36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 1, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1015
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1020
1025
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1030
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1035
1040
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1045
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-34. Second reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1230
1235
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1240
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1245
1250
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1255
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
1325
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Report stage
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1330
1335
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1340
1345
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1350
| IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION REFUGEE ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR STATISTICS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1400
| DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| BERLIN CONFERENCE
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| STEPHEN TRUSCOTT
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| GLENDALE HIGH SCHOOL
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
1405
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| SKILLS CANADA
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| THE LATE RHÉAUME “ROCKY” BRISEBOIS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| SINGLE CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1410
| NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| AIRCRAFT APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT LIMITED
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| BERLIN CONFERENCE
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1420
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1435
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CULTURAL HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BANKING SECTOR
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1440
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CULTURAL HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1445
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1450
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| UNESCO INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1455
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FRANCOPHONE ENTREPRENEURS IN WESTERN CANADA
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1510
1515
1520
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1525
1530
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1535
1540
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1545
1550
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1555
1600
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1605
1610
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1615
1620
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1625
| Mr. John Duncan |
1630
1635
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1640
1645
| Division on motion deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Scotia Rainbow
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1650
| Mr. John Maloney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 1, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as
well as the related financial report.
The report has to do with the meeting of the Commission on
Parliamentary Affairs, held in Pnom Penh, Cambodia, from March 2
to March 4, 2000.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Pursuant to its order of reference dated Thursday, May 11, 2000,
the committee has adopted Bill C-27, an act respecting the
national parks of Canada and has agreed to report it with
amendments.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the hon.
members and witnesses who sat for many long hours to make this
report possible.
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the third report
of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report is entitled
“Seeking a Balance: Final Report on Human Resources Development
Canada Grants and Contributions”.
The report is the result of four months of very public hearings.
The committee heard from witnesses from all over the country,
from within government and outside of government. These
witnesses were selected by members of all five parties
represented on our committee.
I want to thank the members of the committee, the witnesses and
the staff of the committee who assisted us in producing what I
hope will be a very valuable piece of work.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with respect to this report, the
official opposition members of the committee are strongly of the
opinion that the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities failed to fully report and constructively criticize
the department's mismanagement and abuse of grants and
contributions programs.
We believe that the committee is in dereliction of its
responsibility therefore to hold the government accountable on
behalf of Canadian workers, employers and taxpayers.
The Liberal majority report does not impute any responsibility
to anyone in the mismanagement of the department and blames other
factors. Because the Liberal majority report denies the nature
and scope of the problems at HRDC, the recommendations it makes
fails to address the root cause of these problems and our
dissenting report and 14 recommendations from the official
opposition are appended.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would seek the permission of the House to
explain the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Quebecois on this
report.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member that that
requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member to explain his party's position on
this report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important report.
It contains, among other things, a recommendation by the Bloc
Quebecois, which I myself proposed, that the department be
dismantled because of the crisis we have witnessed.
We submitted a dissenting report because, if the government
simply dismantled the department without getting to the bottom
of things in this situation through an independent public
inquiry, we would not have honoured the wishes of the citizens
of Quebec and Canada in this matter.
I think government action
must go a lot further, otherwise this will be seen as nothing
more than camouflaging.
1015
[English]
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented
Tuesday, February 22, be concurred in.
We are here today to finish up a bit of unfinished business and
ongoing business dealing with the farm income issue across
Canada, in particular in western Canada.
I would ask if I could have the agreement of the House to share
my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster so that we
would each have 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there the unanimous consent of the
House to permit the hon. member to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not have
concurrence to share my time. We should have a positive attitude
in parliament and we should work together to address agricultural
issues. I am very disappointed that my colleagues in the House
feel that this spirit of co-operation is not necessary in
addressing agricultural problems in Canada.
The majority report which was put forward by the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on March 13, in which I
concurred, was inadequate and did not adequately address the
issues, nor did it adequately examine the problems. I will
address that as we go along. Primarily the problem was that the
hearings were confined to three provinces, when I know very
clearly from geography books and the history of the country that
we have 10 provinces as well as the territories which have
agricultural issues.
Since October 21, 1999, the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food has examined issues surrounding the
farm income crisis facing farmers. I would like to point out
that it was the Canadian Alliance and my motion which in fact got
the hearings going on the farm income issue. As far as I know,
had we not done that, the government would have continued on with
the statements of the minister, saying “Relax, NISA and crop
insurance are sufficient to address this crisis”, when it soon
became very apparent that the basic farm safety net programs
would not do the job.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
if the member for Selkirk—Interlake had simply stated that he
was splitting his time, that indeed would be allowable in the
House.
May I request that he simply make that statement at this time,
that he would indeed be splitting his time with another alliance
member?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that has certainly been the
practice. The hon. member asked for consent and sat down, so I
asked for consent and it was refused. I only asked for it
because he asked me to.
If he wants to split his time, that is his business. Normally
we do accept that a member can stand at the beginning of his or
her remarks and say that he or she will be splitting his or her
time.
1020
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I will
share my time.
In November 1999 the Canadian Alliance started a series of
meetings across Canada to address this issue, which the Standing
Committee on Agriculture Agri-Food and the Liberal government
were unwilling to do.
In November 1999 the action for struggling agriculture producers
committee was struck by the Canadian Alliance in response to the
income crisis. The hearings were necessary because the ongoing
farm income crisis had not abated. In fact, as of this day it
has not abated.
In Saskatchewan farm incomes have improved somewhat, but only
because of farm subsidy programs. What we have not seen is an
improvement due to the government addressing the root causes and
the problems of farm incomes in Canada, including western Canada
and southwest Ontario, which rely on export markets for many of
their cash crops.
There are many root problems, but I will just mention two or
three that are major and should be addressed right away.
First, the government has to get out of the way of the value
added processing of raw agriculture, such as grains and meats, on
the prairies and across the country. The Canadian Wheat Board at
the present time is putting roadblocks in the way of pasta
producers, who, in trying to do value added processing, find that
they have to sell their grain through the wheat board and then
buy it back, which makes it uneconomical. The organic farmers
will also find that the wheat board is a tough customer to deal
with as their organic products start to increase.
We have the problem of marketing, which I have mentioned.
Farmers must have the ability to decide how best to market the
products from their farms. In this regard the government has to
move to make the Canadian Wheat Board a voluntary organization.
Later today we will be dealing with the transport reforms. I
mention them here as part of the ASAP report, because farmers
certainly said that they need to have transport reform. The
transport reform needs to be toward the side of a commercial
contract based system.
I would like to point out the current situation on the prairies.
I would like to refer to people in Saskatchewan who have
addressed this issue.
We have the general statistic that arrears on farm debt in
Saskatchewan increased between February and March from $6.3
million to $8.2 million.
John Eberl, the administrator of the Rural Municipality of
Antler, said that out of 15 farmers in his immediate area, three
have gone bankrupt. After 30 years, Don Kincaid believes he is
finished with farming. Don Kincaid lives about 60 kilometres
southwest of Regina. He said the reason is that he could not
risk losing more money. That is a sign of desperation. Farmers
do not see any improvement in the immediate future. That is a
big problem.
The issue of input is also paramount to the health of
agriculture in western Canada. Between 1994 and 1998 farm cash
receipts increased 7.5%. Meanwhile, operating expenses like
fuels, chemicals and labour rose 9.4% and depreciation increased
15.8% As a result, realized net income fell by 11.5% during the
five year period.
Until these root causes of the problems for farm income are
addressed, including high taxation by the government, farmers
will not be able to have a real optimistic outlook. The
government is perhaps hoping that there will be natural disasters
around the world that will drive up grain prices, but that is not
the way to do it. The way to do it is to start addressing the
root causes in Canada.
1025
I would ask for the concurrence of the House to table, in both
official languages, the report of the action for struggling
agriculture producers committee, which I have compiled along with
my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. In particular, I would
like to mention the outstanding work done by the hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to table the document to which he
has referred?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation
today and for bringing us up to date on the progress of the ASAP
report. I know that he and the hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster have worked very hard on this, as have
many of us. It is unfortunate that we did not get consent from
the House to table that report, because it reflects the views of
some 3,500 farmers with whom we met. It would be very wise of
the government to listen and to have a look at what these people
had to say.
I know that copies of the ASAP report were sent to the Prime
Minister and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Could
the hon. member comment on the response he has received from
them?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, whilst I have not
received a response, I certainly hope to receive it in the near
future.
Members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
voted down motion after motion which I brought forward to hold
hearings across the country on safety nets. They refused to go
to southwestern Ontario, which is the single biggest agriculture
producing province in Canada. I can only conclude from that that
the minister from Toronto and other ministers from the area
thought that if they could keep the Canadian Alliance away from
the people of Ontario it would be an out of sight/out of mind
situation. Looking back, that seemed to be the whole objective
of denying the standing committee the opportunity to travel to
southwestern Ontario to talk directly with farmers.
That shows the crassness of the political objectives of this
government. The farmers' interests come second, third or fourth.
The government's political objectives are to get re-elected and
to keep politicians from other parties out of southwestern
Ontario.
I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance went to southern
Ontario. We held six meetings. A lot of people who came to the
meetings, who were of all political persuasions, questioned the
representation they were getting from their members of
parliament.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened very diligently to my colleague across
the way this morning and to his response to the last question. I
am a member from southwestern Ontario. I welcome his great
initiative to travel in my area. He obviously recognizes where
the quality of land in agriculture is very vital.
I am a member of the agriculture committee, as is he. Yes,
indeed, the motion was put that we travel west and to
southwestern Ontario. Does he remember, in that particular
instance, that yes, I voted against it, but the motion was to
travel to Ontario and the eastern provinces? Was there a
political motive in that he only wanted to visit southwestern
Ontario?
How many meetings did the hon. member attend out west?
1030
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
question, we had great representation by the Canadian Alliance at
every one of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
meetings. The meetings we held on the ASAP report were attended
by provincial politicians from all parties. I did not see any
federal Liberal members there who could have come out to listen
directly to it. They seemed to rely on the minister from Regina
to be the one to speak for them, telling the sheep in the
background as to what the heck they should be voting on and
saying.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had many
opportunities and still does have the opportunity to consult
farmers on the safety net programs. Agriculture is not out of
the woods and the member's question indicates to me that the
government does not intend to do anything more to address the
root causes of the agricultural crisis in Canada.
We are going to be debating reforms to the grain transportation
system that fall far short of the ideal and of the requests of
the major farm organizations in western Canada. Who are those
major farm organizations in western Canada with regard to the
grain transportation issue? They are the five grain companies,
three of which are owned and administered by farmers. Those
people want to see a much greater commercialization of grain
transportation than what we see today.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the
ongoing agricultural crisis in the country. As we see from the
co-operation we are getting from the government side of the
House, agriculture's biggest problem is that it is 90% politics
and 10% production. Of course that goes to the root cause of
what is happening out there now. There is a sad lack of cashflow
due to government inattention and government cuts.
Since the government will not seem to co-operate and allow us to
table this report, I will spend my 10 minutes on the 13 policy
suggestions from farmers. These are primary producers. Some
3,500 to 4,000 primary producers came out to our town hall
meetings and told us what they thought. We went straight to the
horse's mouth, if you will, Mr. Speaker, rather than the other
end that we see here in the House.
Policy suggestion number one: Farmers demand that promised
disaster assistance be delivered on time. Of course that has not
happened. The agricultural income disaster assistance program,
AIDA, did not accomplish this goal. Less than 30% of the money
allocated for 1998 got off the cabinet table out to the kitchen
tables.
Emergency compensation programs must be structured in such a way
as to target assistance to all farmers who need help. Again AIDA
failed miserably.
Policy suggestion number two: National farm safety net programs
must not only be maintained, they must be improved. Any long
term safety net program must include an income disaster program,
a crop insurance program and an income stabilization program such
as NISA. The problem we had earlier on was that the agriculture
minister, backed up by his colleagues, insisted that crop
insurance and NISA were more than adequate to handle the problem.
We knew otherwise.
An effective farm safety net would ensure long term stable
protection for farmers and would eliminate the need for ad hoc
programs such as AIDA in the future.
Policy suggestion number three: The majority of farmers are
calling on the federal government to become more aggressive in
trade negotiations. They want better access to world markets.
Farmers have stated that the Canadian government has lowered its
agricultural support much faster than other nations and much
faster than we agreed to in the trade negotiations in the Uruguay
round.
Farmers are demanding that the government not lower agricultural
support any faster than our trade competitors and no faster than
agreed to.
Policy suggestion number four: Governments must clearly define
the future direction for agriculture policy in Canada. Is it
sustainable? Do we need a good safe secure food supply? Of
course we do. As part of this, government must define who falls
into the category of farmer. This would help to decrease
uncertainty in who qualifies for farm safety net programs and
would reduce conflicts with farm income tax provisions.
We also saw this flaw clearly in the evidence in the election
for the wheat board. Folks who were landlords from the United
States got ballots. An immigrant lady who had been in Toronto
for one week received a ballot. There were a lot of things like
that. If we had a clear definition of who was actually farming,
it would certainly go a long way to help the government define
farmer.
1035
Policy suggestion number five: Farmers suggest that the federal
government lower user fees charged by the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just completed a
study. The findings indicate that farmers are another casualty
of the government's cost recovery policies. It says that the
government is adding to producers' problems with huge user fees,
rising input costs, government debt and deficit reduction, which
of course has hit the agriculture sector harder than anybody
else, government regulations and the paper burden. Sixty-eight
percent of those that replied to the survey say that one of the
most heinous jobs they have is the paperwork that is required in
sending all of this stuff to Ottawa when it does not seem to do
any good.
Policy suggestion number six: Farmers suggest that the federal
government immediately lower farmers' costs by enabling a
competitive commercially accountable grain handling and
transportation system.
That will go to the heart of what we are going to hear later
today when the transport minister introduces Bill C-34 redoing
the grain transportation act.
Policy suggestion number seven: Farmers are calling on the
federal government to immediately allow producers to improve
their income by moving up the processing chain. This would
require the government to remove the regulations slowing direct
farmer involvement in value added processing.
Prairie pasture producers wanting to create 100-plus jobs in
southern Saskatchewan, wanting to upgrade the value of durum here
at home rather than shipping it to the United States or other
places to be processed, are the types of incentives we need to
see. That is rural development. That is the type of thing the
Secretary of State for Rural Development should be talking about
in this House. It goes to the root cause of why farmers are not
making any money. They are not allowed to handle and market
their own product.
Policy suggestion number eight: The majority of farmers believe
that western Canadian farmers should have the freedom to market
their grain independently of the Canadian Wheat Board. Most
farmers do not want the wheat board to disappear but believe it
should be one of their marketing options that also includes but
is not limited to marketing directly to farmer owned new
generation co-operatives or any other access they find.
The problem we have with the wheat board is it is a monopoly.
It is a closed shop. It is also spreading its tentacles into
areas such as organic farming which is just starting to come on
big in the west. That goes to the government's bill on
pesticides and that type of thing. Organic farming is definitely
part of the answer. The wheat board does not really want to
handle the product because it is a niche market and it is too
small for it. Yet it still wants to control the pricing and have
the buyback provisions. It is absolutely ludicrous.
When we see a farmer from southern Manitoba in shackles and
chains because he marketed his own product across the line, it is
absolutely abhorrent that type of thing can happen in a democracy
such as Canada.
Policy suggestion number nine: Most farmers believe that
overall farm income would increase if interprovincial trade
barriers were removed. They are calling on the federal and
provincial governments to actively pursue free trade within
Canada.
It is great to have trading negotiations going on with all the
countries in the world, but we have huge trade distortions within
our own country from province to province. Numbers put that
disparity at about $6 billion a year. It is a horrendous amount
of money that should be in producers' pockets.
Policy suggestion number ten: Most farmers maintain that any
endangered species legislation must respect the property rights
of landowners. That is a big item. There has to be adequate
compensation and respect for the property owner. And it must
include compensation for land if the habitat must be taken out of
production. We have not seen that in any of the legislation that
has been brought forward. It has to be there.
The majority of producers believe that the government could
achieve more through co-operation with farmers and ranchers than
through threats of punishment. We know how well that is working
with the gun registration bill.
Policy suggestion number eleven: The majority of farmers demand
that any legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases must not
reduce farmers' income.
As we see, farming and agriculture in Canada is the only
industry I know of that buys retail and sells wholesale. Any
costs that are incurred by any one of the suppliers and so on are
passed on to the farm gate. They cannot be added to the product
price and shipped back out again, as we see in every other
industry.
The environmental taxes that are now being collected not only
hit the farmer himself but they also hit the machine dealer and
the fertilizer dealer. Everyone else passes them on in increased
costs to the farmer who must eat the increased cost and cannot
pass it back in any way, shape or form. It is not fair.
Policy suggestion number twelve: Most farmers support giving
Canadians the ability to choose and not to consume food that
contains genetically modified organisms. Most farmers
acknowledge that this will require some form of labelling on food
containing those GMOs.
1040
We are saying that it cannot be a mandatory type of system. It
just will not work. Voluntary should work quite well as it has
in other jurisdictions.
Policy suggestion number thirteen: Farmers are asking for all
levels of government to ensure that adequate counselling, support
programs and such are available for farm families suffering
through this farm crisis. That seems to be something government
can intervene in and also be there to backstop farmers.
There has been talk of an escape clause for people who want to
get out. In my home province of Saskatchewan the average age of
farmers is approaching 60 years. These farmers are working away
at their equity, shortening their retirement values and so on.
It is just not right and it is not fair.
Thirty percent of the AIDA funds for 1998 are all that escaped
from Ottawa and got out there to do any good. We are now seeing
headlines that the 1999 program may not have enough cash in it.
It is absolutely ludicrous. When family farms are not receiving
the cash, where is the money going? Administration costs cannot
be that high.
Huge rallies have been held in western Canada with farmers going
out in their tractors, trucks or whatever to become part of a
convoy. The very first one was held out west in my riding of
Battlefords—Lloydminster in which 400 units took part just to
show some support.
We are also finding a lot of intervention from past the farm
gate suppliers. These fellows are carrying huge debt loads and
farmers cannot afford to pay their bills. Bank credit has dried
up. Farmers are asking for some long term, low interest loans as
farm credit's mandate originally was. It has now become a
quasi-judicial board separate from the government which those
folks like to do to hide responsibility. We are not seeing the
type of financial package the agriculture industry will need to
sustain itself in the next millennium.
The farmers out there are in trouble. They are looking for some
sort of leadership from the federal government and from their
provincial governments. They are not seeing a whole lot.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said
this morning.
First, the member for Selkirk—Interlake commented about
southwestern Ontario. As a primary producer in southwestern
Ontario I find it offensive that some would suggest that we do
not care about the farmers of southwestern Ontario. We care about
farmers clear across the country.
I find it rather an oxymoron that a party that believes in
cutbacks in all sectors would dare to say that the government has
not spent enough or that the money is not reaching the farmers
for whom it was intended. That party does not support supply
management which has supported and served our farmers well across
the country in both the feather industry and the dairy industry,
an industry that has not come to the government trough looking
for help. Yet that party says “We do not support supply
management”. That party does not support the Canadian Wheat
Board because it believes it is a monopoly.
If farmers in western Canada were allowed the option of going
five years outside of the wheat board, and took responsibility
for the crop produced in that five year period, would they be
prepared to take responsibility for the crop and stay out of the
system for five years even though they were not able to sell
their crop? Who would they go to then?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, both of the member's
questions are very pertinent.
When it comes to supply management he is not reading our policy
statement properly. We have never said to destroy supply
management. This government has moved from a quota to a tariff
base that is designed to come down over the next little while
that will destroy supply management. That is exactly true. That
is the government's policy.
Our policy is let us get the rest of agriculture up to that
level. There has to be some return on the investment. We are not
seeing that in any other agricultural sector. Good for supply
management. They figured out the formula and they are trying to
make it work. Good for them.
We have never said to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. We
have said to make it optional. If it is good it will continue to
function. It is saying it will fall apart if it does not have a
monopoly. No monopoly anywhere lasts forever. People will rear
up and say they have had enough and will not go to it.
We see far less acreage dedicated to the Canadian Wheat Board
now than we ever have before. We only have to look at its annual
report which just came out. It shows that sales are way down and
administration costs have gone through the roof. The wheat board
does not have the anticipated acreage coming from producers that
it had before. People are voting with their feet and growing
different crops.
We are seeing all sorts of things being developed to try to
obtain cashflow.
1045
We are also seeing organic grains being held back by the wheat
board because it wants to control them but does not want the
responsibility of marketing. There are many niche crops from
which the wheat board could back off and allow these folks to
fulfil, such as the pearling markets, the specialized feed wheats
and all those types of things that could be grown.
We know they can do that. I do not know a producer who would
not sign a contract to be taken out of the wheat board for five
years. Producers will sink or swim on their own. They are doing
that now.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make. We are now seeing
from the Canadian Alliance something to which
western farmers had better pay attention. It wants to get rid of
the Canadian Wheat Board. It is also saying that it wants it
opened up to competition to allow the Cargills of the world to
get involved.
It is a matter of time before the wheat board disappears. The
wheat board only succeeds if it is single desk marketing agency
for Canadian grain. That is the way farmers in western feel.
There is very strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board as a
single desk marketing agency.
The Reform Party of Canada wants to destroy that agency for the
farmers of western Canada. Western Canadian farmers had better
realize that we have a throwback to the age of the dinosaurs and
Neanderthals. They are coming out of their cage and they want to
end the Canadian Wheat Board.
Canadian farmers fought for that year in and year out. They
fought for it in the 1930s and 1940s. They fought to defend it
against the forces of the extreme right. Those forces are now
coming to the fore again. As a matter a fact there was a
plebiscite on barley some time ago and over two-thirds of farmers
wanted to market barley through the Canadian Wheat Board. What
did the reform party do? It criticized farmers for supporting
the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, talk about the Jurassic era.
We just heard from it. The member talked about the thirties and
forties. Agriculture has grown and changed since that time.
People are marketing on their own now.
Has the member heard of crops like lentils, peas, canola,
mustard, canary, spices and everything else? Those are not wheat
board crops but they are doing very well. They are not having
any problem marketing their products. They are not having any
problem getting those products to port and not being charged
demurrage on them.
There is definitely a need for a wheat board. We never said to
destroy the board. We are saying make it open and accountable to
the people it serves. There will be elections again this coming
fall. We will see more open market people elected to that board.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following on that most interesting interchange, I move:
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on
division.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my view today is a landmark day for
the entire grain transportation industry and for the producers of
the country.
Only a couple of days ago we introduced Bill C-34, an act to
amend the Canada Transportation Act. It will put in place
competitive measures which will assist all stakeholders to move
to a better and more efficient way of moving grain in western
Canada.
1050
I thank my colleagues on this side of the House, in particular
my seatmate, the member for Wascana, the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. We have worked on this file for nearly three years.
It has been very difficult. Sometimes the debate has been
arduous, but the end result is a balanced approach to a very
complex issue.
I also thank members of all parties on the other side of the
House who the emotional dimensions of this debate which go back a
long time in Canadian history and reflect varying points of view
which are at times quite extreme.
In life we do not always get our own way. Everyone in the
system, all the stakeholders and political actors, have put water
in their wine, so to speak. They have come forward with measures
that will bring us forward in the new century to a more
competitive grain handling system.
A central theme of our transportation policy for the last number
of years has been to modernize the transportation system by
commercializing some institutions, providing more local control,
reducing subsidies and updating legislation. Bill C-34 is no
exception because it presents the legislative portion of a larger
initiative that modernizes the graining handling and
transportation system for the benefit of prairie farmers and the
transportation system as a whole.
It represents three years of work. After two years of
consultative studies and a lot of effort by my colleagues, we
have a plan for change that will make a real difference in the
lives of prairie farmers.
I talked about the co-operation I received from both of my
colleagues, the minister of agriculture and the minister for the
wheat board. As the lead minister on this file, I will be
engaged in the debate today. The other two ministers will not
speak, but the minister for the wheat board will be present for
the rest of the day. He will certainly reply to questions this
afternoon and engage in some debate if necessary. I believe the
minister of agriculture will also attend at some point.
I thank both former Justice Willard Estey and Mr. Arthur Kroeger
for their dedication and hard work on this very important issue.
In my view their work is seminal. It has given us a thorough
understanding of the issues and diverse opinions associated with
them.
With this bill the government is initiating changes to an
industry that exports $6 billion worth of grain each year to
markets all around the world. Unfortunately the system that
moves the products from country elevators to ports suffers from
periodic breakdowns, bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and quite
frankly a lack of accountability and some may say a lack of
credibility. That was demonstrated in the winter of 1996-97 when
the system completely broke down in western Canada.
If our system is to be world class, if Canada is to be taken
seriously on the world stage, we must have a means to transport
grain that gives farmers the ability to take advantage of
opportunities provided by the global marketplace. As a result we
must be able to move grain from gate to port cheaply and
efficiently. When things go wrong, lines of accountability need
to be clear so that problems can be resolved.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, the system at the moment lacks clear lines of
accountability, with the result that those involved point the
finger of blame at each other rather than work together to
resolve problems.
When the system breaks down, this lack of accountability obliges
grain growers to bear the brunt of the problem.
Our grain handling and transportation system cannot utilize the
latest techniques of logistics, such as just-in-time delivery.
Grain takes too long to move from farm to port, and ships all
too often have to wait for the grain.
Worse yet, grain sits in storage facilities monopolizing them
until it can be sold. All of these problems have cast doubt in
the minds of some of Canada's clients on its reliability as a
supplier of grain.
1055
The aim of this bill is to improve the system of grain
transportation in western Canada, but not just there, because we
are very interested in the transportation of this commodity in
Ontario and Quebec as well.
[English]
Before telling the House where we are going, it is important to
know where we have been. In 1997 when I was appointed to this
position it was quite obvious that we had a massive problem as a
result of the breakdown in the transportation system I described
earlier.
I went to Winnipeg with my colleagues and we met with all the
stakeholders. That was an interesting meeting because the grain
companies, the producers, the railways, the ports and other
interested parties were represented. All stakeholders were
represented. Everyone came to the same conclusion: that the
system was broken, that we had to fix it, and that any delay or
lack of action would be disastrous to everyone involved in the
transportation system.
They also said that we needed a reference point. We needed some
individual whose reputation was such that he or she could effect
an impartial analysis and come forward with recommendations. This
is important because there is a lot of hostility, a lot of
division, which goes back 100 years or more in western Canada
among the various stakeholders.
I have been around this place off and on for quite a long time.
I had the honour to sit as vice-chairman of the transport
committee between 1974 and 1978. I listened to the debates in
that committee with people like Don Mazankowski, Jack Horner and
Les Benjamin from three different parties. Jack Horner crossed
the floor to the Liberals. At the time he was a Tory but then he
saw the light and came to us, and he paid for his sin. They were
giants on the stage in the House. They understood western
Canada. They understood the enmities. They understood the
disparities. They understood the need for accommodation on the
part of everyone.
I learned a bit as a guy from Toronto about this issue, the
divisions, and how sensitive one must be to finding an equitable
solution. That is why we appointed former Justice Willard Estey.
No one disagreed with that appointment. He is someone of
incredible reputation, born and bred in Saskatchewan. He
understood the needs of producers, practised corporate law, and
had been on the bench. He came forward with a report, the basic
thrust of which we endorsed.
It was a report that was well based on consultation. He met
with a thousand or more stakeholders. He convened 147 meetings.
He listened to people. He applied his intellectual and physical
energies basically full time to this issue. He submitted 15
recommendations on commercializing the grain handling and
transportation system, and the government endorsed his vision.
That was not enough. It is one thing to have the conceptual
framework. It is another thing to have the practical steps to
implement a concept. Therefore I asked Arthur Kroeger, former
deputy minister, again like Justice Estey a recipient of the
Order of Canada and someone of high repute, to take the concepts
and the recommendations of Justice Estey, flesh them out and try
to put them in a manageable form so that we could implement the
concepts.
1100
Mr. Kroeger was well suited to this. Not only was he a former
deputy minister of transport, but he was from a small town in
Alberta near the Saskatchewan border and grew up with this issue.
We had two individuals who knew the west, knew the history and
had the intellect to deal with a very complex problem.
Mr. Kroeger was able to reach a consensus on a number of issues,
which was quite an achievement given the difference of opinions
expressed by participants. However no agreement could be found
on the starting level for the annual cap on railway revenues, on
the transportation role of the wheat board and on ways to achieve
enhanced railway competition. In the end, Mr. Kroeger completed
his terms of reference last September by providing his own
recommendations for the three unresolved issues. I do thank him
for that degree of initiative.
What we announced on May 10 was the government's response to the
broad range of advice over the entire consultation period. As I
said earlier, I realize that this has dragged on and that the
introduction of legislation took longer than some people wanted.
I truly regret, from the point of view especially of the members
of the opposition, that the timetable is so short that full
debate in the House will not be possible.
We had wanted this issue to be more fully aired but by agreeing
today to have one speaking time per party, the opposition has
shown that it wants to get this into committee quickly. I am
prepared to go to committee next Monday to answer questions and
deal with this bill in detail if the House chooses to agree to
give it second reading today. I believe that is where the real
discussions should take place. In regretting the fact that we do
not have enough time to give the members the say they would like
in the House, I would hope that we could somehow obviate that in
committee.
The government believes that when a policy is required in
complex matters more consultation is the best option and an open
dialogue is important. That is why we did not rush decisions. We
worked diligently on the details until we found the right
balance, one that will benefit all system participants. There
was a range of views on this side of the House, it is no secret,
as there is a range of views on the other side of the House. I
personally met with many stakeholders a number of times over the
last two years. Everyone really has been consulted and whatever
one's position is on the bill and the proposals that we have
announced, no one can fault us for at least consulting those
affected.
We have heard the voices of the farmers, the grain companies,
the wheat board and the railways. I know that this proposal and
the bill does not please everyone but we have to start somewhere.
We had to break the logjam and that is what we have done.
When we announced the policy framework on May 10, we focused on
six main issues that would improve the system. I will outline
these issues because they are very important.
I mentioned earlier that dealing with cost is one of the
important steps to reach a worldclass grain logistics system. It
is an area where Canada needs to improve. Currently the
producers are facing escalating freight costs and not enough
sharing by the railways and grain companies of productivity
gains.
As a result, the government is repealing the maximum rate scale
in section 147 of the Canada Transportation Act and replacing it
with a cap on annual grain revenues earned by Canadian National
and Canadian Pacific. A revenue cap in our view will promote
price flexibility while safeguarding producers from rate
increases. The change will see an estimated reduction of $178
million from the estimated effective rate 2000-01. That is a lot
of money and that is money that will find its way into the
pockets of the people who need it, the grain farmers in western
Canada.
1105
Some people have argued that this reduction is only $124 million
because of the 4.5% inflationary adjustment that the Canadian
Transportation Agency recommended some weeks ago. I want to
remind those critics that should this bill not be implemented by
August 1, less than three months from now, then the 4.5% rate
increase would be very real to the farmers in western Canada.
All of us in the House have to make sure that this $178 million
decrease in railway freight revenues goes forward. I cannot
believe anyone would stand and say that they would block an
initiative that would give farmers money.
I listened to the earlier discourse by my friend from the
Canadian Alliance, the agriculture critic from Manitoba, on a
previous motion. He was talking about the farming crisis in
Canada, especially in western Canada. Accepting the premise of
his arguments that these are tough times for farmers, then let us
do something about it. Let us start to improve the grain
transportation system and let us put money on the table that the
farmers desperately need.
I am not trying to imply in any way that there will be any
attempt by members in the House to deny farmers the early passage
of this bill so the money can start flowing on August 1. I do
think everyone has to realize that this is extremely important.
The government feels that it is important for all farmers to
have the opportunity to experience the cost reduction because the
new revenue cap provisions we have announced will be monitored by
the Canadian Transportation Agency. If a railway violates the
revenue cap it will be forced to repay the excess revenue plus a
penalty.
To further protect against possible price gouging on branch
lines, we have introduced protection for these shippers in the
form of a rate limit tied into grain rates on nearby mainlines.
Everyone in the House would agree that farmers deserve a break.
They need a logistic system that will move their grain to market
at the lowest possible cost.
We are also looking to the wheat board to help accomplish the
task of triggering new competition. The question was how this
should be done. The role of the wheat board is one of the more
divisive issues in western Canada. Seeing it from afar, I can
understand both sides of the argument.
Our friend from the New Democratic Party, in a comment he made
during the previous debate on the motion, talked about the
lessons of the 1920s and the depression, and the genesis for the
creation of the wheat board in, I believe, 1943. Friends from
the Alliance were saying that times have changed. Well, they are
both right.
It is pretty tough for a Liberal to stand in the House of
Commons and say that both the Alliance and the New Democrats are
right on the same issue, but we cannot lose the lessons from the
past. We cannot ignore what the New Democratic member was saying
about the terrible deprivation and struggles that farmers had
during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s but, on the other hand, times
change. There are modern technologies and new systems for
logistics. The entire world has changed. The global trading
patterns have changed. In that sense, the Alliance is right.
What we have done in this bill, perhaps not to the liking of the
Alliance and some others, is that we are now starting to move the
wheat board. We are moving to the recommendation of Justice
Estey who said that the wheat board's role in transportation
should be reduced. In fact he said it should be eliminated, but
we can eliminate something by reducing it in various ways.
The question is whether or not, in the long run, the wheat board
will still have a role in transportation, as Mr. Estey
recommended, or whether there is some middle ground which takes
into account the concerns raised by my friends on the New
Democratic side and, quite frankly, the members on our side of
the House, in particular my two colleagues from Winnipeg who are
well versed in this subject and have been immeasurably
constructive in this whole debate.
1110
We are starting to move with the wheat board. Some have argued
that the wheat board should be removed entirely, as I have said,
Mr. Estey and others. Others have argued that we have just moved
to democratize the wheat board and therefore it needs time to
prove it can deliver benefits to farmers. We listened to both
sides, weighed the pros and the cons, and identified a level of
change that will allow the grain handling and transportation
system to move forward.
The wheat board, through the introduction of a tendering
activity, will drive costs out of the system. This increased
competition between grain companies and railways will be
beneficial. They will be held accountable and made competitive
for logistic services provided for tendered grain. The change
will allow the grain companies to better control their own assets
and will increase overall efficiencies.
The details of this part of our reforms will be contained in a
memorandum of understanding to be signed between my colleague
responsible for the wheat board and the board before Bill C-34
comes into force. The MOU is a firm commitment from the board to
introduce a more commercial system and once in place it will be
made public at the earliest appropriate date.
It is my hope that we can make this public tomorrow so that the
members on the other side can have the weekend to look at it
before I go to committee on Monday. That is not a promise but
that is something on which I have been working with my colleague
responsible for the wheat board, because in fairness, the members
on the other side whose role is to criticize the government must
have the tools at their disposal.
We are working around the clock to get the consultations done. I
hope my colleague responsible for the wheat board, in response to
speeches a little later, will be able to clarify that. In a
perfect world I would like to see my colleagues on the other side
go home tomorrow afternoon with some weekend reading, which would
be the MOU between the government and the wheat board.
Both the revenue cap and the new role for the wheat board deal
with commercializing grain institutions that until now have been
run as administrative and regulatory solutions. The government
also wants to ensure that shippers are protected from the
exercise of unfair market power to buy the railways. As a
result, we are introducing changes to the final offer arbitration
provisions.
The shipper community has stressed that the final offer
arbitration is too long and expensive. At the same time,
shippers have said that they would not support changes that would
harm the effectiveness of this particular dispute solving
mechanism. Again, we listened to the complaints and we are
amending the appropriate provisions of the act to allow for
simultaneous exchange of offers and a summary process that is
shorter, less costly and will assist small shippers.
Many people, including my colleagues in the Liberal caucus from
western Canada, are looking for changes in railway track access
rules.
Some hon. members: Where?
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from
western Canada were so exhausted by the advice they gave me that
I told them not to worry, that I would carry the debate this
morning and that they could come back this afternoon and have a
repartee with the opposition. They have been remarkable. They
have been up nights. The agricultural committee of the Liberal
caucus and the northern and western caucus have been marvellous
to work with. It has been one of the greatest experiences of my
parliamentary life to have that give and take, that thrust and
parry and to come forward with a consensus.
My colleagues are looking for changes in railway track access
rules as a means to increase rail competition. As I say, it is a
tough issue, especially in the rail sector where there are only
two companies and obviously they dominate.
Justice Estey recommended enhancing running rights to allow any
person to apply for the right to run on another railway's line.
This change would effectively open up running rights to
provincial short lines.
Mr. Kroeger suggested that further study was needed on all
methods to increase competition, especially running rights. Other
open access proposals came along late in the review process,
including the idea of promoting a regional railway.
We have listened to all these views, as we have listened to
everything else, and have decided to refer this particular
complex part of the equation of open access, including enhanced
running rights and the regional railway concept, to the upcoming
statutory review of the act which must begin no later than July 1.
1115
We are now busy working on the terms of reference for this
review. The terms of reference will state unequivocally that the
issue of open access, joint running rights and regional railway
concepts are to be examined on a priority basis with an interim
report no later than six months after it starts.
I know that some people have said that we should deal with this
right now. Let us not plunge into a system-wide experiment that
may affect the reliability of our entire system just for the sake
of saying that our industry is competitive. If we want to do
what is right for our national transportation system and for the
grain farmers, we need to examine this particular component
closely in a forum that allows all stakeholders to express their
views. Some stakeholders have already indicated they are looking
forward to providing representation on ways to enhance
competition in the railway sector.
While it is extremely important for farmers to have a logistic
system that moves their grain quickly and inexpensively, it is
also important that railways are able to make appropriate choices
to cut costs and increase investment and productivity. Equally
important is the ability of smaller operations to increase their
chances at continuing business and to provide competition in the
rail sector.
One of our objectives when we introduced the Canada
Transportation Act in 1996 was to establish a regime that would
see short line railways come forward. This has been really
quite successful.
Eighty per cent of all the lines filed for abandonment under the
1996 CTA have been short line, including in western Canada. That
of course is not satisfactory for those communities on those
railways that have been abandoned and not taken up by short
lines. However, I do not think anyone can dispute that there was
a degree of overbuilding by the railways, especially in some
parts of western Canada. There could be no economic
justification, in our changing times, with access to motor
vehicle transport and better roads, for some abandonments to take
place. However, 80% of those that filed for abandonment by CN
and CP going to short line rail is a pretty good accomplishment.
This bill addresses a number of problems that were identified
during the grain consultation process. The amendments to the act
will help to further encourage the establishment of short line
railways in all parts of Canada. It will also help out
communities that lose a grain dependent line by having the
railways provide transitional compensation.
As an aside, I must say that I am very sympathetic to the
members from western Canada who have drawn attention to this
aspect of the 1996 act. This will be a focus in the first six
months of the review because there are ramifications in other
parts of the country, especially in large urban areas like
greater Toronto, greater Vancouver and big cities like Montreal
where the railways, by virtue of changing patterns and better
highway system, are moving out of the core. They wish to abandon
lines in the centre of these cities.
In my view, it is folly to rip up track if there is a potential
use whether by a short line or a freight operator, as we have
seen under the act, in parts of western Canada, Ontario, Quebec
and elsewhere; or if those rights of way can be used for commuter
and urban transit. A municipality in Halifax right now is
considering the purchase of a line that CN wants to abandon. This
would alleviate congestion in Halifax. The same thing is
happening Toronto. It is the same in Vancouver with the Arbutus
line which is a potential corridor from Vancouver airport to the
downtown core.
This is something we have to be very sensitive to. I am
certainly very cognizant of getting a better handle on the
abandonment process.
1120
The government does recognize that when we do abandon,
especially trackage in western Canada, it puts increased pressure
on rural roads. As a result, the Government of Canada will be
prepared to make a contribution of $175 million over five years
to help address this problem.
Not only do these provisions help us move toward a worldclass
system but they will provide a better protection for communities.
Too many communities in western Canada have suffered because
their rail lines have gone. The way of life represented by these
towns is an important part of the fabric of this country and must
be preserved.
That is why we are giving communities a new chance to take a
direct involvement in the operation of their local branch lines.
That is why we want to improve grain roads to assist these
communities and to keep them thriving.
It is no good if this country ends up having all its population
living in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary,
Vancouver and other large cities. Rural Canada is an indelible
part of who we are as a people and it must be preserved. The
Liberal Party will preserve it and this bill does preserve it.
In this type of environment, it is important that the benefits
of reforms are seen by all system participants. That is why we
are introducing a monitoring mechanism. Continuous monitoring
will be designed and implemented by an independent, private
sector third party that will measure and assess the impact of
reforms on farmers, on the wheat board, on the efficiency of the
system, including the ports, and on the overall performance of
the grain handling and transportation system.
This mechanism of monitoring will help the government determine
if changes are making the appropriate impact. As I have said,
the grain industry is too important to Canada's economy and to
our way of life for us not to monitor these changes closely. The
fact that it is being done at arm's length will put paid to any
notion that somehow this is an inside evaluation done by the
government for its own nefarious reasons. We would never do
that. The fact that this will be independent, arm's length
monitoring underscores our sincerity. I know the hon. members on
the other side understand that the government is sincere about
continuous monitoring.
Clearly, the wheat board, the grain companies and the railways
will have to work together to develop new industry procedures
that reflect the changes. If they choose to compete and if they
choose to manage the system effectively, then the system will
reach its full potential and farmers will benefit.
The government has introduced this bill which is the main part
of a reform package that will modernize the grain handling and
transportation system. If we want a worldclass grain logistics
system, then we need to move forward. We need to make the system
more accountable, more efficient and more cost-effective. The
package within this bill is part of a move to bring us closer to
that goal of efficiency and competitiveness. Canadian farmers
deserve this type of system. They need it to maximize their
advantages in the global marketplace.
I am aware that we have a narrow window of opportunity in terms
of the parliamentary time to get this package in place. Again, I
want to thank the members on the other side for their support and
co-operation in getting this bill through. I truly believe that
by embarking on this step we will see competition improve in the
years to come.
As a member from outside of western Canada, if I can make the
observation, I think there is an element of fear based on history
and past practices of stakeholders that inhibits the embracing of
total reform. That is understandable. When people have been at
the mercy of the elements and at the mercy of big institutions,
like the railway companies and the grain companies, they know
that the farming they are engaged in is always fraught with
difficulty.
1125
I think it was U.S. President Roosevelt, going back to 1932-33,
who said that the greatest fear is fear itself on the part of the
people. I understand that fear. I understand those people who
say that the wheat board is their only guarantor of fairness and
equity. It is the only one that will be there to regulate the
system.
The wheat board has an important role and will continue to have
an important role in the marketing of grain, but what is at issue
in this debate is its role in transportation, logistics and to
what degree it should remove itself in the name of greater
competitiveness. It is not inconceivable that once we start
along this path those people who had fear in the past will see
that their fears are now assuaged in a way that will permit them
to introduce even greater flexibility and competitiveness down
the road. I really believe that.
I think there is a dynamism in western Canada and in the farming
community that is really quite admirable, especially among
younger farmers going into other crops, into lentils, peas,
barley, soya and all these various non-grain crops. There is now
more food processing being done in western Canada.
Back in the old days, when I was first a member, it was always
the point that we had to change the Crow and make changes to the
transportation regulatory system so that competitive forces could
be unleashed and secondary manufacturing processing could be done
in western Canada. That is now happening. Diversification of
the farming community and greater processing is being done, and
we welcome that. Meat processing is not done in the stockyards
in Toronto on St. Clair Avenue anymore. It is done in places
like Calgary and other cities in western Canada.
Not only is that right from the point of view of economics, but
it is right from the point of view of social equity as a nation.
For too long too much of the production was done in the large
centres in the east. Now we are seeing a greater diversification
and a greater equality in the economic activity across the
country.
In that vein, this act, if passed, and I hope it will be passed
expeditiously, will be another landmark reform that enables
producers, other interested parties and stakeholders in western
Canada to gain better economic solidarity, better prospects,
become more prosperous and ensure Canada's reputation as one of
the greatest farming nations in the world and certainly one of
the greatest grain producing farmers in the world.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the minister
would lead off a debate on a bill like this one, which is
probably more important to the people in western Canada than the
finance minister's budget speech because they have been waiting
for this since 1996.
1130
I want to do something which is rare and congratulate the
Minister of Transport. The minister admitted that he does not
always get his own way. We in western Canada, all of the farmers
in western Canada, wish that he had gotten his own way because
the minister tried to bring about what Chief Justice Estey along
with Mr. Kroeger recommended. That was denied to him by his
seatmate, the minister in charge of the wheat board, and a few
Liberals from the city of Winnipeg. That is a fact and it will
not be missed by the people of western Canada.
I congratulate the minister for his vision. A minister from the
great city of Toronto could see the problems in western Canada,
but the minister in charge of the wheat board and other hon.
members refused to look at the future.
We are in the year 2000, but this bill in many ways will take us
back to the 1950s. Hospitals do not use 1950s X-ray machines. We
do not see farmers running around with Massey-Harris 17 combines.
We do not see a DC Caterpillar building roads. With this bill
the Canadian Wheat Board will be empowered with a role it was
never designed to have in the first place. The wheat board will
now have a dual role. It will be involved in a more intricate
way with transportation.
I watched what happened in 1996 with the railways. For the
record, the instructions given by the government to Chief Justice
Estey were “To ensure that Canada has the most efficient, viable
and competitive grain handling and transportation system”. He
did just that. However, when the report came back indicating
that there would be more openness and more competitiveness which
would allow the grain industry in western Canada to let the wheat
board play a role in direct negotiation with the railways, the
Minister of Transport got shot down by his own party.
The minister in his speech referred to hundreds of meetings
during a two year period. Mr. Estey and Mr. Kroeger never
changed their reports. These learned gentlemen recommended in
language which everybody understood that Canada needed a
commercially driven system. These learned gentlemen were not
interested in protecting the status quo. That had failed. They
were not interested in protecting an institution. They brought
back a report which would ensure that Canada had the most
efficient, viable and competitive grain handling and
transportation system. These gentlemen were not out to penalize
the railways. They wanted the cheapest freight rate possible to
deliver grain to market.
I can assure the House that this will not last. This issue will
come back to us in a few years. We will have to go through this
whole issue again simply because this does not meet the needs of
this century.
1135
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to inform you that I will be sharing my
time with my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, if that is
permissible.
The Deputy Speaker: That will take unanimous consent
because the hon. member is seeking to split a 40 minute speech.
Is there unanimous consent to permit the hon. member to split his
speech? I assume it would be on an equal basis.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, this bill will not bring
grain transportation into this century. As a matter of fact, I
would suggest that this bill demonstrates the failure of the
government to honestly look at the recommendations of Estey and
Kroeger. It has really put those recommendations through the
shredder. It has paid little or no attention to them.
It is bad enough for the farmers in western Canada, who are
fighting a subsidy war, to have their input costs driven up 98%,
but I want to look at a few other figures to demonstrate what has
happened in the last 15 years. Grain elevation costs are up 52%.
Canadian Wheat Board costs are up 56%. With all due respect to
the big bad railways, their freight rate has actually decreased,
due to other measures, some 5%.
I mentioned one time in a speech in the House that when a person
is in grade six in Saskatchewan they have to take as part of the
curriculum a course to learn to hate the railways. Again, that
is a very popular theme. However, let us say that both Canadian
Pacific and Canadian National are not so irate as the minister
mentioned because of the forced 18% reduction. What they are
irate about is that they are being forced into a contractual
agreement not with the elevator companies, not with the grain
companies, but with a government agency. That is what is wrong.
Would the minister of minerals interfere with potash or coal?
Would the minister interfere with the shipment of those products
to market? No way. That is exactly what Justice Estey and Mr.
Kroeger recommended. Get out of it. Both the CPR and the CNR
would tell us “Give us a completely commercialized system and we
will show you further freight rate reductions”. That is what
Justice Estey said.
What happened? His report was put through the shredder. I have
given credit to the transport minister. However, he had to
concede to his colleagues, and that is too bad.
I suggest to everyone in the House that the amount of money
which will be saved because of the 18% reduction will be short
lived. I also suggest that in a few short years we will be right
back discussing this issue in the House again.
I acknowledge what the minister said about the memorandum of
understanding. I would have liked to have had that sooner.
If the Canadian Wheat Board is to enter into the negotiation
process through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder
Bay and Churchill, then I want to get into the age-old problem of
who decides which port. It has been said that wheat is 16%
protein and the rest is politics. Now it will become more
politics, not less.
1140
Let me give the House an example. If we have a sale of No. 2
milling flour for the Asian market, it is then up to anyone who
has any degree of responsibility to move that shipment and the
tonnage required through the port which will represent the least
cost. If it should happen to be that the least cost would be to
ship it through Prince Rupert, that is where it should go. If,
for instance, they are servicing the South American market and
that same grain can be moved at a reduction in the freight cost
through Port Churchill, then that is where it should go. That
has not happened in the past and I do not think it will happen in
the future. I know that is not in the best interests of those
who produce the grain.
It might be of interest to know that the same union which
handles the facilities at Lakehead is the same union that handles
the facilities at Port Churchill. They hate each other now. They
do not want each other to have any more grain. Where is the
biggest interest? I see my colleague from Thunder Bay. There is
more interest in Thunder Bay. There are more MPs. There are
more votes. That is where politics gets into grain, and it
always has.
No requirements have been specified. There is nothing within
this bill in respect of the conduct of the Canadian Wheat Board
in the process of tendering or operating under the contractual
system. We have some questions.
The wheat board is taking on a new role. It is getting into the
shipping business. I would like to ask these questions. Will
the wheat board fall under the Canada Transportation Agency?
Will it fall under the agency that deals with fairness in
competition? To whom will the wheat board report? Certainly not
to the House, because information we want from the wheat board is
protected under the Privacy Act. It and CSIS are the only two
institutions which are so protected.
Will the producers, the grain companies and the railways know
outside the tendering process what the implications will be? I
understand from the railways that they are going to have to
provide to the wheat board certain information which is strictly
confidential to the railway's operation, but the wheat board, in
turn, does not have to provide that information to the industry.
We have a real problem with this.
I would like to talk briefly about the regulatory powers to
control car allocation. Gone are the days of the order book. In
three years the old block ordering of cars will be obsolete. We
are in a brand new era. The wheat board knows exactly what
elevator, what commodity, what grain and what type of grain is in
every elevator in Saskatchewan and across the west.
1145
All it has to do is provide those elevators, those companies
that have the grain, with the shipping order. Let them bid and
see who can get the cheapest rate to get that grain to market.
That is what the report said. That is what Estey said. That is
what Kroeger said. They wanted to bring Canada into this new
century. Unfortunately that is not going to happen.
I know that the Minister of Transport's colleague would like us
to say that the Canadian Alliance is going to oppose the bill.
That is what he would like but he is not going to fool anyone. We
are going to oppose the bill through motions in committee. We
will support the bill because it is the end of the crop year and
because of the August 1 deadline. It is a temporary measure to
save the farmers some money but it is not the answer. We will be
back and back until they bring us into this century to provide us
with what Kroeger and Justice Estey recommended.
I am sorry the minister did not get his way on this. I wish he
had. Certainly the people in western Canada wish he had. They
feel very much betrayed by the minister in charge of the wheat
board and those ministers opposite who live in the city of
Winnipeg. They will not forget this. It will be forever on their
minds. I will do my part as a representative not just of my party
but of my constituency and those across Canada to let them know
that once more the thousands of dollars that went into the report
literally went through a paper shredder.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on probably one
of the most important issues to affect western Canada and in
effect the whole country with the reform of the rail
transportation pertaining to grain handling.
As the minister said, all those involved in the western grain
handling and transportation system agree that the system is
broken and it must be fixed. This includes farmers, grain
companies and yes, even the regulators like the NFU and the
Canadian Wheat Board. They agree that something has to be done
because the system is not great.
The western Canadian grain industry however has not been well
served by the legislation that is being brought in today. The
problem is not the consensus among the farmers and the farm
community. The problem is clearly the difference between those
who highly regulate the grain industry and farmers through the
use of monopolies and those that would use the democratic free
market system to attain the most efficient and effective grain
transportation system. Clearly that is what the debate is about.
It is sad to see that once again the regulators held sway with
the Liberal government.
When we talk about who speaks for farmers, we should make one
quick point that the farmers own two grain companies, the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Agricore which represents Alberta and
Manitoba. Also, farmers are on the board of directors of the
United Grain Growers.
Representatives of private industry are primarily James
Richardson with Pioneer, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and the Patterson
grain company out west.
1150
These people and organizations identified very clearly to the
minister on behalf of farmers, the very people that would make or
break from changes to the grain transportation system, that the
whole system has to move to a commercial contract system of
moving grain. They did not ask to move an inch. They did not
ask to move a foot. They asked to move the whole yard to the goal
line. That is why I say today that this solution will not work in
the best interests of farmers in the long term.
As my colleague said, the Canadian Alliance will support this
legislation only with the recognition that the Liberal government
is only capable of dealing with the western grain industry
through regulation and cannot see its way clear to move to the
marketplace to have it improved.
The current system is rigid, unaccountable and does not
efficiently serve the needs of the participants including
farmers. Severe systemic breakdowns in the handling and
transportation system which recur every few years are
demonstrations of this need.
The system does not just cost farmers. When the problems reach
the news it costs them money every day. The inefficient use of
our grain handling and transportation system means that every day
farmers pay far too much to get their grain to port. It is not
because of the fact that there is not enough regulation, it is
because there is too much regulation.
Because of the control the Canadian Wheat Board exerts over the
system, grain companies and railways cannot manage their
facilities and equipment in the most efficient manner. For
example, railways and grain companies have tried to set up
regularly scheduled grain trains that would cycle between primary
elevators on the prairies and the terminal elevators at the
ports. These types of dedicated trains would be able to bypass
railway switching yards, would make more efficient use of railway
and grain company staff and would allow grain companies to better
plan the arrival of ships and save farmers millions of dollars.
The minister referred to just on time deliveries. The rest of
the Canadian economy has moved to that system. A regulated
system is being imposed on the western Canadian grain industry
when the rest of the country is benefiting.
It reminds me of the famous free trade debate. Ontario and
Quebec were most fortunate over the years to have had the auto
pact agreement and eventually the free trade agreement which
included the rest of the country. Here again, why can western
Canadian grain farmers not be included along with the rest of the
industries of this country?
After the debacle in the winter of 1997 former Justice Willard
Estey was asked to review the western grain handling and
transportation system and to recommend changes to the government.
Much to the government's surprise, he did exactly what it asked
him to do and recommended changes to improve the system. The
underlying theme of Justice Estey's 15 different recommendations
is the need for a more open, market based grain handling and
transportation system.
One of the key recommendations from Justice Estey involved the
role of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to point out that
neither Justice Estey nor Mr. Kroeger nor the Canadian Alliance
is recommending that the Canadian Wheat Board be disbanded. In
the case of these amendments to the Canadian Transportation Act
the recommendation, including our position, is that the Canadian
Wheat Board should be at the port level doing what its job is,
marketing grains on behalf of farmers and doing the best job
possible. That is where it can increase the farmers' income.
1155
The Canadian Wheat Board reduces the farmers' income when it
arbitrarily, for decision making purposes known only to it, uses
rail allocation to maintain control of an industry with no market
signals coming in whatsoever indicating to it where efficiencies
could be gained, should be gained, and how to do a more effective
job.
It is like a government sitting in Ottawa trying to micromanage
the Canadian economy. That is what the government is trying to
do through the wheat board with the Canadian grain industry. One
cannot run a grain industry from the backrooms of parliament.
If the recommendations Mr. Estey put forward were implemented,
the Canadian Wheat Board would hire the grain companies to move
grain to the port through an auction process, a tendering
process, and the grain companies would be responsible for
arranging freight with the railways. Producers would sign
contracts with grain companies for the delivery of the grain.
This recommendation is required if we are to replace the current
centrally planned system with a commercial contract driven
system. However, as I pointed out, the Liberal government did
not like the recommendations which would have softened the
Canadian Wheat Board's ironclad hold on western grain farmers.
I will just say one last thing about the Canadian Wheat Board.
The farmers should be able to have a vote with the delivery of
their grain to the marketer of their choice. It may be according
to the Canadian Wheat Board in particular that all the farmers,
knowing the big advantages the wheat board puts out, would
continue to market the farmers' grain, but let us let the farmer
decide that for himself based on his own farm's best interests.
Mr. Kroeger appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport.
He stated, “My conclusion was very much along the line of
Justice Estey's, that unless you went to a more commercial
system, you could not really achieve major improvements”. Mr.
Kroeger gave the federal government a progressive report that if
implemented, would be a step toward a more efficient, commercial,
accountable western grain handling and transportation system.
At some point I have mentioned all the grain companies, the
railways, many farmers, and the two gentlemen who did special
studies and held massive consultations across the country. To me
the evidence is overwhelming as to where we should have moved as
a country and where this legislation should be today, but it is
not.
Western farmers repeatedly said that freight is one of their
major costs, approximately one-third of the expenses in most
cases. Over and over again farmers ask why they are the only
commodity group where the producer pays the freight and is
responsible for the condition and any added cost for the product
throughout the shipping network. The farmer consistently ends up
holding the bag in this whole system. That should have been
changed, could have been changed, but it has not.
The Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition estimates that reforms to
the current grain handling transportation system could have saved
farmers over $300 million annually. That figure can be argued
either way a bit, but it is certainly more than the estimated
$178 million the minister is talking about.
I would like to point out that the figure of $178 million is
based upon the idea of about 30 million tonnes of grain delivery
in a year. The fact is that in 1998, the figure was only about
$26 million. Once again, just like in the AIDA program, the
government is throwing out figures that sound great and glorious,
but when it comes down to the final crux and the farmer sees his
final bill, we may see that the saving to farmers is not the $178
million the government is putting out to the newspapers.
The effects in the long term and even in the short term of two
or three years may soon come home to roost and show that this
legislation has done little or nothing for farmers, as they see
the loss of exports, if this system does not improve.
I question that this will improve the system sufficiently for our
customers to consider us to be a reliable exporter.
1200
The government is claiming that the system will be more
commercial and accountable because it is reducing the role of the
Canadian Wheat Board in grain transportation. Sadly this is not
the case. Key to the government's plan is a memorandum of
understanding that will detail how the Canadian Wheat Board will
carry out the tendering process.
We should remind everyone interested in the debate who is
listening, including many city people, that the Canadian Wheat
Board is simply an arm of the government. It is directly under
the control of the resource minister and the Canadian Wheat Board
minister whom I call the Regina minister. We have recently found
in this debate that we have the Toronto minister. Now we also
have the Regina minister. I do not know exactly what handle has
been attached to the minister of agriculture yet, but we will
wait and see.
We hope to see the MOU entered here. We have asked and had
conflicting statements from the ministers with regard to it. I
think we will find it difficult to pin down the triumvirate of
the agriculture minister, the transport minister and the wheat
board minister as to who will be the real spokesman. I encourage
the Prime Minister to allow the transport minister to be the
spokesman for this legislation and to have the minister of the
wheat board step back and let the responsibility fall where it
should with the transport minister.
I do not believe that the Canadian Wheat Board will draft any
proposal that will reduce its ironclad control over the grain
handling and transportation system. Under the MOU the Canadian
Wheat Board will likely still be directly negotiating with the
railways for hopper cars, even for the 25% of grain movement that
will be tendered to the grain companies.
In short, nothing has changed. The Canadian Wheat Board is
still between the grain companies and the railways. This system
is neither commercial nor accountable. The Liberal government's
decision comes after the Canadian Wheat Board launched an
estimated $200,000 advertising campaign against the changes
proposed by Justice Estey and Mr. Kroeger.
At the recent Liberal policy convention, the Liberal delegates
overwhelmingly passed a motion calling for the Canadian Wheat
Board's continued involvement in the grain handling and
transportation system. Instead of listening to Canadian farmers,
the Liberal transport minister has listened to Liberal delegates,
the majority of whom come from outside western Canada. He has
listened to the Canadian Wheat Board lobby.
The big players, the players that are actually being affected by
the legislation, were relatively unanimous. From the level of
farmer through to the grain companies and the railways, those who
were direct players in this system were not listened to as we see
from the legislation.
Many farmers are appreciative of having regulated freight rates
lowered. I have stated already that I agree it will be
beneficial to have those rates lowered, but I do not think that
many farmers totally agree with the Liberal caucus and the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The ad hoc coalition for transport reform actually represents 14
farm organizations in five provinces. There are officials from
the grain industry. I did not mention this, but the people at
the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay are also
concerned. The government of Alberta is involved. The Canadian
Industrial Transportation Association and the Northwest Corridor
Development Corporation are involved in advocating on behalf of
this system. The coalition stated:
We are firmly convinced that reforming the grain handling and
transportation system will lower transportation costs to farmers,
increase competition and make Canada's grain delivery system more
effective for our farmers. But a balanced package is needed. If
the government only acts on the railway issues, it will
accomplish nothing and could make the system even worse. That is
why we want the government to take immediate action on the most
important issue and to end the role of the Canadian Wheat Board
in transportation.
1205
I do not know how much more overwhelming it could be to the
government than all the documentation it has received from the
coalitions, grain companies, farmers and many others. Surely the
weight of opinion should have carried the day. Even someone not
knowing anything about the grain handling system and talking pure
economics would have told the minister that regulating a
commercial enterprise was the most inefficient way of doing it.
We need only look at many crown corporations. I think of the
B.C. ferries and the wonderful things governments have tried to
do in the area of commercial enterprise. It does not work.
We need only look back to when the government owned Canadian
National Railway. Why oh why did our grain not move in the most
efficient and cost effective way when the government owned
Canadian National Railways? It was because when the government
owned that railway it was highly regulated. There were no market
signals to bring efficiencies into it. Every time there needed
to be a wage settlement, pay raises and that kind of thing, there
was no relation to market forces. It was just that it was the
government and it had taxpayer money. The government could take
that money from taxpayers whether or not they wanted the
government to have it.
As a result, we ended up with Canadian National Railway dragging
down Canadian Pacific Railway into the same mediocrity. That is
what is wrong with the whole regulated system. If it could have
worked, it would have worked when the government owned CN
Railway.
With those comments I think I have made the point quite clearly
that the highly regulated system being imposed on Canadian
farmers, the rail industry, the grain companies and the ports
will not work.
I will leave this last message. We in the Canadian Alliance
will be continuing to advocate and pressure for the real changes
needed to make our western Canadian farmers economically
self-sustainable and for the whole industry to prosper and
contribute to the well-being of Canadians across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34. My remarks
will focus on the following three areas.
First, I wish to immediately say that the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to Bill C-34 for the following reasons: as we see it,
this bill authorizing financial assistance to western producers
is a form of subsidy in disguise. I will explain why.
Second, we believe that the government's timing in introducing
Bill C-34 is nothing but a play for votes in western Canada,
where the Canadian Alliance has a strong base.
Third, I will show that this government is inconsistent and that
there is no link with Canada's transportation policy because the
measures in this bill address western issues only.
I will, if I may, give a short background. A few minutes ago,
the Minister of Transport said that there had been broad
consultation and that he had worked closely with Justice Estey
and reviewed the Kroeger report. However, there seems to be a
real dichotomy between what this report says and the results we
saw a few weeks ago.
1210
First of all, on October 5, 1999, the Minister of Transport
thanked Mr. Kroeger for his great effort in trying to solve the
problem of grain handling in Western Canada. He also said that
this report would be followed up with a study and that he was
going to address the 12 to 15 recommendations contained in the
report. After the report was tabled, three public information
sessions were held. Finally, the federal government's policy
was released a few weeks ago.
I will address one of the recommendations of this voluminous
report.
This report was submitted to the three ministers who announced
the federal government's intentions a few weeks ago.
It was submitted to the Minister of Transport, the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. At that time, the three of them said
that they were going to take into consideration all of the
recommendations made in the report in question.
I will read the first recommendation contained in the report's
conclusion. It says:
The Estey report urges special measures be taken to revitalize
some of the ports in the grain handling and transportation
system; the Ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill, and the
St. Lawrence Seaway.
The report in question is the one from October 1999.
The same three ministers turn up again on May 10, 2000—the same
three tenors, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of
Natural Resources responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food—to announce to us that
the policy will apply to the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert,
Thunder Bay and Churchill.
The St. Lawrence Seaway was forgotten, yet it is, as hon. members
are aware, an important link for the economy of Quebec. How can
the Minister of Transport come this morning to announce to us
with great fanfare that he was acting on the Estey report, when
one of its recommendations is not even included in the May 10,
2000 press release?
I wondered if there had been a mistake, if perhaps the three
ministers had not read certain parts of the report.
I like to point out the things the Liberals do. Often, by
putting documentation together, we can see that things get lost.
On May 29,2000, the Minister of Transport introduced a bill to
reform legislation on grain. Once again, the minister said he
had consulted and acted on the Estey report and that this was
all being done in collaboration with his colleagues. Here is
the conclusion of the press release that explained in broad
terms the content of Bill C-34, which we are debating today:
A memorandum of understanding between the Canadian Wheat Board
(CWB) and the Minister responsible for the CWB will be in place
by the time the legislation takes effect.
We are at second reading today.
The memorandum will provide for the phasing in of more
competitive tendering by the CWB for logistical services for its
grain shipments through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert,
Thunder Bay and Churchill.
Once again, the government has forgotten the first
recommendation of the report, which said clearly they would be
through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill and the St.
Lawrence Seaway.
1215
Do members know what that means? It means that once again the
Liberals opposite are ignoring the existence of Quebec. The
entire policy turns on the people in the west.
In the short term, for the entire economy of Quebec and the
ports that operate along the seaway—Montreal, Quebec City,
Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles—this means major economic
losses. In the short and medium terms, it means the government
wants to eliminate the seaway and follow other avenues, so as
once again to put Quebec at a disadvantage.
Today, we are considering Bill C-34, the grain bill. But all
what this government has done with respect to transportation
since 1997 is close control towers in small airports and hand
back aging ports requiring major investments to municipalities,
without throwing in any interesting subsidies.
This government promised to return ports to municipalities and
other paramunicipal agencies, but the ports it is giving back
are in terrible shape. With this policy, it is actually further
reducing the effectiveness of these five ports, which underpin
the economy of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
There is talk of savings and development. This decision even
hurts Ontario, because the Great Lakes will now be bypassed.
There are also ports on the Great Lakes.
What does this government want? The crisis now facing western
producers is also related to the rules of international trade.
We know that these rules are strict and that they do not allow
any leeway for governments trying to provide support.
The Canadian government promised the WTO to reduce export
subsidies and domestic measures and, at the same time, open up
the market. What are they doing with Bill C-34? They are taking
$175 million, sending this amount to help with grain
transportation, and this becomes a subsidy in disguise designed
to placate western producers who are mad at the federal
government.
The federal government has always turned towards western Canada.
If this government had used the normal means of intervention to
help these people in crisis, the World Trade Organization would
have said “You are not entitled to do so”. With Bill C-34, this
government, which specializes in camouflage, managed to use a
disguised subsidy of $175 million to help westerners.
What did that same government do when the Quebec pork producers
were in crisis? Nothing. It hid behind the framework agreement
between the federal minister of Agriculture and his provincial
counterparts. What did the federal government do to help Quebec
sheep producers with the scrapie situation? Nothing. What is
it doing now to help the very many cranberry growers in my
riding? Nothing, once again. On the other hand, it managed to
find $175 million to help western producers.
When I hear this government talking about its national vision,
its vision from east to west, I find that the vision of Bill
C-34 starts at Manitoba and runs west to the Pacific, with the
entire eastern part of the country having been left out.
1220
As well, they are attacking the port infrastructures of Quebec
by not even including in this bill the St. Lawrence Seaway, which
directly links Ontario and Quebec with the United States and
beyond. It does not take an advanced course in economics to
understand that things do not operate east-west, but that what
needs to be developed is north-south.
Once again, this government continues to repeat its historical
errors. It has no national vision. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34. It is a vote-seeking bill.
There have been election rumours for the past few weeks. The
Bloc Quebecois is dying to get out there against the federal
Liberals.
The Bloc Quebecois is eager to settle its accounts with them.
We saw this in the case of the Young Offenders Act with the
Minister of Justice including standards in the legislation, once
again in deference to the west. Today, with Bill C-34, we see
the Minister of Transport is continuing the same practice in an
effort to mollify the west. But Quebecers will not be taken in
by the pre-election manoeuvring of the government opposite.
The Minister of Transport should reread the entire Estey report,
especially the first recommendation. The Minister of Transport
should also think nationally—one policy from east to west and not
one for just four provinces.
His colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, should
be made aware of the problems of Quebec producers, take his
courage in hand and help them too—which he has not done.
I can understand the third member of the trio, obviously. He is
one of the few Liberals from western Canada who is established
in his riding and, in addition, he is responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board. I understand he supports this and that he
is happy to have the Minister of Transport and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food support Bill C-34.
All we have seen since the report is a sort of process in which
this government is once again neglecting the east and forgetting
Quebec.
I would also like to point out what this means for
transportation. This week, the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development came down quite hard on the current
Minister of Transport.
I am going to talk about the Minister of Transport's policy. I
am no longer talking about the agricultural sector, about grain,
or about ports, but about the airlines.
This minister does not even have the courage and leadership to
sit down the two parties involved, Canadian International and
Air Canada, so that they can try to harmonize the various
collective agreements governing their employees. What do we
have right now in airports all over Canada? Complete chaos, and
the frustration can be seen in employees' eyes. Who is getting
hurt? Consumers, the people using the airlines.
This shows that this government and this Minister of Transport
bungle everything they touch. We know that the airports are in
a mess right now. The St. Lawrence Seaway is being ignored. The
government is introducing western-oriented policies. Eastern
Canada and Quebec are being forgotten.
It is high time that this Minister of Transport started paying
attention to these issues and finding solutions.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34 and I
will again give the reasons why.
1225
We feel that $175 million for western producers is a form of
subsidy in disguise, a way to get around the rules of
international trade. It is also nothing more than a play for
western votes.
In addition, the bill completely ignores the reality of Quebec's
economy, and the first recommendation in the Estey Report, by
failing to address the issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened to my colleague from the Bloc with great interest. I
think he has chosen an unfortunate day to talk about the
disparity between Quebec and the rest of Canada given the news
about sponsorship of money and where moneys are going from the
government. I am talking about the fact that on a province by
province basis, some 71% of the money is going to la belle
province. As the newspaper suggests, the money is going into
Quebec by the truckload and into the rest of Canada by the
teaspoon.
We are here today to speak about the grain transportation bill.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on behalf of our caucus.
Before I get into the thrust of my remarks, I want to
acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Transport paid tribute
to three former senior members of parliament who knew a lot about
grain transportation, one of them being Les Benjamin, a 25 year
member of parliament for the New Democratic Party. I am sure Mr.
Benjamin is watching this debate at his home in Regina this
morning.
Three weeks ago and a day, the Minister of Transport and his
colleagues announced some changes to the grain handling and
transportation system, a number of them at a news conference
across the street. They included replacing the rate cap with a
revenue cap and reducing railway revenues by 13.5% per tonne.
They actually said that it was 18% but it is only 13.5%.
The Canadian Wheat Board control over transportation and
logistics has been sharply curtailed. It must tender at least
25% immediately and 50% by the third year.
Madam Speaker, I apologize for not informing you at the
beginning of my speech, but I will be sharing my time with my
colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
A number of other things were contained in that press release:
$175 million for prairie roads and highways; changes to final
offer arbitration when shippers and railways cannot agree; the
CTA was being amended to facilitate branch line transfers to
short lines; and monitoring and reporting, by as yet an
unidentified private sector third party, to assess all of these
impacts.
Bill C-34, as it was drafted and presented to us this week, does
not deal with a number of issues. Money for prairie roads was
alluded to by the Minister of Transport earlier in his address.
We have been advised that a memorandum of understanding is being
negotiated separately between the minister responsible for the
wheat board and the wheat board itself and that this agreement
will be in place when the legislation takes effect on August 1,
if the government gets its way.
I should say, just as a quick aside, that we in this caucus are
concerned about moving to at least 50% of transfer to the wheat
board. This may be too much too fast.
I think everybody has exhibited some frustration over the timing
involved. We have talked about Mr. Estey's report which came out
in December 1998. We have talked about Mr. Kroeger's
recommendations in September 1999. Absolutely nothing happened
on this file between September and May 10. Even then, it took
the government 22 days after the major announcement to actually
bring forward legislation for parliamentarians to look at and
consider.
Despite that, its intention is to ram the bill through and have
it ready for the new crop year. With great respect, it is
contemptuous not only of producers but of parliamentarians as
well.
1230
Aside from the arbitrariness of the government's actions, we
have some significant concerns with the bill as it is drafted.
There is no productivity sharing formula. I will take a minute
to explain what that means.
Before 1992 farmers shared in efficiencies with the railroads.
In other words, when we had more fuel efficient locomotives and
larger hopper cars, when the railroads laid off staff, when we
built inland terminals and had unit trains, windfall profits
accrued. Those prior to 1992 were shared with the producers.
They have not been shared with them since 1992. The estimate,
and nobody seriously disputes it, is it is about $700 million in
windfall profits. There is no suggestion in this legislation
that that productivity gain sharing, either in the past or in the
future, is about to be shared with the producers. We have a
major concern with that.
A second concern deals with the rate differentials between the
branch and the main lines. As I understand the bill, the
differential rate cannot exceed 3% between a single car on a
branch line and a single car on a main line. The question that
needs to be asked is how many single cars are likely to be loaded
on a main line? The answer is not many. As a result of that, we
are fearful that the costs on the branch lines will be
uneconomical and will accelerate branch line abandonment. In our
opinion, the rate differential should be no larger than the
actual differences in the costs. As an aside, we also say that
the short lines will unlikely be able to negotiate fair revenue
sharing with the railways. This too needs to be addressed.
Lower freight rates should have been developed immediately after
the Kroeger report came down in September. Grain transportation
is an extremely complex subject, as the Minister of Transport
readily acknowledged in his address. Yet this is being rushed
through in the dying days of this session of the 36th Parliament.
It is impossible for us to assess this legislation when we do not
even know for example the details of the wheat board tendering
process.
How can anyone say this is good or bad until we see what the
government has in mind on railway competition? Since before
Saskatchewan and Manitoba existed as provinces, we had the
Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement which came into effect in
1897. It came into effect because the Canadian Redpass region
was a long way from tide water. Governments, at that time and
subsequently, recognized that if we were going to take advantage
of it we had to provide subsidies to offset the long distances
and the high costs of transportation.
The government and the current minister responsible for the
wheat board put the final nail in the Crow coffin in 1995 and
paid out on what it thought was a one time basis. Of course last
year it had to augment that because the input costs and the
transportation costs are so significantly high for ravaged
western Canadian farmers.
The bill does not involve the government any longer in helping
the producer. It says it is up to the private sector, the
railways and the grain companies, to do that. If I may be
permitted an old adage, it is a little like putting Dracula in
charge of the blood bank. It is unlikely to be a good outcome
for producers.
The bill also fails to address what will happen if and when
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are acquired by U.S. rail
lines. If it was not for the Surface Transportation Board in the
United States, we already know that a merger would be in place
between Canadian National and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation. CN refers to it as a merger, but it is really
gobble-ization by Burlington Northern.
What happens if we end up with two Americanized railways? We
already have the American flag on the Canadian Pacific
locomotives and on a couple of grain companies. How will that
result in any effective competition that farmers can take
advantage of in order to access the best price?
1235
We are concerned about NAFTA. Time will not permit me to deal
with that, but we certainly are going to be dealing with it.
Let me sum up this way on the bill. Over the last decade the
federal government has eliminated the Crow, repealed the Western
Grain Transportation Act, altered the car allocation policy and
privatized Canadian National. In each announcement there were
soothing words by the government that this was in the best
interests of the producers, that it would benefit them. The
reality is that in each of these four instances and others,
farmers have been hurt.
The minister spoke this morning about everyone having to
compromise and everyone having to mix a little water with their
wine. I can say that the farmers were deluged by the water and
the grain companies and the railways have enjoyed most of the
wine.
Our position is why should producers and opposition politicians
believe the government this time after having been disappointed
so many times in the past? We are about to embark on 48 hours of
virtually non-stop hearings on the bill beginning next Monday.
We think there are a number of improvements that can and should
be made. We will be introducing those amendments and we hope
that they will find favour.
Just by way of conclusion, while we will not be obstructionist
and hold up the bill, we are not prepared to support Bill C-34 as
it appears now.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and then end with a
question.
One of the concerns I have about the bill before us today is
that the powers of the wheat board stay intact and the wheat
board remains the single desk selling agency for the grain of the
Canadian farmers. That is extremely important. Having been born
and raised in Saskatchewan, having seen the plight of the farmers
over the years and having heard the stories of my grandfather
many years ago about the fight for the wheat board, it is
extremely important that we maintain the wheat board as a single
desk selling agency.
One concern I have is that the new forces of the extreme right
in the country, the Reform Party, which now calls itself the
Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party, wants to put an end
to the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it. It says it wants to
allow competition. I read in the Regina Leader-Post this
morning that Tom Long who is running for the leadership of the
reform alliance party is saying he wants to “put an end to the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly”. We heard the same thing
repeated in the House this morning by members of the Reform
Party.
That goes against what Canadian farmers have fought for,
believed in and have lived for, for many years, that we have a
very strong Canadian Wheat Board that is a single desk selling
agency that markets all the wheat for the Canadian farmers across
the prairies.
I want to ask my colleague whether or not he shares the same
concern I have about this extreme right-wing movement of the
Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance party, that wants to gut the
Canadian Wheat Board in effect by allowing competition to the
Canadian Wheat Board, and end the Canadian Wheat Board in the
role we have always known which is to protect the farmers of this
country.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his question. I say to him
that I am proud to belong to a party that has always believed, as
the member himself indicated in his comment, in the power and the
need for the Canadian Wheat Board to assist farmers and ensure
that there is price pooling at the best price available to them.
It is something the farmers in western Canada have fought for for
decades.
The notion of a voluntary board is heresy. It is impossible to
envisage how that would work. I find it difficult to swallow the
idea that the Canadian Wheat Board is falling out of favour after
seeing the election results a couple of years ago. I expect when
we see the next round of elections the folks that were elected in
those elections by farmers were by and large very strong
supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board and I think that will
continue in the future.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, certainly the extremist NDP is
quite clear in that central planning and socialism is the way to
accomplish things.
That the NDP has never become the official opposition in
parliament throughout its long history is testimony to the fact
that Canadians do not buy into a central planned economy the way
the NDP would have us believe.
1240
If 75% of farmers want to be involved and sell their grain
through the Canadian Wheat Board, I have no problem with that.
But why would we force the other 25% who do not want to market
their grain through the Canadian Wheat Board to do something that
is against their economic best interests? Can the hon. member
explain that to me? Why would they be put in jail for doing
that?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, it is an interesting
question but it needs to be dissected.
For example, if a person lives in Lethbridge, Alberta or
somewhere along the border between Canada and the United States,
there may be a lot of good arguments for that person wanting to
market his grain himself perhaps south of the line. If a person
lives in northern Saskatchewan or in Debden, Saskatchewan, it is
a much more difficult thing. That is what the Canadian Wheat
Board has always been about. It is about price pooling and
getting a fair share and a fair return for people regardless of
where they live in western Canada.
In terms of whether it is 75%, there is a majority government
sitting over there that was elected with 38% of the vote, so let
us talk reality on this topic.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-34, amendments
to the Canada Transportation Act.
This bill has a great potential to influence the income of
western Canadian farmers. It is in this context that I wish to
begin speaking to the bill.
We know that the incomes of western Canadian farmers in the past
couple of years have been at Depression era levels. It was
distressing to learn within the last couple of weeks that in
Saskatchewan the income in the early part of this year dropped a
further 10%.
When we look at where farmers spend their money, we find that
grain farmers spend at least one-third of their gross income from
grain on transportation. Any improvements that can be made to
help them on the cost side in transportation are very important
indeed.
The legislation does offer farmers a break on freight rates. In
that respect it is very important. I might add that this is a
break the railways can very well afford. CP Rail announced for
the first quarter of 1999 profits of $187 million on rail. That
is a 33% increase over the previous year. Can the railways
afford to give farmers a break on transportation costs? You bet
they can. This legislation promises that but the question we have
to ask ourselves is at what cost to these same farmers in the
medium and long term?
We heard from my hon. colleague from Palliser about the Crow
rate and the Crow benefit. When the Liberal government took away
the Crow rate it did something very similar to what it is doing
here. It said it was going to give farmers a payout. The
government gave them a payout for one or two years and took away
the Crow rate in perpetuity. Farmers are huge losers on that
score. In Saskatchewan we estimate it is to the tune of $320
million every year in perpetuity scooped out of our economy.
That is what we fear here. The government is giving us a
carrot. It is giving farmers a carrot of $178 million in freight
reductions next year, but we ask ourselves what is going to
happen in two, three, five, ten and twenty years? It is for that
reason the NDP caucus is going to oppose this bill as it is
currently written.
I would like to explain our parliamentary rationale for this. It
goes to the heart of our role as an opposition party in the
parliamentary system. We believe that this is flawed
legislation. It is our responsibility to point out those
significant flaws and to try to get some improvements in the
legislation. That is what we are going to be doing. It is not
simply for parliamentary reasons.
1245
This bill has the potential to affect farmers' income for many
years to come. We believe that it has to be as good a bill as
possible. That is the reason, as a parliamentary opposition
party, we feel disappointed with the bill. We will oppose it at
this reading. My colleague from Palliser has indicated that we
will not try to delay this process, but we want and are obligated
to point out the flaws in the bill because it is in the financial
interests of tens of thousands of Canadian farm families.
My colleague from Palliser has spoken about how squeezed and
telescoped this whole process is. It was two and a half years
ago that Mr. Estey was appointed to study the whole matter of
grain freight rates. We have come to the point now where we have
two or three weeks left before the parliamentary summer break.
This is when the government decided to introduce the legislation,
in the full knowledge that it will not receive a thorough airing,
and that the committee process, which is often where amendments
and improvements are made, will be severely hampered. It will be
difficult, if not impossible, for the opposition parties to
squeeze any decent concessions out of the government on the most
important aspects of the legislation. We are keenly disappointed
by that.
My colleague from Palliser has talked about some of the big
problems with the legislation. I want to give a bit of context
and background. Mr. Estey did his job and was followed by Mr.
Kroeger. From our perspective, Mr. Estey listened to the last
best offer of CP Rail and put it into his report, saying that it
would freeze freight rates for six years, that it did not want
them dealt with in the longer term. There has been a rate cap in
place. My colleague has indicated why it has been so important
over time to have a rate cap in place. The railroads did not
want that. It was our observation that Mr. Estey gave the
railroads almost everything they wanted. Interestingly, it was
pressure put on the government by members of this party and farm
groups which led to a mini revolt in the Liberal western caucus
at the Liberal meeting last spring, which began to wring out a
few concessions. I believe that is why we actually have a
decrease in freight rates rather than a simple holding of the
line.
I might also add that the railroads are always talking about the
need, as do our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, for
competition. They do not want regulation; they want competition.
They do not want regulation when it applies to them, but they do
not want competition either. We were calling for open running
rights, where anybody who could put together a rail company could
use these lines, just as we all use the telecommunications
infrastructure. Of course the railways did not want that because
that would introduce competition. I note in this legislation
that we do not have that. We will have somebody look at open
running rights in the long term.
Let us be clear. The railways do not want regulation; they want
competition, or so they say. What they really want to do is
maintain an oligopoly, which they have done for the last 100
years. That is precisely why the government has to intervene
with some form of regulation. We are in a situation, which will
not change, of monopoly and duopoly. In this type of situation,
if we cannot introduce competition, which so far has not
happened, the government has to play a role.
In the remaining few minutes I want simply to talk about the two
or three things that are most important from our point of view
about this new legislation. First, it significantly removes the
Canadian Wheat Board from its role in co-ordinating the
transportation of grain for export. We believe now, as we always
have, that removing the board from a transportation role will
erode the power of farmers within the system and will undermine
and cripple the board's ability as an exporter of grain.
I will not go into more detail on that because I want to get to
what is the single most important thing, and that is the
replacement of the current freight rate cap with an annual
revenue cap. The are two problems, which my colleague from
Palliser outlined. We saw this happen, if I might say, this past
April when the railroads were granted a 4.5% increase in freight
rates based on the cost of things like fuel. That is fair
enough. What did not happen is that we did not look, and the
Canadian Transportation Agency is no longer mandated to look, at
what are the railways' real costs.
As my colleague mentioned, they have made great savings through
efficiencies. They have fewer and fewer elevators all the time,
so farmers have to bear the cost of hauling the grain farther.
The railways save money.
The farmers pay more money. However, when it comes to the rates,
that is never reflected.
1250
That is the single most important problem. We have a situation
set up where there is a revenue cap, but the government will not
look at what efficiencies the railways manage to capture, and
they do not have to share those with farmers. If we set up a
system like that for the long term, farmers will be set up in
perpetuity as losers.
My colleague has mentioned that the estimate is that since 1992
the railroads have saved approximately $700 million in
efficiencies. They did not want to share any of it. They are
now having to share $178 million. When we look ahead, they will
win in perpetuity and farmers will lose in perpetuity.
I might simply say in closing that when the Estey report came
out our colleagues in the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance,
came out with a news release saying “Do it all and do it right
away. We cannot do it fast enough”. I wonder why they always
end up on the railroads' side. I wonder if that could have
anything to do with the fact, for example, that, in the last year
I looked, Canadian National donated $70,000 to the Reform Party.
It is people on this side of the House, people in our party, who
are looking out for the best interests of farmers, and I dare say
not those groups who are taking funding from the railroads, the
banks and probably the international grain companies as well.
We believe this is flawed legislation. We cannot support it at
this time. Our interest is in the income of farmers and the
health of farm communities.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the
New Democrats end up not ever speaking on behalf of farmers or
representing farmers. I believe from their speeches that they
represent the National Farmers Union, which they believe to speak
for farmers, and the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a government
organization.
I would like to quote a portion of a letter to the minister:
It is now time to move forward on these recommendations and
create an environment that fosters competitiveness so that we can
achieve our potential in international trade. If you do not act
on these recommendations we can only expect ongoing regular
disruption of the transportation system. This will result in
continuing damage to our reputation as a reliable exporter, and
the continued loss of international market share trade. We must
have the vision to act now to ensure a better future.
It is signed by Neil Silver, president of Agricore, Leroy
Larsen, president and chairman of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool,
Ted Allen, president and chairman of the United Grain Growers,
among others.
These people speak for farmers. What do you have to say about
that?
The Deputy Speaker: What does “he” have to say about
that?
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for that question.
I believe that people in the farm organizations are looking at
this and saying “We do not like this, but it is the best we
think we can get at this time and we will settle for it”. I
respect them for doing that.
It seems to me that our role as an opposition party would be to
squeeze as much as we can out of the legislation for farmers. I
am quite surprised, frankly, that the Canadian Alliance members
are not trying to do the same thing. I wonder if this is not
because they have an ideological predisposition which hampers
them.
Every time we get into any situation where we want to support
farmers, all Canadian Alliance members can talk about are tax
reductions. As a matter of fact, to use another example, the New
Democratic Party caucus on the farm income issue has been arguing
strenuously for the last two and a half years that we have to
support farmers in their time of need.
The Canadian Alliance, which was until now of course the Reform
Party, in its taxpayer budget of 1997—and I have it in front of
me, but I will not hold it up because that would be using a
prop—would take $1.2 billion out of the departments of
agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This is how those members
want to help farmers.
When we ask who speaks on behalf of farmers, I am not about to
say that we speak on behalf of farmers, and I would hope members
of the Canadian Alliance would not say they speak for farmers,
although they always do. I think the question we might want to
ask is, why are they not proposing the kinds of policies that
would help farmers? That is a question they should ask. I ask
again if it might have anything to do with the corporate friends
they keep, including Canadian National.
1255
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will get an opportunity to talk to this, but I would like to ask
a question of my colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
He talked about ideological predispositions. I recognize that
the NDP certainly believes in a different role for the Canadian
Wheat Board than perhaps do I, my party and certainly the Reform
Party, but I would ask a very simple question.
I recognize and understand the member's desire to keep the
Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk marketer. He and I will
argue about that point. However, why is it that the Canadian
Wheat Board sees the necessity of controlling the transportation
of that commodity when all it is looking for is to be a single
desk marketer? It needs to sell the commodity. Why is it that
it must have control of the transportation in order to simply
sell it and market it internationally?
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for that simple question.
Perhaps I could answer by way of discussing, and my colleague
knows this situation well, the case which was brought before the
Canadian Transportation Agency within the last couple of years
about whether or not the railroads were fulfilling their
obligations for moving western grain. Without going into all of
the details, after a lengthy process in which everybody had a
chance to say their piece, it was deemed that the railways were
not meeting their obligations to move western grain.
I believe that the railways would take any chance they could to
improve and increase their leverage. That is what we saw in the
kinds of recommendations which came out of the Estey report. I
argue now, as I have argued in the past, that if we take away
that entire function from the Canadian Wheat Board of marshalling
cars to move its own grain, we will severely cripple its ability
to market grain on behalf of Canadian farmers.
This legislation already takes away much of that power and
authority from the Canadian Wheat Board. I would ask my
colleague, who will speak next, how much of that authority he
wants to strip away from the board.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will open my comments by answering the question from the hon.
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. I would suspect that
smarter people than I, Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Estey particularly,
have indicated that all of the transportation component should be
taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not coming
from me; that is coming from learned people who understand the
system certainly better than I and the member.
First, let me say to the people who are listening to this debate
that it is not a terribly sexy debate. It is not terribly
romantic. It does not have a lot of real substance to it with
respect to eastern Canada and people in Ontario and Quebec. It
is a western Canadian issue. However, this is terribly, terribly
important to producers and farmers in western Canada. It is all
about getting more money for a commodity produced.
It costs producers in my area of western Canada one-third of the
total commodity price to transport their commodity from point
A to export markets. One-third of what they receive for
their commodity is eaten up by transportation costs.
We are speaking of the opportunity of a savings on that
horrendous cost. Those savings will not go into some frivolous
netherland. The savings will go to pay bills that farmers and
producers have acquired over the last growing season. The
savings will pay for shoes for their children, gas for their
automobiles and for ongoing living expenses that a lot of people
in this great country of ours take for granted with a paycheque
that comes in every two weeks.
This is an uncontrollable cost that producers have to face every
time they put a bushel of grain on a railcar. They cannot simply
go to the shipper and ask to pay less or negotiate a lower price,
because they do not have the ability to do that. What they have,
unfortunately, is a control that is thrust upon them, and in this
particular case a control that is put on by the government.
1300
Let us talk about grain transportation. This debate has been
going on for decades. The government had a golden opportunity to
put into place some changes that would actually benefit the
producers, the growers of that commodity. It lost that
opportunity.
Unfortunately the Minister of Transport knuckled under to the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He knuckled
under to the minister of agriculture for whatever reason. He
knuckled under to self-interest groups that still believe there
must be 100% control of the Canadian Wheat Board in
transportation.
He made a serious mistake. He is now putting forward to
parliament a piece of legislation that is truly flawed. He holds
up the $178 million potential savings, and I underscore the term
potential, to producers. We will support any amount of money
that can be saved and passed on to producers. However the $178
million is simply a proposed amount that can be saved by
producers. We will talk about that a little later.
The minister came here this morning with quite substantial
crocodile tears and apologized on behalf of the government for
putting the opposition in such a position where it had to deal
with this type of legislation in a very short period of time.
Between now and when we rise is about two weeks. It is unheard
of to put a piece of legislation through the House in that short
timeframe.
Why is it being forced upon us as the opposition in such a short
timeframe? The minister said that he did not have time to bring
it to the House. Mr. Estey and Mr. Kroeger, in particular Mr.
Kroeger, tabled the report on September 29, 1999. We now stand
in the House on June 1, 2000.
What happened in that timeframe? Why was the legislation not
put before us so that we would have the proper amount of time to
take it to committee to listen to the stakeholders the minister
said he listened to and talked with. He had the opportunity of
taking into consideration and bringing into play all their
opinions before putting the legislation forward. We as the
opposition, we as the heart and soul of parliament, should have
have had the same opportunity. Unfortunately we did not because
the three ministers, the troika, put their hands together and
said they should just wait until the final moments of the House
to bring forward the legislation and really stick it to the
opposition.
They are really sticking it to farmers. They are sticking it to
the producers in my area. In a very short period of time we will
try to put forward some amendments to the legislation to make it
better and more palatable to the producers we would like to see
being served by the piece of legislation.
Mr. Kroeger put forward a report. The report was very specific.
He said that grain rail transportation should be commercialized.
It was pretty simple. It should be commercialized, taken out of
the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, what we have in
the legislation is something totally outside what Mr. Kroeger
wanted to attempt to put into place. If Mr. Estey and Mr.
Kroeger were here right now they would be biting their tongues
for not speaking against what the government has put forward.
The efficiency of the grain handling and transportation system
in Canada, which moves $6 billion worth of grain to market each
year, has been the subject of debate for many years. Many
contend that the current system cannot continue to operate as it
is to maintain the competitiveness of the international world
market.
In the past inefficiencies in the management of the Canadian
grain transportation system have caused serious damage to the
Canadian grain export industry and the prairie economy. Delayed
1997 shipments, primarily of wheat contracted to international
customers, resulted in demurrage charges of $65 million, paid for
primarily by producers.
It has been estimated that an additional $35 million were lost
in potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver. Not
only is the reputation of my producers in western Canada
affected. All of Canada's reputation is now being affected
internationally.
1305
The reports came forward and we wanted to change the
inefficiencies that were built into the system, particularly in
1997. The cornerstone of the legislation before us is the $178
million which the government has held up and said must get
through by July 31, August 1 being the new crop year, or farmers
will lose $178 million.
It is a projected $178 million, as I said earlier. It is based
on a revenue cap on the railroads of $178 million less, based on
the transportation of 30 million tonnes of grain last year. We
only moved about 26 million tonnes of grain. The $178 million is
a projected saving that may be slightly higher than what the
actual saving may well be with that revenue cap.
It is also not quite understood as yet whether that $178 million
will translate into producer savings. We do not know where that
$178 million will end up. It may end up in the grain companies.
It may well end up in the bank accounts of the Canadian Wheat
Board, but it may not end up in the pockets of Canadian
producers. We must confirm where the dollars will end up.
The legislation speaks of 25% of the contracts being tendered to
railroads. That is a very good step. Mr. Kroeger decided that
100% should be tendered as a commercial system, but 25% is being
proposed in the legislation. It will be 25% commercialized
tendering next year. It will be raised to 50% tendering three
years from now.
The Canadian Wheat Board will enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board that will set the parameters, the constraints the
Canadian Wheat Board will follow with respect to the 25%
tendering.
There has been some conflict. The minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board said that they have not quite negotiated the
MOU. Now we hear from the Minister of Transport that the MOU may
well be available to us tomorrow. I hope the Minister of
Transport is correct. It will be very difficult to deal with the
legislation in committee next week if we do not understand what
the role of the Canadian Wheat Board will be with that 25%
tendering capability in the system. We need that MOU. We hope
to get it for next Monday when we head into committee.
The government also says that even with the Canadian Wheat Board
having an influence in the 25% tendering, there must be for room
the board to manoeuvre. It decided to contract an arm's length
third party to monitor the 25% commercialization of the system.
That is a wonderful step but I would suggest two points.
First, the terms of reference of the arm's length monitoring of
the system should be dealt with by committee or by parliament so
that we recognize what the terms of reference will be. We would
then know exactly what the the company that gets the tendered
contract is looking for to make the system work.
Second, the company doing the monitoring should report to
parliament, not to the three ministers. Heaven forbid, if some
of the information that came forward suggested perhaps the
Canadian Wheat Board was not doing its best to make this system
work, perhaps that information would not become public. The
information should be public. Any reports from the monitor
should come directly to parliament. Then we would find out how
the system is operating or whether there is some manipulation to
make it fail. That is something we could certainly talk about
when we are discussing the legislation.
I am happy to see the minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board here. I know he will listen to me very carefully
when we debate the bill in committee next week and make the
necessary changes to the legislation so that Canadians will be
comfortable that the system will be given a very good chance to
succeed.
1310
If the minister had been here earlier he would have heard me say
that I am not quite convinced $178 million is the right number.
It is a projected number based on a fictitious number. Maybe we
should consider placing a real number in the legislation so that
there will be guarantees that $178 million is the amount to be
passed on to producers. Maybe that is something we should look
at.
As part of the little carrot dangled by the three ministers on
May 10 was a suggestion that $175 million be placed into rural
roads. The government neglected to mention that the $175 million
would over five years. The government has a tendency not to come
out with that kind of the information. That amounts to $35
million a year.
I stood in the House not many months ago and suggested that the
government should put into place a rural roads strategy. The
amount of $175 million over five years is not even close to what
is needed for rural roads. The Minister of Transport, the
minister from Toronto with his crocodile tears, stood to say he
was sorry that he did not have an opportunity to bring forward
the legislation earlier. He also said that he understood rural
Canada. He does not want all people to live in major urban
centres and knows that there is a need for rural Canada. The
minister from Toronto would not know rural Canada if it bit him
on the nose.
Rural roads are absolutely vital to the lifeblood of rural
Canada. Everything we do comes down to transportation on our
roads in most cases. Our roads are currently being beat up,
almost to the point where they are impassable, because the
railroads have abandoned rail lines and grain is transported on
rural roads to inland terminals.
Based on the legislation $175 million over five years is a
pittance, a drop in the ocean. Not only that. There is no
method by which it will be implemented. Let us take that with a
grain of sale from the three ministers. They are dangling a
carrot so that they can suggest there should not be any
opposition to their legislation, that it should just go through
because it is the best thing since sliced bread.
The Canadian Wheat Board's control of the rail car allocation is
probably the most serious factor in the whole legislation. Having
only 25% of the rail transportation tendered, or commercialized
as it is known in the industry, allows the Canadian Wheat Board
an opportunity to sabotage the whole process. The Canadian Wheat
Board has total control of the system right now. It has the
opportunity of allocating rail cars to certain grain companies
and to certain areas of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba
and Alberta. It unfortunately has a lot of control that no one
can really understand, particularly the producers of western
Canada.
They would like an open, honest and transparent transportation
policy so they can negotiate with shippers and know who was at
fault if a product does not get delivered where it is supposed to
get delivered. Right now there are so many fingers in the pie
and so many people pointing fingers at each other that there is
no accountability within the system. That in itself is part of
the downfall of the whole transportation system.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party would like to make
three points. First, we will not prevent this piece of
legislation from going forward between now and committee and
third reading stages. Second, we wish to put forward many
amendments to make it a much better piece of legislation than
what is before us today.
1315
Third, I will say right now, because I may not be here in three,
four or five years, that I can assure the House the legislation
will be coming back. This does not solve the problem. It will
exacerbate the problem. Ultimately producers will stand up and
revolt. They will say, in unison, that they do not want to have
these controls placed on them because they are not working.
Producers will not work forever for no return on their
investment, which is exactly what is happening right now. It is
happening because there are too many governmental controls on
what it is they can and cannot do. This is just the final straw
that will break the producer's back.
This piece of legislation will be back in the House in the very
near future. It will have to be debated and dealt with again.
Eventually the government may get it right. Better yet, there
may be a different government and a different party on that side
of the House that will in fact do what is right for producers in
western Canada. I do hope that I will stand on that side at some
time and have the opportunity to have the input that is
necessary.
The Minister of Transport stood up and said that change is
difficult to embrace. He quoted the fact that there was nothing
to fear but fear itself. Why did he not embrace that change?
Why did he not fear fear itself and put forward what Mr. Kroeger
wanted him to, what Mr. Estey wanted him to and what was right
for Canadian producers? He cannot have it both ways.
The official opposition was right. The minister was spooked by
the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He was
spooked by a couple of members sitting in Winnipeg who would not
know the difference between a field of canola from a field of
wheat. He was spooked and he did the wrong thing.
I hope I will have the opportunity to make the necessary changes
to this piece of legislation that will make it better for all
producers in western Canada.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to slag this
particular piece of legislation. In saying that, we will support
having it go forward to committee so that we can look at the MOU
to see just how the negotiated settlement between the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat
Board have decided how they are going to control transportation.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris, in his rather lengthy and
long-winded address, raised a number of points, some of which
actually had some merit. However, I would like to ask for some
clarification and comments on a couple of those points.
The hon. member raised a very legitimate and valid point about
the state of rural roads in the prairie provinces. Both coming
from the prairie provinces, we share the concern of the state of
rural roads. He pointed out that $175 million has been allocated
for the prairie provinces over five years. Is this to be equally
distributed among the three prairie provinces or is it just for
one prairie province?
We all know that the federal government collects literally
billions of dollars per year in fuel taxes. When these fuel
taxes were introduced to placate the critics, the promise was
“Yes, we are going to charge you a tax on all the fuel you
purchase, but we are going to reinvest that into the road and
highway systems of the country”.
I have a question for the member, even though I run the risk of
allowing him to talk longer. With $3 billion per year in revenue
and $175 million paid out over five years in road construction,
is there not something fundamentally wrong with this picture?
When I take $3 billion a year, that is $250 million a month in
fuel taxes that the federal government takes in, and, in its
largesse, it will give us on the prairie provinces $175 million.
Would the hon. member comment further on what he knows about
that?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made
mention that I was speaking long-windedly and that perhaps I did
not have a lot of substance.
He asked me the same question three times. Perhaps the next time
he could be a bit more detailed.
1320
There are actually two questions. How is it to be distributed?
It is my understanding—and I certainly will not hang my hat on
this—that it is to be distributed based on a percentage of the
grains that are being transported from the provinces. I will
give a percentage breakdown. As I understand it, of the $175
million, $35 million per year for five years, Alberta will
receive 19%, Saskatchewan will receive 62%, Manitoba will receive
18% and B.C. will receive .4%. This is how it is to be allocated
for western Canada.
As for the excise taxes on fuel with respect to dollars put back
into the highways of western Canada, it is absolutely deplorable
the billions of dollars taken out of our economy and not put back
into the road systems. I have stood in the House many times and
asked for a long term, well thought out, well financed plan to
work tripartite with municipalities, with provincial governments
and with the federal government to put dollars back into the
rural road infrastructure.
The government, unfortunately, does not see that expenditure in
rural Manitoba or in rural Canada as a priority or even a
requirement, which surprises me because the Minister of Transport
has said that he is now an expert on rural Canada. I suspect
that he would recognize that is a bigger issue than the $175
million over five years.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was one more point
that came to mind after I listened with great interest to the
member's lengthy address. I made note of one comment he made,
which I agree with. He said that Bill C-34 was being sold to us
as a bill that is supposed to benefit producers. That is the
guise under which it was introduced and the face the government
is trying to put on it.
However, would the hon. member not agree that over the past
decade the federal government has done the following things: It
eliminated the Crow, which was supposed to benefit producers; it
repealed the Western Grain Transportation Act, which was supposed
to benefit producers; it changed the grain car allocation process
in the guise of benefiting producers again; and, it privatized
CN? All these major restructures were supposed to result in a
benefit. Why would we believe the government now about Bill C-34
to radically change the aspects that it will be changing?
Does the member for Brandon—Souris have any confidence that
Bill C-34 will in fact benefit producers, and will the $4 per
tonne that the government is talking about even translate into a
benefit to producers that will help the family farm survive on
the prairies?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, as a small clarification,
it is $5.92 a tonne that is being expected to translate into
savings to producers.
I agree with the hon. member. I do not believe that the $5.92
will find its way into the pockets of producers. I feel,
somewhere between the railroads, the grain companies and the
Canadian Wheat Board in particular, that a lot of that $5.92 may
well disappear. I am not so sure that the $5.92 a tonne is the
real number. I am not sure if this $178 million that is being
held up as the rationale for pushing the bill through the House
so quickly is the real number.
The government has not convinced me that this $178 million is
there, although it does say that it is an 18% reduction in the
revenues. I appreciate that but I am not so sure it will get to
the producers.
As for his question on whether I believe this will help
producers, the member obviously did not listen to my lengthy
debate. I said that was not going to happen. I do not believe
this legislation will in fact help producers.
We disagree on the rationale for that. The hon. member believes
it will not help producers because 25% of the control will be
taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board. I feel it will not
help producers because enough of that control has not been taken
away. I feel it should be a truly commercial system. There
should be competition within the system. There should be main
line access by other competitors. It should be open because that
truly would help producers.
We disagree on the reason and rationale, but I think both of us
agree that it will not help producers.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1325
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Transport.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed from May 31, 2000 consideration of Bill C-32,
an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 28, 2000, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
ought to have been able to rejoice with a projected budget
surplus over the next five years of what, according to the
minister's own analyses, will be $95.5 billion.
For the first time, we can anticipate, for such a considerable
length of time, some amazing surpluses in federal public
finances. The last budget by the Minister of Finance is,
however, a great disappointment. Why? One has to think about
where those $95 billion have come from.
There are three main sources for the Minister of Finance's
budget surpluses of the past two years and the next five to
come. A surplus of that size is not good news when one learns
its sources.
First of all, since 1993, since this Minister of Finance has
been in that portfolio, things have been arranged so that the
taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada have paid $30 billion more in
taxes without the Minister of Finance having to announce any
increases. This was done by not indexing the tax tables.
In the last budget, he announced that he was going to start
indexing. It will, however, take years and years to correct the
tables to reflect inflation, years before the Canadian taxpayers
can see any difference in their pockets as far as a tax return
is concerned. We are talking $30 billion in additional taxes
here.
Another significant source of the Minister of Finance's surplus
is the employment insurance fund. Year in and year out for the
past four years now, he has been dipping into the employment
insurance fund to find surpluses ranging from $6 billion to $7
billion annually. These funds are made up of the contributions
of employers and employees to the employment insurance fund, not
the federal government's contributions, for it has not put a
cent into it since 1992. So one part of the surplus the
Minister of Finance is so proud of comes from the surplus in the
employment insurance fund.
There is another major source of these surpluses. The Minister
of Finance, who is full of compassion for society's
disadvantaged and who blithely puts his hand to his heart as he
thinks of Canada's poor children, is the same Minister of
Finance who, in 1994, put a budget mechanism in place that year
after year ensures systematic cuts are made to the Canada social
transfer, without any announcement of them. This transfer
enables the provinces to fund social assistance, income
security, post-secondary education and health.
Even with the minor adjustments he made in his latest budget,
the 2000 budget, by 2003, the Minister of Finance will have
withdrawn no less than $32 billion from these transfers to the
provinces.
When we take a look at the Minister of Finance's evaluation of
the surpluses over the coming years and the evaluation of what
he has systematically stolen from these three budget items, we
cannot miss the striking similarity of the figures. He will
take the $90 billion from taxpayers as disguised tax increases
and from the Canada social transfer by cutting it on the backs
of the provinces. He will take it as well from the surplus in
the employment insurance fund.
We should be pleased with what he calls good management of
public finances and what we call robbery of taxpayers, the most
disadvantaged in society and the unemployed.
1330
We must not forget that the surplus in the employment insurance
fund is not just an over-contribution by employers and employees.
It is also the product of a tightening of the criteria under
which unemployed workers may benefit from this plan.
Are members aware that only 42% of those unemployed can benefit
from the employment insurance plan? It no longer covers the
majority of the clientele it serves. This has got to change.
With surpluses coming out his ears, the Minister of Finance
should be thinking about showing real compassion, instead of
deliberately waiting until an election campaign is in full swing
before announcing any sort of relief.
Since the government knows perfectly well that it will have a
$95 billion surplus over the next five years, according to the
minister's estimates, and over $140 billion according to ours,
it is unconscionable to wait, while the problems of poverty and
the problems in the health care system throughout Canada and not
just in Quebec grow worse.
There has been an anti-Quebec campaign since we came here. We
are more aware of it in the Bloc Quebecois, since we are the
only ones defending the interests of Quebecers in this House.
We are very aware of the systematic attacks and anti-Quebec
propaganda around here.
With respect to poverty, when we see the latest figures provided
by such bodies as the National Council of Welfare, it is
outrageous, scandalous and unacceptable that a Minister of
Finance, who will have surpluses coming out his ears over the
next few years, does not introduce drastic measures to do
something about this poverty, does not restore the Canada social
transfer, and does not make the EI system more flexible in order
to benefit unemployed workers.
When we look at the issue of poverty since the Liberal
government has been in power, the government led by the little
guy from Shawinigan, it has increased for all categories of the
population. Let us look at the case of children alone.
In 1993, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party of
Canada was critical of the Progressive Conservatives because, at
the time, there were one million poor children in Canada.
The latest statistics indicate that there are 1.5 million poor
children in Canada, an increase of 50%.
If there are poor children, this is because there are poor
parents, and if there are poor parents, this is because the
Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and this Liberal
government have blithely slashed the Canada social transfer, and
have accumulated a stupendous surplus, with plans to accumulate
still more in coming years, on the backs of the poor.
When we look at the incidence of poverty among female seniors,
it comes close to 50%. What is this government doing to remedy
poverty in this group, in Quebec and in Canada? Nothing. It is
swimming in surplus funds and is proud of it, but is doing
nothing to remedy the situation.
As far as seniors are concerned, according to the Canadian
Council on Social Development, we are seeing the reversal of a
trend that has been in place for the past 30 years, which was to
ensure that seniors had a decent income. Now we are in the
process of quietly impoverishing certain sub-categories of
seniors, while we ought to be continuing along the path of
ensuring them a stable and fair income in a society that claims
to be full of compassion and justice.
When we look at the new forms of poverty this government has
created, we see that even now there is a new phenomenon which is
impoverishing the employed. Now we have the working poor, a
phenomenon we had not seen for several decades.
People work, but because of a variety of factors, including
government inertia when it comes to correcting injustices, such
as in federal taxation, they are becoming poorer.
I will give an example. A couple with one child and a single
income starts paying federal income tax once their income
reaches $13,700, whereas in Quebec, this family would pay income
tax only once their income reached $30,000.
Is it reasonable, when they have surpluses coming out of their
ears, for the government to start taxing poor families with a
dependent child at $13,700?
In Quebec, the situation has long been rectified, and income tax
is not applied until the income threshold of $30,000 is reached.
1335
Is it reasonable for this man, who is boasting about having
surpluses—and the money is here, not in the provinces—to continue
to brag about these surpluses, with his Prime Minister bragging
about the Canadian model around the world, while no thought
whatsoever is given to reforming taxation for Canada's poorest
families as the Bloc Quebecois has been requesting since 1993?
It is deplorable.
Federal taxation is now contributing to the impoverishment of
society, and that is serious.
When the Minister of Finance sits on his behind doing sweet
nothing and ignoring our requests, despite all these surpluses
in his budget 2000 forecasts, that is completely unacceptable.
Not to mention, and I will conclude with this, that the money we
give this government, the $32 billion Quebec taxpayers hand over
every year to this government, is being used to pay off their
buddies in the HRDC scandal, in the form of grants to friends of
the Liberal Party for the ministerial tour around Quebec to
spread anti-PQ propaganda.
Their buddies are getting money. But it is money from our
pockets—$32 billion from Quebecers—that is paying for this
anti-Quebec propaganda, for ministers to parade around singing
the praises of federalism and squandering our tax dollars.
We are going to vote against this bill at report stage now
before us. The Bloc Quebecois is here to defend the interests
of Quebec and of Quebecers, because they are very ill served by
this government.
[English]
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, I am definitely here to
defend the rights of all Canadian citizens. I want to make that
perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the entire House.
I have some great concerns about the amendments that are
proposed to Bill C-32. In particular, clause 35 of Bill C-32 is
consequential on clause 36, the substantive provision of this
act. I will therefore speak to why the government cannot accept
the motions to delete clauses 35 and 36 of Bill C-32.
Clauses 35 and 36 amend the Excise Tax Act to address the issue
of tax evasion. These measures are intended to deal with
exceptional circumstances where there is clear and unequivocal
evidence of an intention to evade the payment of tax and where
the collection of taxes is therefore in perilous jeopardy.
There are important safeguards in the use of this measure. In
particular, the Minister of National Revenue must apply to court
for judicial authorization. The court can place whatever
condition it deems appropriate on that order. The court order is
then subject to appeal by the taxpayer. There is a process in
place that is to be followed and can be followed by each and
every taxpayer in this country.
A similar provision relating to income tax already exists in the
Income Tax Act. The proposed measure would give the Minister of
National Revenue the same tools to protect against tax evasion
under the Excise Tax Act as he has for income tax purposes.
For these reasons and many more, the government believes this is
an important measure and we cannot accept this motion. Although
it is not surprising, considering the fact that the hon. member
for Medicine Hat said he wants to in some way, shape or form,
actually delay, under Bill C-32, the delivery of over $2.5
billion in increased payments under the CHST. That in itself
speaks volumes for the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his party
for their basic thinking of the way Canada should be run and the
way we should evolve under our taxation system. Without a doubt,
they are unequivocal in their support of the scandalous and
scurrilous flat tax. My dad used to say that if something is too
good to be true, it usually is. That is definitely the case with
this flat tax system.
We all know that the vast majority of the MPs in the Canadian
Alliance, not counting a few of them present here today,
basically think along the American tradition.
They want to Americanize our country Canada especially with
regard to the taxation system and the way we distribute the
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to make the social fabric of our
country the best in the entire world. But they do not want to do
that. They want the Napoleonic version of life where might makes
right; look after the rich and forget about the middle income
people and most assuredly forget about the poor people.
1340
Let me tell hon. members who will benefit from the flat tax. The
rich will benefit, because under the flat tax proposal, people
making about $40,000 a year will pay about the same tax that they
are currently paying under our system, but those people making
$100,000 would pay approximately $4,000 less. Does that seem
fair? It certainly does not seem fair to me and I know it does
not seem fair to the Canadian public.
If it was such a great tax, why would the American friends of
the hon. member for Medicine Hat not embrace this tax with open
arms? The ultra right-wing of the Republican Party, Newt
Gingrich himself, has decried this flat tax saying it will not
work. The reason it will not work is simply that under the flat
tax system there will be less money brought in to the revenues of
this country. Therefore, we would not have the same amount of
taxpayers' dollars to distribute, to make Canada and equitable
place for all citizens to live in.
Under the flat tax we would not be bringing in as much money, so
what does the Canadian Alliance plan to do? The CA most assuredly
plans to eviscerate our social system. CA members have already
said that. They are on the move. One of its members currently
sitting here is running for the CA leadership. He is talking
about a two tier health care system. Let us Americanize the
health care system. There is a bright idea. He must be a 100
watt bulb. In America 38 million people as we speak are not
covered under health insurance. The single public payer use
system we have in Canada is recognized around the world as the
very best there is on planet Earth.
Many other countries, including the United States of America,
would like nothing better than to move to our medicare system.
Under the flat tax we would not be able to have that because we
would not be bringing in the proper amount of money to look after
our medicare system. Why would we not have enough money?
Because the rich people would not be paying near the income tax
they should be paying.
I for one believe that the more that we gain out of the country,
the more that we prosper, the more that we should be willing to
share with our fellow citizens. But not under the flat tax
system. Under the flat tax system the rich pay less and the poor
get more. By more I mean they get more right in the ear. They
would not get a darn thing extra out of the flat tax system. They
lose, they lose and they lose, because there would not be money
in there to make the system work.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat espouses the great benefits of
the flat tax but maybe he should join the flat earth society
because it just will not work. He knows it and hon. members
opposite know it. That is part and parcel of their amendments to
Bill C-32.
I have got the ire up of the big fellow across the way, but he
knows we are right. He knows that the Liberal government is
reducing the taxes. We have reduced taxes by $58 billion in the
last three to four years and we will further reduce them. We are
on the road to economic recovery.
Canada is recognized without a doubt as the best country in the
world in which to live. The former leader of the hon. members
opposite is now running as the leader for a new party. He
happened to be flying around the world on taxpayers' dollars a
couple of years ago and said, “Canada is a third world country.
Do not come to invest in Canada”. Is that the type of person we
want running this tax?
I just noticed that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is
listening to what I have to say. I do not know if he will get up
and make a comment but I would like him to make a comment on the
flat tax system.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I know we are all enraptured with the dissertation we are
receiving from the member opposite, but maybe while you are
checking on whether or not what he is saying is relevant, we
could have a quorum call.
And the count having been taken:
1345
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, members opposite know
very well that I speak the truth. That will be the end of what I
am saying today because I cannot indulge in any mendacity from
the other side.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (on behalf of the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip the division is deferred until tomorrow, the
effect of which is to defer it until the conclusion of Government
Orders on Monday.
1350
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been negotiations and discussions among
representatives of all parties in the House and I believe if you
were to seek unanimous consent that the House would consent to
pass report stage of Bill C-32 on division.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to rescind
the deferral of the division on Bill C-32 and that the bill be
concurred in at report stage at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION REFUGEE ACT
The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see democracy in
action in this place. I always take pride in standing up to
speak to immigration issues. I often remind the House of my
family's background and how proud I am as a Canadian to be able
to serve as a member of parliament.
I came to Canada in the early seventies as a year old child. My
family was forced out of our home country of Uganda as refugees.
We came to Canada with mixed feelings. We were coming to a brand
new country, a new place, as strangers. We left home where I was
third generation born. Unfortunately we were leaving under the
tyrant regime of Idi Amin. They were not pleasant circumstances.
Members of my family lost everything when they left that country:
their businesses, their homes and all their money. They came to
this country as penniless refugees.
On one note we were saddened having to leave that country. On
the same note we were very fortunate to be embraced by this great
country where opportunity and freedom are often taken for
granted. This is something I know the Canadian Alliance takes
very seriously. I am glad to be able to serve as a member of
parliament 28 years later and to be able to stand up for those
things about which I feel so dearly. I know a number of
Canadians feel proud to stand up for democracy and freedom.
We have to take steps back from time to time to remind us of how
important those ideas are, especially in light of what happened
to my family and what happens to millions of people around the
world in unfortunate regimes where human rights and democracy are
taken for granted.
As Canadians we can be leaders and show the world how diversity
and strength in diversity exist in Canada. We can share that
information and be leaders around the world, hopefully bringing
democracy and human rights to a lot of countries that do not have
those practises.
That is neither here nor there. Today we are discussing at
second reading Bill C-31, the immigration and refugee protection
act. When reviewing this bill and the changes being proposed,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration touts the new
legislation as being tough. It is to fix many of the problems
currently faced within Canada's immigration system today.
The truth is that the bill will not accomplish its objectives. It
is likely to significantly slow down the entire immigration
system.
1355
At this time resources are limited. We have problems within the
refugee process. We have problems of immigrants wanting to go
through a fair process to be evaluated before they come to
Canada. The last thing we need is for our immigration system to
slow down, which would unfortunately encourage the illegal
entrance of immigrants. We will see more problems like the
Chinese boat people and people profiting from trying to get
people into the country illegally. That is something we want to
try to stop. The best way to do it is to look at ways that will
speed up the process and attach more resources to the immigration
system, not slow it down.
No matter what is contained in the new act, it will never be
effective if the government does not ensure improved management
of the system, better training, tighter auditing and more
emphasis on enforcement. This is what I was referring to,
especially when I mentioned the problems we faced in our
immigration and refugee system over the last number of years.
They were ever so present last summer when we saw many problems
with refugees coming to the country illegally and many people
profiting from that.
This is the first complete overhaul of Canada's immigration laws
in 24 years. It was a good attempt to try to improve our current
system. Some amendments have been made to the current
Immigration Act, introduced to the House of Commons in 1976, the
most notable of which were changes to Canada's refugee
determination system in the late 1980s with the creation of the
Immigration Refugee Board. This change was brought about by the
controversial 1985 Singh decision that stated all refugee
claimants were to be allowed an oral hearing of their claim and
the right to appeal a negative decision.
Since that time successive governments have interpreted the
decision to mean that all refugee claimants, in fact any foreign
national on Canadian soil, should be given the full protection of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This interpretation
of the Singh decision is a major contributing factor to Canada
becoming the number one target for people traffickers and asylum
seekers the world over. It has allowed our immigration and
refugee system to become overly bureaucratic and prone to legal
delays. The minister of immigration had a real opportunity—
The Speaker: Order, please. I will interrupt the hon.
member at this point. He will have 15 minutes remaining after
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR STATISTICS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to salute in this House the
decision recently made by UNESCO to establish its new institute
for statistics in Montreal. The institute will be the first of
eight UNESCO units to be located in North America.
The presence of this institute in Montreal will have an economic
impact of some $60 million over 10 years. Some thirty jobs will
be created within the next year, and the number of employees
could quickly double.
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs said that “the dynamic character
of Montreal and its many research centres, complete with
state-of-the-art facilities, will prove to be a crucial factor in
the development and growth of UNESCO's new institute”.
This project also received the support of the Friendship Group
of Parliamentarians for UNESCO, which believes that the
establishment of this institute could help substantially raise
UNESCO's profile in Canada and North America, while also
ensuring it desirable international influence.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the hepatitis C scandal from tainted blood has not been
forgotten. Let me summarize this tragedy.
Contaminated blood was not tested in Canada when other countries
were carefully screening theirs. Canada imported dirty blood
from prisons in Arkansas. Thousands of Canadians are sick
because our watchdog, particularly the federal watchdog, failed
them. Judge Krever's study recommended helping every sick victim.
Yet federal Liberals chose to compensate victims only between
1986 and 1990.
Over two years after that promise only the lawyers have been
paid any compensation. The Harris government in Ontario has
agreed to compensate all victims, which is quite a contrast.
Federal Liberals were forced to vote against the forgotten
victims outside the 1986 to 1990 period. My question is why.
* * *
1400
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to bring to your attention that my
home province of New Brunswick is celebrating Disability
Awareness Week through June 3.
The overall theme for the week is “Full Citizenship for All”.
It is intended to draw attention to the progress made to date in
the community toward the inclusion of citizens with disabilities,
and to highlight the barriers that still remain to be overcome.
Canadians with disabilities deserve to live life to its fullest.
It is a fundamental human right and the responsibility of the
federal government. Each day there are thousands of New
Brunswickers who struggle to cope with their disabilities while
trying to get an education, a job, have a family and enjoy living
in the community. Remember all of those heroes by celebrating
Disability Awareness Week.
Congratulations to Lynn Haley and Randy Dickinson at the
Premier's Council on the Status of Disabled Persons, who are
co-ordinating all activities.
* * *
BERLIN CONFERENCE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister will present at the Berlin Conference
on Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, which begins
tomorrow, Canada's way of governance to achieve the highest
quality of life for Canadians and to promote our values
internationally.
The governance of Canada is rooted in two democratic
principles—representation in the elected House of Commons based
on population and in the appointed Senate based on regions.
This reconciles Canada's vast geography with the uneven
distribution of her diverse people and reflects our founding
vision of a society committed to caring and compassion.
That is why we have entrenched medicare and equalization
payments in Canada, where geography is no barrier to need and
opportunity, prosperity is shared equitably, the poor are not
oppressed and the rich are not privileged.
Therein lies the success of the Government of Canada, not in
anything of itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and in the
interest citizens feel to support it—the very essence of
Canadian federalism that will help realize the human purpose in
our global society.
* * *
STEPHEN TRUSCOTT
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 41
years ago Stephen Truscott was the victim of a miscarriage of
justice. This young man lost his freedom, was almost executed,
and spent many years under an assumed name.
Because this case occurred in Clinton, close to my home of
London, Ontario, I have researched it thoroughly for many years
on several occasions. I visited the scene of the crime. From
all the evidence that I have read, it is my personal belief that
Stephen Truscott is innocent of this heinous crime. Millions of
Canadians also agree.
There are many questions that need to be answered and many
problems surrounding this trial. The investigation of this crime
has been less than thorough, to say the very least.
I add my voice to all those other voices calling on the Minister
of Justice to review this case when the minister receives the
application so that Stephen Truscott can reclaim his good name.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance enlightened us all
when he said that it is not in the Canadian mentality to
question this government's support for a group of Tamil rebels
determined to destroy a culture.
I am proud of a country that is as diversified as Canada. I am
proud of the vision the Canadian Alliance offers Canadians, a
vision that celebrates our diversity in unity.
We will soon be proud of having a new Prime Minister, who knows
where to find the Middle East on the map.
The Canadian Alliance is proud to be an avant-garde party that
puts forward new ideas.
If the Liberals want to question the Canadian mentality of some
members of this House, the Canadian Alliance is quite willing.
* * *
[English]
GLENDALE HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
congratulate a group of students from Glendale High School in
Tillsonburg who are joining students from four other schools of
the Thames Valley District School Board to visit France for D-Day
ceremonies next week.
Accompanying the students will be six veterans, three of whom
fought at Normandy, and our colleague from London—Fanshawe, the
chair of the defence committee. The trip's organizer, Robin
Barker-James, a history teacher at Glendale, is to be commended
for his efforts in making history come alive for his students.
I want to tell these students how proud we are of them for
taking part in these ceremonies. They will better understand the
sacrifice made by our soldiers—not much older than
themselves—who fought and died on those beaches in a fight for
their nation and for freedom.
In the words of their teacher “Freedom isn't free; it's
bought”.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the price of gasoline reached a new high. In Montreal
it went up 10 cents within a couple of hours, to 85 cents. Yet
the federal government sits on its hands.
For the past few weeks, the Canadian oil companies have been
releasing quarterly reports showing record profits. Yet the
federal government sits on its hands.
Consumers can no longer put up with seeing 14% price hikes in a
single day, and 60,000 of them have signed a petition against
exorbitant gas prices. Yet the federal government sits on its
hands.
Since the Liberals seem to be running low on ideas, we are once
again calling upon them to fill up their tank with suggestions
from the Bloc Quebecois aimed at improving the situation in the
short and long term. These are: suspending the federal excise
tax, ensuring healthier competition within the Canadian oil
industry, putting pressure on oil producing countries, and
finally investing in research into alternative energy sources.
* * *
[English]
SKILLS CANADA
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
more than two dozen Waterloo region high school and college
students will be heading to Quebec City to participate in the
Skills Canada national competition this weekend.
Recent studies suggest that in the new millennium 40% of new
jobs will be in the skilled trades area.
Skills Canada strives to increase awareness about careers and
skilled trades and technology, and underscores the important role
for youth in filling the skilled labour needs of Canadian
industry.
Skills Canada is a not for profit organization which receives
federal support through the youth employment strategy. Student
participants tell me that this competition raises self-confidence
and opens doors for many of them. It is also an extremely
valuable competition for many Canadian employers.
I would like to wish all students from Kitchener-Waterloo the
best of luck this weekend. Bring home the gold.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition,
I would like to take this opportunity to extend our sincere
appreciation to the House of Commons staff. Without the hard
work and dedication of the hundreds of staff, each doing their
own part, this institution would not function.
We, the MPs, are the ones who present the finished product to
the public. However, behind the scenes, technicians,
translators, researchers, cleaning staff, catering staff,
security guards, administration and maintenance staff, pages,
clerks, messengers and legislative counsel work together in
service to the Canadian public and their home of democracy.
This morning the official opposition hosted a breakfast for the
House of Commons staff in the West block as a small token of our
appreciation. The vast majority of the staff were in attendance.
Unfortunately, some were bound by duty to work. To all the staff
who were unable to attend this morning I say, thank you, merci.
Their services do not go unnoticed.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE RHÉAUME “ROCKY” BRISEBOIS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
has lost another sports personality. Rhéaume “Rocky” Brisebois
died suddenly at the age of 75 at his home in Lac-Brome, after
many years involvement in the community of Venise-en-Québec in
Brome—Missisquoi.
“Rocky” Brisebois was a close friend of Maurice Richard.
Well-known for his colourful expressions and his frankness,
“Rocky” Brisebois worked for the newspapers Le Canada and Le
Devoir, before joining the CJMS broadcast team in its glory days
of the 1960s and 1970s.
I wish to express my sincere condolences to Mr. Brisebois' family
and friends, and to all of his faithful listeners during all
those years.
* * *
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this week, while gearing up to discuss trade and democracy at the
OAS meetings in Windsor, the federal government has been busy
quashing democracy and workers' rights here at home. The
government rammed Bill C-11 through committee after virtually no
consultation and refused to consider any amendments.
The legislation not only delivers a serious blow to the coal
miners and people of Cape Breton, but it has international
implications as well. While Cape Breton miners lose their jobs,
Canadian companies that once relied on Cape Breton coal will be
buying more of it from countries like Colombia, where miners live
in virtual poverty and over 900 trade union activists have been
murdered.
The passage of Bill C-11 will result in the loss of jobs for
Canadians, the underdevelopment of Canadian resources and
financial rewards for Colombian murderers.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGLE CURRENCY
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last fall, the
Bloc Quebecois launched a political debate on a single currency
in North America. In May, the Bloc Quebecois initiated a debate
in the Standing Committee on Finance on this issue.
Our concerns echo the discussions of a myriad of analysts,
economists and financiers, who are debating the future of the
Canadian dollar.
In this context, a new player, the winner of the Nobel prize in
economics, Robert Mundell, waded into the debate last Thursday
with the statement that a fixed rate between the Canadian dollar
and the American dollar was only a question of time.
1410
In the meantime, what are the Liberals doing? More concerned
with their image than with real debate, they are hiring public
relations consultants, funding their propaganda office, or
keeping quiet so as not to add to their already long list of
blunders.
But let us take heart: voters are not stupid. They will
remember.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, June 4 the Canadian Cancer Society is
encouraging everyone to celebrate National Cancer Survivors Day.
It is the 13th anniversary of the event in North America and is
a day when we honour survivors who are living with and beyond
cancer. It is a day to acknowledge the important role family and
friends play in the lives of cancer survivors, and also to
recognize the professionals who are helping fight the battle
against cancer. In doing so we communicate to all Canadians the
message that life after a cancer diagnosis can be a reality.
Cancer touches almost all of us. One in three Canadian women
and 50% of men will be diagnosed with cancer during their
lifetime. Today, thanks to improved detection methods, more
available information and enhanced methods of treatment, more
than half of all people diagnosed will go on to achieve a full
recovery in terms of work, recreation and family life.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday,
as we have done so many times in the past, the Progressive
Conservative Party called on the federal government to
immediately enter into negotiations with the provinces to create
a new joint national highway program. This program would give
all provinces access to money that the federal government has
collected through its fuel tax and use it toward improving safety
on our highways.
Driving on our highways is fast becoming a growing concern for
our safety. With more than 3,400 fatalities on Canada's roads
every year, action must be taken to ensure safety on our
highways. In Nova Scotia there have been some 50 fatalities on
Highway 101 between Mount Uniacke and Digby since 1993.
The twinning of this section of Highway 101 would cost
approximately $250 million, money the Nova Scotia government
simply does not have. Yet Ottawa collects over $5 billion
annually in fuel tax and spends a mere $300 million on roads.
What is going on with the balance of $4.7 billion?
Each day that the government continues to ignore our
deteriorating highway system another life is put at risk. I call
on the Minister of Transport to immediately—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
* * *
AIRCRAFT APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT LIMITED
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a firm in my riding, Aircraft Appliances
and Equipment Limited, was the recipient of an award of merit at
the 1999 Brampton Outstanding Business Achievement Awards.
Founded in 1949, A.A.E. is a world-class supplier of aircraft
and naval products in my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. It provides expertise in
design engineering and the manufacturing of products.
I would ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to join me in
applauding this award-winning firm on its high level of
commitment to both its employees and its clients.
* * *
BERLIN CONFERENCE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is off to Berlin at great expense to
the Canadian taxpayer to focus test his next election campaign.
According to news reports, he will present a paper prepared by
Eddie Goldberg and senior bureaucrats called “Progressive
Governance”. If that is not an oxymoron, to have the king of
status quo presenting a paper on progressive governance.
The Prime Minister will be talking about how he shares
opportunities with all Canadians in all parts of the country.
That should be interesting. How about how the Prime Minister
maintains a high quality health care system, yet ours is
currently 25th out of 27 OECD countries?
On second thought, taking his message to Berlin where the people
do not know the seven year record of the government is probably
much safer than trying to sell his message to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour for me and for the Bloc Quebecois to draw to
members' attention the presence in the gallery of a leading
figure of contemporary Quebec.
A forerunner and visionary, he was for more than 30 years the
tireless architect and builder of institutions which have, over
the years, become powerful economic and financial forces in the
development of modern Quebec.
His accomplishments include helping to establish the Caisse de
dépôt et placement du Québec and the Société générale de
financement, the effectiveness and usefulness of which are
recognized both in Quebec and abroad.
His many achievements and public activities have instilled in
Quebecers a confidence in their own abilities and a well-grounded
determination with which they are today calmly taking up the
challenges of an increasingly global economy.
I urge members of the House to give a warm welcome to the former
Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals on the human resources
committee have dealt a body blow to their very own minister.
They released a report today that recommends the dismantling of
the human resources department in the wake of the billion dollar
bungle by the minister. They want the department carved into
several smaller pieces so the amount of damage that the minister
can do in the future will be limited.
How can the minister continue in her position when even her own
Liberal colleagues have lost confidence in her?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the report has just been made public. Under the rules
of the House, we will study it and we will make a reply.
As a government and a caucus, we certainly have complete
confidence in the Minister of Human Resources Development, an
outstanding minister and an outstanding parliamentarian.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is
the only who still has confidence in her.
The human resources minister has lost the confidence of
Canadians, the opposition and now her own Liberal colleagues on
the committee. Her very own colleagues think she is incapable of
managing HRDC unless large portions of the department are taken
away from her. It is a damning indictment.
In light of this, how can the minister justify keeping her job?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought the hon. member was going to get up and
congratulate this government, including the minister of HRDC, for
the fact that the real gross domestic product was 4.9% in the
first quarter, the 19th consecutive quarter of growth and the
longest string of uninterrupted gains since the mid-1960s. These
are achievements of this government, including the minister of
HRDC. The hon. member ought to recognize this if he has any
ethics at all.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Deputy Prime Minister
picked up the wrong briefing note, that had absolutely nothing to
do with the HRDC department.
The Prime Minister has come up with a new and innovative way of
dealing with incompetence. Instead of answering the demands of
Canadians and the opposition to remove the HRDC minister from her
department, he intends to follow the urging of his very own
caucus and remove the department from the minister, piece by
piece, bit by bit until all that remains is her image consultant.
Why does the minister not save the Prime Minister from going to
all this trouble and do the honourable thing, resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening to that question I now know why the
former Reform Party is hiding its incompetence by trying to
change its name, but it will not get away with it.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, access to information documents we
have just received reveal that treasury board officials are more
concerned about hiding the results of internal audits than about
the fact that HRDC bungled a billion dollars.
A memo from a treasury board senior policy analyst to the deputy
comptroller general warns about government managers' “backlash”
in the wake of HRDC's damning internal audit. The senior policy
analyst then states that managers are planning to be more careful
about the wording of future audits.
Why are treasury board officials more concerned about the
political spin than about fixing the problem of their billion
dollar bungles?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board Secretariat is always very involved in the
government policies that relate to financial practices.
It is perfectly normal that, over the past two years, we have
conducted a full review of the responsibilities of managers in
the public service to update them.
It is in that context that, just today, we issued a new policy
on transfers. We are also currently reviewing the internal audit
policy.
1420
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that treasury
board is more concerned about managing the spin than managing
taxpayer dollars.
Officials are now suggesting that future audits need to be
massaged to ensure that damning information is whitewashed.
Senior policy analysts warn that it will be necessary to keep a
closer eye on what is written in future audits.
I will ask the minister my question again. Why is the
government more concerned about the political spin than about
solving the problem of the billion dollar bungle?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that the Canadian Alliance member should at least be
able to recognize that it is a Treasury Board policy to allow,
as soon as they are fully completed, internal audit reports to
be made public without anyone even having to submit a request
under the Access to Information Act.
If that is not a transparent policy, then what is? This is very
clear, and this is how we intend to continue to improve our
policies at Treasury Board.
* * *
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has said that,
since the CIO has been under his responsibility, no contracts
have been awarded without tender. We would have to conclude
that, before him, it was standard practice.
We have learned that, since he became responsible for the CIO on
June 4, 1998, hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts have
been awarded without tender.
How much longer is the minister going to go on denying the
facts, the figures, the numbers from his own department?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Canada
Information Office has always awarded its contracts according to
Treasury Board policy.
In addition, I would say to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and
to the House that on March 8, 1999 I sent a written directive to
the CIO informing it that, effective April 1, 1999, any contract
over $25,000 had to be put out to tender. Those are the facts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): That is very
interesting, Mr. Speaker.
In other words, what the minister has just said is that he
assumed responsibility for the CIO on June 4, 1998, and that the
directive was issued eight months and six contracts later in
March 1999.
Yesterday, the minister said that no contracts over $25,000 had
gone out without tender. Will he admit today that it was only
as of March 1999, and for practically one year, that he awarded
contracts without tender? As for those after March 1999, we are
still waiting on access to information, and we will see the
outcome of that.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the CIO has always
complied with Treasury Board policy and guidelines with respect
to the delegation of authority. All contracts have been awarded
in accordance with this policy.
In addition, it was on March 8, a few months later, that I said
why we had to change this policy. On March 8, I issued a
directive that any contract over $25,000 had to be put out to
tender.
I can assure the House that, since April 1, 1999, all contracts
in excess of $25,000 have been put out to tender.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister has just said he rigorously observes Treasury Board
policies, I will point out that there are two main circumstances
under which tenders are not called: when national security is
at issue and when market conditions indicate that nothing would
be saved by calling for tenders.
When the CIO awards a $27,000 contract without calling for
tenders to Groupe Cible's Serge Paquette, a former Liberal
candidate, to monitor the media, is this a matter of national
security or market conditions?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the CIO has always
followed the delegation of authority policies of the Treasury
Board with respect to contracts.
For two days, Serge Paquette has been the subject of discussion.
I would remind the Bloc Quebecois House leader that Mr. Paquette
was a candidate in 1988. Is he not entitled to earn a living,
like other Canadians?
An hon. member: Not all Canadians get contracts.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
forget that Mr. Paquette was a candidate in 1988 if the
government will forget it as well and have him go through the
tender process. That would be fine. It would be excellent.
I ask the minister if he is prepared to forget all former
candidates and Liberal members who systematically circumvent the
tendering process and use public money to organize government
propaganda in Quebec at our expense?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that
contracts are awarded according to the ability of the individual
and not his or her political stripe. He should take a look at
the mother house in Quebec.
On the subject of the tour, allow me to read a few quotes from
people who met the ministers during their tour, in a riding of
the Bloc, the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
The president of the chamber of commerce of Quebec City's south
shore, Réal Auclair, expressed his satisfaction at the results
of the meeting held in Lévis between five ministers of the
Chrétien government and some thirty representatives of the
greater Quebec City area, gathered together in the Quebec
committee—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
Canada chairing the upcoming OAS meetings in Windsor, the
government has an opportunity to put human rights, not the free
trade agreement of the Americas, front and centre.
Half of all trade unionists murdered in the world last year died
in Colombia. Francisco Ramirez, the Colombian Mine Workers
president, who met recently with foreign affairs officials, lives
under constant threat from military sponsored death squads.
At this weeks OAS meetings what will Canada do to address the
labour and human rights issues and, in particular, the case of
Francisco Ramirez?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of a free trade agreement of the Americas is
not on the agenda of the OAS meeting in Windsor. In fact, the
very kinds of issues she is talking about will be on the agenda.
I ask for her support to ensure that the discussions on
strengthening human rights and strengthening democracy in the
Americas will go forward in a constructive and peaceful fashion.
Will she give that commitment today?
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, still in the
context of the OAS meeting, with respect to the elections in
Peru, the secretary of state said, and I quote:
These words, which we support, must be followed with specific
action. What action will Canada propose to its OAS partners
following the illegal elections in Peru?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleague that
the OAS meeting to be held in Windsor this weekend will give
careful consideration to the question of Peru. It was the
unanimous opinion of the permanent council yesterday in
Washington that this matter must be considered in Windsor in the
coming days.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, for decades our foreign diplomats have served this
country proudly and with distinction. However, last night the
Prime Minister's nephew violated the fundamental rule of
diplomacy and openly endorsed a U.S. presidential candidate.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the government of
Canada changed its policy to allow our diplomats to engage in
partisan political politics of another country? Why not recall
the nephew for a small chat about diplomacy?
The Speaker: I do not know that it is particularly
pertinent that we have relatives in one place or another, so I
ask hon. members to please state the titles of the people to whom
they are referring.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our ambassador to Washington is a professional diplomat
of great distinction and long standing for many years dating back
well before this administration took office.
I understand that our ambassador to Washington did not take a
position on candidates in the American elections. In fact, his
whole point was that whoever the American public chose, we would
work with the government of that person and continue our strong
and friendly relations with the United States.
1430
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the Deputy Prime Minister did not watch the program
yesterday and that he did not review the tape this morning, as
was urgently asked by officials from the Department of Foreign
Affairs.
To ridicule a candidate while supporting another one and putting
him on a pedestal is to make a choice. This goes completely
against Canadian policy.
What does the ambassador want? Does he want the Democrat
candidate to support the current Prime Minister during the next
election campaign in Canada? What do we want here in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is misstating what I understand the
ambassador to have said.
He made some general comments about candidates and their
approach in the past to Canada, but he was not stating a
preference for one or the other. In fact his whole point was
that whoever the Americans choose, Canada will continue its
friendly relations with the United States and will work with the
government in question.
The hon. member should recognize that instead of trying to
engage in unworthy personal smears.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the treasury board memo on internal audits was written on
February 18.
Barely a month after the billion dollar boondoggle was revealed,
government managers in all departments were already trying to
whitewash future audits. Let me quote, “From now on it will be
necessary to keep a closer eye on what is written in these
reports”.
Why is the government trying to whitewash future internal
audits?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, we are absolutely transparent regarding our internal
audit reports. We release them without anyone having to submit
an access to information request.
Because of this policy of transparency, it is perfectly normal
to demand that these reports be drafted by competent people and
that Canadians be presented with well written reports.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that kind of accountability sounds more like censorship
to me.
The treasury board memo warns about a government-wide backlash
against internal audits. It was so concerned that it was
planning to control the contents.
Why is the government more concerned about damage control than
it is about spending control?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is only normal that we would be concerned by the financial
practices used in every federal department. It is the Treasury
Board's role to support all the departments and to ensure that
policy is properly followed.
We are also reviewing the internal audit policy to improve it
and to provide even more information to parliamentarians. We are
currently changing the financial information system for accrual
accounting.
* * *
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the
House, the Minister of Public Works defended the federal
government's right to promote Canadian federalism through the
Canada Information Office.
Yet the government had already transferred tens of millions of
dollars to the Council for Canadian Unity for that same purpose.
Can the minister explain to us why the government created the
CIO, the Canada Information Office, when the Council for
Canadian Unity was created precisely for that purpose?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CIO was established to
co-ordinate the communications of the Government of Canada as a
whole and to inform Canadians on what the Canadian government is
doing for them. That is its main role, a role that is
continuing to develop and that it continues to play.
As for the ministers' tour of Quebec, which so bothers the hon.
members from the Bloc Quebecois—and we can understand why—this
enables the Quebec ministers of the Government of Canada to—
1435
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chambly.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is all very
well, but since the CIO looks after matters of Canadian unity,
why does it report to the Minister of Public Works and not the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?
Might the real reason be that the Minister of Public Works is
also the chief Liberal Party of Canada organizer for Quebec?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a matter of government organization. I think it is obvious
that the Minister of Public Works can look after the CIO, since
he is there to build Canadian unity—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: Why is the separatist party opposed to Canadian
unity once again?
* * *
[English]
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the May 20 edition of the Tamil Guardian newspaper
carried a report about the now famous new year dinner. It states
that the presence of the finance minister and the international
co-operation minister “has sent shivers down the spine of the
ruling circles in Colombo”. It also states that the Sri Lankan
High Commissioner has expressed shock and disbelief at the
attendance of the ministers.
I would like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs how he is
explaining away this mess to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner and
whether or not he has asked the Minister of Finance to stay away
from any more FACT events.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reply I would ask the hon. member why is he
criticizing an event that was attended by one of Mike Harris'
cabinet ministers, that received personal and warm
congratulations from Mike Harris himself and that was even
attended by the city editor of the Toronto Sun? Is the hon.
member saying that all these people are doing something unworthy?
That is the implication in his foolish question.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is forgetting who is
asking the question. I am assuming that the solicitor general
has read the reports from CSIS, the U.S. state department and
security agencies from Scotland and Australia with respect to the
Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, does he accept as
accurate the content of the CSIS reports? If so, what further
action is he intending to take? If he does not believe the
reports of his own department, exactly why does he not believe
them?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think what my hon. colleague has to
realize is the difference between legitimate gatherings and
active support of terrorists. This country supports legitimate
gatherings, and that is exactly what has taken place.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING SECTOR
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is getting ready to reform the Canadian
banking sector.
By redefining the rules of ownership, his plan encourages the
takeover of small and medium size banks by single individuals and
by foreign interests.
Will the Minister of Finance explain why, under his plan, the
largest bank in Canada would be completely exempt from foreign
takeover, while the largest bank in Quebec would be offered up on
a silver platter to foreign investors? Is this how the federal
government is going to strengthen the Canadian banking sector?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past year, we have
tried to promote a system that gives much more flexibility to our
banks, so that they are competitive at home and internationally.
The minister has said that, in the case of banks concentrated in
regions or in special provinces, he will take into consideration
the interests of the inhabitants of that region or province, i.e.
in the case of the National Bank, the interests of Quebecers.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we must be clear and serious about this.
The minister's white paper protects Canadian banks by limiting
foreign ownership to 20%. It is important to Canadians to
control their banks and we are in full agreement.
But why would it not be just as important to the government to
protect Quebec's banks in the same way? Why would what is good
for Canadians not be good for Quebecers as well? Where is the
problem? What is behind the government's policy?
1440
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all.
There is a proposal whereby small banks will have much more
flexibility and this will help consumers and SMBs throughout
Canada.
With respect to the National Bank and the Laurentian Bank, which
have done very well, the minister explained that, in the case of
a transfer of controlling shares, the interests of Quebecers
would be taken into consideration.
* * *
[English]
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to CSIS the Federation of Associations of
Canadian Tamils is one of the more active fronts for the Sri
Lankan group the Tamil Tigers. CSIS claims on its website that
they are responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in
India and also the president of Sri Lanka among many others.
My question is very simple. When did it become government
policy to send our finance minister to fundraising events that
benefit groups like FACT?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the policy of this government is very much against
terrorism. This is definitely clear. I have a feeling that the
hon. member is misstating what is on the CSIS website. I think
what he is referring to is an article which CSIS specifically
said on the website it neither endorsed nor is taking
responsibility for.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister should get up to date
and check that website himself. He will find in there that CSIS
condemns exactly the sort of event that the finance minister went
to.
The fact is that FACT is a fundraising organization for the
Tamil Tigers. That is well established. Even though our own
security agency has made that very clear, the finance minister
and other ministers go to these sorts of events and put money
into that organization.
When did it become government policy to allow those things to
happen?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to table in this House
anything on the CSIS website which refers on the part of CSIS
itself to FACT.
I ask the hon. member, when did it become Canadian Alliance
policy to smear 180,000 Canadians because of possible
questionable conduct by a few? That is a shameful way to act.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, mismanagement in Human Resources Development
Canada has led to at least a dozen RCMP investigations. This
scandal has even led the members of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development to call for the breakup of the
department. However, if we want to get to the bottom of things,
a public and independent inquiry is required.
Does the government acknowledge that the breakup of the
department without a public and independent inquiry could be
considered a cover-up?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
committee tabled its report just this morning. The government
will respond at the appropriate time to all the recommendations
within that report.
* * *
CRIME PREVENTION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Constituents in my riding and in urban centres across Canada are
concerned about the incidence of crime. What is the government
doing in the area of crime prevention?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government supports communities as they devise innovative
ways of making our homes and streets safer. Earlier this week
the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice announced
46 projects in Ontario alone for roughly $1.9 million. Since its
inception in 1998 over 1,000 projects have been put into effect
for roughly $28 million.
The government's crime prevention strategy succeeds because it
works with and draws its strength from Canadian communities.
* * *
1445
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, one thing was missing from the response of the chief of
defence staff today to the Stopford report and that is an
apology.
According to the report, the chain of command knew about the
alleged poisoning of Matt Stopford and did nothing for seven
years. Matt Stopford may not receive any justice, but he should
at least receive an apology.
Will the Minister of National Defence rise today to apologize to
Matt Stopford on behalf of his department and on behalf of the
Government of Canada?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is most regrettable the suffering that
Matt Stopford has gone through over many years. I am sorry that
it has taken some seven years for this information to come out on
the disgraceful action of a few people.
The matter is now being examined by a special review board that
the chief of defence staff appointed today. It will report
within two weeks so that we can then proceed to deal with the
issue of both the perpetrators of this matter as well as those in
the leadership who failed at that point in time.
I am sorry that Mr. Stopford has gone through all of this and
has gone through the illnesses he has experienced over the years.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his apology. It was long
overdue.
What specific concrete decisive action will the minister take to
ensure that the soldiers involved in the Stopford Affair, no
matter where they are in the chain of command, are held
accountable?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no matter where people are in the chain
of command, if they have done something that is in violation of
the code of conduct of the Canadian forces we will in fact weed
them out.
Let me say that we are on a direction now that will move
quickly, fairly and decisively to do that. Let me also point out
that we should not smear the many because of the actions of a
few. Most of the men and women of the Canadian forces provide
vital and essential services to Canadians and do so with great
honour.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government may have given itself a standing ovation a little
too early on the issue of crime prevention. In the fall of 1997
I rose in the House and called for an investigation into
allegations of corruption and the spread of organized crime in
our ports resulting from the disbandment of the ports police.
At the same time I raised concerns about important investigative
case files that were being destroyed or lost while biker gangs
took control of the ports. Those concerns have not gone away. In
fact they have resurfaced this week.
After three years of warning, will the minister admit that we
were right and that he was wrong? More important, will he take
steps to re-establish the ports police?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the House,
our number one law enforcement priority is fighting organized
crime. In fact the RCMP backs up any provincial or municipal
port police or any other police force in the country in order to
fight organized crime. That is what the RCMP does.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
response from the solicitor general is just more of the same old
excuses. He might as well put up a neon sign in Vancouver saying
that it is open season for the international drug trade. I have
been fighting tooth and nail to help stem the drug crisis in the
downtown east side. Without the port police, people in that
community are threatened by crime and corruption.
Where is the commitment? Will the minister commit today to
reinstate the ports police so that people in this community and
all communities will be safe in terms of the waterfront?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised my hon. colleague
would even challenge our support to policing when this government
allocated $810 million of new funding to my department. Before
that $115 million were put in place to make sure that CPIC was up
to date.
We want to be sure that all police forces in the country have
the tools to do the job and to be able to fight organized crime,
and that is what is happening.
* * *
1450
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, an RCMP
source has informed us that the problems with the Delta Company
go much deeper than with six soldiers. We have had a conspiracy.
We have had confessions. I am now concerned we might have a
cover-up.
Why is the Minister of National Defence afraid to do the right
thing and launch a fully independent public inquiry into this
scandal?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated quite clearly that we
will do what is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter. We
will leave no stone unturned. We will ensure no matter where the
fault lies, in whatever rank, that we will in fact seek out that
information and weed out any people who have not been properly
following the procedures that are expected of them.
We will do that expeditiously. I do not rule out or rule in any
particular mechanism at this point, except that over the next two
weeks we will have a special review group, of which one is a
regular military person, one is a civilian with links into the
reserves and two are totally civilian.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP
witness tells us that there were severe command problems in Delta
Company seven years ago. Why will the Minister of National
Defence once again allow senior officers to investigate
themselves?
Things must not only be right. They must appear to be right, so
why is the minister afraid to authorize an arm's length inquiry
to investigate every aspect of this out of control company? Then
the military will have a positive picture of them.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all allegations will be looked into. As
I pointed out, the four person review group has one regular
military officer, General Joe Sharpe, who did a good job with
respect to the previous inquiry on Croatia, plus other civilians
who will be part and parcel of determining what action is
necessary.
We will get to the bottom of it and ensure that all information
comes out and the right remedial action is taken.
* * *
[Translation]
UNESCO INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after fierce competition with Great Britain and France,
Canada has been selected to be the site of the UNESCO institute
of statistics.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us what the
presence of this institute in Montreal will mean in economic
terms for Canada and the Montreal region?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are thrilled with the choice of Montreal as the site
of the UNESCO institute of statistics, especially since this
also comes under a policy whereby Montreal will become an
international site for both the environment and statistics.
I think it is thanks to the work of several MPs and ministers
that Montreal, Canada, was chosen by UNESCO to create jobs in
Canada and to raise our international prestige.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, earlier today we saw the government
deny a simple request to table the report on our assistance for
struggling agricultural producers.
This report is the result of 70 public
meetings, and that means open to everyone who wanted to come,
across the country which heard from nearly 4,000 farmers about
the issues that affect their livelihood.
What is the government afraid of? Is it the fact that the
minister's AIDA program is a flop? Some 90% of farmers told us
that, or is it that the Liberal government is seen more as the
cause than the cure of our agricultural problems? In other
words, are the Liberals afraid of facing a grassroots report card
on their failing grade agricultural policies?
1455
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question
raised by the hon. member is obviously no. The government is
proud of its achievements.
If the government were to be asked by the opposition to table a
report, it has every liberty to do so at the meeting of House
leaders when consultations are regularly held. I can just
imagine that he either did not have the time or perhaps he is not
on speaking terms with his own House leader.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two
days ago, the provincial health ministers reaffirmed the strong
consensus that exists among them regarding health care funding.
Minister Pauline Marois reminded the federal government that it
will have to answer for its actions during the next general
election.
How can the minister claim that he is defending the principles
of the Canada Health Act when his government now contributes
only 14 cents out of each dollar spent on health in Quebec? This
is a shame.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is
false. We ourselves invited the provincial ministers to discuss
the future of our health care system.
I remind the hon. member that it is this government that added
more money to transfers, to the tune of 25% over the past four
years. We increased transfers and we are prepared to put more
money in, but under a plan of action developed with our
provincial partners.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago the court martial case against Winnipeg
Sergeant Mike Kipling was dismissed. The judge made this
decision based on a finding of the fact that the particular batch
of anthrax vaccine that Mike Kipling was ordered to take was
unsafe and dangerous. The judge actually said that the
government could never be justified to impose the inoculation of
soldiers with unsafe and dangerous vaccines.
How could the government make the unbelievable decision to
appeal this decision? Is that what the minister means by leaving
no stone unturned?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the director of military prosecutions
within her jurisdiction has filed an appeal. Quite frequently
there are decisions of courts in both civilian and military
courts where one side just simply does not agree with the judge's
ruling and therefore appeals it.
There are implications here in terms of the conduct, the
cohesiveness and the discipline of the Canadian forces that are
felt by the director to be important. Therefore an appeal has
been launched.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today I contacted the office of the Minister of Finance to find
out what it was doing to eliminate policies that discourage
sustainable forestry practices on small private woodlots. Those
inheriting woodlots are taxed on the value of the tree land,
which encourages clear-cutting. In addition, unlike farmers
woodlot owners are unable to deduct maintenance expenses from
their income or claim the capital gains exemption.
In a letter to woodlot owners the Minister of Finance agreed
that the tax system should not produce environmentally perverse
practices. This has been a 12 year chase for 420,000 woodlot
owners. When will the government sort it out and get it right?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Fundy—Royal for his notice to me on this issue and
for his very valuable ongoing input.
I know that some of these issues were addressed in the
information bulletin put out by the CCRA. I also know there are
ongoing issues such as, as the member mentioned,
intergenerational transfers and the ability to deduct expenses
incurred on the woodlot from other sources of income.
I understand there are ongoing consultations with the Canadian
Federation of Woodlot Owners and with individual owners. I will
be happy to keep the hon. member abreast of our discussions.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE ENTREPRENEURS IN WESTERN CANADA
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
Could the secretary of state explain what his department is
doing to meet the needs of francophone entrepreneurs in western
Canada?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
jointly defined the priorities for francophone communities in
western Canada.
1500
We have determined how to meet their needs and, together, we
have decided to set up, in each province, an economic
development office to ensure capital access. We have also
determined that these communities needed to put the emphasis on
entrepreneurship.
Finally, all the provinces have created a francophone corridor
for tourism which will soon be linked to the Canada-wide tourism
corridor.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today we have a very special group of
young Canadians with us. I want to draw the attention of members
to the presence in our gallery of 11 boys and girls, the
Children's Miracle Network 2000 Champions from across the
country. These youngsters have overcome life-threatening
illnesses or injuries and have been chosen to represent the two
million children who are treated annually by the Children's
Miracle Network hospitals and foundations across Canada.
[Translation]
Today, these young people will receive a medal to recognize
their courage and their efforts at a reception in my office. I
invite hon. members to join them in room 216-N, after oral
question period.
[English]
I will read the names of the 2000 Champions, and I would ask
that members hold their applause until I have finished. The
names are: Daniel Alexander Ennett, Edmonton; Adrien Gagnon,
London; Michael Korenowski, Calgary; Matt MacDonald, the
Maritimes; Leah McLoughlin, Newfoundland; Simone Pabreza,
Toronto; Lauralee Philippe, Ottawa; Crystal Rondeau, Manitoba;
Jennifer Vail, Saskatchewan; Matthew Williams, British Columbia;
and, Melissa Woodard, Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. government
House leader has any idea what legislation he will be bringing
forward over the next week or so. I would also like to know if
there is going to be a fall session of parliament or an early
election.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, once I have finished answering
the question perhaps I could ask my own supplementary.
This afternoon we will resume consideration of Bill C-31, the
immigration bill.
The business for tomorrow will be report stage of Bill C-11,
respecting Devco, and report stage and third reading of Bill S-3,
respecting international tax treaties. If that business finishes
early tomorrow I do not intend to call other business at that
point.
On Monday we shall return to Bill C-32, the budget bill that was
passed at report stage earlier this day. We will do that bill at
third reading. That will be followed by resumed consideration of
Bill C-31 if it has not been completed today. In the event that
it has, which I understand is possible, then we will resume
consideration of Bill C-33, the species at risk legislation.
Tuesday, June 6 shall be an allotted day during the normal
sitting hours. There have been consultations with other House
leaders and there is agreement that we would sit Tuesday evening,
under special provisions to be agreed to in the form of a motion,
to complete the third reading of Bill C-11.
On Wednesday I expect that the House shall consider Bill C-25,
the income tax amendments, and Bill S-10, the DNA data bank
legislation.
Thursday, June 8 shall be an allotted day. At the present time
it would be my intention to call Bill C-19, the war crimes bill,
at report stage and third reading.
That is the business of the House until the end of next week, at
least to the extent that we can determine at the present time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, an
act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, prior to question period, I was
talking about the changes being proposed to Canada's immigration
and refugee laws. For the benefit of those who are tuning in
now, we are talking about Bill C-31. I was also talking about
how proud I am as a refugee myself, coming here almost 28 years
ago, to be a Canadian and about how disappointed I am to see our
immigration system not being able to keep up with the demands
that have been placed on it and the problems that has created.
We cannot keep up with the pressures on our immigration system
and the unfortunate spin-off of problems. People are fed up
waiting to go through the application process, either on the
refugee process side or on the general immigration side.
We have seen many problems over the last number of years because
of the lack of resources that have been placed in this particular
area of the government. We hope this will be changed.
1510
Even though the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration touts
the new legislation as being tough and fixing many of the current
problems facing the system, it will not accomplish its objectives
and will likely to significantly slow down the entire immigration
system. This is a big concern for us in the official opposition
and for Canadians.
No matter what is contained in the new act, it will never be
effective if the government does not ensure that there is
improved management of the system, better training, tighter
auditing and more emphasis placed on enforcement.
I want to touch on the idea of enforcement in light of the
people smuggling and the number of refugees who have come from
China in the recent past. This has raised a lot of questions
about our immigration system and specifically the track record of
the government on the management of the department. We do need
to seriously address these questions.
The passage of Bill C-31 would be like signing a blank cheque to
a government that has proven incapable of managing Canada's
immigration system. The regulations will actually determine how
the new immigration laws are applied and enforced. As I said, the
immigration minister had the opportunity to make this bill work
better but she has not done so.
The area I want to touch on specifically is where we saw some
really tough talk from this minister, especially when it came to
describing the new legislation. The bill will not deliver the
necessary changes to re-establish the integrity of the
immigration system and protect our borders from organized crime,
terrorists, people smuggling and illegal immigration. These are
things that are very important to Canadians in light of some the
things that have happened recently. They want to see their
immigration system work and their borders patrolled effectively.
They want to see the resources needed to process immigrants and
refugees put into the department to make the system work more
effectively.
The bill provides for higher maximum penalties for the crime of
human trafficking. On the surface this appears to be
strengthening our laws, and it does, but it will have little or
no effect on the flow of illegal immigration to Canada.
The stiffest penalties would apply only to those in charge of
people trafficking operations. They are untouchable under
Canadian laws as they operate primarily outside the country. The
biggest problem is how to actually bring to justice the people
who are profiting from the illegal trafficking of people. If the
bill does not even begin to address this issue, then we have
failed. The government has failed to strengthen this particular
part of the bill and to stop the problem of illegal refugees and
immigrants coming to this country.
The mid-level organizers who may live in Canada are protected by
organized crime rings and are rarely caught and seldom convicted.
Once this bill comes into force, it would be surprising to see
even one person convicted and given a harsh penalty for the crime
of human trafficking.
The current maximum penalties have never actually been applied
to anyone convicted of people smuggling. In fact, as of 1999 the
highest penalties ever handed out were 10 months in jail and a
$3,000 fine. This is hardly the type of justice that should be
put down on these sorts of people who are creating the crimes
specifically pertaining to immigration.
With respect to enforcement, Bill C-31 mirrors the current
Immigration Act. All that has really changed is how the act is
laid out. The minister's strong message should not fool
Canadians into believing this piece of legislation will fix the
system. This bill lacks the necessary teeth to seriously address
Canada's growing illegal immigration problems.
The bill is touted as the result of extensive consultation with
the Canadian public, industry experts, law enforcement agencies
and parliamentarians. The fact is that successive studies and
reports were ignored by this minister. She would be hard-pressed
to point out where even a handful of the recommendations can be
found in the bill.
1515
We have seen over and over again that when recommendations are
made through the public process, through inquiries, through a
number of different channels trying to involve the public to
improve legislation, to be reflective of what Canadians want in
this country, that the government seems to ignore grassroots
Canadians. It seems to ignore the people that this type of
legislation affects the most.
This is unacceptable to Canadians. It is unacceptable to the
official opposition. We see legislation continuously pass
through this place that could go a step further, that could be
better, that could help Canadians. However, unfortunately, with
the government's lacks of response to grassroots Canadians, we do
not see legislation being improved the way we would like to see
it improved and the way Canadians would like to see it improved.
Even if the new immigration bill were good legislation, which it
is not, it would not be effective until the government implements
better management, training, auditing and enforcement within the
system.
For 10 years the auditor general has stated that Canada's
immigration and refugee system is in serious need of repair. The
government has continually failed to listen to Canadians as well
as potential immigrants and refugees.
The auditor general in his recent evaluation of Canada's
immigration department states:
On the whole, we are very concerned about the Department's
ability to ensure compliance with legislative requirements in
this area. We noted serious deficiencies in the way it applies
admissibility criteria related to health, criminality and
security. It is somewhat disappointing to note the limited
progress it has made since our 1990 Report....We believe that the
Department needs to take corrective action without delay to
ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the Canadian
Immigration Program.
This is the auditor general speaking about Canada's immigration
department and still the government refuses to acknowledge some
of these criticisms, even from its own advisers.
This is something which Canadians need to take note of,
especially when we are dealing with a bill that hits so close to
home, the immigration and the refugee matter. It is a shame that
this government will not even listen to its own auditor general.
Considering the abysmal track record of the government and its
management of the department, this is a very dangerous piece of
legislation. Much of the regulation in the bill is left to the
regulation side and is not included in the legislative process
in the House.
I also want to talk, generally, about what Canadians want to see
when they look at their immigration system and the things that
system should provide. Canadians want an immigration system
which will accommodate independent immigrants who will quickly
add to our economy, which will welcome genuine refugees and which
will reunite these people with their families as soon as
possible.
The government has failed to deliver what Canadians want in
this new bill. There are a total of two clauses in Bill C-31
that refer to independent immigration. The rest is left to the
regulations, as I said. Regulations will give the minister and
her department the authority to determine, without guidance from
the legislation, the definition of the terms child and common law
partner; how to apply to amend the point system; how many of
these applications would be approved every year; the number of
immigration applications accepted each year; and the designation
of classes of people such as spouses, foreign workers or foreign
students who would be eligible for landing.
This raises a few concerns for Canadians to have this sort of
discretion left to the regulations and not defined specifically
in the legislation.
Through the committee process my colleague from Lakeland, who is
our immigration critic, put forward a number of amendments to
deal with this area, trying to strengthen this legislation to
make it more responsive to some of the things I have mentioned,
and especially trying to put some teeth into it.
In the committee process we would hope there would be an effort
made by all members of this place to be non-partisan and to put
forward amendments to improve legislation, no matter what side of
the House they sit on. Committees are supposed to represent
democracy and bring forth good ideas to make legislation better.
They should not be involved in partisan politics.
1520
However, we have seen committees continuously deteriorate to
become havens of partisan politics, where we do not try to help
one another improve legislation, especially when a member of the
opposition puts forward amendments which could make government
legislation better. Government members continuously vote down
those amendments. It is not that opposition members want credit
for those amendments, they just want to see Canadians well
served. They want to see legislation improved and they want to
see the committee process work.
Time and again we see the government continuously slap
opposition members in the face. It slaps the committee process
in the face and does not allow the committees to work the way
they are supposed to. It is disheartening. It is disheartening
to members of the opposition who are trying to serve their
constituents and trying to improve legislation for Canadians. It
is disheartening for Canadians who sometimes have the opportunity
to tune in to committees. We do not even open up that process as
much as we should. It is disheartening to Canadians to see their
parliamentary system not working the way it should to improve
legislation. We in the official opposition continue to fight to
improve the transparency of this place, to improve the way the
committee system works and hopefully to even have freer votes in
the House to improve legislation. No matter what side of the
House members sit on, if they have good ideas which can improve
legislation, those ideas should be heard and endorsed in the
House.
Canadians are concerned with how immigration will benefit
Canada. This legislation provides no clear or firm laws to
govern immigration. Once again, Canada's immigration system will
be left to the hands of bureaucrats and the government, leaving
very little room for accountability to the Canadian public.
I would like to summarize some of the points I have made in my
speech today, especially in light of this bill and the changes
that have been proposed to the immigration and refugee protection
bill. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration touts this
legislation as being tough; that it will fix many of the problems
Canada's immigration system faces today.
As I and many of my colleagues have demonstrated, this bill will
not accomplish its objectives and is likely to significantly slow
down the entire immigration system.
That is the result Canadians do not want. The result we were
fighting for was to make our immigration system work better. We
want to have a system which focuses its resources properly, which
makes this process work more effectively and which processes
legitimate refugees and immigrants more effectively, not a system
which is bogged down by a government that fails to lead and fails
to make its system more transparent.
As I mentioned at the beginning, as an immigrant to this country
it disappoints me greatly that this government will not act to
implement the changes which Canadians want.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
really wonder whether the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona
and I read the same bill.
All in all, his understanding of the bill strikes me as rather
minimal. Since he mentions the fact that he is an immigrant, I
am proud to say that I am no longer one—I am now a Canadian. I
will therefore speak as a Canadian, but one who knows what
immigration is because I have been through it myself.
I would like to pick up on a few points. I should say that there
are so many errors and misunderstandings about Bill C-31 on
immigration and refugees that it is simply not possible to touch
on all the points raised by the member.
But there are four I would like to examine, the first being the
fact that this bill is intended to strengthen immigration,
people's plans to immigrant to Canada.
We know, for instance, that the minister has already concluded
co-operation agreements with international agencies throughout
the world for the specific purpose of stopping illegal
immigration to Canada, not when these people land illegally in
Canada, but at the source.
1525
We also know that the minister has already travelled, to the
People's Republic of China for instance, precisely in order to
try to negotiate agreements with the government of that country
to dry up illegal immigration to Canada at the source. I
believe that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has
forgotten these points, which are to my mind very important
ones.
I would also like to mention that there have been some very
extensive consultations on this bill, and on Bill C-16 on
citizenship. We know that the minister and her predecessor in
the House of Commons both held consultations across Canada.
From speaking to a good many of my constituents, since my riding
contains a large number of Canadians who were born elsewhere, I
know that they are extremely pleased with this bill the minister
has introduced, and totally support it.
When the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona speaks of there
having been consultations which the minister did not heed, I
have to object. I can see that my constituents are very
pleased.
I would like to remind this hon. member, who benefited from
generous legislation, who was able to come here to Canada with
his family and who perhaps was able to bring in other relatives,
that Canada is a generous country. We do not want illegal
immigration, but we do want to continue our tradition of
generosity toward people, be they refugees or immigrants, to
welcome them and later welcome their relatives when they want to
bring them over.
There is room here in Canada. We are all from somewhere else.
Either we or our parents or great-grand parents came from another
country and we want to continue that great tradition of which
Canadians are proud and for which we are known throughout the
world.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I do not know exactly
where to begin to address some of the comments the hon. member
raised. She raised some interesting points. I will, however,
try to address at least the last of her comments before I attack
some of the other things she said.
I do not think anyone would argue the fact that the immigration
system should be generous. The immigration system should work in
favour of potential immigrants and refugees coming to this
country, as it did when my family came, as she so rightly pointed
out. Unfortunately, things have deteriorated.
Also, under this government's leadership things have become
worse, especially when it comes to processing refugees.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Prove it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I am being heckled from
across the way about proving this point.
We have seen more cases of people profiting from the trafficking
of illegitimate refugees. They have become more numerous, as we
have seen from the news. We have seen it more than ever.
As I mentioned in my speech, we do not have the proper resources
and efforts are not being made to allow our immigration system to
process refugees as well as immigrants expeditiously. That is
why there is so much pressure for people to jump the queue, to
look at illegal ways to enter this country. That would not be
the case if our system worked effectively. The proof is in the
pudding. This is common knowledge to many Canadians.
This is why we in the opposition have proposed many changes to
the legislation which would focus resources more effectively to
allow our system to process potential immigrants and refugees
more effectively.
My hon. colleague opposite referred to the minister's trip to
China to try to deal with this situation. Unfortunately, her
travels ended up to be mostly a joke. She did not accomplish
anything which she set out to do. If travelling would solve the
problems, we would not have to be here.
We need to take a good look at this. I addressed the case of
how this bill failed to meet the immigration minister's tough
talk in describing the new legislation.
As I said, when it comes to the integrity of the immigration
system to protect our borders, to fight organized crime,
terrorists, people smuggling and illegal immigration, this bill
falls short.
1530
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very well reasoned and
delivered speech and I could not help but wonder if he gets as
much concern about immigration problems in his constituency
office as I do.
Not to put words in my colleague's mouth, but just to give Madam
Speaker and the rest of the House an idea of the kind of concerns
I hear from constituents regarding immigration, the people who
come to see me have gone through all of the legal requirements to
immigrate into Canada. They have dotted all the i's and
crossed all the t's and it seems that roadblock after
roadblock is thrown in their way.
By the time they have come to see me they have been everywhere
else. By the time anybody comes to their MP usually they have
gone through all of the other bureaucratic channels and then they
try the political route. By the time they come to our door they
are extremely frustrated. Usually what I hear is that they are
trying to do everything through the proper legal channels and
within the parameters set out in the Immigration Act and they are
having a terrible, tough time getting into Canada but people who
arrive here by illegal means are brought ashore and embraced.
Would my colleague remark on that?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that in my
own experience, in my short time of being in this place,
immigration is one of the biggest concerns that comes to my
office.
Unfortunately it seems that the problems people are facing when
it comes to bringing their own family members or various other
people to this country, have grown ever so numerous. As I pointed
out during the course of my speech, most of it seems to be that
the immigration department cannot process immigrants properly. It
takes forever. People are frustrated. It seems that the
resources are not being allocated effectively. We are not doing
our job and the government is not doing its job in trying to
serve the public and Canadians who are trying to go through the
legal process, who go through the proper application process to
get their friends, family or other immigrants to this country.
I see the frustration every day in my office. Constituents are
complaining about different parts of the immigration system.
They complain that they have exhausted all the channels. Some of
them are in tears because they do not know where to turn.
Why is the government not responding to the needs of immigrants,
to families and trying to be charitable or generous as my hon.
colleague mentioned? This is the last thing many constituents in
my riding who are coming to me with immigration problems feel.
They feel that the government is not being generous, that it is
not dealing with immigration files expeditiously. That is one of
the great failures of this bill. I wish we could have improved
it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must inform the
House at this stage that we are entering into a new phase of the
debate. From this point on speeches will be of 10 minutes. There
will be no questions or comments.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very disappointed to learn that we are limited to 10 minutes
because we are finally on a subject that we can really engage in
some necessary debate, on the matter of policy relating to
immigration and refugee issues. After struggling through Bill
C-16 endlessly, it now seems we have very scant opportunities to
really debate issues of substance regarding immigration policy.
Having said that, I think it is a mistake to enter into any
serious policy debate on the subject of immigration until we
first answer the question, how big a country do we want? How big
should Canada be? Why should we be setting policy if we do not
even know what the goals are? This debate has never really taken
place in any meaningful way in the country. Should Canada be 100
million people? Is there room for 200 million people or 50
million people?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the turn of the last century said Canada
should be 100 million people by the year 2000.
Frankly, given the birth rate and the demographics of the time,
his statisticians and demographers were correct. Had we
maintained the same birth rate in 1900 throughout the whole
century, we would be at 100 million people today. He was
correct, but things have changed. The birth rate has dropped
dramatically.
1535
Those are the two things we have to look at if we are serious
about growing our population and moving our population forward.
Birth rate and immigration are the two factors that demographers
build into their models when they are trying to see what Canada
will look like 10, 20 and 50 years from now.
At the current birth rate without any immigration, in 100 years
time we would be a country of 18 million people. We are 32
million today and 100 years later we would be 18 million people.
Cities like Minneapolis will be bigger than that 100 years from
now. The computer models show that without immigration our
population would shrink. It cannot afford to shrink if we are
going to be competitive in the new global economy.
Having said that, obviously everyone in the House accepts that
immigration is necessary for Canada for future economic growth,
but how much? We have not had that debate. How can we set law
and policy dealing with immigration if we do not know what our
targets are, if we do not know what our goals should be?
I wanted to preface my remarks with an urgent call that we
should be having an honest non-partisan debate about what we want
Canada to look like in the coming years. It is very hard to say
if Bill C-31 has any merits or if it meets our needs because we
do not have any clear goal of what those needs are.
Some people have serious reservations about Bill C-31 and I
share some of those feelings. I have heard it said that it
really asks more questions than it gives answers because, as was
pointed out by the previous speaker, it is just a framework
document. All the meat and potatoes, all the guts, are going to
be left to regulation.
Regulations are not things which are debated in the House. It
is a dramatically undemocratic process to let us figure out what
colour to paint the lunch room and let someone else do all the
important decision making, like how fast the assembly line should
go. I feel slighted that we are not going to be debating the
issues of substance. That is all going to be within the
regulations and within the purview of the minister and not within
the purview of the House of Commons. We are very concerned about
that.
The bill does contain a number of positive measures. The
consolidation of all the protection related decisions in the
Immigration and Refugee Board will be a positive move. Ultimately
however, critics we are talking to are saying that by
inconsistently applying human rights norms in some context and
then violating them in others, the bill fails to demonstrate any
underlying commitment to justice and to our international
obligations in the various institutions like the United Nations.
On the negative side I want to point out that the bill
demonstrates an unhealthy obsession with criminality without any
safeguards to protect the wrongly accused. I believe this stems
directly from the hysteria associated with six boatloads of
illegal migrants who drifted up on the shores of British Columbia
this summer.
I should point out that other countries are coping with this as
well and coping with it in a more mature way. Australia had 88
boats of illegal migrants last year. We had six. It expects 150
this year, but we do not see the same hysteria or the same urge
to crack down, get tough and change immigration laws and policies
based on what is really an anomaly.
There is a saying that it is a poor sailor who sets his course
by the lights of a passing ship. What happened last summer was
lights of a passing ship, and here we are prepared to permanently
change our whole immigration policy based on that. That worries
me and it worries a lot of the people we have been talking to.
There are a number of issues I would like to go through. One of
the things we have to deal with, and it is a necessary evil I
suppose, is the penalties which have to be increased for the
trafficking of humans. It is by international agreement more or
less that all the countries of the world are starting to crack
down on the illegal trafficking of human beings.
It is one of the most reprehensible things going on in the world
today. It is tantamount to slavery and bonded labour. These
things cannot be tolerated in our country. Therefore we approve
the increase in the penalties for illegally trafficking people
and the exploitation that is often associated with it.
1540
We draw a cautionary note however. I point out that in part of
our history we were very proud of illegal trafficking and
smuggling of human beings. We had the underground railroad
which, breaking all the laws of the land, illegally smuggled
slaves from the deep south and brought them to Canada. That is a
part of our history we are very proud of.
All over the world there are modern day underground railways
taking place where people are being delivered from persecution by
people who are breaking the law to do it. I remind the
architects of this legislation that we should not ignore the very
real, courageous work that is going on in terms of smuggling
people. Sometimes people are being smuggled out of danger to
save their lives. There is a line we have to view there.
There is one thing I must mention. The bill makes reference to
the best interests of the child. We believe that incorporating
that language is a step in the right direction. It shows up at
various points in the bill. But we do not believe it goes far
enough. Canada has stipulated to the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child and the language is far stronger within that
convention. We believe that the language in the legislation
should accurately reflect the language we are already bound to
under the UN convention.
I must comment on the aspect of criminality. I have noted
before that we are disappointed in how much the bill concentrates
on this aspect. To bar anyone making a refugee claim who has
ever been convicted of a “serious crime” is a terrible mistake.
This is something we will call to be corrected.
Under this clause Nelson Mandela would not qualify for
immigration into this country because he was convicted of what
was thought to be a serious crime in his home country. He would
not be allowed into this country. The government and the
Liberals were fawning all over themselves to touch the hem of his
garment when Nelson Mandela graced us with his presence and now
they are passing legislation one year later which would
effectively bar that same man from ever becoming a Canadian or
even taking sanctuary in this country.
Let us think this through. There are some places with corrupt
dictatorships where people are persecuted and put in prison for
political ideology or any number of other reasons when they do
not deserve to be. Those people should not be barred access to
Canada if they seek refuge here because they may have committed
crimes under a regime that we do not even agree with.
Along those same lines we should be very careful that when we do
revoke citizenship or turn people away from this country we never
ever send them back to places that are known for torture or where
they run the risk of being tortured because again, we are
stipulated to the United Nations convention on torture. We must
make sure that our rules would never force such a thing to
happen.
The last thing I will mention in my final minute is that this
government is missing a valuable opportunity to do something
about the racist head tax. The right of landing fee is
absolutely racist. It is racist because it economically
discriminates against those who come from third world developing
nations and who are often people of colour. For those from West
Germany it is not that hard to raise $975. For those from the
Sudan it is three years income and is impossible. Therefore,
whether by action or omission, we are inadvertently selecting
people based on race. The head tax should be eliminated if we
are to welcome people to this country.
I wish I had more time.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by
complimenting the member for Winnipeg Centre for his very
reasoned comments about the over-reliance of this new legislation
on regulation rather than having the rules clearly stated and
built into the bill. This is just another of hundreds of
examples that we have seen in the last seven years of the gradual
erosion of the powers of parliament and the handing over to
either the centre of the government or the bureaucrats, or both,
the powers which should be exclusive to us in this Chamber.
1545
As the son and grandson of immigrants I have a very keen
interest in what I see happening around me these days. We have
become, for the third time in a century, an immigration dependent
country, an immigration dependent economy. I do not think anyone
would deny at this point that in order to keep the pump primed we
do have to bring in more people, preferably people with skills,
people with ambition, and people who can contribute physically
and financially to the maintenance and growth of our economy.
This should be the prime purpose of immigration. This is what
Canadians want.
For the record I would like to quote the policy of the Canadian
Alliance Party on that particular point:
We should have an immigration system that will accommodate
independent immigrants who will quickly add to our economy; a
system which will welcome genuine refugees and which will reunite
people with their families as soon as possible.
The government has failed to deliver that, and I do not see any
sign in the new act that it is on the line for the future.
I should like to address briefly the question of refugees, which
seems to be the part of the Canadian immigration system that is
attracting the most public attention and is causing the most
concern to the general population. It really hurts me as a
Canadian to see how our country has been made a laughing stock of
the world because of the way we handle refugee claimants.
Migrants get their toes on Canadian soil, say the magic word
refugee, and they are in. That is a wonderful setup for criminal
traffickers in human beings or for plain scofflaws and queue
jumpers. This is not the way to run a country. If we to do it
that way, why have an immigration department at all? This issue
is that it is becoming a rubber stamp. It makes no sense.
This goes back to a court decision in 1985. The Singh decision
made very clear that once people gets their toes on the ground
they have all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen, or
at least that is the way the decision was interpreted by the
immigration department.
The government extended the Singh decision to mean that all
refugee claimants, in fact any foreign national who lands on
Canadian soil, should be given the full protection of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That interpretation is
certainly a major contributing factor to Canada becoming the
favoured target all over the world for people traffickers, for
scofflaws, for people who cannot be bothered to go through the
formalities of proper immigration procedures.
This new legislation will outsing Singh. According to the new
act anyone who applies for entry into the country, no matter
where in the world, automatically gains protection under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no other
country on the face of the earth that gives citizenship rights,
or rights equal to those of citizens, to foreign nationals
outside its borders. People trying to get into this country will
think we have lost our minds.
I have talked to immigration officials who have read the bill
and see what is coming.
Obviously I cannot quote their names but they are appalled. They
are asking what they are going to do now when what looks like a
spurious applicant comes before them and they say no for a good
reason. The person will then immediately invoke the rights our
citizens would have under our constitution to challenge the
decision made by these officers.
1550
If the officers are confronted with this often enough, they will
simply throw up their hands and say “It is no use. We cannot
keep bailing. The hole in the boat is getting bigger all the
time. Our jobs are without purpose. We will just have to open
the floodgates and let people in”.
I sincerely hope that clause in the legislation will be amended
out before we finally get to vote on it. It is an absurdity. I
do not know who makes up these things, but it must be somebody
with a fine imagination.
I have talked about the idiocy of the new legislation, but there
are some good things in it. There is the stiffening of the
penalties for trafficking, for example. However, if we look at
that closely, those clauses are without much meaning.
If someone is a big time people smuggler, that person will not
come to Vancouver, set up a booth on Hastings Street and say
“Come now and we will arrange your illegal immigration”. He
will reside either in his home country or in a third country
where we cannot get at him. We have a law that says one could
get a million dollar fine or a year in jail. So what? It has no
effect.
I have heard today a couple of times about how our minister has
presumably partially stopped the flow of illegal immigrants by
going to source, making trips and talking to officials in the
source countries of illegal immigrants. I am sure, oh so sure,
that really deterred a lot of people. In the real world how many
do we think it deterred when we have legislation coming up that
will give people the right and the opportunity to say that if we
do not want to let them into our country they will appeal again
and again and eventually get in. What is our minister doing?
I deeply regret that I have only 10 minutes. I wanted to tell
the House a whole bunch of horror stories on the other side of
the coin about legitimate immigrants, people who have come here
with the best will and intent. They have good jobs and are
contributing to the country. However, after years and years of
effort, they have been unable to get landed. I have a number of
them in my constituency. Even though I am in a rural and
so-called remote area, I get more of these kinds of cases than of
almost anything else but income tax.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, following on my colleagues I think
it would be best if I asked a question in relation to Bill C-31.
We have had many different waves of immigration in our history.
From the Irish to the Chinese, to The Last Best West, we
have had waves and waves of immigration.
Why is it that in the last 10 or 15 years we have had more
problems than in the previous 150 years? That is the question
Canadians want addressed.
1555
To try to make the claim that this party is against immigration
is absolutely false. We have to put this department in its
proper place so that it can function properly. On a scale of one
to ten Canadians might rate health care at five or police
protection at two, but when it comes to immigration Canadians
probably rate it at minus three.
Two doctors in my constituency, a husband and wife, were brought
into the country. They laboured long and hard, day in and day
out. They applied to go back to South Africa for a break and
tried to get a permit to re-enter Canada. They were two very
honourable and trained physicians.
I will find out this weekend when I return home if they were
allowed re-entry into Canada. They have tried their very best.
They came to their member of parliament. I tried everything I
could, and finally on the day of the departure they said if they
were denied they would never return to Canada. These people came
here and slaved it out in our hospitals, and that is the kind of
treatment they receive.
I will give one more example. Last week a girl in Ukraine had
gone through everything legally. She travelled 12 hours on the
train to Kiev. When she got there she thought all her papers
would be in order. Instead of just walking up and taking a card
for the line up to get in the queue, she had to buy a place in
the line in front of the Canadian embassy, right before the
immigration officials. What made it worse was that her
application form was stamped rejected before she even completed
the inquiry.
I could go on, but this is what Canadians are telling me. Like
my colleague for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I find these people
come to their members of parliament when everything else breaks
down.
Every case has been proven to be overly bureaucratic and prone
to excessive legal delays. Why is it that we are so absolutely
tough and ignore those people who not only would make good
citizens but are well trained and ready for a job in Canada. One
gentleman said:
Unless this department becomes more effective in implementing
better management, better training, better auditing and more
enforcement within the system, it will continue to fail
Canadians.
1600
I do not know why the government keeps bragging about this
department. It is atrocious. I have files in my constituency to
prove that this is so.
Another person who recently came to this country said, “The
integrity of Canada's immigration system to protect yourselves
from crime, terrorists and people smuggling is disgraceful”. As
my hon. colleague just mentioned, when we pick up the paper, it
is unbelievable to see who is granted status immediately when
they come into the country. Yet, there is file after file on
people who have been denied access and on cases which are still
being looked at.
What do Canadians want? We want the system we had in the last
century that brought people into the country. We had no
immigration problems with law. We had no immigration problems
with unemployment. What do we have to have? We want an
immigration system that will accommodate independent immigrants.
We want the process of coming in to be improved. Not only that,
we do not want them to suffer unnecessary delays. We need these
people because they quickly add to our economy. We welcome
genuine refugees. They know and have been told all around the
world to get their feet on Canadian soil and they will be
protected by the charter. Our legal immigrants do not even like
what they see. Those who have come here are insulted by this.
The government has failed to deliver what Canadians want and
expect of this department.
In attempting to be all things to all people, we have disgraced
immigration in Canada. We need to take the bill back, redraw it
and go outside this Chamber to get information from people who
are concerned about immigration. We are not doing it. Until we
make big changes to this bill and to the approach taken by the
department, we will continue to have an immigration scandal well
into this century as well.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-31. My hon.
colleagues from Souris—Moose Mountain and Cypress
Hills—Grassland focused on how immigrants who are trying to come
into the country are frustrated by the process. They spoke very
eloquently. I am going to focus on a few other areas
specifically within the refugee process which I am very familiar
with. I was there last year when 600 Chinese boat people landed
in Victoria and on Vancouver Island.
The name of the bill, the immigration and refugee protection
act, suggests that the government wishes to protect refugee
applicants. I suggest that it makes Canada the easiest target
for abuse of the refugee system in the world. I will show the
specific details in the bill. That is not what Canadians want.
Canadians want an immigration system that will allow immigrants
to come into Canada efficiently and quickly. Immigration built
Canada and our economy thrives on it. Canadians want a system
that welcomes genuine refugees, like people from Kosovo, East
Timor and other places that are in conflict or danger. What we
do not want is a reputation for receiving economic refugees, or
queue jumpers, or people who are abusing the system.
Also once we get that reputation, people will want to come to our
country through this process for illegitimate reasons and use it
as a corridor to get into the United States. They could have
other reasons that could be illegal.
1605
I do not understand why our government has absolutely no
interest in stopping what is going on. We heard the minister of
immigration say to us in recent months that her focus was one
that was going to make the process easier for refugees and to go
after the snake heads, organized crime, the people who are
smuggling people into Canada and making millions of dollars.
Ironically nine of those are going through our justice system
now were practically thrown out the front door of the courtroom
last week by a justice in Victoria who was prepared to drop all
the charges. That has not happened, but it shows there is grave
concern about the system and there is no leadership coming from
the government.
I will focus on the specifics. There are two key flaws in the
bill which neutralize any possible positive changes the
government could make.
The first one relates to the Singh decision, the 1985 Supreme
Court of Canada decision which states that genuine refugees, and
I want to emphasize genuine refugees, would be afforded
protection under the charter.
I would argue that when these people come to Canada they are not
genuine. They are in fact economic refugees who are abusing the
system and therefore should not be afforded the protection of the
charter. The government's interpretation of the Singh decision
is that if someone puts one toe on Canada's soil and says they
are a refugee, they are going to get charter protection. That is
not what the Singh decision says. It says that if a person is a
genuine refugee under the definition of the Geneva convention
then they would be afforded all the rights and protections of the
charter.
What is worse is the government is putting its own
interpretation of that court decision into legislation. Clause 3
of the bill states, “This act is to be construed and applied in
a manner that ensures any person seeking admission to Canada is
subject to the standards, policies and procedures consistent with
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. That is appalling.
It is an utter disgrace and an abuse of power. Any person. They
could be convicted criminals, terrorists, or queue jumpers.
We want to a process where we honour our commitment to the
Geneva convention. To give any person who shows up in this
country and says “I am a refugee”, regardless of their past and
how they got here all the protections of Canadian citizens, we do
not give that to people who are trying to come into this country
legitimately. There are people applying to our embassies abroad
saying, “I would like to immigrate to Canada”. We do not give
them the protection of the charter for crying out loud, but a
person who gets their toe on our soil does.
People get on planes and rip up their passports. I do not know
how many hundreds of flight attendants have told me as I commute
between Ottawa and Victoria on a weekly basis that when they do
international flights it is a big problem. Passengers destroy
their documents on the plane and they get off the plane and say,
“I am a refugee,” and here they are. That is one flaw. It is
absolutely unconscionable the government would even consider
that.
The second is the bill expands the definition of who can become
a refugee in Canada. Canada's definition goes well beyond what
our commitment is to the Geneva convention. Again we are a
signatory to that convention. We in the Canadian Alliance would
like to honour that and we would do our fair share when we need
to step up to the plate. However the government is putting into
legislation that any terrorist, any criminal, anyone for any
reason who puts a toe on this soil, has the protection of the
charter, which is absolutely wrong.
We are ensuring that Canada is going to be the world's number one
target for human smuggling operations.
1610
The nine Koreans who are on trial right now in Victoria and who
came within a hair of being released and sent home to continue
their business were laughing. They were waiting for us to fly
them home in one of our jets so they could fill up more boats.
It is absolutely unbelievable that the government cannot see a
problem. I want to emphasize that the problem is not the 600
refugees who came on boats last year; it is the 20,000 or 22,000,
I do not have the exact number but it is in that neighbourhood,
who each year cross our borders or come through our airports. It
is wrong.
There are cases in my office where Americans have come across
the border saying, “I am a refugee. I have my toe on your
soil”. They are afforded all the rights. It takes anywhere from
two to five years to process them. They come here for various
reasons, whether it is health care or whatever. They get
processed. We provide for them. In my opinion there is not a
genuine refugee from the United States who is facing political
persecution.
What is worse is that they leave and then they come back into
Canada. They only have to be out of the country for three months
before they can come back in and start a new claim. I have files
in my office of people coming from the United States on their
third refugee claim. The only thing they have to do is leave the
country for 90 days. It is wrong.
I speak to immigration officials in Victoria all the time. They
are equally frustrated that the government has taken no
leadership. They do not have a clue what is going to happen this
year. They have no money in the budget to deal with it. More
refugees are expected to arrive on a regular basis.
How has the government shown leadership? By expanding the
definition of refugees and bringing in legislation to guarantee
charter protection when the Singh decision actually states that
it is only for genuine refugees.
I argue that when these people arrive here, we should have
concerns of whether they are genuine refugees and detain them
until we can determine very quickly, whether it is weeks or
months, if they are genuine refugees. If they are not, then they
are not going to be afforded those charter protections. We can
interpret the Singh decision in that manner.
It is time for action. The bill is full of empty threats of
maximum penalties for snake heads and organized crime. Does the
minister of immigration believe that she is going to go over to
China and apply our laws to people over there? I do not know if
she thinks she is a keystone cop. It is ridiculous.
There is only one way to send a message to stop human smuggling
and stop the pain and misery of the people coming over in those
rusty old ships, to stop them from dying en route. There is only
one way and that is when they arrive here, bring them ashore,
help them out for a few days if they need medical attention, then
put them on a plane and send them home. We would be doing them a
service.
I urge the government to consider that and to quit trying to
play politics and trying to score political points. Canada's
reputation is becoming an absolute disgrace in the international
community as we are opening our borders up to who knows who.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Scotia Rainbow.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to enter the debate on the immigration
and refugee protection act.
Unfortunately I had to leave for a while to attend a committee
meeting, but I listened to as much of today's debate as I could.
I was taken back in my memory to the early days of my life, when
the fact that we were immigrants to Canada was burned into my
brain and into my heart.
I am one of those very fortunate people who is here because my
grandparents made the decision to immigrate into Canada. I am a
first generation Canadian. My parents, though they did not know
each other when they came to Canada, were each in their very
early teens when they came here. I believe my dad was 12 years
old.
1615
I remember listening to the conversations of the adults in our
family. We were supposed to be sleeping, but we would listen to
them talking about life in the old country, the hardships they
endured and the way in which they escaped. They were very
grateful to be in Canada.
I am one who fundamentally is supportive of the idea of
immigration. I like the idea that in Canada we can move from
province to province freely, especially because my family came
from a country where to go to a neighbouring city to visit
relatives they had to get a permit from the government.
An hon. member: It sounds like Saskatchewan.
Mr. Ken Epp: I grew up in Saskatchewan and we do not have
those rules in Canada.
One of the great freedoms that should accrue to human beings is
the freedom of movement within the land they are going to and the
land they are coming from.
My grandmother often expressed gratitude because her family grew
up in Canada instead of Russia, from which they had escaped.
Even though I did not experience it firsthand, the stories were
repeated frequently in my youth and I learned them.
It was very important that in the early 1920s Canada
extended an open hand of welcome to my family. I am one who
believes that if I have received a benefit, I should pay it back.
It is the old maxim of do unto others as you would have them do
unto you. I do this even at home. When I picked up a hitchhiker
the other day I told him that I was not giving him a ride because
I was looking for points. Long before I ever ran for elected
office I picked up hitchhikers because I was a hitchhiker myself
when I was a young student.
Having had my family come to Canada as immigrants, I believe we
should do everything possible to admit people who have the
potential to be good citizens, who will contribute to our society
by working hard, providing for themselves and others.
Bill C-31 is supposed to address some of the problems that we
have within our immigration system, but as some of my colleagues
have pointed out in earlier debate today it falls far short of
the goals that most Canadians want for our immigration system.
When I think of the people who come to Canada as bona fide good
people, it really is an affront to them that we would do anything
less than protect their integrity entirely by making sure that
those who are not qualified to be here, who are here on illegal
or dishonest pretences, should not be permitted to stay, and
thereby to tarnish the reputation of others.
Sometimes we in my party are charged with not being immigrant
friendly. That is a totally false accusation. Whenever people
say that they are distorting the truth about what we believe in.
We in the Canadian Alliance believe that there should be a very
orderly immigration system and that people who meet the
qualifications should be able to enter our society in Canada,
enjoy it and contribute to it.
I am very concerned about the fact that some people who come to
Canada are given exceedingly excessive opportunities to rip off
the system when it has become very clear that they are not honest
immigrants.
They do not come under the classification of being people who
would satisfy the needs of Canadian society.
1620
How does one handle this? I believe the intent of the bill
should have been that in the event people are shown to be, for
example, trafficking in people, we should have taken very strong
measures against the traffickers. It was not done. I am
concerned that, with our very weak policies, Canada will become
the worldwide haven for international criminals. It is totally
unconscionable that these immigrant smugglers take large amounts
of money from people who need to escape from their own country,
for whatever reason. These illegal people runners take large
amounts of money from them and then, to add insult to injury, put
their lives at risk by putting them into vessels which are not
seaworthy.
Canada, being a very compassionate nation, rightfully opens up
its doors to them when they come to our shores. I do not think
anybody would suggest that we should not look after their
immediate physical needs, but as long as we have a very soft
policy on this kind of immigration it will continue and it will
grow. The only way to stop it is to make sure that those who are
doing it do not have the reinforcement of having success in their
illegal enterprise.
I believe that the government should take very strong measures
in this area. This is not our party policy, but one of the
things which I personally think we should do is use radio
transmissions to communicate directly with people in the
countries from which these people come. We should put out a
message which says that for those who are not genuine refugees,
just simply coming to our shores will not mean automatic access
to our country. That would dry up the source of business for
mercenaries who trade in human beings.
What most Canadians want, certainly the ones I have talked to,
is an immigration system that accepts refugees who are genuine
refugees, and accepts with open arms immigrants who are capable.
One of the shortcomings in our country is that when we are not
able to train our own citizens in certain skills, Canadian
immigration laws become a huge barrier to our business people and
manufacturers who want people to come from other parts of the
world where they have received the training. They are not
permitted to come here. Yet other people, with all sorts of
nefarious motivations, are allowed to come and we do not have the
mechanisms to get rid of them.
I stand as a proud Canadian, as one who believes that we should
show compassion and care for those people who genuinely need it.
I stand simply to encourage the government to improve the refugee
and immigration policies, bills, motions and laws. This bill
will not do that.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I had not intended to speak to this bill today, but having
listened to some of the debate and seeing the importance of the
issue, I felt compelled on behalf of the people I represent to
stand and speak about some of the issues which have been raised.
1625
First, let me start by picking up on what was said by my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre who was in the midst of delivering
what I thought were some interesting remarks when his time ran
out.
He started with the question: How big should Canada be? What
should the immigration number be? What should the population be
before we add—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt, but I have just been advised that the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria has already spoken in this debate.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I had
much more to say.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): No, it is Vancouver Island North, Madam Speaker.
I want to get it right, just to ensure that I am not put in the
position of being told I have already spoken.
Mr. Lee Morrison: And with such an important riding.
Mr. John Duncan: Yes, such an important riding. As a
matter of fact, from a citizenship or immigration perspective,
perhaps my riding was rather pivotal in bringing this issue to
parliament because that is where the boats carrying the Chinese
migrants landed last year.
What are Canadians looking for in our immigration act? That is
the key question we should be asking. The official opposition
has a very clear picture of what that is.
Canadians want an immigration system which will accommodate
independent immigrants who will quickly add to our economy, which
will welcome genuine refugees and which will reunite these people
with their families as soon as possible. This government has
failed to deliver what Canadians want in this new bill. That is
a pretty simple equation, but it is a very important question.
The fabric of our country and the future of our country is
dependent on people. We all know that. People are what make
this place. We all came from somewhere. We are all basically
immigrants from somewhere, or progeny of immigrants.
The minister is saying that the changes to the act we are
debating today are the result of consultation. All I can say is
that it is pretty selective choosing from that consultation. I
cannot find in my heart or in my head where the changes being
brought forward reflect the concerns of Canadians when it comes
to our immigration system. Those concerns are many.
People are not concerned about the level of immigration; people
are concerned about the components of immigration. People want
assurances that we are bringing to Canada people who will benefit
Canada in the long run and people who need the safe haven of
Canada. We want to do good for the world, but we also want to
look after the best interests of the future of our society and of
Canada. That means we have to put some safeguards in place, and
those safeguards are very important indeed.
As members of parliament we all work with immigration cases
every day of the week. Our administrative staff work on
immigration cases every day of the week. We also work with
immigration officials. We know what the problems are in the
system. We probably know the problems in the system better than
almost any other group of Canadians as a collective.
1630
A major question right now is how to take whole issue of people
smuggling and turn it on its head. Canada, as we know, has
become a target. There are two ways to do it. We can use the
hammer and try to penalize the people smugglers or we can remove
the incentive to smuggle people.
Canada is not particularly good at using the hammer. As a
matter of fact, we are terrible. We have an international
reputation for it. One way to describe the posture of successive
governments in Canada when it comes to this kind of issue is to
say that we are not warriors, but boy scouts
All things being equal, an incentive is always better than a
penalty if the same results are achieved. It usually costs less
and is much more effective. People do it because that is the
natural course of events given the set of rules and the
circumstances.
We are operating under a perverse system when it comes to
immigration in Canada. The way our immigration act is construed
and the way these changes have been made still lead us to the
very same place where the likelihood of penalty that is
meaningful to a people smuggler is almost nil and the likelihood
of a major reward is infinitely large. The consequence of that
is like a government subsidy. If something is subsidized, we get
more of it. There is nothing here to tell me that we will reduce
people smuggling as a consequence of this bill.
This is a status quo document that the minister is using as a
public relations message in order to defend the Liberal love of
the status quo while at the same time trying to sell to the
public the fact that she is actually doing something when we know
that this is not going to work.
We have a larger problem here. The United Nations has defined a
refugee and we signed that convention. Canada, in its
wisdom—and I am being facetious when I say Canada in its
wisdom—has chosen not to follow the UN convention on refugees.
If we had followed that convention, most of the people who have
arrived and declared refugee status would not be refugees because
they arrived through a safe country.
Part of the UN convention says that refugee status is declared
at the first safe country of arrival. If Canada has refugees
arriving in large numbers there can be only one reason: we are
being targeted and it is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
The bigger problem we have is that we have the easiest, most
vulnerable, most generous and easiest acceptance ratio of any
western nation community. That is not doing us a favour.
What it is leading to is that we are not getting the average or
better than average client refugee profile. There is a tendency,
when creating a system such as ours with all those
vulnerabilities, that we will end up with a lesser group. We
will particularly end up with that element, a small element
admittedly, but an element with criminal intent to a larger
degree than countries with tougher standards.
I think the Canadian public has again been sold a bill of goods.
The changes in this bill will ensure that Canada remains the
number one target for human traffickers and queue jumpers.
1635
The 1985 Singh decision has led to all sorts of problems in the
way we apply our immigration and refugee system. It is a prime
example of how parliament has been usurped by the courts.
Parliament has been complicit in allowing that to happen. It is
time for the government to reverse that trend, that tendency and,
in this case, that decision. That will allow us to fix our
system and retain the sovereignty on immigration and refugee
determination that Canadians deserve.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have been granted a few
minutes to speak to this bill. One of the first things I look
at when I see this bill is the grand hyperbole at the beginning
of the bill, especially in the summary. In the sections it lays
out, in lofty terms, what the bill intends to do, but when I
begin to flip through the bill I see that the substance is not
there. Certainly the image makers have had a great time.
I wonder if this bill has more to do with advertising or with
the writing of a novel rather than with the writing of a statute.
The bill says:
This enactment replaces the Immigration Act, providing clearer,
modern legislation to ensure that Canada's immigration and
refugee protection system is able to respond to present
challenges and opportunities.
Is that the language of legislation? That sounds like the
language of a press release, as far as I am concerned.
It goes on to say:
(a) objectives that reflect the values of Canadian society;
(b) effective reporting to Parliament through a complete,
consolidated annual report;
(c) agreements that facilitate cooperation with governments of
provinces and foreign states;
(d) a description of the major classes of foreign nationals—the
economic, family, Convention refugees overseas, Convention
refugees in Canada, persons in need of protection and
humanitarian classes;
(e) recognition of Canada's commitment to the principle of the
“best interest of the child”;
We know that the government has been very poor on legislating
under that one, especially under the Divorce Act.
The bill goes on to say:
(f) clear, objective residency requirements for permanent
residents;
(g) a strong, effective refugee protection system that allows for
decision-making on protection grounds including the Geneva
Convention and the Convention Against Torture and on grounds of
risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(h) a more efficient refugee determination process through
greater use of single member panels;
(i) a Refugee Appeal Division within the Immigration and Refugee
Board to enhance rigour, fairness and consistency in
decision-making;
(j) ineligibility of foreign nationals who are serious criminals,
security threats and repeat claimants to the refugee protection
process of the Immigration and Refugee Board;
(k) formalization of a pre-removal risk assessment to review
changed circumstances related to risk of return;
(l) inadmissibility provisions for foreign nationals who are
criminals, security threats, violators of human rights or who
should not be allowed into Canada because of fraud and
misrepresentation or for health or financial reasons;
(m) clear detention criteria with authority to further clarify
detention grounds in regulations;
(n) a security certificate process and an admissibility hearing
to deal effectively with threats to security;
(o) offences for human smuggling and trafficking with a maximum
penalty of life in prison;
(p) penalties for assisting in obtaining immigration status
through fraud or misrepresentation; and
(q) an immigration appeal system that enhances integrity and
effectiveness while maintaining fairness and legal safeguards.
1640
When one reads that clause it sounds laudable, does it not? It
sounds like a great process.
Last summer the telephone in my riding office was ringing off
the hook when those people arrived by boat and our system was
unable to deal with them in an expeditious manner. Yet here we
find on page 18 of the bill, subparagraph 33(2)(b), that a person
will not necessarily be ruled inadmissible. It says:
In other words, that is a neon sign to the world saying that
foreign nationals just have to plead their innocence. If they
come here on a boat, they will be okay. Canada will say that it
may get after the captain of the boat to whom the foreign
nationals might have paid money, but the foreign nationals, being
so-called innocent passengers, the traffic or the merchandise, it
will not necessarily exclude them at all. In fact, come one come
all is the essence of what that says.
Then we have the problem with the clause that talks about the
charter of rights and freedoms. Certainly we want to deal with
processes of decision in an orderly manner with hearings, rights
of appeal and so on under the spirit of the charter of rights and
freedoms, but there seems to be a difference between the ability
of someone who comes to the border in a car and pulls up to the
kiosk. At that point the customs person asks a few questions and
what an individual says through that car window is later taken
into consideration if the person is called into the office. What
the individual says to those questions on the statement of
purpose: who are you, are you a citizen, and whatnot, are
admissible and can be used to further assess the individual's
admissibility or whether they should be arrested.
What happens if someone is found on a boat floating on to the
western coast of Canada? The statements made to the questions
who are you and what are you doing here can be inadmissible
because the foreign nationals did not have their charter warning
or did not have access to a lawyer who knew what would go on in a
later hearing. The ability of officers or anyone to ask or
investigate in the beginning to find out what has happened gets
struck down because it will be later argued that the person's
charter rights were violated.
One of the other clauses that I have a particular problem with
is the proceeds of crime section. I notice that clause 123 on
page 53 is particularly good. It says:
No person shall possess any property or any proceeds of any
property knowing that all or any part of the property or of those
proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a
result of the commission of an offence under subsection—
It then provides the penalty. The penalty of course is a stiff
fine or up to 10 years in jail. We have to wonder, by the way,
when anybody has ever been significantly prosecuted for trading
in people.
The international reputation of Canada is very poor in that
regard. The motive is high because the profits are high. It is
much safer to deal in people than it is to deal in drugs because
the penalties are not there. Of course the act already says that
the commodity that they are dealing in will be legal and accepted
rather than being contraband, such as drugs.
Canada's reputation on prosecuting and acting as a deterrent to
those who are involved in what I call the modern day version of
the slave trade really is not there.
When I look at this clause I see that there is a fine and jail,
but what about all the proceeds of the crime? We have proceeds
of crime legislation under the criminal code but not under the
immigration sections. We cannot go after the various houses,
lands, vehicles and all the rest of it that may be owned legally
through a holding company or whatever, but upon any ordinary
investigation could be traced to the proceeds of this type of
crime.
In other words, we need to go after more carefully the
tremendous financial incentives that cause people to get involved
in this kind of business: the human misery of trading in people.
This is a great deficiency in the bill itself. I have attempted
to deal with that in a private member's bill which is currently
in the system to be drawn.
1645
Canadians need to have confidence again in the immigration
system. Governments, both through the Conservative years and
since 1993 with this administration, have failed to bring
anything forward of substance to deal with the tremendous
disrepute that our immigration system has fallen into. Average
Canadians have observed case after case of how the system has not
responded as they want, or as they see their country and how they
define themselves as Canadian. They have seen illegals come into
the country and abuse the system, which has carried on for ever
and ever.
We want to restore confidence in the Canadian immigration system
so that when someone says he or she is an immigrant, the person
can immediately command respect because of the knowledge of the
orderly and high standard system. We know that the person has
come through a system which brings great respect to the
individual. I hope the government will restore confidence in the
immigration system again.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between the parties in the House and
I believe you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order
45(7), to defer the recorded division just requested on the
second reading of Bill C-31 until the end of Government Orders on
Tuesday, June 6, 2000.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, there might be consent at
this time to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement
that we see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's order paper.
[English]
The hon. member for York South—Weston is not present to move
the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the
bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I rise again in the House to raise the issue of
Scotia Rainbow. I find it unfortunate that I still have to do
this but it is the reality.
There are still too many unanswered questions with regard to the
operations of Scotia Rainbow. There are questions like how much
money did it receive by way of federal and provincial sources and
how many people is it employing? We would think that these would
be easy questions to answer. It looks like the government cannot
do it or does not want to be held accountable.
1650
It would be easy for the government to put this issue to rest
once and for all if it would just give us the answers. Why does
it continue to protect Scotia Rainbow? What stakes does it have
in this?
This drama continues under the guise of economic assistance for
Cape Breton Island. We all agree that Cape Breton's economy is
in desperate need of help. After the government's devastation of
the fishery, the devastation of the coal industry, and the
devastation of employment insurance, health care and
post-secondary education, all caused by the Liberal government,
Cape Breton Island needs to rebuild its economy.
What did the government do in return? It sent money to the tune
of $20.9 million to a company. Is this the thanks Cape Bretoners
get for working hard and building this nation? It amounts to a
slap in the face.
The people of Cape Breton are not looking for handouts. All we
are looking for is a commitment from the government to long term,
well paying, sustainable jobs on the island. There is no doubt
that the federal government has sent a lot of money to Cape
Breton. The only problem is that there is nothing to show for
it. Large numbers of initiatives have been co-opted by a few
with self-interests. These self-interests are costing Cape
Breton its economy.
What I am asking is quite simple. How many jobs were created at
Scotia Rainbow, and how much money did it receive from the
federal government? That is all. The government keeps saying
that it has nothing to hide. It is all very simple. If there is
nothing to hide then show us the facts.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to respond to the question of the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton regarding Scotia Rainbow Incorporated.
Scotia Rainbow Incorporated is an aquaculture operation
headquartered in Arichat, Nova Scotia, and operating a number of
sites throughout Cape Breton Island and northeastern Nova Scotia.
The community of Arichat lost hundreds of fish processing jobs as
a result of the groundfish moratorium and a corporate decision to
demolish the fish plant, the community's largest employer.
Last year Scotia Rainbow employed up to 250 people on a seasonal
basis at various sites on Cape Breton Island. The company
projects employing up to 300 people on a seasonal basis this
year. Scotia Rainbow is one the largest aquaculture operations
in Nova Scotia. It is an export oriented company with products
sold in Japan and the United States.
Recently Scotia Rainbow encountered financial difficulties. On
February 28, the Bank of Montreal issued a demand notice pulling
its $10 million line of credit. The bank obtained court approval
for the appointment of an interim receiver on March 2.
In response, Scotia Rainbow filed a notice of intention to file
a proposal with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on March 10.
This notice of intent effectively prevents the bank from
proceeding with the liquidation of the company's assets until the
court determines that there is no likelihood of Scotia Rainbow
being restructured into a viable company.
On May 19, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia extended the
deadline for the filing of a restructuring proposal until June
30. At present the company is working to find further private
sector investment in order to restructure its financing and
effectively replace the financing provided through the Bank of
Montreal.
The federal government has to date invested approximately $8.8
million into Scotia Rainbow. The $8.8 million was provided
through a $1 million repayable contribution or loan from the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an interest bearing loan
from the Farm Credit Corporation of $5.8 million, and a $2
million investment from the transitional jobs fund administered
by Human Resources and Development Canada.
Of this total, $800,000 have been repaid to the Farm Credit
Corporation. Of the $8.8 million, $5 million were provided for
the initial startup of the company. The remaining $3.8 million
from the Farm Credit Corporation were provided for the expansion
of the company, which was partially completed prior to the Bank
of Montreal sending its demand letter.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his time has
expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4.53 p.m.)