36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 106
CONTENTS
Friday, June 2, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Speaker's ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Motions Nos. 1 and 2
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1010
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Motion No. 12
|
1015
1020
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1025
1030
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1035
1040
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1045
1050
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CENTURY OF SERVICE PARADE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1100
| SHEREE FITCH
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| PAROLE
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| AGRI-FOOD SECTOR
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1105
| BIG SISTERS
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK TELETHON
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1110
| MEDICAL RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| NATIONAL SENIORS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1120
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1125
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1130
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1135
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1140
| INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| DEVCO
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1145
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| THE DEBT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1150
| DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| CHST
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN CULTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1155
| ACOA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1200
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-480. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1205
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-481. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| OIL AND GAS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-482. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-483. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| STATISTICS ACT
|
| Bill C-484. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1210
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| The Economy
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Research and Development
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1215
| Mr. John Duncan |
1220
1225
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1230
1235
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1240
1245
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1250
1255
| Mr. David Chatters |
1300
1305
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1310
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
1315
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division Motion No. 12 deferred
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Motions Nos. 7 and 8
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motion No. 9
|
1320
| Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 16
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
1325
| Mr. John Maloney |
1330
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1335
1340
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1345
1350
| Motion
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 106
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 2, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, an act to
authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the
Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton
Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 16 motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-11.
[English]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[Translation]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 5 and 12.
[English]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 6 to 11 and 16.
[Translation]
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 13 to 15.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I shall now propose motions Nos. 1 to 5 and 12 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17
on page 1 the following:
“(3) It is a condition of every agreement to transfer an
asset of the Corporation that is used as part of a coal-mining
operation that the coal-mining operation shall continue in a
manner satisfactory to the Government of Canada and the
Government of Nova Scotia.
(4) It is a condition of every agreement to transfer an asset of
the Corporation that could be used as part of a coal-mining
operation that the asset shall be developed and a coal-mining
operation shall be undertaken in a manner satisfactory to the
Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.”
That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17
on page 1 the following:
“(3) Prior to the sale or disposal of all or substantially
all of the Corporation's assets, the Government of Canada or the
Government of Nova Scotia shall hold or cause to be held a public
inquiry in order to:
(a) determine the effects that the sale or disposal of all or
substantially all of the Corporation's assets may have or may
have had on the economy of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova
Scotia, with particular attention being given to the issue of the
unemployment and economic hardship to the residents that may
result or have resulted; and
(b) assess the measures taken by the Government of Canada, the
Government of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those
governments to reduce those effects.”
1010
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17
on page 1 the following:
“(3) The Auditor General shall review the disposal of the
Corporation's assets and all other activities related to the
closing out of its affairs, and shall report to the House of
Commons within six months of the disposal of the last of the
Corporation's assets.”
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) moved:
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the
following new clause:
“5.1 If a work or undertaking of the Corporation or any part
thereof is transferred, by sale, lease, merger or otherwise, to
another employer, the work or undertaking or the part thereof, as
the case may be, shall continue to be a work or undertaking for
the general advantage of Canada.”
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 27
on page 4 the following:
“(3) The by-law of the Corporation shall provide that if a
person contracts any illness as a result of the person's
employment by the Corporation, the person shall be entitled, for
the remainder of the person's life, to the health insurance
benefits that were provided as part of the terms and conditions
of the person's employment.”
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to stand in
the House today to talk about Bill C-11, but unfortunately I do
not feel that way.
I think it is important at this time to point out to Canadians
the difference between fact and fiction as it relates to the Cape
Breton Development Corporation.
In 1995 the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Natural
Resources at the time to return to cabinet with a privatization
plan for Devco. When we talked to the government and asked it
about its plan with respect to the privatization of Devco in
1998, it denied a plan existed. It said that there was no plan
and that it had not made a decision about privatizing Devco.
Mr. Speaker, as you have said, we are today commissioned with
the task of privatizing Devco.
As a resident of Cape Breton Island all my life, I was always
brought up to believe that I lived in a wonderful country called
Canada. One of the reasons we lived in such a wonderful country
was because it was a democratic society. We had governments
which were responsible for ensuring that all citizens were
treated fairly and equitably and that it was the responsibility
of the federal government to ensure that its policies did not
have undue or harsh ramifications for the citizens.
I question whether we live in a democratic society when we see
what the federal government has done with respect to the Cape
Breton Development Corporation, the miners, their families and
the communities which will be affected drastically by this
legislation.
All members of the House have seen over the course of the last
number of years delegation after delegation coming to Ottawa,
miners' wives coming to Ottawa, pleading with officials of the
government to recognize what this bill would do to them, their
families, the future of their children and, more important, the
future of their island.
Did the government listen? Of course not. The government has
refused to listen to every delegation which has come to
Parliament Hill to voice their concerns about what the government
was doing as it related to the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
In 1995, when Cape Bretoners were being represented by what some
on the government side would tout as being one of the most
powerful government members in the country, the government
executed the plan to destroy Devco and in essence destroy the
island.
1015
If the government had decided to get out of the industry why was
it not willing to sit down with the stakeholders, with the union,
with the mayor and with the community and try to work out a
solution that would guarantee that nobody would be adversely
affected? It did not do that. It decided to continue meeting
closed doors and making decisions based on only the facts it had.
Day after day government members get up and talk about their
responsibility and what they have done in terms of assisting the
people in Cape Breton as it relates to Devco. Their own study in
1995 told them what would happen economically and socially if
they continued on with the plan to privatize Devco. Did they
recognize those adverse effects? Did the government want to sit
down with the stakeholders to find a way to work out a solution?
No. It decided to do what it has done for a number of years
which is to continue on its course of selling off Canada's assets
to foreign investors. Devco is no different.
Because I come from Cape Breton and having lived there all my
life, it angers me to no end when I hear government members say
that they are committed to Cape Breton, that they have sent money
there for economic development and recovery.
Given the amount of money that the federal government has sent
to Cape Breton, why is Cape Breton's economy where it is right
now? Why have we ended up having the highest rate of
unemployment in the country if the government is so committed to
economic recovery?
The answer to those questions is that this government has never
been committed to any kind of economic recovery as it relates to
Cape Breton, and Cape Bretoners know that. We in the House saw
the drastic steps that the miners took in January of this year
when they took over over one of the mines and went on a hunger
strike. It was because of what the government was doing and
because it was not listening.
The parliamentary secretary or the minister will stand up later
and tell us that the government consulted Cape Bretoners, that a
panel went around Cape Breton Island and gave everybody the
opportunity to voice their concerns and their issues.
Interestingly enough, everybody on that panel had an affiliation
to the Liberal Party. Surprise, surprise. There was a former
senator on the panel. One of those people on the panel was
successful in obtaining over $300,000 through the millennium
fund. Another member was able to open a new FM radio station.
Government members will say “There goes the member for Bras
d'Or with her paranoia”. No, that is reality and a fact on Cape
Breton Island. The government members know it and certainly Cape
Bretoners know it.
The issue here is that there has been absolutely no consultation
as it relates to what will happen to Cape Breton Island.
Economically in Cape Breton right now our research shows that
even to bring Cape Breton up to the mainland standards we will
need approximately 14,000 jobs. That is before Devco closes.
That is before the steel plant closes. What do we hear from the
government members? They say that they have given us $68
million. By the way, they have already spent $7 million on a
call centre that we all saw the Prime Minister come and announce
to Cape Bretoners. This is patronage at its best. One thing we
do know about in Cape Breton is patronage. We have seen it for
an awful long time from the Liberal government.
Given the fact that the government arbitrarily made the decision
in 1995 to get out of the industry, why did it not consult with
Cape Bretoners?
Why did it not consult with the unions? Why did it not listen
to the $500,000 study it commissioned from John T. Boyd, which
told the government how to make it work? The reality was that
the government did not want it to work. It did not want Devco to
be viable. It set in motion decisions, since 1995, that would
ensure that it would not be viable.
1020
What will Cape Bretoners be left with? Today we await the
arbitration to decide the fate of the miners and their families.
It is a sad day in this country when we have a government that
is commissioned by the people to look after its citizens and we
see the manipulation and games that have been played with the
citizens of Cape Breton Island by the Liberal government. What
is it? It is just proof that once again the Liberal government
is phenomenal for its promises, but as Cape Bretoners have known
for a very long time, it is also phenomenal at breaking them.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
like the previous speaker, I want to say that it is a pleasure to
rise today to speak to these motions.
I am proud of the motions that have come forward but I think we
need a bit of history on some of them and on Bill C-11. My
colleague has given some of the history going back to 1995.
However, it is important for members of the House to understand
what these motions mean and what has happened to them.
Those members of the Liberal Party who do not know the history
of the committee that reported on this bill should listen. They
should know the history and they should be ashamed.
After the government brought in time allocation the bill was
sent to committee but not through the normal course of events. It
was rammed through the committee to the point where the witnesses
were given 24 hours notice to fly from Cape Breton to Ottawa
during extended hours that the committee held, where the chairman
ordered supper for the witnesses and the committee members, over
a two day period, so they could say that they consulted. It was
a farce. Yet, in good faith, the people of Cape Breton came
forward to the committee. The major of the regional municipality
came. Women from the Northside Futures Group came. The unions
came. Every one of those witnesses made recommendations to the
committee. Those recommendations from the witnesses formed the
substance of the motions before the House today.
Some of those motions were brought to committee in another form.
Despite the fact that these motions came from witnesses who will
be directly affected in the communities where they live, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
exercised his duty as whip, and up and down the line, when the
motions were brought forward, most of them were defeated.
I see some members in the House today who I think have a social
conscience. I urge them to read those motions. Not all of them
are up for debate in this grouping, but they are as innocuous as
ensuring that Cape Bretoners sit on the board of directors. They
were defeated by the government. We have to wonder why.
We believe there is a move afoot to ram this through before the
next election so that the next Liberal standard bearer in Cape
Breton does not have to answer or defend the actions of the
government.
What is worse is that those witnesses were given a little bit of
hope. Cathy Baker, whose husband is a miner and who has been
affected by this, gave up her 12-hour shift on short notice to
come to Ottawa to plead with the government to keep certain
sections in the act.
One of the Liberal members on the committee said to her that her
comments made him think differently about the bill. The next day
or the day after he voted against the very recommendations that
she had put forward. He was whipped into shape.
1025
There is a certain irony here today. This bill will undo the
work of previous Liberal administrations: the Lester Pearson
administration and the Pierre Trudeau administration involving
Allan MacEachen, Romeo Leblanc and other Liberals who were
considered left wing thinkers. I know the Liberal members are
tired of hearing me say that because it perhaps creates a twinge
of conscience.
The irony is that as the Prime Minister travels off to Berlin to
deliver what many think is the left wing election platform of the
Liberal Party, while he issues that statement in Berlin, here at
home his government is undoing the very kind of Liberal policies
for which this party was once so proud. While he echoes a
remnant of what might have been in Berlin, the actions of his
Minister of Natural Resources and of his government speak far
louder than those words. When we compare that speech in Berlin
with the legislation before the House today, it speaks of
hypocrisy.
The minister has a choice. He can give credence to his leader's
comments in Berlin by withdrawing this bill or, at the very
least, by accepting amendments that were put forward by the
people of Cape Breton, or he can make his leader look like a
hypocrite and pass the bill in this Chamber. It will be an
interesting contrast between that speech and this legislation.
I will now go directly to the motions that have been moved
today. I will speak directly to Motion No. 2 which says that
prior to the sale or disposal of all government assets, there
should be a public inquiry into what this will mean for the
economy on the island of Cape Breton. That is not happening.
The interesting reason that Motion No. 2 is an important motion
is because the act that we are replacing mandated the government
to assess what the economic impact would be as a result of the
transition from a resource based economy to another one. That
was what the foresight was of the government of Lester Pearson.
To give it teeth a section was put in the act that mandated the
government to look at that.
What could possibly be wrong? How could it be against public
policy for a government to say that it understands the
implications of this, that it is aware it will be selling off the
assets of a crown corporation that is the major employer in a
particular community, that it is aware that will mean massive
layoffs and will have economic impacts, and that it will have a
public inquiry and study it in order to find the best way to deal
with it?
God knows in this House over 130 years we have had public
inquiries into every possible subject. When it comes to the
lives and the economic consequences of a bill that will affect
the lives of 100,000 people, which is the population of the
regional municipality of Cape Breton, when it comes to examining
what effects this bill will have on those people, there is no
interest, no time and no money. Perhaps the government can
explain why it has no interest.
The government members will say that they have given $68 million
to Cape Breton for economic development to replace the Cape
Breton Development Corporation. The Minister of Heritage
announced in the House the expenditure of $48 million toward the
construction of a war museum. I suppose we have been given the
price of a new building in Ottawa as the impetus for future
economic growth for an island.
A contract was made between the Government of Canada and the
people of Cape Breton. That contract said that the government
would assist the people of Cape Breton through a transition
period. Cape Bretoners understood that they would not be coal
miners forever and ever. They understood that times were
changing.
1030
The people of Cape Breton looked to the Government of Canada to
help them, not to baby them, not to make them dependent, but to
help them. Is it wrong that they would turn to the government
and ask for help as they made the transition? The Government of
Canada in 1967 said it recognized its role and responsibility. It
made a covenant, but today the covenant has been broken. Today
there is a breach of faith and a breach of trust.
The people of Cape Breton have always given to Canada when
asked. We have always honoured our side of the confederation
agreement. I do not know that we can continue to make the same
pledge because the covenant has been broken by the other partner
and we have been left wanting.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I speak
on Bill C-11, I must set the stage.
I would point out quickly that, on January 28, 1999, the federal
Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of the
Phalen coal mine and the privatization of the Prince mine, both
of which are on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia and managed by
the crown corporation Devco. Some 1,700 miners worked for the
corporation, and approximately 1,000 will end up unemployed in a
region with an unemployment rate of 25% on occasion and even
permanently.
At the same time, the minister announced aid of $110 million to
provide the miners with severance pay and early retirement
packages and an additional investment of $68 million to boost
the region's economy. The Government of Nova Scotia also
announced, last fall, that it would invest $12 million in the
long term economic development of Cape Breton.
Obviously, some people are dissatisfied with the conditions of
separation and the proposed severance pay totalling $110
million. Since February 1999, Devco employees have been putting
pressure on the federal government to change its decisions.
A committee of the Nova Scotia legislature comprising
representatives of all parties called on the federal government
on December 23 to improve the offers and increase the amount of
money paid to the workers.
According to this committee, approximately 230 miners with 25
years of service or more are excluded from Devco's early
retirement programs as they are currently defined.
On January 2, 2000, exasperated miners declared a strike to
protest the closing of the mine and to obtain better lump sum
payments. A few days later, they set up barricades in order to
block delivery of coal to Nova Scotia's two generating stations.
Some of them even went on a hunger strike.
After long deliberations between workers and representatives of
the federal government and the mine, an agreement in principle
was reached in mid January, and the barricades came down.
Nevertheless, negotiations in camera appear not to be concluded
yet.
Devco was established in 1967 by the Cape Breton Development
Corporation Act. Its assets include the Prince and Phalen mines,
the Donkin mine site, the corporation wharf and rail line, its
coal processing plant and the related infrastructures.
Devco being a crown corporation, the Financial Administration
Act provides that it cannot dispose of all or substantially all
of its assets, unless authorized by legislationaw. Therefore,
the main objective of Bill C-11 is to allow Devco to dispose of
its assets. It amends the Cape Breton Development Corporation
Act to allow the private sector to acquire the corporation's
assets, so that the government can exit the coal mining
business.
The purpose of clauses 2 to 4 is to allow Devco to sell its
assets, before being dissolved on a day to be fixed by order in
council. Clause 5 provides that the works and undertakings
operated or carried on by Devco are for the general advantage of
Canada. That clause is included in the act so that the Canada
Labour Code can continue to apply. It should be noted that since
Devco is a crown corporation, all the jurisdictional systems
that apply to labour relations, occupational health and safety
and labour standards have, since 1967, been governed by the
Canada Labour Code.
1035
The bill thus also provides for the continuation of the existing
federal jurisdiction in these areas. It is primarily the
provisions of clause 5 which bother us, because they represent
federal interference in provincial affairs. There is nothing
out of the ordinary about the rest of the bill.
Clause 5 is contentious because the federal government indicates
that the works and undertakings operated by the corporation,
whether or not it is dissolved, will be works for the general
advantage of Canada, thus allowing for the continuation of the
federal legislation.
By means of this clause, the federal government intends to
continue the jurisdiction it had at the time, through Devco's
status as a crown corporation.
The federal government thus retains the right to legislate in
the areas of labour relations, occupational safety and health,
and labour standards, even after the corporation is dissolved.
But it is the provincial legislation and labour code which
should apply once the federal government pulls out of this
industry and privatizes its assets. The federal government is
continuing its jurisdiction in these areas by invoking the
declaratory power conferred on parliament by various sections of
the Constitution Act, which allow it to extend its exclusive
jurisdiction to works by declaring them to be for the advantage
of Canada or of more than one province.
In fact, section 91 provides that it shall be lawful for the
Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the
House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good
government of Canada—that is what I said, the good government of
Canada; and this was not written by the Bloc—in relation to all
matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act
assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
This section also sets out the matters under the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. And
subsection 91(29) gives the federal government exclusive
jurisdiction when the classes, in this case the works, have been
expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects
assigned exclusively to the provinces.
Section 92 identifies the matters for which the provincial
legislatures may exclusively make laws.
Subsection 92(10) says that local works and undertakings are a
provincial matter, with the exception of what is set out in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) provides that the
works, although wholly situate within the province, are before
or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to
be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of
two or more of the provinces.
In other words, the Parliament of Canada may amend, indeed
expand, the limits of its legislative jurisdiction with respect
to works of a local nature declared to be of general interest to
Canada. Provincial approval is not required.
The works so unilaterally declared are therefore removed from
the application of provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government has apparently used this type of power
already close to 500 times. The use of this declaratory power
by the federal government in the case of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation strikes us as abusive. Why is the
federal government pre-empting this jurisdiction? Does it not
believe that provincial legislation will be sufficient, once
agreements have been signed between it and the workers?
Looking quickly at the coal industry, it is of course very much
on the way out. It also has a considerable impact on the
environment. Those two arguments lead me to a degree of
acceptance that the government should divest itself of this
mine, mainly the fact that coal mining is not cost-effective.
There is one important element I must focus on: the matter of
regional development. I believe that the federal government has
not done its job in this area.
It is obvious that the government has invested huge sums of
money since 1967.
I have made a rapid calculation. Since 1967, the budgetary
estimates for the coal division of Devco, as well as for the
industrial development and economic activities division in the
past two years, i.e. 1998 and 1999, total $2,568,000.
1040
If we take an average of 1,700 employees over 33 years, this
represents an average of $45,775 per worker. This is, of
course, assuming that there were 1,700 workers for the 33 year
period. Imagine what the federal government could have done with
that money in developing Cape Breton? Now there would be full
employment there.
The federal government has therefore failed to meet its
responsibilities. The federal government was incapable of
getting the mine to make a profit and today it wants to
privatize it. Even the chairman of the corporation admits it is
running up a deficit and will probably continue to do so. What
are the advantages for the government in selling the mine and in
continuing to interfere in provincial responsibilities?
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to these amendments. But as the member for
Bras D'Or—Cape Breton said earlier, it is also a disappointment
to speak to a number of these amendments because of the lack of
co-operation from the government benches on this bill. It is also
a disappointment that the government is not here to defend its
actions and its Bill C-11 on the privatization of Devco.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Some members are back in their ridings, but as the
Speaker knows very well, it is against the rules of the House to
refer to the presence or absence of members in the House and
there are government members here to defend the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The deputy
government whip is absolutely correct and I should have picked up
on that myself. As everyone knows, we do not refer to the
presence or absence of other members. As everyone knows, while
members may or may not be in the House, there are many other
obligations that take members out of the House on official
business.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intent to
point that out. It was my intent to involve the government in
debate on this very important bill for the people of Cape Breton
Island and Nova Scotia.
A number of amendments have been put forward. We have debated
this in committee and we have gone through clause by clause.
There are more amendments here. Our party will be supporting
some of them and some of them we will not be supporting. What is
important is that the debate occurs.
Sadly there has been a lack of debate on this issue. There has
been a lack of responsibility on behalf of the government. The
government has refused to go to Cape Breton Island and hold
public inquiries. The committee has not travelled to Cape Breton
Island to actually assess the situation on the ground in Cape
Breton. Many committee members have not been to the coal field,
they have not seen the rail cars and they have not been to the
mines. The government has refused travel there.
It is a mistake for the government when it is liquidating the
assets and privatizing the company, a crown corporation, to try
to do it in an aloof and hands off manner. The government is
going to put the bill through. It wants all parliamentarians to
support it without looking at it too closely because it is just a
matter of bookkeeping and let us move it through. That type of
attitude is what the government has been about for far too long,
that type of irresponsible government and its refusal to deal
with the issues. A number of issues need to be dealt with.
Of the amendments put forward in Group No. 1 by the member for
Bras D'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria, there
are couple that deserve to be looked at in a much closer manner
and taken seriously.
Motion No. 12 states:
The by-law of the Corporation shall provide that if a person
contracts any illness as a result of the person's employment by
the Corporation, the person shall be entitled, for the remainder
of the person's life, to the health insurance benefits that were
provided as part of the terms and conditions of the person's
employment.
I would like to hear members on the government benches at least
explain to me, but explain to the entire House and to the miners
in Cape Breton who have contracted serious illnesses working
underground why that particular motion would not be supported by
any responsible government in the country.
I would like to hear the explanation of that.
1045
I put forth a very similar motion at committee stage and it was
voted down. All the opposition parties supported it, and I
suspect that all the opposition parties will support this one.
Yet the government in its wisdom decided it does not have to deal
with this issue. If people contract an illness through work, a
work related injury, they will be laid off and the medical
insurance will not cover them or their families.
Cape Breton Island is a area of economic hardship with 17%
unemployment and higher. Yet the government is satisfied that it
does not have any further responsibility once it goes through
with its privatization plan. I point out Motion No. 3 which says:
The Auditor General shall review the disposal of the
Corporation's assets and all other activities related to the
closing out of its affairs, and shall report to the House of
Commons within six months of the disposal of the last of the
Corporation's assets.
Surely that is a good amendment. When we are liquidating assets
and privatizing government or federal assets, to have the auditor
general look at it and give a full accounting to the Parliament
of Canada is responsible government.
I want want to hear what the Government of Canada has to say on
this issue. I want it to explain to me, because I do not
understand its rationale or its line of thinking, why this should
not occur. Even more serious, I want it to explain to Canadians
why this should not occur.
We have a government that is not responsible. It does not have
to have a full accounting of the business it is about to perform.
Do Canadian taxpayers not need to know whether this is a good or
bad thing? Whatever anyone's position is on this issue, surely
we have to be responsible and, more important, we have to be
accountable.
The member for Sherbrooke just spoke about overlapping
jurisdiction. The federal government wants to continue to keep
its hands in the works through the Canada Labour Code. He made a
very good point, a clear point. He explained his position well.
It is a point on which I want to hear the government's response.
I have not heard it. It has not articulated its vision for the
future of Cape Breton Island. It has not explained why federal
jurisdiction should continue to apply in a provincial area.
It cannot continue to govern from afar. It is like trying to
write a will that somehow tries to control everything from the
grave. It is a mistake for anyone to do that. One should make a
decision and move on. The Government of Canada has to do exactly
the same. I go back to Motion No. 5 which says:
If a work or undertaking of the Corporation or any part thereof
is transferred, by sale, lease, merger or otherwise, to another
employer, the work or undertaking or the part thereof, as the
case may be, shall continue to be a work or undertaking for the
general advantage of Canada.
That is a pretty sensible amendment. The problem here is not
with the amendments. The problem has been with the government
and its total refusal to take this issue and the Parliament of
Canada seriously and to listen to amendments put forth by
opposition members of parliament. Surely we are not just here to
waste our time. Surely we are here to have reasonable, rationale
and accountable debate.
1050
Everyone needs to understand that the government is insisting on
pushing this legislation through parliament like it pushes every
other piece of legislation through parliament. It delays debate.
It shortens debate. It refuses to speak to the issues. It
refuses to present its own position on this very important issue.
Opposition members are forced to bring motions from committee to
parliament to have them debated. We debate them at committee,
and that debate is rushed by any stretch of the imagination.
The member for Sydney—Victoria had unlimited time to speak the
other day. He took that opportunity to speak in what I thought
was a very rational manner for a limited period of time and
discussed the issues fairly thoroughly. Instead of that gaining
some co-operation from the government, all it gained was to shut
it down, move it on, not debate it and not discuss it. That type
of government is wrong. That is why we are debating this issue
today and that is why we have a couple of other sets of
amendments to debate. I look forward to continuing that.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise to speak to the amendments as well as to the
essence of Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the
assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I am honoured
to follow the two Cape Breton members of parliament who spoke so
passionately to the issue. I would like to try to follow in
their footsteps.
With this bill the government will be carrying out its intention
to privatize Devco. As we know, the government has a passion for
privatization. It has an obsession for cutting loose some of the
jewels in our crown, the actual treasures that we hold dear in
this country. It believes that Devco should be cut loose and in
fact that Atlantic Canada should be cut loose.
We have seen this over and over from the government. We have
seen our health care system cut loose. We have seen the
government's commitment move from a 50% commitment to national
medicare down to a 13% commitment. We have seen our railways cut
loose. Now we have seen the CBC cut loose. We have seen over
$400 million removed from the CBC, our national broadcasting
corporation. We have seen 3,800 jobs disappear. It is all with
the assumption that somehow the private sector will take up the
slack, and we know it will not.
With Devco the argument is the same, that the private sector
will somehow do a better job. This is a sort of ubiquitous
mantra of the government. I almost think government members
repeat it on their treadmills when they are exercising or when
they are going to sleep at night. They may mutter cuts are the
best policy; private sector good, public sector bad; corporations
are always right. Of course there is the continuing mantra that
Cape Breton is a financial money pit.
It is interesting that not only is this last mantra a false one.
It is also one that has been taken up by the official opposition,
the Reform Party. I guess the Reform Party has finally become an
Ottawa insider, adopting the bureaucratic mantras in the same way
as the frontbench opposite. I want to bring some of those
fallacies to the attention of the House.
It is important for everyone to note that Cape Breton has been
producing coal for 300 years, long before Ottawa bureaucrats
existed to criticize the enterprise. The coal produced in Cape
Breton fired the steamers which helped build the British Empire.
They were critical components of industrial expansion in the
early days of Canada.
The contribution which Cape Breton coal made to our war efforts
in both wars cannot be underestimated. At the end of the second
world war 17,000 Cape Breton workers kept the coal moving. Like
many other industries after the war, there were to be big changes
in coal production, and there were.
The mines declined substantially and by 1965 they were ready for
closure, which would have thrown 6,500 miners out of work.
However the more progressive government of the day than the one
that introduced Bill C-11 understood that allowing the collapse
of the coal industry was against the public interest for two
reasons.
The Pearson government understood that there was a viable
economic need for coal production in Cape Breton to continue. It
is almost eerie how the setting up of Devco seemed to have
foretold the oil crisis of the seventies. Until Devco, power in
Nova Scotia was produced by oil generating stations.
If these stations had not changed to coal fired stations in the
late sixties, the impact of the OPEC crisis would have decimated
the Nova Scotia economy.
1055
I heard both Liberals and Reformers whine about the money pit of
Cape Breton requiring this drastic legislation. However I never
hear them talk about the billions saved by businesses and
residents of Atlantic Canada because of cheap Cape Breton coal
being used to create electricity.
The mantra continues: Cape Breton's Devco should be cut loose;
the private sector will do a better job; and the government will
continue to offer call centre jobs to this beautiful island. I
say shame on the government's minimum wage commitments to Cape
Breton and its people.
Today I learned that the reprieve of local news shows at the
CBC, which is another sock from the Liberals to maritimers and
which I have already called a sham to get the government through
the next election, is not what the government had taken credit
for. The national programs will get millions to produce a slick
commercial free 30 minutes of national news. They will get time
to develop the ideas and will get the resources to do it right,
an approach which local shows have always done well. Due to the
Liberal broken promises, the local shows have scant days to come
up with the millions in cuts.
The Speaker: With the hon. member's agreement, it might
be a good time to break your speech. You still have five minutes
and ten seconds left and will have the floor when we return to
debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CENTURY OF SERVICE PARADE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to invite all Canadians to share in a grand military
celebration Saturday morning, June 3, at 9.30 on Parliament Hill.
Two hundred and fifty Canadian soldiers will participate in the
Century of Service Parade to commemorate 100 years of proud
military service to our country. This is a unique opportunity
for Canadians to pay tribute to four regiments that served in
South Africa at the turn of the 20th century.
The Royal Canadian Regiment valiantly fought its way to victory
through searing heat, thirst and sickness at the battle of
Paardeberg in February 1900. In November 1900 the Royal Canadian
Dragoons and the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery held fast at the
battle of Leliefontain despite many casualties.
It is also an opportunity to commemorate the raising of Lord
Strathcona's Horse, the Royal Canadians, in the year of 1900 just
prior to their service in South Africa. In fact the Musical Ride
will be performed by horses and riders from the Strathcona
Mounted Troop, an event rarely seen in eastern Canada.
I encourage all Canadians to share in this momentous tribute to
these four proud Canadian regiments that continue to serve our
home and native land.
* * *
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just do not get it. The
federal government is spending over $48 million of the $68
million in federal sponsorship money in Quebec to respond to
messaging from the Parti Quebecois.
Canadians are tired of Liberal big spending to promote Liberal
status quo federalism. The government finds sponsorship spending
easier than making real, necessary and overdue changes to the
federation.
All Canadians want is fairness in government spending. However
western Liberals, like the Winnipeg MP who chaired the Liberal
task force into western alienation, want the money the Liberals
use in Quebec to try to buy votes in the west. I have news for
the government. Big spending will not buy Canadians in Quebec or
in the west.
* * *
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Sunday, June 4, we celebrate National Cancer Survivors Day.
Cancer touches all of us either directly or indirectly.
Approximately one in three Canadians will be diagnosed with
cancer during his or her lifetime. However, thanks to improved
detection methods and enhanced methods of treatment, more than
half of all people diagnosed with cancer today recover fully, and
thankfully go on to live happy and productive lives.
Each cancer survivor has his or her own story to tell. Each has
experienced pain and unease in their courageous battles against
cancer. However, if asked, I am sure that each would say that we
must continue to develop new and improved methods of detection
and treatment and to encourage research in this all important
area.
I am proud to say that on Sunday, June 4, the people of my
riding of Waterloo—Wellington will be joining over 700
communities in celebrating National Cancer Survivors Day, a day
which has come to symbolize hope, perseverance and the strength
of those survivors and their families.
* * *
1100
SHEREE FITCH
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to offer congratulations to a friend and
former constituent. Renowned children's author Sheree Fitch has
been recognized as one of the first two winners of the Hackmatack
Children's Choice Book Award, a literary program for young
readers in Atlantic Canada.
Sheree won in the children's choice non-fiction category for her
book If You Could Wear My Sneakers. The unique thing about
the Hackmatack Children's Choice Book Award is that the winners
are judged by the children.
I am pleased also to say that this project was supported by the
Canada Millennium Partnership Program. Its objectives are to
enhance literacy and promote reading of Canadian books by
children in the Atlantic provinces.
Again, congratulations to Sheree Fitch on her continuing
excellence in children's literature.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society is celebrating the world's
largest event for those affected by cancer—National Cancer
Survivors Day—on Sunday, June 4, 2000. This year marks the 13th
anniversary of the event in North America.
[English]
On National Cancer Survivors Day we honour survivors who are
living with and beyond cancer. National Cancer Survivors Day
also recognizes the important role which family and friends play
in the life of a cancer survivor, as well as the efforts of the
many health care professionals and researchers who devote their
lives to making life more comfortable for people faced with this
disease.
[Translation]
Directly or indirectly, cancer affects all of us. In Canada,
nearly one person in three stands a chance of being diagnosed
with cancer during their lifetime. But, thanks to new methods
of testing, more widespread dissemination of information, and
the latest treatments, over half of them can now hope to make a
full recovery—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
* * *
[English]
PAROLE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in my riding a young mother disappeared May 21. She
was last seen together with her common law husband who left their
baby at the babysitters. A blood soaked carpet was removed from
the home and police are treating the disappearance as a murder
investigation.
A Canada-wide warrant has been issued for the arrest of this
man, who is on parole after serving only nine years of a
so-called life sentence for second degree murder in the stabbing
death of his then mother-in-law.
Falkner resided at Vernon's Howard House, a facility helping to
reintegrate offenders into society. But the Howard House staff
can only work with whoever the parole board sends them, including
previously violent criminals. A local official with Correctional
Service Canada was quoted as saying that Falkner was released
“because the parole board determined he was not an appropriate
risk”.
Today's lesson for the solicitor general is, start protecting
the public by requiring that inmates earn parole rather than
expecting it as an automatic right.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who wants to be trillionaire?
Wednesday's Statistics Canada report shows that Canada is now
part of the elite group of countries whose gross domestic product
exceeds $1 trillion. In fact, our economy is booming beyond
expectation. “There was not a single weak spot” noted TD Bank
economist Marc Levesque. “I don't see how it could be any
better” said Royal Bank economist John McCallum.
Thanks to strong exports, strong gains in business spending, an
increase in domestic spending and an overall booming economy,
Canada is entering the new millennium with a bang. A trillion
dollars is a phenomenal number given our small population.
Canadians can look forward to continued growth in our new
economy. Our economy is broad based with healthy gains in
virtually all areas. What can I say? When you're hot, you're
hot.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRI-FOOD SECTOR
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the Table agroalimentaire du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean
on its new publication L'Agroalimentaire.
This initiative will provide a link for the 17 organizations in
my region involved in production, processing, research and
distribution in the agri-food sector.
It will make information accessible to everyone and stimulate
development of this sector, which is the third largest in the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.
In addition, it will highlight the accomplishments of
enterprises and help promote regional products.
1105
Once again, I congratulate the Table agroalimentaire du
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and its co-ordinator, Josée Gauthier.
* * *
[English]
BIG SISTERS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
remember when you were growing up? You probably had many role
models: your parents, a teacher or coach, maybe an older
sibling. They were your heroes, the people you most wanted to be
like.
Unfortunately, not every child has someone like this in his or
her life, but thanks to a wonderful group of women more and more
children are now getting the chance to have someone to look up
to. These heroes are called Big Sisters.
Big Sisters are caring adults who are dedicated to helping in
the development of young girls. They understand the value of a
nurturing friendship and the importance of an adult role model in
these girls' lives.
A Big Sister is a mentor who cares about putting a smile on a
special little girl's face. Anyone can be a Big Sister. All
that is required is a willingness to enjoy fun and friendship
with a child. Just three or four times per month is all it takes
to make a difference. Single or married, parent or grandparent,
anyone over 19 years of age should consider becoming a Big
Sister.
On this national Big Sisters' Day, I urge all colleagues to join
with me in congratulating Big Sisters everywhere.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, authorities in Vancouver just busted nine marijuana grow
operations controlled by a Vietnamese organized crime group.
They found 12 children in the homes they raided.
Sergeant Randy Elliot of the Organized Crime Agency says “Now
they have no product, no cash and they will be owing somebody
something. There is a problem for them here”.
That could signal another round of gun battles and violence in
the streets of greater Vancouver. We have seen it many times
before.
Statistics indicate that 85% of those recently arrested in
relation to B.C. marijuana grow operations were of Vietnamese
origin. We all know that the vast majority of Vietnamese
immigrants to British Columbia and the rest of Canada are hard
working, law-abiding folks who are assets to the communities in
which they live and work. However, the small number involved in
these criminal gangs is a blight on their community.
These merchants of misery are a scourge on our society. I think
I speak for all Canadians, including the Vietnamese community,
when I call upon the solicitor general and the ministers of
justice and immigration to give us the legislation and the
resources to get rid of these parasites.
* * *
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if a
drunk driver kills a pedestrian he is not only charged under the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, he is charged with manslaughter under
the Criminal Code of Canada. Yet if people kill 26 employees due
to gross negligence and a wilful blindness to workplace safety,
as in the case of Westray Mine, they walk away scot-free.
Justice Peter Richard, the chair of the Westray inquiry,
directed parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make
directors of business truly accountable for the working
conditions in any enterprise under their direction.
The House of Commons concurred with Justice Richard's
recommendation when it passed Motion No. 79 by an overwhelming
majority.
The Canadian people want parliament to amend the Criminal Code
of Canada so that when corporate greed leads to corporate murder
there will be corresponding corporate accountability and
corporate responsibility.
The government should implement the recommendations of the
Westray inquiry, and it should do it in this session of this
parliament without delay.
* * *
CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK TELETHON
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday you welcomed to the House a very special group
of people, young Canadian champions, children who have survived
life threatening diseases and are now travelling across Canada to
make Canadians aware of just how much their help is needed.
This weekend the Children's Miracle Network Telethon will be
taking place across Canada. In Ottawa it will be at the Nortel
Centre; a new high tech look, but the same story.
We all have the chance to make new champions, new children who
survive life threatening illnesses. Please tune in to the
Miracle Network Telethon. Please give generously.
* * *
[Translation]
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to mention an initiative by the Secrétariat à la mise
en valeur du Saint-Laurent, an agency of the Government of Quebec
that promotes the St. Lawrence River in Quebec and elsewhere in
the world.
We cannot overstress the importance of the St. Lawrence, when
60% of Quebec's population lives on its shores.
The economic impact of marine and port activities in Quebec is
considerable, since they generate over $3 billion in business.
We are talking here of 27,000 jobs and a payroll of over $1
billion.
1110
The flag of the St. Lawrence serves primarily to remind us of
the inestimable heritage the river represents and to encourage
our collective pride of this major resource.
The flag is also a quality souvenir for important visitors, and
serves as promotional material here and abroad.
Congratulations to the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du
Saint-Laurent.
* * *
[English]
MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations are in order for Dr. Stuart Connolly of McMaster
University in Hamilton and his team of researchers.
In a study funded by the Medical Research Council and recently
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr.
Connolly found that an older, simpler design of cardiac pacemaker
is less expensive, more effective and safer than a newer, more
complex type, which is welcome news to more than 10,000 Canadians
who receive pacemaker implants every year.
This study shows the high quality of research being done across
Canada, made possible through the expertise of our doctors and
scientists, and through agencies like the Medical Research Council
and the Canada research chairs program.
On behalf, I am sure, of every member of the House, I would like
to recognize the excellent work that is being done by McMaster
University and across the country by our researchers, doctors and
scientists.
* * *
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday, June 4, marks the 13th anniversary of National Cancer
Survivors Day in North America.
Last year more than 700 communities across North America took
part in this event, and once again the Canadian Cancer Society
has arranged events and activities from coast to coast to
celebrate the lives of cancer survivors.
The statistics surrounding cancer diagnosis are tragic.
Fortunately, though, they are getting better. Approximately one
in three Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer during their
lifetime. However, there is good news. More than half of all of
those diagnosed with cancer now achieve full recovery. This day
is set aside for them.
We rise today to honour those survivors and their families, and
to once again thank the Canadian Cancer Society for its hard work
in this area.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the recent merger of Canada's two major airlines is
causing Victoria's tourism industry to crash.
Hotel occupancy has dropped from 64% to 54% over the same period
last year. In the month of August, which is the busiest time for
tourism in Victoria, air service will be down with 18% fewer
seats than over the same period last year and the prices will be
higher.
The Mayor of Victoria, Allan Lowe, has travelled to Ottawa this
week to remind the federal government that the significant
reduction in air service to Victoria is hurting tourism.
The federal government seems to have once again forgotten where
British Columbia is located. It does not seem to matter whether
it is Nisga'a, wharf divestiture, Nanoose Bay, leaky condos and
now tourism in Victoria, it seems to completely drop the ball and
forget that British Columbia is part of Canada.
The government has promised to ensure that Air Canada lives up
to its commitment to ensure that service is not reduced. It
is time for the government to act. We are tired of the talk.
* * *
NATIONAL SENIORS MONTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the month of June is National Seniors Month. This
provides Canadians from all over the country an excellent
opportunity to pause and reflect upon the numerous contributions
that our seniors have made to society.
I find it unfortunate that the Liberal government does not want
to recognize our seniors. Through its actions the Liberal
government is ignoring the needs of seniors and throwing their
rights away.
Cuts to health care, the high cost of prescription medication
and other cuts to the services seniors depend on are making day
to day life very difficult.
Seniors are also being hit economically. They have to rely on a
pension system which is not reliable. They also have been
penalized by the old age security clawback.
After living through the depression years and sacrificing their
children to war, why is this the thanks they get?
I sincerely hope that in recognition of National Seniors Month
the government uses the opportunity it now has to improve the
lives of our seniors.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
forest industry in Nova Scotia is worth $1.5 billion to Nova
Scotia's economy. A possible ban of export of red spruce
would be devastating to the industry. Yet the government has
allowed the brown spruce longhorned beetle infestation to occur in
Point Pleasant Park. It has not put Canada food inspection
phytosanitary requirements in place.
They continue to allow infested wood to come in on container
ships on the east and west coasts of Canada.
1115
The Canada Food Inspection Agency has phytosanitary certificates
required to bring wood in from foreign countries. We have phytos
required to ship wood to Europe. Yet there is a major loophole
in that legislation because we allow containers made from
infected wood to come into Canada and be unloaded. The
government has done nothing to stop that.
Either we have to start requiring phytosanitary inspected wood
to be built into the pallets themselves—
The Speaker: Order, please. We will now proceed to oral
questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the HRD minister was not the only one
in cabinet to get a slap from the Liberals on the human resources
committee. The committee report urges the government to carve up
HRDC just four years after the Prime Minister created it. Listen
to what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said about the
amalgamation at that time: “I am really talking about getting
the best use of taxpayers' money”. The billion dollar bungle
kind of puts that claim into a fresh light, does it not?
When the minister talked about the best use of taxpayers' money,
did he really mean the best use for the Liberal Party?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is referring to the report of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. That report was tabled only
yesterday. The government is examining it. The minister wants
to thank the members of that committee for their work. The
government will respond to all the recommendations in due course.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in due course. It was just four
years ago that the government folded parts of five departments
into one human resources development superministry. The
Liberals' committee report slams that decision and therefore
slams the minister's track record.
Billions of dollars have been spent on half-baked Liberal job
creation schemes. Friends of the Prime Minister and other
prominent Liberals have been the main beneficiaries.
Is splitting HRDC into several pieces not just another
harebrained scheme to create jobs for cabinet ministers?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to
forgive the member opposite. He has never attended a meeting of
the HRDC committee and his question shows his lack of
information.
The department was put in place in 1993. According to my
arithmetic, that is not four years ago. The rest of his question
is also based on faulty premises. Perhaps before he represents
his party as the first questioner, he should make sure his facts
are correct.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just for the record, it was under
Bill C-96 in 1996 that this superministry was created.
It would not matter how many pieces human resources is split
into, the central problem is political interference. The
minister bungled a billion dollars of taxpayers' money because
her main concern was pleasing Liberals and friends of Liberals.
No wonder. She learned well from the Prime Minister. Her program
has never been about creating jobs. It was always about buying
support.
How would the creation of even more political ministers lessen
political interference?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is forgetting the multitude of roles that HRDC fulfils.
He is forgetting about all the recipients of old age security,
employment insurance and all the statutory programs that come
under that particular ministry. In so doing he is insulting the
recipients, and all the workers of HRDC who are to be commended
for their hard work in going through this barrage of criticism
based on personalities that is the hallmark of the party
opposite.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the president of the
treasury board announced a revision of the guidelines with
respect to grants and contributions. The minister displayed an
extraordinary talent for impromptu comedy when she said, “The
revised policy for grants and contributions is part of the
government's ongoing commitment to spend Canadians' money wisely
and judiciously”. Yeah, right. They never respected the
guidelines before. Why should we believe that they will respect
them now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that in fact this study
was put into place a number of years ago as part of the ongoing
guarantee that money would be spent wisely.
In fact the study itself is very deep and profound. It is one
that is going to affect the way in which this government
operates.
1120
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we told the
minister about a memo written by her own treasury board officials
that talked about the need to whitewash future internal audits
and minimize the PR damage that they could do to the government.
Now that the minister has had a chance to review that memo, I
would like to ask her, or her replacement, why are her officials
so concerned about damage control rather than spending control?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you that the officials in the minister's
department, in fact in all government departments, are concerned
about good governance. They are concerned about controlling
spending. The best example I can give is that government spending
today is some $4 billion lower than it was when we took office in
1993.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the real purpose of the Canada Information Office seems
increasingly nebulous.
First, we were informed that the CIO's role was to inform
Canadians on what the government does for them. Then we were
told that the CIO's mission was to respond to misinformation
propagated by the separatists. Finally, yesterday, the Deputy
Prime Minister told us that the CIO's purpose was to “build
Canadian unity”.
If the CIO exists to inform Canadians, what is the purpose of
the 1-800-O-Canada line? If it is to head off separatist
misinformation, what is the purpose of the Privy Council? And if
the CIO's mission is in fact to build Canadian unity, what is
the purpose of the Council for Canadian Unity?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the 1-800-O-Canada
line is to enable all Canadians across the country to get
information and services from the Government of Canada by simply
dialling that number. Their calls are handled by a person, not a
machine.
The CIO's role is to co-ordinate the communications of the
government, of every department, so that Canadians know what we
do. The CIO is there to ascertain what their needs are and to
meet them.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is easier to get answers when we provide them to the
government. I will proceed in the same fashion with my
supplementary.
The Canada Information Office awarded a contract without tender
to Compex Cons. to provide an overview of the provincial laws on
public consultation on constitutional amendments.
Can the minister tell us if the CIO awards this type of contract
without tender: (a), to inform Canadians; (b), to counter
separatist misinformation; (c), to build Canadian unity; (d),
for all of these reasons; or, (e), for none of the above?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as I have been repeating
over the last few days, the CIO awards contracts in compliance
with treasury board rules.
Second, the CIO can ask companies to do an analysis of the
various bills of a provincial government to provide advice to
the departments involved.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the mind of
this government, the problem of Canadian unity seems to exist
only in Quebec.
I would like to ask the public works minister a question. When
the CIO awards a contract to Jacques Cloutier to “assess the
impact of pilot projects on regional communications pooling in
Abitibi and in Quebec since 1998” and when another contract is
awarded for communications at Val d'Or, is the purpose not more
to inform the government than to inform the public?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to inform the public, there must also be a
knowledge of what the various communities are doing so as to be
able to meet their needs. That is what has been happening
recently with the ministers' tour.
I would like to quote an editorial from Le Soleil of Friday
September 24, 1999 “The beginnings of this new era of
co-operation are promising and are creating a positive atmosphere
in the Quebec City region that is most welcome”.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the CIO has
spent $1.5 million on media surveillance.
As we have seen with Human Resources Development Canada, this
government suffers from information-gathering syndrome, a malady
that has now spread to the CIO.
1125
Does the minister realize that, after first having Big Brother
at HRDC, now we have its evil twin at the CIO?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the
hon. member that there is no media surveillance going on; what
we are doing is monitoring the media, analysing press coverage.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois is doing the same thing every day;
all parties do. That is what we are doing. There is no
surveillance; it is media analysis and a press review to be used
by various ministers responsible for the departments requesting
it.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
every year thousands of tonnes of contaminated soil from more
than 20 countries, including the United States, are being buried
in Canada in towns like Trois-Rivières and Sarnia. The federal
government authorizes the importation of waste without knowing
what is going to happen to it when it gets here.
Will the government modify its regulations to ensure that Canada
does not become the toxic waste dump of the world?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's question. The
government did move to limit the importation of toxic waste. This
was a decision that was subsequently overturned on a legal
argument.
I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of the Environment
is going to meeting with his counterparts next week in Quebec
City. This is one of the issues that they obviously have on
their agenda.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad it is on the agenda because we are talking here of
600,000 tonnes of foreign contaminated soil per year. Even Mexico
has harsher rules than we do.
Will the government act now, or will the minister indicate to us
what position the Minister of the Environment will take to ensure
that the Government of Canada knows what is coming in, what form
it is taking and where it is going?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the results of the passage of CEPA is that
the Minister of the Environment is reviewing all his options
precisely in light of the concerns expressed by a number of
parties.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
CBC management recently announced that all regional supper hour
news programs will be cut to one-half hour in length. The supper
hour news program in Newfoundland called Here and Now is
essentially the most successful in the country. It has a market
share of 64% and a viewing audience of 157,000. How can the
minister justify gutting that program and cutting the budget by
40% down to $1.8 million?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives
me an opportunity to thank hon. members on all sides of the House
who expressed concerns to the board and the management of the CBC
and caused them to overturn a decision which would have been
disastrous. However, I do find it passing strange that the
question comes from the hon. member whose party had a position in
the last election of getting rid of Here and Now.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that is not true. I am not looking for her
thanks, I am looking for her action.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to
please stay away from words such as “not true”.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, we are looking for the
minister's action on this, not her thanks.
Here and Now has a 64% market share and 157,000 viewers.
This contrasts sharply with the Toronto equivalent which commands
a mere 2% of the market and a paltry 36,000 viewers in that large
city. I can understand that the CBC might have to tighten up in
markets where its programs are not widely popular, but how can
the minister justify throwing out our baby with Toronto's bath
water?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the reference to relatives gives me an opportunity
to say how much my mother-in-law, Stella Thorne, enjoys Here
and Now. She watches it every night and I hope she hasn't
changed so she can watch me saying hi to my mother-in-law tonight
on Here and Now.
That being said, I do hope that some of the modernizations that
are going to be brought forward by the CBC will include increased
investments in regional productions in a number of areas. I very
much hope that the music and culture of Newfoundland and
Labrador—something that the former leader of the PQ thinks does
not exist—get a chance to be seen across the country.
* * *
1130
HEALTH
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the heartburn drug Propulsid, which
is linked to the causing of the death of at least 10 Canadians,
has been restricted for use in the United States. Since mid-May
Health Canada has had 158 reports of adverse reactions to the
drug, including the death of children.
Given the drug's history and the mortal nature of it, why would
the Minister of Health allow pharmacies until August 7 to
continue to sell the drug in Canada? Does he want to allow drug
manufacturers to use up their old stock?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter has been studied by
Health Canada, which recommended that the drug be taken off the
shelves effective August 8.
Health Canada also took into account the fact that many patients
are using the drug safely and it is recommending that they
consult their health care professional to determine if they
should switch to an alternative or if they can continue to use
this drug. A warning will be issued on August 8, however, and
the drug will no longer be sold.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yes, some people use it safely but 10
people have died. There are 158 reports since the middle of May
of severe problems. It is not good enough to wait until August
7. Some of these people may die.
In any other case the government would take action. Why will
the minister not take immediate action? If it is not to protect
the manufacturers with the inventories, why? Why would we allow
the potential of more deaths between now and August 7? Canadians
want to know that. It does not make any sense at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by May 30, all health care
professionals were advised of the possible risk associated with
using this drug. They were told that the drug would no longer
be sold effective August 8. On May 31, the public was notified
as well.
It is now up to patients, with their health care professionals,
to make the final decisions, but they are being asked to do so
by August 8.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the scandal at
HRDC is not going away.
The Liberal government continues to turn a blind eye to the
twelve or so RCMP investigations. In order to come to the
minister's rescue, the Liberal majority on the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities wants to dismantle the department
without getting to the bottom of the shocking use of public
money for partisan purposes.
In the end, is the government not trying to bury the whole
affair?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said
all along that if there is evidence of wrongdoing we will refer
such files to the RCMP, and we have done so.
What they are investigating and what results they will have are
in their purview at the moment and not appropriate for us to
comment on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): The federal Liberal
government is mired in the biggest scandal to hit it in a long
time.
By deciding to dismantle the department without holding a public
inquiry that would get to the bottom of the scandal, is the
government trying to cover its tracks and evade its
responsibility?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when a
committee submits a final report on a study it has done, the
government per se has not decided anything, has not chosen
anything. It is simply that the committee has made a series of
recommendations to which the government will respond within the
150 days prescribed in the rules.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada there has been a
decrease in the inmate population. Yet the cost per inmate has
increased, believe it or not, to $171 per day.
Obviously Correctional Service Canada is either pampering its
inmates or its executives. Could the solicitor general please
explain this outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question because it gives me the opportunity to indicate exactly
the excellent work that Correctional Service Canada is doing.
From the 1980s until today there has been a 15% to 20% decrease
in the recidivism rate. That is what the government wants. That
is what Canadians want.
1135
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we all know about the corrections commissioner's goal to
have 50% of federal offenders out in the community under
supervision.
We must assume that the costs to which my colleague referred
were rising during the implementation of that plan. Will the
solicitor general please assure Canadians that prison costs will
not continue to rise as the system approaches that 50% goal?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague would never
want to mislead the House or the Canadian people. He knows very
well, as he heard the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada
and I indicate many times, that there is no quota.
Public safety is always the number one issue. When we have a
15% to 20% decrease in recidivism it is important for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, drivers were
stupefied by the ten cent increase in the price of a litre of
gasoline at the pump in a single day this week.
The news of it did not perturb the federal government, which
remains totally indifferent.
I ask the Minister of Finance if he could tell us what he
intends to do to respond to consumer concerns about these
dizzying increases in the price of gasoline?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is exactly why the Minister of Industry called for a study on
the entire question, and we are anxiously awaiting the results
of it.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the study is
expected in January 2001, it should be noted.
Is the federal government going to continue to close its eyes
much longer on the dubious practices of the oil industry, when,
according to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute itself,
the refineries are taking advantage of the nervousness in the
oil market to raise their refining margin?
When is the government going to assume its responsibilities and
act in this matter?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has taken
action. It was this Liberal team that came together, 47 members,
and commenced the procedure for where we are today on an ongoing
basis. We were responsible and will continue to be responsible.
If they would only participate we would advance it even further.
* * *
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, CSIS, the U.S. State Department and a counterterrorism
organization in Israel have identified FACT as a front for the
Tamil tigers. The immigration department is using this
information to try to deport this group's former co-ordinator,
alleging that he was sent to Toronto to raise money for weapons
for this terrorist organization.
Is this not an admission that FACT is indeed a front for a
terrorist organization? Could the minister please relay this
information to her colleague in finance?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that CSIS does
not provide a list of terrorist organizations and it does not
provide a list of people or organizations that it is targetting.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the merger of Canada's two major airlines is causing
the tourism industry in Victoria to crash. Hotel occupancy is
down to 54%. There will be 18% fewer seats in the month of
August and the cost will be higher.
The mayor of Victoria, Allan Lowe, is in Ottawa this week
looking for answers. Air Canada promised the passengers that
they would be the winners as a result of this merger. Clearly
they are the losers. Why has the government not acted to make
Air Canada live up to its promises?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House realizes that the
Commissioner of the Competition Bureau and the Minister of
Transport are keeping a very close eye on this situation. I
understand the minister has a meeting today with his assistant.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
secretary of state for finance indicated that the future of
Quebec's banks is in the hands of the federal Minister of
Finance, and that he would take the interests of Quebecers into
consideration.
Why has the minister decided, with his bill, to give immediate
protection to the Canadian banks while offering the banks of
Quebec up to foreign control? What is the hidden agenda here?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's question is utterly ridiculous.
What the banks were calling for is more flexibility, more leeway
for forging alliances. This is something they have been asking
for, and we have provided it to the tune of 20% as far as the
major banks are concerned. Quebec banks, the smaller ones, have
been asking for more flexibility, more leeway for expansion.
When our document is released, it will show our readiness to
allow more expansion possibilities to the smaller banks.
* * *
1140
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister for International Cooperation announced that the
government will spend $120 million on developing countries over
a three-year period.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us more about this
announcement?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, among other
things, CIDA will use this new funding to contribute $5 million
to the international AIDS vaccine initiative, $3.8 million to
UNICEF for research on anti-HIV drugs, and $13 million over five
years for AIDS education and prevention programs in Malawi.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada is hosting thousands of
visiting airmen in Exercise Maple Flag at Canadian Forces Base
Cold Lake. Reports indicate that our participating CF-18
aircraft are obsolete and do not meet the technological standards
of other nations participating. The Hornet's cockpit technology
is 20 years out of date.
Will the minister explain to Canadians why after seven years of
promises the Liberal government is unable to provide Canadian
forces with the modern equipment that they so desperately need?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with
what the member just said.
He, in particular, must be aware that we have invested heavily
in updating the CF-18 computers. We have invested in a number of
other assets for the Canadian forces, including new search and
rescue helicopters, and I could go on. There are many others.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA defends his agency's
wasteful spending on golf courses as joint projects with
provincial and municipal governments.
However the federal portion of the funding for the Gander golf
course was 80%, or $1 million, and it was a non-repayable
contribution. The province's portion was only 8% and this money
was lent to the golf course. It appears there was no money from
the municipality.
If the funding was truly one-third from each level of government
as the minister told the House, will he table the documents that
would prove it?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is still in the rough.
One cannot go into any ACOA office and ask for a grant to build a
golf course. They will say no. If one goes in and asks for a
loan, they will say no because it does not exist.
However, this was a co-operation agreement between governments.
ACOA did not fund it. It was a co-operation agreement.
* * *
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Devco arbitrator announced his decision today. The
arbitrator slammed the government's plan to provide no real
support for Devco miners, something we in the NDP caucus have
been telling the government for 18 months. Now the arbitrator
has forced the government to recognize that its package was
wrong.
Will the government now admit that its package was an insult to
Cape Bretoners, and will it commit to act on the arbitrator's
decision immediately?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that
the arbitrator issued his report. The member knows that Devco
has just received the report and will review it carefully so that
it fully understands the implications.
It is a report that is binding. We accept and Devco accepts
that it is binding. We look forward to its implementation in due
course.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
has been eight years since the Westray mine disaster and it has
been three years since the Westray inquiry directed parliament to
amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it a crime if workers
are killed by gross negligence or a wilful blindness to workplace
safety.
Earlier this year parliament passed a motion to that effect by an
overwhelming majority.
1145
Will the Minister of Justice tell Canadians that she will act in
this session of parliament to implement the recommendations of
the Westray inquiry?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's
very deep concern in relation to the Westray incident and the
corporate and directors liability.
I want to inform the hon. member and the House that it is my
understanding that next week the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights will take up the question of recommendation 73
which emanated from the Westray report. I look forward to
hearing what the justice and human rights committee has to say in
relation to that recommendation. I will take its views under
very careful advisement.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced a 300%
increase in the crab quota in eastern Nova Scotia.
Knowing that the crab population fluctuates wildly, how can the
minister justify this increase? It certainly looks like little
more than election strategy to me.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the crab fishery in Atlantic Canada is a case of
peaks and valleys. In this particular case, we are very
fortunate that we have a peak. As a result, there has been a
major increase in the quota. We are very pleased with it.
As he has pointed out, this year the fishers in that particular
area will see a $43 million fishery. That is an increase of $30
million. As the fishery moves along from one year to the next
things may change, but we are very pleased to have come up with
this format. It is a good one.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, could
he tell us what the potential cost will be of that $30 million?
Increasing the crab quota by 300% will entice more fishermen to
gear up, to increase their efforts and to put more boats on the
water.
Can the minister tell us what will happen to those fishers next
year if the crab quota is significantly reduced? Would the
minister not have been wiser to err on the side of caution?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is
quite simple. The paramount issue with DFO is conservation. We
look at it from a scientific point of view and make changes
accordingly. We made a positive change this time. If the stocks
show a significant difference in biomass another year, it will be
reflected under the conservation rules, as it applies to all
fisheries.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some
time ago the Minister of Labour responsible for homelessness
delivered a statement on behalf of the government committing $753
million to fight homelessness. Can she give us an update today
in terms of what has happened on that file?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House
that earlier today the Minister of Labour, the federal
co-ordinator on homelessness, announced specific allocations for
the supporting communities partnerships initiatives fund. Almost
$305 million has been allocated to communities across the country
so that our community partners can develop their own specific
plans to make certain that everybody has a bed to sleep in.
I know the member for Ottawa Centre would be particularly
pleased to know that $17 million has been allocated to the
Ottawa-Carleton area.
* * *
THE DEBT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
since this government took office in 1993 it has added about $80
billion to our federal debt. To pay off that $580 billion
mortgage would require payments of about $50 billion a year for
25 years. That is $3,300 from every taxpayer in the country
every year and until the Minister of Finance is 85 years old.
When will the government finally give Canadians a tangible and
workable debt reduction plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are one of the very few government's that is reducing
its debt. The debt to GDP ratio was 71% when we took office. It
is now 61%. That is the strongest drop in the debt to GDP ratio
of any industrial country. In four years it will be down to
below 58% and it will keep going down. We are the only G-7
country that can say that.
* * *
1150
[Translation]
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in January,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, in his speech to the
security council on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that
the time had come for the international community to assume its
responsibility through a UN operation.
Will the minister act on his words and say yes to Étienne
Tshisekedi, the prominent leader of the Congolese opposition,
who came to Ottawa this week to plead for rapid intervention by
the UN in the Congo?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
More specifically, Mr. Speaker, I met with the secretary general
of the United Nations yesterday where we talked about the various
options for Canadian peacekeeping. In this case he explained
that in the Congo right now they do have offers for a full
complement of peacekeeping troops at this particular time.
Therefore, rather than listening to the leader of the
opposition, I am going directly to the source, to the person who
makes the decision, the secretary general of the United Nations.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as we all
know, the price of gas is going up every week. Every morning,
the big oil companies phone each other and talk to each other,
as evidenced by the prices on the market.
As oil and gas come under provincial jurisdiction, could the
Minister of Industry contact his provincial counterparts and
come to an agreement to put a stop to these ridiculous prices?
Canadians are fed up with this situation. Will the Minister of
Industry show leadership for the benefit of Canadians regarding
this issue?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member clearly
pointed out whose responsibility it is in terms of pricing, that
being provincial. He can speak to his premier.
This minister and this government has taken on that
responsibility. The Conference Board of Canada is undertaking a
very extensive study as a result of the 47 Liberal members who
spearheaded this effort to bring this file where it is today.
* * *
CHST
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Since the government came into power in 1993 the CHST funding
formula has been based on per capita rather than need.
When will the minister readjust the formula to take into account
those provinces with a declining population? This applies
especially to Newfoundland and Labrador where we have a rapidly
declining yet aging population. We have lost $750 million over
the last five years in transfer payments. Where is the just
society?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that I speak for all of us on this side of the
House when I congratulate the member on his first question here
in the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is a
good question and I hope he will continue in that vein.
On health care and education, a per capita basis is the historic
way in which those transfers have always been made to the
provinces. The compensation, as the hon. member will know, is
made through the equalization program, a program that when this
government was forced to make cuts did not cut in any way, shape
or form. In fact next year it will be at an all time high.
* * *
CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday a former premier of the province of Quebec said that
Canadian culture is “an invention but not a credible
invention”.
I am wondering whether the minister would care to comment on a
cultural that allegedly does not exist.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to receive the question from the hon.
member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. We can take one
example, the centre of Canada, Winnipeg.
In Winnipeg alone we have heard of Carol Shields, Henri
Bergeron, l'hôte des Beaux Dimanches, the Winnipeg Symphony
Orchestra, the Winnipeg Ballet, the French festival.
[Translation]
There is also the Festival des Voyageurs, not to mention the
Cercle Molière.
[English]
What I think is important to Mr. Parizeau is that he should
either take his blinkers off or he should stick to boiling
lobsters.
* * *
1155
ACOA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that the Conservative provincial government in
New Brunswick is dragging its feet over approving projects under
the federal provincial agreement managed by ACOA. It seems that
government actually wants to do an assessment of those programs
before it writes the cheque. This has upset the federal Liberal
MPs in the area because they know an election could be called
shortly, before they can hand over the cheque and have their
photo-op.
Will the minister responsible for ACOA call upon his Atlantic
caucus to stop this blatant political interference into
provincial-federal projects approved by ACOA?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I now think he is stuck on the 19th hole.
The information is not correct. It is like the last allegation
made by the hon. member's party claiming that Salter Street
Films, which produces This Hour Has 22 Minutes, received a
grant.
On behalf of Marg Delahunty, I want to point out that was not a
grant. It was a loan and it is being repaid in full. Without
This Hour Has 22 Minutes we would lose the opportunity of
seeing the leader of the hon. member's party and the leader of
the NDP in bed together.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there has
been so much scandal linked to people in the Prime Minister's
riding who are close to him—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member may begin his
question again.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, there has been so much
scandal linked to people in the Prime Minister's riding who are
close to him that the government is penalizing the public by no
longer daring to fund projects which do comply with the rules.
For instance, this is the case with a project in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, the Cité de l'énergie.
My question is for the minister responsible for regional
development. Can he tell us whether he intends to confirm the
promises he has made to the directors of Cité de l'énergie for
$800,000 in assistance?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes
the Canadian government is certainly interested in any project
which might benefit Quebec. I can say that discussions are
under way and that this matter is under consideration.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we now know
what the Liberal CBC plan really means to local communities.
The new 30 minutes of national news will be slick, well
resourced and commercial free, but local news has until next week
to cut millions of dollars and hundreds of staff so that they can
fit into a 24 minute format with many commercials. Toronto wins
again.
Will the government admit that the local news shows are only
being kept on life support until after the election, at which
time they will be shut down entirely?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I think that what came about as a
result of the president of the CBC listening to the entreaties of
a number of members of parliament, including members of the
opposition and the government, was that we have made a decision
by way of the board of directors and the president to reinvest
and to strengthen regional programming across the country.
Regional programming should include not only the news but also
arts, culture and sport. One of the mandates of the CBC, which I
am very happy that Mr. Rabinovitch said he was going to explore,
was the operation of regional cultural production centres across
the country. Not all productions should be done in Toronto, and
I think that was the gist of his message.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In 1992 we saw the complete collapse of groundfish stocks in
Atlantic Canada, in particular in Newfoundland. The main cause
of this was a lack of scientific knowledge about stocks.
We now see the same signs occurring in the shellfish stocks.
When will the government take this problem seriously and put
adequate funding into the scientific research branch of DFO so
that decisions can be made on scientific knowledge, not
guesswork?
1200
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the collapse of the stock in Newfoundland
and Labrador in 1992 was caused by the Tory government's policies
in Ottawa that allowed foreign nations to come in and to rake the
bottom of the ocean, destroy the food chain of the cod, and
remove all other species that were attached to the ground.
That is the real truth. In other words, the real cause for the
collapse was the hon. member's party, the Tory government.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 12
petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these order
in council appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate
standing committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the 1999-2000 annual report of the Chief
of Defence Staff entitled “Building on a Stronger Foundation”.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is also my privilege to table, in both official languages,
the annual report of the Commissioner of the Communications
Security Establishment.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the International Labour
Organization requires its member states to introduce the new ILO
conventions and recommendations to competent authorities.
I am pleased to submit two copies, in both officials languages,
of the Canadian position with respect to the conventions and
recommendations adopted at the international labour conference in
Geneva in June 1997 and June 1998.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on
Finance regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 16,
2000, respecting Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
The committee has considered Bill C-25 and reports the bill with
amendments.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-480, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with legalizing
prostitution. It would allow a municipality that wishes to
legalize prostitution to do so. In fact it would allow a
municipality to license establishments as places of business
where prostitutes may legally perform their trade.
1205
Prostitution per se is not illegal but communication for the
purpose of prostitution is illegal. This amendment to the
criminal code would make it easier for municipalities that wish
to legalize prostitution to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-481, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax
credit for mental or physical impairment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would make it easier for those
who take care of an individual with either a physical or mental
impairment. It would create a provision within the Income Tax
Act for a portion of the remuneration paid by the taxpayer to
another person who is performing those activities to be a
deductible amount.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
OIL AND GAS OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-482, an act to establish the office of Oil and
Gas Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to the business
practices of suppliers of oil or gas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a lot of
frustration across the land when it comes to gasoline prices.
Consumers across Canada are feeling helpless.
The bill would create an independent body whereby an ombudsman
would be put in place with the authority to investigate and look
into allegations of price fixing or wrongdoing within the
industry. It would have a wide ranging mandate and would report
to parliament on a regular basis as well as to the Competition
Bureau.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-483, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Public Service
Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act (dependent beneficiaries).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairness bill dealing with
people who have passed away that worked for the government or in
the private sector. If they do not have a spouse, their pension
would in this situation go to an individual who is dependent on
them.
In a logical sense this is a fairness bill whereby if people do
not have a spouse or a child, they would be able to identify one
dependent person to be their beneficiary. It applies to both the
private and public sector.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
STATISTICS ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-484, an act to amend the
Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census
records).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Perth—Middlesex for his support in seconding my bill. I am
pleased to introduce a bill to allow the public release of
post-1901 census records.
The intent of the bill is to amend the Statistics Act and the
National Archives of Canada Act to allow for the transfer of
census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of
Canada where the records would be released to the public subject
to the Privacy Act.
The bill is a reasonable compromise. Canadians would have an
opportunity to review the census returns 92 years after the
census was taken, providing an individual does not provide a
written objection to the release of his or her records within
that timeframe.
The bill finds a balance which ensures confidentiality while it
maintains access for genealogists, historians and medical
researchers.
1210
The census returns are a valuable link to our family heritage,
community history and telling about Canada's collective past and
present. I join with genealogists worldwide in saying that the
only true picture of the lives of our ancestors lies within
Canada's census records. I hope hon. members will support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure today to present
another petition with regard to the legalization of the
possession of child pornography in British Columbia by a lower
court decision.
This petition adds to the hundreds of thousands that we
presented in the House over the last few months on the same
issue. Another approximately 400 names have come in and been
approved, and it is my pleasure today to table them in the House.
TAXATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present. The first
one calls upon parliament to announce a timetable for the
elimination of the 5% surtax.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon parliament to ensure
that Canada's debt to GDP ratio remains on a permanent downward
track.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition wherein the petitioners call
upon parliament to continue to support research and development.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last and final petition calls upon parliament to
continue to reduce the employment insurance premiums.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present this petition on
behalf of several of my constituents from the Cold Lake area and
the Elizabeth Metis settlement area.
The petitioners call for the decision by the lower court which
legalizes possession of child pornography to be dealt with in a
firm way through the full use of the charter of rights and
freedoms, particularly the notwithstanding clause, so that child
pornography will no longer be considered to be legal. I
appreciate the petitioners' presenting this petition to me.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act to
authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the
Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton
Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments on Bill C-11,
the federal government's legislation to divest itself of the
assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
In my earlier remarks I was pleased to give some of the
background of coal production in Cape Breton and the benefits
which have been accrued by all Canadians from this production.
As I said, Cape Breton has been producing coal for 300 years,
long before Ottawa bureaucrats existed to criticize the
enterprise. The coal produced in Cape Breton fired the steamers
which helped build the British Empire. They were critical
components of industrial expansion in the early days of Canada.
The contribution which Cape Breton coal made to our war efforts
in both wars cannot be underestimated but unfortunately are
underestimated. I would say that the entire contribution of our
Cape Breton coal industry has been underestimated by the
government.
I have heard both the Liberals and the Reformers whine about the
money pit of Cape Breton and why we require drastic legislation
at this point. However I have never heard them talk about the
money saved by businesses and residents of Atlantic Canada
because of cheap Cape Breton coal being used to create
electricity. I have not heard members opposite credit Devco with
making $6 billion.
1215
I would like to talk a bit about that. Bill C-11, as it is
currently constructed, I believe would create a money pit in Cape
Breton. The bill could see 6,000 jobs lost in relatively small
communities, 15,000 direct layoffs, with up to three times that
many lost due to downward spinoffs. The impact would be
astounding. Along with what I have already mentioned, we would
see the loss of roughly $79 million per year in wages and
salaries. It would also mean the loss to Ottawa of roughly $28
million a year in Canada pension plan, employment insurance and
income tax contributions. It would also mean a total estimated
annual economic loss, direct and indirect, of as high as $300
million for this region.
I firmly believe that economically destroying a community is
really what creates a money pit, not working to preserve it. It
not only fails to make economic sense, it fails to make moral
sense.
There used to be an understanding that part of the public
responsibility of government was to help Canadians and not just
guard corporate rights in an unfettered marketplace, but not any
more. There used to be an appreciation and a respect for the
importance of certain national institutions in this country, but
obviously not any more.
Today I learned that the reprieve of local news shows at the
CBC, which is another sock from the Liberals to Cape Bretoners
and maritimers, and which I have already called a sham to get the
government through the next election, is not even what the
government has taken credit for. The national programs will get
millions to produce slick, commercial free, 30 minute national
news programs. They will have the time to develop the ideas and
they will receive the resources to do it right, an approach which
local shows should obviously receive as well. However, due to
the Liberals' brokerage compromise, the local shows have scant
days to come up with millions in cuts in the local show cities,
including Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John's, so
that they can throw together a 24 minute broadcast with 6 minutes
of commercials to reflect these communities to themselves.
Like Devco, the focus is on cutting a national institution which
supports the regions. This is the Liberals' approach to Atlantic
Canada: more for the centre and, quite frankly, screw the
regions.
It is time to revisit this government's minimum wage commitment
to this beautiful people and this beautiful island. I join with
my colleagues in the NDP to demand revisions to Bill C-11 to
respect the needs and the contributions of the people of Cape
Breton.
The Speaker: I am sure my colleagues will all be very
judicious in their choice of words in this debate.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
to the Devco bill.
I believe there are many elements of the government that have a
bias against the Canadian coal industry. That is a very
unfortunate circumstance. It derives, to a fair degree, from an
image problem. There is a conceptual thought in many people's
minds that somehow coal is dirty and that coal and greenhouse gas
emissions are related. That is a very unfortunate circumstance
for this important resource.
I want to talk about the development of the bill from a
parliamentary standpoint. I met with department officials last
year to receive a briefing on the bill, and I am not satisfied
with the way the system works. I realize that we are talking
about Group No. 1 amendments, but one of the amendments today
virtually mirrors an amendment I made at committee. Therefore,
it is a good amendment. I thought that amendment would come from
the government. I refer to Motion No. 3, which is one of the
amendments in Group No. 1.
1220
The reason I believed that was because I thought we had somewhat
of a meeting of the minds when department officials and people
like myself, who had political considerations, met for early
discussions on the bill before it went to second reading. I had
the belief that an amendment would be forthcoming from the
government.
That never happened. Nothing changed and there was no
bureaucratic follow-up.
I see this as something that is structurally wrong. When there
appears to be a legitimate opposition concern, particularly about
expenditure controls or the way government disposes of assets, or
about protecting taxpayer interests, we should not be put in a
position as opposition members of bureaucratic convenience,
indifference or political interference. I do not know what to
attribute it to. However, there is absolutely no follow-up on
what appears to be a legitimate problem.
In any case, none of that happened. I certainly was not happy
with that at committee. I am once again not happy today. What
we have is the very same bill presented today which was presented
last fall, and there has been absolutely no entertainment by the
government to change a word in the bill.
I am sure the government is concerned about getting it through
parliament before we recess. However, it was the government
which decided it did not want to bring the bill forward until
very recently. It has had the legislation, as we all know, for
quite a long time.
It should not have been a surprise to me to go to committee this
week to find that the opposition members from all parties were
basically redundant from the standpoint that the government would
not entertain a single change.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of a government member,
protecting whatever the interest is that they believe they are
protecting. I could not determine why the government would not
look seriously at a lot of the amendments and try to negotiate
something with the opposition. That simply is not the way this
government likes to operate. The process in many respects is
very much a sham.
That does not only apply to this bill. However, it became very
apparent to me that that was what was happening. As there will
be many people affected, as has been pointed out quite well by
the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, I do not think that is the
way to do business.
The Group No. 1 amendments, I believe, are quite supportable for
the most part, and we will be supporting them. I want to talk
about Motion No. 3 because that motion reflects the motion I put
at committee.
1225
In the asset divestiture process this bill will suspend the
Financial Administration Act. From the government side, there is
some logic to doing that because business confidentiality must be
maintained, and if that act were fully in place that would be
impossible. We understood that concern.
We also had a major concern, in that there has been a government
divestiture of taxpayer assets. There is a track record, a
legacy, of political favouritism, political payoffs and other
things because the proper arrangement was not in place to ensure
it did not occur. We have seen it in some of the Department of
National Defence base divestitures and that sort of thing. It is
in everyone's interest to ensure that does not happen.
The motion is a strong attempt to have oversight by the auditor
general, who is already the auditor for Devco, to ensure that the
auditor general's report comes to parliament in a timely fashion.
That would put the political masters on notice that they could
not express this kind of favouritism to their friends without
scrutiny on a timely basis. If the scrutiny is too far down the
road, it amounts to non-scrutiny because too much time has
elapsed.
This is a really useful amendment. I hope we can convince the
government to adopt it. We could not convince it at committee.
We could not convince it at the briefings before that. Now we
are at the last stage and we have an opportunity to do it at
report stage. I am very hopeful that the government will see
this as reasonable.
The government response is that this is redundant because it is
already going to happen. I do not think it is redundant. Even
in the very worst case if it were totally redundant, perhaps with
a different timeframe, there is enough concern from all members
of the opposition to warrant it. As a taxpayer I would want more
than government assurances.
Government members should adopt Motion No. 3 and take another
look at how they have treated the whole divestiture of assets.
They will wear it if they do not take another look.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased, but not as pleased as I would like to be about taking
part in this debate today because of the issue that is before us.
Before I get into the gist of my remarks, I would like to
sincerely congratulate the two members of parliament from Cape
Breton, the hon. member for Bras-d'Or—Cape Breton and the hon.
member for Sydney—Victoria, who, in their remarks prior to
question period, put the case for Devco very eloquently. That
deserves to be mentioned at the outset.
I think it was the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria who also
questioned the Prime Minister of this country trotting off to
Berlin. He may come back with a couple of broken arms from
patting himself and his government on the back so much for the
compassionate society we are supposed to be developing.
We must look at what happens in the regions of our country. We
heard in question period today what is happening with regard to
toxic waste being dumped. The toxic waste that is being allowed
into Canada primarily comes from the United States. There are
tonnes and tonnes of it being dumped in the province of Quebec
and in southwestern Ontario.
We look at the situation in Cape Breton and the plight of the
farmers.
1230
At the same time, we have to recognize that the Liberal majority
government opposite has roughly two-thirds of its seats in one
province. We lack a national party with membership from most
regions. We know what Nova Scotians thought of the government in
the 1997 election three years ago today. They did not return one
government member to the House of Commons. I think there is a
message in there. I hope the government members opposite are
listening.
Unlike the previous members, including the member for Dartmouth
who spoke eloquently, I am not from that part of the world. If I
may digress for 30 seconds, I want to talk about somebody who is
from there, somebody I am privileged to call a friend.
His name is John Francis Lofty MacMillan. To picture this man,
think of the song from the 1960s “Big Bad John”. I think the
words went “He stood six foot six and weighed 245”. That will
give an indication of Lofty MacMillan. He was a mine worker from
Judique in Cape Breton.
When I knew him we were both involved with the Canadian Union of
Public Employees. Brother MacMillan used to be concerned about
the timidity of the public sector as compared with the militancy
of the United Mine Workers. To inject some militancy and some
backbone in the public sector in those days, he regularly told
this story.
When the miners of Cape Breton went on strike, they would throw
their lunch pails in the air. His idea of taking a strike vote
was if the lunch pails stayed up, they went back to work; if they
came down, they went on strike. According to Lofty MacMillan
that is how they took strike votes in those days. The member for
Winnipeg North Centre is saying that works for him. I suspect
that it would. Mr. MacMillan and his colleagues were busy
fighting the mine owners. However, for a number of decades now,
the government has been involved. That always makes life a
little more interesting.
[Translation]
Bill C-11 was introduced to authorize the divestiture of the
assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The enactment provides the necessary authority for the
disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation, and provides for the
dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the corporation.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable a private
sector operator to acquire the mining assets of the corporation
so that the federal government can exit the coal mining business
in Cape Breton and to provide for the continuation of the
existing jurisdictional regimes for labour relations,
occupational safety and health, and labour standards.
The NDP will propose that the bill be withdrawn and that the
matter be referred to committee, for three main reasons.
First, the unions representing Devco employees have taken the
corporation to court for failure to meet its obligations under
the legislation and seek to have clause 17(4)(b) included in any
new legislation.
Second, so that the committee can institute a process of full
public consultation in Cape Breton in order to develop a long
term strategy for the economic development of the region in
order to offset the effects of possible privatization.
Third, the uncertainty created by the recent court decisions
with respect to first nations treaty rights and the
repercussions on mining rights must be clarified.
1235
[English]
This morning there have been some developments on the bill. As I
understand it, and details are a bit uncertain at the moment, it
appears that the arbitration board has been very critical of the
way in which the government has acted heretofore. We hope that
it will look very seriously at the arbitrators' report today and
take the necessary corrective steps.
My colleagues from Sydney—Victoria and Bras D'Or—Cape Breton
have been saying that the amendments we are proposing have been
developed in very close consultation with the miners themselves,
with the people of that region. They know exactly what needs to
be done and the converse, what has not been done, over the past
number of years as the government took arbitrary steps without
adequate consultation with the people themselves.
We simply ask, will the government not agree with the amendments
that have been developed by the miners and their families and
indeed the leaders in and around Cape Breton?
Other members have talked about the fact that coal has been
mined for 300 years in Cape Breton and it is not because there is
no coal left that we are in this predicament. It is rather
because of a government decision to get fine coal from other
locations and countries.
One of the concerns that we have is that the coal will now be
coming from Colombia in South America. As I think you are aware,
Mr. Speaker, and certainly our caucus members know what has been
happening for the last number of years in Colombia. I do not
think there is any country, certainly not in this hemisphere and
perhaps not anywhere in the world, where trade union leaders are
more endangered by loss of life than they are in that country.
As my colleague our labour critic is saying, they are being
assassinated at an alarming rate.
We are aware of a brother from Colombia that was in this country
within the past month, who is now back there, and there have been
two attempts on his life. We have made appeals to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, because I presume he will be at the Organization
of American States meetings this weekend in Windsor, Ontario,
that there be adequate pressure put to ensure that this
individual and other individuals are not subject to being
assassinated, murdered, because of the actions of the Colombian
government. We cannot say that strongly enough.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
has been pointed out by my colleagues, the representatives from
Sydney—Victoria and Bras D'Or—Cape Breton and now the member
for Palliser, members of our caucus, they have all made it
abundantly clear that Bill C-11 constitutes a breach of a
promise. It constitutes a breach of trust. It constitutes an
abdication of responsibility. Even more worrisome, it indicates
a shift in policy that we find most disturbing.
The member from Halifax was indicating that somehow there is a
prevailing attitude within the government that all things
publicly run are bad and all things privately run are good. It
is some philosophical shift. The government bought into the
right-wing line that the government and the public sector are
incapable of managing any enterprise and therefore it should be
divested and put into the private sector which will somehow do a
better job.
1240
That is worrisome, because when we look at why public
institutions were generated and created, it was for the public
good, the common good. There was a vision larger than just the
profitability of the corporation. It served a purpose and
function in the community.
When we look at the history of Devco, the development
corporation in Cape Breton, it was not just about coal mining.
Devco went beyond coal mining. People do not realize that it had
a number of functions within the community and coal mining was
just one of them.
What we are really talking about today is the shutting down of
the mines. I ask the House to consider what good common sense it
was to support the coal mining industry, which had a great long
history in the area already, for the purposes of providing fuel
to run the generating stations to provide electricity for the
province of Nova Scotia. If it was a corporation it would be
called vertical integration. People are always saying that
government should act more like business. This was good business
sense. This was keeping the jobs in house, enjoying all the
benefits as well as the actual product of generating electricity
for the public at a reasonable rate. This was common sense.
When people talk about Devco as being some kind of a money pit,
a waste of money or too much money spent, they forget the
benefit. Yes, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars were
invested, but there were billions of dollars worth of benefit
extracted, not just in wages but in actual productivity and
production.
Overall, Devco may have been a net loser. There may have been
some enterprises which it tried and failed at, but the coal
mining side of it was economically viable and served a valuable
purpose.
I am glad the member for Palliser illustrated the folly in this
line of thinking. Now the thermal generating plants which
generate electricity for Nova Scotia will have no option but to
outsource for their coal. Ironically, and we pointed out the
tragedy of this, they are going to buy their coal from Colombia
of all places. Instead of looking after jobs in their home
community of Cape Breton and allowing families to grow up with a
decent standard of living, we are going to support the murderers
in Colombia.
I do not know who we are buying our coal from there, but it is a
corrupt place. Working conditions are poor, wages are pathetic,
and people who speak out to try and make it better are
assassinated. Is that who we want for a business partner to
supply the generating stations of Nova Scotia? It is absolutely
tragic.
The frustration I sense from the speakers today is overwhelming.
We have people in our caucus who spent their lives representing
the people of Cape Breton. Now they have the privilege of doing
that in the House of Commons and they have made passionate,
compelling arguments to the government for years since they have
been here.
Since June 1997 I have heard the members representing Cape
Breton appeal to the government to find a satisfactory resolve to
the economic development situation in Cape Breton. Ironically,
today there has been a bit of a breakthrough. The much awaited
arbitration case dealing with the outstanding issues finally came
through. It says exactly what the two members have been saying
for three years. They should be able to feel some sense of
satisfaction.
Why it took three years is anyone's guess. I think there is a
philosophical bent, a fundamental shift in policy on that side of
the House of Commons which makes them unwilling or unable to
listen to reason and logic to find a satisfactory resolve.
Bill C-11 is so fundamentally flawed. It indicates a failure to
recognize the significance and the impact that the bill has on
the community. It constitutes a breach of trust and a breach of
promise.
Back in the old days there was some sense of national vision,
even from Liberal governments of the day. There was some sense
of national pride and national unity, and it becomes a unity
issue with economic development. There was a feeling that
government has a role to play to stimulate the economy in areas
where it is necessary in order to ensure that all Canadians enjoy
a reasonable standard of living. In the richest and most powerful
civilization in the history of the world, one would think we
could at least devise a way that we could all share in the bounty
of the country to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. The
government has abandoned that.
I do not know specifically who the people were who did have some
vision in those days. I suppose they were the Allan J.
MacEachens, the Walter Gordons, the Paul Martin Srs., the people
who had some sort of a philosophy associated with pulling the
country together instead of letting it drift apart.
We have abandoned the attitude that government has any role to
play and we are going to leave it up to the free hand of the
market, to the Adam Smiths of the world.
They will say that if we let the market prevail all will be well.
All is not well because, fundamentally, capital has no
conscience. I have reminded the House of Commons of that simple
fact before. It is like a big dumb shark that gobbles up stuff
and has no conscience, no vision, no thought and no sense of
doing the right thing.
1245
Government has the role of conscience of capital. Somebody has
to intervene and give these Liberals a conscience and a little
more sense of purpose. Frankly, without that there would be no
regulations and no controls whatsoever. This, unfortunately, is
what has happened now in Cape Breton.
The government has abandoned Cape Breton. It has traded off an
economically viable enterprise for $68 million. That is the 30
pieces of silver it used to buy off the people of Cape Breton.
Sixty-eight million dollars may sound like a lot of money but we
need to put that in perspective given the surpluses, et cetera,
that the government has now.
The EI system alone is showing a surplus of $600 million a
month. That is the kind of money the government deals with.
Sixty-eight million dollars is a paltry and trivial amount when
we are talking about trying to replace the economic base of an
entire island. It does not even register on the map. We find it
offensive that the government thinks people are so gullible that
they will be blinded by the flash of silver, the $68 million. It
is almost insignificant statistically.
The member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for
Sydney—Victoria thought they could salvage some satisfaction out
of Bill C-11 by moving some very important amendments that we are
debating here today. I thought these were very thoughtful and
very meaningful amendments because those members did what the
government did not do. They consulted with the stakeholders.
They actually spoke to the miners and asked them what they needed
and what they thought the shortcomings were in Bill C-11. What a
novel concept: ask people what they need, ask the experts.
The government refused time and time again to hold public
hearings. It is going to take steps that will devastate a whole
community but does not have the courage to defend its position in
front of the very people these decisions affect. Government
members did not have the guts or the intestinal fortitude to talk
to the people in Cape Breton, and that is cowardly. The members
of parliament who represent Cape Breton and that area spoke to
the people and came forward with meaningful amendments, some of
which are so common sense that it is inconceivable why the
government would not deal with them.
One of the amendments wants to ensure that members of the new
Devco board of directors are from Cape Breton. The Liberals do
not want to handicap themselves. They might want to parachute in
some patronage candidate from central Canada, no doubt from some
place where they have friends and some elected representatives,
instead of Cape Bretoners.
Another meaningful amendment would ensure that miners who became
sick from working in the mine for 40 years and have black lung
disease would be protected with some kind of long term extended
health benefit. After giving their lives to the industry and now
having the government pull the rug out from under them, would it
not be common decency to ensure extended health benefits for
those miners? No, the government will not entertain that idea
either.
This group of amendments seeks to make Bill C-11 less
devastating. I am disappointed that there has been no movement
whatsoever from the government side. Do those members not feel
any responsibility or accountability for what they have done to
Cape Breton? I do not know. I do not think they do.
I regret and lament the fact that Bill C-11 will probably pass
unamended. My prediction is that the government will wear that
and pay the political price for many years to come.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regard to Bill C-11. I will give
a bit of history with regard to what is going on with Devco and
what I have seen take place in Cape Breton since 1994.
In late 1994 or the early part of 1995 I had the opportunity to
go to Cape Breton to try to get an understanding of the concerns.
I had the great opportunity of meeting with the miners, the union
people and with business people. I was also taken down through
the mines. I started to catch up a bit on what was taking place.
1250
I knew about the money that had been put into Devco. What I
could not understand, particularly after being down there, was
what happened to a large percentage of those funds. I could see
that the funds had not gone to the miners or even into the mines.
As I began to dig a little more I came across the fact that the
government had decided not to renew its contracts for exporting
coal from some of the mines. Although I am not a raving genius
myself, I can understand that when a company gives up a segment
of its market, particularly when it is competing on an
international scale, it has just told its customers that it is no
longer willing to produce the goods that they want. Any sane
thinking company would know that its customers would go somewhere
else to find the market, but not the government.
The government figured that it could bring them back any time it
wanted to, but that was not the case. Instead, the government
decided to try to prove that this was not economically feasible.
It went through a broad scope of deals and non-deals, promises
and broken promises in order to achieve this. In the meantime,
it told the people of Cape Breton that it would look after their
best interests.
The government repeatedly told the people of Cape Breton that
Devco would be there, that they should not to worry, that they
should be happy and that the government would look after them.
All the time it was planning on just closing the door without
very much concern about what would happen.
The door closed and now we are left trying to clean this up and
trying to make some sense out of this. The government comes
forward with Bill C-11. Everybody from all parties of the House
have gone through the bill carefully and some members have put
forth a number of amendments. The government has decided not to
accept any of those amendments. I cannot understand this. We
have members in the House who represent Cape Breton, who have
been down there and know the people intimately, and yet their
motions are not to be accepted by the government.
We have been down there and have spoken with the people. We
have met with the business community, with labour and with
management but not one of our motions has been accepted. This
does not show a willingness on behalf of the government, no
matter what it says or professes in the House, to listen to the
people of Canada no matter what region they are from.
Some members like to stand in the House and say that this is an
eastern problem or that is a western problem. No, this is a
Canadian problem. Maybe it is about time government members made
up their minds that they are here to represent all of Canada, not
just pieces and segments here and there whenever they see fit.
When this bill came before the House we were in a dilemma. I
may be hesitant sometimes in the way I speak, but when I went
through the files on Devco and read between the lines—it is not
there in black and white because the government will not let it
be there in black and white—I had to wonder who took the money
out of Devco. It was not the miners. It is not laying there in
an abundance of assets. There are some assets there, yes, but
what happened to most of the money? How much went toward
patronage appointments? How much was never accounted for?
I cannot seem to find the answers in the bill no matter how hard
I look. I have to wonder what Devco was all about. It certainly
was not to help Cape Bretoners. Maybe it helped a select few,
but certainly not the Cape Bretoners themselves. When we see the
mess that is there now, we think of the money that has been put
into Devco and what has been accomplished.
1255
Some of our people have talked to the union. We have talked to
the miners who have worked in the mines for years, some of whom
are two months or a year short of retirement. They will get no
funds out of this.
Where is this passionate Liberal Party? Where are the members
who hammered on our doors just before the last election and said
“I am here to help you. I am here to listen to your problems and
I am here to help fix them. Please elect me again”.
In the next election those members will get the same message in
Cape Breton as they will get in our constituency in British
Columbia, “Get out of here. We are sick and tired of listening
to what you say you are going to do and then having to live with
what you actually do”. Cape Breton has found out the tough way,
and it is really a shame.
As I go through the motions, I see one that I wanted in the
bill. Motion No. 14 reads:
17. The Corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to
reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or
unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine
operated by the Corporation.
The Liberals turned this motion down. What is so unreasonable
about that motion? All it asks is for the government to do its
job, and it has refused to do it.
In closing I want to say that this government has a lot to be
ashamed of today and I hope it realizes this soon.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, once again I rise to talk about Bill C-11.
Certainly I concur with what has been said already by my
colleagues in this House, both within my party and within the
NDP, although our objective on the bill is somewhat different
from the NDP because we support the idea of privatizing Devco. It
only makes sense to me.
Over the last 30 years this government and the Conservative
government have certainly proven that Devco was created for
political purposes, existed for political purposes and appears is
going to die for a political purpose, which is really
unfortunate. What is going on here is such a tragedy. What the
government appears to be preparing to do is immoral.
I talked to you before, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again in
the House; what the Liberals are doing to Cape Breton is just as
horrendous as what the Trudeau Liberals did to Alberta under the
national energy program. I would understand if Cape Bretoners
rose up in screaming protest to what is happening. If Cape
Bretoners and Atlantic Canadians never again in Canadian history
voted for a Liberal candidate I could certainly understand that.
We have a history of mining in Cape Breton that goes back
hundreds of years. We have some of the best mining expertise in
the world in Cape Breton. We have hundreds of millions of tonnes
of coal in the ground in Cape Breton. We have a market in Nova
Scotia for all the coal that Cape Breton miners can produce for
Nova Scotia power. We have management capability in Cape Breton
that wanted to bid on the assets of Devco and wanted to operate
the mines, the wash plant and all the rest of the assets for the
benefit of Cape Bretoners and Nova Scotians.
This government, it would appear, is denying them that
opportunity without even a fair hearing. That makes no sense to
me and it again smacks of the same kind of mismanagement,
corruption and patronage that has dogged Devco for the last 30
years.
1300
I tried to get into those issues in committee. I tried to
expose some examples of the patronage and mismanagement that went
on. The president and chairman of the board of directors of
Devco was quoted in a local Nova Scotia newspaper on how terrible
the management of Devco had been and how that was the reason
Devco could never be profitable.
The fact is that coal mining in Cape Breton can be profitable,
but certain conditions have to be met before that is possible.
The government does not appear to be allowing those conditions to
be put in place. To preserve Devco as a crown corporation and to
preserve the system imposed on the coal mining industry in Cape
Breton would never be profitable. It would never survive without
the ongoing billions of dollars of subsidies that have been
poured into it. They would have to continue to be poured in.
If Devco were privatized and not saddled with the liability of
the successor rights of the existing union contracts today, or
the huge liability going all the way back to the Dominion Steel
and Coal Company which succeeded Devco, and if a private company
could buy the assets of Devco and operate it without those
liabilities and without the huge environmental liability that has
accumulated over the years, which everybody has been trying to
ignore, coal mining could be profitable in Cape Breton. It could
do much for the economy. It could employ miners. It could be a
wonderful opportunity for Cape Bretoners to control their own
destinies, to have jobs and benefits, and to carry on.
The government will not allow that to happen because then Cape
Bretoners and Atlantic Canadians would be independent. They
would not have the strings attached that they would have by
shutting down Devco, putting in a call centre and perhaps
creating hairdressers like they did in the TAGS program. Those
programs always have strings attached. There is always a
political payback for those kinds of programs if the government
puts them in place. That is what the government is trying to
maintain in Atlantic Canada. That is such a shame because I
think there are real opportunities here.
We will not support a few of the amendments in the three groups.
The NDP has reintroduced at report stage debate the amendments we
introduced in committee. We will support them as we will support
the NDP amendments to ensure that there is some local
representation on the board of Devco and on the pensioners
administration board. Why would anybody not be willing to do
that? It only makes perfect sense.
The only amendments we will not support are the ones dealing
with successor rights under the union contracts. If the
government has not already guaranteed, and I think it has, those
successor rights guarantee that whoever buys the Devco assets
will never operate the mines, or at least not operate them for
any length of time, and will therefore shut them down.
It is pretty obvious that the government has refused in
committee or in debate to indicate whether or not there was any
requirement in the conditions of sale of Devco that whoever buys
it would have to operate the mines even for one day. I suspect
not.
When I was in Cape Breton the miners that work underground in
the Prince Mine told me that the real reason there is such a rush
on the bill is that they are working on a particular coal face in
the mine. Instead of preparing another coal face at the same
time so that when that one is mined out they have the next face
to move to and continue, there is no preparation for another coal
face.
This indicates to me that there is no intention, once the current
coal face is mined out, to continue operating the mine. They
could not, if they wanted to, without that forward thinking.
1305
When we look at some of the yearly financial statements of the
corporation we see no long term plan to operate any of the mines
in the Devco corporation. Certainly there is no capital
investment, maintenance or upkeep of the assets. It can be seen
as plain as day that it is heading for a dead end and will be
shut down. It is being strangled to death.
It is no wonder that the people of Cape Breton, the NDP, our
party and the Conservative Party are suspicious. This whole issue
is shrouded in a veil of secrecy under the guise of commercial
confidentiality.
When I asked the minister in committee if Canadians would ever
know the terms and conditions of the sale, he assured us that
once the sale had gone through and the bill had passed he would
have no problem disclosing the terms and conditions of the sale,
until one of his minions leaned over and whispered in his ear
that it would not be possible, that the terms and conditions of
the sale would have to remain secret forever, that they could
never be exposed.
Why would everyone involved not become extremely suspicious of
what is going on? A very valuable asset is on the auction block,
and that is the contract with Nova Scotia Power. Clearly that is
what is being bid on. As far as anyone in Cape Breton knows and
as far as anyone here knows, and I guess only the government
knows for sure, any local bids have not even been considered in
the sale. The bids being considered are foreign bids, American
bids, assuming the coal is to come from offshore.
When the transport minister was asked a question about the mess
in the airline industry, he stood in the House to say that is a
small price to pay for a Canadian solution. There is a price to
pay for a Canadian solution in Cape Breton, and we should pay it.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the
comments of previous speakers. A number of times I wondered
whether I should intervene and either bring the discussion and
comments back to the amendments we are looking at or challenge
some of the numerous points that I think were outrageous and, at
the very kindest, totally exaggerated. I decided I would not do
that and would encourage those who are interested—
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If I look over on the government side I find that we do
not have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I resisted the
temptation to respond to every point. Some good points were made
but quite a large number of them were exaggerations.
Be that as it may, I encourage those outside the Chamber who are
interested in the facts to read the various public documents that
relate to Bill C-11 and the proposed sale of the federal coal
assets in Cape Breton. I would also have them refer to the
committee proceedings.
I will briefly deal with some of the amendments. I will not try
to deal with all the amendments in Group No. 1. Motion No. 1
refers to the Government of Nova Scotia. I am not aware that
Nova Scotia has expressed any interest with reference to this
proposed amendment.
In any event I do not think it would be helpful to put in place
measures that would preclude a future owner of the coal
operations from government interference at that time.
1310
With respect to all these amendments, the government will not be
supporting any of them. For the most part they are in many cases
redundant, such as Motion No. 3 which refers to the auditor
general. The auditor general is Devco's auditor. The Devco
board is responsible for reporting to parliament every year.
Therefore I doubt there are concerns over disclosure which have
much if any substance.
With reference to Motions Nos. 4 and 5, I believe they refer to
undertakings to the general advantage of Canada. Those measures
are already taken care of in the bill as it stands. Indeed they
would also be redundant.
With respect to Motion No. 2 in terms of a public inquiry,
notwithstanding comments made earlier there have been extensive
consultations over the years. It has been studied enough.
I will conclude my comments on the first group of amendments.
Let me just add, though, that I respect the views of members on
Bill C-11. It is a tough thing to do, but we on this side
believe it is best for Cape Breton to allow the coal industry to
get on. We believe the communities and the people of Cape Breton
are up to the future and will do well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The first 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1315
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded division on
Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded division
on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 12 stands deferred.
We will now put to the House the motions in Group No. 2.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the
following new clause:
“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the
following after subsection (3):
(4) One director other than the Chairperson and the
President shall be an employee of the Corporation.”
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 22
on page 3 the following:
“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the
following:
(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the
Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.”
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 22
on page 3 the following:
“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the
following:
(4) At least one third of the directors shall be members of
the Devco Pensioners' Association.”
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41
on page 3 the following:
“(4) One director other than the Chairperson and the
President shall be an employee of the Corporation.”
1320
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41
on page 3 the following:
“(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the
Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.”
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41
on page 3 the following:
“(4) At least one third of the directors shall be members of
the Devco Pensioners' Association.”
That Bill C-11, in Clause 13, be amended
“(2) The by-law shall provide that at least half of the
members of the board or committee that is charged with managing
the pension fund are selected by the Devco Pensioners'
Association.”
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
We have completed the first round of the bill and I see that
there are less than 10 minutes remaining before we go to Private
Members' Business. I wonder whether there would be unanimous
consent for you, Mr. Speaker, to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.,
which would allow us to go to Private Members' Business,
and we will resume on the bill next week.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.
for the purposes of proceeding to Private Members' Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between all parties and the member
for Wentworth—Burlington concerning the taking of the division
on Bill C-206 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members'
Business today. I believe if you ask, you will find consent for
the following. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-206, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Tuesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the deputy government whip. Is it the
pleasure of the House to accept the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just as a word for
our visitors, we have advanced the time so we can go right into
the next bit of business and not have to step down.
It being 1.24 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to
make amendments to other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I need some clarification. When you asked for the unanimous
consent for the motion which was put by the member on the Liberal
side, I very distinctly said no. I want to know what the ruling
was that you made on that point of order. I did not hear it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The ruling was on
the deferral of the vote in private members' business. The
ruling was that the vote would be deferred. I did not hear any
negative comments. I asked for unanimous consent and hearing no
dissent, we adopted the rule.
1325
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I suggest that rather than take the time from Private
Members' Business, perhaps we could have a discussion outside the
House, resolve this and bring it back to you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, there
is not a problem. I did not hear it. The motion was presented.
We went further and we deferred the vote. We are in Private
Members' Business.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise at this time to comment on Bill C-206 which makes extensive
amendments to the Access to Information Act.
First, I would like to take a moment to comment on the
remarkable effort my colleague the member for
Wentworth—Burlington has put into producing his Bill C-206. Many
of us consider it to be an accomplishment to produce a private
member's bill that contains one or two clauses. The member for
Wentworth—Burlington has met many administrative hurdles. He
has tenaciously persevered, which perseverance has brought us to
this debate today. Bill C-206 contains almost 35 clauses. Overall
it proposes a major overhaul to the Access to Information Act.
Second, I would like to speak about the importance of the Access
to Information Act and its role in promoting government openness
and transparency. Without a right of access enshrined in a piece
of legislation, all talk about government transparency is, in the
final analysis, somewhat hollow.
I wish to make some general remarks on the bill itself. My
position is that there are certain concepts expressed in the
Access to Information Act that we should be extremely careful
about revising. That is, whatever reform of the act is carried
out, it must, I believe, respect certain ideas.
One idea relates to personal information. First, the residents
of Canada are obliged to give the government all kinds of
personal information about themselves. This is referred to as
the collection of personal information. Next, the government is
obliged to use in specific and limited ways the personal
information of Canadians that it has collected. The Access to
Information Act also permits and governs disclosure of that
information. Right now I wish to focus on disclosure.
Disclosure is probably the most potentially controversial aspect
of dealing with personal information. Government must be careful
when it changes the rules in a way which increases the government
disclosure of personal information. What is at stake is
Canadians' confidence in their government and their willingness
to provide the government their personal information. For this
reason I encourage the members of the House and the committee
that will be examining Bill C-206 to pay great heed to the
question of when, under the Access to Information Act, personal
information gets released.
Bill C-206 would require the disclosure of information held by
the government after 30 years. The Government of Canada is
concerned that automatic disclosure of personal information the
government has held for 30 years could lead to an infringement of
an individual's right to privacy under the charter.
Individuals expect their confidentiality to be maintained when
they provide government with their personal information.
Canadians may fear that Bill C-206 would lead to an erosion of
their right to expect privacy and confidentiality from their
government. Let me give an example. Income tax returns contain
a lot of private and personal information that should be
continued to be protected. No one would want his or her income
tax information to be accessible at any time.
The privacy commissioner has also expressed his concerns about
the impact the bill would have on the privacy of individuals and
on the confidentiality of personal information.
Another issue of great importance is what approach to take to
confidential commercial information. As I mentioned in relation
to personal information, businesses in Canada are obliged in a
number of circumstances to give the government various types of
highly confidential commercial information. It has been pointed
out that if we reduce the level of protection on valuable
confidential commercial information, then I am afraid that
businesses may begin to think that the risk involved and the cost
of doing business in Canada is too high.
[Translation]
Let me give you a concrete example. If I had a business and
thought that, in order to get the government to approve a new
product, I would have to let my competitors have access to
confidential business information, I would certainly be
reluctant to give that information to the government.
[English]
There is a theme running through my comments and it is this. I
am entirely in favour of trying to increase government openness.
Indeed, I hope that this issue will be properly addressed by
whatever reform of the Access to Information Act goes forward. At
the same time we should remember that letting the sun shine in on
government operations, which is good, is not the same thing as
letting out people's personal information or businesses'
confidential information. The question of disclosure is
extremely sensitive and should not be undertaken without careful
consideration and consultation.
Finally, we should bear in mind that there is more than one
solution for dealing with a piece of legislation that may no
longer be working quite as well as it should be. We tend to
think automatically that a statute must be fixed by making
amendments to it.
In fact, the way a statute works can be fixed by improving how it
is applied and administered.
1330
I am not suggesting that improvements in the application and
administration of the access act would be the whole answer.
However, I wish to suggest to the House that we not rush into
amending the act before we are certain that this fairly drastic
course of action is what is truly needed.
If we are going to reform the act, surely it should not be
undertaken without first conducting broad public consultations to
allow all those who have an interest and a stake in this
legislation to express their views.
Parliament's information watchdog, the information commissioner,
made this very suggestion when he appeared before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights last November. He stated
that proposals for access reform should be formed by a variety of
perspectives and that it would be preferable for consultations to
be conducted on a broad scale, allowing all stakeholders to have
a say. I certainly agree with this view.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington, the author and sponsor of Bill C-206, an
act to amend the Access to Information Act. Normally the member
would be speaking himself at this time, but as it is the third
hour of debate on this bill, and as the member spoke during the
first hour of debate, he is not allowed under our standing orders
to speak today. Therefore, I will reflect the thoughts of the
member.
Much has happened between the first hour of debate and this
final one, a mere two days before Bill C-206 comes before the
House for its second reading vote. During the first hour when
the member for Wentworth—Burlington described his bill there was
optimism and excitement. After 13 years of failed attempts, at
last a bill was going forward that would substantially reform the
Access to Information Act, the legislation that was intended to
guarantee the right of Canadians to those government documents
they should be entitled to see, but that over the years has
become more an instrument of secrecy than of disclosure.
For over a decade the public, the media, members of parliament,
parliamentary committees and the former information commissioner
himself have clamoured for the overhaul of the act, but never has
any government come near to presenting legislation that answered
the urgent calls for reform.
An impasse arose from the fact that it has been impossible to
get consensus on how to amend the Access to Information Act from
all the ministries of government that would be affected. Added
to this was the problem that the justice department writes all
government legislation and, being comprised principally of
lawyers, naturally tends to think in terms of increasing
confidentiality and secrecy rather than of increasing openness.
After three years of trying to get the justice minister to
undertake reform to the Access to Information Act, the member for
Wentworth—Burlington undertook to write appropriate legislation
himself. As a former journalist, author and now politician, he
was uniquely qualified to undertake this task and, with the help
of expert legislative counsel, Bill C-264, now Bill C-206, was
presented to the House in October 1997.
The reforms proposed in Bill C-206 were sweeping, but almost all
of them were taken from the recommendations of the parliamentary
committee that proposed improvements to the access law, or from
the 1993-94 report of the Access to Information
Commissioner—almost all of them, save for the very first
amendment, which proposed that the name of the Access to
Information Act be changed to the open government act.
From the very beginning the member for Wentworth—Burlington
tried to make it clear to opposition parties and the government
alike that he would listen and act on all concerns and criticisms
expressed about Bill C-206. He has never pretended it to be a
perfect bill and has asked only that it go through second reading
to committee where witnesses can identify its flaws, propose
improvements, answer concerns and amend it wherever necessary.
In other words, the member for Wentworth—Burlington only asked
that Bill C-206 go through the same legislative process as any
other bill.
Opposition MPs in their speeches to Bill C-206 have raised
legitimate concerns, one of the more important being that they
are afraid to give government institutions the power to consider
multiple requests frivolous.
1335
This particular amendment was an attempt to address a problem
identified by the information commissioner in one of his reports,
but if Bill C-206 deals poorly with this issue or, worse yet, if
the amendment gives power to the government that is not intended,
then it should be changed or struck from the bill at report
stage. The member for Wentworth—Burlington would support any
such change.
The member has said repeatedly the same thing to government, and
for two years received favourable comment from officials in
various ministries and active help from justice department
officials, leading to a revised and more polished version of Bill
C-206, and even encouragement from cabinet ministers, notably the
justice minister and the foreign affairs minister.
Thus, it was with surprise and some dismay that the member for
Wentworth—Burlington was called to a meeting this past Monday
before the Deputy Prime Minister, the justice minister, the
treasury board president and the government House leader to be
confronted with accusations that Bill C-206 contains major flaws.
Even though he was given no advance notice of criticisms, the
member gave full answer then and in writing by noon the next day.
Meanwhile, the justice minister undertook to provide a full
analysis of all that was supposedly wrong with Bill C-206.
On Wednesday the government announced to Liberal members of
parliament that it would not support Bill C-206. On Thursday,
that is, yesterday afternoon, the member for
Wentworth—Burlington received the justice department critique of
Bill C-206 and a formal letter rejecting Bill C-206 from the
Deputy Prime Minister.
It is too bad that the justice minister has to rely on staff who
could produce a document so inept as that which attempted to
demolish Bill C-206. They could not even get the clauses under
discussion correct, or cover them all, or find merit in any that
increased openness, no matter how minor. Their criticism of
clause 26 in Bill C-206 is completely wrong. This clause would
extend protection of memoranda to cabinet, not diminish it.
The arguments in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter had more
substance, but none were sufficiently compelling to warrant
killing the bill.
What is a vote at second reading all about anyway? It seeks
agreement in principle, that is all. All legislation is regarded
as requiring close examination, correction and improvement after
second reading. If this process is not successful, then a bill
is killed at third reading, but not at second reading before it
has had public airing before committee, not at second reading
when all that is being sought is agreement in principle.
What is the principle? The first amendment of Bill C-206 would
rename the legislation to the open government act. The second
amendment would establish that it is the government's duty to
release as much information as it reasonably can to the public.
Will the Prime Minister vote in principle against such a bill?
Will the Minister of Justice or the Deputy Prime Minister?
Cabinet always has the option of killing the bill at third
reading or in the Senate, but to oppose such a bill at birth?
Perhaps the member for Wentworth—Burlington has indeed failed
to be sufficiently accommodating. The one single area of Bill
C-206 that he has said he will not budge on is the amendment that
would bring crown corporations like the CBC, Canada Post and the
National Capital Commission under the legislation. Crown
corporations spend billions of taxpayer dollars. They should and
must be subject to better public scrutiny.
Surely that is not cabinet's reason for opposing Bill C-206.
Surely cabinet should want debate on how to make all government
more open.
Many of us first came to this place in 1993. The hon. member
for Wentworth—Burlington has certainly been a man of parliament,
a man of this House.
What is being proposed in Bill C-206 would help every member of
parliament to do their job. It would also help make transparent
the workings of government to all Canadians.
1340
I commend the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his efforts,
his initiative and his perseverance in attempting to give all
members of parliament the equipment to do a better job and to
have more open and transparent government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have received
notice from the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge that he is
unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday,
June 5, 2000.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and
Government Orders will begin at 11 a.m.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act and to make amendments to other acts.
That bill faced many obstacles before reaching second reading
stage. I will show you how this bumpy ride finally made the Bloc
Quebecois withdraw its support for this legislation.
First, I want to reaffirm the importance of access to
information in a democratic society. It can be said without
exaggeration that the rules governing access to information are
a pillar of our democratic system.
Indeed, without these rules, there can be no transparency in the
public administration.
If unable to count on concrete standards that would provide them
with access to the documents being held by the government, the
public would in fact be deprived of its power of review, which
is essential to the democratic health of any society. This power
of review arises out of a fundamental right that belongs to each
of us: the right to know.
The scandal around HRDC funding is a clear example of just how
important that right to know is. This scandalous episode
reminds us that it is essential to have a clear picture of what
government is doing, so that public funds do not serve any
private interests.
Given the total absence of government co-operation in this area,
the public has had to rely on the Access to Information Act to
try to discover where the Transitional Jobs Fund money has gone.
Recently, the Bloc Quebecois was able to use access to
information to discover some major flaws in the Canada
Information Office tendering process. We discovered, in fact,
that the CIO had awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in
contracts without any call for tenders since June 4, 1998.
It is, for example, questionable to say the least that this
body, the principal mandate of which is to promote federal
propaganda, has awarded a $25,000 contract to a former Liberal
candidate without calling for tenders. Thanks to access to
information, we were able to obtain, and provide to our fellow
citizens, the disconcerting details on the Liberal government's
administration.
It must, however, be recognized that the effectiveness of the
Access to Information Act is not absolute. A formidable
bureaucratic culture continues to thwart the desire of the
public to discover more about the practices of their government.
The Information Commissioner of Canada, John Reid, spoke on this
matter the last time he appeared before the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities. He said:
The right of access, which I and many others view as one of the
cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools
available to ensure responsible government, only has meaning in
a regime where information is professionally managed. All too
often, and in a growing percentage of cases, it is proving
virtually impossible for departments to locate all records
responsive to a specific subject matter.
In short, it is not enough to hope that passing the Access to
Information Act will lead to transparency, properly implementing
it is necessary as well. For this to happen, the public service
must promptly and efficiently respond to requests for access to
information.
1345
In a special report tabled in this House on Tuesday, the
information commissioner evaluated the performance of eight
departments in terms of their response time to requests for
access to information. Once again, the commissioner's
examination revealed that a number of departments fall far short
in terms of speed.
No fewer than six departments, in fact, got an “F” on their
response time. These dubious results illustrate just how far
our institutions are away from developing the effectiveness
required in properly applying the Access to Information Act.
That being said, by tabling Bill C-206, the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington seemingly tried to correct certain flaws in
the Access to Information Act. As we know, the hon. member had
already alerted the members of this House to the need for
substantially reviewing the content of that act.
On December 23, 1997, the hon. member had introduced another
bill, Bill C-264, which received the support of a fair number of
members. However, later on, the hon. member drastically changed
the content of his bill.
On June 11, 1998, resorting to the politics of stealth, the
original text of Bill C-264 was replaced with a different one.
The bill was then reintroduced during the second session, on
October 14, 1999, as it stood when the House prorogued.
The bill originally called C-264 and amended on June 11, 1998,
thus became Bill C-206 when the House resumed sitting.
As I indicated in my introduction, that unusual process, to say
the least, resulted in the Bloc Quebecois withdrawing its
support. It must be understood that, while several Bloc
Quebecois members initially supported the original version of
Bill C-264, the situation is totally different in the case of
the version now called Bill C-206.
There is a serious gap between these two versions. As evidence
of that, one simply has to look at some of the new provisions
that were quietly included in the June 11, 1998 version of the
bill. The masterpiece of that sham is now found in clause 9 of
Bill C-206.
First, these amendments have to do with the terminology used in
clause 14 of the bill.
Under this first amendment, the head of a government institution
could refuse to disclose records containing information having
to do with federal-provincial relations.
So it was that on a fine day in June, 1998, the expression
“federal-provincial negotiations” used until then in Bill C-264
became “federal-provincial relations”. This change in
terminology is not insignificant.
In fact, clause 14 of the bill provides for an important
exception to the right of access to information. By
substituting a term as generic as “relations” for a more
specific term such as “negotiations”, the scope of the exception
is broadened considerably.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, this is a fundamental change,
because it would have the effect of excluding an entire range of
records to which the public is entitled to have access.
In addition, the new exception in clause 14.1, an exception not
contained in the original version of Bill C-264, is quite simply
unacceptable. For the benefit of members of the House, I will
read this exception:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any
record requested under this Act that contains information on
plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession
of a part of Canada, including information held or collected for
the purpose of developing those plans, strategies or tactics.
Whatever the member for Wentworth—Burlington may say, this
proposal is just plain antidemocratic. How can we keep citizens
in the dark about information dealing with the possible exercise
of democracy by a people? The supreme court has recognized that
accession to sovereignty is a completely legitimate and highly
democratic project.
1350
Canadians have a right to know how the federal government
intends to proceed regarding such a fundamental right.
On June 11, 1998, Bill C-206 lost all credibility. Access to
information, which is the core element of democracy for
citizens, cannot be used as a tool to stop the democratic will
of a people. The hon. member should know that it is ill-advised
to follow the Privy Council's recommendations when it comes to
democracy. History tells us that this bastion of federal
arrogance is not very inclined to promote the development of
democratic values.
For these reasons, members will understand that the Bloc
Quebecois does not support Bill C-206 and will strongly oppose
its passing.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There was some misunderstanding earlier and I would like
to report to the House that discussions have taken place between
all parties and the member for Wentworth—Burlington concerning
the taking of the division on Bill C-206, scheduled at the
conclusion of Private Members' Business today. I believe you
would find consent for the following:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-206, all
questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and if
a recorded division is requested it be deferred until Tuesday,
June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will
accept a request for unanimous consent at any time. Just to be
certain, we now have a request for unanimous consent to reverse
an earlier unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
need clarification. Perhaps I did not hear right again because I
am getting old and deaf. Can we say the question is deemed put
if in fact a division is requested? It seems to me that is
contradictory.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are doing it in
two steps. We would put the question on the motion to the House.
If it is accepted or rejected on division, that would be the end
of it. If a recorded division is demanded, the recorded division
would be deferred until the end of Government Orders next week.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, in that case I believe it is
redundant since that is done automatically on a Friday, is it
not, or am I wrong?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will put the
question. If the member for Elk Island chooses to say no, that
is his prerogative. Whether or not it is redundant, this is the
suggestion being put by the deputy government whip.
We will do it in two phases. Does the House give its unanimous
consent for the deputy government whip to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion as presented by the deputy
government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on second reading of Bill C-206. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier today the recorded division is deferred until
Tuesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
It being 1.55 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.55 p.m.)