36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 28
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 25, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Official Languages
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-338. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| INTEREST ACT
|
| Bill C-339. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-340. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-341. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1010
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-342. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-343. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW ACT
|
| Bill C-344. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Bill C-345. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT
|
| Bill C-346. Introduction and First Reading
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1015
| PETITIONS
|
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1035
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1040
1045
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1050
1055
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1100
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1120
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1125
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1130
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1135
1140
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1145
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1150
1155
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1200
1205
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1210
1215
1220
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Randy White |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1305
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1310
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1330
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1335
1340
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1345
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1350
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE JUNCTION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| JEFF HART
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1400
| FORD OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| OAK RIDGES MORAINE
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| MEMBER FOR VAUDREUIL—SOULANGES
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1405
| RIMA ARISTOCRAT
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| CHILDREN AFFECTED BY WAR
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1410
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| QUEBEC'S DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROTARY CLUBS
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1430
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1440
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1445
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1450
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CHILD LABOUR
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1455
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1525
1530
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1535
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1555
1600
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1605
1610
| Mr. René Canuel |
1615
1620
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1625
1630
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1635
1640
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1645
1650
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1655
1700
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1705
1710
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1715
1720
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1745
1750
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1755
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1800
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1805
1810
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1815
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Devco
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1820
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1825
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 28
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 25, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of
the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deductibility of expense of tools provided as a requirement of
employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is something that mechanics
have wanted for a long time, which is the right to deduct their
tools as a legitimate expense of their employment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INTEREST ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Interest Act
(interest payable on repayment of a mortgage loan before
maturity).
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a wonderful bill
which would allow consumers to pay off their mortgages ahead of
time, if they have the money, and to do so without penalty.
Obviously, it is very sensible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BANK ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank
mergers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill arises as a result of the bank
merger debate of a year ago. It basically says that before any
bank merger should be allowed in this country it must be debated
and approved by the House of Commons. Obviously, it is a very
sensible idea.
The Deputy Speaker: I must compliment the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle for the example he is setting with the
succinct explanations of his bills.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to establish the office of
Pension Ombudsman to investigate administrative difficulties
encountered by persons in their dealings with government in
respect of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Old Age
Security Act or tax liability on such benefits and to review the
policies and practices applied in the administration and
adjudication of such benefits and liabilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill arises from the fact that we
all receive a lot of representations at our offices from people
having problems with the Canada pension plan and other pensions.
There is a need for an ombudsman to work on behalf of the people
of this country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
BANK ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Bank Act, the
Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act
(repayment of a mortgage loan before the maturity of the loan).
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again, people who are paying off a
mortgages, if they have the money to do so, should not be
penalized by a bank, an insurance company or a trust company if
they want to pay off their mortgages ahead of time. This is
obviously supported by the member from the Northwest Territories.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to establish the office of
Credit Ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers
and small business in credit matters and to investigate and
report on the provision by financial institutions of consumer and
small business credit by community and by industry in order to
ensure equity in the distribution of credit resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would give not only the
consumers of Canada but small businesses in this country an
avenue in terms of problems they may be having with credit
vis-a-vis the large financial institutions of the country.
Again, it is a very sensible idea.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to provide for the study of
proportional representation in federal elections and a national
referendum on the recommendations that result from the study.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we should adopt very
quickly. It would require a study to be done on proportional
representation to come up with a formula for proportional
representation that is relevant to our federation, which would be
put to the people in the form of a referendum. The end result
would mean that every vote in this country would be equal, that
there would be no such thing as a wasted vote and that the vote
of the people of Canada would be mirrored in the House of
Commons, which is not the case under the first past the post
system.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canada Pension
Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and
firefighters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have all been lobbied by firefighters
who have explained that they have a very dangerous occupation.
Early death and injuries result because of toxic chemicals and
the like. They are asking for the right to have early retirement
so they can enjoy their pension benefits.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-346, an act to amend the National Capital Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts (federal capital).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill I am introducing
today is to amend the wording in legislation referring to the
national capital to read federal capital.
We are in a federal parliament here. We are federal members of
parliament, the legislation we pass is federal and will be
applied by federal departments and financed by federal income
tax, which everyone pays.
It is both natural and obvious for a parliament as federal as
ours is to sit in a capital that is of necessity federal.
Moreover, my colleague from Quebec, who supports me in this
bill, commented to me that the Americans call Washington their
federal capital. Let us make things the way they always ought
to have been. I am convinced that everyone will be happier as a
result.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
[English]
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour of presenting the following petition signed by dozens of
concerned Canadians.
Current immigration sponsorship requirements are very high for
an average person. Specifically, maintaining an adequate income
to support an immigrant is excessive for the person to bear.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to ask the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review existing
income requirements to allow all potential sponsors not to be
unduly burdened by them and request that more than one person be
allowed to sponsor the same individual and share the
responsibility of financial support for the immigrant.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three sets of petitions to present today.
The first one deals with child pornography and arises out of the
issue in British Columbia. The petitioners feel that the
well-being and safety of children are put in jeopardy as a result
of the British Columbia court decision and appeal.
They therefore ask that the government invoke the
notwithstanding clause in order to set things right. I am sure
all decent people will feel the same.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with immigration. This one is
largely arising out of the situation with the recent boat people
coming into British Columbia.
In this case the petitioners are asking that the government
invoke changes to the Immigration Act to ensure that bogus
refugees are dealt with swiftly and surely.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition deals with child poverty.
The petitioners point out that in 1989 the House of Commons
unanimously resolved to end child poverty by the year 2000 and
that notwithstanding that resolve it has actually increased.
They therefore call upon parliament to use the federal budget
for the year 2000 to introduce a multiyear plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
* * *
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. 9 and 31.
.[Text]
Question No. 9—Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to Order in Council 1999-0957/00, approved on May
27, 1999, which dissolved Canada Post Holdings Limited, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Canada Post Corporation: (a) for what
reasons was this decision taken; (b) which corporation will
continue to hold Canada Post's shares in PLC Courier Holdings Inc,
and Purolator Courier Ltd.; and (c) how will Canada Post continue
to provide separate information on Purolator Courier's operations
in its financial statements?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services):
Order in Council 1999-0957/00 authorized Canada Post to wind-up
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Canada Post Holdings Limited.
Canada Post plans to act upon this authority before the end of
this calendar year.
(a) Canada Post has decided to wind-up Canada Post Holdings
Limited for organizational simplification and, more importantly,
for normal commercial income tax management purposes. Canada
Post Holdings Limited has unexpired non-capital losses that it
has been carrying forward and that will begin to expire in fiscal
year 2000-01. As per normal commercial practice for taxable
corporations, Canada Post is permitted to wind-up Canada Post
Holdings Limited so that these non-capital losses can be utilized
as tax deductions by Canada Post Corporation rather than have
them expire in Canada Post Holdings Limited.
(b) Canada Post Corporation will continue to hold 22.9% of the
outstanding shares in PCL Holdings Inc. while 2875039 Canada
Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canada Post Corporation,
will hold another 72.9%. The remaining 4.2% is held privately.
PCL Holdings Inc. holds 100% of Purolator Courier Ltd.
(c) Canada Post Corporation's annual report will continue to
provide separate financial and operating information on Purolator
Courier Ltd.
Note: As of June 23, 1999, the name of PCL Holdings Inc. has been
changed to Purolator Holdings Limited.
Question No. 31—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
With regard to the groups consulted by the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-63 in the first session
of this parliament during the period from February 1999 through
to May 1999: (a) which of the groups received government-issued
grants and/or subsidies; (b) what was the total grant or
subsidy; (c) what was the reason for the grant or subsidy; and
(d) which government department issued the grant or subsidy?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
With regard to groups consulted by the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-63 in the first session of
this parliament, organizations listed below received contribution
funds in fiscal year 1998-1999 through May 1999, fiscal year
1999-2000, under one or more of the following Citizenship and
Immigration Canada settlement programs:
Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, LINC, which
provides training in one of Canada's official languages to adult
immigrants;
Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Programs, ISAP, which
provides a variety of settlement services to immigrants, such as
orientation, community information, interpretation-translation,
para-professional counselling and employment-related services;
Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program B, ISAP-B, provides
indirect services which improve the delivery of services for
LINC, ISAP, or Host, such as national conventions or national
publications. Proposals must involve more than one region and
support national priorities;
The Host Program, which matches immigrants to Canadians who help
them with various aspects of life in Canada.
Contribution agreements are signed for a total amount which
covers the duration of the agreement. As the period of time for
which the funding information was requested does not coincide
with the periods covered by the contribution agreements, the
amounts will be higher than the dollar figures for the exact
period requested in the question.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from November 19 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. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-10 today. I will
start by dealing with a bit of a problem that opposition members
have with various bits of government legislation.
When I first came to parliament I made what is euphemistically
known as my maiden speech. I am surprised feminists nowadays
have not insisted we change that name. In any case, I made my
speech in which I said that I was not here to oppose for
opposition sake, that if the government came forward with good
legislation I would be the first to congratulate it. If it came
forward with legislation that had merit but could be improved, I
would try to suggest constructive improvements to it. Only when
it was clearly bad and virtually unfixable would I then try to
oppose it very strongly.
One of the other problems we have is what to do with legislation
in which there is a bit of good and a bit of bad. What do we do
in that situation?
Do we really congratulate them because they have actually come
out with some good? Or, do we criticize them for all the things
that are missing and the things that are wrong in it? In the
case of the particular bill I will do both and I will do it
concurrently because the merits and the deficiencies of the bill
are intertwined.
1020
Under the bill interest may now be paid by the federal
government to municipalities. This is one of the good parts of
the bill. However, it is only if in the opinion of the minister
the payment has been unreasonably delayed. Likewise,
supplementary payments can be made but only if the payment has
been unreasonably delayed as defined by the minister.
Some government property is currently leased to non-government
third parties. In some cases these parties do not pay their
taxes. Of the hierarchy of people who get tax revenues, the ones
that can least afford to be hit are the municipalities, cities,
and particularly small towns.
Bill C-10 proposes that the Department of Public Works and
Government Services would make payment in lieu of taxes at the
end of the taxation year, provided the taxing authority has made
all reasonable efforts to collect the taxes and there is no
likelihood they will ever collect them, if in the opinion of the
minister the necessary conditions have been met. At this point I
think everyone can clearly see what kind of pattern is starting
to appear.
In 1983 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
established a municipal grants review committee. Its function
was to provide advice on resolution of disputes between the
taxing authorities and the federal government. The advice was
non-binding and thus most people felt it was meaningless. We
hope that this will finally be corrected under Bill C-10.
Essentially Bill C-10 puts this whole process into legislation.
However, let us look at exactly how it does so. The minister
hand picks the members and appoints the chair as well. With this
kind of control over the advisory panel, its recommendations are
non-binding to the minister. This is really a lot of show
because we can see the predominant pattern once again.
Schedule IV of the Municipal Grants Act lists corporations
involved in profit oriented activities and therefore pay both
property and business occupancy related payments in lieu of
taxes. The joint technical committee on payment in lieu of taxes
recommended that Canada Post Corporation and the Royal Canadian
Mint be added to schedule IV. This recommendation has been
ignored.
As we know Canada Post now has a mandate to make a profit and
has indeed been making a profit. Even more notoriously the
Canadian Mint has been going nose to nose against private sector
companies for the minting of not only Canadian coins but foreign
orders and business as well. It stands to put an Alberta company
out of business because the highly subsidized Canadian Mint is
going into competition with it and using the stature of being a
crown corporation, on top of the subsidies it gets, to compete
against this private sector company.
This certainly sends a message to those who might wonder how the
minister will deal with other non-binding aspects of the bill. If
he ignores this recommendation, why would anybody believe he
would follow a recommendation in favour of a taxing authority in
any of the other circumstances I have previously listed?
At the beginning of my speech I implied that the bill had some
good points. In review, those good points are so softened by the
discretionary powers of the minister to suggest that they are
worthless. However these problems could be fixed and could be
fixed very easily.
All we need to do is remove the discretionary power of the
minister and make interest for late payments a requirement for
payment of delinquent third party taxes, recommend that the
recommendations of the advisory panel be binding, and include
Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mint in schedule IV of the
Municipal Grants Act. It is that simple and that fair. I hope
the government would seriously consider putting these kinds of
amendments into its bill.
1025
Sometimes it is a stretch, but I have to assume that the
government actually wants to write good legislation. When we see
things like Bill C-68, like the Nisga'a legislation and a lot of
others, we have to wonder if in fact it wants to write good
legislation. In this case I think there has been at least a half
hearted effort to write something with some decency in it.
Perhaps it will consider these amendments.
Also the legislation gives cause to look at another situation
which is in direct conflict with the alleged intent of Bill C-10.
Bill C-10 sets out certain rights for local taxing authorities
which in essence are local, civil, municipal or regional
governments. It also makes clear that those rights are extremely
limited and given only through the discretion of the federal
minister. This means they can be taken away or never even
granted in the first place despite the legislation.
What a contrast this makes to the unprecedented constitutionally
enshrined self-government powers of the Nisga'a under the Nisga'a
treaty. The Nisga'a will have the only recognized government
outside the federal and provincial governments. What a
comparison when we compare Nisga'a rights against those of the
small towns in my riding. Towns like Oliver, Osoyoos, Grand
Forks, Trail, Castlegar and Nelson will get absolutely no
guarantees of anything under this legislation. Neither will
large cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto
or Montreal.
The Nisga'a legislation gives powers to approximately 2,000
people living on Nisga'a lands. It gives them the ability to
direct even the federal government in certain areas. They have
powers in terms of such things as schooling, policing and a
variety of things over which municipalities have no say
whatsoever. They even have in their treaty a special provision
for future potential taxing rights which no other town, city or
municipality in Canada has.
Would it not be interesting if we went to the Nisga'a and said
that there were a lot of payments they should be getting from the
Canadian Government but we have made them discretionary and will
decide on a case by case basis whether or not we think we should
pay them? If we think we should not pay then we will not and
they will have absolutely no say in it.
Let us compare that to what the Nisga'a actually get and what
all the other towns I have listed get. These are towns like the
ones that everybody in parliament represents. If the government
wants to be fair it has to remove that discretionary
consideration and at least give some pretence of giving something
not only to small towns like those in my riding but even to the
largest cities.
Right now the mayor of Toronto is talking about seceding from
Ontario. The Bloc must have really loved that when he came out
with that one. Toronto would secede from Ontario and set up a
new province of Toronto. Heaven only knows it has enough people.
I suspect that it would probably be the fourth or fifth largest
populated province in Canada.
As it stands on the edge of expressing a desire to do this, even
Toronto does not have the powers the government is giving to
2,000 people living on Nisga'a lands. What a comparison when we
start talking about discretionary powers where the government may
make some payment to a town or a municipality under Bill C-10.
I would like to end my comments by making an analogy that gives
some perspective on Bill C-10. It promises certain things to
municipalities and towns but in fact is only teasing with it
because they may never see it.
I said the bill had good things and bad things. I would like to
leave members with the picture of going out to a store and buying
a great big meaty bone for a dog. That is good thing to do. The
dog will be happy. Animal rights people will be happy. They
will feel good about the good thing they have done. Then if they
bring the bone home and use it to tease the dog by dangling it in
front of it and snatching it away every time it reaches for it,
that would be bad. That is exactly what the bill does.
1030
The bill issues a potential of living up to its obligations to
the municipalities, of making the payments that many of the
municipalities desperately need, because they are providing
services to crown owned properties inside their areas. The
federal government is saying “Here is this tax. We think we
will give it to you but if we think that you do not deserve it,
we will not pay and there is not a damn thing you can do about
it”.
The government has started with something that has a little bit
of potential. I hope it has the integrity and fortitude to make
the changes and turn good intentions into reality.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan has made many
important points relating to Bill C-10.
Grants in lieu of taxes have been a thorn in the side of
municipalities for many, many years. The question always raised
by the municipalities has been why the federal government does
not pay its taxes like all other Canadians.
There is no doubt the approach federal governments have used for
the last 20 years is very divisive. It certainly does not bring
Canadians together. My hon. colleague indicated that this
approach basically creates situations where mayors of large
cities are calling for their own special status, whether it be in
the form of creating new provinces or new city states.
With the new millennium approaching, Canadians need a new way of
dealing on a level playing field in how they are taxed. There is
no doubt that the Municipal Grants Act tends to give the federal
government special status in the area of paying property taxes to
the municipalities.
I ask the member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, should the
federal government give itself special status and how does it
relate to the whole principle of equality in Canada?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. He raised a couple of important points, including
the whole concept of special status. He asked if there should be
special status for the federal government. No, there should not
be special status for anyone.
During my speech I raised the Nisga'a treaty as an example. One
of the biggest objections we have to the Nisga'a treaty is that
it provides special status for some. The word equality is used
all the time. We hear it used by both sides of the House, yet
the government grants special status to the Nisga'a under the
Nisga'a treaty. It grants special status to itself under Bill
C-10. Now we can see where it is coming from when it had no
problem with that aspect of the Nisga'a treaty.
There is an old adage about things that flow downhill. We know
what that is and where the source is. There has been a lot of
downloading. The federal government has downloaded a lot of
costs for things onto the provinces. But the provinces are also
taxing authorities so they keep it flowing downhill until it
reaches the municipalities.
In their own respect, municipalities, towns and cities are also
taxing authorities but they are extremely limited. They have no
actual power. It is a delegated power, unlike that of the
Nisga'a who have actual self-government that is entrenched in the
constitution. Municipalities have only those powers delegated to
them by higher authorities.
The government with this bill is saying it may pay or it may
not, and because the government has power over the municipalities
it will decide whether they get paid or not. It is extremely
unfair for the biggest brother in Canada to download on the
little brothers, the provinces, who then download on the
non-status towns and municipalities throughout the country while
saying it is transferring all of its costs downhill.
For the federal government to look good it passes it to the
provincial governments. For the provincial governments to
survive, having lost the money but which are still expected to
provide the same services, they download some of it to the
municipalities. Now big brother back in Ottawa is saying it is
downloading but it may not, and in some cases likely will not,
pay its share of the bill.
When I say likely, and in some cases definitely, I mean Canada
Post in particular. The mint is also in that category but it is
somewhat isolated. Canada Post is all over the country, and for
the government not to put it in schedule IV is an absolute
download on municipalities and towns with no hope of their
collecting.
1035
It is a shameful thing when the government forces new costs on
those small areas and then refuses to pay its bills.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to a piece of legislation
that perhaps is not quite as sexy and certainly not as
controversial as a lot of the legislation that comes before the
House. However, it has a spot which is very close to my heart.
The bill deals with municipalities and the Municipal Grants Act,
which now is going to be called the payments in lieu of taxes
act. The reason I say it has a spot close to my heart is that as
the majority of members in the House are aware, I came through
the ranks of elected municipal officials. I had the opportunity
and the great pride and honour to represent the city of Brandon
as its mayor for three terms. Prior to that I sat on council for
the city of Brandon for three terms.
Our caucus also has the distinction and honour of having a
number of members who have also served honourably on municipal
councils. The member for Saint John was a mayor of great renown.
The member for Richmond—Arthabaska was a mayor of that
community. The member for Compton—Stanstead was the mayor of
that community. As well the member for Markham was a councillor
of that municipality. There is a lot of experience among my
colleagues with respect to municipalities, municipal requirements
and certainly municipal issues.
This piece of legislation as was mentioned before has some good
qualities to it. One of the thorns in the sides of municipal
leaders all over this great country is the way the federal
government looks down on municipalities and does not deal with
them the way municipalities feel is right and necessary.
Even though I am standing in the House right now, I still
believe very strongly that the grassroots of the first level of
government is that of the municipal governments. It is
accessible by its constituents. It has elected officials who are
very close to the issues most important to Canadians where they
reside. Canadians depend on that municipal level of government
to provide them with services that are close to their needs and
requirements in their homes, their municipalities and their
constituencies.
Let us talk about some of those services. A municipal council
and its elected officials are responsible for delivering the
services that are so in need, such as sewer and water. It would
be awful if we turned on a tap and nothing flowed. That is a
municipal responsibility. Protective services, such as police,
fire and ambulance, are needed on a daily basis by our
constituents. They are provided by municipal councils. When
garbage is taken away from our front steps and put in a landfill,
it is the responsibility of the municipality. Roads, bridges and
any other type of capital infusion or capital requirement at the
municipal level are municipal responsibilities.
I mention these services because the only way a municipality can
generate the revenue necessary to provide those services is
through property taxes. They are services to properties and are
paid for by property taxes. This is very important in this
debate because property tax is levied on properties, whether they
are apartment buildings, residential buildings, commercial
buildings, single family homes, or buildings owned by the federal
government.
Because municipalities are not recognized in the constitution,
the federal government does not recognize taxation to
municipalities. That is terribly arrogant.
1040
Municipalities feel that they are better than that. They should
first of all be recognized in the constitution as being a level
of government, certainly not the first level because the federal
government on the benches across the way feel that that is its
right and due. There should be a recognition for municipalities.
Because the federal government does not recognize taxation as
such and because it does not recognize the jurisdiction that is
levying that tax, it has what is known as a grant in lieu of
taxes. It is not a grant. It is a payment for services
delivered to the property. In this proposed legislation it is
changing it to payments in lieu of taxes. That is a little
better, but why not just simply say taxes?
The normal process with respect to taxation is that everyone who
owns property in jurisdictions and municipalities is assessed a
taxable rate levied by the municipality. An assessment value is
placed on the property by assessors, whether it be provincial
assessors or municipal assessors. I as an individual have the
opportunity and right to question that assessment. I have the
right to go to a court of appeal, usually a municipal court or
board of revision and question the assessment that is placed on
my property. If I do not like that, then I go to the next level.
In Manitoba it is the municipal board where I can then argue
that the assessment is either right or wrong. If I lose at that
level I can then go to the Court of Queen's Bench and argue that
my assessment is out of whack.
The federal government however does not follow those rules. It
simply says that it is arbitrarily going to change the rules and
decide what the assessed value is on the property. Nothing
changes in this proposed legislation to change that arbitrary
distinction.
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche. I understand that I have five minutes
left.
As I was saying, the federal government does not have to follow
the rules of the province of the jurisdiction where it is
questioning that assessment. We could say that should be okay.
The government in this bill has proposed an appeal board. From
personal experience I can say that there is an arrogance at the
bureaucracy level of the federal government.
I will give some examples where federal government officials
decided that they did not want to pay the assessed value of a
property. There was one instance in my municipality when I was
sitting as mayor. The provincial assessors decided that there
was a specific assessed value of a property of the federal
government. Arbitrarily that value was reduced by 50%.
That is like someone with a residential property saying to the
municipality, “I don't like the assessed value that you placed
on my property. Therefore I am only paying half of what you are
going to assess me in taxes”. Unfortunately there are remedies
for that. The municipality could then say, “That is too bad.
If you don't pay the whole amount, we will take your property in
a tax sale”. The municipality cannot do that with the federal
government.
Arbitrarily the government officials reduced the true value of
the property to half of its level. We then had to go to an
appeal panel. When I appeal assessments I like to look in the
eyes of the people I am appealing to. The suggested approach at
that time was to send a letter to the appeal panel that was going
to be put in place by the federal government. There would be no
opportunity to argue our position and the panel would make a
decision. That is like appointing the judge, the jury and the
executioner. There was no effective appeal.
The government has changed that now. It now has an appeal panel
of 26 people minimum. Again they are approved and appointed by
the federal government. Perhaps a lot of unemployed former
Liberal MPs would like to find themselves sitting on that appeal
panel, which I do not have a lot of faith at the municipal level
of having an honest, fair and equitable decision being made. I am
not happy about that area of the bill.
I am not happy that municipalities are not identified as a level
of government. They provide more and better services than the
federal and provincial levels.
Another thing I am not happy with is the way that the
legislation has come forward.
1045
As the mayor of the city of Brandon, I had the opportunity to
sit on the board of directors for the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities for some eight years. It is an organization that
represents almost every municipality across the country. When
the federal government brings forth legislation to put into place
a very important aspect of taxation should it not sit down with
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and get its
understanding, its feel and its approval for a piece of
legislation before it comes forward? At the very least, should
the federal government not inform the FCM that this piece of
legislation is coming forward and what the make-up will be of the
legislation? It did not happen and I have absolutely no idea or
understanding as to why.
We will support the legislation going back to committee. We
will support having full, open, honest debate and discussion at
committee level. However, we beseech the government of the day
to make sure it deals with this piece of legislation honourably
and that it puts into place the necessary requirements to make
sure that municipalities are treated properly and not with the
arrogance that has been seen from this federal government toward
the municipalities over the last six years.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour and privilege for me today to be able to speak on
this bill.
My colleague said that he used to be the mayor of a
municipality. The municipal level is very dear to my heart, for
my father was the mayor of the city of Campbellton until his
death a month ago. I can therefore say that today's bill is
close to my heart, and that is why it is a privilege and a
pleasure to speak to it.
[English]
In conversations with representatives from the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, it is abundantly clear that
municipalities and their organizations do not appreciate having
the legislation rammed down their throats. Municipalities were
not given any advance notice that the legislation was being
introduced. No information, no background notes, no news
releases, no summaries and no other materials were sent out to
these various municipalities. These municipalities are on the
front line serving our constituents. They are the front line
government and I believe the most important government in our
federation.
The municipal governments have not had time to study the bill
and respond to it. In the case of the FCM, it has not had time
to consult its members on the bill. This begs the question: If
this is such a great piece of legislation, what is the rush?
We all know from experience that when legislation is rushed
through the House mistakes often get overlooked. Quick
legislation is bad legislation. As a member of the House and as
a member of the committee, along with my colleagues, that will
attempt to clean up the mistakes in the bill, I call on the
government to allow more time for the House standing committee to
work on the bill and more time for municipalities and other
stakeholders to ensure that the legislation will correct past
problems without creating new ones.
Speaking of past problems, the very fact that we have a
Municipal Grants Act is a bit of an absurdity of history since
the government does not officially recognize the existence of
municipalities. Towns, cities and local service districts are
not mentioned in the constitution. They have no official
mandate. They are entirely a creation of provincial governments.
Furthermore, the federal government has a constitutional
exemption from paying local taxes.
The problem is that the federal government, which owns property
in almost 2,000 municipalities across the country, benefits from
all kinds of municipal services, such as water and sewage, roads
and other infrastructure. Those services are not free. In spite
of its constitutional exemption, the federal should pay for those
services like every other good property owner in Canada.
1050
This paradox was resolved in 1950 with the passage of the first
Municipal Grants Act which has been updated and revised many
times, most recently in 1990. Since 1980, there have been a
number of issues pop up that the current legislation does not and
cannot resolve. This is the basis of the bill that we have
before us today.
For example, a couple of years ago, I remember that there was a
dispute between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and local
municipalities as to whether the department had to make a payment
in lieu of taxes on wharves.
Not too long ago, the federally owned Aéroports de Montréal
protested a property evaluation by the city of Dorval. Ottawa
re-evaluated the land at $100 million less than the property
assessment and told the city that if it did not like it, it could
contest the figure before a federal government appointed
tribunal.
In my home province of New Brunswick, the provincial department
of municipalities estimates how much municipalities will receive
from federal payments in lieu of taxes and pays them that amount.
The department then goes about collecting the payments from the
federal government, but it is only sometime later that the
federal government actually pays the amount due and, in some
cases, the payment has taken years.
In 1995, the city of Halifax yelled foul when, after increasing
the evaluation of the Citadel from $15 million to $36 million,
the federal government reduced its evaluation from $15 million to
$1.2 million. Short of going to court, the two governments had
no ways of resolving this dispute.
In 1992, the Government of Quebec gave municipalities the right
to replace all or part of their business occupancy taxes with a
new real property tax. The result was a sudden $41 million
increase in the federal payments to Quebec municipalities.
In Ontario, the provincial government eliminated its business
occupancy tax. To make up the lost revenue, Ontario
municipalities increased their commercial real property tax rates
by an average of about 45%. These reforms cost the federal
government as much as $100 million a year more in payments in
lieu of taxes in leasehold occupancy costs. Furthermore, crown
corporations are paying approximately $30 million more.
As well, a freeze on payments from 1993 to 1995 made municipal
governments mistrustful of the federal government and made the
current system unreliable.
Clearly, it is time to update the legislation to deal with these
problems that have presented themselves in recent years.
The bill before us today proposes changes in a number of these
areas. The bill would change the name of the legislation from
Municipal Grants Act to the payments in lieu of taxes act, while
references in the legislation to “grants” will be replaced with
the word “payments”. This is to better reflect the nature of
the program and the relationship between the Government of Canada
as a property owner and Canadian and municipal governments.
The bill proposes introducing compensation for late payments by
the federal government to municipalities. It also would give the
authority to Ottawa to make payments when tenants on federal
property default on their local tax bills. These are important
changes under which the federal government accepts a position
much closer to that of other property owners regarding its tax
obligations.
It would establish a dispute advisory panel under the act with a
minimum of two board members from each province and territory.
The advisory panel would recommend solutions to the minister when
disputes arise between municipalities and the federal government
over the appropriate amount of payments.
Outdoor swimming pools, golf course improvements, outdoor
theatres, residential driveways and employee parking improvements
would be added to the definition of “federal property” and the
bill would clarify the wording of the act as it relates to a
non-building structure.
1055
As well, Bill C-10 proposes to improve the predictability of
payments for municipalities by clarifying how payments are
calculated for federal farm property and how deductions are
calculated when municipalities are unable or unwilling to provide
the federal property with equivalent services to those received
by similar private property or structures. It would also clarify
the status of Parks Canada assets as federal property.
Although the bill does introduce some important changes, there
is one important area where I have strong reservations.
Other than section 4 of the bill, which states the intent of the
act and which I think is a waste of space as it accomplishes
nothing, I would say that 90% of the bill is an improvement over
the existing legislation. The important exception is in section
14, which would establish a new dispute advisory panel.
There are two major difficulties with the proposed new panel,
the first being one of fairness and balance and the second being
the composition of the panel.
Imagine a court trial in which the defendant got to pick his own
jury, got to pay the jury and install himself as final judge with
no chance of appeal. How would the defendant do? I suspect he
would win just about every case. Would we describe this system
as fair? I do not think so. Yet this is exactly the kind of
dispute settlement panel the minister has proposed in Bill C-10.
Differences in opinion often arise between municipalities and
the federal government over how much the crown owes for payments
in lieu of taxes. These disputes are often based on the
valuation of a property or the definition and classification of a
property.
What the minister has proposed is that he should establish an
advisory panel composed of a minimum of two persons from each
province and territory, for a total of at least 26 members. The
members will be chosen only by the minister, and we can just
imagine who will be chosen. The minister will decide how
qualified the members of the panel need to be. He will pay them
$125 per hour plus expenses and they will report only to him.
The minister can fire any of the members of the board at any
time for any reason if, for example, he disagrees with their
decision. He can completely ignore any decision of the panel if
it suits his purpose and his decision is absolutely final. There
is no appeal. Not a bad deal. So much for fairness.
On issues related to the composition of the panel, let us look
at section 14 in more detail. Subsection 14(1) proposes, as I
have said, a panel consisting of no less than two members from
each province and territory with relevant knowledge or
experience.
My first reaction was that once the bill passes, there will be
26 very happy Liberals across the country who will have brand new
patronage jobs. After all, $125 an hour plus expenses is a
pretty good day's work.
I call on the other members of the House to support the bill at
second reading so we can get it into committee and hopefully fix
some of these problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting payments
in lieu of taxes to municipalities, provinces and other bodies
exercising funtions of local government that levy real property
taxes.
1100
What does that mean exactly for the ordinary folk? I refer to
the bill's summary, which states:
This enactment amends the Municipal Grants Act to improve the
fairness, equity and predictability of payments made under the
Act. A statement of purpose is included. The enactment
establishes an Advisory Panel to advise the minister on disputes
concerning payment amounts. It addresses the issues of
compensation for untimely payments, defaults on tax obligations
by certain tenants of the Crown and the bijural nature of the
Canadian legal system.
The enactment also makes other amendments of an administrative
nature.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with this bill. And
even though we have concerns about some of the points we do not
agree with, we will vote in favour of the bill. We disagree on
some very specific points. First, on the need to pass this bill
in a hurry. We know it has been around for two years. Now all
of a sudden it requires urgent attention.
A number of municipalities are currently complaining about being
unable to examine this bill in depth and to meet with their
member of parliament. I would have liked to meet with the
municipalities in my riding—there are 12 of them—to really
find out what points bother them.
Unfortunately, they are not being given the time to do that,
since the government is moving quickly to get this bill passed.
There is also the minister's discretionary power. It is true
that such power is found in a number of bills, but I wonder when
the government will truly decide to give more power to those
directly concerned, in this case the municipalities, and to
reduce the discretionary power of the minister who, in the end,
is the one who decides and who simply does as he pleases.
I will also talk about the advisory panel—a bogus panel, in my
opinion—to which people will be appointed to give advice to the
government, not to make any decisions.
Also several federal properties are being excluded.
I must say that the new title of the bill is less paternalistic,
closer to reality—something which is important to those
concerned—and clearer. There is a lot of talk about clarity
these days—I will get back to this later on—since, all week,
the word clear was constantly being raised during oral question
period. It is important to talk about clarity.
It is true that the title of this bill is a little clearer than
the former one, which was “Municipal Grants Act”. That title
suggested that the federal government was giving grants to
municipalities. A grant means a donation or a gift, but that was
not the case.
Actually, these grants were used by the federal government to
pay for services provided to its properties located on
provincial and municipal land.
The new title is a little clearer, a little more accurate
than the former one, and the minister deserves praise for this
giant step.
1105
Judging by the number of times it has used a gag order to cut
off debate during the consideration of bills, it cannot be said
that this government is always clear. Quite the contrary.
I think that some clarity is in order from this government,
which wants so much clarity from the provinces, particularly the
Province of Quebec, when it comes to past referendums and
referendums not yet held. As recently as yesterday, during oral
question period, the Prime Minister was working himself up and
saying that he would not negotiate the morning after a
referendum if the question was not clear, regardless of the
supreme court ruling. Yet this was not what the supreme court
ruled.
The supreme court said that it was not up to the Prime Minister
to decide whether or not the question was clear. The supreme
court ruled that he must negotiate, failing which Quebec could
take action.
Speaking of clarity, here is another example. I remember the
1980 referendum, in which Pierre Elliott Trudeau, with the help
of his henchman, told us that a yes meant no, that a no meant
yes, that Quebecers were telling him they wanted change in the
federal system, and that there would be change. He staked his
life on it. With the sort of clarity that calls a yes a no and
a no a yes, the results are not surprising.
Recently, in the great rally in Montreal just before the 1995
referendum, the present Prime Minister promised Quebecers that
he would renew Canadian federalism. “Decentralized federalism”
was what he called it.
At the present time, we are faced with a centralizing and
dominating federalism that no longer even recognizes this
founding people, the people of Quebec.
Clarity is something this government was desperately in need of.
That is why the minister must be congratulated on at least
changing the title of the bill to make it clearer. The new
title is less paternalistic and more realistic, as I said, and
the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the change. As I have also said,
however, the Bloc Quebecois still has questions on certain very
specific points.
We have difficulty recognizing the discretionary ministerial
power in this bill. Instead of appointing a panel to advise the
minister, it would have been easy to give this panel real power.
As has been done in a number of areas, the municipalities could
have appointed one person, the government another. These two
could have appointed a third and, instead of advising the
minister, the panel could have really settled disputes between
the municipalities and the federal government. But no, the
minister appoints the members of an advisory panel whose role is
to provide him with information.
An hon. member: A panel made up of buddies.
1110
Mr. Maurice Godin: Mr. Speaker, as my
colleague has said, this panel will very often be made up of
friends or of candidates defeated in the last election. The
panel will advise the minister, but it is the minister who will
have the last word and make the decisions. It is not,
therefore, surprising to see so much conflict between the
federal and the provincial or municipal levels of government.
Another point that raises questions is all that is not included
in the definition of “federal buildings”, for instance:
(a) any structure or work that is not a building designed
primarily for the shelter of people, living things, plant or
personal property or, for greater certainty, any structure,
work, machinery or equipment in...,
(b) any real property developed and used as a park and situated
within an area defined as “urban” by Statistics Canada, as of
the most recent census of the population of Canada taken by
Statistics Canada, other than any real property acquired
pursuant to the National Parks Act or the Historic Monuments Act
or any real property that is occupied or used as a park and has
been prescribed to be included in the definition “federal
property” pursuant to...,
(c) any Indian reserve, except for that part of the reserve
(i) that is occupied for residential purposes by an employee of
Her Majesty in right of Canada who would not, but for that
employment, live on that reserve...,
Follows a whole list of real property the government reserves
for itself, perhaps because of the Constitution. However, I
think the government could have used this bill to try to put
some sort of order in all of this.
Why does it not pay for the services provided this real
property? According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services in her speech
at first reading, and I quote: “The government is provided with
direct and indirect useful services in exchange for payments in
lieu of taxes”. So they recognize that it is really to pay for
the services they receive.
Where is the statement found in the bill's summary I read
earlier about improving the fairness, equity and predictability
of payments?
Why does the government not pay its due to the provinces and
municipalities, since we know that, in 5 years, it will have
taken $95 billion in surplus away from the provinces and the
municipalities? This kind of money is certainly not growing on
parliament hill.
This money came from the unemployment insurance fund, from cuts
to transfers to the provinces, and from higher provincial taxes
because of a lack of indexing, not from parliament hill.
The government should have given this money back to the
municipalities and the provinces, because they need it to manage
and pay the services provided to federal properties. Again, it
would have allowed them to balance their budgets.
Instead, the federal government keeps accumulating surpluses and
investing the money in new programs it will eventually drop. But
the provinces and municipalities will have to pay for and keep
providing services which, some day, the federal government will
simply drop.
The Prime Minister recently boasted about having surpluses and
not knowing what to do with them.
1115
This bill provided the Prime Minister with an opportunity to do
something with these surpluses, if only he had given time to the
municipalities to come and meet their members of parliament and
if he had agreed to really pay for services provided to the
federal government by the municipalities.
The Prime Minister had a golden opportunity to return the
federal surpluses to the provinces or municipalities, where they
are most needed.
In conclusion, we disagree on three major points, namely the
discretionary power, the bogus panel that the government will
set up merely to exercise its discretionary power, and the whole
part concerning real property, properties for which the
government could have transferred money to the provinces and
municipalities. However, as I said earlier, just because some
clarity has been put in the bill and openness was demonstrated
on a number of points, the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to some of the
criticism by the Bloc of the bill. I have a few questions that I
would like to ask in this regard.
It becomes abundantly clear, when one has been in the position I
have been in for a number of years, that when funds are collected
by the federal government the handling fee, so to speak, becomes
very great. I know the Bloc is pushing for a lot of the money to
be transferred back to the provinces and so on, but we are
talking about municipalities.
Would the Bloc agree that it would be better not to have the
money sent to the federal government? Would the Bloc agree that
we should leave the money in the municipalities, leave it in the
constituencies, and let the people decide the level of tax they
want?
We in the Reform Party firmly believe, if we want effective
government services, that the closer those services can be
delivered to the people the better off they will be. I wonder if
the member would agree with that. He talked about the federal
surplus. What is wrong with reducing taxes? Why not leave the
money in the pockets of the people?
Anyone who has studied this point has come to the conclusion
that if we want to create real jobs we have to reduce the tax
burden. The biggest tax burden is imposed by the federal
government. That would do more to stimulate the economy in local
constituencies than anything else.
Would the member agree that the money should be left with the
people? We should let the people of Quebec, the people of the
local municipalities, decide. A tremendous bureaucracy is
developed in the federal government when it is allowed to tax at
the level it has taxed, and there is a huge handling fee.
Property taxes in Saskatchewan are a huge problem because
two-thirds of the component of property taxes go toward
education. This puts an unfair burden on certain groups of
people such as farmers who are trying to make a living from the
land. Would the member not agree that if a certain level of
government such as a provincial government handles education in a
province it should be the one to equitably fund it?
1120
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his three
questions.
The short answer is yes. I agree with him, and this is one of
the reasons the Bloc Quebecois is here now. Since it is
impossible to renew this federalism, we have no choice but to
work toward the sovereignty of Quebec. Why? Because we feel
that the federal system—and I agree with the member on this
point—is costing a huge amount of money.
Why collect taxes from the provinces, transfer them to Ottawa
and, according to the whim of the federal system, hand them back
to the provinces, having taken a small cut? I agree with him 100%.
The other week, the Premier of Quebec said “Give us a federal
system similar to that of the European Union and I will go for
it immediately”. How does the European Union operate right now?
It consists of autonomous governments that give a mandate to
the higher organization and pay accordingly. I am in full
agreement with such an approach. The provinces should collect
taxes and pay Ottawa for the services they receive, as simple.
The federal government is introducing all sorts of services that
are costing us a lot of money and doing us no good. This is
money that could benefit the provinces.
As the saying goes, if you want it done right, do it yourself.
My thought entirely. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is trying
to do here, to move this outmoded federal system forward. If
this is not possible, the only way left to us to achieve the
goals mentioned by my colleague is by working toward sovereignty
for Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very interesting the hon. member suggested that in the end they
would support the bill. There are a lot of things in Bill C-10
that I would support. However there are a couple of questions I
would like to ask him to clarify whether the hon. member would
like to see the bill amended to meet some of the other
requirements that ought to be in it.
For example, we are talking about crown corporations. Schedule
IV lists all crown corporations that make money and are there for
profit. One in particular is the Business Development Bank of
Canada. That bank is included as a crown corporation that must
pay business tax because it is in the business of making money
for the Government of Canada.
Three corporations are also making money for Canada. They are
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canada Post
Corporation and the Canadian Mint. These three corporations are
excluded from schedule IV. In my opinion they ought to be
included because they should pay business tax to the
municipalities as do all other businesses in the area. Indeed
there are other crown corporations that pay it.
The requirement in the bill is that the minister may pay
business tax to municipalities for those corporations listed
under schedule IV. Would the member agree that these three
corporations—the Canadian Mint, Canada Post and Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation—should also be included under schedule
IV?
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am totally in agreement with
what my colleague has just said.
As I have just said, we are going to vote yes, but with a great
many reservations on certain unfortunate points, the very ones
he has just listed.
This is why I said that this famous panel ought to have had
greater powers, precisely so as to provide the municipalities
with support in certain areas.
1125
In my opinion, it is a cut and dried issue. If the federal
government has buildings, or receives services in a
municipality, then it should quite simply—particularly with the
huge surpluses it has—at least pay for the services it receives,
just like John Q. Public does.
This would enable the municipalities and provinces to breathe
easier and to balance their budgets.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague from Châteauguay for the clarity of his remarks,
because this is obviously not a simple bill.
He made frequent reference to clarity. I know that I will have
to be brief, because the ten minutes for questions and comments
go by quickly.
Before I question him on the bill as such, I would like to put a
question to him about the debate currently under way in the
House of Commons, especially during oral question period and
also in the media, on a clear question for the referendum.
Let me mention in passing that the Prime Minister, who
apparently spends more time in the Ottawa area than at his
cottage at Saint-Jean-des-Piles, I think, voted in that riding.
If the Prime Minister understood the referendum question in
1995, why, in his opinion, did the other Quebecers not
understand it?
My question on the bill before us today is the following. Why
does the hon. member think it is urgent to have this bill passed
in a hurry, when, in the case of a bill that could help
municipalities develop substantial programs for the future—such
as the infrastructure program—the government is dragging
negotiations on or not beginning them in order to reach a rapid
conclusion, instead of one that is expected in December 2000?
My questions are: Why act with all haste with this bill,
putting the other issue on cruising speed, and, why, in his
opinion, if the Prime Minister understood the referendum
question would the other Quebecers not be at least as
intelligent as he is and would they not have understood it too?
Mr. Maurice Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two
questions. Since I must be quick, let me simply say that,
regarding his first question, I am convinced the Prime Minister
understood the question very well, as all Quebecers did. Let us
not forget that 93% of Quebec voters actually voted in the 1995
referendum.
The Prime Minister understood the question very well and if he
had won by 15 or 20 points, he would now be the first one to say
that the question was very clear. But he won by 0.4%. And since
I now know the number of people who voted at the very last
minute, I do not think the federal government really won. This
is why the Prime Minister is so intent on setting the rules
governing the next referendum.
As for my colleague's second question, I too wonder why we must
proceed so quickly.
The other day, there was a question in which it was mentioned
that municipalities were asking the government to get the
infrastructure program going again. Last week, the minister told
us that this would not happen until December 2000.
The government is taking its time regarding infrastructures, and
yet they are urgently needed. However, as regards this bill on
municipalities—and I see that the Chair is signalling to me—I
will conclude by telling the hon. member that I too cannot
understand why the government is in such a hurry, considering
there are so many other urgent things to do.
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that there will
now be 10 minutes for debate, with no questions or comments.
1130
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is always a delight to be invited to speak while Your Honour
is in the chair, someone who truly understands the procedures of
this place.
I would like to begin by expressing my opposition to the bill
before us today, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants
Act.
As we have heard, this bill purports to amend the federal
government's relationship with municipalities. As we know by the
original act of confederation, the Constitution Act, 1867, the
federal government and its legal creatures were excluded from
having to make tax payments to subsidiary levels of government,
namely those of the provinces and the municipalities.
It has been common practice since 1950 for the federal
government to assist municipalities in covering the cost of
services provided to the federal government and its creatures
operating in those places through grants in lieu of taxes or
payments in lieu of taxes.
The bill seeks to regularize and modernize the payment of those
grants. However, we believe it is filled with loopholes because
it provides far too much ministerial discretion, as do so many
other bills we see in this place. There is far too much
discretion given to the minister and the executive branch of the
federal government to choose whether it will make adequate
payments and grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities.
Let me begin by saying in principle that we in the official
opposition, the Reform Party, believe strongly that
municipalities are the first order of government. We believe
strongly in the principle of subsidiarity, a principle deeply
rooted in political theory, which suggests that the order of
government which is closest to the people ought generally to
provide the most services; that is to say, proximity to the
people who are being served is the best criteria for determining
whether a level of government should provide a service. We would
tend to place a preferential option on municipalities. We think
they are the most important level of government and that
generally the role of the federal government should be reduced
and minimized while the role of municipalities should be
strengthened and upheld.
It is amazing how long it takes for this place and the federal
government to work. I understand that this bill originally
resulted from a panel of the public works department in 1992,
which was an effort to review payments in lieu of taxes. Then it
took until 1995 for the joint technical committee on payments in
lieu of taxes to do its work. Here we are in 1999, virtually
into the next century, before the legislation is actually
introduced and acted upon. It has been eight years, with
different governments and three parliaments, before action was
taken. So often important legislation and important changes are
just left to stew in the back rooms and these reports left to
gather dust on shelves while we deal with less important
priorities.
What really concerns me and my colleagues about the bill is the
extraordinary discretion it gives to the minister of public
works with respect to payments in lieu of taxes. The bill does
not require the federal government to provide payments to
municipalities in lieu of taxes. It leaves that up to the
minister and his discretion. I refer specifically to the
proposed subsection 3(1) of the bill, which states that the
minister may, not must or shall:
That is to say, a municipality:
(a) in lieu of a real property tax for a taxation year, and
(b) in lieu of a frontage or area tax
in respect of federal property situated within the area—
If I look at the current act, which this bill seeks to amend,
the wording in Bill C-10 is essentially the same. It is almost
the same. We will not change the nature of the relationship
between the federal government and the municipalities in this
respect.
1135
The Reform Party includes in its statement of policies and
principles, its blue book, the statement that we will insist that
all laws pertaining to individuals and the private sector apply
equally to the Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies
and parliament. We believe that this should not be a
discretionary matter left up to the whim and will of the
minister, but rather we should recognize by act of parliament a
positive legal obligation of the Government of Canada to pay for
municipal services which it consumes, that it pay its fair share.
Not only does the bill give enormous ministerial discretion, but
the bill also fails to include certain agencies and crown
corporations of the federal government in Schedule IV of the act.
We will propose at report stage or at committee that the schedule
be amended so that the Canada Post Corporation, the Royal
Canadian Mint, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation all be
added to Schedule IV so that they, as creatures of the federal
government, be included in the system of payment in lieu of
taxes.
It really disturbs me that it is not just in the bill that we
see the government's tendency to treat itself to a different
legal standard from the standard we impose and expect from other
Canadians and other levels of government. For instance, I have a
private member's bill on the order paper, which is now No. 29,
which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding allowances
paid to elected officials. It will be of interest to Canadians
to know that the same parliament which is not going to require
the federal government to pay its fair share of municipal taxes
similarly does not require members of parliament to pay their
full share of federal income taxes. Believe it or not, by act of
this place we exempt elected officials, alone among all
Canadians, from school board trustees to MLAs, MPPs and MNAs, and
members of parliament are allowed to exclude one-third of their
real income, the equivalent of one-third of their taxable income,
from taxes through the so-called non-receiptable expense
allowances, which is just an effort to legally avoid the same tax
obligation we impose on the rest of Canadians.
If members of this place take out their pay stubs they will see
that they are not required to pay the employment insurance
premiums which we impose on the rest of Canadians, the same
employment insurance premiums which are operating now at a $20
billion surplus, which is allowing the finance minister to pad
his budget and cook the books.
We believe, as I said before, that all laws pertaining to
individuals and the private sector should apply equally to the
Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and parliament.
That means that we must pay our fair share of municipal property
taxes, and Bill C-10 should be amended accordingly.
It also means that members of parliament should pay their full
share of income taxes and that all of our regular income from the
federal government should be taxable, for full transparency, so
we do not treat ourselves to a separate legal standard. It means
that we should pay the employment insurance premiums that we
impose by power of the coercive law of this place on the rest of
Canadians. In fact, if we look at the members of parliament
pension plan, there too we have treated ourselves to a different
legal standard than is generally available to Canadians through
pension plans registered under the Income Tax Act.
In all of these respects parliament should come back to the
first principle that we should abide as individuals and as a
government by the same laws that we impose upon everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, if you are a municipal property taxpayer, a
corporation, a small business or a resident and you fail to pay
your full share of property taxes to a municipality, there are
legal sanctions. You could have that property taken away from
you. If the federal government refuses to do so, if the minister
fails to use his discretion, there is no sanction which those
municipalities can impose upon us.
I call upon parliament to abide by the same law we impose on the
rest of Canadian society.
1140
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-10,
as it universally affects most Canadians, for we have become a
nation of city dwellers, living within highly organized
municipalities. Within these political city or municipal units
the federal government and its crown corporations have vast
holdings of land and improvements which are not subject to local
municipal taxes. Nevertheless, the federal government began
making payments in lieu of property taxes in about 1950,
following years of persistent representations by the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities. With 63,000 buildings and parcels of
land the Government of Canada is the country's largest municipal
property owner. The federal government makes payments in lieu of
taxes to some 2,200 local governments.
There is a long history to the rule that a lower order of
government does not tax the higher one. Municipalities are the
creation of the provinces and certainly within their powers they
have not been given the ability to tax federal lands and
buildings, such as a local armoury or military base. This bill
will amend the Municipal Grants Act, at it is claimed that it
will improve the fairness, equity and predictability of payments
made under the act from the federal government to municipal
governments.
The enactment establishes an advisory panel to advise the
minister on disputes concerning payment amounts. It addresses
the issues of compensation for untimely payments when the
bureaucracy cannot get its job done on time, perhaps if there is
an interpretation dispute or when there is a default on tax
obligations by tenants of the crown.
Although its property is exempt from taxation under the
constitution, the Government of Canada, through this bill,
accepts the responsibility to pay a portion of the cost of local
government in communities where it owns property.
In 1950, at the pleading of the Canadian municipalities, the
government established a program of payments in lieu of taxes.
Federal agent crown corporations also make payments in lieu of
taxes and the corporations themselves manage the payments.
The point of tension between municipalities and the federal
government has been longstanding in this area. The bill attempts
to improve the practice of giving money instead of submitting to
local taxation.
In one section of the bill the minister is given the authority
to pay interest on payments in lieu of taxes if it is in his
opinion that a payment in whole or in part has been unreasonably
delayed. Through regulatory instruments and amendment to the
crown corporations grants regulations, crown corporations may now
make supplementary payments for payments that are unreasonably
delayed. Is it not nice of them to be so benevolent?
Of course there is no legal requirement to pay or set penalties
for not paying on time. Municipalities have such authority for
the lowly homeowner, but the federal government would never
submit itself to the same standards, especially to pay the full
going rates of everyone else. There is no change here. The
government is able to set its own property values and pay lower
property taxes than might otherwise be levied.
The government also leases some of its property to
non-departmental third parties. In the past, municipalities have
experienced some difficulty in collecting property taxes from
some of these third parties, with payments sometimes never being
made. To correct the situation Bill C-10 proposes that if after
the last day of the taxation year all or part of the taxes remain
unpaid and if in the opinion of the minister the taxing authority
has made all reasonable efforts to collect the taxes and there is
no likelihood that the authority will ever be able to collect,
then the property will be deemed to be an operational federal
property and the government will pay the benevolence payments,
for that is what they still are. The bill is very clear that
there is no power to tax and no rights are created. However, the
government says through Bill C-10 that it will be benevolent.
It is good that the bill proposes to include some structures and
improvements that used to be excluded from payments, such as
crown corporations. Schedules III and IV of the Municipal Grants
Act outline the crown corporations that are eligible to pay
benevolence payments if they do not pay real property tax or real
business occupancy tax. Those contained in Schedule IV are
corporations involved in profit oriented activities and may
therefore pay both property and business occupancy related
assessments.
The joint technical committee on payments in lieu of taxes
recommended that the Canada Post Corporation and the Royal
Canadian Mint be added to Schedule IV, but surprise, surprise,
they do not appear in the bill.
In the private sector disagreements about property values are
handled through a formal appeal process and the decisions are
binding on both parties, but in the case of the federal
government this process is not used.
1145
The value is used to calculate payments or to determine under
federal authority the one who pays, and not within the
jurisdiction of provincial and territorial tribunals. Would
private companies not love to set their own rules for how much
they are going to charge themselves for property taxes?
In 1983 to give municipalities a way of redress when they
disagreed with the amounts of the payments in lieu of taxes, the
minister established a municipal grants review committee, MGRC.
This panel provides the minister with advice on the resolution of
disputes between taxing authorities and the department concerning
the valuation and classification of federal property. The
decisions of the MGRC are given in the form of recommendations
which the minister is not obliged to accept. This has given the
municipalities the impression that the process is, to say the
least or charitably, biased against them. It certainly is not a
full independent delegated authority like a municipal board of
referees for residential assessments.
Bill C-10 simply puts into legislation the status quo that was
implemented in 1983, with the minister hand selecting the
advisory panel from at least two members from each province and
territory. The federal minister also appoints the chairperson
from those members. Sadly, the recommendations are non-binding.
In summary the bill has some merit but warrants improvements,
particularly regarding payments by crown corporations with the
inclusion of the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation and
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in schedule IV to make
them eligible to pay business occupancy payments in lieu of
taxes. Additionally the minister and crown agencies maintain too
much discretionary power. Reform has said for years “The Reform
Party will insist that all laws pertaining to individuals and the
private sector apply equally to the Government of Canada, its
personnel, its agencies and parliament”.
Bill C-10 still provides for ministerial discretion as to
whether or not payments will be made by the government and there
is no binding means of recourse in the event of a dispute. This
is not the case for the private sector where the payment of
property and business occupancy taxes are mandatory and the
decision of appeals are binding on both parties. The Government
of Canada and its crown agencies still maintain their privilege.
The Liberal government has been verbose on the accomplishments
of this bill. I do not need to repeat them. On the
disappointment side, the minister and crown agencies maintain too
much discretionary power. Recommendations of the dispute
advisory panel are non-binding. It merely maintains the old ways
of behaviour and entrenches into legislation the common practices
that were put in place about 16 years ago. 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 pay business occupancy payments in the
municipalities where they reside.
I give the final word to the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. More often than not, the Reform Party has a
better idea because we listen and strive to be accountable. We
have a clear notion of whom we are working for, unlike the
Liberals. The federation said about legislation on federal
payments that the Bloc, Liberals, NDP and PCs were all on
probation on this count as their policies did not make the grade.
Municipalities have maintained that the federal government has an
obligation to pay its portion of property taxes like everyone
else.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities gives some credit to
the Liberals for their efforts to negotiate improvements to the
program, but it still places them on probation for failing to
make an explicit commitment to respect future provincial taxation
principles. However, the Reform Party passes its examination
with our commitment to legislated accountability and to subject
the federal government to the same general tax laws as everyone
else.
With Bill C-10, the Liberals again show that they are slow to
change. I hope they will permit sufficient amendments at the
committee stage to fully respond to the Canadian public agenda of
reforming and renewing the federation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments before the
debate on this bill is over.
I have looked at this bill and have done some studies on my own.
I asked some questions of the lawyers who do research for us in
this esteemed place. I asked them to examine some of the recent
legislation in the House to find out which of those pieces of
legislation take powers away from parliament and give them to the
bureaucracy.
They had never been asked a question like that. They were
absolutely astounded when they finished examining the first six
pieces of legislation and found that in every single instance it
was taking power away from parliament and giving it to the
bureaucracy. This bill is not any different.
1150
One of the real problems the Reform Party has with what is
sometimes called a housekeeping bill or legislation that is very
innocuous is that it maintains or increases the power of the
bureaucracy. That is the biggest problem we have with this bill.
One Reform Party policy states very clearly under the topic of
parliamentary reform that we believe and insist that all laws
pertaining to individuals and the private sector apply equally to
the Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and
parliament. That is one of the things the Reform Party stands
for.
Bill C-10 still provides for ministerial discretion as to
whether the payments in lieu of taxes will be paid by the
government. There is still no binding means of recourse in the
event of a dispute over payment. The power still lies with the
federal government. This is not the case for the private sector
where the payment of property and business occupancy taxes are
mandatory and the decisions on appeals are binding on both
parties.
The Government of Canada and its crown agencies maintain
privileged positions. They are not relinquishing that in any
way, no matter what the appearances are in this bill. That is a
concern to us. That should be fixed with the proper amendments.
There are some good things in the bill. The interest may now be
paid on late payments. Payments may be made on federal
properties leased to third parties, if at the end of the taxation
year they are still in a state of delinquency. Some types of
structures, for example, outdoor swimming pools, golf courses and
outdoor theatres have been added to the definition of federal
property. There is an advisory panel that serves as a committee
of appeal regarding payment disputes with crown corporations.
However, there are problems that need to be fixed. One of the
things we have a problem with is that the minister and the crown
agencies still maintain too much discretionary power. In other
words, they can still do as they wish. Why not fix that? People
should know what the rules are. Everyone in the country should
follow them.
The recommendations of the dispute advisory panel are
non-binding. Why not? It merely maintains the status quo and
entrenches some common practices into legislation that were put
in place 16 years ago. If something is broken and there is an
opportunity to fix it, why not fix it? That is what should
happen in this legislation.
As my hon. colleague for Kelowna has mentioned, the Royal
Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Mortgage and
Housing Corporation should be added to schedule IV in order that
they would be eligible to pay business occupancy payments in lieu
of taxes.
We recommend that these problems with the bill be addressed.
I would like to review the purpose of the bill. The purpose of
the legislation is to provide for fair and equitable
administration of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the
issues of compensation for untimely payments, defaults and tax
obligations by certain tenants of the crown and the bi-jural
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 payments in lieu of taxes
act. That is the essential purpose. Anybody watching this
should know what is going on here.
1155
I will mention one of the things I mentioned previously when I
rose to ask some questions because it is of great concern to my
constituents. When it comes to administration of some of the
things within government, and it is not strictly tied to this
bill, the services should be delivered by the agencies closest to
the people. They should have more control over the tax burden
that those people experience. At the present time the federal
government has a tremendous power to tax.
One of the legitimate concerns that my colleagues in the Bloc
have is that the federal government overrides the jurisdiction of
the provinces. I do not sympathize very much with what the Bloc
members have to say, but in this respect they make a good point
that we have a federal government that intrudes into many areas.
For example, one area I am very familiar with is gun control. I
know my reputation precedes me, but I think this is an
opportunity for me to raise the issue when we are talking about
municipal and provincial levels of government in relation to the
federal government. This is an area where the federal government
clearly intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction and it
does it in devious ways. By going through the Criminal Code of
Canada it can override the jurisdiction of the provinces in
regard to regulation of property.
Bill C-10 is another example of that. We have to put some
restraint on the bureaucracy in Ottawa so it cannot ride
roughshod and arbitrarily over the rights of some of the
municipalities in relation to some of these things. Mr. Speaker,
I gather by the way you are listening very carefully, that
probably nobody has made that point in the debate so far.
I have a concern that the federal government collects huge
amounts of taxes. It collects them through some of its crown
agencies, three of which I have previously mentioned. We have a
concern that the government is collecting taxes when it should
not be. It charges a huge handling fee for this kind of thing.
The people purportedly to whom the service is given do not reap
the full benefit they could, judging by the tax burden that they
are under.
I want to raise one other issue which does not tie in directly,
but many farmers in my area are very concerned with the municipal
property tax and the way it is administered. Much of this is a
provincial matter, but it gives me an opportunity to say that
there is an unfair tax put on farmers. It is the education tax
that is tied in with the property taxes. Perhaps that is
something we should urge the federal government to speak up on.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a few comments
in regard to this bill. While I would like to share my time with
my colleague from Wild Rose, I understand I cannot do that. I
will therefore end my speech and hopefully there will be some
time for him to make a few remarks as well.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
grave concerns about Bill C-10 and I will explain why.
Having been the mayor of Saint John for four terms, I always
stated and still do that the local government was the government
of the people. The grassroots people are there. Always, as far
as I am concerned, the federal government should pay its taxes as
well as all of the others in the private sector.
I look at what we have in our port. The federal government cut
back on its taxes and it was going to give us a grant in lieu of
them. The grant was going down, not going up. Taxes were going
up for everyone else but the federal government.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, of which I sat on the
board of directors, was very upset with the bill. It was upset
at the speed at which the bill was being rammed through the
House. It was not given any advance notice that the bill would
be introduced.
1200
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represents all
municipalities across the country. It is the one that does the
research to see what should be the priorities, where we should be
going, whether it is the provincial government or the federal
government, and in which direction. It has not been adequately
briefed on the bill and it was not sent a copy of the bill or the
background briefing materials. It has also not had time to
consult with its members across the country.
I cannot believe that we have really done this. The local
governments and all the municipal governments represent all their
people at the grassroots. They should have input and they should
have had input into this bill.
When I look at the proposed new intent clause, clause 4 of the
bill, I say to myself that this is a meaningless piece of
propaganda and adds nothing of value to the bill. We have two
major difficulties with clause 14 of the bill, the proposed new
dispute advisory panel, its composition and fairness.
I think it is great that we are talking about setting up a new
panel of a minimum of two members from each province and
territory. However, it should be the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities that decide on who the members will be because it
does not play politics. It keeps politics out of it. The
president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities should
come in and give the minister two names from each province and
the territories. Not one of those people would want $125 an
hour.
An hon. member: A day.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: A day? This one says an hour. I do not
care if it is a day or what it is, not one of them would ask for
that. I cannot believe we are doing this.
With the federation of municipalities wanting to deal and
co-operate with the federal government, more than likely its
members would ask only for their expenses to be paid. They
probably would ask for no remuneration whatsoever. But no
dialogue took place with them on this issue.
The bill requires members to have relevant knowledge or
experience but it does not define that term. If we want relevant
knowledge or experience at the local level, all we have to do is
take some mayors and councillors—and it does not matter if they
vote Liberal or not—and put them on that committee. Perhaps it
might be better if they did not vote Liberal. We might then be
able to have someone with an open mind.
Presumably relevant knowledge or experience could mean any
person who is a member in good standing of the Liberal Party,
which concerns me a little bit. It would be much better, as I
have stated, if the members were required to be a certified
member of a professional organization as well. There are a lot
of them who are members of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities.
I would not mind if the bill would allow public servants,
including municipal employees, to serve on the panel, but I do
not want them to be in a conflict because they are hired by the
mayors and councillors. If they come back with a recommendation
that is in conflict with what the mayors and councillors of the
municipalities where they work are feeling on certain issues,
then it would make it most difficult for them. I must say that at
the local level we do have some very qualified people whose input
could be used. When I look at the panel that is one of the major
concerns I have.
There are two major concerns. I feel very strongly that the
federal government should be paying taxes just the same as the
private sector and everyone else. It should pay its taxes just
the same as my family pays their taxes. Why should it be any
different? It is the same as the provincial governments paying
their taxes. If we were able to make everyone feel equal and
feel that no one was getting any special treatment, the local
people would have a better feeling about this issue.
The panel is supposed to be appointed by the minister. The
panel will be paid by the government. The panel reports only to
the minister and its decisions are not public.
1205
I cannot believe we are bringing in a bill like this. If the
bill does come in then the recommendations should certainly be
made public. The next thing we know secret letters will go out
to everybody else and somebody will get a copy that was not
supposed to be made public. If we make it public it will not
look like we are hiding anything.
When it says that the panel serves at the pleasure of the
minister, which means the minister can say “I do not like what
you have brought in so I am going to remove you and put somebody
else in there”, that worries me as well.
We are very much in favour of some parts of the bill, but there
are concerns, and I feel very strongly that those concerns should
be addressed. There is no question that there should be changes.
We also talk about grants in lieu of taxes. These are difficult
times on the Hill because once again the government has seen fit
to spend the money, perhaps in an irresponsible way, but the next
thing we know the grants could be eliminated in lieu of taxes and
nothing would be there for the municipalities. What would happen
then? The local governments would have to raise their taxes to
make up for what the federal government would not be giving.
I have a major concern with the federal government telling me
and all Canadians that it will give us grants in lieu of taxes.
This tells me that it does not want to pay the full tax.
The concerns that I have are concerns that my party has. We
would like to see a legislative review. If that panel is put in
place by the minister and he makes these appointments from all
across Canada, we want to see a legislative review of the panel
after five years to see if it is working well and to allow the
House to make any changes that are necessary.
When we talk about setting up and paying someone $125 a day plus
expenses to sit on a committee, this is when people in Canada get
very discouraged, they truly do. When we are at the local level,
we get very discouraged with that. That is not necessary.
As I stated earlier in my remarks, this should go to the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This should all be tabled
until the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been able to
sit down, discuss this and have its total input into the bill.
I think this is probably the only government that has been in
power that has never sat down with the president and the board of
directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when
dealing with issues like this. I cannot believe that the
Liberals talk about grants in lieu of taxes when they have not
even had the input from those at the local level whom it will
affect.
As far as the bill goes, I feel very strongly that it should be
tabled until that input is there and until we hear back from the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities as to whether or not it is
in support of it or whether or not it feels there should be
changes.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this piece of legislation today.
I thank my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party for
reminding me about the problems that we used to have as mayors at
the municipal level, local level and grassroots level, the
problems that we had for a number of years. I can certainly
share those beliefs and those words with my colleague.
It is true that it has been happening for a number of years,
including when federal governments were operated by both Liberals
and Conservatives. Those are the parties that have been
operating the government over the last number of years, and
nothing has really changed in that respect. It certainly is time
for some changes and there are some fairly decent changes that
are brought about in the bill.
I really have a difficult time understanding why this particular
government has a problem with trying to implement something
equally across the system.
Equality seems to be a word that is truly absent from its
vocabulary.
1210
It is my understanding that the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities has not had one speck of input into what is going
to happen to their jurisdictions as a result of the bill. A
number of mayors and councillors are wondering what this is all
about. Suddenly the bill is here zinging through the House of
Commons and will become law before they even know how it will
affect them.
This is another process that needs change. This is a process
that constantly seems to prevail in this place where we know best
and why should we bother conferring with other levels of
government that will be affected by these pieces of legislation.
I find that thoroughly disgusting and yet I am not surprised.
Having been in the House for six years, I have seen the amount
of power that is handed over to the bureaucracies, as it will be
done in this case. I have seen a number of bills that include the
words “by order in council”, “given ministerial discretion”
and “full power” over many issues. Once upon a time, the idea
of “by order in council” was for emergency situations, but it
now appears in all legislation so many times that it is really
scary.
If I am not mistaken, in Bill C-68, which we recently debated,
the words “order in council” were used 74 times in that one
piece of legislation alone.
The municipalities have to sit back and wait to see what the
great central government in Ottawa will come out with and how it
will affect the things they have to deal with.
When I was the mayor of my home town, I recall a couple of
property owners wanting to subdivide their land and build a house
and a quonset. They brought all the information to the local
council. I, as mayor, and six councillors looked at the
proposal. We studied it carefully, discussed it with other
residents of the community and decided that it was a good deal
and should work without any difficulties.
However, lo and behold, there was another level of government,
the provincial government, which had not even seen the situation,
was not aware of the situation had not discussed it with anybody,
had only looked at a little drawing of what we were talking about
when we had to get some authority to go ahead with this, and it
flatly denied the proposal.
It was then that I had the opportunity to bring these people
into town through a challenge that I would pick them up and bring
them in. I told them that they had no business making decisions
without at least looking at the situation. Once they got out
there and had a word with the people, and once they saw with
their own eyes what they were talking about, they were able to
make some changes and allow it.
The problem we have in this place on a higher level, when these
kinds of things come down, is making sure the power remains in
the hands of the minister, the ministerial discretion, the
federal government almighty power, and making sure the
bureaucracy is loaded up with power galore. So we operate in a
very difficult situation.
I have to ask myself “What's new”? The democratic process in
the country does not exist in this place. We just voted on a
motion asking for a referendum on the Nisga'a agreement. The
mighty upholders of democracy, the believers in letting the
people have a say, could not even support letting the people of
British Columbia have a voice. Worse yet, aboriginal people
living in British Columbia have been phoning my office day in and
day out asking me to encourage the government to let them have a
voice because there is no accountability on many of the reserves.
These people are suffering and hurting. Yet, things are rammed
through without any regard for the people themselves, without any
thought about the effects it will have.
1215
What kind of a situation will we be in with the Nisga'a
agreement when they become a municipality or self-governing? Will
the rules apply in their situation in the same way as they do in
small towns in Alberta or large cities in Ontario? Will there be
equality? It is very difficult to say, but it is obvious to me
that past history says that people should beware, wherever they
live.
The government does not truly believe in a democratic process.
Its members emerge for a vote in this place from behind closed
doors after a private discussion among members of their party.
Then they vote according to what the leader of their party
happens to say. Their leader happens to be the Prime Minister of
Canada and the puppets will obey the rule. They will vote
according to what he says, and never mind what they are told in
their constituencies or what people at the grassroots level have
to say. They do not dare to cast a vote which does not express
the view of the Prime Minister if they want to be part of the
government.
If that is democracy we truly need some serious changes. I
would like to see democracy reflected in bills such as Bill C-10
but it is not reflected. I would like to see it reflected in the
agreements we make with our native people, the treaty agreements
that have been made and the ones that will come up. Where is the
voice of the people in all these things? Where does the power
ultimately lie? The power of any real democracy should lie in
the hands of the people. It is difficult to say that it is
happening in Canada. There are too many examples that tell me it
is not the case.
We have a bill before us today that gives ministerial
discretion, a great power, to the federal government and to a
huge bureaucracy. A panel is to be set up. We do not know for
sure how the panel to observe all this will be set up, but we can
almost bet it will be full of patronage.
Good old friends of the Liberal Party will make sure to fill
those high places. They will serve on the panels because their
view is that those of us who are not Liberal, who do not vote
Liberal, are not smart enough to know what we are doing. We
cannot let that happen, not in Canada.
Their attitude with regard to all kinds of legislation going
through here is sad. We are at second reading stage of this bill
and the fact that municipalities throughout Canada and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities have not even had an
opportunity for input is a real shame.
I say shame on the federal Government of Canada, the leaders of
this great nation, that it continues to bring forward legislation
in this place and does not allow the real leaders of the land,
the people, to have a true voice. That has to change, and may
God grant it soon.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
1220
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The vote is deferred
until next Monday at the end of government business.
* * *
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill today. I
want to say at the outset that the bill to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research Act, introduced by the Minister of
Health, is very positive. I will be supporting it and I believe
my colleagues will be as well.
I should clarify that. I understand that their initial reaction
is that they believe it is a very positive bill. They will
support it until committee stage when they will have had an
opportunity to listen to the research experts. They believe that
the intention of the bill is in the right framework, but
obviously they want to hear from the experts at committee stage.
However, it is my understanding that we are supporting the bill
at this stage.
There are a couple of points in the bill that I think are
laudable. The bill will repeal the Medical Research Council Act,
will bring forth more accountability for all budgetary
expenditures and will be a vast improvement over the current
system.
I listened to the Minister of Health when he introduced the
bill. He talked about the brain drain and how the bill was an
attempt to help the brain drain situation by bringing in more
research dollars and by making sure most importantly that
somewhere in the magnitude of 95% of the moneys would actually be
used for research. I believe the goal is that between 4% and 5%
will be used for administrative costs.
That is a very positive aspect. It is so important for that the
money issued for research actually gets down to the end user, the
real benefit of which is to Canadian people in the areas of
health research.
1225
I will touch on a couple of areas I feel very strongly about
that are directly tied into the bill. One of them is the brain
drain. As the Minister of Health stated in his opening comments,
he is very pleased with the Canadian institutes of health
research act, Bill C-13, because it will help alleviate some of
the brain drain issues by putting more moneys into research for
our universities in the areas of health and will attract people
from our universities to stay here.
Hopefully this is the first of many steps to come. Without
question the brain drain is the emerging crisis in the country. I
listen to the constituents who come into my office on a regular
basis to tell me stories about how their children have graduated
from university and moved down to the U.S. There is no doubt in
my mind that the biggest problem is that they are the very best,
the brightest, the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, the future CEOs,
the people who would be the economic engine of our country 15 or
20 years from now.
I was with the finance committee in Halifax a few weeks ago. One
witness, I believe he was from Ryerson, stated that the top 10
graduates of 30 in one IT program had all gone down to the
States. We hear this over and over again. We heard it again
this morning in the finance committee. It is a huge problem. It
is even exponentially more severe because of the numbers. It is
the best, the cream of the crop, that are going south, those who
would be crucial to driving the economy.
Bill C-13 to establish the Canadian institutes of health
research will at least be a very minimal step, the first step to
possibly provide an opportunity for some of our top researchers
to stay in Canada.
The brain drain is a huge issue with respect to taxation. We
hear that over and over again. The government talked about a $95
billion cumulative surplus. I would argue that if we want to see
more programs such as this one, if we want the research dollars
and if we truly want to attract the very best, we have to cut
taxes. If we want the best researchers not only from Canada but
from around the globe, the bill alone will not do it. We have to
cut taxes. We are one of the highest taxed of the G-7 countries.
Study after study and witness after witness came forward with
that thought.
I will go to the second issue the bill touches upon. When I
looked at the bill and saw what the government was trying to do,
I was very pleased that it was trying to keep the administrative
costs of the new health research system at 4% to 5%. It will be
accountable for how health research dollars are spent.
This brings us to the Canada Health Act. They are directly tied
together. There we have a huge problem. There are over 200,000
Canadians on waiting lists, some of whom are waiting for very
serious operations. Some are matters of life and death for many
people. Some of these 200,000 people will not live to see the
operating rooms, the doctors or the procedures they need. Because
of our health care system they will not make it. That is very
tragic.
We have seen $21 billion cut from the health care and social
transfer payments to the provinces since 1993. When $21 billion
are taken out of the pie it has an incredible impact on the
services that can be delivered. It is no wonder that some of the
200,000 Canadians on waiting lists will die. There is absolutely
no mistake; that is an irrefutable fact which is very sad.
1230
Here is the link to this bill. The positive part of this bill
is that the government has focused on putting 4% to 5% on
administrative costs. Unfortunately, that $21 billion cut by the
federal government from our health care system and social
transfers has affected the end users, the patients, those
Canadians who are on waiting lists for very serious medical
procedures. Many families have a family member waiting for
cancer treatment. We hear stories of people with lumps who are
waiting for biopsies. The list goes on and on.
There are two things we need to look at. It was the government
that agreed with the 50:50 split in the payment of our national
health care system. Now it is contributing somewhere in the
range of 10%. No wonder the system is crumbling before our eyes.
The system needs to be overhauled. There are a few areas where
that has to happen. Cash is not the only thing that is going to
do it. We saw $21 billion taken out of the pie. When that much
money is taken out it has a huge and devastating impact on what
happens.
It is crucial that there is accountability to ensure that the
dollars are reaching the patient. What happens when that much
money is taken out? I would argue that the administration stays
the same, and in many cases it might have grown. It is the
patients who are affected. The money is taken away from the line
users, Canadians. It is so critical that we make the system the
most efficient it can be, that we maximize the money being put
in, that we make sure it gets to the patient and that it does not
get swallowed up by the bureaucracy or the administration.
Years ago when I was in law school, I looked at the new health
care facility that was connected to the Vancouver General
Hospital, which is a very old and incredible hospital. It was a
brand new pavilion, a great big concrete tower, about 15 to 20
storeys high and very impressive from the outside. It can be
seen when driving down Oak Street in Vancouver. This pavilion
has been there for years. It is hollow on the inside because of
a lack of planning, accountability and making efficient use of
our dollars. It is not being used. That is frustrating.
It is important to give credit where credit is due. This bill is
a very good first step with respect to health research. The
government is focusing on the accountability portion and on
having the administrative portion around 4% to 5%. That is a very
good first step. I look forward to seeing what the research
community has to say. When the bill comes before the committee
for clause by clause review we will get its valuable input.
Hopefully we will bring forward amendments at that time that will
even strengthen this bill.
I am pleased to say that we will be supporting the bill but we
cannot get stuck in a vacuum. We cannot forget to look at the
real picture. We cannot forget that the Canada Health Act is
failing the people of Canada. It is crumbling around them. There
are 200,000 people on waiting lists and some of them will die
because the Canada Health Act is failing them. It needs to be
overhauled. There needs to be accountability. Most important,
the dollars we invest in health must get to the patient. That is
what has to happen.
The other issue which is directly tied to health research is the
brain drain.
I listened to the Minister of Health talk about this bill. He
was pleased that it would help alleviate the brain drain problem
and that some of our top research people will want to stay in
Canada because of the new accountability and that 95% of the
funds will be going directly to the research programs. That is
wonderful. I support that whole theory but if he is not going to
look at other problems of why people are going south to the
United States in droves, if he is not going to look at the
taxation system, this bill will not do it alone.
1235
One of the witnesses in the finance committee this morning only
three hours ago said that we are talking about a $95 billion
“surplus”. I have always argued that there is no real surplus.
It is not the government's money that it has taken out of the
back pockets of Canadians. Canadians want it back. Until we give
them that money back, that taxation surplus that is rightfully
theirs, we will not be able to attract the top researchers the
government wants to attract to the new Canadian institutes of
health research. It will not bring those people here.
The highest levels of brain drain are not only in technologies
but also in our health care and engineering sectors. The very
best, the very brightest, the cream of the crop, the leaders of
tomorrow are leaving not only because of the taxation levels.
They are leaving for a whole host of reasons.
The United States spends more on a percentage basis of GDP per
capita on the health care system than Canada spends. That is a
factual number. Sometimes we are very quick to criticize our
neighbours to the south. We should make no mistake that they
actually spend much more than we do in Canada. That is why
people are going there. Their taxes are lower.
I will finish up by summarizing my two key points. This bill is
a great start but it is only the very first step. If we really
want to move forward, stop the brain drain and keep our best
researchers here in Canada, if we want to attract people, we had
better look at our taxation system. Until we do, there is not a
hope or a prayer for us. People will continue to go south and
the problem will grow exponentially. The unfortunate part is we
will not see the impact of this for five, ten or fifteen years.
That is when these top people will have reached their peaks in
their careers. They will be the leaders of tomorrow. Right now
they are going south.
It is not just the people that are going south. Another witness
made this excellent point in committee. It is not just our top
people that are going south; their positions are going with them
and they are not coming back. Those positions are going south to
the U.S. as well and they are not coming back to Canada. It is
very important that we do not lose focus on that and that we deal
with that.
Most important, all of this will be meaningless. It will have
no impact. We can have the best research in the whole world and
we can cut our taxes so that our researchers stay here. However,
we must look at the Canada Health Act, bring in accountability,
put the money back in so that those 200,000 people will not die
on waiting lists. All of this will be meaningless if we do not
bring back accountability, if we do not put back the $21 billion
that has been taken out of our health care system. If we do not
put that back in all of this will be meaningless and more
Canadians will continue to die on waiting lists.
1240
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.
I would like to talk about two particular instances which have
affected me regarding Bill C-13, health care and health care
research. I am much in favour of this bill, however, I have two
concerns. They are the research and support for the drug issue in
the country. I also want to talk about something that strikes
very close to home with me, Lou Gehrig's disease. A friend of
mine has been personally affected by this disease.
I would like to read a letter to the House that Ron Martens'
wife Carole has sent to appeal to the Minister of Health. After I
speak about this, I am going to hand the Minister of Health a
video from Ron Martens, a victim of Lou Gehrig's disease, in the
hope that Ron can get both an audience with the health minister
and action regarding not just funding research but funding for
this particular disease.
I went to the minister's office about four months ago to get
some assistance for research into studies regarding assistance in
the rehabilitation of teenage female drug addicts. I got a warm
reception in the minister's offices at Tunney's Pasture by the
minister's executive assistant. I recall saying, “Now, you are
not just going to give me some lip service here, you are really
going to try to help out a particular organization that is trying
to rehabilitate these young drug addicts”. “Oh, yes, yes”,
was the answer.
I was put in contact with a lady in Vancouver who was
temporarily in charge of this. I called her a number of times.
When I finally got through to her, I did get the impression that
I was being a bit of a pain by even calling. Notwithstanding
that, I did manage to get her to meet with the organization and
since then I have heard nothing about it.
When I talk about health care research in this country and about
bills like Bill C-13, I wonder once again, and I keep bringing
this up in the House of Commons, will this truly be a bill that
puts something worthwhile into effect?
I spend a lot of time trying to assist those who are addicted to
drugs, and trying to change things for the better for them. It
seems that every time I go to the Minister of Health's office, I
either get lip service or really nothing much at all in terms of
assistance. If we pass Bill C-13, what really will be done?
I did receive some very good letters, which I respect, from the
University of British Columbia and other universities saying to
pass this bill because they need the funds for research. While I
agree we should have more money for research, I am not certain in
my heart that the philosophy or the grit to really effect change
in health care is with the Minister of Health. He has not shown
me this.
I would ask him here today if he would at least look at the one
situation that I have been involved with regarding drugs and the
rehabilitation of teenage female drug addicts. Could he not find
it within the billions and billions of dollars that are spent to
try to put research dollars into that aspect?
1245
Periodically announcements are made in the House that some money
will be thrown at the drug problem or at this centre, or they are
to put it in Toronto where they have lots of seats and that sort
of thing. Funding drug rehabilitation and trying to help drug
addicts has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has nothing
to do with what area one is from. It has a lot to do with doing
the best we can for young people.
I will vote for the bill, but I am here on behalf of many people
across the country to ask that the minister take seriously the
issues of concern with regard to young people on drugs.
That being said, I want to read into the record for the minister
and for all Canadians listening a letter from Carole Martens. I
know Carole and I know Ron, her husband. I know what a good
person Ron is. I understand the difficulties he is going
through. I try to understand what Carol and their children are
trying to live with and what the people in my community are
trying to live with. However I do not think the Minister of
Health or the government understands the dilemma individuals with
this disease face. If they did, more money would be put toward
trying to assist those with the disease. I will read from the
letter, which is dated November 17:
Thank you so much for giving 11 minutes of your precious time
today. I'm sure every day there are many valid needs that cross
your desk. This past year in May 1999 Ron Martens, my husband,
and I flew to Ottawa in hope to meet you. As it was, you were
not in that day, and we had a very special visit with your
secretary. You may remember the note I left for you. You may
also remember Randy White's letter on July 7, 1998, requesting a
meeting with you and Ron to discuss ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease,
and the tremendous need for research funding.
The clock of life is ticking quickly, and as Ron's wife of 30
years, I'm attempting to communicate to the leaders of our
country. Mr. Rock, will you consider the research dollars
awarded to—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member. He knows full well that we do not
call members by their names in the House. This is the second
time.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I believe your
interpretation is incorrect. I am reading from a letter and I am
not addressing any—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The fact that the
member is citing from a letter or any other source is not good
enough. You must editorialize, I am afraid.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, due to the nature of the
issue I am not going to pose an argument with you at this point
in time. I will understand what you are saying. It continues:
(Mr. Minister), will you reconsider the research dollars awarded
to the cause and cure for ALS?
If you were my husband, I would travel, call, phone or write to
the men of importance in government, knowing that if we don't
speak up strongly, this thing will never be beaten.
Ron was president of a restaurant chain in western Canada for 22
years, franchising 35 stores. He is a father, a son, a brother,
an uncle, a husband, a grandfather, a colleague and a friend.
My greatest gift to Ron, as his wife, is my time. My love for
him drives me to help him reach his newfound goal, and that is to
see millions given to ALS research. This would give every ALS
patient, caregiver and family, hope, which is so vital in
pressing on through this cruel and devastating disease.
Last year, we both wept as we heard on the evening news, you
awarded $42 million additional dollars to AIDS research.
I'm so happy for them, but what about ALS? It is no longer an
old person's disease. My husband was 47 years when diagnosed.
This past weekend we had attended an “ALS international
symposium” in Vancouver, where 500 scientists meet to
communicate and pool ideas and findings, all for the great cause
of ALS. I met at least 25 patients, all of them under 52 years
of age.
And that's all I have to say. Thank you for your listening
ears, (Mr. Minister). I leave you with these words from my
heart. “Some days the stresses of life are so overwhelming that
my heart can no longer hear a song and then I stop; knowing that
if I cannot hear a song, I also cannot sing a song. Without a
song there is no hope. Please, please give ALS a song, a song of
hope”.
Thank you,
Carole Martens
1250
This is but one case. Carole and Ron are both trying to do what
they can while there is time to convince people responsible for
trying to help others to help research and fund the cure for ALS.
I agree that there are many diseases out there that need funding,
but it seems to me sometimes that we in Canada listen to the loud
voice, the squeaky wheel, for instance AIDS. While I support
much research for AIDS, I wonder why this is. I suppose those
with ALS maybe do not speak loud enough. Maybe they do not cry
out long enough. Maybe they do not have rallies like those who
support the fight against AIDS. Nevertheless that does not
preclude them from getting the same genuine support from a
government that has the money.
I could spend time, perhaps be critical and show people across
the country where the government fritters away millions upon
millions upon millions of dollars. I have a long list here on my
desk of projects on which it just escapes me why taxpayer dollars
are even spent.
We are spending over $800,000 on fireworks for the millennium.
Yet if we talk about $800,000 to ALS victims and researchers, we
shake our heads at it. I cannot help but try to put this in
perspective and wonder why that is. Why is it that we always
seem to be spending our money on things that are not quite as
devastating but have a higher profile, perhaps are more visible
and make people feel good? We walk away with a good feeling, but
the end result is that problems like ALS are really left to
themselves.
I know that UBC, a great university where one of my children
went, will do much with research as a result of Bill C-13 on many
things, but I still say we are overlooking some of the obvious
things that happen. It is just because people inflicted with
such diseases as ALS tend not to be those who are outspoken,
creating protests, being visible and that sort of thing. They
tend not to be like that because they are basically tied up in
their own problems and trying to get them resolved.
1255
One of the things the government is responsible for is genuine
programs for all people, not just for those who holler loudest or
holler longest, not just for those areas that vote Liberal, not
just for those areas where there is a potential vote, not just on
the issues where they think they can win the next election but
sometimes on those hidden votes. Those are the votes of people
who may never elect politicians, but deep down their votes are
for trying to keep people alive and keep people going for just a
bit more time.
I ask in the House today that the minister take the video I have
and spend 11 minutes of his time looking at the contents to try
to understand the plight of some people, without fanfare, without
a grandstand or a soap box upon which to stand. He should take
time in his office, put on this video and think about it.
No greater deed can be done by people in power and politics
today with billions and billions of dollars at their disposal
than that which can help people who do not have a large voice in
society. If that is what Liberalism is about or Reform or any
other politics, that is what must be done.
I have tried to give the minister two issues that perhaps will
not be talked about in the House. In fact, I doubt very much
whether drugs and ALS will even be discussed throughout this
whole debate. They are two issues that I hold dearly, and I say
that if we cannot help young people who are addicted, young
people who do not want to be addicted; if we cannot help with
those problems and consider them health problems, and if we
cannot do more in research for them, we should not be here in the
House of Commons. If we cannot help those with ALS who cry out
quietly, we should not be here.
I ask finally one other thing. When agencies and organizations
are set up in terms of health care and drugs across the country
to help our citizens, we should always be looking at the best
qualified people, those people with the skills, abilities,
qualifications and past performance to head those efforts. We
should not be in any circumstances putting our friends, those who
work for us politically, into those positions. I do not believe
it serves the client who is the drug addict, who is the ALS
victim, who is a parent waiting for some assistance. I do not
think it helps those clients whatsoever.
Having looked at a lot of the appointments lately from the
government, it seems that what pervades our system in Canadian
society today are government appointments. I know in some of
those cases that the people who are appointed to positions are
not the best qualified.
I only ask these three things: (a) let us do a lot more for
young people who are becoming addicted and who are addicted; (b)
let us do something constructive, for a change, to try to do more
for ALS victims and try to help people like Ron Martens; and (c)
let us make sure that we appoint those in positions of
responsibility on the basis of skills, ability and qualifications
with regard to health care.
1300
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the Reform Party member who just spoke on his
excellent speech.
Like him, I am concerned about young people with drug problems.
It is an issue that I care about. But I do not think that Bill
C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, will do anything to help
these young people.
Like him, I think that a bill like Bill C-13 would be a good
idea, although I have some reservations about the bill.
I would like the member to give me his version of the facts.
Does he not think, as I do, that Bill C-13 interferes in
provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. I agree with one thing. I believe that today drug
addiction is a health problem and not a criminal problem.
Individual addicts in this country, in this day, are driven to
becoming criminals because of being addicted. I could cite case
after case that I have been involved with which would prove that.
I believe that Bill C-13 is part of the answer for research and
that is why I support it.
The question of whether Bill C-13 is a provincial responsibility
or a federal responsibility is an interesting one. I think the
federal government has a responsibility to participate in
research. If it does, and if it helps addicted people, if it
helps people with Lou Gehrig's disease, I for one will not be
involved in any discussion as to whether this is a provincial or
a federal issue. I for one will be saying to the government
“Let's just get the job done and stop squabbling about who has
ownership”.
In the case of British Columbia, there are very few people who
do not know that I have no use whatsoever for the provincial
government of British Columbia, the NDP. It has taken our
province into the lower depths of the economy and everything
else. However, when it comes down to a sloppy government like
that trying to help with health care, I support it if it helps
people with various diseases like ALS or even drug addiction.
I am no friend of these guys across the way here either, the
Liberals, but when it comes to the federal government trying to
help or the federal government properly putting funds into
research, I have no problem whatsoever with it and I would not
take sides. The only side I will take is that of the victim or
someone waiting for us as politicians to get off the fight of
provincial and federal and get on to the fight of trying to help
others.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thought the member made an excellent speech, in
particular when he spoke about these things touching someone
close. We tend to make statistics out of people. It is nice to
get in touch directly with the plight of an individual person.
It sometimes helps to put things in a better perspective.
One area of concern that I have with Bill C-13 is that it sets
up yet another bureaucracy.
The intent of the bill is that it will keep the administrative
costs to 4% to 5% of the total budget. Reality says that is not
what turns out. Once we start creating a bureaucracy, more and
more of the money intended to help people ends up going to drive
this great bureaucracy.
1305
I wonder if my colleague could touch on that and advise as to
whether he has any concerns about the way government structures
these types of things and how it uses money which should be going
to help people, such as those he described.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. He is right. Four per cent to five per cent of
the budget will be for administration. I do not think we have
ever seen in this country a provincial or a federal government,
no matter what party runs it, that has not been totally enamoured
with the idea that there should be more bureaucrats than actual
operations.
In most of the organizations I have been responsible for, the
administrative costs have usually been around 3%. I think that
4% to 5% is high. If 4% to 5% of the total budget is used and
the total budget keeps expanding, I have a problem with that.
Five per cent of the original amount of $374 million is a lot of
money. But if we put more money into research it is not
necessarily appropriate to have 5% of $500 million or 5% of $800
million. We are adding to a major bureaucracy.
I know the difficulties Ron Martens has as an ALS afflicted
individual. For Ron Martens and many of the other ALS people,
and for all the young people addicted to drugs, we have to get
off the petty politics, we have to get off trying to build a
bureaucracy and trying to appoint our friends and we have to get
on with doing more research. We must find solutions to these
problems.
I hope the Minister of Health is listening to me. This is what
we expect. We do not have any authority to follow up on
bureaucracy in this country. It seems to survive by itself.
However, I hope for once we do the right thing and put the vast
bulk of money into research and helping others.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I heard
the member's speech from the lobby and I wish to congratulate
him.
I ask him whether he shares my view that the government should
have been much quicker to introduce a bill such as this, because
Canada has now acquired an international reputation for trailing
behind in research.
Does the member agree with me that the government was slow to
act, that it should have introduced this bill when the House
first came back and, finally, that it did not assume the
responsibilities we were entitled to expect of it?
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I will go further than that. I think the government
moved too slowly on this bill in terms of years. It should have
been part of the 1993 election platform when the government first
came in. The Conservative government before this government
missed the boat.
We have been saying for years that not enough research is being
done on many things, including cancer. Although additional
funding has been provided to cancer research through heroes like
Terry Fox, we still have a long way to go. Diseases are cropping
up every day. This has not been slow in terms of months or
weeks; it has been slow for years.
Let us not forget other research in this country.
For goodness sake, we are trying to find answers to the
combustion engine. We are just frittering around, with a few
small companies looking at things like the fuel cell and that
sort of thing. We should be spending a lot more money on
research.
1310
Where we should not be spending money is on those foolish damned
grants that do nothing but pay off people who are friends and
relatives and have helped out government parties. That is where
we are going wrong.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. It
seems to me that the Canadian institutes of health research
represent not only a very, very large injection of new money into
health research, and I agree with my colleague that it is needed,
but it is a totally new way of looking at research across Canada.
The hon. member just mentioned cancer. We have the Peterborough
Cancer Society in my riding. I am sure there is a cancer society
in his riding. I was the chair of our cancer campaign. Can the
member explain how this new structure, of which I know he
approves, will bring a group like the Peterborough Cancer Society
into the research network of Canada?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just how it
would, but what I am sure of is that it would go some way toward
the co-ordination of the effort.
The government has to understand what we are saying about
administration. We have to establish a program, standards and
ways in which co-ordination can take place, and we have to ensure
that the money for research stays in the programs and develops.
What we do not want is a bureaucracy that makes this whole
process overburdened and awkward. It is hard enough these days
to have research undertaken on anything. I think what we are
looking for is simplicity, not complexity.
As far as co-ordination, it is not just the Canadian Cancer
Society. I spent 15 minutes talking about ALS. There are too
many problems out there for us to be wrestling with a large
bureaucracy that looks after itself rather than the people it
calls clients.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-13, an act to
establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal
the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Following on the speech by my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, our party's health critic—and I will take
this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent job he is
doing—I would first of all like to revisit what he asked our
Reform colleague just now. He asked him whether he admitted that
this bill ought to have been introduced long ago and that there
ought to have been more investment in medical research.
This is an area of the utmost importance. I now understand,
seeing the government members' lack of interest in commenting on
it, why the Canadian government has not rushed to invest more in
medical research.
Speeches and debate coming from the government side have been
lacklustre debate. A few government members spoke for form's
sake.
The ones doing the work are the opposition members. Is this due
to lack of interest, lack of courage or a bit of cowardice? One
might well ask.
I would like to give a little scenario in connection with the
bill. Last February, the present Minister of Health announced
that he would be injecting new money into the creation of what
may be termed virtual institutes of research.
1315
It must be understood that no infrastructures will be created.
There will be a kind of networking, as is already being done in
certain sectors in each of the provinces. For the medical
research laboratories, there will be an attempt to create a
network so that these people can speak to each other and
co-ordinate their research, in order to enhance its
effectiveness.
The main thrust of the bill we are looking at today is the
outcome of recommendations made by an interim committee,
comprising 34 members of the scientific and academic community.
Hon. members who heard the speech by my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a few days back will recall that he listed
the scientists and academics on that committee.
These people have great reputations.
To simplify things, the Canadian institutes of health research
will replace what used to be called the Medical Research
Council. These institutes will have a broad research mandate.
They will develop new approaches to research in biomedical
matters and on issues more directly affecting the social
sciences.
In his budget, the Minister of Finance announced that the
government intended to double funding over three years for the
health research institutes. Funding will amount to $500 million
in 2001-02. That is not insignificant, and we applaud this
budget increase. The research laboratories needed it. The
institutes' permanent governing council is expected to be
operational by April 1, 2000.
What we understand from this networking is that the institutes
will deal with four major sectors of health research. They will
focus their work on various types of research in four sectors
specifically.
The first sector is the very important and vital field of
biomedical research. At least 60% of the biomedical research in
Canada is done by pharmaceutical companies in Quebec.
The second sector is clinical research. It too is very
important. It also plays a basic role in the discovery of
pharmaceuticals.
The third sector is that of health systems. Currently, all
provincial governments are dealing with health care reforms.
They have had to move toward ambulatory care.
They are trying to see if their system is well organized to make
it as effective and efficient as possible, and thus provide the
public with the quality of care and services it deserves.
The fourth sector covers cultural society and population health.
Research institutes will bring about a strategic repositioning
in health research to solve major medical issues. Moreover, we
will also have to invest in research on heredity, genetics and
the human genome.
The House had the pleasure of listening to the speech by the
hon. member for Jonquière, who is intensifying her efforts to
have a genetic engineering research institute established in her
riding.
It would be a good thing if the government such research could
be carried out in the riding of Jonquière.
1320
In short, Bill C-13 seeks to formally establish the Canadian
institutes of health research to organize, co-ordinate and fund
health research at the federal level. It also repeals the
Medical Research Council Act and defines the structure, role and
mission of the institutes.
We support the bill as regards its purpose and the virtual
establishment of such institutes.
It is appropriate for the whole research network, all
researchers and scientists to co-ordinate their efforts and talk
to each other to truly ensure effective research, and we must
also provide them with the most effective tools to enable them
to carry out their research. We have no problems with that, and
we agree with this way of repositioning medical research.
But we do have a problem with the preamble of the bill, because
instead of recognizing the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction
over health care, the government merely recognizes the fact that
they play some role in that area. Indeed, the second “Whereas”
reads as follows:
Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in
health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with
provincial governments to support the health care system and
health research;
But it should have indicated that it is the responsibility of
the provinces to manage health care services within their
territory and that their agreement is necessary when their
jurisdiction is involved.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It is the
same old story. Health care is a provincial responsibility.
Why is the federal government always bent on extending its
tentacles and constantly eroding provincial jurisdiction?
Health care and education are provincial responsibilities.
In Quebec, we are determined that we will never allow the
Liberal government to interfere in our areas of responsibility.
If any money is to be invested in medical research, it must take
the form of social transfer payments, so that we too can double
our grants to researchers in our universities and medical
research institutions. So—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has indicated that she would
be sharing her time, so her ten minutes are now up.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: So, on that note, I will conclude. Right
now, Quebec is in the process of reducing its deficit, trying to
stimulate employment, maintaining its health programs and
educating its children.
Why does the federal government always try to make things
difficult for us? Why does it invade our jurisdictions and try
to take away all our powers?
We are in favour of establishing CIHRs, but we would like the
government to restore now the money it stole from us in transfer
payment cuts. If it has any money to put into health care, it
should give it back to us so that we can fund our institutes
ourselves.
1325
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.
As hon. members are aware, she did a very good job as health
critic for the Bloc Quebecois, from 1993 to 1999, if I remember
correctly.
Since we are talking about health here, I would like to make a
little announcement to my colleagues: I am going to be
organizing a volleyball game along with Eric Plamondon, one of
the pages in the House.
The connection with the research institutes is that good health
starts with physical activity. I appeal to all of my colleagues,
particularly the Minister for International Cooperation, whom I
see less and less often in the gym, to get active and keep fit.
The game will be in February. You are welcome to participate
too, Mr. Speaker.
Now, to a question for my colleague, without
any further ado. I do not want any ambiguity about our belief
in the Canadian institutes of health research. This must be
perfectly clear, in my opinion. In his 1993 campaign, the
current premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, a man esteemed and appreciated
in Canada and in Quebec, made research and development a plank
in his platform.
I think that all my colleagues will recall that, since 1993, we
have asked the government to invest massively in research and
development. I do not know if members recall, but this was
almost at the same time as the appearance of a report by the
OECD, which said that, of all industrialized countries, Canada
had the worst performance.
So, members will understand that, out of a concern for
consistency, naturally, we agree with a bill like this one. When
the bill has passed and the government has invested the full
amount, $500 million will be available.
That is not much to write home about.
I want to remind members that the Government of Quebec is
formulating scientific policy with Minister Rochon, also a
talented man. If everything goes well, he will release it in
February. The Government of Quebec has set aside $400 million
over two years. For Quebec alone, they are talking of $400
million over two years for research and development, whereas
here the government is proposing $500 million to 2001.
Naturally, it counts for something, but I made the comparison to
show the House the extent to which Quebec is maintaining the
tradition of commitment to its scientific community.
Members no doubt know that about 60% of the biomedical industry
is to be found in Quebec.
Historically, very early on, Quebec, through the National
Assembly, made a commitment to biomedical research. I ask my
colleague to explain why Quebec has every reason to be in favour
of the bill, knowing that, historically, it has been very
supportive of biomedical research through its pharmaceutical
industry.
In closing, I would remind the House there will be a volleyball
game in February.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I always congratulate him for his skills as a speaker,
including his metaphors and his sense of humour in presenting
his views on these issues.
First, investments in research and development are necessary,
and researchers in hospitals and universities really want them.
In fact, a number of Quebec groups have applied for funds to the
secretariat of the acting governing council for research
institutes.
The Bloc Quebecois supports increased investment in research,
including health research. As my colleague pointed out, 60% of
all biomedical research in Canada is done through pharmaceutical
companies located in Quebec.
1330
It goes without saying that we are behind them, and we agree
that they should get investments and funds from the government
to bring their research to fruition.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have listened to my two colleagues' speeches, and now it is my
turn to speak of the institutes of health research.
For two years, I was fortunate enough to work with the member
for Drummond, and I know that she has done some excellent work.
I particularly remember her extraordinary efforts on the
hepatitis C issue. I wish to thank her, and I know that many
Quebecers and Canadians with this illness are grateful for all
the work she has done on their behalf.
Now, she has been replaced as health critic by the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who did not wait till he was given this
new responsibility to plunge right into the fight against AIDS.
Since being elected, he has spoken very regularly on this
subject and I think he deserves credit.
He is now continuing his marvellous work in this sector by
frequently bringing it to the attention of caucus, and he is a
most eloquent spokesperson both here in the House and in caucus.
His view is that we can never say too much about health, and he
is right.
I am a recreation specialist by training and I can say right now
that I accept the invitation to the volleyball game in February.
I would have liked to go earlier, but I will certainly be there
in February, because there is a connection between physical
activity and health. Unfortunately, we members may not always
have enough time for physical activity.
I am a diabetic, and I know that there are several other members
in the House with the same condition. Diabetes is an illness
that often strikes very active people who do not perhaps pay
enough attention to their health. It is true that diabetes is a
hereditary disease, but there are ways to stave off its onset.
I now come to today's topic, Bill C-13.
The Bloc Quebecois has presented its position well, through the
two hon. members in question. No one can be against health
research. If there are any members in this House who are
opposed to health research, let them declare themselves, but I
am convinced there are none. There can never be too much money
made available for finding solutions, for finding remedies for
disease. Life is worth living and, more importantly, it must be
lived in good health.
In my opinion, one of the problems with this bill lies in one of
the four sectors, that is, the assessment of health services
provided across Canada. My colleague from Drummond has asked a
good question: Who is it that delivers health services in
Canada? The provinces.
It can never be said too often, and we must keep hammering at
it, health care and the delivery of health services to the
public is a provincial area of jurisdiction. This is no whim;
it is in the Canadian Constitution. Health care management is
an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Even with this bill,
although it may not be its main intent, we see the federal
government again trying to interfere in the health field.
Yes, more money will be injected into R and D in the health
field, but it is regrettable that, at present, Quebec receives
only 14% of funding allocated to R and D.
I referred earlier to transfer payments to the provinces, but
since the government opposite has made cuts to health, a
cumulative total of $3.4 million has been cut from Quebec since
1993. That is a considerable amount, and the Government of
Quebec could certainly have done more in the area of medical
research. There have, however, been problems, but there has
been good news as well, such as the announcement by the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that the Government of Quebec
will soon spend $500 million in this area.
1335
So much the better, but it might have been possible long before,
had the federal government not cut transfer payments to the
provinces in health care, among others.
Now, I am on the Standing Committee on Industry, and on this
committee we often hear witnesses express concern about the
brain drain. The brain drain obviously involves researchers.
People from a variety of research institutes appeared before the
committee, because it is the Department of Industry that is
funding research agencies.
Canada ranks at the bottom of the G7 countries in this area. In
the field of health, it is in last place among the OECD
countries as well.
I think one of the aims of the bill is to finally catch up
somewhat. But the considerable delay and time involved is most
regrettable.
In the meantime, many of our young researchers, and even more
experienced ones, have left the country. They even left Quebec.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve made a connection
between health and physical activity. As an example,
Dr. Bouchard, who ran the scientific research centre on physical
activity at Laval University, left the country for the United
States, because more money was available for research in this
area. This is most regrettable.
It is not only a health issue, it is an employment issue as
well. When we talk about the knowledge economy, here is a fine
R and D opportunity in the health field.
Here is a fine opportunity to concern ourselves with retaining
our researchers, people who trained in university for many years
and whose education Canadians and Quebecers have helped fund.
When these scientists can finally do research, a number of them
leave Canada for the United States. This is regrettable.
Let us hope that this tendency will be reversed, so that we can
keep our researchers, because we are talking about quality
employment here.
There is also the fact that economic spinoffs from R and D are
greater in the field of health than in any other, because of the
value added. We know that discoveries lead to the development of
better drugs, products or equipment, all of which can be
exported to other countries. Think of developing countries.
We must not forget these countries, which may not have the money
to invest in research and development. However, once new drugs,
equipment or products are discovered, these may help fight
disease and improve health in all countries of the world.
This is very good for the Canadian and Quebec economy, and this
is why, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I
welcomed this opportunity to add my two cents' worth to the
debate today, to say that we should do more.
In the minute that I have left, I would like to address another
issue, which I would not want to overlook. I am referring of
course to diabetes.
The Minister of Health recently talked about the money to be
allocated to fight that disease, but I think we should do even
more about diabetes, because it is on the rise. Besides
insulin, which does not treat diabetes but merely slows down its
progression, possible cures are emerging, hence the need to
invest more in research in this area.
One last area mentioned by researchers was social sciences. I
have always been struck by the fact, which has apparently been
verified, that children from zero to six with health problems
stand a greater chance of experiencing social problems,
including delinquency, later in life.
1340
I will conclude on this note, but we should not forget health
research through social sciences.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
sensed hesitation, and I thank you for giving me the floor. I
would not dream of wasting the time of the House. I think it
important, however, that we share our views.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, who, since 1993, has made such a
contribution to all the deliberations of the Bloc Quebecois
caucus. When we think of the him, all of us call up an image of
a profoundly compassionate individual, whose humanism is deeply
rooted in the 19th century but who, throughout the years, has
stayed very much in touch with the major problems of the day.
The member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is a recreation
specialist, as he himself just said. He is therefore someone
who has always made a great deal of room in his life for sports
and recreation.
I repeat this because I do not want there to be any confusion.
There are people, whom I will not name, but whom I will look at,
who sometimes set out to muddy the waters. This has already
happened. The Bloc Quebecois is not against Bill C-13. Once
Quebec's concerns have been addressed and debated, we are going
to put all our energy into getting the bill passed as soon as
possible.
Between 10 and 15 CIHRs are going to be established. The
sectors in question will be determined by a provisional
governing council. Naturally, all Bloc Quebecois members have
always been faithful to the strictest and least negotiable
interests that exist in politics.
An hon. member: Those of Quebec.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague tells me that these are the
interests of Quebec and I think he has a very good handle on why
we are here in the House.
The interests of Quebec demand that we ensure that it gets its
fair share, particularly in the biomedical field. I would
remind hon. members that the Medical Research Council has been
in existence for 40 years, and is headed by the eminent Dr.
Friesen, whose years in the service of research are well known
to all, and for which I salute him.
Quebec has strengths in a number of areas, one of them the
biomedical sector, because of our patent drug industry,
particularly in the areas of cancer and of diabetes.
Unfortunately that hit too close to home for my colleague, who
has to deal with it daily, although he maintains his habitual
good humour, his even temperament—in a word, his excellent
character—regardless.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees with me that
the Bloc Quebecois has been, without a doubt, the best defender
of the interests of Quebec and will continue to be, as far as
health research is concerned.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: I most certainly acknowledge the role of the
Bloc Quebecois. That is why we are here. We are, of course,
promoting sovereignty because it is our feeling that the federal
system has been out of order for years and that Quebecers are
being disadvantaged by it. However, we are also here to defend
the interests of Quebec, and I am here to particularly defend
the interests of my region.
Not far from me is the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, who has a
technology park in her riding. There is the Institut d'optique,
the Institut de recherche scientifique which does research into
water quality and many more areas.
1345
At Laval University a great deal of research is being carried
out in this field, as well as in my riding, at Lévis-Lauzon
cegep. But more is needed.
As my colleague has invited us to do, each time I am asked to
back a bill like this one, calling for additional investment in
health research, I shall let the Bloc Quebecois health critic
know in advance that I accept his invitation.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I should announce to the House that
speeches hereafter will be of 10 minutes duration in this debate
with no questions or comments.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak in
support of the efforts of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre
in terms of ensuring that Bill C-13, which aims to establish a
new framework for health research, becomes an effective piece of
legislation that will be able to redress some of the problems in
linking health research to practice in Canada.
Along with my NDP colleagues, I applaud the efforts by all those
who worked to create the new legislation. However, along with my
colleagues, I have several reservations about the legislation and
hope that these will be taken into consideration when this bill
reaches the committee stage.
In order for the bill to achieve its goal, it requires a
considerable amount of political will to ensure that the research
that will be conducted in the 10 to 15 new health institutes will
indeed reach the hands of health practitioners throughout the
country. While the bill acknowledges the need for this
commitment, it does not ensure that the government will remain
committed and be one of the driving forces in achieving the goals
of Bill C-13.
The bill talks about increasing links, but it does not go as far
as to enshrine the will to accomplish these links. In light of
the continued cuts to transfer payments, I have to wonder how the
government intends the CIHR to achieve its goal.
Since 1986 federal cuts to health care funding have totalled
approximately $36 billion. The amount transferred via the CHST
to my home province of Nova Scotia has been steadily decreasing
since 1993 when this government came to power.
The bill does little to take into consideration the consequences
of these cuts in transfers. These cuts have led to a diminished
capacity of the health care system to care for its patients and
new research findings have not been able to get off the ground
and be applied. Because of these transfer cuts, problems have
arisen throughout the country.
Take for example the tar ponds on Cape Breton Island, a toxic
wasteland which has wreaked havoc on the health of the people in
the local area and on the environment. People have died as a
result of this toxic sludge. People have reported arsenic
bubbling up in their backyards and basements. An entire
residential street had to be bulldozed because it was considered
extremely dangerous to one's health to live there. Even the
government has recently committed another $37 million for a
clean-up effort, but still no toxic sludge has been removed from
the tar ponds.
Even though all of this money was provided to alleviate a major
health concern, it has not translated into a healthier step
forward for the communities affected by the tar ponds. Study
after study after study have shown the ill-health effects and
have shown the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer. The
government, however, has lacked the political will and commitment
or health infrastructure to act upon this.
The CIHR needs a clear mandate to intervene in these types of
situations where hard research has proven that adverse health
conditions and/or effects exist. The government also has to
provide a real commitment to ensure that sufficient funding
exists. I sincerely hope that this issue will be examined in
depth at committee. The CIHR will only be effective in working
with its health practitioner partners if sufficient funding
exists in the core health care system.
One of my major concerns with the proposed CIHR is its lack of
clear commitment to an approach or framework of health care and
service ethics. In this day and age with rapid increases in
innovation and health care technology, it is absolutely essential
that the ethical effects of medical research be given a high
priority. Bill C-13 barely acknowledges this need.
The challenge we are faced with today is to ensure that, as with
health care, we engage in preventive ethics, not just curative
ethics. What I mean by this is similar to that old saying about
an ounce of prevention is worth two of medicine.
We need to be actively engaged in encouraging that ethical
concerns are a priority in any new and ongoing health research
and practice.
1350
Today there are many ethical dilemmas in health research. I
will highlight a few that relate to women.
These days simply because the technology exists, many women who
would otherwise not be able to have children can have them. This
is a fantastic gain for so many. However, there are ethical
concerns about how these reproductive technologies are being
implemented by health practitioners. These concerns need to be
widely debated. They are already hot topics for researchers but
so far, because the government has not acknowledged the need for
ethical responsibility in medical services, they have not come
under serious discussion and consideration in the public health
care system in Canada.
It would be much more beneficial if we acknowledged this need
for ethical responsibility now rather than later. The CIHR could
provide for ethical responsibility by engaging in a little of
what I call preventive ethics. It will be so much easier to deal
with ethical concerns if they are enshrined in the legislation
and recognized by health researchers and practitioners.
The last point of concern I raise is a simple one. It has long
been acknowledged that men and women have different health needs.
What has been harder to acknowledge and achieve is a balance in
health research to ensure the particular differences and the
needs of women and their bodies are taken into consideration.
My suggestion for the committee that will be examining Bill C-13
is that we ensure it is not just the universal male body that is
used in all of the interesting and exciting research to be done
in Canada in the future. There is certainly room within the
legislation to require that one of the 10 to 15 institutes be a
women's health institute. All of the institutes created as a
result of Bill C-13 should ensure that their boards and
committees have gender parity and ensure gender analysis is a
major priority.
I reiterate that in principle I believe Bill C-13 is a very good
start on the road to linking research and practice throughout the
country. However to date, the government has done little to make
me believe that it will provide a considerable amount of support
including the political support that will be required to ensure
the success of the Canadian institutes of health research, and
that it is not just another empty handed gesture.
I call on all hon. members of the House to get the message to
the government that we are serious about the need for a holistic
approach to health care in Canada. We need a commitment from
this government that it will provide an adequate budget and
significant and stable funding for health research.
The Speaker: My colleague, I will let you begin your
speech but I will cut you off after five minutes and you can take
it up again after question period.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. It
is a rare occasion when a member of the official opposition can
stand in the House and actually congratulate the government on
putting forward a bill that does contain at least a few very good
points.
We are inclined to support this legislation because it has some
very unusual and strange things, unusual and strange to the
Liberal Party of Canada. One thing is accountability. It builds
accountability into the new CIHR. It is really strange that it
does allow for the governing council and the advisory board to be
chosen by the research people themselves as opposed to simply
being appointed by some Liberal patronage officer, which has been
the case in the past with the Medical Research Council.
The Canadian institutes of health research will replace the
current Medical Research Council. This is good for a number of
reasons. One is accountability.
Another is that the governing council and the advisers will be
chosen by the researchers themselves.
1355
Also, for anyone who does receive a research grant under this
new set-up there will be an accountability requirement that goes
along with the funding. That means that within six months and
every six months subsequently, as I understand it, the researcher
that has the funding will have to account for the work he or she
has been doing and show why he or she should continue to receive
funding. This is a good thing. It has not been present
unfortunately under the current Medical Research Council and that
has been a process that we have not been able to support.
Another good thing about the Canadian institutes of health
research is that the administrative costs will only be in the
range of 4% to 5%. This is another aspect of this unusual piece
of government legislation that we can certainly support.
Most of the boards, commissions and governing councils that have
been set up under a varying amount of Liberal appointments and
structures have subjected the Canadian taxpayer to more and more
administrative costs. At the bottom line it has been shown very
often that these numerous boards the government has set up have
simply been places for friends of the Liberal Party to spend the
rest of their days in relatively nice comfort.
We are going into question period now and I will be very pleased
after question period to talk about some of the features of the
bill and why we will support it. I will also continue to remind
Canadians that it is very seldom that the government puts forward
a bill that the Reform Party, the official opposition, can
actually support. This just happens to be one of them.
The Speaker: My colleague, you will still have six
minutes when you come back and you can get a good run at it. It
is almost 2 p.m. and we will go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE JUNCTION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, November 12 I had the honour of celebrating
with residents of a neighbourhood in my riding known as the
Junction, the West Toronto Junction Team, and master of
ceremonies George Chuvalo, a century of the history of the
Junction and the Junction's rebirth and revitalization. The
evening provided an opportunity to pay tribute to all those
people who have played a role in the revitalization of this
historic neighbourhood.
The ambitious revitalization project involves the burial of
overhead hydro wires, the widening of main street sidewalks and
the refurbishment of storefronts.
The Junction's revitalization was made possible as a result of a
partnership between the Department of Human Resources
Development, the city of Toronto, Toronto Hydro and the West
Toronto Junction Team, a group of hardworking and dedicated
volunteers who are spearheading this project.
The Junction is an exemplary model for community renewal. It is
also a model of how governments working in partnership with the
private and not for profit sector can successfully build strong
and dynamic communities.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government House leader has wasted a once in three decades
opportunity to modernize the elections act.
Instead of guaranteeing freedom of expression, we have a gag
law. Instead of encouraging participation by new and smaller
parties, we have an illogical 50 candidate rule for a party to
get its name on the ballot. Instead of returning officers being
appointed on merit, we have a blatant political patronage system
for the Prime Minister. Instead of planning for the future, we
are denying the Chief Electoral Officer the opportunity to
develop and utilize new voting technologies.
The bill has been opposed by newspaper publishers and
broadcasters, small and emerging parties, anyone and everyone who
is interested in freedom of expression, the Chief Electoral
Officer, the official opposition and the voters themselves.
The very best thing the government House leader could do, even
at this late stage in the process, would be to simply throw the
bill away and start again from scratch.
* * *
JEFF HART
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Jeff Hart
of Baker Lake, Nunavut for achieving the Governor General's
Academic Medal which is awarded to outstanding students
throughout Canada.
1400
Today is a very special one for Jeff Hart, his family, the Jonah
Amitnaaq Secondary School and the community of Baker Lake, as he
will be presented with the Governor General's Academic Medal in
acknowledgement of his outstanding academic effort during the
1998-99 school year.
We all celebrate Jeff Hart's achievements and wish him all the
best in his future endeavours. I know he will continue to aim
for excellence in everything he undertakes. I say to him
congratulations.
* * *
FORD OF CANADA
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that Ford of Canada's Windsor
workforce reported a record donation to the United Way this year
of almost $2.9 million. In one Ford plant, the Windsor engine
plant, more than $1 million was raised this year for the United
Way.
This new record surpasses the previous high of $2.4 million
which was set last year by these same Ford workers. The amounts
donated again demonstrate that these workers are the most
generous people in North America. I know that all members will
want to join me in congratulating Ford of Canada's Windsor's
workforce for its exceptional generosity and sense of community.
This is yet another example of the tremendous sense of pride and
community I see in Windsor and Essex County every day. The level
of community participation and volunteerism is incredible. This
is yet another example of how Windsor and Tecumseh represent the
very best of what makes Canada such a great place to live.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week, the members of the Bloc and their leader at the
mother house, Lucien Bouchard, have wrongly claimed that this
government wanted to give more weight to the federalist vote in
the next referendum in Quebec.
I have a few questions for them, however. What weight did they
themselves give to the votes of Quebecers who voted no in the
1980 and 1995 referendums? Why do these votes not count for the
Bloc Quebecois and the PQ? Why are they insisting on putting a
question that holds no interest for Quebecers?
* * *
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government House leader wants to
change the elections act to encourage more women to run for
politics.
If the minister is truly serious about encouraging women to run
for politics, I suggest he should start by eliminating the
chauvinistic attitudes of some of his cabinet colleagues.
Perhaps he should tell his colleagues that it is demeaning to
women when they rise in the House to be told that they are being
silly. Why is it that when a male member asks a question of the
minister of Indian affairs he receives the courtesy of a
response, but when a female member asks the same question, she is
told by him that she is being silly.
This is the problem with the Liberal government. It preaches
one thing but practises the opposite. It is another example of
the impotence of the Liberal government. It brings a backbencher
into cabinet to rise to the occasion, only to reveal his
shortcomings.
* * *
OAK RIDGES MORAINE
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Oak Ridges moraine runs for 160 kilometres across the northern
boundary of the greater Toronto area. The moraine absorbs and
filters rain water and serves as headwater to 30 rivers that
provide drinking water.
It constitutes the last natural corridor in the greater Toronto
area and hosts many rare species of plants and animals. It is
accessible to the public and has many recreational uses. It is
designated as an area of concern by the International Joint
Commission.
The moraine is already under pressure from existing housing
developments, yet new housing developments near Uxbridge are
planned.
Mike Colle, a provincial member in Ontario, has introduced a
bill proposing a provincial commission to oversee planning and
development on the Oak Ridges moraine so as to ensure the
protection of this unique ecological area. His thoughtful
proposal deserves immediate attention, in particular because of
the warnings the assistant deputy minister has given to the
minister of municipal affairs in a recent report.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR VAUDREUIL—SOULANGES
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so the
member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is very concerned that his own
party could raise by 20% the number of Air Canada shares owned
by a single shareholder, since, according to him, the Caisse de
dépôt et placement du Québec could increase its holding of
shares of this company to the point of taking control of it.
Imagine, and cover your face. An organization under the thumb,
as he put it, of a sovereignist government would control Air
Canada.
As far as I know, this member, who is concerned today, was not
in the least concerned when the idea of raising the percentage
was to permit an American company to control Air Canada.
Better foreign takeover than Quebec takeover is the opinion of
this Quebecer. None of us is surprised. On the contrary, his
behaviour in this is so Liberal.
1405
Could I go so far as to say that I was delighted by this
statement by my colleague, which will make it a little clearer
to our fellow Quebecers just where the Liberal members are
coming from.
* * *
[English]
RIMA ARISTOCRAT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to honour a constituent, an educator and a leader, Rima
Aristocrat, president and chief executive officer of Willis
College located in my riding. She is among those being honoured
in Chatelaine's Who's Who of Canada's Women.
The special millennium edition of Who's Who recognizes the
achievements of Canadian women. It honours their accomplishments
and contributions and establishes the standards for the next
generation of Canadian women executives.
A former concert pianist, Rima Aristocrat has been at the helm
of the Ottawa area campuses of Willis College for the last
decade. She has distinguished herself among her peers and served
as an incredible inspiration to many.
I say congratulations to Rima on a job well done.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for over 30
years we fought in the country over unity, leave or stay. We
have squandered more time and energy on this subject than any
other.
Quebec wants changes in the way Ottawa intrudes in provincial
affairs. In fact Alberta wants exactly the same thing. What
does our Prime Minister offer when tinkering with referendum
rules? He offers absolutely no serious renewal of this
federation.
Reform has an option on the table. We offer the troisième voie
with specific changes to make our federation work better. There
is an appetite for improving our country by grassroots changes. I
ask everyone to pay close attention to the troisième voie.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is International Day to End Violence Against
Women. It is the beginning of a global campaign ending on
December 10 to commemorate 16 days of activism against gender
violence.
The International Day to End Violence Against Women was declared
by women in Latin America and the Caribbean in 1981. The day
commemorates the death of the Mirabel sisters who were brutally
murdered in the Dominican Republic in 1960. During these 16 days
let us also not forget the tragic deaths of 14 young women at the
Ecole Polytechnique 10 years ago here in Canada.
Violence against women robs women of their lives and dignity,
breaks the spirit of our communities, and fosters unacceptable
social attitudes and behaviours toward women.
I call upon all my colleagues and all Canadians to join in
activities in their communities to end the vicious cycle of
violence against women.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as one of the 10 or so MPs who has been in this parliament since
before the first Quebec referendum, I would like to offer the
following advice to the Prime Minister.
No one has ever saved Canada by trying to make themselves out to
be the saviour. They only make things worse. The supreme court
did not say that the political task was up to either a majority
PQ government or a majority Liberal government in Ottawa.
Canadians should not have to choose between a unilateral Liberal
initiative that is provocative and counterproductive or Mr.
Bouchard's musings about a UDI.
If the Prime Minister insists on proceeding, the opposition
should be part of a meaningful process of constructive dialogue
among ourselves and with Quebec. Anything less looks like using
the court decision for partisan political purposes or an attempt
by the Prime Minister to secure a place in Canadian history that
may yet prove to be not what he has in mind.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister likes to say he is all alone. To date, it
has not been hard to believe that he is all alone, because he
has chosen to be so.
* * *
CHILDREN AFFECTED BY WAR
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
year, Canada will host an international conference on children
affected by war.
This summit will bring together officials representing
governments, international organizations and various groups from
all parts of the world. The objective is to develop a global
plan of action for all problems experienced by children who are
affected by conflicts.
I should point out that, two years ago, Canada helped create a
similar coalition concerning the land mines treaty. I had the
honour of being part of that delegation.
Canada is now hoping to start a process to protect children, who
are hard hit by conflicts around the world.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
changes to the employment insurance system have made it much more
difficult on part time and seasonal workers to qualify for
benefits. These changes have made it very difficult for women,
given that women have longer absences from the workforce than
men. Nationally only 36% of the unemployed qualify for EI
benefits.
It is therefore no surprise that only 30% of unemployed Canadian
women actually qualify for benefits.
1410
The government has indicated that it will increase maternity
leave from six months to a full year. Given that it is much
harder to qualify for maternity benefits than regular EI
benefits, that new commitment rings very hollow indeed.
The government's changes to the EI system were designed as an
attack on seasonal workers in rural and Atlantic Canada, and
sadly an attack on Canadian women as well.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation has an unparalleled record
across Canada for fine work in housing. Over the decades poor
and not so poor Canadians have blessed CMHC for helping provide
them with a home. In co-ops, seniors residences, special needs
accommodation and ordinary houses in communities like
Peterborough in every province, CMHC work ticks on.
The government is engaged in a transfer of authority over
housing from the federal level to the provincial. I urge that
this transfer not take place without the most careful preparation
and care to ensure full protection of federally supported
housing.
I urge that CMHC be maintained as a strong and viable federal
agency so that it can continue as a national oversight authority
in housing.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian consumers have heard reports that they may be paying 80
cents per litre for gas by Christmas because of rising oil
prices. Something has been overlooked in the whole equation, the
fact that roughly half the cost of a litre of gas is made up of
taxes.
On August 26 my Calgary caucus colleagues and I handed out
Ottawa gas tax bucks to Calgary residents filling their tanks.
They were surprised to find that Ottawa takes $300 million in
gasoline taxes from Calgarians and nothing comes back to Calgary
to help with its transportation challenges.
From municipalities across the nation Ottawa takes in $4 billion
a year in fuel taxes but less than six cents on the dollar go to
highway renewal. The rest goes to more big government.
Municipalities like Calgary send billions in tax dollars to
Ottawa and never see them again while they are forced to raise
property taxes to pay the bills for maintenance of communities
where overtaxed Canadians live. Calgarians want—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada released figures today on farm income and
federal government support for agriculture. I would like to put
these numbers released today into perspective so people do not
misinterpret them as the reality of life on the farm.
The picture that Statistics Canada paints of Canadian farmers
and government support is a far cry from what is really happening
out there today. The report talks about gross payments from
government support programs reaching $1.2 billion, up 54% from
the previous year. This does not necessarily reflect an increase
of support but more so reveals that the severity of the income
crisis has triggered farmers to use most of their meagre income
out of NISA.
The reality is that government support has been drastically cut
since the Liberals took power in 1993. In 1993 in the last
budget of the Progressive Conservative government there were $7.1
billion in federal-provincial farm support. Today there are
about $3 billion less. This is an accurate reality on the farm
today, not the rosy picture Statistics Canada paints.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on November 9, Quebec's director general of elections received
the Quebec award of excellence in public administration for
establishing a permanent voters' list.
This award recognizes remarkable achievements in the public
sector and is a tribute to those who are the architects of such
achievements. Such an honour adds to the already great
reputation of the Quebec electoral system, both as regards its
underlying fundamental principles and its daily management.
Testimony to this is the public funding of political parties,
which put an end to the not so transparent campaign funds to
which corporations used to contribute heavily, and the
appointment of returning officers and employees of the director
general of elections based on merit, through public
competitions, and not for services to the party in office.
This award confirms once again the excellence of the people
responsible for Quebec's electoral system, as well as the
credibility of the province's democratic institutions.
Congratulations to Quebec's director general of elections and
his team.
* * *
[English]
ROTARY CLUBS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the spring issue of the Rotary Club of West Ottawa,
Mr. Bill Coombs wrote about the project of the children's home in
Sumpango, Guatemala.
The Rotary Club of West Ottawa, with the help of the rotary
clubs of West Town-Middleton, Madison, Wisconsin and Guatemala
South, as well as aid from CIDA and the Canadian Rotary Committee
for International Development, relocated a home for children from
Guatemala City to the municipality of Sumpango.
1415
The home is to care for children from a few months to 15 years
old, whether they are suffering from malnutrition or
homelessness. The home has been refurbished with a dental and
health care clinic, as well as irrigated gardens to provide the
fruits and vegetables the children need and, most importantly, a
new well providing pure water.
I applaud the Rotary Club of West Ottawa and their partners and
encourage them to keep working to help the poorest and most
disadvantaged in the world.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I told the finance minister about a teacher who had $81
of her $83 monthly pay raise ripped off through higher taxes.
Today I want to talk to the minister about Eddy, who just
started working at the Ford plant just outside of Toronto. He
writes “I'm just doing my regular hours and already my taxes are
incredible. If I go and do overtime, well it's not even worth it
because I'll be working for free. Someone in government gets a
raise that I worked for”.
Why should the finance minister get that overtime pay when it is
Eddy who is putting in the extra hours?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why do we not take a look at what Eddy does not see on
his pay stub. He does not see the $11.5 billion that has gone
into health care. He does not see the $1.7 billion that we have
put into the Canadian child tax benefit. He does not see the
600,000 taxpayers who have been taken off the tax rolls and who
are no longer paying taxes.
Those are things that do not appear on his pay stub and those
are also things that would not have occurred if the government
had listened to Reform.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is right, those things do not pass the pay stub test.
If the finance minister wants to dismiss Eddy, maybe he will
believe Ian.
Ian lives in Vancouver and he just sent us the pay stub from his
so-called incentive bonus. Of the $309 Ian was paid, 49% of it
was confiscated in taxes, leaving $157 after the finance minister
got his mitts on it.
Can the minister explain where the incentive is in sucking 49%
out of a so-called incentive bonus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Reform Party wants to have a serious discussion,
then it must be prepared to defend its own policies. Now, from
fresh start and from the debate in the House, the fact is that
Reform—we discussed it yesterday—was not prepared to cut EI
premiums for employees, only for employers. Reform's basic
position was that there would be no tax cuts until the year 2000.
We have brought in tax cuts in each of the last three years. The
fact is that every one of those pay stubs would have a lot less
money in them if the government had listened to Reform.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
will notice that whenever the minister cannot defend his own
policies, he attacks us.
Let us take a look at Ron's pay stub. Ron lives in Calgary.
This summer he took early retirement after 25 years of working
for Telus. He was owed $18,000 in unused vacation pay, but after
the taxman got hold of it, he was left with only $10,000, $8,000
was ripped off by the taxman.
Is ripping off $8,000 from Ron's vacation pay this minister's
idea of a retirement send-off?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I am clearly demonstrating is the total lack of
credibility of the Reform tax position and its ability to
criticize the government. What Reform put forward consistently
was a deficit plan that did not work. We put forward a deficit
plan that worked.
Reform then deliberately said that there should be no action
taken on taxes until the year 2000 and no action taken on the
reduction of EI premiums for employees. We did not listen to
Reform.
The question really is: How does the Reform Party dare stand up
and try to defend Canadian workers when its position has been
totally hostile to what they want?
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1992, a Calgary firefighter took home
a $1,303 paycheque. Every year since then, this finance minister
has given him a pay cut by taking an awful lot of tax.
Today, this man's paycheque is only $1,129; same job, but almost
$200 less than before the Liberals were elected.
1420
Why does the finance minister say he has cut taxes when the
workers' paycheques prove he has actually raised taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we say that we have cut taxes because in fact we have.
The threshold has been increased by $675, the 3% surtax no longer
exists and Canadian families are receiving, through the national
child benefit, over $2 billion a year.
We have put our plan out there. It is one that is working. It
is reducing taxes.
The issue is: Why do Reformers think they can stand up in this
House and play smoke and mirrors with the hopes and aspirations
of Canadians?
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the finance minister is
getting a little sensitive on this issue. He knows that
Canadians cannot shelter their incomes in Liberia or the Bahamas
like this minister can.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the member to put his
question.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, this Calgary firefighter
lost $200 of take-home pay.
Instead of designing schemes to confiscate more money from
Canadian, why will the finance minister not give Canadians a 25%
tax cut and let workers take home a fair share of their hard
earned money?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the intellectual bankruptcy of the Reform position is
manifest in every question that Reformers ask.
We have laid out our tax plan. It is resulting in lower taxes
for Canadians; by next year a 10% tax cut for individual
Canadians, a 14% tax cut for families.
The issue is: If the Reform Party members believe what they
say, why will they not stand up in the House and defend their
position? Why do they not refute the claims that I have made in
terms of their position? It is because I am telling the truth
and the Reform Party knows it and it is afraid to defend its
position.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has unveiled part of his referendum strategy.
Yesterday, he admitted that asking Quebecers whether they wanted
Quebec to become a country would be a clear question for him.
So separation or secession need no longer be mentioned in the
question. Now, we would like to know the government's
intentions with respect to what it would see as a clear
majority.
Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us what he
is thinking of when he says he wants to change the 50% plus one
rule?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, change what? The 50% plus one rule to which the Bloc
Quebecois leader refers appears nowhere in Quebec's Loi sur les
consultations populaires.
In that legislation, a referendum is defined as a consultation.
I quote from the 1977 white paper that was instrumental in the
drafting of this legislation “Because of the consultative nature
of referendums, it would be pointless for legislation to include
special provisions with respect to the majority required or the
necessary voter turnout”.
A referendum is a consultation and governments evaluate, on the
basis of clarity, among other criteria.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
not included because it goes without saying that it is 50% plus
one, as it says in the supreme court ruling.
In fact a clear majority is often mentioned. It is mentioned so
often that they did not say 50% plus one. It was obvious to
them that that is what it was.
Maybe the minister is telling us that we won
the last time and do not know it.
By restricting the clarity of the process to the results alone,
by failing to consider the quality of the debate and voter
turnout, is the minister not adopting an attitude that is
incompatible with the supreme court ruling?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have already said, when the word clear is put
before the word majority, it is because a simple majority is not
enough.
Yesterday, during a public debate, the Bloc Quebecois
constitutional critic was asked the following simple question by
an ordinary citizen “If 50% plus one is a clear majority, could
you give us an example of a majority that is not clear?” The
best answer he could come up with was “50% and 50%”.
Fifty per cent and fifty per cent is not a majority, period.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
legal opinion released by the Bloc Quebecois this morning, Laval
University professor Henri Brun states that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Beauharnois Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Professor Henri Brun of Laval University states
that the clear majority to which the supreme court refers is
nothing more than the 50% plus one rule Moreover, Professor
Brun bases his argument on the fact that the court refers to a
qualitative majority.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that the court has never
challenged the 50% plus one rule and that the qualitative
majority of which it speaks relates to the referendum process
itself and not the number of votes required?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as for 50% plus one, in French when there are two
choices, it is a majorité simple, a simple majority, not a
majorité claire, a clear majority.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Second, Professor Brun is the same person
who has always advised—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of a simple
majority. Bloc Quebecois members do not need to feel that the
word simple is being applied to them.
Quoting the court, “Democracy, however, means more than simple
majority rule”. This can be found in paragraph 149.
As for Professor Brun, he is the same person who has always
advised the PQ government that the right to self-determination
was synonymous with the right to secession. Now he realizes his
error. Well, he is making another.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague does not even know the difference between an absolute
majority and a simple one. A simple majority is 38%.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Daniel Turp: And that is what you got in the last election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, according to Professor Brun, a
refusal to negotiate solely on the grounds that the majority in
favour of sovereignty was not 60%, or 55%, or even 51% of the
votes would be unconstitutional.
Does the minister realize that, by again challenging the 50%
plus one rule, he is preparing to commit an unconstitutional
act, an illegal act?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is evident that the hon. member does not have a PhD
in mathematics, because when there are only two choices, a yes
and a no, absolute majority and simple majority are synonymous.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Now, that said, Professor Brun has made a
mistake, as I have said, and is still in error today. Those
things happen.
But that is not the end of the story. The bottom line is that
it is totally irresponsible to try to do something as serious as
seceding when the population is split down the middle, and to
try to negotiate. When the first difficulties appeared, support
would be seen to drop below the 50% plus one level. What then?
When one has the best interests of Quebec at heart, one does not
plunge it into such a situation.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. It has to do with the WTO meetings in Seattle
next week. The Minister for International Trade will be going
there representing the government.
Can the government tell us whether the Minister for
International Trade, at the meetings in Seattle, will be making
it absolutely clear that Canada rejects the American position
with respect to how health and education services should be dealt
with at the WTO?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister for
International Trade has been asked this question several times in
the House and has made it very clear that we consider that health
is part of the basic protected services and will not be part of
those negotiations.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the view that Ms. Barshefsky takes. I wish
the government would make it explicit, that it rejects her point
of view.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage said she desires a carve out
of culture in which culture is not “WTO-able” at all, to use
her words. Can the government tell us if that is the position
the trade minister will be taking to Seattle, that culture under
no conditions will be “WTO-able”? Right now it is, and we
would like to know how she plans to change it.
1430
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, health is not a negotiable item and
neither is culture. Canada has taken the lead internationally
through the efforts of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
Minister for International Trade to establish a new multilateral
instrument that would promote the diversity of culture around the
world. Canada is taking the lead on that matter and I think the
hon. member should be supportive of that.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, two days
ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Defence told the House that the maritime replacement program was
on the minister's desk awaiting his decision. Today the
Vice-Admiral of Defence Staff testified at our defence committee
meeting that he signed off on the statement of requirements at
the end of June.
Will the minister please stop saying that the Sea King
replacement program is his number one priority and now make it
his number one priority by initiating this program before the
House rises at Christmastime?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my number one priority, as I have
quite clearly indicated, but it is not solely a matter of this
department. It is also a matter for other departments and
consultations that need to go on with other departments.
As well, because of the major nature of this government
expenditure, it involves the elected representatives of a fully
accountable government. We are going through that process and as
quickly as possible we are going to purchase a new helicopter.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
according to what we were told this morning, everyone has agreed,
with the exception that the minister has not signed off on this.
We are talking about the lives of our pilots and the men and
women who are in these helicopters.
Contrary to an internal department document received through
access to information which informed the minister that a maritime
helicopter replacement program would take eight years, the
minister yesterday testified that the replacements would be
active in five years. Obviously the minister has more
information than we have.
Will the minister table in the House all of the exact details,
including the time line of the Sea King replacement program that
he has—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the matter is not
sitting on my desk. The matter is in full process toward a
decision that will be made.
Yes, we will replace it by 2005. We have been able to
streamline the procedures for procurement over and above what the
Conservatives had when they were in government. We will be able,
in a shorter period of time, to purchase the right replacement
for the Sea King.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is another chapter in the great tax
rip-off carried out by the finance minister. This is a pay stub
for Jean. Jean is a pipefitter who works in Fort McMurray. His
gross pay was $2,265, but by the time the finance minister got
through with his paycheque, Jean took home about $1,200, a 49%
tax bite.
I want to ask the finance minister a very simple question. When
is he going to give people like Jean, hard working Canadians, a
tax break? When is he going to do that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Reform members' performance in standing is not going to
confuse Canadians about the fact that the Reform Party is not
prepared to carry through with what it is saying. The issue
really is that Jean has got more after-tax disposable income
today as a result of what this government has done than what
Reform would have delivered.
The issue is, why will the Reform Party not stand in the House
to defend what it has said in the prebudget debates and, in fact,
in its election campaigns? That is the issue.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. Jean's family income
has decreased over $4,000 since 1993. His disposable income from
his cheque has decreased over $2,200 since 1993 under this
finance minister's insatiable tax campaign.
Jean cannot hide his income under some offshore foreign flag.
He—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1435
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to
please go directly to his question.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, Jean feels the full
impact of this finance minister's insatiable appetite for taxes.
I want to ask the finance minister, is he really proud of what
he does to Jean's family? Is he really proud of how much tax
he—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is every member of the government proud that we put
$11.5 billion back into the health care system? Absolutely.
Is every member of the government proud of the national child
tax credit? Absolutely.
Is every member of the government proud that we have taken
600,000 taxpayers off the tax rolls? Absolutely.
The fact is that we are prepared to stand in the House to defend
what we have done.
Are Reform Party members proud of what they have said, that they
would not cut EI premiums for employees? They are clapping.
They are proud of it. Are they proud of the fact that they would
not have provided any tax relief until the year 2000?
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I
had occasion to quote the Prime Minister, who on referendum
night in 1995, boasted of the merits of democracy, which gave
him a 50.6% victory. Today, he is refusing to recognize 50%
plus one as the rule.
Could the minister tell us where, in the supreme court opinion,
he is asked to give votes different values according to their
being for or against sovereignty for Quebec? In other words,
where in the supreme court decision does he come up with the
fact that clarity means 60,000 from Lac-Saint-Jean and 40,000
votes from Westmount?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps it is time for the Bloc to answer a few
questions.
They were asked: Why in municipal referendums in Quebec is it
not 50% plus one if 50% plus one is supposed to be the sacred
rule? They were asked: If 50% plus one is a clear rule, is a
clear majority, what would a majority that is not clear be? The
Bloc cannot answer these questions.
What counts most is respect for Quebecers' right to be fully
Canadian, until such time as they clearly give it up. As
Quebecers clearly want to be Canadians, the people opposite are
looking for confusion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week the
minister gave the members of this House a lesson, saying that it
was wrong to mix apples and oranges. I wonder what he is doing
when he talks of municipal referendums.>
Will the minister not acknowledge that the purely academic
debate over a theoretical percentage, which he wants to be
different from the way things are, is a desperate measure to
come up with a way to avoid the constitutional obligation to
negotiate the Supreme Court of Canada set for the government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the simple amalgamation of municipalities requires
more than 50% plus one, would such a majority be enough to break
up a country? Has this ever happened somewhere in the world,
outside colonial settings? Never.
There have even been cases where majorities of 60% did not lead
to secession, as in the case of Western Australia and on the
islands of St. Kitts and Nevis.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the only
reason the Prime Minister stands alone on the national unity
debate is because he is totally out to lunch. He does not even
have the support of his cabinet.
[Translation]
This government seems to forget that Quebecers and Canadians
want more than the status quo or sovereignty. Canadians want a
renewal of the federation, a third route.
Why is the Prime Minister so determined to become one of the
winning conditions of the sovereignists?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to the unity of Canada, the Prime Minister
does not stand alone. Thirty million Canadians stand with him,
except for Reform Party members, and they ought to be ashamed of
themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister boasted that his heritage and his selfishness
were behind his actions in national unity matters.
What is more important, the Prime Minister's selfishness or
Canada?
1440
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
reiterate that Canada is his priority, which is not the case
with the Reformers, who want to play games with the separatists.
* * *
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
while we were engaged in various activities to mark the tenth
anniversary of the House of Commons resolution to end poverty,
the Liberal members on the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs were moving that the defence budget
be substantially increased.
My question is for the minister responsible for the homeless.
Does she intend to approach cabinet and ask that funding to
stamp out poverty be given priority over increased defence
spending?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, if the
hon. member would read the Speech from the Throne she would see
that there are very firm commitments on the part of the
government to support children and to help eradicate child
poverty.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the minister responsible for the homeless.
Yesterday, I asked the government for a specific, concrete and
detailed plan to combat poverty, complete with numbers.
Has the minister responsible for the homeless finally finished
travelling around the country and is she now ready to table a
plan to end the poverty that has continued to grow since the
Liberals took office?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Minister of Human Resources Development said, we have
programs in place for poor children, and we will pursue them.
As for the homeless, I wish to inform the House that, since my
tour, we now have facilitators in communities who are working
daily with the homeless, and we will continue to work for the
homeless in this country until all Canadian children have a bed
in which to sleep.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government continues to demonstrate a complete lack
of understanding about the growing crisis in rural Canada. We in
the west have come to realize that this government does not care.
Tough love the minister calls it. Imagine my surprise today when
members opposite voted against committee hearings for Ontario
producers. Is the government now practising tough love for
Ontario producers as well?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows
that committees are masters of their own business, and if he is
trying to say that we should direct every committee from debates
in the House at question period, need I tell him that that would
be the wrong way to do it? He should know the rules of the House
by now. He has been here long enough.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, they are kind of hiding behind the rules. That was not
the question at all.
The reality of Liberal agriculture policy is borne out by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He said:
“Let's face reality. There are some farms in Saskatchewan that
are not going to make it and maybe we need to put our efforts
into those farms that are going to make it and try to help others
move into some other transitional economy”.
Is the finance minister going to decide who is viable and who is
not viable? Is the finance minister planning a TAGS program for
farmers? We all know how well that worked.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated its
commitment very clearly in the last year by putting nearly $1.1
billion into a program. We have changed all of the programs,
such as the crop insurance program and the NISA program. We have
made them more accessible, we have made them more available and
we have made more dollars available to Canadian farmers. We
continue to look at those programs and at programs that will
succeed them.
As I have indicated, and as we have demonstrated as a
government, we are not done yet.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Canada Labour Congress report indicates that
only one third of unemployed women between the ages of 25 and 34
qualify for employment insurance benefits. These are the same
people who are likely to benefit from parental leave.
If the minister really wants to help women and their children,
does she not think that before extending maternity leave to one
year, she should allow a much larger number of women to receive
maternity benefits?
1445
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we are
looking at the data that suggest there are fewer women receiving
employment insurance benefits. I look forward to receiving the
next monitoring and assessment report to see if that trend is
confirmed and then if necessary to take action.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week Iraq cut off shipments of oil and apparently rejected
an extension of the oil for food program.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada
is doing to break the deadlock at the United Nations Security
Council on the Iraq sanctions issue?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very actively involved over several
months to get a resolution that would recognize the humanitarian
need as well as the need for arms inspection. I am pleased to
report that I think we are very close, in the next two or three
days, to actually having a compromise resolution at the security
council. What is important is to have the Iraqis accept it.
We sent a special team of officials to Iraq this week to
specifically work with the Iraqi government to urge it to go
along with the UN request so we can begin to provide the
necessary humanitarian assistance for that country.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday a constitutional lawyer told the government House leader
exactly how easy it will be for the courts to strike down the gag
law and the illogical 50 candidate rule in the new elections act.
He urged members not to dump problems on the shoulders of our
already overworked solicitor general by passing those parts of
the bill.
I ask the solicitor general, is he aware of the fatal flaws in
the new elections act and has he recommended to cabinet the
removal of the offending parts?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provisions in question are
not offending. The rules regarding third parties are based on
the Libman decision of the supreme court. Everyone else in the
House knows that. The hon. member knows it too. I have
explained it to him at committee and informally in a one to one
meeting as well. He knows that in fact is not the case.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr Speaker, I can
tell from the expression on the face of the solicitor general
that he does not have a clue about the new elections act. It was
very nice of the government House leader to try to help him out.
The fact is the minister's 24 hour publication of polls
amendment was just tinkering around the edges of the act. Why
did he not do something meaningful like get rid of the gag law,
or get rid of the 50 candidate rule, or get rid of the patronage
that is riddled throughout the act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to have the
debate again that we had in committee yesterday on the 50
candidate rule. The issue is presently before the court in an
appeal. On the issue of the blackout, it is based on the
Thompson decision. It respects the supreme court decision. The
other one is based on the Libman decision.
I explained all three of these things to the hon. member
yesterday.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last month I warned the industry minister that rising
gas prices would hike inflation, increase interest rates and
throw the economy into a tailspin. He laughed it off then but
now no one is laughing.
Not only do we hear reports of $30 per barrel crude oil and 80
cent per litre gasoline by Christmas, but today we have an
admission that the Competition Act is defective.
I ask the minister again, is he prepared to act on the
competition problems in the gasoline retailing industry, or is he
proud, as the Minister of Finance says, to see gas prices at
record levels?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if members of the NDP are so
interested in gas pricing, they should have been at committee
today to bring up the issue. It was the Liberal Party and this
member from Ajax that brought the question to committee.
The Competition Act is indeed acting. The Competition Act most
recently addressed these issues. For example, in September 1999
Hoffmann-La Roche of Switzerland was sentenced to a fine of $48
million. Also recently, in January 1999, eight snow removal
companies in Quebec were fined close to $3 million after pleading
guilty to conspiring to share the market.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is the government that is supposed to be responsible
for protecting consumers but it has not done one thing to stop
price gouging at the pumps. It is sitting back and letting big
oil companies bully the country into accepting these outrageous
prices and the inflation and interest hikes that will come with
them.
Why will the government not support my suggestion of an energy
price review commission? Why will it not stand up for consumers
instead of big oil companies?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are standing up for
consumers. It was the 41 member Liberal task force that
commenced this activity.
If the member is talking about pricing, he should talk to his
provincial counterparts. Pricing is a provincial jurisdiction.
Even Premier Klein stated here that this is a dual
responsibility.
* * *
1450
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
In light of the Prime Minister's reckless and provocative
attempts to recreate his own legacy, will the Minister of Finance
inform the House if his department has or will undertake any
studies on the costs to the Canadian economy and the effect on
our dollar as a result of the unnecessary and ill-timed renewal
of the debate over national unity?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is the most incredible question we may hear.
The premier of Quebec has been saying week after week that in
his mind the referendum is a possibility as soon as possible.
Does the Conservative Party want us to do nothing?
This country will never break up in confusion. Quebecers want
to stay Canadians. They will never leave their country in
confusion. This is the commitment of the Prime Minister.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said there would be less
poverty if there were no debate on separation. Is poverty a
component of the downside of the referendum?
Things had been quiet for a while, but it all came to an end
with the Prime Minister's statements on a clear question in the
future, a clear majority in the future and a possible referendum
in the future.
Does the minister not realize that he and the Prime Minister are
the ones responsible for bringing the whole referendum issue
back to the forefront?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is it not the Parti Quebecois that is in office in
Quebec City? Is independence not the number one issue on its
agenda? Two statements were made this week, including one by the
Prime Minister, who said Canada was divisible, but only in a
legal fashion and with a clear majority.
The Premier of Quebec said he was prepared to make a unilateral
declaration of independence. Everyone knows that such a
unilateral declaration of independence would have no legal
basis. The Conservative Party is blaming the Prime Minister but
remains silent about the Premier of Quebec. When will the
Conservatives wake up?
* * *
[English]
CHILD LABOUR
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
In June of this year, the general conference of the
International Labour Organization unanimously adopted the
Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. This was to
protect vulnerable children. Given Canada's human security
agenda, I ask the minister today if Canada is planning to ratify
this agreement. What are we going to do?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada
underlined Canada's commitment to champion efforts to eliminate
exploitation of children and to reach international agreements to
protect the rights of children. We have already started working
with the provinces and territories as well as our social partners
toward Canadian ratification of the new ILO convention.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know the government is already facing legal challenges on the
new elections act.
This new act is also contaminated with the same old Liberal
patronage system of appointing hacks as Elections Canada
returning officers.
Why does the government insist on appointing Liberal hacks and
buddies instead of letting the Chief Electoral Officer hire based
on merit? Why is that?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject that accusation
against the people who serve the democratic process in Canada as
electoral officers. They are appointed. They are qualified
people. The same process that is used at the federal level is
also used in six provinces.
The Lortie commission, the royal commission on elections,
recommended not to change the system from what it is now.
Finally, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario said we would
have to double the size of the bureaucracy in order to do what
the hon. member is suggesting.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
looking in the Vocabulary of Parliament at a number of
definitions that help us to a clearer understanding of the terms
used in the House of Commons.
[English]
Under the heading of absolute majority, clear majority or
clear-cut majority, is the following definition “more than half
the votes or seats”.
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is that clear
enough?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a clear majority is a majority greater than 50% plus
one. If 50% plus one is not a clear majority, then what would
an unclear majority be?
A good bit more than 50% plus one is needed to break up a
country. A good bit more than 50% plus one is needed to move
ahead toward the irreversible act of breaking apart a country, a
decision from which there would be no turning back.
Yet the Bloc Quebecois claims that it wants to plunge Quebec
into such a situation. That is totally irresponsible. At some
point, there is a need to be a bit reasonable.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, because of the
EI reforms brought in by this Liberal government and the
Progressive Conservative government before it, only 30% of
unemployed women are receiving EI benefits, compared to 70% in 1989.
A Statistics Canada study shows that EI cuts are the leading
reason for the increase in poverty among families with children.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to admit
that, by reducing the eligibility of unemployed parents for EI
benefits, she is increasing child poverty?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to the way in
which we are looking at this data.
I remind the House that although the hon. member opposite would
have us believe that women are not making gains in the labour
force, in fact, the opposite is true. The unemployment rate of
5.8% for adult women is the lowest in almost 25 years. Since we
were elected in 1993, over 800,000 jobs have been created for
women. Women's employment has grown faster than men's in each of
the last four decades.
Without question the hon. member has said that the most
important social program for a family is a job. We are working
to ensure that women have them.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is refusing to talk about
the downside of the referendum. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I
will put the question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the Minister of Finance, who has spoken about the downside
of the referendum, tell us what impact the debate launched by
the federal Liberal government is having on the financial,
social and economic well-being of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is
there a downside to the referendum? Absolutely.
And we have experienced it in Quebec. Quebec's business
community, those working in Quebec, have seen it for years, ever
since the Péquistes took office.
When we look at the political uncertainty and see the impact on
business and job creation, when we look at the social problems
in Quebec resulting from the uncertainty surrounding the
referendum, it is very clear that there is a downside, and that
is why Canada will never break up.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month the federal government
announced the launch of Can-Learn Inter-Active. Can the Minister
of Human Resources Development explain why Canadians need another
Internet site? How is this new site different from the existing
sites already offering information on learning?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was very pleased
along with several of our partners, including the Canadian
students association, the provincial and territorial ministers of
education and the private sector, to launch the Can-Learn site.
This is a unique site that allows interactive tools such as a
student financial planner, a scholarship search and a tuition
fees data bank to be available to those who are looking for
information on post-secondary education. I encourage all
Canadians who are interested in this to look it up.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of two guests today: the hon. Pat
Atkinson, Minister of Health of Saskatchewan and the hon. Helmut
Giesbrecht, Minister responsible for the Public Service for the
province of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure if this is fair or not. I get one question every
three weeks and the government House leader has had three today
alone.
I might as well proceed with a short question for the government
House leader and ask him if he would mind telling us in the House
the nature and the type of legislation that we will see for the
remainder of this week and what legislation we will see for next
week. Perhaps he will also tell us when the House will recess
for winter break.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the last
question first. Hopefully, soon. In any case, the tentative
date is Friday, December 17. House leaders do negotiate from
time to time on such issues.
Getting back to the business at hand for the next few days, this
afternoon we shall continue debate on the health institution
bill, Bill C-13.
Tomorrow we will consider the tourism bill, Bill C-5, possibly
followed by a resumption of the consideration of Bill C-11, the
Devco bill. I intend to consult House leaders on this item a
little later.
For Monday, the first item to be taken up, if necessary, will be
Bill C-13. This will subsequently be followed by the Canada
Labour Code amendments, Bill C-12.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day.
On Wednesday, I expect that the House will be able to turn once
again to Bill C-9, the Nisga'a legislation at report stage.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, during question period today, I raised an issue with the
Minister of Industry with respect to gas pricing and the
Competition Act. The parliamentary secretary who responded made
reference to the absence of a member during committee this
morning.
I was at two committees this morning. That was not one of the
three, but I did attend two. I am wondering if it is in order to
comment on the presence or absence of a member in committee.
1505
The Speaker: I thought about that when it came up, but I
felt it was outside the House. Until I hear something in
committee about it, I should perhaps advise the hon. member to
bring it up in committee. If the chairman wants to bring it to
the House in a report, I will look at it then.
In the meantime, I prefer that we do not comment on the absence
or presence of any member. We will let that sit right there.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all the party
whips and, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), I believe you will
find consent for the following. I move:
That the recorded division that is to take place at the end of
the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, November 29 on
second reading of Bill C-10 be deferred until the expiry of
Government Orders on Tuesday, November 30.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an
act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to
repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to Bill C-13, an act to establish the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and to repeal the Medical
Research Council Act.
I will draw to the attention of the House some of the positive
and negative things in the bill and how they relate to other
things that go on in this place.
One of the positives of Bill C-13 is that those who serve on
this Canadian institutes of health research board are elected by
their peers. It also has accountability and peer review. Not
only is someone elected by their peers, but they are reviewed by
their peers. On top of that, only 4% or 5% of the entire budget
is taken up in bureaucracy, which leaves 95% or 96% to be spent
on the actual things the bill intends to do and the things that
the Canadian institutes of health research intend to do.
1510
I have just talked about elected by their peers, accountability,
peer review and very little waste, in the amount of 4%. What
institution in this place and involved with government does this
directly contradict and not match up with? I think of the other
place, the Senate.
I have done a fair bit of research on our Senate as of late,
being that I am the critic of that place for the official
opposition. It is worthwhile to point out that Canada, in
relation to countries such as Burkina Faso and Sierra Leon, still
continues to appoint our senators for life. It was only a few
short years ago that we said that no one could sit in the Senate
after the age of 75.
That all being considered, I noticed that even in the Canadian
institutes of health research act, Bill C-13, the president is to
serve a term of no more than five years. We have the government
agreeing to the very fundamental and basic idea of a fixed
appointment, a fixed election and a specified term, not a
position held for life. In comparison to the Senate, people can
be appointed to the Senate at the age of 30 and sit there until
the ripe age of 75. That would be a period of 45 years, nine
times longer than the president of the Canadian institutes of
health research would be allowed to sit in their posts.
A fair question to be put to the government is that if the
president of this new board, the Canadian institutes of health
research, can only sit for five years before having a formal
review and is no longer allowed to sit and the position changes
over, how is it that a fundamental basis of our Senate, this
second House that forms part of the parliament, reviews
legislation, can block legislation and can create legislation for
the citizens of Canada, can have somebody sit for 45 years with
no form of review.
I will tell the House what I think of that concept of having no
review. We have a situation today where even if the Senate runs
over budget, even if it spends more than what it has already been
allotted, it cannot be called before the government operations
committee to account for those things. I know this because I sat
on the government operations committee. I well remember when the
Senate went over budget and it wanted more money.
What happened? As members who are duly elected by taxpayers to
be the watchdogs of the public purse, we tried to call
representatives of the Senate to come before us in committee and
we could not do it. Not only could we not do it, but the Prime
Minister of this place would never take action against others in
that place if he were to have trouble with them unless there was
severe public pressure and condemnation by their peers?
As far as the actual terms and how long one should or could be
sitting in the Senate, right now somebody could be appointed at
30, be there until 75, and serve an entire 45 years without any
accountability to the Prime Minister, to the House of Commons or
to any elector in any province any place in the country.
Alberta is a province that likes to generate new ideas every now
and again. We did that with the Senate elections act. One of
the things we did was tie senators who ran under that act to a
fixed term. We set it at double the length of a municipal
election term. What I mean by that is that we have elections in
the province of Alberta, as do many provinces in the country,
that are actually fixed election dates.
1515
This is something the Reform Party supports in terms of this
place. We believe we should have fixed election dates, that it
should not be up to the whim and the caprice of the government to
decide when it wants to drop the writ and when it wants to call
an election.
I am advocating that we actually have fixed election dates in
terms of the elections act. Right now Bill C-2 is before a
committee in clause by clause consideration. Then, for example,
every four years we would know when the election would be. It
would not be a matter of speculation for business in terms of how
it conducts its activities, for the general population and
constituents, or for the benefit of the government in terms of
how it purchases time, buys advertising and all the rest of the
things it can use taxpayer money for its benefit in putting out a
good word about the government and the things it has done.
We in Alberta decided to go ahead and take that model of fixed
election dates for our municipal elections that happen every
three years and said that senators should be elected in every
second one of them. In the last municipal election we held a
Senate election in Alberta. We had more people vote in that
Senate election than anybody has ever voted for any federal
politician in the House, and certainly more than in the other
place because nobody has ever voted for one of those senators
aside from the Prime Minister and his sole vote.
We determined that we would be holding more of those Senate
elections in conjunction with the fixed election dates in the
municipal elections act. That is something I wanted to point
out. The government recognizes those principles and puts them
into things like the Canadian institutes of health research, but
we do not see it being carried forward in the Senate.
When the Prime Minister campaigned in 1990 and spent his time
issuing threats to the province of Quebec about 60% majorities
being required for it to make a decision on its own, he said that
he believed in Senate elections, that he wanted to see people
elected in that other place. If he had carried forward on the
intentions he laid out when he ran for the Liberal leadership,
most of the people in the Senate would be elected senators by
now. That is not the case because he did not follow through on
his word, his promise in 1990.
I would like to touch on the whole idea of selection by one's
peers. Instead of even being judged by fellow senators,
appointment to the Senate is gained by the judgment of one man.
Admittedly there was a rare exception in Canadian history when it
was the judgment of a woman, but for the most part it has been
one man, the Prime Minister of the country deciding who gets into
the Senate.
Since he has not been a senator himself, we might ask what he
judges or how he judges how one gets into the Senate? Like the
people who might be serving on the Canadian institutes of health
research, will he look at what kind of medical accreditation they
have? Will he judge how they have practised medicine? Will he
examine whether or not they have the support of their peers? Is
any of that being done? No.
The way that someone gains a seat in the Senate is unfortunately
based on how loyal they have been to a given prime minister. Are
they dependable when the Prime Minister wishes to bring forward a
piece of legislation that he knows will be very difficult for the
people in that place to swallow, that may go against the popular
consent of those he governs, that may not carry the popular will
of the day? Will they be good, loyal soldiers, strap on their
jackboots and carry forward with the orders?
Maybe somebody who has been a good loyal parliamentary secretary
marshalling bills through committee and shoving the will of the
Prime Minister down the throats of the people of the country
would be the type of person who gets put into the Senate, the
good loyalists.
Another way some prime ministers have judged is not just on the
basis of loyalty and being good jackboot wearing parliamentary
secretaries but on how much money they have raised.
Many senators in that place have broken records and set the tone
for being the biggest political fundraisers in Canadian history.
People are judged in terms of how to get into the Senate on how
many millions of dollars they raised for a leadership campaign.
1520
Government members recognize that accountability, peer review,
minimal waste and proper selection are important but not when it
comes to the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-13. I would like to take this
opportunity to greet Mr. Gary Carter, who is here with us today.
I am pleased to speak to this bill that formally establishes the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. These institutes will be
responsible for organizing, coordinating and funding health
research at the federal level.
In his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced that these
institutes would be allocated a $65 million budget for their
first year of operation. This budget is to increase to
$175 million the following year, in 2001-02, for a grand total
of $500 million, when combined with the funding already set aside
for the Medical Research Council.
We are pleased to see that the federal government is putting
more money into health research since it is a crucial area.
I should say from the outset that we in the Bloc Quebecois—my
distinguished colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve included—will
see to it that Quebec gets its fair share of those funds.
In the past, when looking at the distribution of federal funding
for research and development—and we can go back 20 or 25 years—we
could see that Quebec did not get its fair share, a share that
reflected its demographic weight.
On average, Quebec received about 14% of the federal funding for
R and D, and so far, nothing has changed.
With the new funding provided by this bill and the money handed
out year after year not only in various areas of medical
research, but also in bio-food, high technology and other
industries, we just want to ensure that Quebec is getting its
fair share.
Someday, I hope the Quebec members of the Liberal Party of
Canada across the way will rise and demand, as we have since
1993, that Quebec receive what it is owed. They were elected by
Quebecers, but I have yet to see one of them take a single step
to demand justice.
As I indicated earlier, we support the establishment of these
institutes, especially since new funding will be allocated to
one very crucial area, medical research.
However, we do have some concerns, which is why our eminent
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will be moving amendments on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. For instance, we feel that
Bill C-13 stints on the role of the provinces. Of course, members
opposite tend to forget, as they did these last few years and
especially in the throne speech, that health is an area of
provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, the province has
jurisdiction over health.
This is a fact that is barely acknowledged in the bill. And
since the bill is based on the constitutional divisions of
power, the provinces are given short shrift.
The bill says that the provinces and all kind of people will be
consulted, and so on, but nowhere does it say that health is an
exclusive jurisdiction.
For example, the bill states:
We would have like to see a statement recognizing that the
provinces are fully responsible for health and that they will be
the first partners informed and consulted, particularly with
regards to the defining of the different health research
institutes.
1525
I emphasize that the Quebec government is
finalizing a science policy. It will identify strategic areas in
health research, including mental health, cancer, human genome
and biotechnology.
One of the amendments that we will certainly propose will be to
the effect that the Government of Quebec, like all the other
provincial governments, must absolutely be consulted and that
its research priorities must be taken into account in
establishing the health research institutes.
There is another problem with the provision I quoted earlier.
In the bill, the expression issues pertaining to health is used
more often than the word research. This bothers us because the
use of the expression issues pertaining to health leaves the
door wide open for the federal government to interfere in
various ways in the area of health.
One amendment we will certainly put forward will be to
clarify this issue and to replace the expression issues
pertaining to health with the word research, because what the
government wants to achieve with this bill has to do with health
research and not. We hope this is a mistake and that the federal
government does not intend to interfere in the area of health,
which is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.
We will clarify that, and my distinguished colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will work to make this bill clearer.
We support health research because it is fundamental, and this
is something I cannot overemphasize. However, the few hundred
million dollars that will be spent on health research over the
next three years must not overshadow the fact that this
government made huge cuts in the health sector. Cuts in
transfers to the provinces, particularly for health care, have
had devastating effects, the full extent of which is still
unknown.
I always feel uncomfortable when the Minister of Finance rises
in the House, which is a very solemn place, and tells us he
increased transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary
education and income security, as this is not true.
He did not even increase transfers. He keeps cutting them and he
will continue to do so until 2003.
By then, this brazen Minister of Finance, who keeps spouting
nonsense during oral question period, will have cut $33 billion
in transfers to the provinces. Half or close to half of that
amount would have been allocated to health. This is not peanuts.
In Quebec alone, there will be a shortfall of $850 million in
the health sector this year, while the cumulative cuts imposed
by this brazen minister will total $6 billion of which half, in
Quebec, would have been earmarked for health.
On the one hand, the minister invests a few hundred million
dollars in health research, while on the other hand he is
cutting billions of dollars which should have been used to help
the sick, to manage hospitals and to make more beds available.
We have been talking about oncology for a while now in Quebec,
Ontario, and other regions of Canada.
These billions of dollars could have been used for all that. But
the Minister of Finance preferred to take that money from the
provinces. He is the one mainly responsible for the mess in
hospitals, but that does not bother him in the least.
It takes some nerve to do what he did, particularly when he
says, hand over heart, that he cares about the plight of the
sick and of the poor children. This is sheer hypocrisy.
1530
I have never seen such hypocrisy in this parliament as when the
minister puts his hand over his heart while talking about poor
children and sick people, when he contributed to making these
people suffer even more.
The House can expect my eminent colleague, the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to move a series of amendments to make
this bill more acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I am happy
to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, a bill to establish the
Canadian institutes of health research. Finally we see this
government come up with a piece of legislation that deals with a
very important part of our Canadian infrastructure, health care
and health research.
This is the same government that bragged in the budget of
February of this year that it was putting $11.5 billion back into
health care. What it failed to say, however, was that the $11.5
billion was basically returning part of the $17 billion it had
cut from the health care system. It is good to see that at least
there is some forward movement when it comes to health care.
I cannot speak today about health care and ignore what we saw in
the last year in how poorly those afflicted with hepatitis C were
treated by the government and the lack of support for these
people. It was something that was truly not acceptable to our
party, to me as an individual and to Canadians as a whole because
they felt these people were truly victims and should have been
given some compensation.
Let us look at the waste and the misuse of funds by this
government. Take, for example, Bill C-68, the long gun registry.
The government said it would spend $85 million to set up this
registry. It has spent well over $200 million. The registry is
not going very well. It is still not working as it should, and
crime has not been reduced because of this so-called piece of
crime reduction legislation. Had those funds been spent on
giving our law enforcement people better resources, better
computer systems and money to increase the number of policemen on
our streets, those funds would have been better spent than
wasting them on something that was more of a PR effort or a tax
grab.
Canadians are not strangers to huge advances in medical science.
Despite our small population of some 30 million people, we have
seen very notable achievements within this country in health
care. I think back to Banting and Best and their discovery of
insulin. I think back to Sir William Osler, who wrote the
medical text book Principles and Practices of Medicine. He
basically introduced the idea of clinical care in our health care
system.
We see that Canada has already had some notable people in the
health care field. This piece of legislation will help to bring
out some other people who could make a contribution to health
care and health research.
We talk about the brain drain in this country. A lot of our
bright young minds are going across the border to better paying
jobs and better working conditions. One of the positive things
about this piece of legislation is that it will help to keep some
of those bright young minds in Canada. Not only will those
people stay in Canada to earn their living, but some medical
advances will probably be brought to this country because of
them.
Prior to my entry into politics I spent over 15 years with the
Life Underwriters Association of Yarmouth, the town where I
worked for the past number of years, and every Christmas season
we would raise funds for cystic fibrosis research.
I know how difficult cystic fibrosis can be on the families of
young people which demand the extent of care that is required for
these people, the constant medication that they have to take, the
constant treatment and therapy that has to be given so that they
can continue living. Their quality of life is often diminished.
Their life is not very long because this illness kills.
1535
Research has isolated the gene that causes cystic fibrosis. The
cure has not been found, but I think what it shows is that with
funding and with research we can work toward a cure for some of
our most serious health problems.
When I think of my home province of Nova Scotia, I think about
the IWK/Grace Health Centre, which is a world renowned children's
hospital. I know that a lot of research is done there. The
centre has very bright minds, good researchers and good doctors.
I know firsthand how caring the centre is. My youngest daughter
has cerebral palsy and we have spent a lot of time there over the
past 13 years. The level of care, the level of treatment and how
that centre helps people is very evident.
Yet, because of all the cuts the government has made the people
who work at the centre, along with many others, have had to work
hard to raise extra funds. They have a telethon every spring to
raise funds, just so they can continue to operate. These
institutions should have the funds necessary to provide the
services that Canadians need.
We get numerous calls and letters from people saying that health
care is important, that we should work to make it better and not
let it erode. If we are not vigilant, I am afraid that we will
end up with something similar to what they have in the United
States. I am not in agreement with that. We have a health care
system in Canada that is by far the best in the world, but we
have to be vigilant. We have to ensure that we keep it.
This is good legislation. There are, however, some things that
concern me. As any legislation, it is not perfect. One of the
things we have to do is ensure that we do not have institutes
that are overburdened with bureaucracy. We have to ensure that
the funds go to the researchers for research purposes and that
the benefits go to curing illness and not to an administration
that is top heavy.
Another point that has to be looked at is the transparency in
the creation of these institutes. This cannot be another
political plum given to supporters of the government. We have to
ensure that these are institutes which are independent, which do
their work, which do not waste funds on bureaucracy, and that the
funds go where they are really needed.
This is legislation that is worthy of our support. I ask all
members to support it so that it can go to committee where it can
be studied properly.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this is my
opportunity to stand to speak to Bill C-13, a bill that will
establish the Canadian institutes of health research and repeal
the Medical Research Council Act.
I came to parliament with health issues on my mind, and of
course they have stayed with me. This is an important subject.
1540
As we are on the subject of research, let me spend a moment
mentioning some things on which Canada really stands out. My
colleague just mentioned Banting and Best and their work on
insulin. I cannot calculate how much of a difference that made
worldwide to the treatment of diabetes.
A colleague of mine, Lorne Tyrrell, a young man who graduated in
the same medical class as I, has gone on to become the dean of my
medical school. I met with Lorne about a month ago. We have had
an opportunity to exchange information over the years. I was
fascinated to hear about his research on hepatitis B, which was
conducted in a Canadian institute at a very high level. Hepatitis
B is a major illness worldwide. Lorne and his research group
found a treatment that is now on the market. It has gone through
all the testing. This treatment will revolutionize hepatitis B
care. I am proud to know Lorne and to have associated with him.
I am proud to call him one of my colleagues. His name will one
day be known in the same vein. It is an important part of
Canadian life. The improvement to health in an area like this is
really quite dramatic.
I want to spend a moment talking about research funding and how
it is divvied up in Canada. I was surprised to find when I came
to Ottawa from Alberta that research funds were not apportioned
according to the severity of the disease. I found that research
funding was apportioned in somewhat of an ad hoc way. I was
dismayed by that and I made these suggestions over and over again
to the research community, and I will make these proposals again
today.
I believe that a portion of research funding should have basic,
specific criteria. These criteria could be expanded, but they
would include the severity of the disease, the number of people
affected, the number of people who die from the disease and the
number of people who suffer from the disease. Those would be
high on the list of priorities.
These criteria would also focus on what is the research
expertise like in that particular disease in Canada. I do not
believe we should be recreating work that is being done in
Switzerland or Germany. I believe we should look at research
worldwide to figure out where Canada's research dollars would be
best placed. There are diseases such as cystic fibrosis and
rheumatoid arthritis that get very little funding, yet they are
very close to a cure. Canada has expertise in these areas. I
wish and would hope that research funds would be directed to
those areas.
For comparison purposes, let me lay out some of the funding with
the recent figures I have. Diabetes, which affects a vast number
of people in Canada, receives $1.1 million in federal research
funding. Schizophrenia, which is a disease of huge proportion,
receives $300,000 in funding. Crones disease receives $100,000
in funding. One of the new diseases on the scene, which is a
very significant infectious disease, AIDS, receives $41.5 million
in funding. When I look at the proportions, I think they are
skewed.
Then there is the issue of keeping and attracting bright
researchers. I have known researchers who have left our country.
I have had the opportunity to ask them why. They told me that
they left Canada for three reasons.
Two of them were monetary. One was the value of their income,
which was substantially enhanced in other countries. The second
was taxation. They found that our taxation system was onerous.
These people are high earners. If they earn $100,000 and the tax
man takes away $50,000 and they find another jurisdiction where
that is not the case, the draw is to go where their work is more
appreciated.
1545
The final reason was support for research. The bill moves
toward supporting research. That is one of the reasons that I
support it. Support for research in terms of equipment, spaces
at the universities and research labs is substantially lower in
Canada than in many developed countries. Some of the reason for
that lies behind decisions made by governments in years gone by:
overspending, spending for the future and running up huge debts.
Let me digress a little and talk about some health matters that
still are unaddressed. On hepatitis C, we are coming close to
the second anniversary of Judge Horace Krever inquiry. Two years
ago there was a major exposé on what happened to our blood system
and people getting hepatitis C and HIV through tainted blood.
After all the debate, all the discussion we had in the Houses,
it is interesting to note that not one single solitary penny of
funds has been disbursed, not even to the people in the narrow
area the government agreed to give funding to. Ontario gave
funding to everyone. In Quebec it was the same. This is one of
the saddest times in my time in parliament. I still shake my
head over the issue of how a government that prides itself on its
compassion could have been so lacking in compassion on that
issue.
It is interesting to note, however, that in other countries
where probes were taken not by the government but by law
officers, by the legal system, charges have been laid. In France
particularly there were charges laid against high officials in
the government. We have an ongoing RCMP probe in Canada. Quietly
behind the scenes RCMP officers are looking for the reasons that
Canada was so far behind other developed countries in terms of
looking at tainted blood. It is very close to opening another
chapter in the hepatitis C saga.
Another point I cannot help but mention is that the Liberals
made very specific promises on health care in their red book. I
listened carefully and believed that their promises would come
true. What did they deliver? My colleague said that they
delivered $17 billion in cuts. That is not accurate. The
delivery was $21.4 billion in cuts over five years.
Now the government is saying that it is doing so wonderfully it
will be returning $11.5 billion in the next five years. According
to simple grade 3 mathematics it is obvious we are still deeply
in the hole. We have the longest waiting lists for surgery in
Canadian history. We have an exodus of some of our best nurses
and lab technicians and in fact very poor technology in a host of
areas.
What could be done? There are people looking for creative
solutions for health care. I look for things that are not system
related but patient related, things like a debit card to put
funding decisions in the hands of the patient, like medisave
accounts and like patient guarantees to give patients the
opportunity to be sure they are not on a waiting list too long.
Is the CIHR a step in the right direction on medical research? In
my estimation it is supportive.
In conclusion I will simply say that I will be voting for the
CIHR. I do hope the specific issue of apportionment of research
funding will be carefully looked at by those who will run the
CIHR.
1550
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-13, an
act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
The part of the bill dealing with the objective clearly states:
The objective of the CIHR is to excel, according to
internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in
the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved
health for Canadians, more effective health services and
products and a strengthened Canadian health care system—
I read through the bill quickly. It will warrant further
scrutiny. I realize that its intent is good, but we have a lot
of work ahead of us. That is normal. We are at the second
reading stage and we have to debate the bill for a number of
hours. Then, in committee, we will hear the views of
individuals, groups or organizations concerned. That represents
a lot of work.
It means that it is important to stress now, for the benefit of
those who are watching and take an interest in this issue, the
good points and those we see as more problematical, so that the
organizations and the individuals who feel they can shed some
light on our examination can do so in due course.
Scientific research is something at which Canadian and Quebecers
excel.
We have world class researchers, particularly in the health
field.
I too am from a Quebec City area riding. There are world class
research institutes and pharmaceutical research centres in our
area. They have made discoveries and they are keeping on their
good work. They can hold their heads just as high as anyone
else.
At the same time, if we want to maintain this level of
performance among our scientists, our researchers and our
research institutes, we have to give them the resources they
need. Often, it is money they need. Research is expensive.
It is expensive because researchers need well equipped
laboratories.
It is expensive, also, because the scientists who do this
research deserve a decent salary; otherwise, they will go
elsewhere to get it.
Let us be perfectly clear. These researchers, these Canadian and
Quebec scientists, were born here. They studied here. They have
were trained here first. Then, many of them have gone abroad to
get greater skills and broader knowledge. They now work here and
they accomplish a lot. If we want this to continue, we have to
take certain steps.
The purpose of this bill is to establish measures dealing with
some of these points, including funding, but not only funding.
But I will come back to that later on.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of the bill and
even feels a certain degree of enthusiasm, seeing that this bill
will support the advancement of scientific research in the area
of health—and we certainly know how important it is.
However, there are some problems with this bill. For example, it
is unfortunate that, in the preamble, instead of recognizing the
provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health, the government
only recognizes the fact that they have some role to play in
that area.
1555
Health is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. If we are
to have a bill to improve scientific research, we certainly
should make an effort to eliminate jurisdictional irritants.
This bill should not open the door to any potential
jurisdictional conflicts because scientific research is far
removed from all these jurisdictional issues.
In fact, the second whereas in the preamble to this bill,
unfortunately, reads as follows:
Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in
health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with
provincial governments to support the health care system and
health research;
This is a weak statement. It minimizes the inherent
responsibility of the provinces, including Quebec, with regard
to health. It should have been specified—and I hope an
amendment will be made to that effect—that the provinces are
responsible for managing health services within their boundaries
and that it is necessary to obtain their agreement to do certain
things.
I want to make a general comment that has obvious implications
in our daily lives and particularly in hospitals.
Health research is not only about finding new drugs; it is not
only about inventing new treatments or about designing new
medical devices. It is also about planning for future needs in
terms of personnel, institutions, skills, facilities in order to
be able to take care of the people who will need medical
attention in the coming weeks and years.
At present, in Quebec—and I am mentioning this only as an
example—we have a problem with oncologists. There are not
enough of them, but it takes six years to train one.
Consequently, it is six years ago that we should have addressed
the issue but, as we know, the shift to ambulatory care had been
put on hold by the Liberal government of the day in Quebec,
forcing Mr. Rochon to proceed with it, with all the delays that
implies.
Health research is also, therefore, about knowing how to
determine future needs. And since health is a provincial
responsibility, if this bill does not recognize it, we will
experience this kind of problem again. I know that everybody
wishes this problem to be solved. This bill should ensure that.
I should like to make another comment that is relatively simple,
but that is important. Bills are written in both official
languages, French and English. And both versions have force of
law, independently of one another.
Now, when the two versions are not equivalent, we have two acts
that are interpreted, not one by the other, but independently of
one another. In the French version, at line 10 of the preamble,
we read the word “centralisé”, and I will read the whole
sentence to give you the context.
Attendu que le Parlement estime que des Instituts de recherche
en santé doivent être créés en vue de coordonner, de centraliser
et d'intégrer la recherche en matière de santé selon les
principes suivants:
Co-ordinating health research is fine; nobody is against that.
Integrate health research is also fine. But to centralize health
research? The English version of the bill says focus, but the
French version says centraliser. But, we must ask, centralize it
where?
When I saw that, I thought it made no sense at all. Then I
looked at the English version, which says:
[English]
Whereas parliament believes that health research institutes
should be created to co-ordinate, focus and integrate health
research.
[Translation]
Centraliser does not mean to focus. The English version says
that the research effort will be focused on chosen subject
matters, whereas the French version says research will be
centralized. To centralize means to physically gather in one
place. This is bad translation; we end up with two different
pieces of legislation.
There is lots of work to be done before this bill can actually
produce the expected results and before we can be sure that our
first class scientists have all the necessary tools to do their
job, because we really need those results, as the issue here is
our health.
1600
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to raise some issues that relate
to this bill. I must say at the beginning that the government has
been slow off the mark. This is something that should have been
done years and years ago.
One of the concerns we have in agriculture on the prairies is
the lack of research that has been done in relation to GMOs.
Madam Speaker, I can see you are a bit puzzled when I use the
term GMOs. Let me explain that.
A GMO is a genetically modified organism. It is something that
scientists are able to do with an organism through the use of
gamma rays or some such technique. They are able to bombard the
essential ingredients of life and in some way mutate them and
develop organisms that are resistant to certain diseases and
which have certain characteristics that might take a much longer
time to develop naturally.
There have been genetically modified organisms all throughout
history because they occur naturally. The rays of the sun will
create these kinds of things. Farmers have been growing
genetically modified plants for years and years.
One of the problems that is developing is the fear campaign that
is being spread by certain organizations. We have seen it in
Europe. It is creating the concern that these are going to
somehow impact our life and cause a lot of problems. We need
research in that area and it needs to be done now.
I realize that most members who have spoken so far have
supported this and by and large we need this. My concern with
what the government has put forward is that if the guidelines are
not implemented properly, the committee that is selected may just
be another patronage haven for the Prime Minister. We have to
make sure there is a complete balance in the membership of the
committee that selects the particular members and that selects
the various projects.
Consideration must be given to some of the concerns in rural
Canada, for example, research that would address the whole area
of GMOs. If the question of whether or not GMOs are harmful is
not answered quite soon, it will hurt the economy of our country.
That is why I say this is something that should have been done a
long time ago. I am glad the government is doing it now and my
hope is that the type of research that needs to be done will get
done.
Bloc members have been arguing that this is an area of
provincial jurisdiction. Research in some areas, such as the one
I have just described which pertains to agriculture and the
growing of certain crops and whether those crops have a harmful
or helpful effect on us as human beings needs to be done. That
kind of research would transcend provincial boundaries. That is
a concern in more areas and possibly one could get around the
concern the Bloc has by having provinces co-operate in this.
I also have concerns, as I mentioned previously on another bill,
that this could develop a huge bureaucracy that would suck a lot
of funds out of the system that could have gone to research.
There has to be some check, some balance in the bill to ensure
that does not happen.
I agree that research is very important and we need to have
public input into research. Is the government willing to make
some of the amendments that Reform is suggesting in regard to
this? We have to work more co-operatively even in this House.
1605
I realize that in this bill the government has broken some new
ground. There is more public accountability. It is providing
for this kind of thing. Why does the government not do that in
other areas?
The Prime Minister makes 5,000 patronage appointments every
year. We do not just need reform in the health care research
area. We need reform in many other areas where there is more
public accountability and input. I hope this bill will break new
ground and the government will see this is absolutely necessary
in many other areas. For the Prime Minister to have that much
power to control that many organizations and to have that much
input is not healthy in a democratic society. That is something
which I hope will be raised more and more as we go along.
I bring up the topic of gun control. Madam Speaker, you may be
a bit shocked as to why I would raise this issue in the context
of this bill, but I have said on many occasions that the hundreds
of millions of dollars that are now being spent laying a piece of
paper beside every gun in the country, referring to the gun
registry, is a complete waste of time. If we want to save lives,
we should begin to divert funds from some of these ridiculous,
useless projects implemented by the government and put them into
health research. It is a no brainer as to what would save more
lives. A gun registry does not save a life. It cannot. If we
put funds into the health research area, it would genuinely do
something to enhance our quality of life. I hope this issue will
be raised. I hope the government is listening and will address
that.
My concern in relation to this bill is that the government may
lay down the rules for the various projects. If it is able to
make some of these appointments, there may not be a fair hearing.
The people who make the rules generally call the shots. If the
government gets too involved in making the rules that these
various projects have to follow, that could manipulate the
process and some of the best projects may never be realized. The
research that needs to be done may not be done. I hope that all
segments of society will be well respected.
One of the concerns raised by my constituents over and over
again is that much of the research is funded by private drug
companies and in doing that, they determine the outcome of the
research. The person who pays the piper calls the tune. I know
the government says that it will collaborate with private
industry and so on but the concern is that therefore if it does
that, a lot of the research that would be very helpful to
Canadians will not be done. Research into health food products,
organic foods and the use of herbs in enhancing the health of
people may never be done.
I want to make the point forcefully that we should be looking at
alternatives to the medicines being used at the present time.
The emphasis on drug research is not what we need in Canada. We
need to look at many other areas. People in my constituency feel
very strongly that the government is not doing enough research in
that area.
We talked about the brain drain today. The government has been
draining the brains of this country for a long time and it is
going to take a lot to reverse that. I hope something like this
will improve that concern people have. I cannot emphasize enough
that we have to keep our young people at home. We have to get
them researching these areas and making sure some of the benefits
of organic foods, health food products, herbs and so on are
recognized.
I come back to what I was saying at the beginning, that these
genetically modified organisms and foods people are scared about
will be properly researched. I am not aware of a whole lot of
research that has been done. That will take a long time to do.
1610
I am going to watch this bill with interest. A lot of things
still need to be ironed out. People have concerns about health
care research. I am glad the government is addressing it, but we
have to make sure that we keep on track and ensure that all
Canadians have a voice in the research being done here and that
it is equal and does not favour certain segments of society.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I join my
colleagues in supporting Bill C-13.
When we talk about the opposition, very often we think that it
is difficult for it to agree with some bills. We have an example
today where the Bloc Quebecois can be in agreement.
I will talk about some flaws in this bill. One of them is that
it should have been introduced as early as in 1993, when the
Liberals came into office, because there is an urgent need to
invest into research and development to help researchers.
We know that the United States are a few steps ahead of us, and
that we need to focus on research and development.
It is very laudable to help Canadian Institutes of Health
Research. Unfortunately, the money is not transferred to the
provinces. This is another flaw, a major flaw, I would say. Why
not give this money to the provinces so they can manage it
themselves?
Earlier, I heard a Reform colleague ask “Will the bureaucracy be
expanded? Will the money go directly into research or into
framework and administration activities?” There is always this
danger. When we create something, very often a large part of the
money goes into the administration and very little goes where it
should. This is another flaw that I wanted to mention.
It is nice to agree that money should be provided for health
research and development.
But we should certainly not forget the $7 billion that were cut
from transfer payments to the provinces. The government says it
will be generous and give some money back, but let us not forget
this $7 billion.
If the Rochon reform in Quebec did hurt—and is probably still
hurting—one must look at the root cause: the $7 billion the
provinces did not get. Without money, no matter how good a
manager you are, you will have a hard time making the system
work. Mrs. Marois, who is certainly a remarkable health minister,
needs money too.
I will never say this enough: the federal cuts are the root
cause of the problems faced by hospitals in Quebec. These cuts
are shocking, revolting, disgusting, odious and not worthy of
any government. How could they make such drastic cuts?
In the area of health care, when someone arrives at the hospital
and needs heart surgery or has cancer, leukaemia or any other
form of cancer, the situation is urgent. Some patients have to
wait for weeks, even months. In Quebec, patients had to be sent
to the United States, not because we lacked expertise—we do have
expertise—but because of the federal cuts. At times, you have to
make do with what you have.
These thoughtless, irresponsible cuts have gutted health care in
the other provinces too, but especially in Quebec, whose
problems I am more familiar with. The cuts to the health
transfers are the root cause of the difficulty Quebec is having
in managing its hospitals properly.
The management and staff of the hospitals and CLSC in Matane,
Maria and Amqui are performing near miracles to treat patients
with dignity and speed.
I visited these three hospitals, which are in my riding.
1615
We really have no idea of all the work and the efforts we ask of
our physicians, nurses and orderlies. They have always given
their all, but now we are asking for even more. Why is it that
we keep asking more and more from these people? We know that
when people with tremendous responsibilities get tired and
exhausted, medical errors can occur, but fortunately, so far,
these have been avoided. These people should not be blamed.
The people to blame are those who cut provincial transfers. They
are responsible for the way things stand today.
For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the estimated shortfall will be
about $1.7 billion. In Quebec alone, they will reach $850 million.
Since 1993, cuts to health care have totalled $3.5 billion. That
means that since our election to this House, cuts of $3.5 million
have been made to the health care budget.
My constituents come to see me in my riding office of either
Matane or Amqui and ask “Why are so many cuts in Quebec?” I tell
them what I tell everyone in Quebec “Think about it. Who is
responsible for this? Who is responsible for the lack of health
care and the long waiting lists?” It is the federal government,
and no one can argue about that. We have to keep saying this
over and over again. Of course, when people go to a hospital,
they are already in pain. They look around and see what is going
on and, after one and two hours, they get tired of waiting and
lose patience.
I have said it before, and I will say it again—because this
cannot be overemphasized—if people have to wait for a week, two
weeks or a very long time before an operation, it is not because
of the physician or the hospital, but because the hospital is
starved of resources and, as a result, the level of services has
dropped. Those in charge are doing the impossible to give the
best service.
Members opposite should be ashamed for their attack on the sick.
Occasionally, members of the opposition in Quebec come up with
special cases, but they do not have enough courage to explain
why those cases do occur, and why people are on waiting lists.
We know very well that inadequate budgets are the problem.
The finance minister is bragging that, in just a few years, he
will have raked in a $95 billion surplus. Yes, $95 billion.
People in my riding of Matapédia-Matane think it does not make
any sense to have cuts in health care and accumulate a $95
billion surplus.
In my riding, many seasonal workers and forestry workers have a
hard time making ends meet. In the forestry sector, summers can
be very hectic for men with a family—although I am sure some
women are forestry workers too. They have to get up very early
in the morning, and go to bed very late at night. On top of
that, they are under stress because of employment insurance,
which the people in my riding and I call poverty insurance. They
wonder why they have to pay into this plan, which is just
stressing them out. The level of stress is incredible.
1620
When I speak of Bill C-13, when I say that money must be put into
health, people may perhaps wonder why so much money is needed.
Perhaps we need to find out why people are so stressed out. It
is said that one of the things that causes cancer is stress.
This government is a past master at causing stress. It ought to
examine its conscience and say “It is true that research must be
carried out in order to eliminate or control certain diseases”.
I say that is all very fine, but what might be needed instead is
a more general examination of the problem.
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 Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Devco; the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, Agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13,
an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research,
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
Never let it be said that members of the official opposition
oppose all government legislation for the sake of opposing. While
we have an onus to oppose as the opposition in this adversarial
parliamentary system, we frequently support bills which we think
are in the public interest. We are pleased to lend our support
to this thoughtful bill which seeks to improve the administration
of grants and funding for medical and scientific research.
As we have heard in this debate, currently grants to finance
medical research are administered by the Medical Research
Council, an agency of the government established many years ago
on the common bureaucratic model of such agencies, with a minimum
of accountability and transparency and, many would argue, an
excess of administrative costs and wasteful bureaucracy, money
which ought to be directed toward real frontline, concrete,
scientific research.
Following consultations with members of the medical research
community and those involved in this field the government
decided, I think correctly, to reform and streamline this process
by creating the Canadian institutes of health research to
decentralize the administration of these grants and the funding
of this research and to make somewhat more accountable and
perhaps less bureaucratic the structure of these new agencies.
The new institutes of health research will have one central
co-ordinating body or governing council which will consist of a
president and an advisory board of no more than 20 members. This
governing council will be empowered under the bill to appoint a
scientific director and advisory board for each institute, which
will deal with particular areas of research, each incorporating
expertise in their respective fields.
While we are pleased to see that the decentralized specific
advisory boards will be appointed by the governing council and
not by the cabinet or the government, we are concerned that the
governing council of the CIHR will be appointed by the federal
cabinet.
This is a point that we raise in virtually every bill that comes
before us. We are as deeply concerned as most Canadians about
the enormous, largely unchecked power of the Prime Minister
through governor in council appointments to name political
friends of the government to sensitive positions throughout the
entire public service, agencies, crown corporations and the like.
1625
Many objective observers have suggested that in Canada our
executive branch, our Prime Minister and cabinet, exercises more
power and more unchecked discretion with respect to appointments
than any other parliamentary or republican government in the
democratic world.
A case in point would be the recent selection by the Prime
Minister through a governor in council appointment of the
president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We could
look to our mother parliament in the United Kingdom where such
decisions as the appointment of the president of the British
Broadcasting Corporation are delegated to the board of that crown
corporation rather than retained and exercised by Her Majesty in
council. I would strongly suggest that the government review how
it could decentralize this appointment process for the governing
council of the health research institutes.
I commend the government for its commitment, in the presentation
of this bill, to spend no more than 4% to 5% of the operating
budget of the CIHR on administration. However we would like to
see some firm guarantees that this will be the case. It is a
tragedy when scarce tax dollars are directed toward important
agencies of this nature and are eaten up by bureaucracy and
administration. Too often we see that happen. One would say
that it is almost inevitable. It is almost the result of human
nature that bureaucracies will tend to grow if given the
opportunity.
I propose that there ought to be a legislated maximum of
administration costs. Those administration costs ought to be
defined and should be verified by the auditor general who is
answerable to this place. That would be an important guarantee,
a step toward reforming agencies of this nature in the public
sector in general to ensure that the tax dollars we allocate
actually go to frontline research.
This is critically important research. I am glad to see that
the importance of medical research is recognized by all parties
and, I would suggest, by all people across the ideological and
partisan spectra.
Sometimes members of the Reform Party are accused of opposing
government per se and in toto. It is alleged that we support the
libertarian night watchman state and see no role for government
agencies or programs. I would say, to the contrary, that in our
last election platform and in our fiscal proposals of the past
several years we have consistently supported increased funding
for medical research and frontline real, hard scientific
research, because we think that government is in a unique
position to use public resources to finance the sort of research
that would not otherwise be properly financed through the private
sector.
Let me be on the record as a frugal fiscal conservative in
saying that even I strongly support the proposed budgetary
increases from the Medical Research Council to the Canadian
institutes for health research contemplated in the bill.
We understand that the government has proposed for the fiscal
year 2000-01 to allocate a budget of some $374 million to be
increased in the following fiscal year to some $500 million.
Again we hope that every cent possible will be directed to real
research of a practical nature rather than to administration and
overhead.
I understand the selection committee estimates that
approximately 200 more research grants will be awarded under the
new institutes than will be awarded under the current Medical
Research Council, which is a positive step forward.
We hope this new structure will incorporate the advice and
active involvement of all so-called stakeholders in the medical
research field, including academic researchers, researchers in
the private sector, in pharmaceutical companies and in other
health care companies, and researchers in government agencies and
departments. Working together these various branches of society
will be able to identify the most important targets for medical
research.
1630
We know that we have made enormous advances in the century now
coming to a close, in finding cures and treatments for ailments
and diseases which have plagued mankind throughout history. We
see this reflected in the enormous improvement in vital
statistics and life expectancy, lower infant mortality and the
general quality of life that we all enjoy.
The kinds of medical treatment that have been discovered by
modern medical research, which we often take for granted, were
unthinkable for our ancestors who founded this country. We owe
it to them and to the future to continue directing a substantial
portion of our collective social resources to stamping out the
scourges and diseases that remain unresolved, such as cancer and
many other diseases that claim so many lives.
In closing, I am pleased to announce my support for this bill
and commend the government for its introduction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on Bill C-13, an act to establish the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical
Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
Until this summer I was industry critic for my party. For two
years, I had an opportunity to see the representatives of
universities, numerous research centres and of course funding
councils that came before us. They came to tell us how
underfunded research and development was in Canada, and how much
the funding had dropped in real terms.
It would be important to look at the major trends in the way
support to health research has been distributed.
I have here a chart, which I cannot show to the House, but which
was provided by the Medical Research Council of Canada. It shows
that in Canada, while funding had been increasing by about 10%
since 1991, in 1994, shortly after the Liberal Party came to
office, this funding started to diminish to the point where it
dropped below zero.
Meanwhile, the increase was 30% in France and in excess of 40%
in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Other figures
show increases of up to 80% in the United States.
The council also told us “public investments in health research
have diminished by 10% since 1985, while they went up by 80% in
the United States. This gap is increasing every year and is
leading us straight to conditions that will prevent us from
attracting the best researchers”.
The situation lasted until just about now. Under these
conditions, we can only be pleased to finally see money being
invested in health research and development. Canada is seriously
lagging behind and cannot make up for lost time.
I want to point out that, under these difficult circumstances,
Quebec maintained the same level of funding, while Canada's was
diminishing.
I do not have the figures for the health sector alone, only for
the whole research component, for the research areas funded by
the Quebec and federal governments. From 1984-85 to 1996-97,
federal funding for these sectors dropped from 55% to 37%, while
funding provided by Quebec remained at 23%.
1635
The federal government cut. We can look at various figures, but
it cut funding to health research. The Government of Quebec
maintained its funding, despite the radical cuts by the federal
government of up to 40% in education.
Under these conditions, obviously, and I could not not say this,
the fact that money has finally been announced for health, is
good news, excellent news. It is late arriving, though, but
better late than continuing on this slippery and dangerous
slope, which caused research teams to fall apart, with some
attracted by the United States, not by salaries or lower taxes,
as has been claimed, but primarily because they could have
research teams and equipment. So, well done.
However, what is the government that has now decided to invest
in health doing? It is not doing as it did before, that is,
funding specific projects through the funding councils. Since
1993, there has been a new approach, which has now culminated in
the health research institutes, the corporation created by this
bill, which will create divisions. This is not my word, it is
in clause 20.
So the CIHR will, in turn, create divisions.
I have a number of concerns, the first being the very real
potential for centralization as the bill now stands. Of course,
the government can tell us that that is not the bill's intent.
It is not what the officials or those who worked on the bill
intended. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to read
bills, because we are learning that they can always be useful at
some time or another, and even though the government or the
minister claims to be acting in good faith, there is always the
bill.
So, this institute gives sweeping powers to its governing
council, which will establish divisions. The bill says that its
responsibility is to maintain and terminate them, so the power
is total and absolute, and determine the mandate of each. The
council shall create an advisory board for each health research
institute and appoint the members of the advisory boards, and it
shall appoint a scientific director for each health research
institute. Obviously, the governing council will itself be
appointed by the federal government.
Compared to the earlier operating structure, I think it fair to
say that the bill is trying to improve things. Nonetheless, the
autonomy research groups used to have with respect to projects
is not at all guaranteed in this bill, as I read it. That is my
first concern.
My second is that the government is proposing—and this too is
very clear—that an integrated health research agenda be forged.
This appears in the objective of the CIHR: “forging an
integrated health research agenda across disciplines, sectors
and regions that reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians
and the evolution of the health system and supports health
policy decision-making”.
The result of this objective might even be that the influence of
this council on the organization could ultimately have an impact
on health in Quebec.
1640
Students will be trained there. Scientists will have their own
teams, and we will build a body of knowledge.
There is another thing that is very worrisome, namely that the
provinces are considered just like any other scientist or
volunteer agency. The government says it will consult them.
One thing is certain, Quebec is not investing enough as it is,
because of its dire financial situation, but it still invests in
research and universities. A link must be established between
the existing teams and the institutes to be created.
Which criteria will be used to choose the people who will create
the institutes? Which ones will be established in Quebec, and
what will happen to ongoing projects?
This bill raises all kinds of questions, and I know that our
distinguished colleague, our health critic, will introduce the
amendments we will insist on. After the drastic cuts the
government has made in health research, we are not going to sit
back; we will ensure that the money goes where it should and as
it should.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-13, an act to
establish the Canadian institutes of health research and to
repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
There is no doubt that health is the number one issue in the
minds of all Canadians. It is unfortunate that over the last six
years since 1993 the Liberal government has slashed $21 billion
from health and education. It is in a way ironic to be talking
about health research and new spending because we know it is
necessary. I wonder how many people understand and realize the
damage that has taken place over the last six years with the
reduction in health care.
If health is the number one issue, then I ask the government why
it did that. Certainly there are ways of reducing the budgetary
deficit other than cutting $21 billion. It absolutely does not
make sense.
As a country we not only promote but brag about our great health
care system. Canadians expect good health care. Canadians also
expect governments to deliver, to be transparent and to be honest
in terms of how they govern.
It makes sense that good health care cannot exist without good
research. Neither can good industries. Innovation cannot occur
without good research and development.
In my own province, health care budget reductions have had a
profound effect on the health delivery to individual citizens. I
wonder if the government realizes the impact it has had on the
little guy who needs health care, the grassroots Canadian. I know
very well because I experienced it in my former position as a
municipal leader. We had to wrestle with the whole issue.
Provincial governments because of health transfer cuts had to
find creative ways of delivering health care. That usually meant
if we had less money there was less we could do. What is the
normal course of action for most governments? They consolidate,
they regionalize, they sell a bill of goods saying that there is
going to be the same service but at less cost, that it is going
to be a more efficient system.
That is what happened in Manitoba. The problems that existed
from the original cutbacks in health are still there today.
I still meet with municipal leaders and health officials to talk
about the mess that the health sector is in, certainly in the
riding of Dauphin—Swan River, and it is throughout the province.
1645
One of the concerns with this bill is about the patronage
appointments of people serving on the board. That is essentially
what the provincial government did as well. It had a good
system. The people were elected at the local level. The boards
were smaller and the hospitals more varied, serving local
communities, but they were elected democratically. We went to a
regional board. Hon. members can guess how these board members
were chosen. They were not elected. They were patronage
appointments made by the provincial government. As it turned
out, people are still talking about these patronage appointments.
They really do not represent the people at the local area. They
do not know the concerns.
This is one of the concerns with this legislation. The
government continues to appoint people without giving the
citizens a say. The bottom line is that the people of this
country pay the bills. They should have access to decision
making.
I would say the same thing about the heritage portfolio, for
which I am the chief critic. Again, my biggest criticism is the
numerous boards that are appointed by government. They are not
appointed by the people they should be serving. Even if they
were elected by national organizations, that would be a huge
improvement. Even if the government had a part to play, even if
it advertised to the public that these positions were available,
that would be better.
With the recent appointment of the new head of the CBC I made
that very point. In fact, the chairman of the CBC board agreed
that the board should make that appointment, not the Prime
Minister's office. Who pays for the operation of the CBC?
Obviously, the taxpayers, to the tune of about $900 million. Does
the poor little taxpayer have any say in terms of who should run
the corporation? Not at all. It is unfortunate. It is not real
democracy. It is not grassroots democracy. It is hidden. It is
not transparent.
My view is that the CBC position should have been advertised
throughout the country. There are many well qualified people
throughout the country who could have applied. It would have
been a huge improvement if the CBC board would have done that,
instead of having the Prime Minister's office or the Prime
Minister decide who should be the head of the CBC.
I want to enunciate some areas of concern that Reform has about
Bill C-13. Although the intent of the CIHR is to foster
scientific research and promote Canadian initiatives, there has
been little time to consult various scientific communities, to
receive input, to scope the areas of research. Again, this is
another example of a government bill where an idea occurred and
the government did not take the time to do the research or
consult the community. We know that the expertise is in the
community. It is out there. It certainly does not exist in this
room. We are the catalysts that bring people together. I do not
know what the rush is. If we are going to do something, we
should do it well.
Will the applicants themselves direct the bulk of the research,
or will the nature of the research be directed by the advisory
boards, which will force applicants to apply for funding in areas
dictated by a central body? That is a good question.
Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of
the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, the new
institutes will require a bureaucratic infrastructure to perform
necessary functions. Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a
huge part of its budget administered for bureaucracy and not have
sufficient funds to administer the actual research which is
dictated under its mandate?
1650
Given the wide scope of its mandate, will the initial budgetary
expenditure be sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If
not, will parliament be required to allocate additional funds for
the creation of this institute?
The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the
governing council as to who should be appointed to the advisory
councils. The president will make recommendations based on a
public selection process, but will the president follow the
advice of the public selection process or bypass these
recommendations and appoint members based on individual choice?
There are many good parts to the bill. It appears to be an
excellent model for an institute which will remain at arm's
length from the federal government and conduct research
independent of the government. The consultation process for
appointments will draw on leading experts from every conceivable
field of expertise, and this should reduce the influence of high
ranking government officials. These and other details I have
mentioned can be addressed before the committee when the bill
reaches that stage. There is also a strong need to consult the
scientific and health communities for input as to the direction
of the CIHR.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-13 at
second reading stage. That is fortunate, because this bill needs
a lot of amendments to be more in tune with the reality of
Quebec and with the Constitution of Canada.
First of all, we know that health is an area of provincial
jurisdiction. As my hon. colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was
saying yesterday, I am in favor of Bill C-13 in principle.
However, I have some reservations as to its present wording.
Ever since I came to the House of Commons, I have had great
difficulty trusting the Liberal government. In the beginning, we
always hear the same cassette and see the same scenario. The
government puts on a great show of democracy and says that it
respects the Constitution. That is what we hear from the
politicians opposite and that is the tone we find in the
Speeches from the Throne, both the one delivered in September
1997 and the latest one delivered in October 1999.
Actually, what is the federal Liberal government doing? It makes
itself look good in the media, then interferes in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. Every time a minister stands up and
tries to make us believe that the government respects the
provincial jurisdictions, something just does not sound right.
I have difficulty understanding what federal Liberal ministers
and members are saying.
I remember the bad experience we went through when the social
union framework was discussed. Fortunately, the Government of
Quebec did not ratify it. We know the federal government will
use this document to try to justify its having jurisdiction in
certain areas when it goes to Seattle next week for the start of
the World Trade Organization negotiations.
I also remember the sorry outcome of this social union
framework. For health care, Quebec got $55 million, while
Ontario got $1 billion. Because of this social injustice, Quebec
is going through a difficult period in the area of health care.
One does not have to look very far. The numerous media reports
on that subject clearly show the problem comes from Ottawa,
because the money is in Ottawa.
The Minister of Finance brags about having managed to eliminate
the deficit, but any accountant could have done the same. It is
very easy to grab the money and cut transfers to the provinces.
1655
It is also very easy for a government to have a budget surplus
when it dips into the employment insurance fund, taking money
that was paid by workers and employers, as well as into the
federal employees' pension fund.
What the Minister of Finance did is no miracle. These cuts,
totalling $7 billion, are hurting Quebecers. They are hurting
seniors.
Recently, I had the opportunity to meet retirees. These people
are often isolated and alone. They are worried and they are
stressed out by the idea that they will have to wait a long time
before getting test results.
They have to be very courageous when they have to go to
hospitals and to emergency clinics. All this is caused by the
Canadian government.
I now want to get back to Bill C-13. If the federal government's
intentions were so good, why did it do what it is doing with the
Canadian institutes of health research? Why did it choose this
approach? Because it is again taking the centralizing approach
that implies Canadian standards. Once again, it ignored totally
the situation in each province, including Quebec.
The situation is completely different in British Columbia, in
the prairies, in Ontario, in Quebec or in the maritimes. When
the Canadian constitution was ratified, the Fathers of
Confederation decided that health would be a provincial
responsibility.
The closer the level of government is to the people—the
provinces are much closer to the people—the better it can
manage health care fairly. This is not the case at present,
because we do not have enough money.
Let us look at the consequences. I will quote a few statistics.
For example, Quebec's current health and social services
minister, Pauline Marois, is short $1 billion. This represents
20% of the cost of running all the hospitals in Quebec, accounts
for the closing of half the hospitals in the Montreal area—and
I am convinced the statistics would be the same, a little lower
maybe, for hospitals in the Chaudière—Appalaches region—and is
equivalent to the cost of caring for 370,000 patients.
As we know, the Government of Quebec is involved in negotiations
at the present time. What does one billion dollars represent?
The salaries of half the nurses in Quebec—and that is a lot of
money—or the cost of running all the CLSCs. In his reform,
Minister Rochon wanted to bring all primary care into the CLSCs.
We are short of money. This is twice the cost of all services
to youth. This is the result of the federal government's social
agenda and this is the situation in which the Government of
Quebec finds itself, $1 billion in the hole.
With Bill C-13, this government is trying to make us believe that
it is going to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. That
is a joke, considering the way the Liberal government is acting.
There is a need for Bill C-13, because if we are to make progress
as the years go by—and we are on the verge of the third
millennium—we need money to support all those involved in
research, particularly those who are seeking preventive
solutions. That is the good thing about Bill C-13.
But when we see this government once again wanting to
appropriate jurisdictions, although it is trying to make us
believe that it is going to respect Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction, I have a big problem with that.
I agree with the principle of the bill, but it needs a lot of
changes. One need only look at the powers assigned to the
governing council of this new federal body and the way the
federal government behaves toward the provinces.
I trust that when the debate on second reading of this bill is
over, we will be in a position to be listened to properly when
it goes to committee. I trust that the Liberal members who will
be around the table will listen attentively and will, once and
for all, respect the Canadian constitution.
1700
They are very proud of the Canadian constitution, but they have
a great deal of difficulty when it comes to understanding it,
reading it and, in particular, respecting it.
Finally, there will be the recourses provided by third reading.
Bill C-13 is good for research and for all those who want to
advance medicine in Quebec, but the tools for so doing must
belong to the province of Quebec, since it has jurisdiction over
health.
The tools and the regulations relating to Bill C-13 must be clear
in order to avoid having the federal government once again make
use of a new institution in an attempt to standardize from sea
to sea something as basic as this.
I hope they will listen, because we agree with the principle,
but major changes relating to the mechanisms for implementation
of Bill C-13 are needed.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-13. My
colleague from the Bloc hopes that Liberal members will listen. I
hate to give him bad news but I doubt that will actually happen.
However, we will keep speaking.
The bill goes in the right direction in some areas. I will
quote a bit of its preamble wherein it says:
Whereas parliament recognizes
that Canadians value health as central to happiness and
fulfilment, and aspire to be among the healthiest people in the
world.
I agree with that and I think all members of the House would
agree with that. If that is something the government is
intending to put into place, and we encourage it to do so, I
believe it is necessary for it to take actions to back up those
words.
If we take a look at the actions of the government going back to
1993 in the area of health, we see that the government has taken
money out of the Canadian health care system. I believe a total
of about $21 billion in health care and education has been taken
out since 1993.
Day after day in this place we hear the finance minister refer
to what would happen if other parties were in power and all kinds
of statements which deflect the fact that the government must
stand on its own record. It is the case for any government that
it will be judged on what it has done, its actions, what it
actually delivered, and not just on its words.
We have seen time and time again in this place that the
government will say one thing and do another. My colleague from
the Bloc referred to that. If it can create the perception with
the general public that it is doing something then it has won the
battle. It does not seem to be interested in making the actual
applications and changes in law that will have a direct impact
and effect on the end user of any system. Bill C-13 goes in the
right direction. We would like the government to take those
steps in other areas as well.
I met with a constituent on Monday this week at home before I
left to come here who had some really serious questions in the
area of health care, which is what we are talking about in Bill
C-13. He is a young man who was infected with hepatitis C
through no fault of his own as a result of a blood transfusion.
He is still a young man. He told me his story of what this meant
to him and his family, how he had received a transfusion and
years later when the issue came out was encouraged by his wife to
get tested.
He put that off, understandably so, because of the ramifications
that would impact on him and his family if he were to find out
that he tested positive for hepatitis C. Finally he did get
tested and it was found that he had hepatitis C.
It has totally changed his life and perspective. I must
compliment him. He is still a positive individual who is looking
for changes in many different areas, particularly with the
implementation of the new blood system, hoping it does not follow
on the failures of the old system.
1705
In his letter Peter Madsen asked me if I would relay some
questions to the Minister of Health on the particular area. He
has given me permission to share it with others. He wrote:
Why does everyone in the HCV compensation package, from the
lawyers and actuaries and committees etc., get guaranteed money
except for the victims involved?
He went on to write:
If this government is sitting on such a surplus, why is the
compensation package not guaranteed? What do you say to the kids
who may not receive compensation because the money has run out?
These are questions on the area of health from my constituent
who is looking for answers. He went on to write:
Is the government going to fight the lawyers $58.5 million asking
price? This does not include the victims who must find lawyers
to access their compensation.
Why was money taken out of the HCV funds to compensate
secondarily infected HIV victims?
He concluded by writing:
Krever called for no-fault compensation...why then is the
(Minister of Health) putting in as narrow a window as he thinks
is the area of legal responsibility of the government and using
this window as legal point to ignore Krever and ignore the
pre-1986 and post post-1990 people, contrary to Krever?
Mr. Madsen had these comments for the Minister of Health. He
ended his letter by writing:
This compensation package was rammed down our throats with our
lawyers telling us that if we don't like it...too bad. We could
opt out but then we would have to (a) find a lawyer and (b) wait
many more years fighting more government lawyers. This was a
closed door negotiation process with the victims having no say
whether they liked it or not.
Those are questions that one of my constituents asked the
minister about on that particular area of health care.
There are other Canadians who have many pressing questions for
the government on its delivery of health care. As I mentioned,
Bill C-13 goes in the right direction of one particular aspect of
fixing the system to make it more effective in the area of
research funding. If the government could take that same kind of
approach with the health care system in general, as it has with
this bill, the opposition would encourage it.
While Bill C-13 is not a perfect bill and there are areas that
could be improved on, it goes in the right direction. I am
afraid we cannot say that the Minister of Health is on the same
track in terms of the overall health care system within our
country. There are vast areas for improvement that the minister
could act on immediately. We encourage the government to act on
what Canadians hold so dearly, and that is fixing the health care
system. Many times we hear the government say things but not
back up those words with actions.
The bill also indicates that parliament is cognizant of an
historic opportunity to transform health research in Canada. I
would argue that same historic opportunity is being presented to
the Liberal government as well in the area of health care. It
has an opportunity to repair the damage that has been done. Much
of that damage was inflicted by the government through its
reduction of transfer payments to the provinces in the area of
health care.
It has an historic opportunity to make right the wrongs it has
inflicted on Canadians through its approach and through its
funding cuts in health. We encourage the government to look on
this as an opportunity to make right what is so clearly in need
of help in the country.
We also encourage the government to look at all areas of its
responsibility and to look for ways to make effective changes
that set a positive course for Canadians.
1710
I believe that is what Canadians are truly looking for from a
government. They are looking for a group of individuals who come
to this place to set out a vision for the country and then act on
it by putting policies and platforms in place which would have
the effect of what it says it will do.
In conclusion, if we walk outside this great place and look up
to the bell tower we see engraved there, not far from where we
are here, the phrase “Where there is no vision the people
perish”. I would argue that the government is lacking in its
vision in many areas.
This is one bill that moves in the right direction, and I
compliment the government for that, but I would encourage it to
move in the right direction in more areas than one small one.
If the Liberals will not move forward and make positive changes,
we will certainly work hard to form the government to make the
changes necessary to set the country back on its feet again with
a positive, forward moving vision.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. Since I am
not the first member of my party to speak in this debate, you
probably know already that the Bloc Quebecois supports this
bill.
Our colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is
responsible for this issue as the health critic for the Bloc
Quebecois, already announced that we would be proposing
amendments. As all the members who spoke before me said,
regardless of their political affiliation, even if we applaud
heartily the government's decision to invest in research, we
have some concerns about how the institutes will be established
and managed.
Why do we applaud investment in research? For one simple reason.
Since the 1993 election campaign, based on an OECD report that
blamed Canada for trailing behind in research and development,
the Bloc Quebecois has been using every opportunity to remind
the government that it must make major investments in research
in general, but more specifically in health research.
If we look at the figures provided to me by my colleague from
Mercier, whom I wish to thank most sincerely, we can see—and
there is a very significant table—that research investments made
in Canada since the Liberal Party came to power in 1993 have
fallen below zero and are now just over 10%, while they have
increased by 30% in France, 40% in the United Kingdom 40% and
80% in the United States.
Unfortunately, under our rules and procedures, we cannot show
this document, but it would be interesting if those watching
could see how disastrous Canada's actions have been as far as
investments are concerned since that party took office.
A Bloc Quebecois dissenting report, presented with the industry
committee report entitled “Research Funding-Strengthening the
Sources of Innovation”—a report published recently, in June
1999—states as follows, and I quote:
From 1984-85 to 1996-97, the federal government's share of total
government funding for the main fields of university research in
Quebec fell from 55% to 37%, while the Quebec government's share
remained steady at 23%.
Funds from the private sector made up
much of the difference, as its share increased from 10% to 26% ,
primarily in the form of the partnerships that are the focus of
the Committee's report.
1715
What information or lessons can be drawn from this situation?
The Canadian government uses buzz words in its Speeches from the
Throne—indeed, this was not the first time. It talks of
managing knowledge. It has bored us stiff with that. For the
government, managing knowledge means reducing research funds
invested in the various sectors of research, allowing the
private sector to invest even more money in research, with all
the risks that represents.
Let us consider Monsanto, for example, which sponsors research
by academics, then says “You have to answer our needs”. With
this sort of attitude, one has every right to be concerned.
Now, a look at the proposed organization chart for the governing
council and the proposed organization for these institutes, we
once again have a wall-to-wall, Canada-wide institute, which will
cover all provinces and territories. We are told it will be more
virtual than real and that it will link researchers within
information networks. Wholly integrated buzz words, again, but
what will it mean in reality and what will the result be?
Naturally we are told that the institutes will have to work from
four perspectives, in each case: basic biomedical activities,
clinical research activities, health services and systems and
impacts on society, culture and public health.
We might ask what happens with these things. Let us look at a
specific example for our viewers, who are wondering what it all
boils down to.
In order to have some sense of the operations of an institute,
let us take the example of an institute on ageing. Its
multidisciplinary research program could concern the problems
caused by the ageing of Canadians. As part of its mandate, the
institute could work on Alzheimer's disease from biomedical
perspectives in terms of the molecular mechanisms of Alzheimer's
disease.
In the clinical field, what are the most effective drugs or
treatments? In the case of health services: is it preferable to
treat someone suffering from this disease in the community, and
if so, how, or is it preferable to treat them in an institution?
Health determinants, the fourth sector, are the societal,
cultural and health factors involved. Are there elements of
lifestyle, environmental factors or dietary factors that
contribute to disease?
By bringing together researchers working on common goals, the
institutes will promote creativity, generate new ideas in the
area of health research and promote strategic policy to take
Canada into the new millennium. That is what the government
says.
To that end, it is investing $65 million and has already decided
how it will be allocated.
In the meantime, however, what has this government done? It has
cut billions from health care. It is probably assuaging its
guilt. It has been doing so for a while. It cut nearly $7
billion, to round off the figures.
1720
Again yesterday and today, the finance minister had the nerve to
say “We are so generous that we reinvested $11 billion”.
Hogwash, if members do not mind my saying so, since the
government had announced it would make further cuts and that $42
billion worth of cuts were still to come. And now the minister
is saying “I am so generous, I am so good, I will only cut $33
billion”.
He wants people to believe he is putting money back in when in
reality the government is still making drastic cuts there is $33
billion more in cuts to come.
Since I am being signalled that my time is about to expire, I
will say in conclusion that I believe the government is chiefly
responsible for the difficulties the provinces are experiencing
in health care. We will see to it, when the time comes for us to
introduce amendments, that the bill gives a larger role to the
provinces.
They have jurisdiction over health care, and we will defend the
point of view and interests of Quebec, since Quebec has several
areas of excellence and we want our scientists' contribution to
the management of knowledge in Canada and Quebec to be properly
recognized.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill C-13, my first reaction was
“Finally”, because, since 1994, Canada has been the undisputed
champion of cuts to research programs.
There is a very telling chart which shows that, between 1991 and
1998, for the United Kingdom, the United States, France and
Canada, only Canada's investments in health research were lower
than in 1991.
The figures for 1998 are in. For that whole year, Canada's
investments were 10% less than what they were in 1991.
Meanwhile, France increased its investments by 30% compared to 1991.
The increase over the same period is 40% for the United States
and 50% for the United Kingdom.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying “Finally”. Let us not
forget that, during the 1993 campaign, the Bloc Quebecois
candidates and their leader asked that more money be put back
into health research. In 1997, the Bloc Quebecois candidates and
their new leader asked the same thing.
This shows that in politics, tenacity eventually yields results.
The bill before us is a case in point.
In 1990-91, per capita expenditures in Canada were at $8.71,
compared to $39.71 in the United States. In 1997-98, per capita
expenditures in Canada were at $8.23, compared to $66.64 in the
United States. So, there has been a drop of $0.48 in Canada. We
are now investing less than in 1991. No wonder there is a brain
drain.
Is it because we pay too much tax? Is it for some other reason?
Of course, if we do not invest in health research, health
researchers will certainly go to places where they can get jobs.
We can applaud the principle of this bill. There were examples
that were quite disturbing. Examples of the number of grants
that are being given. In British Columbia, for instance, in
1996-97, there were 31 grants totalling $1.96 million, for which
there was no follow-up. In Quebec universities, at Laval, there
were 40 grants, for a total of $2.863 million.
So there are examples that support the fact that some action
finally had to be taken.
1725
Our problem is that we realized that this bill, once we had read
it in detail, requires many amendments. I tried to find where it
mentioned the provinces and I found, in the mandate of the large
institute, a reference to the provinces in clause 4. It says
that in “encouraging health research”, the institute will
—engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private
sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary
research interests;
However, the bill does not indicate—and this is rather
astonishing, since, in Canada, health is a provincial
jurisdiction—that the research projects will be selected
according to the goals set by the provinces. Quebec is about to
implement a science policy, and we would like this bill to
consider the various aspects of the science policy that the
government and the people of Quebec will be implementing.
The current wording of the bill gives us little hope, in this
regard. I hope some members of the Liberal majority and of the
other parties will be sensitive enough to amend the legislation
to make it bearable, in order to avoid absurd situations where
the federal government would be investing in some areas, while
the Quebec policy would be supporting other research projects or
options.
In my view, that would be totally unacceptable, because Quebec's
priorities in health research may differ from those of Canada.
In the past, we have discovered cholesterol problems and genetic
diseases that may differ widely from what is found in other
parts of the country. There are population changes and regional
problems and concerns that may be unique to Quebec or unique to
other provinces in Canada. In its current form, I do not think
this bill is to our satisfaction.
I have a very specific concern and it has to do with regional
distribution of health services.
For example, clause 4, which states the objective, talks about
“fostering the discussion of ethical issues”. There are
specialists in this field, in which the Université du Québec à
Rimouski, among others, has developed an expertise. It has an
ethics chair and professors who work in this field.
This is problem, particularly in the research field, and I have
discussed it with some of our scientists. We must realize that
getting a research contract is not like buying a chair. There
are all kinds of representations that are made. Lobbying is an
integral part of the process, and it is important that
scientists in the various regions can have their say, the same
way they would if they were in the national capital.
In that regard, lessons from the past have shown us that we will
have to be vigilant and make sure that researchers, wherever
they are, have an opportunity to get a research contract because
it is also a development tool. Research contracts create a
synergy which leads to the creation of other small businesses in
the area. Small processing operations can get under way after 5,
10, 15 or 20 years. Hence our concerns in that area.
I also think we should make sure that institutes are not
established in certain sectors without the consent of the
provinces. We must make sure that, when institutes are
established, it is done according to the provinces' priorities
and that the members of the governing council are selected from
lists provided by the provinces, so that they can be their eyes
and ears.
If, for example, a researcher in our region or at Laval
University or the Université de Montréal is not satisfied with a
situation or requires a clarification—there is a reference to
transparency in the bill—there should be a mechanism in place to
facilitate this.
For this to really happen, the members of the governing council
must reflect the entire Canadian scientific community. In
sectors such as health, their names must be provided by the
provinces.
I believe what we have before us is a bill that is worthwhile in
principle.
I also believe that substantial improvements are necessary to
make it into a tool for the development of health research in
Quebec, not just one for the development of health research for
all of Canada.
We know that a worthwhile outcome is possible. There is much
talk of international standards in this bill. There may be some
outcomes of global interest to be presented to our international
colleagues, but we also need outcomes in this country that must
be
1730
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
his time is up.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction
in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards
independent truckers in the province of Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on October 8, I was in Louvicourt, 36
kilometres from Val-d'Or, where I spent the day with Quebec
truckers to find out about their claims concerning the road
transportation crisis in Quebec.
I met Denis Martin and Vital Meilleur, who were representing
truckers and who told me about commitments that the Quebec
government made in 1998 but failed to honour. They included
legislative changes and a promise to put pressure on the federal
government to amend Canadian laws accordingly.
The Quebec government made a written commitment to adopt these
legislative changes by January 1, 2000. I have here a copy of
these commitments made on October 25, 1998, at 9.45 p.m., and
signed by two ministers of the Quebec government.
One year after these written commitments were made, the
government of Lucien Bouchard still has not taken any concrete
action.
Worse still, the Quebec Minister of Labour, Diane Lemieux,
announced her intention to postpone indefinitely the long
awaited labour code reform for truckers in Quebec.
On October 8, truckers from Quebec and the Abitibi who were in
Louvicourt told me that they have had enough of the unfulfilled
commitments of the Bouchard government. The document was signed
by two ministers of the Parti Quebecois on October 25, 1998,
around 9.45 p.m., namely the Minister of Transport, Jacques
Brassard, and the Minister of Labour.
That document includes 11 sections. It provides that a committee
of experts must be set up. That was done and properly done. The
Bernier report, a 200 page document, was submitted to the
government in 1999.
Section 2 and the following provide:
2. Explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial
jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law.
3. Propose possible scenarios and evaluate their applicability
to the labour relations between independent truckers and
clients.
4. Examine the nature of the contractual relations between
contractors and clients, as they relate to law 430 (division of
responsibilities).
5. Define eligibility criteria for becoming an independent
trucker that will ensure a harmonious transition for the holders
of bulk trucking permits.
6. Analyse the working conditions of independent truckers, i.e.
rates, contracting charter, driver pay, hours of work, etc.
We know that a number of things are now being done anyway.
Quebec's transport minister, Mr. Chevrette, has set up a
committee that includes a federal representative. Committee
members are working very hard, but the year 2000 is fast
approaching.
The truckers present confirmed to me verbally that they are sick
of seeing their working conditions deteriorate in Quebec.
Clients are imposing difficult conditions. There are also the
consecutive fuel price increases.
Let us talk about the cost of gas. On October 13, I rose in
this House to call on the Government of Quebec to regulate the
price of gas in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
I said:
The Canadian Constitution gives the provinces the authority to
regulate prices.
Only Prince Edward Island and Quebec have taken any action in
this regard, although Newfoundland announced recently that it
would look at the statute provisions that would permit it to
regulate the price of gas.
Other provinces preferred to rely on market forces as the most
effective means of determining the appropriate prices, while
retaining the incentives that contribute to innovation and cost
reduction.
The Government of Quebec has no choice: it will have to rely on
the market forces and provide incentives for the people of
Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
The time for study is past. It is time to get down to business—
In closing, I wish to say that the best way to placate consumers
is to rely on market forces and provide incentives.
1735
Here is an example for Abitibi—Témiscamingue: the wholesale
price, including the margin of the Montreal refineries, is 25.4
cents a litre. Provincial tax represents 15.2 cents, the
federal excise tax, 10 cents, and the retail profit margin, 5
cents.
Transportation, and this is important, because people say the
cost of transportation to Abitibi is high, costs only 1 cent a
litre. The cost without 7% GST and 7.5% PST is 8.2 cents a
litre. The total cost at the pump, if competition were vigorous
and effective in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a vast region far removed
from major centres, would be 64.8 cents.
On October 6, the price of regular gasoline was 75.9 cents a
litre in Val d'Or.
That contributed to the crisis with Quebec truckers and many
residents of Abitibi, who considered themselves to be everyone's
hostages.
Gas stations in Abitibi have nothing to do with this situation.
They must submit to the orders of the oil companies and the
Government of Quebec.
Whatever forces affect the price of gasoline, the people of
remote areas like Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik have the right
to expect fair treatment in the market by the Government of
Quebec. As of January 1, 2000, the entire trucking industry in
Canada will be deregulated, and the sector will thus be opened
up to competition among carriers from all provinces.
The Bernier report has been submitted to the Government of Quebec.
The Bernier committee had to concentrate first of all on the
element it felt was central and essential: the creation of
scenarios and assessment of their applicability to the
relationship between owner-operators and customers, as well as
those elements directly related to it.
On July 21, 1998, in order to respect its commitments under the
1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, Quebec replaced its trucking
legislation with the Loi concernant les propriétaires et
exploitants de véhicules lourds. This act relating to the
owners and operators of heavy equipment harmonizes with the
federal
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, which applies to trucking or
motor coach companies operating out of province.
Bulk haulage in Quebec is part of a distinct economic framework
under the Quebec transport act. Since 1972, the Canada Labour
Code has covered independent truckers, as defined in section 3,
because it considers them employees.
Quebec and Ontario are among the geographical entities with the
most bilateral economic exchanges in North America. In large
part, these exchanges stem from the considerable growth in
Canadian exports to the United States and traffic to Ontario as
an access route to Michigan, Illinois and upstate New York. For
Quebec truckers, this increase in interprovincial trucking has
become an important dividend of the economic deregulation of
their industry.
According to the latest news, an agreement will be reached
between the Canadian partners of the Quebec transport industry
to reduce the hours of work of truckers.
Quebec's independent truckers feel that the reduction in the
number of hours worked is a good idea from a health and safety
perspective. However, they are concerned about the impact of
this piecemeal approach on the income of truckers who own their
vehicles. If the rate structure remains unchanged, independent
or exclusive truckers will simply earn less money.
The Quebec government will have to solve the income issue. It is
in the process of doing that with a committee set up with the
FTQ, the CSD and the CSN. The federal government is also
present. They are trying to find solutions before the year 2000.
Since the deregulation of rates and licences, in 1988, it has
been very difficult for truckers to earn a decent living in the
Quebec trucking industry.
During the protest and blockade organized by truckers on October
8, in Louvicourt, I met many truckers throughout the day. The
important thing is to listen to them. These drivers are always
alone in their trucks and they travel long distances in Quebec,
the United States, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the rest
of Canada. They are always alone and they do not have time to
see all the contracts. It is often their wife who pays the bills
at home and who takes care of the family.
They told me that it is about time solutions be found, because
the next crisis in Quebec's trucking industry will be serious.
As we know, there is a project for bulk haulage.
1740
I have here the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec department of
transport, tabled by the minister. It deals with bulk haulage,
and there is currently a bill on this, Bill C-89. There will be
a fight, but solutions must be found.
The Quebec transport report states:
Together with other Canadian administrations, the federal
Minister of Transport decided to postpone until January 1, 2000
the provision of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation
Act (Bill C-19, clause 19), to give truckers enough time to
adjust to a more open market.
The amendments are intended to comply with commitments Quebec
made recently with other Canadian administrations to permit
carriers from outside Quebec to truck within Quebec in certain
sectors, primarily, wood chips and factory supply, since January
1, 1998.
As of January 1, 2000, out of province trucking firms
may provide carriage within provinces without economic
restriction.
In the meantime, the local bulk haulage industry should
restructure in preparation for deregulation.
What do we see in Bill C-89? It is no longer deregulation but regulation.
What counts today is to hear the other political parties and to
see what they have to say for our friends the truckers when we
meet them daily on the highway. And what is important: What are
the working conditions in Quebec?
Quebec will find solutions, but finding solutions requires
everyone working together. I will speak for all the people I
met on October 8. It was my duty to move this motion in the
House of Commons to help our friends the truckers.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Motion No. 130 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore
the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the
areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent
truckers in the province of Quebec.
First I want to start off by saying that at least to my
knowledge, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I am
not sure why we would be discussing it in this House. Second,
why would we be bringing a motion into the House that is not for
all of Canada?
Every single member in the House has a responsibility to look
after the interests of Canada as a whole. We should not be doing
it in a vacuum for just one part of the country. If there is a
problem, we should be addressing it for all areas. There could
be specific areas, but in my view we should not be phrasing
something that is specifically targeted to one area.
Since we are on the issue of labour law, there are lots of areas
we should be looking at. If there is a problem with
transportation in Quebec which comes under federal jurisdiction,
then we should be discussing it and I would support that. I have
to admit I do not know the details, but I understand this is a
provincial issue.
Let me move on to a problem within the labour laws which I think
we should be looking at. We just witnessed this on the other
side of the country on the British Columbia coast. The ports
closed because of a labour dispute which was within the federal
jurisdiction. It cost the entire economy of Canada $85 million a
day. That strike of two or three weeks in British Columbia cost
the economy of this country almost $1 billion. It did not need
to happen.
There is a very simple solution and it is called final offer
arbitration. It is something the House should look at some time
in the near future. Final offer arbitration will allow
collective bargaining. It allows both sides to try to resolve
the dispute. That is absolutely necessary.
We should do everything we can to reach a negotiated settlement,
much like the government has said before. The best option for
everybody is a negotiated settlement. Failing that, if the
parties are unable to come to a negotiated settlement, it is
critical that we do not shut down something as vital as our
ports. It is not just the $85 million a day, or the $1 billion
it cost Canada's economy in two or three weeks.
It also has a long lasting impact on the reputation of Canada and
people look to other sources. Instead of the port of Vancouver,
the busiest port in Canada—
1745
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is all very interesting, but the member opposite
knows that we are debating Motion No. 130 and, except for the
first cursory remarks, I have yet to hear anything that relates
to what is before us.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will caution the
hon. member to keep the debate pertinent to the motion before the
House.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, it says the “jurisdiction
in the areas of labour law and transportation law”. What did
not come under transportation, the labour law and federal
jurisdiction when we looked at the ports dispute? I do not know
if I could find something that was more pertinent.
What I am offering is a positive solution to a situation, one
that may have helped in a situation like this. I am doing this
in is a very positive context. This may offer a solution to
another situation in the future.
Let me explain the process of the final offer arbitration appeal
and apply it to the transportation problem the people in Quebec
may be facing. It may help them out. I will use the other one
as an example. If both sides come to an impasse at the end of
the negotiations that would obviously be the best solution. If
they cannot settle the matter, then each side puts its best offer
on the table. The employer would give them the package and tell
them that it was the very best offer it could make. In this case
I suppose it would be the truckers who would put their very best
offer on the table and the arbitrator would be forced to pick A
or B, nowhere in between. The advantage to that is that both
sides would again get to try to negotiate a settlement but they
would have to be reasonable in their final offers. If they are
too far from the line, too far from where they should be, their
offer would not be selected. The arbitrator would not be allowed
to cherry-pick those options. In models where this has happened,
the offers have crossed over. In fact, where the employer has
offered more—
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I will just suggest again that there is no strike. There
is no labour unrest at this point. We are not talking about
lock-outs or possible strikes, so final offer—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
debate.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Let me just remind the parliamentary
secretary that I am putting a solution forward, unlike the
government which waits until the problem is upon it and it has
cost the economy of the country a billion dollars. We should be
putting up solutions before there is a problem. Here is a
solution that would help labour, not just in Quebec but right
across the country.
I cannot believe that the government member opposite wants to
stand up and raise a point of order that the problem does not
exist. Does the government have to wait for the entire country
to shut down before it acts? It is incumbent upon us as members
of this House to put solutions forward before the problem
happens.
I will summarize the final offer arbitration solution in this
case. First, it allows a negotiated settlement, the best
solution.
Second, it eliminates the possibility of all strikes.
Third, it forces both sides in any dispute to be reasonable. It
will not cost the economy any money because there is no
possibility of a strike. Again, it would eliminate strikes
forever. It supports collective bargaining.
I would only hope that government members opposite would listen
to this rather than act as they did a month ago with the port
strike and watch the economy collapse. They watched British
Columbia and the country lose a billion dollars because of their
arrogance.
1750
We hear the Liberals stand up on ridiculous points of order
failing to listen to solutions to problems because the solutions
did not come from them. They have their heads stuck in the sand
and refuse to recognize the problems. I think it is a disgrace
that they would even stand up and make such ridiculous points of
order.
I would invite them to listen to positive solutions to problems.
and act rather than watch something happen and wonder why it
happened. They have been sitting on their hands refusing to act
on something as crucial as this.
I hope the Liberals will look at a solution like this and be
willing to put forward positive solutions rather than sitting in
their chairs and doing nothing as they have in the past.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today to Motion M-130 moved by the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
First I must say that, in some respects, I was very disappointed
on first reading this motion. I will read it again now so that
members will understand why I have a problem with it. It goes
as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction
in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards
independent truckers in the province of Quebec.
Why would it be left only to the government to explore the
questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the
areas of labour law and transportation law as regards
independent truckers in the province of Quebec? Why is there
always this desire to exclude the opposition parties with
respect to such important issues? Why does this government
always have this condescending attitude to parliament? Why does
it want to exclude parliament?
If the member had given two minutes' thought to the wording of
his motion, he would have realized that it was unacceptable.
Parliament and the opposition members, particularly the Bloc
Quebecois members, have a say on matters as vital as
federal-provincial relations and transportation law as regards
independent truckers in Quebec.
Through his motion, the member is automatically excluding the
opinions and ideas of 44 members who were duly elected by the
people of Quebec, and this is all the worse because the motion
is directly concerned with Quebec.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is in total agreement with the
spirit of Motion M-130, but it is out of the question that it be
excluded from the study of the problems mentioned in the motion.
Why not favour a review by a committee? Why not take the
opportunity to explore the issues raised by the motion, with the
help of experts in the field, who would testify before the
committee? The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik seems to make
light of the all important issues of Quebec's transportation
industry and of transportation law as regards independent
truckers in Quebec.
Let us have a closer look at the transportation industry in
Quebec and Canada. In Quebec alone, trucking is a $6.25 billion
industry.
Therefore, members will understand why the issue is far too
important to be left to the federal government.
First, it is important to mention that under section 92(3) of
the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation comes mainly under
the legislative authority of the provinces. This being said, in
certain regards, the jurisdiction can be shared between the
federal government and the provinces.
Since my time is limited, I will focus on federal powers.
Briefly, the authority of the federal government in the area of
labour comes from its power to regulate certain matters, which
are expressly assigned to it under section 91 of the
Constitutional Act, 1867, or which are expressly excluded from
the authority of the provinces under section 92. These matters
are national, international or provincial in nature.
Contrary to the government, the Bloc Quebecois is not making
light of the trucking industry in Canada. In Canada, trucking is
an industry worth close to $30 billion, that employs 400,000
people. Every year, over 20 million trucks cross the border
between Canada and the United States, and over 70,000 truckers
are involved in cross-border transportation. Trucks move over 70%
of the value of the total exports to the United States.
Since 1991, the number of trucking companies whose revenues come
for more than 40% from cross-border transportation has increased
by 70%.
1755
Considering the importance of the trucking industry both in
Quebec and in Canada, it is totally justifiable for governments
to want to assume their responsibilities. Quebec has assumed its
responsibilities by initiating a vast reform of its labour code,
including the status of independent workers.
However, the federal government, in its reform of part I of its
code, preferred to stay away from clarifying the status of
independent workers. Even though the problems with the trucking
industry were dealt with at the provincial level in Quebec, let
us not forget, and I mentioned it earlier in my speech, that a
great number of truckers are governed by the Canada Labour Code.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that a parliamentary
committee be set up to conduct a comprehensive study of the
trucking industry, the never ending jurisdictional problems and
the status of independent truckers in the province of Quebec.
The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik cannot be opposed to such
an idea.
A consensus already exists among labour unions with regard to
the fact that legislating at the provincial level only would not
solve the problem, because trucking businesses and their clients
would defy such legislation, claiming they are governed by the
Canada Labour Code.
Theoretically, the federal definition of a dependent worker
would allow truckers who qualify under this definition to
unionize and to negotiate their working conditions through the
collective bargaining process.
But they would have to prove they are economically dependent on
a business, which is almost impossible.
In that regard, I would like to read an excerpt from the report
of the committee of experts on the status of trucker-owners,
which was commissioned by the Quebec ministry of transport, and
I quote:
Indeed, the jurisprudence states that for a trucker to qualify
as a dependent contractor, the board would have to see economic
dependence of the trucker on the client. Because truckers can
work for many different clients, own several trucks and have
their own employees do the work, the concept of dependent
contractor does not apply in many cases.
So, the federal government will also have to assume its
responsibilities and set up a parliamentary committee to
consider these issues. In fact, we know that the labour minister
has been approached by the executive of the Quebec union, the
CSD. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the representations of
the CSD were not all that successful.
It is always the same thing with the government across the way.
One need only think about our bill on orphan clauses which, by
the way, was introduced twice in this House. The Government of
Quebec did live up to its responsibilities and is about to
legislate on this crucial issue for our young people.
Quebec has created a parliamentary commission to hear everyone
and anyone who has something to say about the orphan clauses.
Quebec is developing a blueprint for our society by legislating
on these discriminatory clauses.
Here, in Ottawa, the Liberals refused to even debate our bill on
orphan clauses. The federal government is much more anxious to
pass legislation concerning young offenders.
There are many positive elements in the spirit of Motion M-130.
The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees that the House of Commons, I
repeat the House of Commons and not, as the hon. member suggests
in his motion, the government, should explore in committee the
questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the
areas of labour law and transportation law as regards
independent truckers in Quebec.
This study is particularly crucial since, as of January 1, 2000,
trucking in Canada will be deregulated, allowing competition
among truckers from each and every province.
Under the circumstances, it is important that the trucking
industry find a way to promote discussion among the various
stakeholders and determine the conditions that would help
truckers do their jobs, while considering the new climate that
would be created following the upcoming deregulation and the
increase in competition.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have a few words to say on this particular motion.
The member's motion asks that the federal government explore the
questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the
areas of labour law and transportation law as regards to
independent truckers in the province of Quebec.
1800
It is not a subject with which I am intimately familiar, so I am
a bit reluctant to be any more specific than the member was in
his motion.
I managed on short notice to obtain an English translation of
the November 15 press release from the Quebec Coalition of Bulk
Carriers and Related Business. The release states that Bill 89,
recently tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, serves only to
aggravate the situation between independent truckers and bulk
carriers and related business. The bulk carriers' release stated
that the bill would conscript them into a closed association and
would create a monopoly. I can understand how any group of
independent truckers might feel if faced with competing with a
monopoly.
I was also able to obtain a translation of a La Presse
story, dated October 22, 1999, about a pending agreement between
partners in the Canadian transportation industry to reduce
truckers' hours. At a recent meeting in Los Angeles it was
agreed that Canadian truckers' hours would be reduced from a 15
hour day, with 13 hours of driving, to a 14 hour day. These
measures were undertaken as a safety precaution against driver
fatigue. This is a proposal which involves all provinces and it
would take some six months to implement.
It is hoped that the U.S. would follow suit with a similar
arrangement for its truckers. However, independent truck owners
have concerns that decreasing the hours without an increase in
their income would only force independents to try to live with
less income.
Similarly, bulk carriage truckers of the Quebec Professional
Truckers Association feel that simply improving the hours without
addressing the income issue would only force drivers to drive
faster or carry heavier loads.
The bottom line is, since the deregulation of rates and
licences, it is hard to make a living in the trucking industry.
The professional truckers feel that a round table among the
stakeholders in the trucking industry, including the various
levels of government, is the way to seek a resolution. Perhaps
the member is suggesting in his motion that we explore this area
of federal-provincial jurisdiction.
Fast, efficient and safe trucking is essential to the continued
prosperity of the whole North American economy. Reaching this
goal must involve the U.S. government, the Canadian government,
the governments of the provinces and the various sectors in the
trucking industry. To the extent that the member's motion will
foster constructive debate and problem solving in the trucking
industry, including independent truckers, I think we should
support the motion.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to speak to Motion No. 130. The motion presented by
the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik calls upon the
Government of Canada to explore federal-provincial jurisdictional
issues in the areas of labour law and transportation law as they
pertain to independent truckers in Quebec.
The hon. member is obviously very concerned about the recent
protest actions of Quebec truckers and I understand his concern.
I wish to commend him for bringing forward this motion. I agree
that the issues being raised by the Quebec truckers are serious
and ought to receive serious consideration by members.
However, I have some problem with what the member is seeking to
achieve by way of his motion. I wonder, too, if the motion is
premature.
Perhaps some historical background to the actions of the Quebec
truckers would be helpful. About a year ago Quebec truckers
started to blockade major highways in the province and border
points with New Brunswick, Ontario and the United States. The
truckers, mainly local bulk operators, were protesting the
upcoming deregulation of the interprovincial trucking industry.
They were also protesting the deregulation requirements of the
NAFTA, rising fuel prices and their inability to negotiate wages
and working conditions.
1805
In response, the PQ government agreed to set up a committee of
experts to study the industrial relations questions raised by the
truckers. This committee was headed by a widely respected
industrial relations professor and included representation from
the parties involved.
There were renewed blockades in September and October 1999,
after which the PQ minister of transport, Guy Chevrette,
announced that round table discussions would be held to bring all
parties together. Surprisingly, the PQ minister also said that
80% of the truckers, that is, 8,000 of the 10,000, fall under
federal jurisdiction. How he arrived at this conclusion is not
clear, and is not correct.
It should also be noted that major unions in Quebec have
undertaken organizing drives among the truckers. Apparently,
about 30 certification applications have been received by the
Canada Industrial Relations Board from the Teamsters and the
Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN.
From this brief historical view we learn two things. We learn
first that Quebec truckers have legitimate grievances regarding
the deregulation of the trucking sector, regarding their labour
relations status and regarding rising fuel prices. We learn
second that a process has been established to address their
grievances.
If a process has in fact been set out to study the truckers'
concerns, would it make sense for the Government of Canada at
this time to launch the kind of examination suggested by my
colleague's motion? I think not.
It may be that at some future date such a study ought to be
undertaken, but I do not think the government would be doing
anything useful if it were to accept the hon. member's suggestion
at this point. It is better to let the process already
established run its course and see where it leads.
I want to speak for a moment on the industrial relations aspect
of this matter. There are at least two significant industrial
relations questions. The first concerns federal jurisdiction
over labour relations and working conditions encompassing any
undertaking that connects a province with another province or
extends beyond the limits of a province. The Canada Labour Code
makes this very clear. Quebec truckers, when they travel to New
Brunswick, Ontario or the U.S., fall under federal jurisdiction
and, contrary to Minister Chevrette's contention, we do not yet
know how many Quebec truckers do this.
Second, in his motion the member uses the phrase “independent
truckers” to refer to the protesting truckers. Again, we do not
yet know who are the independent truckers and who are dependent
truckers. The Canada Labour Code states that the definition of
employee includes dependent contractors, and the term dependent
contractor includes owner-operators of trucks who work under
contract to employees in the federal jurisdiction. The code
permits employees, including dependent contractors, to unionize
for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their
employment with their employer.
On the other hand, truck drivers who are self-employed and who
are independent owners of their vehicles are not considered to be
employees under the federal labour code and therefore cannot
benefit from its provisions.
These are two key issues that must be sorted out if a durable
solution acceptable to all stakeholders is to be found. The
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and I, I am sure, are in
agreement here. Where we differ is how to sort out what is being
done.
In my view, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is the
appropriate body to determine whether a person is a dependent or
an independent contractor and whether he or she is working for an
employer in the federal jurisdiction. As I mentioned, there are
about 30 certification applications from Quebec unions being
reviewed by the board. I have great confidence in the board's
capacity to come up with the right decisions on these
applications.
The committee of experts which was established by the PQ
government, to which I referred earlier, submitted some important
recommendations regarding industrial relations in the trucking
sector. The PQ government will need to consider these
recommendations very carefully.
The committee recommended that the right of association be
granted to owner-operators and that the Quebec labour code
recognize the self-employed truckers' right of association. Also,
this committee recommended that round table discussions be held
to study the problem of the industry.
Two sessions have already been held and it appears that all
stakeholders involved in the trucking sector are prepared to work
hard to come up with ways to address their issues.
Representatives from Transport Canada and the labour program of
Human Resources Development Canada were present, as were
representatives from the union and major trucking associations.
This group is expected to issue a report on its deliberations
next month.
1810
The point I am trying to stress is simply that a two track
process is already in place that deals with the legitimate
concerns of my hon. friend. We have the CIRB process and the
process set up by the PQ government. Perhaps I could prevail
upon my colleague to be a bit more patient.
I shall end by commending my friend and colleague for bringing
forth his motion and drawing our attention to the problems of
Quebec truckers. It seems to me that at this time all that
should be done is being done. I do not think that further
federal involvement is called for at this point, but like the
member I shall be following the matter very closely and will call
for additional federal action should it further warrant.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As no other member wishes to
speak, I will now give the floor to the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for his right of reply. This will put an
end to the debate.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very happy to see that opposition members are here
to comment on my motion, even at this late hour, which means
that there are good things in there.
The Reform Party's position is that this is a provincial matter.
There is one thing I should say from the start. On October 25,
1998, two Quebec ministers signed an agreement with truckers
when we had the first crisis, the first blockade.
The second point in this agreement talks about assessing the
problem of the federal-provincial jurisdictions in labour law and
transport law. The agreement was signed by both Minister
Brassard and Minister Rioux. These two ministers told the
truckers “Both sides must reassess the problem”.
But coming back to federal-provincial matters, on October 8, I
was on the picket line with the truckers. On October 10, I was
watching the RDI network when I saw my good friend Guy
Chevrette, just back from Europe, make the following statement
“You should go to the federal government. The trucking issue is
a federal matter”.
I understand that my good friend Guy Chevrette—
Mrs. Monique Guay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is
supposed to be a federal issue, but the member is talking only
about Quebec. If he wants to debate it in the national assembly,
I have no problem with that, but we are here—
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): Order, please. I do not
think this is a point of order, and we are getting into debate.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam
Speaker, I understood what the hon. member said earlier. They
have millionaires living in the Mont-Tremblant and upper
Laurentian regions. We do not in Abitibi.
The Bloc Quebecois member voiced her disappointment with my
motion, and said I should have taken a couple of minutes to
think about it. The fact is that I took four.
I have here remarks made by Guy Chevrette on RDI on October 10
or thereabouts. He said “Go to the feds. They are the ones
concerned”. I have notes here on my desk. I understand that he
is a good pitcher because he has thrown a strike ball to the
federal team. He also indicated that out of the 10,000 truckers
concerned, 8,000 were subject to federal legislation and these
ought to approach Ottawa to find some ways of getting around
their inability to negotiate with their employer. I have notes
on this here and it is important to know this.
I understand that the member for Laurentides would want all
members to get involved. I agree with what she said about the
need for a committee to be struck. That is a good point. But I
did not appreciate her saying that I ought to have given it two
minutes' thought.
In the current situation, it is impossible to confirm that 80%
of the truckers in question come under the jurisdiction of the
federal government until the Canada Labour Relations Board has
finished its investigation and dealt with the demands of the
third parties currently before it, which are to have Quebec
truckers granted union certification.
The board will have to determine whether the truckers are
employees, dependent contractors or independent contractors and,
in the first two instances, if their employer is governed by
federal legislation. Demands are being investigated and the
date of the board's response is not known.
Another thing is really important.
We must stand by the truckers. I appreciate the comments made by
my colleagues tonight, even though we may disagree.
Of course, we could deal with the concerns of the truckers about
working conditions, for instance, higher pay through collective
bargaining, if union certification were granted, but there is
nothing we can do, at the labour relations level, about the
price of gasoline and the deregulation of interprovincial
trucking as of January 1, 2000, pursuant to section 19 of the
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
1815
What is important to remember, and I appreciate it, is that hon.
members from the Reform Party, the Bloc, the Progressive
Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have all taken part in
this debate. At least, the issue is being addressed and things
should look up for independent truckers of Quebec and their
families. Solutions will be found, whether they come from
Quebec, Canada or Ontario.
What is important here is to defend the truckers we see every
day on roads and highways. I am proud of having put this motion
forward.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as
a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Member's Business has 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.
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the government has repeatedly refused to face the
truth about the economic and social crisis developing in Cape
Breton. This crisis is the direct result of its inability to
show leadership and provide a sincere commitment to the people of
the island. Not only is there an obvious lack of commitment to
Cape Bretoners but the government continues to allow
misinformation about the reality of the crisis to permeate.
Contrary to what one of my colleagues in the House proclaimed
last week during the debate on Bill C-11 that unemployment rates
were declining in Cape Breton, the reality of the matter is that
unemployment is rising in Cape Breton with unofficial rates of
over 30%.
The government's best effort to create jobs has been to
encourage the conditions that often create low paying, part time,
contractual jobs with no benefits. Nova Scotians are falling
deeper into poverty with the average poor family living almost
$6,000 below the low income cutoff level. The Nova Scotia report
card issued yesterday by Campaign 2000 reports that 67.8% of
families without full time, full year employment are living in
poverty. The same report card states that Nova Scotia children
are doing better than the average Cape Breton child. Thanks to
the Liberal government's generous cuts to EI benefits, less than
half of Nova Scotians who are unemployed receive EI benefits.
Sadly, the government's inability to act has been the only
consistency in the lives of the children of Cape Bretoners since
1993. We continue to face a crisis of increasing proportions.
Coastal communities have suffered greatly from the devastation of
the ground fishing industry. Devco's being shut down has already
caused the loss of well over 1,000 direct jobs. Rural Cape
Bretoners are being stripped of jobs, the most recent example
being the reallocation of HRDC jobs from Port Hawkesbury to more
urban areas.
This is the reality the children of Cape Breton face every day:
poverty, job losses, a government that just does not care. What
else could possibly explain why Cape Bretoners have been made
into economic refugees at the hands of their own government?
The government would have us believe that the road show
masquerading as a fair and fully participatory panel that is to
decide the future of Cape Breton is somehow going to make
everything rosy again. The government cannot really expect that
the people of Cape Breton will accept this rushed and obviously
partisan panel as an appropriate response by the government that
is legally obligated to take all reasonable measures to reduce
economic hardship. This crisis will not be solved overnight.
Given that the policies of the government continue to put their
parents out of work, what other message does this send to the
sons and daughters of Cape Bretoners except that in the eyes of
the Liberal government they just don't count?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the future of all
families in Cape Breton will be brighter as a result of the steps
the government has taken to build a solid foundation for
tomorrow.
Following the transfer of the responsibilities of the industrial
development division of Devco to Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation in 1988, Devco's sole focus became coal mining. At
about the same time, successive governments began mandating Devco
to attain commercial viability. Unfortunately that goal was not
attained.
The government has initiated a process to reshape the coal
mining industry on Cape Breton island with the objective of
maintaining up to 500 jobs in a commercial private sector coal
mining business.
1820
Bill C-11, the bill to provide Devco with the authority to sell
its operations is now before the House. I would like to note
that the member for Sydney—Victoria has indicated that there are
some good things in the Devco divestiture bill.
Passage of this bill and the finalization of a sale will remove
uncertainty about the future of coal mining in Cape Breton. Most
important, finalization of a sale will also confirm the
continuance of good solid coal mining jobs in a commercial
private sector operation.
It is also important to look beyond coal mining. Since 1967 the
federal government has provided over $500 million to diversify
the Cape Breton economy, first through the industrial development
division of Devco and beginning in 1988 through the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation.
Today the government continues to invest about $20 million
annually in economic development on Cape Breton through ACOA and
ECBC. The goal is and will continue to be to diversify the Cape
Breton economy beyond coal.
In addition to this, we have allocated another $68 million to
fund sustainable economic development initiatives in Cape Breton.
The province of Nova Scotia is providing an additional $12
million for the same purpose.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the parliamentary secretary as the time has expired.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
when I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food how he
would transfer the money for farmers in crisis from the cabinet
table to the kitchen table, he responded by saying “All the
money will go through the process and the farmers will get it”.
Unfortunately, the process the minister has faith in does not
work and the money has not flowed to the farmers.
Fifty-nine per cent of Manitoba farmers who applied for AIDA
were rejected. Close to 3,000 claims remain unprocessed. How
can the minister believe that his process is working?
Three-quarters of the AIDA money is still in government coffers
and not in the hands of farmers.
Farmers in my riding are crying for help. They are farmers like
Phil Lewis from Minnedosa who said “AIDA is a wild card and
banks do not like it”. He has had 900 unseeded acres this year.
David Hamlin from Miniota said “We have been farming since 1972
on a family farm established since 1910. I will have to go out
and get a job to stay afloat”.
Dorothy Andrew from Rossburn, Manitoba said “Another machinery
dealer was here today and he wasn't here to offer a decrease in
the payments on the machinery”.
Walter Stadnyk of Grandview said “Our forefathers worked hard
to create the family farm. My two sons want to farm but won't be
able to. It cost me $500 to fill out the AIDA forms and I was
rejected”.
Maggie Creber from Newdale said “We the farmers are in trouble.
We have no crops in and what was seeded at this date has very
little chance to be a good crop. We are looking for aid and we
shouldn't have to beg for it”.
George Guley of Ethelbert said “AIDA does not work”. He did
not qualify and he cannot get work. What are producers like him
expected to do?
Cam Flett from Angusville said “Many of your government grants
are a terrible waste of money. The plight of farmers, health
care and education are far more important and should be
recognized as such”.
Ross Matheson from Decker, Manitoba said “No farmer wants to
have to beg our government for subsidies, but the economics
producers face are seemingly impossible”.
Herbert Christian from Kenville said “The AIDA formula does not
recognize the extreme need of farmers who have had depressed
incomes for several years”.
I end by saying that John Puchailo from Grandview said that he
is afraid that there will be a full-blown civil revolution to
clean out the government because it just does not listen or care
about the west.
There is no doubt that farmers in Dauphin—Swan River and in the
west need help. We need to take away the politics. Let us help
those Canadians who need help. Premier Romanow and Premier Doer
came to Ottawa asking for help and were denied. What will it take
for this Liberal government to help the farmers in crisis?
1825
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the changes the
government has introduced to the AIDA program will benefit many
producers across the country.
We will now be covering negative margins. Negative margins
occur when a farm has a particularly bad year and the operation
has insufficient revenues to cover variable costs like fuel,
machinery repair and chemicals. These due dollars will go to
those farm families that need help to cover their variable costs.
What will also help farmers to get through these tough times is
that they now have the option to make a one-time choice in 1999
of the reference period on which the payment calculation for AIDA
is based. They will be able to choose either the previous three
years or three of the previous five years where the high and low
income years are not counted.
This will be a real help to farmers as they will not need to
count a low income year they may have had due to flooding,
drought, or some other occurrence beyond their control. This
will provide better stability and more effective support to those
farmers who find themselves in this type of situation.
As well, we are committed to having all processing of the AIDA
claims completed by Christmas in provinces where the federal
government delivers the program, as is the case in Manitoba.
As of today, November 25, the total value of AIDA payments in
Manitoba is $33.7 million. These program changes and the total
amount of money to be paid out by Christmas will help the farmers
get through the tough times the hon. member referred to.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.)