where the government could do something to improve
the roads. Maybe it should not take that money if it will not
put it into roads. It should leave it in the pockets of the
producers.
A number of things need to be done to address the problems in
the agriculture sector. The first thing we need to do is to use
the federal safety net programs to support Canadian food
producers who are struggling and cannot make ends meet on a short
term basis as a result of natural hazards or whatever. We need
to have a program in place to get people through those times.
We need to have an AIDA program that works, that gets the money
out to the people and gets it to where the hurt is. The
government has failed to fulfil its promise to get those funds
delivered.
We need to look at the root causes of the income crisis. We
need to look at safety net programs that work and are in place to
take care of these crises.
We need to look at reducing the European and U.S. subsidies. We
need to go to the next round of WTO and NAFTA talks, which is
happening this month, to fight for our farmers. We need to beat
those subsidies down so that we are in a position to help our
producers. We cannot as a country support the level of subsidy
that these other countries do, so our method of fighting that has
to get tougher at the negotiating table.
1250
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
note from the supply day motion that the Progressive
Conservatives have attempted to cover all of the hot button
issues they think are facing Canada today. They have certainly
hit a couple of them. They start by excoriating the government
for failing to provide leadership, a long term vision and
workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agricultural sectors.
Then they move on to the recent supreme court decision on the
Marshall case which threw the Atlantic fishing community into
turmoil. Then they go back to Canada's agricultural producers and
urge the government to give urgent consideration to the immediate
and long term needs of Canada's agricultural and fishing
industries.
While they are busy bringing together a stew of a motion, Reform
members are out in western Canada visiting about 60 communities.
They are talking to farmers, municipal leaders, provincial
politicians, anyone who has been hurt by the agricultural crisis,
anyone who has a proposed solution to the agricultural crisis or
who has information that would be useful in developing policy.
It is not necessarily to address it so much as to answer how we
are going to get the Liberals to even listen, how are we going to
get them to know. The Liberals threw their high profile
candidate in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar to the wolves. They
made no effort whatsoever to help him out. I think he got his
deposit back, but that was it. The Reform Party is out there
working.
The Liberal Party treated our agricultural and political leaders
very poorly during their last visit to the national capital. They
presented their case. They were basically shown some figures and
then shown the door. Thanks for coming, don't call us, we'll
call you is the attitude toward western Canadian leaders, and the
Liberals wonder why they are unpopular out there. My stars, they
have no idea at all.
The Liberals are improvising on agriculture. They are also
improvising on Indian affairs, for instance on the Marshall
decision.
I find it ironic that the Progressive Conservatives would
express concern over the Marshall decision. They bandy about
terms in the House such as “first nation”, “nation to
nation”, “government to government”, “inherent right” and
“sovereignty”, while they do not have a clue what they mean.
They do not even try to find out what they mean. They just roll
on talking with no concern that the words they use actually have
legal meanings, that they create expectations and environments in
which we end up with these types of Marshall decisions.
We ended up in a situation where fisheries managers have to
allow the Mi'kmaq in eastern Canada to fully satisfy their right
to fish for a moderate livelihood before anyone else can. They
have priority over all other claims on the fishery no matter how
long they were established, notwithstanding the ownership of a
valid licence whether commercial or sport and no matter which
level of government issues the licence. These priority rights
mean that someone standing there fishing could well be moved
along.
Is this supposed to create an environment where we get along
with one another, where we care for one another, where there is
equality? Not likely. That is not the way I see it. That is not
the way most people see it. That is only the way those blinkered
people who create such policies see it.
Part of the decision talked about a moderate livelihood. What
is a moderate livelihood? Does anyone in this House presume to
know what a moderate livelihood is? I do not. Before I became a
member of parliament I had one idea of a moderate livelihood; now
I have another. I presume people who own large and successful
corporations have another. What would Bill Gates call a moderate
livelihood? What would a person on welfare call a moderate
livelihood?
Is this to be decided in the House? Is it to be decided in
Atlantic Canada? Is it to be decided back in the supreme court
with another case which will really solve nothing? It will be
sent back saying to go negotiate it.
1255
Moderate livelihood, what does it do? Will it exclude the
accumulation of wealth and buy only the basics such as food,
clothing and housing, as they say? I heard it said the other day
in New Brunswick that $80,000 is a moderate livelihood. The
average income in my riding of Prince Albert is around $36,000.
That means just about everyone in the riding is not making a
moderate livelihood. If those are the numbers, what are we
supposed to make of any kind of decisions that arise?
If it is only a moderate livelihood, day to day, a small house
and enough food to get through today and not tomorrow, why would
anyone make significant investments in fishing gear if they are
only going to make what is called a day to day living and not
accumulate wealth? After all, people want to lead a prosperous
lifestyle. They want to look after their children, pass
something along. That is accumulation of wealth.
The Nisga'a leaders who appeared before the standing committee
stated that they wanted their children to live in dignity,
respect and prosperity. They did not want a hand to mouth
existence. They wanted prosperity. I do not agree that what is
in the Nisga'a treaty is going to deliver it but that is their
dream and their hope. I wish them well in pursuing it.
That definition of moderate livelihood is far too broad and
vague to permit any definitive application.
What does it mean in the context of a native attempting to
broaden the definition to cover other resource industries such as
lumber which they are trying to do? For instance, if an Indian
were making the so-called basic necessities or even prospering by
being a member of a band government or a band administrator or a
businessman, or whatever he is doing, could he then take his
priority right to make a moderate livelihood out fishing for
lobster, cod or whatever other species happens to be part of that
priority right? Could he go into the New Brunswick forest and
pick up a saw and go cutting after he was already making more
than a moderate livelihood? Who figures these things out anyway?
Would he be denied the right to participate in other resource
industries as an Indian because that would move him beyond the
basic necessities threshold?
Another point is that non-Indian fishermen do not and will not
enjoy constitutional remedies for any loss of livelihood. The
government therefore must compensate them fully for their loss of
livelihood. But they are fishermen. Their families were
fishermen for generations, going back as far as 13 generations.
Most of us cannot trace our ancestry back that far. What did they
do? They fished. Fishing became part of their tradition, part of
their history, and they are denied it.
What are these people supposed to bother getting up in the
morning for? To go down and check the bank account to see how it
is doing when there is nothing in it? That is ridiculous. If
they are given reasonable compensation, that is still a poor
excuse for equality which would be a far better way to go.
The right to fish or gather has been defined as a communal
right. An obvious question arises from that. It has always
plagued socialist communal societies. If the right is communal,
what does that mean? Does it mean that all can participate and
must do so to benefit from the exercise of that right, or does it
mean that those who do participate must share the wealth with
those who do not?
We need answers to all of these questions. We cannot even begin
to understand the implications of what has come down.
Unless the federal government can find a way, other than simply
excluding non-Indians from participating in fisheries and other
resource based industries, there will be ethnic conflict in this
country now and in the future. Buy-outs are not an acceptable
long term solution. It is a stop-gap measure.
In an article which everyone should read, “One country, two
laws”, written by Peter Worthington in the Ottawa Sun, in
speaking of Indian affairs he states:
The only federal party with a sane and workable policy on this
issue is the Reform Party. It would make all Canadians equal
before the law regardless of racial descent.
1300
I say hear, hear to that and so should every other member.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to be able to speak to the motion today as it includes
both agriculture and fisheries, two of the main industries in my
province of Prince Edward Island. I have probably spent as much
time on the fisheries committee as I have on the agricultural
committee, so I have been asked today to address the part of the
motion dealing with the amount of agricultural subsidies and
subsidization that is going on in the world today.
We know about the root causes of the financial problems facing
some of our farmers today, namely adverse weather and worldwide
low prices for some commodities. These low prices are primarily
a result of oversupply which has led to reduced demand in key
markets such as Asia and Latin America. The oversupply has come
about not just because of unfair trade practices but also because
of some incredibly good harvests worldwide over the past few
years which have put a great deal of high quality product on the
market. Those inventories are still quite high.
This situation has been aggravated by the persistent use of
trade distorting support by some of our major training partners,
especially the United States and the European Community. Farmers
are not encouraged to grow crops in response to the realities of
the marketplace in those countries and our farmers, as well as
producers in other countries, are feeling the effects.
The motion before us suggests that the government has not been
doing anything to address the serious issue of subsidies being
provided to our competitors in the agricultural sector. I have
to take issue with that for the government and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, in particular, have put much of their
energy and resources over the past two years into developing a
strong initial negotiating position to take to the world trade
talks that are about to begin in Seattle. Those talks are
absolutely crucial to our ability to bring about a fair and level
playing field in which our producers can compete.
There is absolutely no doubt that Canadian producers are some of
the most efficient, productive and innovative in the world. They
have the business savvy to compete with the best and they can
compete and win when the trading environment is fair. If we can
rid the agricultural world of trade distorting subsidies,
particularly export subsidies, Canadian farmers would be able to
produce and invest with greater confidence.
While the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working
to address the economic and weather related problems of Canadian
farmers, he has also devoted a great deal of time and energy to
working with our trading partners, with the objective of bringing
some order and stability into the world marketplace. He has
taken every opportunity to remind his counterparts from major
trading nations, particularly the European Community and the
United States, that their actions can only prolong the serious
problems faced by farmers.
It is not clear that the subsidies being provided by our
competitors such as the United States are even helping those
farmers all that much in the short term. There seem to be just
as many concerns expressed by American producers about low prices
and low incomes as we are hearing in Canada. As a matter of fact
a witness this morning in the agriculture standing committee
verified those facts.
The need to get rid of trade distorting subsidies is a
critically important message for our trading partners to hear as
we head into the WTO negotiations which start in Seattle in a
couple of weeks. It is the message that we have been delivering
every chance we get. I know the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food raised it, for example, when he hosted ministers from
Japan, Australia, the European Union and the United States at a
meeting in Montreal in September.
Going into the WTO talks Canada has been a world leader in
setting out its goals for what needs to be accomplished in
agriculture. That position includes the complete elimination of
export subsidies, a substantial reduction of trade and production
distorting domestic support including an overall limit and
domestic support of all types, and real and substantial market
access improvements for all agriculture and food products. As
well we are defending Canada's right to maintain domestic orderly
marketing systems such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply and
management for dairy and poultry products.
1305
This position was arrived at after two years of extensive
consultations with a broad cross-section of representatives from
the agricultural and food industries and the provinces. This
position reflects the trade interests of the Canadian agriculture
and food sector as a whole across all commodities and all
regions. It is a solid, unified initial position which I am
confident will help to garner a better deal at the international
trade table. By the way, I am sharing my time with the hon.
member for Mississauga West.
With this position Canada will play a strong and active role in
influencing the direction and eventual outcome of the WTO
negotiations. In fact we already have.
Shortly after announcing the Canadian position the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food met with the 15 agricultural exporting
countries which make up the Cairns group. This group also
included countries like Australia, South Africa, Brazil and
Argentina. Coming out of that meeting the minister indicated
that Cairns members had agreed to a common WTO negotiating front,
namely, freer, fairer and more market oriented trade conditions.
In addition, both APEC and the Free Trade Area of the Americas,
and Canada is a member of both those groups, have come out with
resolutions calling for the elimination of export subsidies. This
is what Canada and its allies will be pushing for when the
negotiations get started in Seattle.
It is in Seattle that Canada will be cranking up the heat even
more to convince all our trading partners of the need to let
farmers make their decisions based on market signals rather than
on government support levels. In this way we have been laying
the groundwork for meaningful negotiations, negotiations that
start smoothly and allow our negotiators to work with clear
direction and steadfast commitment to the needs of our producers
and that achieve good results.
I do not deny that we are getting into a long process. The WTO
talks will not deliver changes overnight, but they are crucial to
building a strong and competitive Canadian agricultural sector.
The government is committed to reforming trade in the
agricultural sector. It is something we have been building
toward over the past several years and our efforts will only
intensify from here on in.
As the WTO negotiations proceed the federal government will
continue the partnership approach that led to the development of
a unified national negotiation position by ensuring that industry
and the provinces are consulted closely throughout the process.
We are in this together, the federal government, the provincial
governments and industry, in seeking solutions to the income
problems of farmers over the long term.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I
have to agree the best resolution would be an open marketplace, a
level playing field and no subsidies. I also have to tell the
parliamentary secretary to wake up and smell the coffee.
He said that the minister had been talking at great lengths to
other trading partners about getting rid of subsidies. The
opposite is happening. In the European Union subsidies are being
paid at an accelerated rate. In the United States there has been
an announcement every week of another farm aid package, more
moneys going into the farm economy.
The parliamentary secretary talked about how our position at the
WTO will be accepted and will be achieved. That is five years at
the very least of negotiations with the WTO.
What do we do in the meantime? Do we simply allow the farm
crisis to continue? Do we allow the world market to be changed
constantly by subsidies being paid by the European Union and the
Americans? Is it simply that farmers in Canada should go by the
wayside while we wait and let the minister talk about trade
changes in the WTO?
Mr. Joe McGuire: Madam Speaker, as the member well knows,
Canada has and is putting in place various mechanisms whereby our
farmers will be subsidized through the NISA program, through crop
insurance, through companion programs, and recently through AIDA
dollars. Overall $1.78 billion is being put into the program
over the next two years.
The member for Brandon—Souris is a member of the agricultural
standing committee. This morning's witnesses said that NISA is
an example of a program which is envied by our neighbours to the
south.
1310
The Americans are looking to our program as the path for the
future. They are looking to us to show the way to properly
subsidize and properly assist our farmers when there is a
precipitous drop in commodity prices. They are following our
example. Their farmers are no better off with their ad hoc
programs. In fact, a lot of them are a lot worse off with their
ad hoc programs than we are with the negotiated cost share
programs that are in place today.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
carefully listened to the words of my colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, and to his responses to questions.
In his speech he said that commodity prices are low because
there has been over-production, and that the farmers are not
growing crops that reflect the realities of the marketplace.
The government is not following the realities of the marketplace
either with its subsidies. What are we to do when American or
European competitors receive $2.50 to Canadian farmers' $1.00?
What are we to do when total agricultural support policies are
$140 per capita in Canada, as compared to $360 in the United
States and $381 in Europe?
That too is reality. I also wonder, if there is an
overproduction of agricultural products, what options besides
diversification might be proposed to farmers to help them
operate according to supply and demand.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows well
what we are doing. She also is a member of the agriculture
standing committee. She knows that we have the crop insurance
program. She knows that we have the NISA program, which is
working very well. There are still $122 million that could be
triggered just in the province of Saskatchewan alone. That money
is there waiting for this particular situation, a downturn in the
incomes of the farmers.
She knows that the government together with farm groups, farm
leaders and the provinces developed the agriculture disaster
program. The same players and partners in agriculture will be
putting in place a long term disaster program which will click in
when situations like the one we are experiencing today come into
effect.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to join in this debate. I find the motion
interesting. I am sure there must have been a lot of discussion
in the Tory party caucus in trying to write this resolution.
Sprinkled throughout it there are references to the fishing
industry. It talks about Canada's food industry, but it
primarily focuses on agriculture, as would be seen in some of the
responses.
However, because of the very few number of seats the Tories have
in the maritimes, I am sure there was a battle suggesting that
they had better not just talk about agriculture and focus on
western Canada. I believe yesterday the results in Saskatchewan
would show that the Conservative Party is hardly on what any one
might call a comeback. I believe it came in fourth. The
Liberals did well in three other ridings, one in Ontario and two
in Quebec, so we know that the people are generally satisfied
with the programs.
I would like to discuss from the point of view of the fisheries
a bit of the nonsense about the failure to provide leadership and
the failure of the Conservative Party to seize this opportunity
to actually say something important about what has happened to
our fishing industry.
I recommend to all members a book they should read called
Lament for an Ocean.
1315
Far be it for me to quote too much from a book written by a
journalist, one who is not necessarily supportive of Liberals or
the government, and the name Mike Harris comes to mind. He is
not the premier of Ontario but rather the journalist who wrote
the book. I must give him credit because when one reads the book
and the research that was done one can see a pattern that was
developed. Frankly, it was developed under the leadership of
Conservative governments and a minister. It is unfortunate to
have to criticize someone who is not in this place any more to
defend himself, but I am sure he is quite capable of defending
himself, as we have seen, and that minister was John Crosbie.
The programs in place in the maritimes were such that they
totally had blinkers on and allowed foreign freezer vessels to
come in, rape the ocean, particularly off the coast of
Newfoundland, and destroy the fishery. Why not take this
opportunity with this small gathering of Conservatives from the
maritimes to ask the government to do something that would
actually help restore the cod fisheries? I do not see any
mention of that. The motion mentions solutions for Canada's
fishery, but it focuses fundamentally on agriculture.
On the agricultural side of it, we know that there have been
what I would have to carefully call some flip-flops by some hon.
members. The sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris, actually said in Hansard “The U.S.
government provided $8.7 billion” in farm aid. He went on to
ask “When will the minister use his influence to put forward
similar resources?” Just seven days later, he was quoted as
saying that he had never asked for more money to be added to the
pot. I guess we misunderstood that. That was in reference to
the money in the AIDA program.
We all know that the government has responded by increasing the
funding for AIDA. It is never enough to satisfy members opposite
but it is a response. The minister of agriculture, in a
responsible way, has topped up that program. Notwithstanding the
complaints I have heard about the bureaucracy and red tape, that
money is flowing into the hands of Canadian farmers.
Because this is about food in the country, let me go back to the
fishery. Our new minister has just announced a $600,000 program
to fund new aquaculture programs. That is not a lot of money but
it is recognition of the importance of aquaculture, particularly
given the damage caused to our natural fisheries throughout the
east coast. There is a commitment there. I would like to see
more of it.
My colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury, has a program where
they want to raise Arctic char in an abandoned mine pit.
Apparently all the science and research shows that the Arctic
char that comes out of this technology is absolutely spectacular.
A small investment at the local community level is needed to make
that kind of thing work. Why would members opposite not call for
the government to invest in something like that? It seems to me
that is a productive thing, something that we could look at and
something that should be supported.
I am also surprised that the member opposite did not take the
opportunity to address something that I think is one of the great
sins of our time, the reduction in the quotas and at one time the
banning of the seal hunt. It is really bizarre if we look at why
the cod is down. As my hon. friend from the east coast, the
Minister of Veterans Affairs, would say “seals eat fish”. It
is amazing.
Why not look at the fact that there was a recent report to the
committee on the situation with the seals? Let me just read
about how seals are predators. The report states:
One of the most controversial aspects of the debate on seals is
whether predation by harp seals is impeding the recovery of cod
stocks.
Imagine anyone asking that question. If we want to create more
food and more fish in the country, why do we not look at the fact
that there are over five million seals in the population?
I believe that figure is three or four years old. The population
is probably over six or seven million. They are destroying not
only a fishery and a species but a way of life.
1320
The committee went on to state:
None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee claimed
that seals were the cause of the collapse of cod stocks, which
they clearly attributed to both foreign and domestic overfishing.
The committee puts on blinders and says that even though it has
restricted the catch by foreign fishing companies, by freezer
trawlers, and even though it has taken the steps to correct the
mistakes of former Tory governments in that area, it continues to
refuse to believe that the seals are in fact predators that are
destroying the cod fishery.
The committee goes on to state:
However, it was noted by the Fisheries Resource Conservation
Council in their April 1999 report “that the single cod stock in
the Northwest Atlantic considered recovered, namely, the southern
Newfoundland/St-Pierre Bank stock, is the only stock that does
not have a large number of seals occurring within its stock
range”.
That is pretty clear evidence to me. It basically states that
the cod in that part of the world has recovered in terms of its
population and size—and the size of the cod is a key
factor—because they are not facing the predators in terms of the
seals.
I have some other statistics. Do we want to find a way to
support Canada's food industry, Canada's fishery? This says that
grey seals are consuming between 5,400 and 22,000 tonnes annually
of eastern Scotian shelf cod; harp seals may be consuming as much
as 140,000 tonnes annually of northern cod; seals in the northern
Gulf of St. Lawrence may have consumed as much as 68,000 tonnes
of cod in 1996 alone; and, seals in the southern Gulf of St.
Lawrence may be consuming over 10,000 tonnes annually of cod.
That is a lot of fish.
Why is it that we somehow feel the need to protect the seals to
the tune where they are literally crawling across highways in
Newfoundland, for goodness sake, coming right out of the water?
In 1997, the NAFO science community reported clearly that the
seals consumed 108,000 tonnes of juvenile northern cod, those
less than 40 centimetres, which represents 300 million fish. If
we want to do something to help the fishery we should support the
report of this council which says that the seal hunt should be
increased by 50%? That may be drastic, but in reality that is a
step that will allow the cod to recover, that will allow the
fishery on the east coast to recover and that will allow the
families in that part of the world to get back on the water to
make a living so that they generate food for the rest of Canada.
I would have thought that would be the kind of policy that the
Conservative Party would be interested in seeing so it could
resolve the mess that it caused in its time in office.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is always nice to hear the ineffectual backbencher from
Mississauga get up and obviously have all of the answers.
Actually, I thank him for speaking so eloquently.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Which am I, ineffective or eloquent?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no. The member spoke eloquently
about his ineffectiveness. However, he delivered a message that
spoke to the deficiencies of his own government. He railed on
about the policy that should be put into place to help rejuvenate
the cod fishery and he looks to us to set that policy.
Where is the ineffective backbencher when he is needed to speak
to the minister of fisheries who in fact should be putting in
those policies? That is what this resolution speaks to, the
mismanagement and the inability of the government to put in those
policies to help not only rejuvenate and save the fishery but
also to rejuvenate and save agriculture.
I thank him for speaking on our behalf. I would like to ask him
where his minister and his government are in implementing those
very policies.
1325
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that
someone has to speak on behalf of the Conservative members. They
seem to be incapable of doing it. This is their opposition day.
As a result—if the member would just take a Valium for a
moment—all I am suggesting is that they should have taken an
opportunity to put some constructive ideas on the table. They
did not do that.
What they want to do is try to pretend that they are friends of
the western farming community when they know they are not their
friends, and the results of last night's byelection proved that.
They try to do that but, at the same time, they do not want to
upset the east coast fishery because they have a number of
members from that part of the country, the only part, I believe,
where they actually have any members except for one member in
Ontario.
I am just suggesting to the member that I am not afraid to stand
up in my caucus and in this place and say that I think what that
government did to the east coast fishery was a travesty. I think
this government should take some steps, such as increasing the
quota of the seal hunt, to see if we cannot help improve the
fishing stock on the east coast.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the speaker. This is the first time since
I have known him that he made a whole speech in the House and
never mentioned my name. I feel a little hurt this morning.
I am sure the member would agree that the European Union, which
is subsidizing its farmers a great deal, went through a period of
time a few years back when there just was not any food on the
shelves. It suffered a great deal in that regard. It is also
pretty strong in the fact that it will never let that happen
again. I can understand that, as I am sure he can.
We will go to the WTO negotiations to try to level the playing
field. In order to do that, we are going to ask the EU to reduce
its subsidies, to bring down its method of supporting its
farmers. To do that, Canada may be asked to give something up.
The first question I have is does he have any idea what the
European Union might expect Canada to give up in order to
negotiate a deal?
The second question is with regard to the seal hunt, which I
agree would be a good idea and a good solution. Would he be
prepared to stand up to the interest groups that would want the
seals protected and would come right on the heels of bringing in
such legislation, or would he cave in like they usually do to
small interest groups in their requests?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, indirectly I did mention
the member, although I did not mention him by name. I said that
he was complaining earlier about some of the bureaucracy and the
red tape by the farmers. I did sort of touch on it but I also
had confidence that he would rise in his place to compliment me
in some fashion. I am getting used to that.
I did stand up to IFAW, the International Fund for Animal
Welfare. It threatened to sue me over remarks that I made where
I accused its members of not being totally honest with the lobby
that they were leading. Many members in this place received
computerized phone calls to our offices lobbying us, passing out
information that was totally false and telling members and senior
citizens contributing $10 that baby seals were being slaughtered
on the banks off of Newfoundland when we know that is not true.
In fact, it is against the law. The government made it against
the law and levied over 100 charges. Of course there will be
people who will break the law in that regard but we have to be
tough on that.
I have certainly stood up to those interest groups and will
continue to do so.
1330
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House this afternoon to speak on the motion put
forward by the Progressive Conservative Party.
This motion comprises a number of elements, the main ones being
the financial difficulties currently being experienced by
Canadian farmers, Ottawa's incompetence in dealing with this
issue, the failure of the federal government to assume
responsibility and leadership with respect to the Supreme Court
of Canada decision in R. v Marshall, and the federal
government's failed fisheries policies and its lack of vision.
I would like to share my time with my colleague from Lotbinière.
This morning, my colleague from
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok spoke about fisheries.
Since we are sharing our time, I would like to spend time on the
fourth point of the Progressive Conservatives' motion, that is,
the lack of vision on the part of the government, something that
very often results in a lack of leadership. I will relate this
to a matter particularly dear to my heart, one I have spoken of
quite frequently of late, and that is the matter of genetically
modified foods. This is an issue in which the government has
been very short on vision, and one that illustrates my thoughts
very well.
First, it starts with inertia. For five years, our shopping
baskets have contained genetically modified products, and up to
now the government has not brought this to the attention of
consumers.
The delay is rather hard to explain and may be likened to a lack
of transparency.
In the fall of 1997, when we were working on the matter, the
agriculture committee recommended to the government unanimously
that there be mandatory labelling so consumers buying the
products would know what they had in their baskets and what they
were eating. Knowing what one is eating is a basic right.
The government has not acted since 1998, except to say that
labelling is optional in Canada and that we should wait until
the issue comes up for debate.
But it did not, with the result that events have now overtaken
us.
We therefore find ourselves in another kind of debate with
scientists, Health Canada employees, and all sorts of people on
one side or the other, while the consumer, who is at the heart
of the debate, cannot get a straight answer.
What are the short, medium and long term effects on health? We
do not have all the answers to this question. Furthermore, what
are the effects on the environment and soil degradation? What
are the socioeconomic and legal impacts? There has been no
follow-up and, in this final and very progressive century of the
millennium, I do not think that an entire population can be left
in the dark. I do not know how the government sees this, but I
see it as a complete lack of vision.
There are all sorts of underlying issues.
There is a lot of talk about consumers because, as users of all
these products, they are on the front line, but agricultural
producers should also be mentioned. They are also becoming
increasingly concerned, and their concerns are twofold. Those
producing genetically engineered food have questions about
biological diversity.
What will happen if we continue to take this increasingly
specialized approach? The diversity of seed available to farmers
or producers is becoming extremely limited and is being
controlled by a certain group of individuals, or companies,
monopolizing the sale of agricultural products. This will
inevitably lead to monoculture. In an agricultural context, it
is a short leap from monoculture to the risk of a disease that
can wipe out an entire crop.
Even those who are proactive on this issue and those who are now
using genetically modified seed grain have questions, not all of
which have been answered, although they should have been. This
is the situation in which those farming with genetically
modified organisms find themselves.
1335
Then there are those involved in biological or traditional
agriculture. They are ending up in a dangerous situation,
because of their smaller fields, which will turn into veritable
minefields, for pollen can be carried a very long way. In the
spring, they were talking of one kilometre. Then a little later
it was five, then twenty. This week I heard a figure of fifty.
How, then, is it possible to have the crops one desires in
traditional agriculture, as in the case of Mr. Schmeiser, if one
is in an area where there is airborne contamination? There is
also a race for patents going on at the present time. All
living things are on the verge of being patented.
I do not know if this House is aware of the case of a mildly
hallucinogenic plant that is used in the Amazon traditionally
for medical and religious purposes. One day an American arrived
on the scene and announced “This is a rather extraordinary
plant, with major characteristics, so we are patenting it”.
The Amazon natives can no longer obtain the plant—which is about
as common as dandelions are here in Canada—because it is
patented. All these matters relate to ethics. If there are no
standards for labelling transgenic food, there is no code of
ethics when it comes to discoveries in a rapidly expanding field
which affects us all.
This shows a lack of vision, a lack of leadership, and I would
venture to say as well a lack of commitment by the government.
Let us look at the situation. Since 1993, the budgets have not
changed, they have been shrinking continually, and we have
reached the threshold we were at in 1993 for research and
development budgets.
If there is no funding, no basic research, there is a void, but
a void is always filled. So it was filled with a transfer of
responsibility that the companies supported, because there was
no government expertise, no government funding or independent
scientists to do this sort of research.
It is strange, because the government is going to negotiate at
the WTO, where they will be talking of export subsidies and
domestic support, but they should be talking about international
trade barriers too. Such major countries as Japan, the European
Community, Korea, Australia, Brazil and in fact a whole series
of countries are currently requiring labelling of products
containing genetically engineered food.
What are we going to do in this market if there has been no
leadership? We will again see a lack of vision resulting in us
losing ground it will be hard to make up.
Another comment arising from the situation is that there is some
confusion in federal infrastructures leading to a lack of
accountability. The entire field of biotechnology is the
responsibility of the Department of Industry, product approval
is the responsibility of the Department of Health, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency reports to the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food. Yet no one deals with all the environmental
problems, since in terms of accountability and responsibility,
no one looks after this area at Environment Canada. This matter
is the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Bouncing the ball back and forth leads to a problem of
accountability, and this is what I contend today.
The motion by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative
Party contained a lot of elements, including the lack of vision.
I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, and we
must bear this in mind.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we are all
aware, the hon. member has a very deep interest in food
labelling. She has asked questions of the minister on a number
of occasions and she has participated in the hearings of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on biotechnology
and food labelling.
1340
The European countries, that area of pristine food, mad cow
disease, Belgian chicken, contaminated food. When we compare our
food safety regime versus the people who are criticizing us for
growing biotechnological GMO foods, I think Canada's record
stands crystal clear as to who has the better food safety regime.
Can the member elucidate for us how she would implement a policy
of mandatory labelling? Other countries in Europe have this on
the books but they have been able to implement their policy. How
would the member go about implementing such a policy in this
country?
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the
government's powers, because I would have introduced obligatory
labeling long ago.
It is very simple. Two systems are necessary. Quebec, for
example, has already instituted a system of food traceability.
This requires being able to track food from the farm to the
table. It is tracked in terms of whether it is transgenic,
traditional or biological. This is how other countries operate.
When the hon. member speaks about the safety of food in this
country, everything is fine, thank goodness, there are no
problems, but we are still living in a world of risk management.
I do not wish to be an alarmist, but we are not safe from
everything.
So far, research and inspections are adequate. But if the
government continues to pull back and leave all the
responsibilities in the hands of companies, slaughterhouses or
whatever, I have a serious concern.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I
would like to congratulate the member for Louis-Hébert for all
the work she is now doing on GMOs.
She has really led the way on this issue, which we all know is a
very important one. There is talk about it in my riding of
Lotbinière, which is a very agricultural riding. It is also
considered an important issue because agriculture and health are
intimately linked.
I have often complained that this government gives a lot of
attention to trade agreements and finance, but completely
overlooks the consumer. It overlooks what we are putting into
our mouths.
My colleague from Louis-Hébert has set out on a crusade to bring
this issue to the attention of the public, and I am proud of
her.
It is already having an impact all over Quebec. I hope it will
reach as far as Ontario, for people are having trouble truly
understanding the reality of Canadian and Quebec farm
production.
I would like to spend a moment on the motion by my colleague for
Brandon—Souris, which reads as follows:
That this House regrets the failure of the government to
recognize the important of Canada's food industries—
I am going to express my thoughts on this situation. I wonder
if the government is even aware that there is such a thing as a
food industry in Canada, judging by its behaviour.
I will remind this government once again that we all worked
together between September and December 1998.
We brought in representatives of agriculture from the west and
from the east; we heard representatives of the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture; we heard representatives of the UPA.
We heard from everyone involved and we found a marvellous title
for the report—maybe marvellous is a bit of an exaggeration, but
a good title, one that I thought would really get things moving.
I will give it again, because the people over there have poor
memories “The Farm Income Crisis in Canada”.
I have spoken in committee or in the House on a number of
occasions about this crisis, a term people have great difficulty
understanding.
1345
In preparing my speech, I looked up crisis in the Petit Larousse
for three definitions. This is a fairly major entry, a whole
long paragraph.
From it I selected three definitions. The first refers to a
decisive or perilous period in a person's existence. A crisis
is also defined as a difficult phase being experienced by a
group. Third, when used with the adjective economic, it is
defined as an imbalance between economic powers, in particular
between production and consumption.
But I said to myself that even if the Liberals hear the
definition of the word “crisis”, I will give them a bit of a
break. I will relate it to the current situation and will go
over each of the definitions to show them what a crisis really
is.
A “decisive or perilous period” and we will add “in
agriculture” in Canada and Quebec. In the case of “difficult phase being
experienced by a group”, the group is Quebec or western farmers.
In the case of the “economic crisis”, I think we are in a full
blown crisis. I will reread the definition “an imbalance
between economic powers, in particular between production and
consumption”. This is the reason for today's debate.
The government does not understand what a crisis is.
In December 1998, they were made aware of the situation. Nearly
a year later, nothing has been done. Even with the links I have
made, I am sure the government will remain silent.
This government lacks leadership. It lacks the courage of its
convictions and it abdicates its responsibilities in the face of
the current crisis. A crisis means there is an emergency. A
crisis means there is a need for action. A crisis means it is
time to put an end to inertia.
This government, however, has just found another argument for
waiting rather than acting and taking decisions. It is saying
“We have to be careful in the programs we will establish,
because we are going to be negotiating on November 30 at the
WTO, the world trade organization”.
When I read the morning papers, one headline read “WTO: minister
creates confusion”. I was somewhat concerned. This means once
again that this government is really inconsistent and without
vision. Its vision is to collect tens of billions of dollars
and spend them in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the
vision of this government: to have billions of dollars in its
pocket and to let a situation such as currently exists in the
west worsen. That is vision too.
Once again, however, the vision stops at the financial and
economic levels. The government never talks of farm producers
or consumers. How can we expect this government to have vision?
Coming back to the motion introduced by my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party, it provides, and I quote:
Here again, where is Canada's leadership on the three important
criteria that will guide the WTO negotiations? As for the
decrease in funding, we have done our part. Our commitment
under the GATT in 1995 was 15%. This has now climbed to 50%.
But, in the meantime, the United States and the European
community are refusing to assume their responsibilities.
As for reducing domestic measures, the question is where. We
must not turn around and make our agricultural production
vulnerable. We must reaffirm it, defend ourselves, and stand
firm.
Finally, with respect to market access, we must know our
products and defend our market. Not only must we defend
economic principles, but we must understand agriculture. Once
again, the members opposite are having trouble doing this.
I come back to the Progressive Conservative member's motion:
Earlier, the member for Louis-Hébert reminded us that financial
assistance has been declining since 1993. Yet, costs are rising
and we know that the industry is becoming increasingly
specialized.
There is a need for research and money, but the members opposite
are living in a dream world.
1350
Now, let us look at natural disasters. There is a disaster; it
is noted; the affected farmers are asked to be patient and told
that, when they file their income tax return, the government
will look into it. Then the government gets busy juggling
figures while the farmers have time to go belly up, as they have
no way out.
This government is trying to convince us it can handle crises.
This is ridiculous, because we are already close to one.
Members can imagine what things would be like if there were
really a crisis. The entire country would be in a real mess.
I am therefore calling upon this government once again to show
some leadership, courage and vision, to show some sign of being
a government capable of understanding the situation. The year
is not 1949 or 1959; it is 1999, with the third millennium just
around the corner. Yet this government continues to maintain
rigid policies, policies that lack any flexibility and continue
to heavily penalize agricultural producers.
I maintain that this government has chalked up a total failure
in its vision, in its approach to the reality of Canada's and
Quebec's farmers, and in its strategy. I say to my Liberal
friends, wake up before it is too late.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members
rising, it being 1.55 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that
the proceedings on the motion have expired.
I would suggest that we begin Statements by Members. Is
that agreeable to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BUSINESS REGISTRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was proud to open the newest one stop business registration
service for the SUCCESS program in Vancouver last week. The
SUCCESS program allows new and existing entrepreneurs to register
their businesses in one place at one time. It is a fine
example of government cutting red tape for small business owners
and I am sure that is something we can all be proud of.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
call this a tribute to the finance minister, “The boy who would
be king”:
There once was a finance guy, we all know who,
He taxed us all heavily, both me and
others who begged him to give them a break
but he told them rudely to jump in the
queue behind lots of his Liberal friends
A queue that was Liberal beginning to
enter the conscience of taxpayers all
so much that they each made a telephone
payment including that bad GST
the one that reminded us both you and
Ministers who can remember the time
when one of their number was forced to
remember the words that had caused such a flap
to kill and abolish and otherwise
scrape up excuses for why they didn't act
just one of the times they didn't stick to the
favourite line of our finance guy
I'll lower your taxes one day, would I
liven things up with a tax cut or two
I'll tell you right now that's one thing he won't
bother to help out the average guy
so long as he pulls the wool over their...
I guess the finance guy, till his last breath
will tax us and tax us and tax us to
much.
* * *
1355
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF TOLERANCE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we
celebrate the international day of tolerance as declared by the
United Nations in 1995.
This day serves as a reminder of our obligation to inform
society and make it aware that diversity and individual
differences are an asset to our world.
[English]
We must extinguish ignorance and fear, the main sources of
intolerance, through education, the most effective means of
prevention. We must work hard to remove all barriers and promote
equality in order to allow tolerance to thrive. As the world
becomes more diverse and interdependent, tolerance becomes
fundamental to the survival of mankind.
Canada has prospered in diversity. We, as Canadians, have
succeeded to live in harmony, to grow as a multicultural,
multiracial and multiethnic nation, and to promote and be the
role model for a tolerant society.
Our duty as Canadian parliamentarians is to prevent the
intolerance of today from becoming the conflict of tomorrow. Let
us strive in unity to achieve worldwide tolerance.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year for the first time in 12 years there was an increase in
the defence budget aimed specifically at improving the
remuneration and quality of life of our Canadian forces. This
badly needed increase should be only the first in a series of
careful reinvestments by our government in Canada's military.
At a time when Canada is more committed than ever to our vital
role as a peacekeeper, it is essential that our forces be trained
and equipped as well as possible. Make no mistake, our forces do
an excellent job with the people and the equipment they currently
have. However, they are stretched to the limit and we must
address that fact.
The people of Canada understand and agree that it is time to
reinvest in our military. It is time to reinvest in our
military. It is time to reinvest in our military.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government thinks that Canadians' paycheques are not really their
own. Liberals believe that one-half of every paycheque should be
confiscated from the person who earned it. The Liberals are
ripping off Canadians.
When my wife and I were first married, many years ago, we
decided that she would be a full time mom and I would earn the
family income. At that time we were able to meet our needs on my
modest salary, including purchasing our first home. That is
because my pay stub tax bite was only about 15%. Now Canadian
taxpayers are losing nearly half of their income to the taxman.
Over the last 30 years Canadians have paid an increasing
proportion of their earnings in taxes to heavy-handed, uncaring,
uncompassionate Liberal and Tory governments. Canadians want to
keep more of the money they work so hard to earn.
The Liberals keep saying that they have lowered taxes, but the
pay stub evidence shows that is not factually correct. It is
time for the Liberals to either lower taxes or get out.
* * *
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
nights ago a 15 year old Toronto youth died tragically in what
appears to be a brutal, random, unprovoked attack of violence.
Matthew Baranovski and his friends appear to have been minding
their own business when they were set upon by a larger group for
no apparent reason and the community is in shock.
Now the experts and the media are wringing their hands in
horror, asking what is happening to our youth. I have news for
them. This is nothing new.
Seven years ago my son Jesse suffered a similar fate under very,
very similar circumstances. The entire country was shocked with
the murder of Reena Virk in 1997. On Halloween last year Clayton
McGloan was swarmed, beaten and stabbed to death in Calgary.
Last June Jonathon Wamback was viciously beaten in Newmarket and
left in a coma. Fortunately he survived and will hopefully
recover. I could go on and on but my time is limited.
Seven years ago I said that Jesse would not be the last, and
nothing has changed. On behalf of all parents who have lost sons
or daughters to youth violence, our hearts go out to Matthew's
family. But sadly, Matthew Baranovski will not be the last, and
still this government continues to tinker.
* * *
SASKATOON—ROSETOWN—BIGGAR
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we can
learn much from democracy. Take, for example, the
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar byelection.
We learn that hateful, underhanded, dirty election tricks not
only serve to undermine Canadians' faith in our democratic
process, they do not work. We learn that when a federal
government cynically turns its back on communities suffering the
worst agricultural crisis since the great depression, those
communities not only remember, they take action.
But most of all we learn that when a community wants a
representative who stands up for its interests, who will not
abandon that community in its time of crisis, there is only one
choice: the New Democratic Party of Canada.
1400
On behalf of the NDP caucus, congratulations to the voters of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on electing their new member of
parliament, Dennis Gruending.
* * *
DIABETES
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is diabetes month in Canada. Diabetes is a chronic
disease that has no cure and is a leading cause of death by
disease in Canada.
People develop diabetes when their body no longer makes any or
enough insulin or is unable to properly use the insulin it
produces. There is also a possibility for women to get diabetes
temporarily during pregnancy which greatly increases the chances
that they will develop it permanently.
Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas which breaks up the
sugar we eat so it can get into our cells and provide our body
with energy. For those with diabetes this process does not occur
naturally and they are forced to get insulin injections to
maintain the proper balance of sugar in their blood and in their
cells.
As we all know, diabetes is a horrible disease and there is much
research and work to be done in this area. National diabetes
month gives all Canadians the opportunity to learn more about
this disease. We must continue to put money toward research to
find a cure for diabetes and at least until we find that cure, to
find methods to improve the life of those battling this disease.
* * *
VISIT TO AFRICA
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me tell this House about my emotional tour through a
period of history where African children, women and men were
captured, shackled and transported as part of the 18th century
slave trade.
This slave colony I visited on Gorée Island is located three
miles from Dakar, the capital city of Senegal. The historical
site is a reminder of the atrocities, the suffering and the
humiliation endured by millions of Black people who were captured
against their will, forcibly held, then shoved on to ships to be
sold as slaves in the new world.
Iron shackles, leg braces, weight balls, neck and arm locks left
behind the reminders of the oppression and the rape of human
dignity during this shameful period.
Let us never forget this horrendous human episode. Let Gorée
Island stand as a place to remind us, lest we forget that we are
all created equal.
* * *
[Translation]
LOUIS RIEL
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Louis Riel day.
[English]
On November 16, 1885 at 8 a.m. Louis Riel climbed the stairs to
the scaffold, the trap door snapped open and Riel was dead.
I had the privilege this morning of attending in the presence of
the Governor General of Canada and other dignitaries, a solemn
and thoughtful celebration of the life of Louis Riel.
Louis Riel was branded a traitor to Canada but in fact he was no
traitor. He was a hero who stood up for his people and his
beliefs. He was a victim of the prevailing prejudices of his
time.
[Translation]
This was the life and death of the man we recognize as the
founder of Manitoba, the man we recognize today as the defender
of the rights of the Metis and the French Canadians.
* * *
NIOBEC MINE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to pay tribute to the success of the Niobec mine in
Saint-Honoré. It has won a major price in the Quebec Énergia
competition, awarded by the Association québécoise de maîtrise
de l'énergie.
I would like to congratulate the entire team of electricians,
who made possible the installation of a new system to heat the
underground galleries of the mine, thereby reducing energy
consumption and protecting the environment.
By using modern technology, the mining industry is now up to
speed with the third millennium. This award is recognition of
the fact.
Congratulations once again to the Niobec mine and its employees
for their continued efforts to protect our environment. This is
proof that the environment and the economy go hand in hand.
* * *
[English]
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have some words of advice for the Minister of the Environment on
his proposals for endangered species legislation: proceed with
caution. Taking the heavy-handed approach to landowners will
solve nothing in addressing the root problems with protecting
endangered species.
1405
The federal government must apply a balanced approach to any
future legislation that has the potential to have a detrimental
impact on the agricultural industry. All stakeholders must be
involved, especially agriculture, in the legislation process in
order for this balanced approach to succeed.
Criminal sanctions and non-compensation for farmers would do
little to advance the environmental cause. It would only create
more division between sectors.
If the Minister of the Environment really wants to make an
impact in his portfolio, might I suggest that he actually take
the advice of the stewards of the land and develop a balanced
approach to endangered species.
* * *
[Translation]
1998 ICE STORM
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 5,
Quebecers saw once again that the Liberal government honours its
commitments.
On that date, the government handed Quebec a cheque for
$100 million to cover the cost of damages that occurred during
the January 1998 ice storm. This brings to $350 million the
assistance that Quebec has received under this program.
The money is going directly to the Government of Quebec, to pay
for many so-called extraordinary expenditures.
It will be up to the Government of Quebec to reimburse the
municipalities, who are anxious to get what is coming to them.
This is another good example of the effectiveness of the
Canadian government's presence, which was much appreciated by
the people of Quebec in their hour of need.
* * *
[English]
BYELECTIONS
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know that members on this side of the House will be pleased to
join me in congratulating the new members of parliament who won
the byelections in York West, Mount Royal and Hull—Aylmer last
night.
I know from personal experience the many challenges and
interesting developments that face candidates for the government
party in a byelection. I am pleased to see that my three new
colleagues won their respective byelections with far more
comfortable margins and enjoyed their victories much earlier in
the evening than I did.
For those who may have lost track, these three byelection
victories give the government 14 wins in 17 byelections since
winning its first mandate in 1993.
[Translation]
The recent victories are an indication of the high level of
Canadians' trust in and satisfaction with this government and
our Prime Minister. I know that the members on this side look
forward to working with the new members so as to continue to
provide good government and improve the quality of life of all
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
1979 MISSISSAUGA TRAIN DERAILMENT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
20 years ago last Wednesday, during the evening of November 10,
1979, an event took place that is now known as the Miracle of
Mississauga.
A 106-car freight train carrying explosives and poisonous
chemicals was derailed at the Mavis Road rail crossing. Over the
next few days 218,000 people were evacuated from private homes,
nursing homes and hospitals. Our city became a virtual ghost
town.
Amazingly after seven days, through the diligent hard work and
untiring efforts of Mississauga's emergency service crews,
combined with the assistance of several outside personnel, no
lives were lost and our citizens returned.
Though today there are no visual reminders of this potential
disaster, Mississaugans will never forget the Miracle of
Mississauga.
* * *
[Translation]
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, CSIS is busy
burning secret documents, losing them in phone booths, leaving
them in the back seat of cars while the secret agent attends a
hockey game. Canada's secret service is secret in name only.
Yet we must not be too quick to cast a stone at these James
Bonds and Mata Haris. After all, they have been set an example
from higher up.
The federal government itself seems to be a past master at
leaking confidential information, committee reports in
particular. However, when it comes to compliance with the
Access to Information Act, this same government gets obsessed
with secrecy. Secret material falls into the hands of the
public, while material that is public becomes secret.
It is understandable that Canada's secret agents do not know
which way is up. After all, if everything that ought to be
public were to become secret, most public servants would have to
be replaced by secret agents. And then the Liberal government,
mightily relieved at last, would no longer have to answer any
embarrassing questions.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government does not care. So said Janice
Archdekin of Landis at a kickoff meeting in Biggar, Saskatchewan
to gather a wide spectrum of opinions and solutions across the
prairies.
The Reform Party will be sponsoring a series of meetings to
gather rural people together to get their input and urge the
Prime Minister to tour the west and hear from those Canadians who
have been hardest hit in recent years from rising input costs and
falling prices in the agriculture sector.
1410
We would like to see the Prime Minister come to the small towns
and local halls to hear about the issue firsthand. Of course, he
can send his entourage ahead if he likes. They should probably
avoid the four star hotels and the PGA golf courses. That is not
likely where the farmers or the answers will be found.
We intend to gather a wide range of opinions from producers and
suppliers as well as their families on how to put agriculture
primary producers on a permanent track of prosperity and
sustainability. We know we will hear about foreign subsidies,
taxes and user fees. What we do not know is if we will ever hear
from the government that it recognizes the problem, let alone
that it cares.
* * *
LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is truly an honour to commemorate one of our colleagues who
has fallen. He served in the second and third parliament and his
name was Louis Riel. He was a duly elected member of parliament.
I challenge the government of the day to look into the future,
to share what this person would have contributed to this
parliament if he had been able to deliver a speech in this House
of Commons, which he was denied. I challenge this government to
open its doors, to open its mind, to open its heart and its
spirit to unite this country among the aboriginal people who held
this land in trust for the generations to come.
I welcome the possibility that Louis Riel can be honoured in the
Library of Parliament. Maybe the circle building of the Library
of Parliament could be a symbol of unity of this country in the
future.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree.]
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want
to see the fruit of their labours show up on their paycheque.
They are fed up working for governments.
This government promised to scrap the GST in 1993. Instead,
once again this year the GST is bringing $24 billion into its
coffers, on top of the benefits of free trade, on top of the
accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund, on top of
the 40 income tax hikes.
The government must stop playing with numbers in order to hide
major surpluses at the expense of the workers.
The government is not a bank. I realize it would be asking too
much for it to keep its promises about doing away with the GST.
It must, however, give Canadians back the desire to work, by
leaving them with some money in their pockets as a result of
lower income and other taxes. The purpose of the GST was then
and is now to reduce taxes.
* * *
[English]
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Guelph on
being ranked as Canada's best comprehensive university by
Maclean's magazine.
The U of G definitely deserves top honours. Its faculty and
staff are very dedicated and extremely talented. Its students
are among the best and the brightest.
The impact of research conducted at the U of G in the fields of
agricultural science, veterinary science, minerals, biotechnology
and others stretches across Canada and all around the world.
I say to everyone at the University of Guelph that once again
they have made all of Guelph—Wellington very proud. We are
lucky to have such a world class institution in our community.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with the health care system disintegrating around them,
Canadians anxiously await federal Liberal action and leadership.
Instead they get more of the same empty promises and vague
commitments.
There is no sign that the Liberals' two-pronged attack on
medicare and health protection will ease up. The government
simply replays its last budget mantra about investing in health
care, but Canadians know that with the Liberals in charge, it
will take five years to get back to where we were in 1995.
The Liberals replay their election promise on home care and
pharmacare but there is still no legislation. They promised to
fix food safety, yet they dump food inspection into the hands of
a marketing agency.
We are clearly in a rut under the government, headed for two
tier health care and a loss of our health protection system.
Meanwhile children are dying from E. coli bacteria, infected
carcasses can still enter our food system, and the government
still will not give a choice to Canadians about genetically
engineered foods.
Today Canadians say loudly and clearly that they do not want
more hollow promises, they want action.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently in London, Ontario at the fiscal and economic update,
the Leader of the Official Opposition told the story of how he
had received a pay stub from a millwright in Saskatoon. That pay
stub revealed what the government refuses to acknowledge, which
is that taxes are eating up the majority of Canadians' pay.
1415
We are asking that Canadians help us make the point to the
finance minister that this cannot continue. We are asking
Canadians to send us copies of these pay stubs that show all
their pay going toward taxes. They can do that by faxing
613-947-8885 and helping us make the point to the finance
minister that taxes in Canada have to come down.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty entrenches inequality under the law.
It establishes two tier citizenship. It fails to protect the
rights of aboriginal women and it denies aboriginal private
enterprisers the tools for economic development.
These are all very serious flaws, yet the government is cutting
off debate on this treaty in parliament. It is limiting the
public hearing process in British Columbia and it is even skewing
the list of witnesses in its own favour.
Why is the government so afraid of parliamentary scrutiny and so
afraid of public input that it will not allow Canadians to have
their full say on the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the democratic process is being followed through the
debates in the House and in committee. We have had second
reading. Committee hearings are taking place. We will have
report stage and third reading. Then the other place will
consider the matter. The democratic process is proceeding.
If I am not mistaken, the committee itself agreed to the list of
witnesses. If I am mistaken on that I will correct it, but I
understand that what is happening with respect to the committee
is based on an agreement among the members.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer is completely
unacceptable to the people of British Columbia including
provincial Liberal leader Gordon Campbell.
In correspondence with the Prime Minister, Mr. Campbell said he
found the limited hearing process in B.C. and the skewing of
witnesses unacceptable. He described the limiting of
parliamentary debate on the Nisga'a treaty as an unacceptable
slight to British Columbians and to all Canadians.
Why will the government not accept the advice of the provincial
Liberal Party in British Columbia that its entire handling of the
Nisga'a treaty is flawed and unacceptable?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now we have seen everything. First there is their
effort for the United Alternative. Now the leader of the Reform
Party is supporting the B.C. provincial Liberals. It is amazing.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, more to the point, why is the deputy minister not
supporting the provincial Liberals in British Columbia?
The Nisga'a treaty is of such wide-ranging importance to
aboriginals and non-aboriginals that it should be submitted to a
province wide referendum in that province.
The treaty establishes a new level of government. It
establishes two tier citizenship. It abandons the principle of
equality before the law. It creates taxation without
representation and fails to protect the rights of aboriginal
women and entrepreneurs. If these are not sufficient reasons to
hold a referendum in B.C. on the Nisga'a treaty, what would be?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
interesting that the Reform Party, for example, continues to say
that women somehow are not represented or are not protected in
the treaty.
If the leader of the Reform Party ever read the treaty itself,
he would know that provincial legislation applies to the Nisga'a
women as it does to all women in British Columbia. That leader
would know, if he read the treaty, that the charter applies
equally to the Nisga'a people as it does to all Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister knows because of the treaty that people cannot own
private property. I think that would affect women as well.
The government assures us that it is no problem absolutely that
women's rights will not be protected in the treaty. It says we
should not worry about the fact that non-Nisga'a people living on
this new land will be taxed by a government they cannot even vote
for. It says that the fact the constitution will be changed
probably should not bother anyone either.
Rubbish. If the government is so comfortable with Nisga'a
treaty deal, why will it not give a B.C. wide referendum on this
issue?
1420
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting
the hon. member would suggest that somehow the Nisga'a people
will be able to tax non-Nisga'a people. In fact it is very
specific in the agreement that will not happen.
Another reason this party is different from that party is that
we do not need referendums. What we need is leadership. The
government is ready to lead and we will lead by example not to
have a referendum.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is the picture of leadership by example. What a sight for
sore eyes.
The government is entrenching things that have never been
entrenched before and knows that it is undemocratic. It could
hardly be used as a shining example of democracy and leadership
by example. It is ramming this through with no debate in the
House. It has organized a series of committee meetings that the
B.C. Liberal leader himself called a sham. Then it is to amend
the constitution just to call it kosher.
Why is the government so afraid of the words and practice of
democracy that it will not put this to a B.C. wide referendum?
Why not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has answered the question as to why
there should not be a referendum. It is that the premises on
which she bases her call for a referendum are totally wrong.
She says the Nisga'a treaty amends the constitution. It does
not amend the constitution. She says it harms women's rights. It
does not harm women's rights. The hon. member on this, as in so
many other matters, is wrong, wrong, wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in unveiling the government's position vis-à-vis WTO
negotiations, the Minister for International Trade made three
points, which seem to be irreconcilable, to say the least.
First, he said that nothing was excluded. Then, he said that he
was retaining his full authority to regulate the health and
education sectors. Finally, he said that he was not seeking any
exemption.
Could the minister now tell us the government's real position in
these negotiations?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government's position is absolutely clear
when it comes to health and education services. I believe this
is what the Bloc Quebecois leader is referring to.
There is no question of negotiating Canada's public health or
education services. They are not up for discussion. But, if
other countries wish to discuss these services in the context of
the General Agreement on Trade in Services, they may, on a
voluntary basis, make commitments in a number of areas. Canada
will not be making any such commitments.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would therefore like to know why the minister is not seeking an
exemption in case all countries decide to negotiate this issue,
which would in fact be very surprising.
Will the minister be seeking an exemption with respect to
anything public, with areas such as health and education?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the General Agreement on Trade in Services is
an agreement with an ascending list, which is to say that it is
not up to Canada to decide that certain other countries will not
speak about certain services if, in their own interest, they
wish to conduct international trade in them.
What I am saying is that, since membership is voluntary, we do
not wish to prevent other countries from speaking about this.
But, since Canada's participation is voluntary, we have no
intention of making commitments with respect to public health or
education services.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
questioned yesterday, the Minister of International Trade was
very confused and, especially, very vague on the government's
position at the WTO on health and education. This is no
surprise, it is not even the federal government's jurisdiction.
How can the minister claim to accurately represent the interests
of Canadians in the areas of health and education, in the case
of the GATS, for example, when it is not the federal government
but the provinces that have expertise and jurisdiction in these
areas?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I held a very
worthwhile working meeting with all the provincial ministers of
trade on October 7.
Officials meet weekly with provincial governments precisely in
order to be absolutely certain that Canada's position accurately
reflects the needs and interests of all the provinces in our
country.
1425
I can assure you that, for the moment, we are absolutely
confident of arriving together with a strong voice in Seattle in
order to protect and promote the interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that did
not prevent the premiers from unanimously asking, in the latest
provincial premiers' conferences, to present their viewpoints at
the WTO table.
The government has said once again that it wants to negotiate in
areas not under its jurisdiction. Will the minister agree to
not make any commitments in the areas of health and education
without provincial agreement, because this is provincial
responsibility, not his?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: the Government of
Canada has no intention of making a commitment without
consulting the provinces.
This is why we are working very closely with the provinces. I
told the provincial ministers in recent weeks that we will work
very closely together, and it is vital.
I would like to point out to the member for Charlesbourg that at
the negotiating table, Brussels speaks for the European Union,
including in areas under the jurisdiction of the national
governments of members of the European Union.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
eight days away from the anniversary of the Broadbent resolution,
the unanimous resolution of this House to eliminate child poverty
by the year 2000. This was to be Canada's millennium project,
and yet today to Canada's great shame hundreds of thousands more,
not fewer, children are living in poverty.
The finance minister was among those who made that solemn
commitment 10 years ago. Will the finance minister today commit
to eliminating child poverty, come hell or high water?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about
child poverty. Witness the $5 billion a year that go into the
Canada child tax benefit. Witness the $2 billion that come July
will be part of the national child benefit. Witness the $9
billion in total that include programs like CAPC, prenatal
nutrition, and focusing on Inuit and aboriginal health. Child
poverty is a priority for the government.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
still waiting to hear, come hell or high water. The facts
remain. There are 1.4 million children living in poverty, third
world rates of infant mortality among aboriginal communities and
families with children as the fastest growing group among the
homeless. These are the shameful facts.
Will the finance minister commit to targets and timetables to
eliminate child poverty, come hell or high water?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just reread the
Speech from the Throne she would see the government is committed
to dealing with children and the issue of child poverty.
There will be a significant additional investment to the
national child benefit. We will be working hand in glove with
the provinces to make sure that it focuses on low income families
with children.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we were informed yesterday that the solicitor
general was informed immediately about this breach of national
security. He chose not to inform the head of SIRC, Paule
Gauthier. The ensuing damage control and spin doctoring saw the
Prime Minister say that this was no big deal.
The government's flippant attitude to a national security crisis
is appalling. Since the minister did not see fit to inform the
head of SIRC, can he tell us when he informed the Prime
Minister's Office and when he got in touch with the director of
security services, Ward Elcock?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the director of
CSIS, Mr. Elcock, informed me.
I can also inform my hon. colleague that SIRC does not need my
notice to evaluate or review any files. It has the mandate from
the House to review the files, and that is exactly what it is
doing. It has done that for the past 15 years and it does not
need any input from me to do so.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is sounding more and more like an Austin Powers
episode, The Spy Who Shagged Us.
We need truth or consequences from the minister. When will he
tell us about the status of the search for the missing CSIS
documents? Just how many CSIS agents are out there now engaging
in a search and destroy mission on a Toronto metropolitan dump?
1430
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that the
director of CSIS assured me that all necessary steps would be
taken to ensure strict adherence to security procedures.
That was three weeks ago and he assured me again today.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty assigns 25% of Nass River salmon to
the Nisga'a people. There are four other bands with claims to
Nass River salmon.
This treaty will fundamentally change the way we allocate
resources in this country for all time. Given the significance
of these changes, will the Prime Minister not allow the people of
British Columbia to have their say in a referendum?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's numbers are
incorrect. It is not a percentage, it is 60,000 sockeye.
To reallocate those we will be retiring licences from the
commercial fleet, so it will not take away from the commercial
fleet. Of course, the percentage will depend on the abundance of
fish.
The majority of members of the House and all members on this
side of the House are proud of the Nisga'a treaty and we will
make sure we go through with it.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual the minister has his numbers wrong.
The fact is that the Nisga'a people had a vote on this treaty.
Why can the people of British Columbia not have and enjoy the
same privilege?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do, in this
House.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
European Union negotiates on behalf of the European countries,
the Minister of International Trade must realize that it cannot
require any of its member countries to be committed without its
explicit consent.
Are we to understand from the minister's response just now that
he is prepared to conclude nothing relating to health and
education without the explicit agreement of each of the
provinces, Quebec included?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of one thing. In the fields
of health and education, the General Agreement on Trade in
Services fully allows Canada not to go that route if this is not
what its policy and its government wishes.
Our government is very clear on this. There is no question, in
the trade in services on which we are to commit on a voluntary
basis, of our committing to going that route, and the provinces
are unanimously on side with me on this.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find the
minister very quick to admit that the provinces are unanimously
on side with him on this. Let him make the effort to check
that, and to do so after there has been some negotiation.
Similarly, can the minister make a commitment to respond to
Quebec's demands and to ensure that there is no negotiation with
the WTO on culture?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been working in close collaboration
with my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, toward a
new instrument in the realm of culture.
Recently, I received a letter from the Government of Quebec
indicating that it recognized the need we felt as a government
to continue this work toward a new instrument, in order to truly
promote our very important cultural diversity.
We also hope that other international organizations such as the
World Trade Organization will also acknowledge the government's
right to promote cultural diversity.
* * *
[English]
CSIS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know that top secret documents were stolen from a CSIS
operative. In the minister's own words, he received a report
from CSIS immediately.
I remind him that section 20, paragraph 2 of the CSIS act says
specifically that the minister in turn must send the report with
his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and SIRC. He did
not do this. Why did the minister break the law?
The Speaker: I ask members to be very judicious in their
choice of words.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was informed by the director of
CSIS, he also informed me that the inspector general was
conducting an investigation, CSIS was conducting an
investigation, and the process was proceeding as it should
proceed.
1435
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will read section 20(2) to the solicitor general again. It
says that the minister in turn must send the report with his
comments to the Attorney General of Canada and to the Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
He did not do that. He received a report from CSIS. He did not
send the report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Is
that not a breaking of this statute?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague, the
director of CSIS verbally indicated to me what happened and
at the same time he indicated to me that the inspector general of
CSIS was conducting an investigation and that CSIS was conducting
an investigation.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
ministers of finance unanimously called on the federal
government to raise the level of transfers for health care and
education spending by $3.7 billion.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Will he admit that he has already cut too much in the transfers
to the provinces for health care, in particular, and that he is
therefore responsible for most of the problems in all the
provinces and that his priority is to re-establish the transfers
as he was asked to do by his provincial and territorial
colleagues?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
terms of priority, it is very clear, when we look at what the
government has done in the past year, that the transfers are
certainly very important. Health is of vital importance.
As regards yesterday's finance ministers meeting, I think
everyone is satisfied that matters are fine at both federal and
provincial levels. We have to remember that the provinces cut
significantly at the municipal level. Now that we have the
opportunity to work together, I hope that all three levels of
government will be included.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
provincial and territorial finance ministers recognized that the
federal government must reduce its enormous debt.
They recognized at the same time that the priority of the
federal government, before it spends on other programs that are
not its responsibility, is essentially to re-establish the
transfers for health care and education and that this priority
must guide the Minister of Finance and his government.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is not exactly how I read their meeting. They said not only
that we should reduce the debt and taxes but they advocated an
infrastructure program as recommended in the throne speech.
* * *
[English]
CSIS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the one simple way this parliament keeps a hold on the
executive is through the law.
One of our laws, section 20(2) of the CSIS act, states that the
minister must send the report with his comments to the Attorney
General of Canada and SIRC. Did the minister comply with section
20(2) of the CSIS act?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a number of times in the
House, CSIS is conducting an investigation. When I receive the
report I will act accordingly.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite apparent that the minister did not comply
with the basic statutes governing CSIS for which he is
responsible. The next logical question, if the minister can
follow this, is: Why did the minister not comply with section
20(2) of the CSIS act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing the Reform Party ought to do is accurately
cite the section of the act in question, and the context.
The section in question states:
If the Director is of the opinion that an employee may, on a
particular occasion, have acted unlawfully in the purported
performance of the duties and functions of the Service under this
Act, the Director shall cause to be submitted a report in respect
thereof to the Minister.
Then the clause arises about it going to the attorney
general.
1440
My hon. friend has not stated that the report to the solicitor
general was of this kind. In fact, the solicitor general has
told the House that investigations are going on in this matter,
so at best the questions of the Reform Party are highly
premature.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
read in the National Post that this is the fourth time CSIS has
got its foot in it.
On one occasion, officers lost information about a west coast
surveillance mission. On another, they left strategic
information in a telephone booth. On a third, they tried to burn
classified documents in a fireplace.
My question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. In the face
of such a disaster, is the minister going to ask senior officers
of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to appear before
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to answer for
their actions?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the director
of CSIS has indicated that the necessary steps have been taken to
protect security. He also indicated to me that CSIS was
conducting an investigation and the inspector general was
conducting an investigation.
What I ask my hon. colleague to do is to let the process unfold.
* * *
[Translation]
EARTHQUAKE IN TURKEY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, Turkey suffered its second earthquake in three months.
Almost 3,000 people were injured and 450 died.
Can the Minister for International Cooperation tell the House
whether Canada is in a position to send humanitarian aid and
Canadian rescue workers to Turkey?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, immediately after the earthquake I
approved a $250,000 humanitarian aid program through the
International Red Cross. In addition, we sent two members of the
rescue team from Vancouver to work along with the United Nations.
As well, we were very active in the earthquake that Turkey had in
August, when we sent $1 million, plus the DART team, plus the
firefighters to aid with that situation.
I spoke yesterday with the representative of the Vancouver team
and he told me that things were reasonably calm now, that they
were doing well and that he would be on his way back home within
the next couple of days.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
House leader for the government was wrong when he told the
editorial board of the Vancouver Sun that the official
opposition supports the elections act.
Bill C-2 is supposed to be fair and non-partisan, but it slaps a
gag law on the voters, it reinstates the unfair 50 candidate rule
and it is riddled with patronage appointments for the
government's friends. Even the Chief Electoral Officer said he
would not recommend it to a third world country. No one except
the House leader seems to like it.
I would like to know why he is publicly exaggerating support for
the bill.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, the
critic for the official opposition on electoral matters. I want
to assure the House that I will never accuse him of supporting
good legislation in the future.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Chief Electoral Officer said that it is critical that he be given
the power to appoint his own returning officers based on merit,
but the government insists on appointing its own political
friends to those crucial positions.
The official opposition cannot support the bill and the Chief
Electoral Officer says it is not fit for a third world country.
Why exactly is the minister so enthusiastic about it?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It
has been stated so by many people who appeared before the
parliamentary committee. The member, who pretends to be an
expert on such matters, will know that what I am saying is
totally accurate. He will know as well that Canada's election
laws are already excellent. They have been utilized elsewhere in
the world as examples for democracy. He knows that. We are
striving to make this law better.
It is too bad that the Reform Party is once again going to
isolate itself from the rest of Canadians on this issue.
* * *
1445
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
global corporations are itching to profit from Canada's schools
and hospitals. The federal government is poised for the first
time ever to put health and education on the WTO table. Canadians
do not buy that the trade minister can make it easier for wealthy
investors to profiteer from health care and education without
sacrificing our schools and hospitals. The trade minister cannot
have his cake and eat it too.
Will he change his position and push for a complete carve out of
health and education so that all countries can keep private
corporations out of their schools and hospitals?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely crystal clear. In
the WTO, under the GATS, our universal health care and public
education are not subject to any international trade rules unless
Canada accepts those rules. We did not accept them in the
Uruguay round and we will not accept them in the next round.
I do not think it is up to Canada to decide for other countries
what they should be doing as the NDP is telling us what we should
be doing right now. If other countries want something for
themselves they can volunteer for it. We will not.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows that if Canadian corporations are
going to profit in health care and education in other countries,
we are going to have to sacrifice our public health care and
education system in Canada.
Last month the heritage minister said “What we are seeking in
the Seattle round is an explicit reference in the WTO that
culture is not to be negotiated at the WTO—period”, not a
separate instrument but a carve out in the WTO.
Is this the position that the trade minister will be taking in
Seattle?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position I will be taking is the 50
years experience we have and the recent experience we have on
GATS, which is absolutely clear. A country may make a concession
to us in a certain field without us having to volunteer a
concession in the same field. That is what international trade
is all about. A country chooses the sectors in which it makes
its concessions. Canada will not make concessions on health and
public education.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
When did he inform the Prime Minister's office or the Prime
Minister of the disappearance of the documents?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not inform them at all.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
asked whether he informed the Prime Minister. The solicitor
general said he did not. How is it then that the Prime Minister
commented that the matter was not all that serious?
There is a real problem here. I am giving the solicitor general
a chance to rethink his answer. Did he inform the Office of the
Prime Minister, yes or no? If he did not, on what did the Prime
Minister base his remarks?
I hope they will get their act together, because there is going
to be a need for a new solicitor general very soon.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I will respond for the
Prime Minister. I did respond to your first question previously.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to please address the
Chair.
* * *
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The fifth conference of the parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on climate change was held recently in Bonn,
Germany. Would the Minister of Natural Resources outline what
steps are being taken within Canada to reduce domestic emissions
of greenhouse gases pursuant to Canada's international commitment
under the Kyoto protocol.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the long term we are working with 16 different issue
tables involving 450 Canadian experts in a very open, inclusive
and transparent way with the provinces and other levels of
government to develop the long term strategy.
In the meantime, we have the climate change action fund. I am
pleased to confirm that the Minister of the Environment and I
announced this morning an incremental amount of funding of $9.6
million from the climate change action fund supporting 59
different projects across the country in public education,
science impacts and adaptation, and in technology measures to
make sure that Canada performs well in respect of its climate
change commitments.
* * *
1450
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to my sources, there are currently 753 offenders
unlawfully at large in Canada. That is about 5% of the prison
population.
Would the solicitor general please explain why there are almost
1,000 serious offenders on the lam in the country?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that when
Correctional Service Canada has an offender escape from an
institution it contacts the RCMP, co-operates with the RCMP and
tries to apprehend the individual as fast as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, the
daily Le Devoir reported that Ottawa had developed and
implemented a far-reaching plan of action in preparation for the
last referendum in Quebec.
To that end, the number of people who were granted Canadian
citizenship increased from 24,000 in 1993 to 44,000 in 1995, the
year the referendum was held. Since then, their numbers have
been dropping consistently.
How can the minister claim that the increase was not due to the
referendum when the numbers show just the opposite?
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and all
members in the House that voting is a fundamental right of our
democracy. Before any vote, in any province across the country,
we do everything we can to make sure that those who are eligible
to vote have that opportunity and are not denied the right.
I further point out to the member that many of those people who
he referred to—and I am concerned that he would deprive them to
vote—were actually selected by the Quebec government as
immigrants to the province of Quebec.
* * *
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Canadians have clearly indicated that they want to know what
they are eating. They want the government to fulfill its
statutory obligation to require labelling of genetically
engineered foods. By predetermining that labelling will be
voluntary, the government has pre-empted public input on this
issue and has dismissed Canadians' legitimate concerns about food
safety and about consumer choice.
Will the government reverse its decision on this matter, do what
Canadians want and agree today to immediately implement a process
for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly said and will
continue to say that before there can be any kind of labelling,
it naturally has to be meaningful, credible and enforceable.
I remind the hon. member that the government has put in place a
process with the Canadian Standards Council. It will be
beginning its meetings with over 80 organizations and interested
groups in the country to talk about the labelling of food and how
we could do it in an enforceable, credible and meaningful way.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it appears the solicitor general's department is now
on autopilot. This incident has been described by many as the
most serious breach of national security in years.
Canadians have suffered through a solicitor general that talked
too much. Now we have a solicitor general who does not talk to
the PMO or the heads of his own department. Who is minding the
shop in this ministry?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that when the
director of CSIS informed me of the situation, he informed me
that the inspector general of CSIS was conducting an
investigation and CSIS was conducting an investigation. I was
well aware that SIRC would conduct a review because it has had
the mandate from the House for the last 15 years to conduct such
reviews. That is exactly what is happening.
* * *
ORGAN DONATIONS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada ranks very low among nations in
organ donations.
What is the Minister of Health doing to increase organ donations
and give hope to Canadians needing life-saving transplants?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the rates of organ donation in the country are not high enough. A
year ago, I asked the Standing Committee on Health to look into
it and make recommendations. It has done so and we have accepted
every one of them.
1455
It is through efforts like those of the member for
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale and also the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam who has now tabled a private
members' bill, the principles of which I agree with, that we are
making progress.
The provinces and the Government of Canada have now agreed upon
a strategy. It is going to work. The Kidney Foundation of
Canada has praised it and said that it has its full support, that
it will significantly improve the situation and that it will save
lives.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of the
1,000 convicts that are on the lam in this land, 15 lifers, 19
convicted of manslaughter and 14 serious sex offenders are
currently at large.
My question is for the solicitor general, and he should listen
carefully. Will he personally accept responsibility when a
law-abiding citizen in this land is harmed by one of these
people?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, escapes from federal institutions are
taken very seriously. I am pleased to report that the rate of
escapes from minimum security institutions has been cut in half
since 1993 and 1994.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the large
scale production of genetically modified organisms might result
in the cross-pollination of surrounding fields, thus
contaminating organic farming crops. This means that organic
farmers could lose their certification.
What does the minister intend to do to meet the concerns of
organic farmers who could lose their certification?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the growers of registered seed and grain
crops in the country have put in place a set of regulations that
they abide by, putting in setbacks and standard distances between
different varieties of crops.
The same types of rules and applications can and do apply. They
are put in place by the industry on a voluntary basis. They are
regulated by the industry itself. In such a way, the reduction
of cross-pollination is assured.
* * *
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Ontario and Quebec have made it abundantly clear
that they do not want MOx plutonium shipped through their
communities.
Ontario Power Generation made it clear that it does not intend
to burn it. The Russians will require significant compensation
for shipping MOx through Canada and the Americans are going to
burn their own.
Why is the Canadian government pursuing a costly and potentially
dangerous course of action?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all of the evidence and information indicates that this
is not a dangerous procedure. In fact, even the Greenpeace
organization has conceded publicly that this is a safe procedure.
The transportation routes and the emergency response plans have
all been reviewed by the Department of Transport under all of the
provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
Canadians can be absolutely assured that every applicable
Canadian law, rule and regulation to protect public health,
safety and the environment will be fully and rigorously enforced,
and this matter can be undertaken safely.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is the fourth serious breach of security within
CSIS in as many years. In one of these cases, it actually led to
the death of an agent. This is serious stuff. I want to be
assured by the minister that he has a handle on what is
happening.
I will remind the minister that CSIS has yet to find the missing
documents. As far as we are concerned, it is still on a search,
presumably in the Toronto dump, to find them.
Can we rest assured that the type of inactivity—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the director has assured
me that all necessary steps have been taken. He assured me three
weeks ago and again today that all necessary steps to ensure
security are in place. Measures will be taken and have been
taken.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind. Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers are suffering the worst cash crunch of the
century.
1500
Century farms are going bankrupt. Stress is causing family
break-ups. Could the agriculture minister explain why the
necessary help is withheld from these farmers under the guise of
tough love when they are the most efficient and productive
farmers in the world?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that in
the last 12 months the federal government has put forward nearly
$1.1 billion as well as made a number of changes to existing
safety net programs.
We are working very hard with the provinces. We are encouraging
the provinces to participate fully with their 40%. We are
working with the safety net advisory committee and we are making
as much contribution. We will continue to look for continuing
and further ways to assist those in rural Canada and to assist
the agricultural industry.
* * *
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the finance minister a question
about the GST. In the 1993 campaign the Liberal Party promised
to scrap and abolish the GST. In May 1996 the Minister of
Finance apologized for not being able to keep the promise because
of the difficult financial situation the country was in.
Now that the Minister of Finance and the country are awash in
cash, now that he is rolling in the dough, will he keep his
promise to scrap the GST? At the very least, will he use the
surplus to reduce the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that is not what was
said. In any event, a House of Commons committee went across the
country for two years. It met with consumers. It met with small
business. At the end of it all, the recommendation was that in
fact we continue with the situation as is because it would cause
much less disruption.
That is not the hon. member's real point. His real point is
that we should now begin to spend money, money, which we may not
have in five years, and that we should return to a deficit. That
this government will never do.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
oral question period, the Minister for International Trade made
defamatory and slanderous comments that are unworthy of a person
like him. I was surprised to hear him tell me and my colleagues
that we do not like immigrants.
While he insists that there was a question mark at the end of
his sentence, such a comment is unworthy of him. He should not
make jokes about such a statement. The minister is usually more
serious than that.
1505
This is a serious accusation. The minister's remarks had nothing
to do with the question.
Also, on a personal note, there are immigrants in my immediate
family and they are true Quebecers.
The minister is now pretending to play the violin. He is
prepared to make all sorts of gratuitous accusations—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. This is definitely not a
question of privilege, but the minister is here and, if he
wishes to reply, I will give him a few seconds to do so.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the question by the Bloc Quebecois on
immigrants' right to vote, I asked “You do not like
immigrants?”—with a question mark—meaning that in this country
landed immigrants have the right to vote.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I asked him whether he did not like
immigrants because one could wonder. A landed immigrant in this
country is entitled to vote. However, if my question upsets him
to this extent, I would suggest that together we consider this
matter as a society.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. This is certainly not a question of
privilege, as I said, and I hope that in such debates the
members will chose their words very carefully. So, this part is
over.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is this another point of order? Because this was
not a question of privilege
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If
I understand correctly, we just have to do as the minister does:
hurl any old insult and then hide. If this is the case, we will
do the same—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: With question marks.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. This point is over.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In an effort of co-operation I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to propose the following:
That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice the
House return for the remainder of the present sitting to the
consideration of the supply proceedings in the name of the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris proposed earlier this day.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion before the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from November 5 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 committee.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to resume debate and to complete my remaining time of
about 17 minutes.
The Municipal Grants Act is only necessary because the federal
government feels that it needs special treatment in the payment
of its taxes to the municipalities.
Previous to adjournment for the Remembrance Day break I had
indicated to the House that municipal governments were the
backbone of the Canadian economy and that their source of revenue
was derived from taxation at the local level. Current high cost
items such as the construction of water treatment plants and the
upgrading and rebuilding of sewage infrastructure have created a
lot of pressure on the revenue side for municipalities.
1510
There are over 4,000 municipal governments in Canada, from the
largest city to the most remote rural and northern community.
Municipal governments in Canada have a pervasive influence on the
economy, culture and quality of life. Municipal governments are
major players in the Canadian economy, influencing technology and
innovation diffusion and productivity.
Statistics Canada defines productivity as the technical
efficiency of production. Municipal governments through
investment in public services like transportation have a vital
impact on productivity. In other words it costs money to provide
services, and federal governments that have infrastructure in
municipal jurisdictions certainly should be expected to pay for
those services.
In 1996 municipal governments spent $39.2 billion providing
community services and employed over 400,000 Canadians. Municipal
government expenditures constitute about 5% of Canada's gross
domestic product. In addition to the sizeable share of public
sector spending on goods and services, municipal government
capital spending totals about $9 billion a year, equal to a third
of all public advancement and about 6.5% of all capital
investment in Canada.
Municipal government asset portfolios include roads, water
supply and distribution systems, sewage treatment facilities,
street lighting, some public housing, recreation facilities,
parks, community centres, and a wide variety of vehicles,
buildings, machinery and equipment. Members can see that the
needs and the services provided by the municipal governments are
much like those of the federal government.
The question is how the municipalities pay for them. As I
indicated earlier, it is by collecting taxes, specifically
collecting property taxes. Federal buildings require as I
indicated the same services as other property owners so, in
essence, why should federal buildings not pay the full rate?
Canadian municipalities do not have the luxury of either
receiving the majority of their funds from the federal government
or the option of collecting income tax.
I will read a short excerpt from a background paper prepared by
the Parliament of Canada on local municipal government
jurisdictions in Europe just to illustrate that there are other
ways of dealing with the tax collection side.
In general there are at least two striking differences between
the administration of local and regional municipalities in Europe
and in Canada. First, almost all European states and local
levels of government are formally recognized often
constitutionally, and that is not the case in this country.
Second, the bulk of the financing for local governments is
provided by the national level of government in most states
primarily through grants and other transfers. By contrast the
concept of property tax, the mainstay of Canadian municipal
finances, is less significant and less well accepted. These two
phenomena are common in both federal and unitary states in Europe
although there are naturally a number of significant differences
among them.
With respect to financing, the German case is particularly
revealing. As political scientists Don Stevenson and Richard
Gilbert have outlined in some detail, municipalities in the
country of Germany receive a negotiated share of national taxes.
This income represents more than 50% of the total revenues of
most municipalities.
Certain major cities such as Frankfurt receive a lesser share,
but only because of their ability to raise significant sums
through their own means. However, as the case of Frankfurt
demonstrates, this independent revenue capacity is due to its
legal ability to levy business taxes, especially on banks.
Property taxes on the other hand constitute only 5% of
Frankfurt's revenue, unlike in this country where property taxes
make up the majority of the funds raised.
1515
The constitution of Germany, a federal state, is equally
instructive. It specifically recognizes municipalities and their
responsibilities for local affairs. In addition, it anticipates
their input in decision making at the national level, which is
missing in this country, largely through negotiation. Local
governments are miniature legislatures with council members
elected on the basis of party lists and forming government and
opposition parties or coalitions of parties in each local
council.
A similar situation exists in The Netherlands, a unitary state
with 12 administrative regions or provinces, but it is a more
radical case. Not only are municipalities recognized in the
constitution, unlike Canada, but there is a ministry of urban
affairs. Its 1986 municipal act actually gave municipalities
more independence, lessened the supervision of provincial
authorities, and deregulated the processes of municipal councils
which operate along partisan lines as well.
With more than half of the entire population located in the
adjoining urban areas of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and The Hague, it
is perhaps not surprising that some 90% of municipal revenues
come from the central government, roughly two-thirds of which are
in the form of conditional grants. Like Frankfurt, Rotterdam is
an exception to this rule as it raises nearly half of its
revenues through business taxes. Once again, property taxes are
insignificant, as in Canada, accounting for only 2.5% of the
city's total revenues. We can certainly take a lesson from some
of these European countries.
Sweden is perhaps the most extreme example of municipal
importance and autonomy in Europe. This is all the more
significant as it too is a unitary state. Swedish local
governments, in addition to the standard Canadian
responsibilities of the municipal level, are in charge of
education, regional planning and the administration of most
health and social services. They receive only one-quarter of
their funding from central government grants but unlike most
other European examples, they are able to levy their own income
tax. That is really different from this country. Roughly half of
their total revenues come from this income tax with almost all of
the remainder of their funding being provided by fees and
charges, not by property tax as we see it in this country.
At the other end of the spectrum are two unusual European cases,
those of France and Great Britain. The former is long known for
its massive centralization of government programs and a seemingly
infinite number of government layers. It is currently in the
midst of a considerable decentralization exercise. The outcome
is still far from certain with various factions urging the
elimination of layers known as departments and prefectures.
One apparently inevitable result of the reform exercise will be
the continued existence of the local or commune level to which
citizens are fiercely attached and which is viewed as the
essential building block of French democracy. At the end of the
day its decentralization may well come to resemble the situation
already prevalent in most other European states. Certainly the
direction of its reform is the same as it is elsewhere, if not
the pace.
We can see that this country lags far behind in the reform of
European governments. We can see how we differ in terms of
taxation. That is why our position is basically that this
federal government should not ask for special treatment when it
comes to paying its fair share of taxes.
Another issue that has been illustrated is that European
jurisdictions tend to recognize municipalities as legitimate
entities, something that is totally missing in this country.
There have been many occasions where the federal government has
been asked by the municipalities for this recognition. The usual
answer is that they are the creation of the provinces but I
believe it goes further than that.
I remember clearly in 1996 at a Federation of Canadian
Municipalities convention in Calgary, the Prime Minister
acknowledged the importance of municipal governments as the first
level of government, that which is closest to the people, yet at
the same time our own Prime Minister will not recognize the
municipalities in a legitimate fashion in this very House.
1520
Since that time I have stood in the House on several occasions
to ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge the legitimacy of the
first level of government in Canada. Unfortunately we are still
waiting. That has not happened.
Prior to the November recess I indicated that it was unfortunate
the government had not informed Canadian municipalities about the
tabling of Bill C-10 for debate at second reading. My
understanding is that it has taken many years of negotiation with
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the federal
government to make these amendments. I am informed that the FCM
was very disappointed not to have been informed that the bill had
been tabled for debate at second reading.
Our position is that all laws pertaining to both the individual
and private sector should apply equally to the Government of
Canada, its personnel, its agencies and parliament. We believe
in the principle of equality and fair treatment.
Bill C-10 is not supportable. It gives the Liberal government
too much discretionary power. The remuneration of the dispute
advisory panel is non-binding. It merely maintains the status
quo and entrenches into legislation common practices that were
put into place 16 years ago.
When we see what is happening in other countries, we need major
changes in Canada. We need to repeal the Municipal Grants Act.
It is really unnecessary. Repealing the Municipal Grants Act
will certainly force the federal government to pay all of its
taxes responsibly like all Canadian citizens. We need to
recognize the legitimacy of the municipalities and invite them to
the table on issues that affect them.
It is time we took a new approach to governance for the people
of our country. As we head toward the new millennium we need to
find new ways for all three levels of government to work together
in a co-operative manner. Co-operative federalism means having
all three levels of government at the table at the same time and
treating each other with respect.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent that we return
to the supply day motion that was originally before the House.
There was an attempt made by the government House leader to do so
at the close of question period.
I would ask that the Chair consider putting that motion again.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the permission of the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to my colleague's comments knowing that his background
in municipal government is similar to mine. I was involved in
municipal government for 18 years on council in the town I live
in of Picture Butte.
The recognition of municipal government and the importance it
has in the running of the country has not been recognized fully
by the federal government. It is certainly not recognized fully
in this legislation.
The payment in lieu of tax system that was put in place leaves a
lot of authority and discretion to the minister. That sometimes
places municipalities in a very untenable position when it comes
to budgeting and working out taxes for their own people.
1525
What more importance does he see municipal governments being
given by the federal government? Municipal governments are a
creation of the provinces, but in order to bring them into the
equation and the discussion, the federal government has to
recognize the importance of municipal governments at some time.
I would like my colleague to comment further on that aspect of
his delivery.
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, as we head into the new
millennium, as a country we need to find ways to work together
rather than to work apart. We have seen over the last decade, if
not longer, that there tends to be a greater division between all
three levels of government. Unfortunately, the municipal level
of government tends to be neglected even more today than it was
before.
I would like to redefine what the federal government has always
called co-operative federalism. We need to exercise and put into
practice the real definition of what co-operative federalism
means. It means co-operation. There cannot be co-operative
federalism unless all the stakeholders are at the table. There
cannot be co-operative federalism if it is a top down approach,
that the guy with all the money makes all the decisions. That
seems to be the problem we encounter almost daily.
There has to be a new vision and a new way of doing business.
We cannot do business unless everyone is involved.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, for the
past six years I have made it a practice to visit as many of the
municipal councils within my riding as possible. After six years
I have discovered that the most fiscally responsible and
accountable politicians elected in this country are at that
level. Most of those municipalities run their governments in the
black and if they do have debts they are very manageable debts.
They have assets to deal with the debts.
In some parts of the country such as Toronto, Montreal and
Vancouver we have what amounts to city states. They have vast
responsibilities with huge populations.
In addition, the resources that the provincial and federal
governments obtain come from these municipalities. They tax the
wealth that is created in these municipalities. They take huge
sums, billions of dollars, out of the municipalities and then
design programs to which those living within the municipalities
have to adhere in order to get some of that money back.
When I visit the municipal councils, I always leave them with
the question, would they support a constitutional amendment that
would recognize municipal governments? I ask my hon. colleague
that question.
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that
those who work hard for the people closest to them and who are
responsible and accountable and then are not recognized beyond
the level that they work, whether it is provincial or federal
government, they certainly would welcome being legitimate. Up to
this time they are in a way an illegitimate entity or body. They
really do not have legitimacy outside of the provincial
boundaries as established by the provincial legislation.
It is ironic that the governments that are the closest and the
most accountable are the ones which are the furthest removed from
the public purse. As many of us know from our experience here
and also from past municipal experience, the irony is that the
legislation in this House sometimes creates a lot of hardship for
the municipal organizations, certainly when it comes to the
environment.
1530
They just do not have the resources to put in place all the
recommendations that need to be put in place. At the same time
they are shipping all the dollars to both federal and provincial
governments. They need funds to look after their own budget.
Basically they go to the two upper levels of government begging
for dollars.
Unfortunately they are not at the table and they really need to
be at the table. It would make a huge difference in the
governance of the country just to have municipal governments at
the negotiation table, or even a simpler beginning would be to
keep them informed of everything that happens in the House.
I have found travelling throughout the country that a lot of the
information we have here they just do not have. As I indicated
in my speech, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was
surprised to find that the bill was being debated on the floor
here. They were not aware that was happening.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Speaker, seeing
as how my colleague is a former mayor of a municipal government,
I would like to ask him a question. Are there programs that are
presently administered by the provinces as well as by the federal
government which could best and most effectively be administered
by the government closest to the people, the municipal
governments?
Are there programs being administered far from the people by
either the provincial governments or the federal government that
could be better and more cost effectively administered by the
government closest to the people, the municipal government?
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for Crowfoot for his question. If we reverse the whole system
from a bottom up one rather than top down one, there is no doubt
that we would have better government and more accountable
government.
The biggest problem I have found as a fairly recent member of
parliament is that Ottawa is too far removed from municipalities,
from small town Canada, unless they are around this region. Other
than through the newspaper and television most Canadians do not
really understand what is happening here.
The problem is that we have had top down government for too
long. We need to reverse that trend. I point my finger at the
provincial governments as well. Even though they sing a good
song at times, they play the same game as the federal system. I
have witnessed that as a former mayor at the municipal level.
When it comes to doing the right thing, walking the talk, it is a
different matter. They sing the song “Yes, guys are doing a
good job and we need to support you”, but when it comes to real
bucks and real support it is a different matter.
They put in place regulations and rules that download. We have
all heard the expression downloading to municipal governments.
That happens federally and provincially. We need to reverse the
trend. I reiterate that the municipalities need to be at the
table to deal with matters that affect them and their purses
directly.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-10. This
was an unexpected event for us this afternoon. We were earlier
debating a Conservative Party supply day motion. Unfortunately
that collapsed due to the fact that there were not enough members
of that party in the House, so we are moving on with government
Bill C-10.
Mr. Lynn Myers: You guys would not agree to having it
extended.
Mr. Grant McNally: The government says they would not
agree to having it extended. I do not know why they would not.
1535
Bill C-10 is an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Its
purpose is to provide for the fair and equitable administration
of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of
compensation for untimely payments, defaults on tax obligations
by certain tenants of the crown and by others in the legal
system. It establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister
on disputes concerning payment amounts. It also amends the title
of the act to the payments in lieu of taxes act.
My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River was a municipal politician
and mayor for a number of years as were other members of the
House who got their political start at the civic level. There is
at that level a degree of accountability that perhaps others
emulate to a certain degree.
Those who seem to be closest to the people at the municipal
level also seem to be the ones who are the most accountable in
terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of delivering
services to their constituents and people in surrounding areas.
There are those at the local level who are calling on us,
particularly the current Liberal government, to emulate our
municipal counterparts in that regard.
I received a note yesterday from a constituent making that very
point. When highlighting some of the wasteful spending going on
by the government my constituent made reference to Bubbles
Galore, a film produced not long ago and supported by some
hard earned Canadian tax dollars. I share my constituent's
concern in this regard.
He asked why the federal government engaged in these kinds of
spending activities without giving it a second thought when his
municipal government is accountable for expenditures of this type
and knows that if it made these types of expenditures the
constituents would be down at city hall knocking on council
doors.
I ask that question of the government. Why is it that the
government does not take the same accountable approach in terms
of spending as do municipal governments?
The bill talks about several changes in the current act, one of
them being interest payments made after agreed upon dates. It
also talks about third party leases and property exclusions. The
bill proposes to include some structures and improvements which
used to be excluded from payment. However the bill does not
drastically change the status quo.
We see that over and over again with the Liberal government. It
seems to be willing to accept the status quo. The government
wants to keep the status quo and use it as a model for
approaching other topics and other situations, one of them being
the Nisga'a treaty in British Columbia. Many people are
concerned about the implications of that bill just as individuals
are concerned about Bill C-10 and the application of municipal
grants. The status quo is being presented in this bill.
The people of British Columbia are concerned that the Liberal
government is promoting the same status quo in the Nisga'a
treaty. It is making the same fundamental mistake, the same
flaw, it made with the Indian Act, which it brought forward and
has had in place for a number of years. It sets up inequalities
and enshrines them in law, which is exactly what the Nisga'a
treaty does in British Columbia as well.
Mr. Peter Adams: You are obsessed with aboriginal issues
over there.
Mr. Grant McNally: The member for Peterborough seems to
have awakened from his deep sleep on the other side. I am not
sure if he will utter scurrilous remarks today as he has in the
past. Perhaps he could listen to the people of British Columbia.
They would like to have the opportunity to have a referendum on
such an important issue as the Nisga'a treaty which will have
great impact, not only throughout British Columbia but throughout
the rest of the country. It will enshrine in law the treatment
of people based on their racial background.
That is clearly within the Nisga'a agreement. It is promoting
the same status quo that Bill C-10 promotes. Bill C-10 which has
to do with municipal grants perpetuates the same status quo
attitude in this particular area. It does not address the
discretionary power of the minister and the crown in several
different areas.
1540
The recommendations of the dispute advisory panel are
non-binding. Bill C-10 merely maintains the status quo and
entrenches into legislation common practices that were put in
place 16 years ago. It keeps that particular problem with the
old legislation going forward into the new legislation. That
seems to be the approach of the Liberal government. It has to
examine things as they are.
Members of the government and cabinet can stand in this place
and tell us one thing. They can say whatever they would like in
this place. What is more important is to measure the actions
that go along with those words.
When individuals say something we tend to take their word for it
right off the bat because we are willing to give them the benefit
of the doubt. However, when we see over and over again people
saying one thing and doing another, over time the credibility of
the message deteriorates. We see that time and time again with
the Liberal government. It says one thing but it does another.
We see that happening with this legislation. We see it, as I
mentioned earlier, with the Nisga'a treaty.
We can draw a lot of parallels between a municipal government
and a government at least saying that the Nisga'a treaty sets up
a municipal form of government when in fact it does not. It sets
up a different order of government that attributes powers and
rights to the Nisga'a government which used to be within
provincial and federal jurisdiction. We think that is wrong
headed.
We think that whole process has been skewed. It has not
received proper treatment from the government. We saw how it
dealt with that bill in the House. It limited debate through
time allocation and closure. We see it in question period. When
opposition members rise to ask important questions about that
particular piece of legislation the government is happy with the
status quo attitude. It says everything is fine and that we
should trust it, that it will take care of this legislation. It
is the same with that piece of legislation and this one over
here. What has happened is that the actions that back up those
words are simply not there. The credo of the Liberal government
is to keep everything going the way it is.
The Nisga'a treaty is not even supported by the leader of the
official opposition in British Columbia who happens to be a
Liberal, Gordon Campbell. He put out a news release and wrote a
letter to the Prime Minister on the treatment of this legislation
and said that the way it was handled was not appropriate.
Others have said that Bill C-10 is a piece of legislation that
needs further scrutiny. My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River
talked about how the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was
not aware that it was to be the topic of debate. However, here
it is. We would think there would have been more consultation on
it before bringing it to the House because it will have such a
big impact on local governments.
Some of my colleagues at the local municipal government level
will ask me when I am back in the riding if the federal
government has any understanding of the fact that they are
neighbours with other individuals and other municipalities. Does
it want to establish another order of government? This is with
specific reference to the Nisga'a treaty and how it sets up
another form of government.
1545
The mayors of some of my communities have told me that they have
to, by law, consult with one another when there is an impact
along one of their borders with another community so that what is
done in one community does not negatively affect another
municipality. They may also work out an arrangement for the
sharing of services, whether it is snow removal or whatever the
particulars are of the local area.
A question that has been asked by some of the mayors in my
community about the Nisga'a treaty is why this other form of
government has been put in place with no structure in terms of
consulting with the other local jurisdictions. They wonder how
the sharing of services will work. They have concerns about when
that template being used in the Nisga'a treaty will be applied to
other jurisdictions, particularly around the lower mainland area
of Vancouver and the surrounding areas where there is not a lot
of land to be divvied up to different groups, that there will
have to be some kind of an arrangement made. They are asking why
it is that the government has not considered those factors in
relation to the Nisga'a treaty.
We would say that perhaps it is a notion that again falls into
that status quo, the status quo approach the government has to
governing. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Municipal Grants Act, or
any other piece of legislation in this place, the government
seems to simply be on autopilot.
I would like to refer to some of the information that Gordon
Campbell has directed toward the Nisga'a treaty. He is a member
of the British Columbia legislature who got his start in
municipal politics and who was the mayor of Vancouver. In
referring to the motion the government made, he said:
The motion this morning...to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty
debate is a reprehensible abuse of democratic processes.
That was the B.C. Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, who said
that. He said:
This is an egregious abuse of democratic process, and shows
flagrant contempt for all British Columbians. It's an
unacceptable slap in the face to our province, and to all
Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark
treaty.
On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our
province and to our constitution, every Member of Parliament
deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the
right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we wouldn't
for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the
constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the
government's doing to B.C.
It was a Liberal leader who made that claim. He goes on to say:
In just a few short hours, debate on this treaty will be slammed
shut forever, and there isn't a chance in the world that anywhere
near a majority of opposition MPs will be able to speak to it in
that time.
It was appalling when the NDP government shut down debate on
this treaty, and denied British Columbians' elected
representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22
chapters. But the federal government's conduct defies
description. Once this treaty is passed, it will be set in
constitutional concrete forever and cannot be changed. We only
had one chance left to speak to this treaty on behalf of British
Columbians, and now the federal government is denying even that.
The surest way to shatter public trust and confidence in the
treaty process is to limit debate on what these treaties actually
say and do. The federal government should be doing all it can to
open up the treaty process. This is a dangerous step on the part
of the federal government that will only further undermine public
trust.
Those are the remarks of the leader of the opposition, the man
who would seek to be premier of the province of British Columbia
and who is a Liberal himself, and his opposition to the Nisga'a
treaty. As I stated, he is a man who got his start in politics
at the municipal level. Of course we are talking about Bill C-10
and municipal government and here is a man who has that notion of
accountability, as many in this place do.
I know members of the Liberal Party who got their starts in
civic politics. Some of them are here today. They did an
admirable job at the municipal level. I think they are here
because they have the purest of motives to make positive changes
in this place. Yet the process is skewed against those who would
want to make the positive kinds of changes they know are
effective and work at the local level.
1550
Under the Liberal government, there is a process in place that
limits the role of members of parliament in terms of those who
are on the backbenches. There is a limited role in committee and
a limited role in other areas. They do provide an opportunity
for some input and some debate on topics, but certainly not to
the degree that most of them hoped they would have had as members
of the government: to enact, direct and help their own
government make the necessary changes within its own ranks to
become more accountable and more democratic. I think some of
them are truly disappointed. Those who have been here since 1997
are seeing that after two years that impact is not being made.
There are many members of the opposition who feel the same way.
The accountability they sought, to work hard at the local level,
is simply not a concept that seems to be getting through here to
the Liberal government. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Nisga'a
treaty or other legislation, the government has a status quo
approach that everything is okay. We are to trust it, throw it
the keys to the car and it will drive it. We can see that the
car is going off the road. It is going to crash unless there is
a change of heart by the government but we do not think there
will be. That is why we will continue, as members of the
official opposition, to put forward other ideas and another
vision for the country. We will work to take the place of the
government because that is our ultimate goal.
We can work from the opposition benches to make positive changes
to impact on the government, but it is now at the point where
after six years of governing the country, it is starting to show
some of that same arrogance the government before it showed after
being in office for a long period of time. It is time for a
change.
If a group does not back up its words with actions, its
credibility suffers. That was alluded to in the letter I read of
the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. That is
what people are seeing at the local level as well. If federal
politicians are not going to do what they say they are going to
do, how is it that we can trust them to govern the country?
The people of British Columbia and right across the country are
getting to that point. It is unfortunate because cynicism works
into the hands of the government. To those individuals who say,
“What is the use? I cannot change the system. My voice cannot
be heard”, we encourage them to stay engaged and involved in the
process. As they do get engaged in the process, change can be
made. There are other groups out there that do get involved in
the process.
We know that the Liberal government is disengaging itself from
the process. It has decided what its approach is going to be.
When government members go out to consult, we really believe it
is simply an exercise in public relations, an opportunity to go
out and give their message to other people.
I spoke with an individual over the last break who sat in on one
of these Liberal western alienation task force teams. I like to
call it the western alienation rescue team, or WART. They came
to western Canada. This individual said that at the public
meeting there was a committee of Liberal senators and members of
parliament and that there were three people in the room. The
panel of MPs and senators were quite surprised that this
individual was able to find the meeting. It had not been
publicly advertised. It was a meeting they had set up so they
could say they had a meeting. This individual had to go to great
lengths to find out when and where the meeting was going to be.
That is the kind of consultation the government has put in place
when it visits western Canada.
The Liberals wonder why they are so lacking in members in
western Canada. It is because they have simply stopped
listening. The Nisga'a treaty and Bill C-10 are perfect examples
of that. We wonder what kind of consultation process has been
undertaken with the municipalities on that.
We think it is time for the government to either wake up or get
out of the way and let another group govern that is going to
listen to people, be accountable and make the changes necessary
to put the country on the right track.
1555
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
had the pleasure the other week to speak on Bill C-10. I first
want to say, as a former president of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, that when the member opposite asks about saying
one thing and doing another, Bill C-10 is an excellent example of
doing something in consultation. In fact, when the original
freeze on payments-in-lieu-of-taxes was brought in in December
1992 by the previous Conservative government there was no
consultation.
Since 1993, this government has worked tirelessly with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities establishing, for example,
the technical committee which reviewed the whole issue of making
payments on time, making sure that they pay interest if they are
late and making sure that if they want to appeal they go through
the normal process.
Some of my colleagues on the other side, including my friend for
Brandon—Souris, was on the national board of the FCM at that
time. He, among others, spoke very loudly about what the
Conservative government had done at the time in not putting
private companies on a level playing field with public companies
like the CBC given the fact that it was getting a 10% discount.
I would point out to the hon. member, when he talks about
actions, that it was this government in 1993 that embraced the
national infrastructure program. Unfortunately, none of the
parties on the other side embraced it in 1993. It has created
over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs. It has been announced
again in the Speech from the Throne that by the December 2000,
with the co-operation of municipal and provincial governments, we
will have a new national infrastructure program.
We talk about the environment, the 20% club. This government
initiated with municipal governments across Canada to reduce CO2
emissions by 20% over 10 years.
We talk about urban crime and safety issues. In 1997, I had the
pleasure to be on the team Canada mission with the Prime Minister
to Asia. I had mayors, some from communities across the way, who
were on that mission. It was the first time in the history of
federal-provincial-municipal relations that we were able to have
a meeting. As president, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister
and the premiers in Manila in 1997 to talk about infrastructure.
The Prime Minister listened to those issues and in the end the
program was extended.
We talk about community energy programs where we are trying to
reduce CO2 emissions to improve the energy in the country. It is
this government which embraced with the FCM that program.
We talk about actions. I would point out that in November 1996
I had the pleasure of addressing the first ever
federal-provincial environment and natural resources ministers
conference on these issues dealing with the environment.
When we talk about co-operation and talk about listening, the
government needs no lessons from the Reform Party. The
government needs no lessons when it comes to working in concert
with municipal governments. Maybe we could eliminate the
middlemen, which would be the provinces.
I should point out to the member that he is in error. Two weeks
before this bill was introduced in the House, the FCM was given a
full briefing on Bill C-10. It was introduced at first reading
in the House on October 27. I believe that after second reading
it goes to committee, and I know the FCM will be there. The FCM
has supported all along the fact that we want to have ground
rules that we can all agree to. We have that. This legislation
has been drafted to deal with those issues.
Would my hon. colleague across the way like to comment on any of
those things given the fact that when we talk about actions and
co-operation I have tried to outline those very briefly for him?
I had a longer opportunity the other week to talk about some of
the real issues that the federal and municipal governments have
been able to deal with. My good friend from Dauphin—Swan River,
who was a municipal mayor, was certainly involved in terms of
dealing with issues and looking at the response of a national
government when it dealt with these kinds of very important
issues for the community, again remembering that there is only
one taxpayer.
If the hon. member would like the make any comments on those
observations, I would be delighted to hear them.
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I would certainly love
to respond to some of the comments made by my colleague.
He first said that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was
given a full briefing. I do not dispute that fact. It was not
aware that it was coming back for second reading in the House
even just before the break week.
There is also the idea of the infrastructure program, which he
mentioned as being a good program. That was proposed by the
municipalities, not by the Liberal federal government. Once
again, that is what the government does. It takes somebody
else's idea and passes it off as its own. That is what it did
with the infrastructure program. That is exactly what it does.
It is no different with this program.
1600
He talked about the municipal infrastructure program. Guess
what? The timing of those big signs that went up across the
country just happened to coincide with the federal election. I
am sure it was a coincidence—
An hon. member: No, they came after the election.
Mr. Grant McNally: Shortly after, as a thank you to those
areas, and now we hear that there is another infrastructure
program coming up. That is fine, but is it going to be
coinciding with another federal election? I wonder.
The member talked about CO2 emissions and energy. There are a
lot of CO2 emissions that need to be taken care of on that side
of the House, right here in this place.
I wonder if the member could comment on the slash and burn
approach to health care and education spending that this
government has taken since 1993. That is what municipal
councillors are talking to me about: When is the federal
government going to restore the money it gutted from health care
and education? The slash and burn Minister of Health likes to
talk about the money reinvested in health care, and it is great
that he has reinvested it, but he is hardly even at half of what
he cut from health care and education spending.
I do not know how it is that this member and other members of
the government can stand in their places and defend that kind of
record.
He talked about trade missions with the Prime Minister. I am
glad he had an opportunity to visit with the Prime Minister.
Maybe the Prime Minister could take a trade mission out to
British Columbia. Perhaps he could visit some of the communities
that are talking about the Nisga'a treaty and maybe talk to
individuals about concerns they have with that, or about the high
rate of taxes he is imposing on people in British Columbia and
across the country. Perhaps he could take a little fact finding
mission on those areas of concern.
The member asked me to comment on those. He made wide ranging
generalizations and I am going to respond to every one of them.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The member gave his speech. We are now into questions
and comments and there might be other members on this side who
wish to make them.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The period is called
questions and comments.
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I was not
quite finished with my answer, but I will wrap it up. If the
member wants to ask me another question, I would be more than
happy to respond to her question too.
As I was saying, this Liberal government has slashed and burned
health care and education spending. It has done that. Those are
the actions. The member for Oak Ridges talked about actions.
Those are the actions his government is responsible for. People
within the local ridings and communities are asking when the
federal government is going to restore the funding. It has taken
the approach of slashing and burning health care and education
spending since 1993. When is it going to restore those dollars
to the people who need them most, the people at the local level,
within the municipalities and the provinces, rather than taking
this hide and seek approach in Ottawa?
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I did notice that the member for Dewdney—Alouette
managed to try to get in another speech rather than simply
responding to a question and comment from this side of the House.
However, I want to pick up on his comments about this party
stealing ideas.
I was a member of the board of directors of the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities when the infrastructure program was
developed, as was the current Minister of National Defence, the
man who was the first minister for infrastructure in this
government. As such, I would like to tell the member that this
government brings good ideas to government. It does not steal
them from anywhere. There are a number of us who contributed,
and contributed very strongly, to making sure the infrastructure
program we supported as municipal politicians was implemented by
the government we chose to become part of.
As a member of parliament for the national capital region I
would like to tell him that I am one of many who worked with our
minister to bring forward very progressive legislation on
municipal grants. We understand fully well the importance of
this grant system, grants in lieu of taxes, to our
municipalities.
This is not a flash in the pan. This is not a stolen idea. It
is an idea that many members on this side of the House worked
very hard on with our ministers and with our Prime Minister. The
member should be saying thanks instead of being critical.
1605
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I thought the deputy
whip herself was going to engage in giving a speech rather than
asking a question. I was hunting and searching and looking for
an actual question in those comments. I think what the hon.
member wanted me to do was thank her. I say no thanks to
everything that the Liberal government—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I stand to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal
Grants Act.
I would like to put on the record the purpose of this act, which
is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of
payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of
compensation for untimely payment, defaults on tax obligations by
certain tenants of the crown and the bijural nature of the
Canadian legal system. Additionally, it establishes an advisory
panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment
amounts. It also amends the title of the act to the payments in
lieu of taxes act. That is the purpose of the act. That is the
purpose of the debate.
We tend to differ in the description, but that is the
description provided to us by the government.
Let us take a look at the relationship of the municipal
government to the provincial government and then to the federal
government. About 15 years ago, long before I ever thought I
would be crazy enough to get involved in politics, I vividly
recall sitting in front of my television set watching Allan
MacEachen, the then Liberal finance minister, waxing eloquently
from his place in the House. He was going on about the fact that
the Liberal government of the day, of which the Liberal
government today is simply a carbon copy, was going to balance
its books. In a typical Liberal sleight of hand, what it was
basically doing was offloading expenses from itself to the
provinces.
Living in the province of British Columbia at that particular
time, as I recall, things were at a rather tight juncture. It
was in the early eighties. We had been slapped with the grossly
ill-conceived concept of the national energy plan of the
Liberals, the centrist plan that pulled about $80 billion
permanently out of western Canada into central Canada. I recall
thinking to myself at the time that the downloading to the
provinces which Mr. MacEachen was talking about and the fact that
the province of British Columbia was in no position to actually
do anything about it, undoubtedly would end up appearing on my
taxes, and would undoubtedly come out of my pocket, one way or the
other, particularly as a homeowner.
It did not take long. The reality was that although the federal
tax take out of my wallet and the wallets of my neighbours was
not diminished, and the tax take out of my wallet and the wallets
of my neighbours by the province was not diminished, the
government ended up downloading it to the regional district in
which I lived, which was the equivalent of a municipality. By
downloading it what basically happened was that my property taxes
went up by $200 that year.
A Liberal finance minister stood here about 15 years ago and
waxed eloquently about how he was going to get federal taxes
under control and how he was coming closer to balancing the
books, but of course the government never did. It just kept on
adding and adding to what is now the massive national debt. The
government talked about how it was going to get things under
control, but I knew, because it was being announced by a Liberal,
that there was going to be more money coming out of my pocket.
1610
I would take the Liberal member for Oak Ridges at his word if
the municipalities were looking at this, were involved in it and
had some input into it, but unfortunately they are faced with the
reality that they are at the bottom of the food chain as far as
being able to look after themselves and being able to take care
of their own fiscal requirements.
I should add that one of the great things about municipal
finances is that on a year to year basis municipalities may not
go into a debt or deficit situation. The government could
certainly take lessons from that. It is something for which the
municipal politicians deserve great credit. The fact is, they
have to come up constantly with the delivery of services for
people at the municipal and regional district levels. The
municipalities manage to deliver services, be they to people, be
they for reasons of property, or just the services of cleaning
roads and streets, in spite of all the offloading of the Liberals
in Ottawa. Let us be clear, it was the Liberals who downloaded
all of the expense that has sifted down through to the provinces
and on down through to the municipalities. Once again the
taxpayer is being double whammied by the Liberals.
Why do I say that I understand what the member for Oak Ridges
was saying, particularly with his involvement and the involvement
of other members of this House in municipal governments? Why do
I say that I understand where they are coming from in terms of
the municipal governments being let in on some of the ideas that
the federal government has, at the same time knowing that they
have a gigantic club over their heads? They do the best they
can. They make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to use the old
saying.
I should also add that I was rather interested in this prominent
Liberal member's musings that perhaps the middleman should be
eliminated, namely the provinces; that somehow the municipalities
and regional districts would be better off if they were dealing
directly with the federal government. Heaven help them. When we
shake hands with these people we wonder if we will still have our
wedding rings.
Municipal governments are creatures of provincial governments.
They are not recognized under Canada's constitution. They are
completely under the direction, the control and the legislative
authority of the provinces. The member suggested that we
eliminate the middleman. That is to say, maybe we should remove
the direct control of the municipalities which are delivering the
services closest to the people, closest to their homes. This is
the garbage collection. This is the social services cheque. This
is the street cleaning. This is making sure that the gutters are
clean and the leaves are removed. These are the details of
everybody's life. Should we take the current authority for that,
the provincial government, which heaven only knows is far enough
away in most situations, and give it to Ottawa? That would mean
that the municipalities and regional districts would answer to,
be responsible to and be under the legislative authority of the
federal government. I do not think so.
The government talks frequently about the infrastructure
program. Let us take a look at how this act, Bill C-10, an act
to amend the Municipal Grants Act, relates to the income of the
municipalities. Looking at the past infrastructure program—and
I understand that there is a proposed program coming, just in
time for the next election no doubt—wondering why the
municipalities express being in favour of it is not rocket
science. It is very simple and straightforward.
So far I have described the problems which municipalities face
because of the offloading of expenses from the federal level to
the provincial level and ultimately to the municipal level, the
municipal level having to work on a deficit free budget year in
and year out.
The municipalities are faced with a cash crunch. There are so
many hands in their pockets from the authorities higher up, there
are so many strings attached to any money that is available to
them, that they will take any money they can get for needed
capital projects.
1615
Why are they not carrying on with capital projects without an
infrastructure program? Because this government has attacked
their very tax base. They do not have a tax base from which they
can get the funds to do the things on their own.
It makes me think of the government's attitude toward the
family. The government will take $6 billion from people earning
under $20,000 a year this year. It will take $6 billion in
taxes, give them peanuts back and say, “Here is a little grant
and another little grant. Are we not wonderful people?” The
government will continue to have its hands in the pockets of
individual Canadians, businesses and municipalities. It will
continue to act like a gigantic vacuum cleaner. It will bring
all the cash here to the bureaucracy in Ottawa, then turn around
and give a pittance back.
The municipalities in light of that look at an infrastructure
program and say, “Now we are getting something a little bigger
than the pittance we normally receive. Now we are supposedly
getting two-thirds free money”.
This is the way the infrastructure programs basically work. Let
us say a municipality wanted an intersection upgrade. That is
very easy. For different traffic islands, curbing, traffic lights
and signals, it is easy to invest $1 million in infrastructure
like that. Let us simplify it and say it will cost $900,000.
The municipality has to raise $300,000. The province has to
match that with another $300,000. The federal government can
match it with another $300,000.
It is interesting that for just under $1 million for an
infrastructure program, the federal government only invests
$300,000 and gets all the credit for it. It is an absolutely
wonderful, masterful way of moving around a pea under shells. The
government manages to baffle people who are not necessarily
prepared to take the time to understand just how far the
government has its hands in the pockets of individuals,
businesses and municipalities.
As a creature of the provincial government, one of the
difficulties municipalities have is when they do their budgeting.
This varies from province to province, but as a blanket statement
it seems to me that in doing their budgeting, the municipalities
are never really sure of what the actual grants will be from the
provincial government. In turn, one of the concerns I have about
this or any other legislation, is rather than being tied into
something concrete, hard and normal, Bill C-10, an act to amend
the Municipal Grants Act, does not resolve the problem of where
the money is going to come from.
According to Bill C-10, the minister is given the authority to
pay interest on the payments in lieu of taxes if, in his opinion,
that payment in whole or in part has been unreasonably delayed.
That is just about as soft and mushy a bunch of words as I have
ever seen in any act.
In the minister's opinion. Who is to say what the minister's
opinion is going to be? Unreasonably delayed. Who is going to
set the yardstick for what is reasonable or unreasonable?
On third party leases, the government leases some of its
properties to non-departmental third parties. In the past,
municipalities have experienced difficulty in collecting property
taxes from these third parties with payment sometimes never being
made.
To correct this situation, Bill C-10 proposes that if, as of the
day following the last day of the taxation year, all or part of
the taxes remain unpaid and if, and here we go again, “the
minister is of the opinion”—that is the qualifier—“that the
taxing authority has made all reasonable efforts to collect the
tax and there is no likelihood that the authority will ever be
able to collect it”, then the property will be deemed to be a
federal property and the federal government will pay the payment
in lieu of taxes.
1620
Again, as with all the legislation, without exception, that is
ever brought forward by this government, there is all of this
continuing latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of”, “if
it is unreasonably delayed” and things that are simply not clear
and not made definite.
It is absolutely paramount that the municipal authorities are
able to do their budgeting. They already have a serious problem.
In various provincial jurisdictions the province may be treating
them fairly and in a timely manner, and in other provincial
jurisdictions they may not. It can vary in treatment from place
to place even within a given province.
Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, continues
with all this latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of”
and “if it is unreasonably delayed”.
Why are the municipalities having difficulty in providing the
level of service that people want, expect and deserve? This will
vary from municipality to municipality. While it is mandated
under their current spending that they may not go into deficit,
they may nonetheless become involved in capital spending through
borrowing. Some municipalities have gone into debt quite
seriously. They go ahead with heavy municipal borrowing so they
can go ahead with infrastructure programs.
That is the reason many municipalities respond very positively
to the infrastructure program. It simply gives them back money
that has already been extracted from them, from their
constituency and from their province, but they nonetheless
respond positively to it. Other municipalities will have decided
that they are going to use a pay as you go basis with respect to
the majority of their capital expenditures.
In the municipality of Cranbrook, where my constituency office
is, there is a very serious challenge in terms of the streets.
The city proper of about 15,000 is actually built on an old
glacial gravel bed. Down under the topsoil, which is only a
couple of inches, there is a deep gravel bed. This has created a
serious problem for the main streets and side streets. As the
city has grown, and as the amount of truck traffic in particular
has increased on the feeder streets, the side streets simply have
not stood up. As a consequence there is a constant battle of the
budget.
I do not own property in Cranbrook. Therefore I am not offering
an opinion, but an observation. The challenge is to say that a
street is in such a state of disrepair that it requires temporary
remedial action or that a very large volume of money is going to
be spent to go down as far as 8 feet or 10 feet into the gravel
so that the street can be built back up again and it will be
permanently changed.
These are the kinds of challenges that municipalities are faced
with on a month to month basis, particularly in Canada. With the
exception of the lower mainland of British Columbia, we have a
very harsh climate that drives the frost well down into the
ground and into the services that are underneath the roads.
The point I am trying to drive at is that municipalities need
more than anything the assurance of funding, where the money is
going to come from.
The province of British Columbia because of the NDP government of
the last term and a half has a terrible situation. The government
is having to extract more and more from the municipalities which
is putting them at a real disadvantage.
1625
In conclusion, my concern about Bill C-10 is simply this. What
we need in our province, and I believe for that matter in all
provinces for all municipalities, is more surety of funding.
Unfortunately in my judgment, Bill C-10, an act to amend the
Municipal Grants Act, does not provide that surety.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am becoming concerned about members of the Reform Party and their
ability to develop myths. I choose that word so that I can be
parliamentary. The bigger the myth the better.
For example, they are paranoid about first nations people and
they build the myth that one of the more disadvantaged minorities
in Canada is somehow taking over the country.
Another big myth which they develop has to do with crime. They
are obsessed with crime, with petty crime. They deliberately
build up a fearmongering approach, ignoring the fact that
statistics show that crime has been decreasing in Canada. They
build a myth instead of presenting the real facts.
In this debate we have heard members of the Reform Party build
another myth. It is the myth of top down big government. Among
other things, that myth demeans the other levels of government
including the municipalities.
There was a time when the members opposite could have been
members of parliament here, they could have been MLAs and they
could have been local councillors all at the same time. That was
the way it was in Canada. At that time power was held by a
clique. That clique of people, almost all of them men, held all
of those positions.
Since that time what has happened is that we have not developed
a top down government. That is what it was in those days. A
small group of people held every level of government in their
hands. Since then we have developed a truly strong,
decentralized democracy, arguably the most effective
decentralized democracy in the world.
Instead of there being a pyramid with the federal government at
the top and the municipalities at the bottom, the reality is that
we have three levels of government which are something like three
Olympic rings. Each of them is fully democratic, fully elected,
with great powers of raising taxes, with great powers of spending
taxes and making decisions in their sphere of interest.
Those three areas of government overlap, just like the Olympic
rings. I am not allowed to use props, but if I could, I could
show how the overlapping works. They have large areas of their
own responsibility and there is a small area in the middle where
there is responsibility which is federal, provincial and
municipal.
Those rings are in my mind. I do not know how those members
work and they may work in a top down fashion, but in my riding I
work out of my ring with the other three rings. We work very
effectively. Where there is overlap, we work together to deal
with the issues concerned. I would suggest that those rings are
the main checks and balances in Canada. That is how our people
are represented at various levels.
I believe that in the discussion the members of the Reform Party
have been demeaning the municipalities and the goodwill and the
judgment of people at the local level. If they are so cynical,
so biased, so uninformed about the role of the particular ring
which is the federal government, why do they not simply run at
the municipal level?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, I have heard some
interventions in my day but that one certainly took the cake.
1630
First, if he takes a look at the blues from my speech the member
might find that I made absolutely no comment whatsoever about
first nations. I have many things that I would like to say about
first nations, not the least of which is that the government has
an undemocratic approach to anything to do with first nations.
However, that is a topic he raised that was not contained in my
speech.
Second, I did not say anything whatsoever about crime, petty
crime, and I categorically reject the concept he has proposed
that we are fearmongering. It is this government that is turning
around and is buying an aircraft for Correction Services Canada
to be able to transport a growing number of violent criminals. It
is this government that is doing it, not the opposition, but that
is another topic I did not talk to.
I did talk about top down big government. There is the golden
rule. The golden rule is very simple. He who has the gold
rules. The government manages to attract such a sufficient
amount of gold that it gets to rule. That is the reality.
The reality is that the parliamentary system has evolved over a
period of time both under the Progressive Conservatives and under
the Liberals. We now have what is the equivalent of a four year
dictatorship where the Prime Minister is elected and then he
chooses to turn his back on the responses he is receiving from
the people of Canada. He simply directs the people in his
backbenches as to when they will stand up and when they will sit
down, like a bunch of sheep. This is the reality in Canada.
In terms of the decentralized democracy again that is a myth.
The decentralized democracy we are talking about here, the three
levels of government the member was talking about and the overlap
he was talking about are there in theory. The fact of the matter
is that the major power of raising taxes is in the hands of the
Prime Minister and the finance minister.
If that were not the case, why were the finance ministers of the
provinces coalescing yesterday to try and come up with a joint
program to bring to the finance minister? They did it in all
good faith. They asked how they could bring this about, what is
the common position and how they could co-operate because they
have to gang up as best they can against the town bully, namely
the Liberal Party which is in power in Ottawa at this particular
time.
To suggest that I am demeaning municipalities is a gross
misunderstanding and I suggest an intentional misunderstanding on
the part of the member for Peterborough.
I was not demeaning municipalities. I was standing here in
defence of municipalities, saying that municipalities require a
break. Municipalities, if anything, require legislation that
would put them on to a proper and equal footing with other levels
of government. As I say, right at this moment they happen to be
a creature of the provincial government.
In conclusion, what can I say? With that kind of an
intervention I can only assume that the member was not listening
or is choosing to interpret in his own way my comments, which is
unfortunate because I am standing here in support of bringing
strength to municipalities and their financing, and this bill
will not do it.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will keep my comments very simple. My colleague
talked about broad Olympic circles. I will talk about prunes.
This is one of those bills where we think we are delivering
strawberries to the municipalities. In fact they are getting
predictability. They are getting fair payment. We are no longer
calling them that glorious regal term, grants, but we are calling
them payments.
There is predictability involved, but as usual the Reform Party
happens to take the strawberries and turn them into prunes. They
are very concerned that the minister at his discretion will pay
arrears, at his discretion with pay for tenants who have it
pegged, at his discretion will pay in a timely, fair fashion. As
usual, the Reform Party has managed to turn an exciting
consultative bill into a bowl of prunes.
1635
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, prunes come from plums,
not from strawberries, so I am having a little difficulty with
the mixed metaphor.
It is rather instructive that the member has pointed out that
now this payment will be called a payment and not a grant.
Whoopee. The title of the thing has been changed. So what?
Unemployment insurance is still unemployment insurance. Just
because we call it employment insurance does not mean people are
any more employed. The wordsmithing that we are into is typical
of the kind of window dressing we expect from the Liberal
government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, APEC Inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to this very interesting debate. It certainly touches
on the grassroots of our country and the first level of
government.
When we talk about governments we talk about their powers.
Governments must have resources to function. We elect
governments basically to protect our rights. The three
fundamental human rights of the individual are the right to life,
the right to own property, and the right to liberties and
freedoms. We elect governments to protect those rights and not
to deny us those rights or to take those rights from us.
Through the power of taxation, the whole principle of taxation
is to take a certain amount of the wealth created by the people
to provide services that individuals cannot provide for
themselves and which a specific level of government can.
When we look at the powers of taxation at the three levels we
find there is no limit on the power of governments to tax away
the wealth created by the people. When we look at the municipal
level we find the greatest husbanding of resources and the wisest
use of those resources at any level of government.
As I pointed out to the House earlier in a question to my
colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, for the past six years I have
made it a practice to visit with my municipal councils as often
as I can. I report to them, hear their feedback and offer any
assistance I can so that they might understand the programs of
government and what the priorities are at the federal level.
I have found that the most fiscally responsible and accountable
politicians elected in our country today are at the municipal
level. I asked at one council meeting: “How is it that you
folks can resist the temptation to find the loopholes, to go into
debt and build your empires as they have done at the two senior
levels of government?” We see a huge debt at the federal level
and in the case of most provinces they carry very significant
debt. One councillor said that when they pass a spending
resolution they have to meet their people on the street and in
the coffee shop the very next day.
He was talking about accountability. Let us look at the lack of
accountability at the federal and provincial levels. Those who
are responsible for increasing the taxation are taking more
wealth from the people who created it for the purpose of
providing funding for a program that is supposed to benefit the
people. When we look at their enormous and unlimited powers we
realize they could simply tax away any amount of wealth from us
as they want.
The greatest threat to the economic viability and stability of
the family, of the business and of the individual is the
unlimited power of governments to take away their wealth through
the force of law, and that is what is happening.
1640
We all support the whole concept of an educational system, a
health care system and all other priority systems which provide
those things that people cannot provide for themselves such as a
transportation system, a highway system and so on. We are
prepared to have our wealth taxed in order to provide for those
programs.
However, when we see governments through the force of law taking
that wealth from families and individuals to the point where they
become impoverished, where they cannot make ends meet and their
children are denied the necessities of life and have to live in
poverty or without adequate housing, there is something wrong
with the administration of power of those governments in taking
the wealth away from the people.
Let us look at the track record of who has done that to the most
exorbitant and extreme degree. If we want to look at extremism,
we need go no further than to look at the manner in which our
federal, provincial and municipal politicians have handled that
power in terms of taking reasonable resources and rates of wealth
from the people who create the wealth each year to fund programs
the people want them to fund.
Governments have absolutely no right to tax money from people
for programs which they think are in the best interest of the
people without the judgment and the support of the people. They
have no right to simply take money and give it to individuals to
hang dead rabbits from trees. Although this is probably a rare
example and fortunately does not happen too often, it does
happen.
There is something wrong when we get to the point where the
government is taxing 50 cents of every dollar or 50% of the
wealth of anyone making over $35,000 a year for the purpose of
giving it back to people through programs. There is no question
why the poverty rate is rising. That money is not being
dispensed back to individuals according to the priorities of
individual families, their children, the heads of the household
and so forth.
Let us look at the three levels of government. If I had a
choice as to who should be administering a government program I
would pick the government with the best financial track record.
That is the challenge.
When I look at Bill C-10 I ask myself if it alters my authority
as a citizen of Canada to determine who is best at administering
a social program or any other program and who can do it most cost
effectively. I look for the track record.
We have a federal government with a $585 billion debt and with
the highest levels of taxation in the history of the country. We
have provincial governments that have debts as well. What does
that mean? It means that for years the politicians in charge,
those who form the government, have overspent year after year
after year. They have had to borrow on top of the high rates of
taxation and on top of all the wealth they have taken from the
people each year. They have overspent to the point where they
have had to borrow again and again and again. Finally this level
of government got to the point where it was getting so great that
almost 35 cents of every dollar went to pay the interest on the
debt.
1645
This year, according to the figures that I see, almost $42
billion was paid to service the interest on the federal debt; $42
billion was taken from the people of this country, those who
created the new wealth each year, in order to pay for the
terrible mismanagement of our fiscal and monetary affairs over
the past 30 years.
When we look at that, some of us ought to hang our heads in
shame. Some of those who have gone before us in this House ought
to hang their heads in shame that they have saddled our children
and grandchildren with a debt so enormous that it may be a
milestone around our neck when it comes to ever getting our taxes
to a level where they ought to be, where not only can we afford
priority programs such as health care, education, proper housing
and so on, but where we could reduce taxes so that families do
have the means to provide for their children and where we do not
have one child in every five reported to be living in poverty.
When I look at the track record to see who has used the power of
taxation in the most reasonable and moderate way, there is no
question who comes out first. It is municipal governments. Yes,
they have legislation which states that they cannot go into debt
and cannot deficit finance to the same extent that the provinces
and the federal government can, but they can borrow money.
I asked a councillor how they had resisted the temptation to
find the loopholes, to go into debt and to build their empires
like the two senior levels of government have done. In
municipalities with larger cities that type of accountability is
lost. We do not meet people on the street the very next day
after moving a spending resolution. We do not find that in the
larger cities like Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton. One of
the reasons these cities are in debt is that the degree of
accountability is not there as it is in the lower levels of
government. What we have been seeking to introduce is a greater
degree of accountability.
My colleague who spoke before me referred to the election of a
majority government as a four or five year dictatorship with no
accountability. That is what we have been facing. That is why
we have outrageous government programs that are not supported by
the people. Rather than praising the interests of the people, we
have them holding their heads wondering why the governments are
expending money in this way. There is no accountability.
The accountability contained in a federal election every four or
five years or a provincial election every four or five years is
insufficient to keep governments from going into debt, from
raising taxes, from overspending and from spending money in a
manner that will not carry the judgment of the majority.
I do not see anything in the bill other than the maintenance of
a lack of accountability. In the minister's opinion, a payment
can be made in whole or in part if it is his opinion to do so. If
we have to rely on and have faith in the opinion of the minister
what does that say about accountability? What if he decides
against the will of the people? What if he chooses to say no to
a municipality because in his opinion the payment is not due or
it must be altered in terms of the amount or the size? What do
we do? We cannot do anything.
1650
I have found that the most important issue pressing on the minds
of the people is that our three levels of governments, through
the force of law, have taken away so much wealth on a yearly and
daily basis that it is placing our families and individuals in
economic jeopardy. We have cries from all parties when we see
that happening. We see farmers going bankrupt, families who are
destitute, children who are homeless and a lack of housing. Why?
It is because they are not left sufficient resources to look
after themselves, their children, their housing and the needs of
their family.
What we see is the opposite. We see an unrestrained power to
tax away the wealth of the people. If we do not stop it and roll
it back then we will see the continuation of statistics
reflecting child poverty. When we talk about child poverty, we
cannot talk about it without talking about family poverty.
Children are not isolated. They have their moms and dads, and
their homes, whatever they might be.
Why are we talking about child poverty? We should be talking
about poverty, period, in the country. When children are in
poverty their moms and dads are in poverty as well. We have to
strengthen the economic stability of those families. I see
nothing in the bill that will do that.
I am always energized after meeting with municipal councillors
and municipal governments in my constituency because they are
hard-working, conscientious people who are in touch with their
people. They know their concerns. They know who they have to
get to when it comes to snow clearing and what areas will be
blocked when a snow storm arrives. They have hands-on
information and they struggle with meagre means in order to
provide some of the most essential services that their citizens
need on a day to day basis.
When I look at the track record of our three levels of
government, I am always enthused and given hope that if they can
keep their spending under control at the municipal level and
continue to do the good job they are doing, why can we not do it
at the two senior levels of government. The answer to that is
that we can do it.
We are spending about $106 billion on programs at the federal
level. If we could just maintain that level and use the money
wisely, we could begin to leave more wealth in the
municipalities. The thing that disturbs me the most is that the
federal and provincial tax money comes from the municipalities.
It comes from the people who live in the towns, cities and rural
areas. They are the ones who create the wealth, the new wealth
that is taxed each year. That is where I believe the most
complex programs of government should be administered.
The most complex services required by an individual, a child,
are those that are provided within the home. As one moves beyond
the home, the first level of government should be the one that
administers the most complex programs. However, what we see in
the country today is that it is turned upside down. The most
complex programs of government are administered at the provincial
and federal levels by people hundreds if not thousands of miles
away who really do not know those people and, in lots of cases
because of that, really do not care.
1655
If it was my choice to have a social program administered, I
would vote to have it administered by those people who have the
finest track record in terms of administration and financial
accountability and that is our mayors and our councillors at the
municipal level and our reeves and their councillors at the
district level.
I do not see in the bill any relief from the concerns that I
have seen in my riding in the level of government closest to the
people.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to compliment my colleague on his excellent speech. As
usual, he has made some very interesting points. He and I have
had many discussions on various issues. I always welcome his
comments.
The previous speaker has been in the House longer than I have so
I will ask him for his comments on this. One of the things I
noticed after I was elected was that municipal councillors wanted
to meet with me regardless of their political affiliation. One
of the things that I have always respected about politics at the
municipal level, at least where I come from, is that although
there may be a political affiliation in terms of working for the
greater good of the community, those tend to be put aside.
I have worked with Conservative members of the city council,
Liberal members of the city council and New Democrat members of
the city council. There are no Reform members on city council in
my part of the world yet. I know Reformers may work on that. I
have been impressed with the ability to put aside partisan
politics in the interest of particular projects.
I think that perhaps we in the House might do well at times to
emulate what municipal councillors are able to do. That was my
experience with municipal councils. I do not know if that was
echoed by the previous speaker, but I would be interested in
hearing his thoughts on that.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I often get asked that
question when I visit my municipal councils. I might add that we
have lots of Reformers in my riding on those municipal councils
and they are hard-working, down to earth people.
Would it not be wonderful if the House could work like a
municipal council where a problem could be identified and all
parties brought to the table to determine the course of action
and then allow a vote on that course of action and let the
majority determine the course of action?
If we could set aside in many cases the political partisanship
that occupies the House much too often at times and simply work
for the best interest of the people of the country, I think we
could reduce the cost and stop many of the games that occur in
the House. I think we could begin to serve the people in a way
that they would appreciate, which is not the way they are being
served now in all too many areas where there is an identifiable
need.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his great speech, but I have another
issue.
The federal government passes regulations and laws that affect
municipalities without any regard for what they do to their
bottom line. It has recently come up with an idea for regulation
to reduce the response time at airports. In particular, in the
city of Prince Albert it is going to make a couple of minutes
difference in the time the fire department can get to the
airport. No one in Prince Albert, the council, the mayor, the
people who run the airport and the people who use the airport,
are concerned about it but the federal government makes this law.
Does the government have any plan in place to ensure that the
city can afford the extra cost? No. It is to be passed on to
consumers, the users, the airport shuts down, has limited use or
something like that. Does the federal government give a hoot?
It does not seem to as yet, despite the fact that we have made
some interventions.
1700
I would like to point out something else. When there is a
disagreement in the private sector about property values, how is
it handled? It is handled through a formal process with appeals.
Once the appeals have been heard they are binding.
Is it that way with the federal government? Not at all. The
federal government operates strictly on its own. It sets the
rules. It sets the rules for appeals and all the rest of it.
Even when it finally decides on something through the municipal
grants review committee the minister is not obliged to accept the
recommendations given, so the municipalities feel that the
process does not work in their favour.
I would like to turn to the so-called Nisga'a final agreement
and read from paragraph 7 on taxation and fiscal relations:
The Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements in
respect of grants, between them, in lieu of property taxes.
When we read all the way through the agreement we do not find
that the federal government will simply enforce something on the
Nisga'a people. However, we do not see an appeal process. We do
not see anything. We see that it will sit down and attempt to
reach an agreement. Who will determine when an agreement has
been reached? It says in here that we will go through this every
five years. Paragraph 3 reads:
Every five years, or at other intervals if the Parties agree, the
Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on a fiscal
financing agreement by which funding will be provided—
We presume that will also include transfers and payments in lieu
of taxes. This agreement is very open ended. In the case of the
bill before us it is not even open ended. It is closed. The
federal governments sets the limits, and that is as far as it
goes.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is like my colleague
said earlier, the golden rule is that he who has the gold sets
the rules.
If the Nisga'a follow the agreement and the federal government
says that it disagrees with regard to the cost or the moneys they
feel should be expended in these areas, what then do the Nisga'a
do? The government will have complied with the requirements of
the agreement, but if all the power is left on the side of the
government, for which the agreement allows, then what do the
Nisga'a do?
When it comes to what the government is doing in the
municipalities with the airports and fire services provided,
again the government is deciding what is best for the people
without any negotiation. It is imposing its will upon these
people without consideration for the costs whatever.
I am also receiving concerns in this regard from my
municipality. This is what is wrong with the federal level of
government. When it sets rules or passes bills, it does not
consult sufficiently with the people upon whom they will impact,
both in terms of effect and who will pay for them. That is wrong
and that is what is wrong with this level of government.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising on behalf of the big bad government. Sitting
here listening, I feel so mean.
The member talks about the way the government consults on how it
sets the tax levels. The policy initiatives in the bill say that
we will develop the best practises for the valuation of special
purpose federal properties. We will seek stakeholder advice
regarding appointments to and management of the dispute advisory
panel. We will commit to consulting assessment and taxation
authorities wherever possible and whenever possible regarding the
valuation of federal property.
We have consulted across the country. As a former municipal
politician I feel thoroughly consulted with. I feel that the set
up in the bill gives many recourses for expert advice on the
setting of property tax. This is not a great mystery. Property
tax is pretty fundamental from province to province.
I think the initiatives are there. I think we have addressed
the hon. member's concerns. Again, I am very sorry the Reform
Party seems to be sour on everything.
1705
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, when you put a piece of
fruit in your mouth and it is sour, it is sour. If we could all
be reasonable people and negotiate on terms that are fair, it
would be wonderful and it would work.
Who has the final say? It is not the municipalities. It is the
federal government that has the final say. We can negotiate and
negotiate and negotiate but who has the final say? It is not a
level playing field. It would be wonderful if the negotiations
could occur with people who are fair minded. Often that is not
the case.
Who makes the final decision? The person who has the final say.
In this case it is the federal government. It has always been
the federal government. If that were not the case, why is it
imposing regulations upon our municipal airports without
consultation and leaving them with the cost? That is exactly the
same kind of scenario we see here.
The government is supposed to negotiate but what if it does not?
What if it simply imposes as it is imposing fire regulations at
airports? Municipalities are struggling with limited budgets.
Because the federal and provincial governments are taking so much
of the wealth out of the municipalities, there is very little
left for them to tax and they have to pick up the cost. That is
why it is not working and that is why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but the
hon. member's time expired some time ago.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not too sure I can rise to the occasion as my good
friend just did, but I too would like to raise some problems and
to advise the government of some difficulties I see with the bill
in some areas where I think it is somewhat negligent.
I am told that the purpose of this act is to provide for a fair
and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. That
tells me that the government is under some obligation, whether
through its own actions, in doing business or in providing for an
authority with the ability to business such as an airport
authority or a port corporation, to make payments in lieu of
taxes or to provide to the municipality or to provincial
government for expenses that may occur as a result of a
particular business.
I would like to address the issue that has to do with the port
authorities, in particular Vancouver port and Fraser port. Both
those ports are great contributors not only to the local economy
of the Delta area in which part of the Vancouver port is located
or of the Surrey area where the Surrey-Fraser docks are. They
also have some properties in the municipality of Richmond.
It is not only that they have an impact on those municipalities,
but they certainly impact on the province and the transportation
routes maintained by the provincial government. Their impact
extends across the country. They allow Canadian transportation
facilitators, whether the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian
Pacific Railway or trucking companies within Canada, to move
goods from Vancouver port across the continent right down to the
east coast and elsewhere into the heartland of the continent.
That movement does not come without cost. Unfortunately much of
the cost of that accrues not to the federal government but to the
province because it is responsible for providing highway
transportation certainly to the municipalities adjacent to these
ports. The cost there can be huge.
I will address the cost associated with providing a connecting
route between Fraser port, whose main focus of operation is on
the Fraser River in Surrey across from New Westminster and on
Annasis Island, which is again in the same neighbourhood, and the
port of Vancouver at Roberts Bank where a large container
facility now exists.
1710
That container facility was completed a little over two years
ago when it came into operation. The result is that truck
traffic to the Vancouver port has increased tremendously. It has
gone from basically zero, as far as containers went, to where
there are probably hundreds of truck movements a day in and out
of the port.
There is also rail car activity, moving containers on to the
port property and away from it. The result is a huge increase in
traffic in the municipality of Delta. As well, the connection to
CN rail yards at the port of Mann and the CP rail yards at the
port of Coquitlam are originating points for some of the train
and container traffic that moves into the port of Vancouver.
The burden in providing for the road link between these two port
facilities falls directly on the municipality of Delta. The
roads that are in place were roads that were not designed for
that purpose. If we look at River Road in Delta, it is a local
road. It was designed as a local road to provide access for the
local community to move along the south shore of the Fraser
River. It was not intended in any way as an interprovincial
artery or an artery that would join two of the busiest ports in
Canada. I believe Vancouver port is the busiest in Canada, or
close to it. The Fraser port in its own right is a very busy
port.
What we now have is day and night a continual line of heavy
trucks moving through the area of North Delta where I live. They
are moving these large containers from the Fraser port and other
truck facilities throughout the lower mainland and across Canada,
through North Delta to Vancouver port at Roberts Bank.
It may be difficult to imagine but I am talking about a road
which is the normal width of a residential street. Day in and
day out large trucks move along that street. The street is
located at a height above the river. If we look at the
topography of the land in North Delta, as we approach the Alex
Fraser Bridge the road goes up from a point at almost sea level
on the dike to about 150 feet above sea level. It is at the top
of that hill that the road runs.
The problem is that the land is not exactly stable. If we talk
to residents who live along that road they tell us that over the
last little while since this container activity has begun at
Roberts Bank they are seeing cracks in the foundations of their
houses. All day long they can feel the pounding of the trucks
going by. They can actually feel that in their homes. The
homes, Mr. Speaker, are no farther away from the truck traffic
than you are away from me, which is about 100 feet. That is how
close these large trucks are travelling to the homes in that
residential area.
The question is who is responsible for upgrading this arterial
route through a residential neighbourhood. Should it be the
municipality? The cost will be horrendous for whoever does it.
To upgrade the road would require the purchase of many of the
homes that line it to provide for additional width to the road
bed. In several areas the ground on which the road stands is not
stable enough to allow for continued use without serious
upgrading. There would be a huge cost to do that.
1715
The underlying question is would it be ethical and morally
correct to upgrade the arterial traffic through this
neighbourhood or would we simply ignore the residents and tell
them their neighbourhood is going to have a four lane highway
through it, an artery which is primarily dedicated to truck
traffic plus a bit of local traffic? Do we do that? The answer
many have reached is no, the current route through a residential
neighbourhood is not the one.
One of the alternatives that has been proposed is to go up
through a gully which is a salmon bearing stream for coho salmon
and whatnot and connect with the North Delta connector, the
Nordel Way. That road is an arterial road. It is a busy road
already without the addition of the truck traffic. Many would
suggest it is not the chosen route either.
The chosen route by many would be to construct a new road along
the river bank at the base of the hill. At times the road would
be mounted on pilings in the river. It would be an elevated road
in the river. The question then is who will pay for it. Should
the municipality accept the burden of paying for the roadway, or
should it be the province, or should it be the federal
government?
It all boils down to whose facility the road is accommodating.
It is not accommodating the interests of the local people. Their
interests are already well taken care of by the existing road
network. It services that residential area.
Should it be the province? Is the province the only beneficiary
of Vancouver port and Fraser port? It is not. The country as a
whole benefits from the existence of these two ports. Prairie
grain is shipped through there. Coal from the interior of
British Columbia and elsewhere is shipped through the port at
Roberts Bank. Containers travel from across Canada and
containers travel into the ports and then move across Canada.
They are the goods that move through the municipality.
The benefit accrues not only to the local people. Our
involvement is probably less than most. The involvement here is
one that benefits everybody, the local people insofar as jobs are
provided, the province because of the taxes that accrue from the
port, and the country as a whole because Vancouver port provides
a gateway to the world for goods both exiting Canada or entering
from afar. From coast to coast, we all benefit from Vancouver
port. It would seem to me that if we all benefit then to a
certain extent we all should pay.
The bill talks about payments in lieu of taxes. Somehow the
government itself is the final arbitrator on the level of benefit
that should accrue to a municipality. I think we are
shortchanged. The local people are not being given the kind of
access to federal money that they should have.
An outside arbiter or a neutral arbiter should look at the
impact of these registered federal facilities. The arbiter
should say what their impact is on local communities and what
type of tax revenue should accrue to local municipalities and to
provincial governments, given the impact the federal facilities
have on the local people.
1720
I do not see that happening. I think it is a weakness in the
bill. I have written to the federal Minister of Transport on the
issue of a connecting route between these two ports and a
connecting route really between Vancouver port and the rest of
North America. That traffic should not in any way shape or form
be traversing a residential neighbourhood. It is dangerous and
destructive to the community.
There is a danger in moving many of these goods. Certainly,
local emergency officials have no idea what types of goods are
being transported through that residential neighbourhood and
accidents do happen. As that traffic increases, the chances of a
serious accident are even more possible.
When I look at this bill, I would certainly like to see the
government address the issue of giving municipal and provincial
governments a better hearing, a hearing that would be more
independent than the kind that has been proposed by the bill.
Too often we think of government services as benign or merely
helpful to the local community. People may think of a post
office in a downtown core. They may think of other government
offices that do not really have an impact on the environment and
may be a benefit in that they draw people to a commercial
district. When I look at the bill, I think of government
entities which have a huge impact on the environment and which
affect the quality of life many of us enjoy. I do not see that
being protected in the bill. That is a serious shortcoming.
There are a number of other issues in this bill that are worth
mentioning. I will briefly mention three items which I think are
worthy of note.
The first is that the minister and crown agencies maintain too
much discretionary power. I addressed that issue. I underline
that we certainly believe that is the case. A neutral arbitrator
should be addressing these issues.
The second point is that recommendations of the dispute advisory
panel are non-binding. It merely maintains the status quo and
entrenches into legislation common practices that were put in
place 16 years ago. The bill is not an improvement in this area.
It merely confirms the status quo and does not do anything to
address the problems I have mentioned.
The third item we are concerned about is that the Royal Canadian
Mint, Canada Post Corporation and Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation should be added to schedule IV in order that they may
be eligible to make business occupancy payments in lieu of taxes.
That is fairly self-explanatory. These corporations are
currently excluded from coverage in schedule IV. We think they
should be brought into the fold.
On those issues, we hope that the government would see fit to
amend the bill to address these shortcomings. We think it is
only reasonable. I know my constituents who are living along
that artery or river road would appreciate it if the government
would see fit to accept some responsibility for the increased
traffic through a residential neighbourhood that has resulted as
a consequence of the development, if I may say a very positive
development, of the Vancouver Port Corporation.
1725
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am not being facetious when I say I found the rather lengthy
discussion of the road quite interesting. I come from an area
where a huge facility previously owned by the federal government
and now managed locally, the Pearson airport, causes the same
concerns among the residents.
This is a taxation bill. The hon. member talked about
environmental concerns and the impact on property values. I
would very seriously like to hear what recommendations the hon.
member would make strictly in the area of taxation to address his
concern about that road.
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that
question. I think the hon. member recognizes that we share a
problem, one which many of us share.
I do not have an immediate solution. We have to look at when
there are government facilities, facilities licensed by or
registered with the federal government such as airports and
ports, there has to be some recognition that they have a huge
impact, and at times a negative impact, on our communities.
Great revenues accrue from these types of facilities and we all
benefit from these types of facilities. Certainly I benefit from
the airport in Toronto. I live in Vancouver but I travel through
there. I use it and I am a beneficiary. But in saying that, we
have to recognize that it does have an impact on local people.
The quality of their lives is impacted.
In the situation I described the impact has just come into play,
and has magnified in the last two years by the development of the
new container service at Vancouver port's Roberts Bank facility.
Neighbourhoods which had experienced a fair amount of through
traffic but limited truck traffic are now subject to an ongoing
barrage of trucks, convoys of trucks, day in and day out,
basically 24 hours a day.
Somehow or another we have to come to grips with that because
this port is one which benefits everybody. It not only benefits
the people who live in Delta, but the benefit is enjoyed by all
Canadians. It brings great wealth into the country. We have to
recognize that the lives of many people have been impacted. We
have to look at ways of extracting revenue from the port to try
to compensate those people whose lives have been negatively
impacted by the port. It is only fair and just. I do not see it
as a great imposition on the port or the government to do that; I
see it as an obligation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ORGAN DONATION ACT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-227, an act to establish a National
Organ Donor Registry and to co-ordinate and promote organ
donation throughout Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill C-227 seeks to create an act to
establish a National Organ Donor Registry to promote organ
donation throughout Canada. The objective of Bill C-227 is to
provide the means to increase the amount of available organs in
Canada for the purpose of transplantation through organ
acquisition.
A national organ donor registry would allow people to register
legal consent for organ donations and would subsequently lead to
an increase in Canada's low rate of donations.
1730
We must establish a system to support high levels of organ
donation in Canada. We have the opportunity to store or provide
a link between information on organ donors from participating
provinces. Information will be maintained in an efficient form
for the purposes of identifying intended or potential organ
donors.
According to the report of the Standing Committee on Health
released in April 1999, entitled “Organ and Tissue Donation and
Transplantation: A Canadian Approach”, Canada is currently
facing a serious situation with respect to organ and tissue
donation and transplantation.
The present organ donor rate is unacceptable. Organ donation
must be made an issue of national importance.
A national registry would provide an efficient means to allow
available organs to be matched with waiting recipients. This
co-ordinated effort would ultimately reduce the current waiting
time for a match. As it now stands, one-third of individuals who
wait for an organ transplant die as they wait for a matching
donor.
Lives will be saved with the establishment of an organized and
efficient national organ donor registry. It will be possible to
co-ordinate the supply and demand of available organs.
The widening gap between the organs available and the number of
Canadians in need of them highlights the void that we will
continue to have without a national organ donor registry. The
problem is that there is no national system to ensure that usable
organs are used and matched to those in need.
The annual number of patients waiting for an organ replacement
grows faster than the number of transplants being performed each
year. Potential organ donors are lost because we lack a clear,
organized and simple system in Canada. Laws need to follow
rather than lead the issues that require a legislative response.
A national organ donor registry would provide the means to
prevent the deaths of a third of all people who wait for an organ
transplant now. The very success of transplants clearly depends
on every effort that is made to increase the number of available
donors.
The public is becoming increasingly aware of the vast potential
of organ transplantation. Public awareness is the key to
tackling the issue of transplant shortages in this country. The
first week of April is now designated as National Organ Donor
Week. Public awareness of the importance of organ donation
continues as April 18 to April 25 now marks National Organ Donor
Awareness Week.
It would seem only logical to have people's organ compatibility
levels easily accessible in a national database so that matches
could be made in seconds once the organs become available. The
price of a human life is worth the time needed to organize a
national co-ordinating organ donor system, as opposed to the many
lives that are now lost without it.
The success rate for transplantation is worth noting. After one
year, both liver and kidney transplant recipients enjoy a very
high rate of survival.
The most recent figures indicate that the current rate of organ
donations in this country remains at a standstill of 14.8 organs
available per million, as opposed to 21 organs per million in the
United States. A national organ donor registry would help
reverse the critical shortage of donated organs.
Canada has one of the lowest donor rates among western
industrialized countries. Organ donations need to be on the
public agenda simply because the situation is at a crisis level.
A national registry would enable provinces to share information
about prospective donors. The ability to provide donor data when
required by a hospital is crucial to the success of any registry.
The primary purpose for the establishment of an organ donor
registry is for donor identification. Donor identification is
effective only if there is a system for linking the potential
donor to a potential recipient. There are three different types
of donors. They include the following: intended donors,
potential donors and actual donors.
1735
An intended donor is an individual who has expressed the desire
or intention to become a donor upon death, or when appropriate
during life.
A potential donor is an individual who has been identified
within the health care facility as being appropriate for the
purpose of being an organ or tissue donor.
Lastly, an actual donor is an individual from whom at least one
organ or tissue has been procured, allocated and transplanted.
Potential organ donors must satisfy brain death criteria before
they can be deemed suitable for donation. Brain death is the
irreversible ending of all brain functions, including that of the
brain stem.
According to the Canadian Medical Association, the whole brain
must be dead in order for the patient's organs to be harvested.
After brain death has been declared there is no hope. It is time
to let go and give hope to someone else. The pronouncement of
brain death is never made by a physician who has anything to do
with the transplant process. Death is not prematurely announced
in order for the patient to become an organ donor.
We need to find a workable plan to address the very real lack of
available organs in the country. We need one central database,
or linked databases, which will allow Canadians the opportunity
to register their choice about organ donations in a legally
enforceable manner. Lifesaving information should be available
to those in the health care profession.
Securing organ donations is a community responsibility. Now is
the time to rethink our approach to organ donation. Social
awareness of the need to make a conscious and deliberate choice
to donate one's organs at the time of death brings us to the
point where we can acknowledge the importance of a national organ
donor registry.
We need a national program that will co-ordinate well with
participating provinces.
The British Columbia Transplant Society is a provincially funded
health organization that supports the needs of transplant
patients and families. The British Columbia Transplant Society
directs, delivers or contracts for all organ transplants within
the province and sets standards on quality.
In the spring of 1997, the British Columbia Transplant Society
tested a new and significant program to help increase the
effectiveness of organ donation in Canada. The program is called
the organ donor registry. This provincial registry includes a
computerized database that records the wishes of organ donors in
B.C. Since the creation of the British Columbia Transplant
Society the number of organ transplants performed annually has
increased by more than 400%.
The multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario,
founded by the ministry of health, was developed as the central
registry of organ donors and recipients for Ontario to facilitate
the equitable distribution of transplant organs in the province.
Potential recipients, once registered and listed on the system,
are eligible for the fast, efficient and equitable allocation of
organ donors.
The Canadian organ replacement register includes data and
analysis of kidney dialysis, organ donation and transplantation
activities in Canada. The Canadian organ replacement register
provides information on the level of activity and outcomes of
dialysis in Canada.
The Canadian organ replacement register is managed by the
Canadian Institute for Health Information. More Canadians are
waiting for organ transplants and the numbers are rising
annually, with kidneys in the greatest demand.
The best treatment replacing dialysis is a kidney transplant.
The shortage of organ donations causes patients to be left on
dialysis, which remains very costly.
We need to gather our resources to turn the desire to live into
a realistic goal.
Because there are millions of people in Canada, the chances of
finding an organ donor and recipient who are chemically
compatible are significantly reasonable.
However, testing for compatibility takes time. Minutes are
critical when deciding where to transport the newly acquired
organ.
1740
As many as one-third of the potential donors remain unidentified
or poorly managed. Another third is lost due to family or
coroner refusal. The actual number of donors is only one-third
of the potential.
This bill is about removing obstacles and creating a venue for
change. Donors ensure a future for those in need of
transplantation by providing the option for a longer life. There
is an increasing demand for organ transplantation as the medical
procedure maintains a high level of success. This demand has not
been met due to the shortage of available organs.
The critical shortage of organs and tissues remains the most
important challenge for health care professionals. The presence
of a national organ and tissue sharing system would help to
ensure safe, equitable and efficient transplantation in Canada.
We can see the positive effects of successful organ
transplantation in our everyday lives.
The Canadian Transplant Games Association is a non-profit
organization of transplant athletes and others committed to
positively influencing public attitudes toward organ donation and
motivating transplant recipients to maintain a healthy lifestyle
by holding athletic events. Public awareness and community
involvement can combine to offer help to needy recipients.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this bill to the
House. As he mentioned, it is a very important issue and one of
the silent tragedies that has been occurring in our country for
quite a long time. This problem existed at the time I was
training to be a physician in the 1980s.
For a very long time we have had constructive solutions to deal
with the issue of organ donation. Yet, while there has been
widespread agreement on solutions, there has been a lack of
action. We have seen the cycle go round and round. Solutions
are proffered, agreements are made and yet we fall back to square
one with nothing being done. No one takes the good ideas and
puts them into action. That is why I welcome the member's bill.
I hope it will be the catalyst that will finally push the
minister and the government to act on the plethora of good
solutions they have in their laps today.
As a nation we have one of the worst organ donor rates in the
entire developed world. In fact, it is only about 12.1 per
million. To put that into context, in the best circumstances
there are about 36 per million in parts of the U.S. and Spain.
I would attribute our inaction on this issue to downright
neglect. It is not an academic exercise. Of the more than 3,000
people who today sit on waiting lists, 150 or more of them will
die needlessly. If there were a bus accident, a train crash or a
plane crash and 150 people died, a national inquiry or a royal
commission would be held immediately. In no short order
solutions would be put forth and implemented. But because this
issue is like a slow bleed which kills people over time it tends
to be swept under the carpet.
For those people who are waiting for organs, for their families
and loved ones who are watching them suffer, it is a painful
existence. It is all the more painful because something could be
done about it.
Something has been done about it.
As the member knows, in 1997 a motion was passed in the House of
Commons detailing five points that would enable us to revamp the
organ donor system in the country. It was supported by all
members of the House and passed unanimously. It gave the
minister a succinct plan of action which he could have
implemented in 1997 and it would have had widespread acceptance.
Prior to that time the federal government and the provinces got
together and agreed on a 13 point plan to revamp the organ donor
system in our country. All provinces, including the province of
Quebec, agreed to the national plan. The provinces were working
with the federal government to do something for the public good.
We were working as one.
1745
Those solutions were again put on the back burner. In 1997,
when I inquired about what was happening to these good solutions,
I found that people were just sitting on their hands and nothing
was happening while Canadians suffered and died.
Again I worked with the Minister of Health and, to his credit,
he showed a great deal of interest in the issue. Through motions
and procedures in the Standing Committee on Health, I and the
Minister of Health asked the committee to study it. The committee
worked together beautifully and heard fantastic testimony from
people around the country and around the world.
Within the context of the testimony was a series of solutions
and ideas that would give Canada the best organ donor system in
the entire world in my view. In spite of the fact that we worked
very well together, the final majority report, which had
government stamped right on it, was a piece of pabulum. It was a
piece of bureaucrat-speak. It did not do justice to the
solutions that were put forth at that committee for this year,
nor did it do justice to the well-meaning people who came before
the committee.
Unfortunately, all of us in the opposition put forth minority
reports, not because we wanted to but because the government
majority report was so lacking in direction, in specifics and in
a plan of action that all of us felt compelled to put forth a
plan of action.
The following is a plan of action that incorporates what the
good member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam has put
forth. It involves the following points.
First, we should have a national organ donor registry that
involves both potential organs and potential donors, which in and
of itself will not solve the problems. We need something else.
We need a chance to be organ donors.
Second, on every patient's chart across the country, we should
have a form asking people to be organ donors. When people go to
their family doctor, the doctor will ask whether they want to be
organ donors. If they agree to be donors, the doctor will give
them a form and they can ask questions.
The form must have two things: first, a request to be a donor,
and second, but equally important, a question asking if they have
communicated their wishes to a loved one. The reason for this is
very important. If people do not communicate their wishes to
their loved ones about whether or not they want to be a donor,
then their wishes will be respected only half the time.
In the event of the untimely death of a person who chooses to be
a donor, half the time the family will override the wishes of
their loved one. However, if people tell their families what
they want to do regardless of their feelings, 96% of the time
they will honour their loved one's wish to give the gift of life.
Third, we need organ donor co-ordinators in every hospital in
the country. It can be an existing staff person with extra
training who can seek permission for organ extraction from family
members in times of bereavement.
Fourth, when a hospital is involved in procuring organs from a
person who has died, it should receive money for the costs
incurred in extracting the organs from that person. It is costly
because it involves time in the intensive care unit and it
involves personnel.
If those four points are followed, we will have the best organ
donor system in the country. I plead with the Minister of Health
not to wait any longer. It took the Minister of Health months to
respond to the health care committee, and during the course of
that month, in October, roughly 66 people died in the country
while waiting for the minister to respond. That is not
necessary.
On cold, hard, economic grounds, if we remove the obvious
humanitarian reasons for pursuing this course, the cost savings
to the health care system are quite extensive. For example, it
costs $50,000 to $60,000 per year for somebody to be on dialysis.
It costs about that much to have a kidney transplant.
Over the course of five years, the health care system would save
$200,000 on every patient it dialyzed.
1750
We must look into the future, into the crystal ball as we all
get older. As the incidence of diabetes increases in certain
populations and in the population as a whole, the demands on
dialysis systems will increase dramatically. We must act now in
a proactive way to give these people on dialysis the kidneys they
need in order to prevent further tragedies.
It is not that we are going to somehow procure kidneys from
people who are not dead. The people we get organs from are dead.
For every organ donor who dies, five lives are saved. I
compliment the families of the people who, through their untimely
deaths, have made the ultimate sacrifice. Through their
extraordinary generosity, they have given of themselves to give
other people a new lease on life.
I make a plea to the public: If you want to be an organ donor,
please sign your card and communicate your wishes to your loved
ones.
I plead with the Minister of Health to support this bill, to
support the motion I put forth which passed in this House, to
support the work the committee did and to support the opposition
members' solutions. Within that bundle of solutions are the best
solutions to save Canadian lives. We need it and we need it now
for the failure to act will only cost more people's lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to begin by congratulating the hon. member on his bill. We
are pleased to support the principle. Even if it will not be
votable, we believe it is an excellent opportunity for
parliamentarians to reflect on and support such a bill.
Before getting to the main thrust of the subject, I will take
the liberty of being out of order for 30 seconds in order to
keep a promise I have made relating to the 30th birthday of my
colleague from Longueuil. On behalf of her husband Stéphane and
her son Étienne, I wish her happy birthday from us all, for
everyone knows that turning 30 is an important milestone in
life. I am sure my colleagues join me in these wishes.
As for the bill, I repeat that we are pleased to support the
principle, and I believe that there are a number of things that
have to be said. First of all, unlike blood donations, organ
donations are unfortunately not much of a part of Canadian
culture.
Our Reform Party colleague reminded us earlier of the
statistics: 12 per million, as compared to 36 per million in the
United States. We realize that campaigns are necessary in order
to raise awareness, and this is a collective responsibility.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to show the way, to say that
there are certain things that can be done.
The first thing to do is to remind ourselves and our
acquaintances to become potential donors. Indeed, we can only
become actual donors by first being potential donors.
We support any measure to help co-ordinate such an initiative. Of
course, such measures cannot be coercive, cannot be binding on
the provinces. I think that the wording of the hon. member's
bill is appropriate. Clause 6 provides that the registrar shall
endeavour to ensure that the provinces participate in a number
of co-ordinating measures. This takes us to the very unfair and
incongruous situation of each of Quebec's regions.
Considering that a country as large as Canada—which, as we all
know, includes two nations—only has 28 hospitals that do full
grafts and organ or tissue transplants, it is appropriate to
take a closer look at the services being provided.
The two provinces that provide full organ or tissue transplants
are of course Quebec and Ontario. There are 11 institutions in
Quebec and 8 in Ontario that provide such services.
1755
Nova Scotia only has two such institutions, and that province
serves all of Atlantic Canada. Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick do not have any hospitals that do organ or tissue
transplants. In Manitoba, there is only one hospital providing
that service, and the same goes for Saskatchewan. In the case of
Alberta and British Columbia, there are three such institutions.
These services are still very limited and there is a need
for information. We must urge stakeholders in the health care
sector to do their share, because this is a responsibility that
falls primarily to doctors.
It would be very interesting if doctors could find some delicate
way—because a hospital setting is not always conducive to this
kind of thinking—to ensure that potential donors are not lost.
I think it would be a good thing if doctors were encouraged to
consider this possibility with patients who, of course, are
often terminal, who have arrived, or are arriving at the final
stage of their life. It is very important that we be able to
impress on people how compassionate and generous an act this is,
and how society as a whole will be the better for it. The
extension of life and the improvement of individuals' quality of
life lie behind the reality of organ donation, but there is also
an economic reality.
I think one of our colleagues made this point earlier.
In the case of kidney disease, for instance, it would be much
more economical for society to encourage organ donation than to
continue to do dialysis, with all the equipment that entails.
It has often been estimated that the cost could be as much as
five times higher. In other words, it costs society five times
as much to continue with and promote dialysis as it does to
promote organ donation. That is the point we are making.
I do not wish to take up more time than necessary, but I commend
the hon. member's sensitivity in introducing his bill. Let us
hope that, even if it is not votable, the government will act
very quickly on the parliamentary committee's report.
I want those who are listening to us—I realize that we are not
normally allowed to use documents, but I am counting on the full
co-operation of the House in this regard—to know that a
parliamentary committee addressed this issue and tabled its
report in April 1999.
This report was prepared by parliamentarians, with one member
from each party represented in the House working on it. I would
say that, on the substance, the committee was unanimous.
There were dissenting reports with regard to the form because
some thought the proposed measures did not go far enough, but
everyone agreed on the principle of establishing a national
registry and co-ordinating efforts to ensure that, wherever we
live, be it Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario or
the Maritimes, someone is keeping track of how many organs are
available for those who need them, and there is a need to
quickly identify potential donors so that they are not lost.
This report, which was tabled in April 1999 as I indicated
earlier, called on the government to take prompt measures and
contained about 20 recommendations. Again, I believe there was a
consensus on the principle.
Therefore, we support the bill introduced by our colleague and
commend him for his initiative. I hope the government will
follow this bill up with implementation measures.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate
and to join with others in the House who have indicated their
support for Bill C-227.
1800
I too want to congratulate the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing this matter before
the House.
At the very outset I want to indicate our strong support for
this bill. Why do I support the bill? Why do my colleagues in
the New Democratic Party support the bill? Why do all members in
the opposition parties support the bill? It calls for something
that was recommended to the member's government many months ago.
It was the logical step required by the government to deal with a
very critical situation.
One wonders, if this bill had been votable, where the Liberal
members would have stood. Would they support this bill given the
past record, the agony, the kind of deliberations and intensive
study all of us have been through over the last six months to a
year?
This bill calls for a national organ donor registry. It is
something that was recommended by many witnesses before the
health committee, which went through six months of deliberations.
That idea was supported by every opposition party in the House
yet it was vetoed, wiped out, stamped out by the Liberal majority
on the health committee. The question we all have today is why?
Can the member who has brought forward this bill not make a
difference in terms of his own caucus and get through to the
Minister of Health to put this item on the agenda today? Why do
we have to continually wait and debate something on which there
is a clear consensus and an absolute need?
Madam Speaker, you will sense the frustration of opposition
members around this bill. It is not because we do not support
the idea. It is because we know that this idea could have been
implemented at least six months ago when the Standing Committee
on Health completed its deliberations following six months of
studying the matter. We express frustration today because there
are models the government could have used to implement such a
strategy which are already in the works in the country.
The member referred to the B.C. NDP government's registry. Other
governments are looking at this as a model. The Yukon government
feels very strongly about adopting something similar. I am sure
provincial and territorial governments right across the country
would only be too pleased to join in the creation of such a
registry, except that we do not have a federal government that is
prepared to show some leadership, put some money on the table,
show some political will and get this thing moving.
My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca also deserves some
credit for advancing the public and political agenda on this
matter. His private member's motion got the ball rolling. It
could have been acted on very quickly, but the Liberal government
decided it needed to keep the health committee busy reviewing the
same studies that have made the same recommendations for the last
number of years.
None of us regret the time we spent talking to witnesses and
discussing the important issues around organ donation and
transplantation. However, we all thought that when that process
was over we would at least march forward with a clear plan of
action. Fundamental to that plan of action was a national donor
registry.
I wanted to mention the work of the Reform Party's health critic
in this area. Again I express regrets over the inaction of the
federal government on this very important matter.
We have heard the stats over and over again. Canada has one of
the lowest donor rates in the western industrial world. Our rate
of donation is about 14.5 donors per million.
1805
Mr. Keith Martin: It is 12.1.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The Reform member has corrected
me. It is only 12.1 donors per million.
That rate of donation is appallingly low. The rate could be
much higher if we had a government that was prepared to work with
Canadians and provincial governments to advance a workable,
reasonable strategy to encourage Canadians to indicate their
wishes at an early opportunity, and to ensure there is a
mechanism to follow through on the wishes of the donor and the
donor's family.
What is the situation? The Liberals are treading water while
our need for organ donation is growing.
The Reform health critic mentioned the situation with respect to
dialysis. Figures released this summer by the Canadian Institute
for Health Information show that we are headed toward a crisis in
kidney dialysis unless some relief is forthcoming from organ
donation. Dialysis needs increased by 14% in one year between
1996 and 1997. What does that cost? It costs $50,000 per year
to maintain each patient. The number of patients is at 12,000
and is rising.
We can look at this from the human point of view and talk about
the stress on individuals and families who are waiting for organ
donations. We can talk about the unnecessary deaths that occur
because this country does not have a good system for encouraging
organ donations.
If that does not work for the government, at least look at the
costs. Look at the economic factors. Look at the financial
burden this is creating for our society today, at the very time
when we should be trying like we have never tried before to
ensure efficiencies in our health care system so that we can do
everything we can to preserve our universal health care model.
The public will support it. We heard the witnesses before our
committee. We heard Canadians everywhere say that they are
supportive of a system to increase the rate of donations. They
cannot do it by themselves. We need a system that ensures we can
implement the recommendations of the studies we have heard time
and time again.
What is preventing us from moving ahead? Why are we debating
this again in the House? It is undeniably the Liberal
government's unfathomable reluctance to act. If it was
consciously trying to stall, it could not be moving any slower.
I hope the member will take that message back to his caucus, to
the cabinet and to the Minister of Health.
All of us submitted minority reports in response to the health
committee's final report on organ donation. Why? Because it was
missing a very important central element: a national organ donor
registry. Thank goodness it is before us again today. We can
keep the debate going, but we still come back to the question of
why we have to debate it. Why was it not already in place, up
and running and working?
When this country does not have a national organ donor registry
and there is not a meaningful system to encourage donations and
ensure we can meet the demand, the human costs are unbearable.
People die. Families suffer.
On top of that, we are also creating a climate for xeno
transplantation to take hold. It could go forward without any
kind of public debate or consultation, without any kind of
regulatory framework, without any ethical considerations being
given to the whole question of using animal organs to deal with
human needs for organ transplantation.
Department officials told the health committee that xeno
transplantation was not taking place in Canada. That was in
February 1999. What did we find out after that? That animal
transplants were actually taking place in hospitals in this
country.
An article came out this past summer in This magazine. It
showed that transplantations using animal organs in humans were
done as far back as 1994 in Montreal. It was done again in 1997,
and there was a third case in 1997. All three were done at the
Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. This government says it
does not have a clue that anything is going on and there is no
plan in place to deal with it.
Given those factors, the time to act is now. I hope we can get
on with the task at hand and ensure that we move forward with a
national organ donor registry.
1810
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, this debate really should not have to take place and if
you have listened carefully as I have to everyone who has spoken
this evening on the private member's bill, there is nothing new
here at all. The government has simply failed to act. I think
the NDP member articulated that very well. The Liberals know
what they have to do or should do, but they will not do it. Why?
For the love of me, I do not know.
The hon. member's point of referring this to the member whose
bill we are actually debating is a good point. He should go back
to his caucus, go back to the Prime Minister and the cabinet and
impress upon them the importance of moving forward on a national
donor registry and transplant system.
We have heard it all before. There is unanimous consent in the
House on the issue. A little over two years ago the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca put forward Motion No. 222 to that
effect. It was unanimously agreed upon by the House. I will
read it word for word. and I hope the member whose bill we are
debating takes this back to the Prime Minister tomorrow morning
when the Liberals have their caucus meeting.
By unanimous consent, it was resolved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(a) implement a national real time database linking all health
care facilities involved in transplantation and transplantable
tissue procurement, and listing all potential organ transplant
recipients and available transplantable tissue;
(b) implement a national mandated choice strategy for tissue
donation through a mechanism such as the federal income tax
return or the census;
(c) remove all financial disincentives that presently exist for
health care facilities involved in transplantable tissue
procurement; and
(d) bring in legislation in order to protect the rights and
wishes of those who, upon declaration of brain death diagnosis,
have previously consented to donate their organs.
The member who authored that motion is here listening intently
as I knew he would be. The government, in typical government
fashion, referred it to the standing committee. As the NDP
member mentioned we had hearings that lasted about six months. We
came up with a report of around 100 pages, in both official
languages, on what the committee thought should happen. The
committee was driven somewhat by the government. It was another
foot dragging exercise. We could see that in the report.
There was nothing new or startling in the report. We had a
sense that the minister was directing the outcome. That is not
unusual. What we did, and I say we, is that a minority
opposition report was authored by the Reform Party. I am quite
pleased to point out that I signed on to this and I will read the
notation:
We, the members of the Reform Party of Canada and Mr. Greg
Thompson of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada,
respectfully submit this official opposition report in response
to the Standing Committee on Health's study on organ and tissue
donation in Canada.
There were five of us on the committee who signed that. There
was the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the member for Surrey
Central, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and myself, the member
for New Brunswick Southwest.
If I have the time, I want to go through some of the points we
made. Some of them were articulated by the government member
whose bill we are discussing and the opposition members who
talked in detail on the bill.
1815
His bill includes some of what we were talking about in that
minority report. I do not think his goes quite far enough. This
is what the government should be doing, as articulated in that
minority report. Let us step through them.
We are calling for more immediate action. I was talking about
the foot dragging on the part of the government. We want
immediate action. As I said earlier this evening, we should not
have to debate this matter. It has been debated over and over
again. No one disagrees, particularly the Canadian public whom
we are attempting to serve in this place.
We are calling for immediate action to create two national
registries. The first would be a real time national waiting list
of potential recipients and the second would be a real time
national waiting list of intended donors.
There should be mandatory reporting of all brain deaths to the
national organ transplant co-ordinator. This would facilitate
quicker identification of people willing to donate and of the
suitability of donations. It would also link donors to patients
more quickly.
We would identify and educate hospital staff and separate the
medical professionals who treat the deceased patient and those
approaching the surviving family members.
We would increase opportunities to become an organ donor, such
as a form sent once a year to doctors' offices, for example. We
are saying that the form should contain three parts: first, an
explanation of organ donation; second, a request to be an
intended donor; and third, a request that potential donors
discuss their wishes with loved ones.
Funds should be available from shared federal, provincial and
territorial contributions. The money should be targeted for
organ transplantation. Recipients of organs should be able to
meet the families of the donor if both parties are in agreement.
The last one is very important. It does not sound like much,
but it is recognition. A medal should be awarded to the donors
or their families by the governor general.
As we have been reminded in the House tonight, an average of 150
Canadians die every year waiting for organ transplants. I would
say that number is smaller than it would be if we actually had a
databank and we could exchange or share information the way we
should be able to. We do not and we cannot. I think that number
is very small compared to what is the reality.
While I am on my feet I want to point out that I am a transplant
recipient. I was very fortunate because in my case it was bone
marrow and it was not as difficult to find a donor. I could be
my own donor. Because of medical technology and the advances of
medical science I was able to donate my own bone marrow after it
was purified, for lack of a better expression.
We should think of the hundreds of Canadians who are waiting for
the same type of transplant procedure and there is no one there
to help them out. The sad part is that they are there, but there
is no way to hook them up or connect them up. We know it can
work if we want to invest the time and the technology into that
process.
Truly I would not be here if that procedure had not taken place.
I was very fortunate because I could be my own donor and not all
recipients are that fortunate.
The time has come and the message is pretty clear from all sides
of the House that we want action on the part of the government.
It has derailed, stalled, and thrown up every obstacle it could
to keep the issue from moving forward.
I want to conclude by saying that regrettably this is not a
votable motion, but we support the hon. member's initiative. We
want the government to listen. The message coming out of the
House tonight is that we want action and we want it now.
1820
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
floor for five minutes to speak on Bill C-227. I want to thank
the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for
bringing the issue of organ and human tissue donations to the
attention of the House.
The hon. member will remember that, last year, the health
minister asked the Standing Committee on Health to consider this
issue. The minister was right to rely on the committee, given
that it heard hundreds of witnesses. We in the government do not
consider that consulting witnesses and listening to the people
is a waste of time, contrary to what some of the opposition
members said earlier.
[English]
During these consultations two main points consistently
surfaced: the need for a central co-ordinating and facilitating
body to bring together elements across jurisdictions and the need
for greater public education and awareness of the issue.
That is why the government endorses the principle of Bill C-227
and approves its global purpose to improve co-ordination and
education in order to increase organ and tissue donation rates in
Canada which are much too weak. We also agree that Canadians
should have easier and better opportunities to indicate their
wish to be potential organ donors and that medical professionals
have access to this information.
[Translation]
Also, Bill C-227 urges the federal government to act by
establishing first and foremost a national organ donor registry.
I want to remind the House that some witnesses told the
committee that Canada needs this kind of database. Others argued
however that this may not be the most efficient way to address
the issue. They cited the example of Great Britain and Spain.
Even without a national registry, Spain has a much higher rate
of real organ donations than Canada does.
Great Britain set up such a registry that has not been very
successful. The registration level has dropped over the last few
years.
In Canada, provinces like BC and Nova Scotia already have
registries while others, like Quebec and Ontario, are looking
into it. The Standing Committee on Health took notice of the
work done by provincial governments. In its report, it
recognized that provincial and territorial governments have many
good tools at their disposal to encourage larger numbers of
people to become donors. Considering what the provinces are
already doing, the committee did not believe that establishing a
national registry along the lines of the bill was a priority.
As early as mid-April, the Standing Committee on Health
recommended greater co-operation between all partners: the
federal government, the provinces, the territories, the care
givers and the health care institutions. The government chose to
rely on co-operation and has made headway.
[English]
We have been and will continue to work closely with the
provinces and other stakeholders to develop a new approach to
organ donation. This will include Canada-wide standards to
ensure the safety of transplantation and a comprehensive and
sustainable plan for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Our challenge will be to find an appropriate approach for
Canada, which is a federation where responsibility over health
is shared between the federal and the provincial and territorial
governments.
[English]
Fundamental to this approach is a partnership with provinces
that was agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial health
ministers at their September 1999 annual meeting in Charlottetown
before the government response had been made public within five
months from the publishing of the committee's report.
Many ministers approved the establishment of a council on organ
and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada and the guiding
principles which will govern its operation once a business plan
has been adopted. This plan is to implement a co-ordinated,
comprehensive and integrated donation and transplantation
strategy across Canada.
[Translation]
I know that we do not have much time. An eleven-point action plan
was adopted by the federal and provincial health ministers in
September and I think that we made important progress on that
issue in the last while.
I ask our colleague and the members of the opposition to
recognize that we are taking our responsibilities in this
respect. I urge them all to support our approach and
congratulate the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam on raising once again this issue in the House.
1825
[English]
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have support across
the House. It makes me feel very good. The fact is that I did
make this presentation to a subcommittee that was not made up of
Liberals only. The fact is that there were other members who
must have voted against this bill being a votable bill. Otherwise
it would have been a votable bill. It could not be defeated just
by members on this side of the House.
I am delighted. The fact is I knew the bill had great support
from all sides of the House. When I asked for 100 signatures I
could have got 100 signatures on either side of the House. It
was supportable. The good doctor in the Reform Party has made
some great comments. He is a physician and knows what he is
talking about. I was delighted to hear those comments. I was
delighted to hear all the comments that have been made,
especially those from the Progressive Conservative member who had
a transplant. I did not know he was a recipient of a transplant.
We talked about price tags and costs today and everything else,
but we should keep in mind that if we save one life we cannot put
a price tag on it. A good friend of mine who was a council
member with me in Coquitlam before I was elected as a mayor lost
his wife after five years on kidney dialysis. Can we imagine the
cost of that? Finally they could not find a transplant and she
died.
Many provinces probably think about the cost of transplants, but
as the good doctor across the floor said the fact is the cost is
very cheap compared to the cost of keeping people on dialysis,
waiting for a transplant that may never happen. We can only
imagine the trauma families must go through, waiting and hoping
that their little child or some other loved one will get a
transplant so that he or she can lead a normal life.
I have spoken to the health minister and will continue to speak
to him and to all members of the House. I am not giving up on
this one. I have never given up on the many things I have
brought before the House as the new member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
I brought before the House the leaky condo situation. I am not
giving up on that and I am not giving up on this one. The fact
is that it is an issue with me which I will be fighting every day
of the week. I ask all members on all sides of the House to give
me a hand and come forward in this discussion, this debate and
this fight. We will win.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on October 29 I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a
question about the APEC inquiry's chief lawyer, Marvin Storrow.
Mr. Storrow, who in his position with the APEC commission was
supposed to remain at arm's length from the Liberal government,
ended up dining with the Prime Minister at a $400 a plate
fundraiser. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister why his government
defined arm's length as being close enough to pass the pepper.
Mr. Storrow denied that his attendance at that dinner would
compromise his impartiality at the inquiry, the same inquiry that
may eventually call the Prime Minister to testify. Indeed it
would have been Mr. Storrow who would have had the power of part
of the decision making process to decide whether or not the Prime
Minister should testify at the inquiry. Mr. Storrow still denied
any conflict of interest but since then has actually done the
right thing and resigned from the commission because of the
perception of a problem there.
In response to my initial question in the House the Deputy Prime
Minister told the House that the commission was well equipped to
deal with matters of this kind and to let the commission do its
work, which we have heard over and over again from the
government.
Let us take a look at the work the commission has done so far.
This is not the first scandal to have led to a resignation in the
APEC affair.
1830
Just about a year ago we all know that the former solicitor
general was overheard on an airplane explaining to a friend that
Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart would take the fall for the pepper
spraying of APEC student protesters. The then solicitor general
categorically denied in the House day after day that he had done
anything to undermine the important work of the arm's length
commission, but finally he too resigned.
That is not all. Also last year the entire original three
member panel resigned after an RCMP officer said he heard one of
the members discussing the outcome of the inquiry at a
Saskatchewan casino. That member denied the accusation but in
the end it was he and two of the panel members who resigned.
The APEC inquiry is looking a bit more like a three ring circus.
It has gone on now for two years. The government keeps feeding
its media lines and spin about the commission doing its work
rather than actually getting to the bottom of this incident,
which could be cleared up very clearly by the Prime Minister's
own testimony as to the involvement of the Prime Minister's
Office in APEC security arrangements. Instead of hearing these
lines, stalling and jokes about pepper spraying, we would like
some answers.
Why does the government continue to engage in this process
instead of simply getting the Prime Minister to the point where
he is able to testify before the commission? I am afraid my
colleague on the other side will say that he has not been called
yet.
Let us clear up once and for all what the Prime Minister's
involvement was in this APEC security scandal. It has gone on
for two years. It continues to go on. We have seen people
resigning and it is going on and on. We want some answers. We
would like them today. We would like the Prime Minister to
testify and tell us exactly what his role was in the APEC
security scandal.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Dewdney Alouette worries because the lawyer representing the
RCMP Public Complaints Commission at the APEC hearings attended
a fundraising dinner in Vancouver.
I cannot understand how such a question could be raised in the
House. Unless my colleague does not understand the first thing
about the legislation as it stands and its mechanisms. This
matter has strictly nothing to do with the government.
I will explain for the umpteenth time, in the hope that the
message will get across a little bit better this time.
The complaints commission was established in 1986 to investigate
complaints made by the public against members of the RCMP.
Under the 1986 legislation, the commission is an independent
administrative tribunal. It conducts investigations as it deems
appropriate and is accountable for its practices and procedures.
It is operating at arm's length from the government. That fact
should be emphasized and repeated again, and I would repeat it
in 15 different languages if I could: the commission is
operating at arm's length from the government.
In the APEC hearings, the chairperson of the commission
appointed Mr. Ted Hughes to deal specifically with the events
that took place in Vancouver.
Mr. Hughes has a great reputation as an experienced lawyer and,
under his direction, the hearings have made considerable
progress. To date, more than 60 witnesses have been heard. I
think Mr. Hughes has given all possible assurances that his work
is absolutely honest and beyond reproach. In fact, that in
itself is the best guarantee that the Canadian public will know
exactly what happened at the APEC summit.
In performing his duties, Mr. Hughes recruited Mr. Marvin Storrow,
who is the lawyer in question; he attended a fundraising dinner
and has resigned, not to bring the work he was doing into
disrepute.
The commission has nothing to do—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. parliamentary secretary, but time has run out.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)