TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, December 9, 1994
Bill C-51. Motion for third reading 8865
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8874
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8875
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8875
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8876
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8877
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8877
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8877
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8877
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8877
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8877
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8878
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8878
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8878
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8878
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8878
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8878
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8879
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8879
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8880
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8880
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8880
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8881
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8884
Bill C-296. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8887
Bill C-51. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 8888
Division on motion deferred 8893
Bill C-56. Motion for third reading 8893
Consideration resumed of motion 8900
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8900
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8901
Division on motion as amended deferred 8905
8865
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 9, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-51, an act to amend the
Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made
pursuant to that act, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-51 this morning, an
act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Bill C-51 represents a consensus among Canada's western
grain producers and the grain industry. This bill contains the
changes to the Canada Grain Act these communities have told us
they need.
There are four key elements to Bill C-51. The first is to renew
Canada's commitment to quality and therefore reinforce the
uniqueness of the Canadian quality control system. The second
is to eliminate the obligation for government to set maximum
elevator tariffs. The third is to improve the financial protection
available to grain producers. The fourth is to reduce the
exposure of taxpayers in the event that licensees of the Canadian
Grain Commission fail financially.
(1005)
I will now give some detail on these four particular aspects
beginning with commitment to quality. Bill C-51 renews this
commitment to quality. When we talk about quality, what we
mean are the measurable characteristics that end users of these
products tell us they need. Bill C-51 restates the need to meet
the requirements of end users through visual and other quality
determination methods. Until instrumental means are developed
to rapidly and efficiently determine quality, visual methods
must still be relied upon.
Grain quality, which is the primary reason for Canada's
success in international markets, is more important than ever
given the post-GATT climate in which freer trade rules reduce
the role of export subsidies. Our competitors are going to have
to become more like us. For this reason it is important that
Canada preserve its tradition and widely acknowledged
leadership in this area.
On the issue of maximum elevator tariffs, Bill C-51 provides
that the Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be required
to set maximum elevator tariffs. Tariffs are the charges grain
elevator operators levy for their elevation, storage and cleaning
services.
In the absence of maximum tariffs, elevator operators will be
able to decide what to charge for their services. Operators will
also no longer be required to provide the commission with 14
days notice when changes to tariffs are to be made. These
measures will provide companies with more opportunities to be
flexible and competitive.
Removing the obligation of the commission to set maximum
tariffs is being done at the request of the industry. Elimination of
the maximums should encourage more capital investment by
elevator companies and result in a more flexible and
competitive elevator industry.
Producer reactions to this provision have been mixed. Some
do believe there is a risk that companies will charge excessive
tariffs unless they are regulated but we are convinced that Bill
C-51 addresses these concerns. There are safeguards within the
bill and within the structure of the industry.
For example, the majority of primary and terminal elevators
are owned or controlled by producers through the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers,
and the Manitoba Pool Elevators. These operators are
responsible to their producers, so it is expected they will
consider the interests of producers when setting these tariffs.
Some may argue that the corporate interests of producer
organizations will override the producers' interests. It would be
presumptuous for government to tell producers they are
incapable of directing their own organizations. I am very much
convinced that producers know what they are doing and they are
in the best position to determine whose interests their
organizations will serve.
In the unlikely event that producer owned elevators are not
able to protect their producers Bill C-51 does include some
legislative remedies. Specifically for a two-year transition
period the Canadian Grain Commission will have the power to
immediately establish maximum tariffs by order if the
investigation of a complaint from an elevator user finds that a
particular tariff is unjustified. The two-year period should be
8866
sufficient for the industry and producers to adapt to a
deregulated tariff environment.
The commission will continue to have the power to set
maximum tariffs by regulation as a last resort if elevator
operators set tariffs that are excessive. Furthermore, the
commission will continue to investigate complaints and to
mediate disputes.
However, if the past behaviour of Canada's elevator
companies offers any indication of their future actions they will
behave responsibly. The recent experience where the
commission issued an order which removed elevation tariff
ceilings for terminal elevators for the current crop year has
shown this. Limits on these maximums were removed to allow
operators to recover overtime costs, enabling the industry to
deal with backlogged orders. The resulting tariff increases were
modest and responsibly applied.
It is significant that the tariffs companies are charging for
their other services are below the ceiling established by the
Canadian Grain Commission.
The next point has to do with the licensing and security
provisions contained in the bill. The Canadian Grain
Commission plays an important role in helping maintain the
integrity of grain transactions and thereby protecting the
interests of grain producers.
The Canadian Grain Commission licenses elevators and grain
dealers and holds security posted by licensees. This security
which is mandatory for all licensees is intended to help protect
farmers against losses in case a licensee defaults on payments to
farmers.
In the past the industry viewed this security as insurance to
cover licensee liabilities only up to the amount of security
posted.
(1010 )
However, in 1990 the Federal Court found the CGC liable in
the case of the bankruptcies of two former licensees. In both
cases the security held by the Canadian Grain Commission was
insufficient to cover the licensees' obligations to farmers and
the government had to pay the shortfall in security which was
approximately $3.8 million.
The payments that resulted from these court decisions came
out of general revenue, more specifically out of taxpayers'
pockets. We feel it is important to change the act to protect
taxpayers from further payments by clarifying the government's
responsibility in any further bankruptcies. This view is shared
throughout the grain industry with which the licensing and
security provisions of Bill C-51 were thoroughly discussed.
The new licensing and security provisions are as follows.
There is currently a one-year limit on security. The act will
allow the time limit to be prescribed by regulation and it is the
government's intention to fix this period at 90 days. The change
is based on one of the major recommendations flowing from
consultations. That recommendation was that farmers should
take more responsibility for their transactions. This includes
promptly pricing grain on delivery and cashing payment
documents.
The vast majority of those consulted agreed that security is
not intended to help farmers speculate on rising grain prices. By
limiting their time to claim the act will place the responsibility
on farmers for promptly obtaining payment and cashing
documents.
Another provision is that farmers will have 30 days to notify
the CGC of a licensee's failure or refusal to pay. If the CGC is
notified promptly of a default, it can investigate a licensee that
is potentially in financial difficulty and may be able to prevent
the licensee from incurring further liabilities.
The onus will be on farmers to determine whether they are
dealing with licensees. This is because the CGC only holds
security posted by licensees. If farmers want to be eligible for
security they will have to ensure they are dealing with a licensed
organization. They can do this by contacting the CGC or by
monitoring regular CGC advertisements in the farm press.
Farmers will have to hold prescribed documents to be eligible
for security. Security posted by licensees applies only to cash
purchase tickets, elevator receipts and grain receipts. To be
eligible to claim against security farmers must obtain one of
these prescribed documents. Only licensees will be entitled to
use them. This will prevent non-licensees from misleading
producers about their licensing status.
Security available to producers will be limited to the amount
held by the commission. If the security held is less than total
liabilities, the monies will then be shared on a pro rata basis.
Government will not be liable if the security held is not
adequate. The commission will monitor companies to make
certain their security is adequate to cover their liabilities.
Finally, Bill C-51 will enable the commission to set by
regulation the percentage of losses that would be covered by
security. The government intends this will remain at 100 per
cent of any losses. These are very important provisions that will
resolve some of these long outstanding issues.
There is another point here that should be discussed that has to
do with special crops. When Bill C-51 was reviewed by the
agriculture committee some members and witnesses expressed
the view that Bill C-51 should be held back until issues of
specific concern to some members of the special crops industry
could be addressed in the legislation.
8867
The answer to the problem does not lie in holding up this bill.
Rather, the answer is to proceed with developing legislation
that is geared to special crops. What does special crops mean?
This refers to products such as canary seed, sunflower seed,
mustard seed, lentils, buckwheat, beans, peas, corn, safflower
seed, soy beans, triticale, fava bean.
At one time special crops played a relatively small economic
role when compared with other Canadian grains such as wheat,
barley, oats, canola and so on. However, the industry has grown
significantly, particularly in western Canada where special
crops have grown by about 30 per cent in the last 10 years.
Special crops are regulated under the Canada Grain Act. This
act was designed to regulate an industry largely devoted to the
bulk handling of cereal grains. Many industry participants have
observed that because special crops differ significantly in terms
of handling and marketing the act does not meet all the needs of
the special crops industry.
This general assessment has some merit. Over the past several
years the Canadian Grain Commission has consulted widely on
this issue, mostly through the special crops initiative which was
conducted by a committee of special crops producers based in
the three prairie provinces. These reviews have confirmed that
the special crops industry operates differently than the sector of
the industry that handles the major grains and that legislative
changes are needed to address these special needs.
(1015 )
These reviews have also consistently underlined the need
expressed by producers to have access to companies which are
licensed and to financial security should those companies
default on their payments to the producers.
The commission has examined numerous suggestions and a
combination of suggestions that have come forward from
participants in the special crops industry. Some suggestions had
to be rejected because they were administratively complicated
and unduly expensive.
More consultation is planned because the commission wishes
to determine which regulatory option is most acceptable to
special crops producers and the industry.
The commission recently circulated a discussion paper which
outlines options and it will be holding discussions with the
special crops industry in western Canada over the next two to
three months. From these discussions will emerge
recommendations for legislation in 1995.
The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is as follows.
First, a special crops industry has special needs which must be
addressed. These needs are being addressed in a thoughtful and
timely fashion. Second, because the needs of the special crops
industry will be the subject of legislative proposals, the minister
of agriculture intends to bring it to the House in 1995. We should
not delay the passage of Bill C-51. Delays will aggravate
problems C-51 is designed to overcome.
In conclusion, we should all thank the many people who have
been involved in one way or another in the development of Bill
C-51. They include many members of the multitude of Canada's
producer and industry organizations, staff of the Canadian Grain
Commission, Agriculture Canada and many members of the
House, all of whom have contributed to make this bill a success
in addressing these issues.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51
under consideration today is an administrative bill. It is
designed to make the operation and administration of the
Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry more
efficient.
Canada's reputation for grains of constant and reliable quality
is commonly recognized as Canada's winning card on
international grain markets. The Canada Grain Act will be
amended a number of ways by the bill before us, to strengthen
the role played by quality in the Canadian grain industry.
Under the provisions brought forward today, the Canadian
Grain Commission, which is responsible for administering the
Canada Grain Act, will no longer have a duty to set maximum
elevator charges. We know that these charges are fees levied by
elevator operators for the handling, cleaning, storage and drying
of grain.
This deregulation of maximum charges will be introduced in
stages. There will be a two-year transition period during which
the commission will retain the power to set rate ceilings by
regulation. During and after this transition period, the Canadian
Grain Commission will act as an ombudsman, investigate
complaints and try to settle them. Following the transition
period, the Canadian Grain Commission will retain the power to
set maximum charges by regulation, as required.
This enactment will give elevator operators more flexibility
in setting their prices, enabling them to compete. It will also
encourage much needed capital investment.
Bill C-51 will lift the requirement for grain to be hauled from
province to another exclusively by common carrier. This will
benefit the producers, in our view, by giving them transportation
options that could help them cut their marketing costs.
The Canada Grain Act, 1912, established the Canadian Grain
Commission mainly to look after the interests of grain
producers. Their protection remains the main focus of the act
and several of the proposed changes are designed to ensure this
protection. Among the amendments is one giving the Canadian
Grain Commission the power to take measures against
companies making illegal use of the grade names established
under the Canada Grain Act.
8868
(1020)
The bill also requires licensed grain dealers to use the official
grade names established under the Canada Grain Act in all their
dealings with producers.
There is also a provision allowing the Canadian Grain
Commission to suspend primary elevator operation licenses
when surpluses exceed the allowed limits. A surplus is the
difference between the quantity of grain stored in the elevator
and the amount that should be there according to shipment
records and receipts.
The bill also contains provisions giving the Canadian Grain
Commission the authority to require operators to fully insure the
grain stored in their elevators. Finally, it requires eventual
licensees to provide specified financial data proving their
solvency.
Under the bill, the Canadian Grain Commission would license
elevator operators and grain dealers and hold security posted by
licensees, to help protect farmers in cases where a licensee
defaults in its payment to a grain producer.
After the bankruptcies of two licensees who had posted
insufficient security, the courts ruled that the shortfall should
come out of general revenue or, in other words, out of taxpayers'
pockets. The bill before us proposes several amendments
intended to clarify the respective responsibilities of the
Canadian Grain Commission and of grain producers and to
protect taxpayers against future disbursements.
These amendments include a provision that protects
producers by regulation during a fixed period following grain
delivery to a licensee. Should producers not try to obtain
payment during this period, they will not be eligible for
reimbursement out of the security posted by the licensee, in case
the licensee goes bankrupt, of course. Based on the
consultations which the Canadian Grain Commission held with
producers and industry stakeholders, the statutory period will be
90 days.
The bill also contains a provision requiring the grower to
notify the Canadian Grain Commission within 30 days if a grain
company has not met its obligations.
It also contains a provision making the grower responsible for
determining whether he is dealing with a duly accredited
company. Since accredited companies are the only ones that
have to provide security to the Canadian Grain Commission,
claims against the security will not be valid if a grower deals
with a non-accredited company.
We also find a provision requiring the grower to obtain
documents authorized by the Canadian Grain Commission from
grain dealers and other Commission licensees.
The bill also contains a provision allowing the Commission to
set a limit on the protection afforded by the security. The
Commission could not use this regulatory power without the
approval of the Governor in Council. At present, the protection
is total-100 per cent-and will remain so in the foreseeable
future.
There is also a provision explicitly limiting the Canadian
Grain Commission's obligation to the amount of the security
provided by the companies which it accredited. This provision
exists to make the protection which the growers enjoy closer to
the security provisions commonly found in other sectors. It is
similar to the limits set on the amount guaranteed by the
government when financial institutions fail.
I realize that I went quickly, but for these reasons, I will
support Bill C-51 presented by the government.
(1025)
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-51 which amends the
Canada Grain Act.
The Canada Grain Act regulates grading and inspection of
grain, maximum tariffs on handling charges including elevation,
cleaning, drying and so on. The act also restricts in some cases
transportation of grain. It is involved in licensing of businesses
dealing in or handling grain and also in the security
requirements of these companies.
The Canadian Grain Commission oversees the act. It is made
up of appointed commissioners who seem, for some reason, to
turn over to some extent after an election.
Today I will discuss the changes to the Canada Grain Act
which are proposed in Bill C-51. I will discuss these changes
under three headings: first, excessive power moved to the hands
of the minister and to cabinet; second, maximum tariffs on
handling charges; and third, bonding and licensing. As well as
these three main areas I will speak briefly about a few other
areas which I think are of particular interest.
I will begin with the excessive power moved to the hands of
the minister and cabinet under the changes made in Bill C-51. In
this bill an increased amount of legislative action is given to the
governor in council which is the formalized constitutional body
through which the federal cabinet exercises executive power.
The executive instrument of the governor in council is known as
an order in council which represents delegated legislative power
as permitted under specific acts of Parliament.
8869
This delegated legislative power gives cabinet, or really the
minister, the ability to enact subordinate legislation by order
in council or by regulation. Power delegated through enabling
legislation is so common that the law is effectively formed by
administrative bodies rather than by Parliament as it should be.
The legislator's role should be to pass the initial legislation
authorizing certain agencies to devise, promulgate and
supervise regulations as may be deemed necessary to give full
effect to a particular act.
Too much power is continuing to be centralized in governor in
council. In this bill, clauses 2, 4, 9, 15, 33 and 35 are examples.
How can the Liberals reconcile this with their red book
promises of more open and more democratic government? Why
are they formalizing control in cabinet? The argument that was
presented when this question was raised is that the bill only
legitimizes the authority that is there anyway.
If the government is serious about moving to a more open and
less interventionist style of government, why did it not remove
these powers rather than just formalizing what was there
anyway?
This expansion of the scope and use of governor in council
power which has occurred at the expense of the power of the
legislature or Parliament is largely a result of the increasing
complexity of modern government. However this delegated
legislative power may involve matters of administrative routine
right up to matters of major political and economic
consequences. A wide range of issues are dealt with by the order
in council power.
Such legislation is so extensive that Parliament can do little
other than conduct random checks and investigate only some
apparent abuses. The decisions made by cabinet or governor in
council are based on informal procedures and the deliberations
are secret. This amounts to little more than government by
cabinet decree with no accountability.
In this bill there are an increasing number of areas for which
the Canadian Grain Commission will now require governor in
council approval. Conceivably the Liberal government under
the revised act would be given the ability to covertly affect the
interest of an individual farmer, a farm group or a grain dealer,
for example, which is not operating according to its wishes.
Dare I suggest this change opens the door to pay-offs for
political favours or punishment for political foes. This is the
type of thing the governing Liberal Party campaigned against
during the election.
(1030)
In two cases in this bill there is a movement toward less
ministerial control. This bill states that the Canadian Grain
Commission will have the power to set the salaries for the
members of the eastern and western standards committees
which have 26 members and the grain appeal tribunal which is
made up of three members. This is in clauses 4 and 6 of this
legislation.
Currently the salaries of members of these committees are
fixed by governor in council at a $125 honorarium per day for
non-government participants and $10 per sample for the grain
appeal tribunal. The commission will now be setting the salaries
for committee members in order to better reflect the reality and
provide the Canadian Grain Commission with additional
flexibility to make adjustments without having to go to order in
council.
The second area I would like to talk about briefly this morning
is the setting of maximum tariffs. Clause 14 and some following
clauses eliminate over two years the requirement for the
Canadian Grain Commission to set maximum tariffs charged by
grain elevators. Instead the Canadian Grain Commission is
provided with the discretion to decide whether or not it wishes to
regulate this aspect of the grain industry while eliminating the
requirement that elevator operators have to give advance notice
to the Canadian Grain Commission of changes to elevator
charges. Tariffs are fees charged for handling, cleaning, storage
and drying of grain, that type of thing.
Removing these tariffs is a positive step. My concern though
is with the grain companies that own primary, that is the country
elevators, as well as terminal elevators. It is very common in the
grains industry for companies to own the farm elevators that
farmers ship directly to as well as the terminal elevators which
are responsible for receiving the grain in port position and
loading it on the ships. Those grain companies may lower the
tariffs in the country elevators which is good, but they may at the
same time raise the tariffs in the terminal elevators to make up
for the cut rates in the country.
This would be fine if only these companies were dealing
through their terminals. However these terminals are
semi-public terminals by law which means that companies and
individuals other than the owners are allowed to ship grain
through the terminal.
I am afraid these changes may cause an increased rate at the
terminal. The smaller companies which are provided an
opportunity by law to deal through the terminals may be
squeezed out of business. The rates could be raised beyond that
which is reasonable.
Just to make this very clear, there is a provision in place which
allows the Canadian Grain Commission to set a maximum in
cases where the rate is raised too much. That provision is there
and I will talk a bit about that in a minute.
The irony is that while I am concerned about this happening,
the positive result from this type of action could be that the
small companies may decide to improve the direct hit loading.
That is simply loading directly from rail car to ships which
started in the port of Vancouver and they may actually expand
this to increase the competition. I see this as something positive.
8870
The other positive thing that may result from this is more
grain movement through the United States and through
American terminals so that Canadian farmers have another
option when there is a disruption in grain movement within
Canada. That would encourage settlements by those in the grain
handling industry, including the companies that own the
business and labour. Settlement may be encouraged if they
know there is competition so that they cannot stop the flow of
grain.
I touched on my concern before about the Canadian Grain
Commission or order in council maintaining the power to set the
maxmimum tariffs. By getting rid of the maximum tariffs it
gives the grain buyers more authority to penalize people who put
grain in terminals and do not move it quickly enough. This is in
clause 14 of the bill. I believe this is a good move. However,
since we know that government wants to increase and not
decrease the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board for
example, cabinet just may choose to reverse these penalties in
cases where the Canadian Wheat Board is affected.
(1035)
Could the ability to invoke governor in council authority be
used in the future by government to give even more power to the
central selling desk of the Canadian Wheat Board to further
regulate the grain sector? This is a legitimate concern.
With the present legislation the terminals do not have the
power to penalize the Canadian Wheat Board for dumping grain
for which they do not have an immediate buyer. All other
shippers of grain must have a buyer ready before they can move
the grain to port. The Canadian Wheat Board is the exception.
We have found over this past year that the Canadian Wheat
Board moved grain into terminal position for which it had no
buyer. This was the case particularly in Thunder Bay. Without
the ability of the companies that own the terminals to raise the
tariffs, this put them at a disadvantage because they could not
move the grain due to the terminals being plugged with
Canadian Wheat Board grain. At least now the law provides for
them to raise this rate, but it also provides for the minister to
say: ``No, this is out of line. We are going to lower the rate''.
That overriding power concerns me. I understand there is
some need for that because in a business where there really is not
enough open competition there could be a rise in tariffs which is
not justified. There is a balance. It is tricky to find the balance,
but I am just expressing some of my concerns.
The third area I want to talk about today is bonding and
licensing requirements and the proposed changes under this
piece of legislation. A major change in the bill involves the clear
legislative removal of any responsibility on the part of the
Canadian Grain Commission and therefore the taxpayers, above
the level of the bond that is posted by the Canadian Grain
Commission to a licensed company. In the past, courts have
required the Canadian Grain Commission to cover losses above
the bond level.
Companies buy bonds to protect the customers they do
business with against losses up to the bond level if they go out of
business. In the past the courts have determined that somehow
the Canadian Grain Commission and therefore the taxpayers
have a responsibility to cover losses above the level of the bond.
However in at least two cases over the past years taxpayers
have also been forced to cover losses for companies which have
not been licensed under the Canadian Grain Commission.
Therefore, there is no responsibility on the part of the Canadian
Grain Commission or the taxpayers. The Auditor General was
very critical of the bailouts of these two companies which
seemed to be politically motivated.
With the changes that are made in this area there is no doubt at
all that farmers will not be protected above the level of the bond.
The courts will not be able to determine that taxpayers should
somehow be held responsible for farmers and grain companies
through funds from the Canadian Grain Commission.
The Canadian Grain Commission does however monitor these
bonds to try to determine whether the licensed companies are
operating within the level of the bonds. This is a very difficult
thing to do and it is very expensive. It is a function which does
offer some degree of protection. At the same time while the
monitoring is there, the grain commission is not responsible if
the monitoring is ineffective. That is a concern.
Once again the Canadian Grain Commission has the power
but does not take the responsibility for its mistakes. It has the
power to refuse to licence a company, to require expensive
insurance and bonding. It spends the money to perform these
functions, but again the only protection is provided by the
companies and the protection is only up to the level of the bond.
It is important that farmers know this.
For this reason I believe that elevators and grain dealers
should have the right to choose to opt out of this licensing and
bonding requirement. This was the reason for my first
amendment to Bill C-51, Motion No. 3, which was debated and
defeated at report stage. That amendment would have allowed
individual elevator companies, grain dealers, to choose to opt
out of the licensing requirements under the Canada Grain Act.
(1040)
It is very expensive and very difficult for some small
companies to provide the bonding and insurance the Canadian
Grain Commission may require. In those cases these companies
could have chosen to opt out.
8871
The protection we offered to farmers and people doing
business with these companies is that on the premises there
would be a sign very clearly stating that the place of business
was not licensed under the Canadian Grain Commission. As is
done in other areas with this type of body, on the front of every
contract it would have been required to clearly state that the
company you were about to enter into a contract with was not
licensed under the Canada Grain Act. That was the protection
for farmers.
As well, the amendment would have provided the flexibility
so that when a company did opt out it no longer had to meet any
of the requirements of the Canada Grain Act. This amendment
would also have allowed companies, if they chose, to use the
grading and inspection services that the Canadian Grain
Commission provides, of course at a cost as is done now.
There are a few other points that I want to raise. One further
clause in this bill authorizes the Canadian Grain Commission to
suspend licences of primary elevators where overages exceed
allowable limits.
Overage is just a difference between the amount of grain an
elevator has in store compared to the amount it should have in
store when looking at the records of shipments and receipts of
grain. This is to offer some protection that in fact companies are
paying their customers for what has been brought in and put
through the facility.
Another clause confirms the authority of the Canadian Grain
Commission to require operators to fully insure the grain in their
elevators. It requires that prospective licensees provide
specified financial data which demonstrates their financial
viability.
What they are talking about here is a little bit closer
monitoring of the bonds. While it is impossible to make sure that
a company is operating within the bond level, it was pretty clear
from what happened in the past when companies failed that the
monitoring was not as good as it should be.
A further step in this bill involves movement of grain within
Canada. This may surprise some people although people who are
knowledgeable in the grain industry know this, the legislation
seems to grant free movement within the eastern division or
within the western division, a line drawn just west of Thunder
Bay. This is in clause 25 of this bill. My question is: Why should
there be any restriction to interprovincial trade and grain in this
country? Yet, there is.
This legislation will allow free movement within the eastern
division or within the western division but not between the two
divisions. This seems absurd. To add further to that under the
Canadian Wheat Board Act it is still against the law to transport
grain from province to province even within a division. This
seems absurd when you consider we are moving to more free and
open trade with the world.
A further change requires that licensed grain dealers use the
Canada Grain Act grade names in all of their transactions with
farmers and grant the authority of the Canadian Grain
Commission to act against companies which illegally use them.
This has almost been a normal practice in the industry and this
change only legitimizes what is already happening.
My concern is that dealers do not have the right to operate as
unlicensed businesses. They may apply to the Canadian Grain
Commission which may choose to grant them the right to
operate without a licence but it is not a right. Of course my
amendment which was defeated at report stage would have
provided this as a right.
I believe that farmers and dealers in the industry want a
change which will allow a dealer to operate as an unlicensed
dealer and choose to deal in either ungraded grain or grain which
has been graded by the Canadian Grain Commission. They want
the choice. Because farmers are paying for the majority of the
operating costs of the Canadian Grain Commission, they should
be provided with the choice.
(1045)
In conclusion, one witness in committee referred to the bill as
the reregulation of the industry. The time has come for an open
and honest evaluation of the role of the Canadian Grain
Commission to determine what functions it should perform and
how it should perform them.
The evaluation must determine what farmers want in areas
that affect them and what others in the industry want in areas
that affect them. The role of the Canadian Grain Commission
should be to provide no more or no less than what is wanted by
players in the industry.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I reiterate the statements made by my hon. colleague
from Vegreville. He made a very good speech on what this
change to the grain commission act really is. I will add a few
comments.
As members of the standing committee on agriculture know
very well, I am not a big friend of the Canadian Grain
Commission. I was very close to the issue when Grandin wheat
was smuggled into the country and put the reputation of our
milling wheat at stake. The way the grain commission acted on
the issue was really appalling. Not only did it not try to keep the
grain out of the country but it more or less showed the
smugglers, as I call them, how to get around the rules and
regulations to bring it in and fill their pockets with wheat that
was really not suited for our area.
It makes me wonder: I see a bill like this one that says
deregulation and then I see it is probably open to loopholes
whereby small players could be put out of business in a very
short time.
When I look at small elevator companies with no terminals, I
wonder how they will be able to compete with a very low tariff in
the country. When grain is shipped to the terminals of larger
8872
players they can be hammered with the tariffs and put out of
business. That is not fair. The grain commission was put in place
to see that everyone was treated equally, small players or big
players.
Why would large grain companies be worried about exporting
grain if their terminal charges were so high they actually made
more money by keeping it there than moving it once or twice
during the year? It is a deterrent to exporting grain outside the
country.
We have small players in the grain industry like small seed
cleaning plants. They are really the entrepreneurs in the special
crops industry. They were the people who put at risk the bit of
capital they had by experimenting with lentils and with peas.
These small players are going to be licensed and regulated to a
point where they cannot exist. I received a call from a small seed
plant owner one day who said: ``Jake, to enforce the new
regulations in the act it will cost me $20,000 extra for doing my
books''. A chartered accountant will now do his books which
were always done by him and his family.
The accounting and the bonding are putting these small
players out of business. Every farmer knows the reputation of
the seed plants in their areas. They have been in business for
years and have never defrauded anyone of a single dime. They
are now going to be put out of business. That is wrong.
(1050 )
Another thing that is wrong is that grain commissioners are
paid by farmers; 90 per cent of their wages are from farm
receipts. However what input do they have in who the
commissioners are? This is a point in our democracy that must
be changed. When a player pays he should also have the right to
know whom he is paying.
Clause 4 of the bill also bothers me. It would permit the
Canadian Grain Commission rather than the governor in council
to fix allowances paid to members of grain standards
committees and grain appeal tribunals, removing the set of rules
as far as payment is concerned one step further from the House.
Before it was the governor in council and farmers who had some
input. Now it is to be removed from the governor in council and
given to commissioners to set wages for grain weighing
tribunals or grading standards people.
This is not very effective nor what farmers want. I do not think
it saves the taxpayer money. I would equate that to putting the
fox into the chicken coop instead of outside the door. It is
dangerous and should not be allowed to happen.
Clause 21 of the bill really bothers me. Under the clause
process elevators, unlike primary elevators, would no longer
have to perform weighovers to determine whether there is an
overage or a shortage, a discrepancy between the amount a grain
elevator has in store and the amount it really paid for. This is to
recognize that process elevators are not required to account for
grain delivered by producers.
Why should process elevators be treated any different from
primary elevators? These are the elevators that are processing
the special crops. These are the process elevators that really turn
over the dollars, where the big bucks are. Very little overage or a
shortage can increase their profit margins and it is all coming
out of the pockets of farmers. It will open the door to more
corruption and more lost revenue for farmers. If we want a bill
that is fair to everyone, it should be on a basis where primary and
processing elevators are treated exactly the same.
My colleague touched on another item I do not like. Public
carriers will only be able to transport grain in the west, not into
the east or vice versa. It is another regulation that will hinder
value added processing companies.
Just this week a small miller in Manitoba tried to export to
another province. He will be able to do so under this act into
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. However he cannot
go into Ontario and compete with the bigger processors or the
millers. The country should be shared by everyone. We have
agreed to the establishment of the World Trade Organization but
we do not have free trade in our own country.
There is so much to be said about the government that we
could probably talk all day long. One of these days in the House,
especially when we are not debating this bill, I will mention to
hon. members what the old red combine did to my farming
operation. We could probably debate a few matters outside this
bill.
(1055)
When I commented in the standing committee that there
should be a revamping of the Canadian Grain Commission I was
not very far off. Farmers will very much support that idea, just
like they supported the idea that the Grain Transportation
Agency should be done away with.
It amazes me that we can debate bills in the House and agree
in committee 100 per cent, Liberals, Bloc and Reform, but
legislation does not get passed. I would suggest very strongly to
the House that if we want the farming industry to stay in
business we will have to start making real deregulation, not
superficial.
As far as I am concerned the bill is giving the grain handling
system the chance to increase its revenue without considering
what it will cost farmers. We will not have the free movement of
grain we should have. The bill will give us competition, but the
competition will be limited. The amount of tariff that can be
charged will be set by larger players with no regulation. That
really bothers me. We have to start realizing that the primary
producer should be protected by bills like this one, not the major
players, the processors or the grain handling system.
8873
My colleague did a very good job on the other issue that is
wrong with the bill. I wholeheartedly suggest to members
across the way that if western Canada does not get a few fair
shakes in some of these bills, maybe we will start seeing more
grain moving to the south, which will be detrimental to the
country.
I am a Canadian. I like rules and regulations that benefit
Canadians, but my children and my neighbours' children who
are farming need to survive and have a profit. If we do not start
drawing up bills to protect the farming industry, we are in big
trouble.
With that I will close my remarks and turn the debate over to
someone else.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8873
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday,
June 4, 1992, I informed the House of my constituent Mr.
Michael Reynolds and his contribution to Canadian unity, ``The
Canadian Bouquet''.
The painting is a collage of the provincial and territorial
flowers of Canada. This picture of beauty and unity is symbolic
of the greater unity of the people of Canada. A pledge of unity
was also drafted and accompanied the nearly 25,000 prints sold
to raise money for charity.
The pledge reads:
We the people, for love of country and in recognition of 125 years of
Canadian Confederation, make this pledge. Until the seasons cease to change,
each new spring will bring forth the flowers of ``The Canadian Bouquet'' in a
united Canada.
Today more than ever Canadians must reaffirm their
commitment to the very best country in the world. This pledge
and print aim to serve that purpose.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, business and industry are the engines that drive
economic growth in Canada. For this reason it is of utmost
importance to encourage the traditional Canadian
entrepreneurial spirit.
This week I was delighted to present awards to the winners of
the youth entrepreneurial program in the Carleton-Charlotte
region of New Brunswick. This program was sponsored by the
Carleton Regional Development Commission in partnership
with ACOA and the provincial department of advanced
education and labour.
Eleven university students presented their options for new
businesses and from these presentations, three winning business
plans were selected.
I offer congratulations to the winners: Lisa Gionet, Nancy
Martin and Simon MacInnis. I extend my appreciation to all
participants and the organizers for the event.
There is a new confidence in Canada, and the government's
jobs and growth strategy is working. The Canadian
entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well once again.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, December 10 is International Human Rights Day. I
would ask all my colleagues to take some time tomorrow to
remember the numerous areas of conflict around the world and
the men, women and children who are victims of human rights
abuses on a daily basis.
As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to increase
general awareness of human rights abuses occurring globally
and raise these issues in the House.
I hope that in the coming new year all parliamentarians will
continue to work together in bringing human rights violations to
the forefront and in spreading the message that these violations
are unacceptable.
Parliamentarians can make a difference when they
collectively speak out on human rights no matter where they
occur.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning I want to give you another example of flexible
federalism or, rather, federalism which ignores the legitimate
proposals of a group of students.
Yesterday, the students' federation of the University of
Ottawa was invited by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
to a public consultation on the social program reform. The
minister remained silent throughout the hearings and did not
take any notes. Moreover, the minister's assistant led students to
believe that the discussion was being recorded. A verification
revealed that no recording was made. This illustrates the federal
government's real idea of what public consultation is.
8874
Is this the kind of federalism that the government wants to
propose to Quebecers and Canadians? Flexible federalism is
nothing but federal indifference. The government is more
interested in imposing its already set ideas than in discussing
issues with the others concerned.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a report tabled yesterday, Liberal members
are paving the way for a new tax increase affecting all taxpayers,
thus reneging on the election promise made by the Prime
Minister not to raise taxes.
Besides recommending this possible surtax, the Liberal
majority on the finance committee proposes to increase the tax
burden of the middle class by imposing a new tax on gasoline
and by giving the Minister of Finance full scope to tax RRSPs
and pension funds in particular.
Moreover, by recommending additional cuts of $3.4 billion to
social programs, the Liberal members on the finance committee
confirm how despicable the Axworthy reform is, since it seeks
to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed, welfare
recipients and students.
Faced with these unacceptable recommendations from the
Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, in a dissenting report, proposed
ten progressive and specific recommendations to reduce the
deficit and create jobs.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, during the debate on the Quebec referendum process,
Bloc Quebecois members were quite surprised by the lack of
historical perspective shown by Liberal members as a whole,
and more particularly Quebec Liberal MPs.
While they all were quick to condemn the regional
consultation process on the draft bill regarding sovereignty,
calling it illegitimate and undemocratic, they conveniently
forgot that, in 1981, there was no consultation and no
referendum, in spite of the nearly unanimous opposition of the
Quebec National Assembly to the new Constitution.
(1105)
They also forgot that the Meech Lake Accord was rejected in
1990 without a referendum and that the parliamentary process
leading to the Charlottetown Accord in 1993, which was
unequivocally rejected by the people, was flawed.
Obviously, members opposite have a short memory. And yet
they are the ones who took part in the unilateral patriation of the
Constitution through an undemocratic process.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1995 marks the 100th anniversary of the
founding of the chiropractic profession. Few people know that
the study of this profession was founded by a Canadian, Mr.
Daniel David Palmer, born at Port Perry, Ontario.
Today its practice is used worldwide. In fact many members
of this Chamber, including myself, use its services.
I would like to extend to all members of this honourable
profession a happy anniversary. I would also like to let them
know that I share their disappointment over the decision of
Canada Post not to commemorate this achievement in the
medical area.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Wednesday, December 7 was an important day in the
history of Canada and our relationship with the First Nations
people.
It was on this day that the dismantling agreement was signed
by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and
Grand Chief Phil Fontaine that heralds the beginning of
self-government. I am pleased this initiative is taking place in
my home province of Manitoba.
This agreement will give the First Nations the authority, the
responsibility, and the accountability to govern their own
affairs.
I was proud to attend this historical event, proud to be part of
an initiative that represents co-operation, mutual respect and
trust between the government and the First Nations of Canada.
I applaud the minister and the First Nations for their
commitment to finding common ground on which
self-government can be built in Manitoba and ultimately in
Canada.
8875
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate the 46th anniversary of
International Human Rights Day.
The world has since shown greater respect for freedom and
human dignity. The Berlin wall has collapsed, the iron curtain
has been lifted, apartheid has been abolished, and dictatorships
have been overthrown.
At the same time we note with sorrow that citizens of other
nations continue to live in oppression, or are forced to wage
bloody wars to secure freedom.
We shall not despair. New tools for dialogue are emerging.
Trade missions have built bridges of understanding and respect
for one another. Canada is proud to have its International Centre
for Human Rights. As a nation we should be proud of our
leadership in this field, doing our utmost to promote peace and
justice throughout the world to secure human dignity for all.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 29 a Manitoba Liberal member of
Parliament stated in the House that the Liberal government
cares about Canadians and cares about the economy.
Let me tell you about this caring government. This caring
government continues to support the gold-plated pension plan
while denying Manitoba cattle producers fair compensation for
their depopulated herds. They spend $45 million needlessly
backtracking grain and deny an FSAM II payment to an eligible
farmer due to a postal mix-up.
This government provides crown corporation executives with
$300,000 interest free loans while the Farm Credit Corporation
forces farmers into receivership due to compounded interest.
To top it off, this caring government is talking of increasing
gasoline taxes and taxing lottery winnings.
Care indeed. My foot.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
recently visited in my constituency office by Barbara Mayer and
Doreen Armitage, both of whom suffer from fibromyalgia, a
chronic rheumatic disorder involving widespread pain and
profound fatigue.
Headaches and irritable bowel are also among the
approximately 35 other symptoms making diagnosis very
difficult and complicating disability compensation claims for
sufferers.
The degree of fibromyalgia can vary from very mild to
extremely disabling. Doctors have no effective treatment and it
is often difficult for patients to convince others of the true state
of their health.
(1110 )
Two-thirds of the sufferers are women and up to 5 per cent of
the population may be affected. Unfortunately it is only in
recent years that the disease has started to receive attention so
there is a serious lack of research funding.
For this reason I urge all members to do whatever they can,
financially or otherwise, to support research initiatives
connected with fibromyalgia.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solution to our growing debt is not to increase
revenues but to reduce government expenditures.
Northerners use a greater percentage of their disposable
income for the bare essentials of food, shelter and clothing than
do Canadians living further south. Northerners must pay more
for food because it has to be trucked over longer distances. They
pay more for fuel to heat their homes over the longer, colder
winters. They pay more for medical care and education when
they send their children south to specialists or universities.
We know the Minister of Finance is looking for easy tax grabs
to fund continued overspending. Although it does not begin to
compensate for all the differences, the northern residence
deduction helps offset some of these additional costs.
On behalf of all northerners I ask the Minister of Finance to
carefully consider the positive impact this tax deduction has
provided toward assisting northerners to meet their basic needs.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
express my thanks to the minister responsible for ACOA for the
new course he is charting for Atlantic regional development.
The beginning of a Team Atlantic, the end of grants to
business, and the focus on job creation are the solutions that
Atlantic Canadians are searching for.
While the government is offering new direction, the
hypocrisy and noise of members of the Reform Party shines
through. In their desperate attempt to attack ACOA they have
resorted to spurious innuendo, untruths and distortions not only
on the agency's record but on ministers of the crown.
8876
I say shame on the party that promised before the election
to do politics differently. Some difference. In its usual way the
Reform Party has resorted to American style smear campaigns.
It just goes to show it is out of touch, out of mind and has
nothing to offer Atlantic Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Canada will welcome the start of the
United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous
People.
The goal of the decade is to strengthen international
co-operation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous
people around the world. Canada fully supports this goal and the
theme of the decade: ``Indigenous People: Partnership in
Action''.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
is co-ordinating the federal government's domestic efforts to
mark this decade. Preliminary discussions have been held with
aboriginal groups to obtain their views. A national conference is
being organized for early in 1995 to set out Canada's
preliminary action plan for the decade.
We look forward to the development of this plan as well as the
development by the United Nations of a comprehensive world
program of action.
I encourage everyone to support the goals of this important
decade.
* * *
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues recently stood in the House
and admitted that she was beaten by a man.
A member of the Reform Party tried to connect this to the
tragic situation five years ago in Montreal at l'École
polytechnique by saying: ``Let's not bring disrespect to that day
by trying to use it for an inappropriate political agenda''.
What is more appropriate than women saying in the House
and across the country that abuse against women and children is
not acceptable and they are not going to stand for it?
What better testimony to these 14 young women than the
courage of the women of Canada in the support of abolishment
of abuse against women? What is more appropriate than
members standing individually and collectively to abolish
violence against women in this country?
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance keeps telling us that his government is ready
to listen to Canadians.
Witnesses told the finance committee that Canadians are
taxed out. Reform listened to this and recommended that there
be no new taxes. The government members on the other hand
recommended a billion dollar gasoline tax.
(1115)
I am hard pressed to remember anyone who came before the
committee and said to tax gasoline.
Canada's business, academic and opinion leaders appeared
before the committee and said that 3 per cent is not enough.
They said that we have to stomp out this deficit. We have to kill
it before the next recession.
Reform heard the message and recommended the budget be
balanced in three years. The Liberal members continued to stick
with the 3 per cent target.
A fair question is who was really listening to Canadians? It
certainly was not the government members.
As the Minister of Finance finalizes his plans for the next
budget I can only hope that he listens better than his Liberal
friends.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1992 Bill C-7, an act respecting the
status of the artist and professional relations between artists and
producers in Canada, received royal assent.
The government repeatedly promises to reform social
programs and the economy to meet the needs of the new
economy. The Liberals say they are committed to restructuring
and encouraging stable growth in the areas of self-employment
and small business. Yet when it comes to action to implement a
model to empower the self-employed worker the government
has done nothing.
The legislative and regulatory approach in the Status of the
Artist Act is nothing less than a crucial step and the foundation
for this new self-employment based economy. The approach to
labour relations in this act has the approval of the 2.3 million
workers in the Canadian Labour Congress.
On Wednesday, more than two years after the law was
enacted, more than 500 cultural workers rallied in Toronto to
push the government for action. When will this government
show its commitment to these small business entrepreneurs and
the people who elected it?
8877
8877
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday during the debate on the Official Opposition's motion
to recognize the legitimacy of the process initiated by the
Government of Quebec to determine its political future,
government members repeatedly referred to Quebec's initiative
as illegitimate, illegal and undemocratic, while during Question
Period, the Prime Minister referred to it as raising unnecessary
complications.
How can the Prime Minister refer to the process initiated by
the Government of Quebec as raising unnecessary
complications, when it is essentially based on two components,
a draft bill and a very comprehensive process providing for
genuine consultations with the people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the opposition in Quebec City, there is
also the government right here, the federal Liberal Party, as well
as a steadily increasingly number of people in Quebec who
realize that this is not a normal process, that the dice are loaded
and that 13 out of 15 committee members will be appointed by
the government.
We have a ``yes'' committee, financed by a government that is
not financing any ``no'' committees. They do not need any
committees or studies. Let them ask an honest question, no
stratagems to confuse people but an honest question: Do you
want to separate from Canada, yes or no? Not more than two
lines, and the answer will be clear: Canada will win!
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Prime Minister question the process initiated by the
Government of Quebec, a process initiated by tabling a draft
bill, when a similar procedure was used in 1980 by the Liberal
government of Pierre Trudeau which included the Prime
Minister, a government that tabled a resolution in this House to
initiate the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution?
Why, when he was a member of that government, did the
Prime Minister feel that tabling a resolution was acceptable, and
why now, because the Government of Quebec is involved, does
he no longer feel that this procedure is acceptable? Let him
explain that, Mr. Speaker.
(1120)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are only asking them to be honest with the people.
In 1980, all observers accused the government, and especially
Mr. Morin, who was in charge of the step-by-step process, of
hiding the question in a maze of 114 words.
The government's draft bill uses 1,645 words to try and hide
the truth from Quebecers. The truth is, they are all separatists
but do not want to be labelled as such. They are all for separation
but say they support sovereignty. Be honest. Say what you are.
Say you are separatists and want separation. The people will
vote, and Canada will survive!
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely incredible to hear the Prime Minister criticize the
Government of Quebec for setting out its plans for sovereignty
in reasonable terms, when he and his colleagues keep saying in
this House: Go ahead and tell us what your plans for separation
are. Tell us what kind of Quebec you want. Tell us what kind of
country you want. Today, however, the Prime Minister says:
Make the question short. Do not bother to explain.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: If the Prime Minister takes this matter
seriously, he will have to answer this question: How can the he
question the legitimacy of the consultation process, when it is
basically the same one used by the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission that was set up by the previous Liberal
government, a process in which the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs was a participant? It was all right for
the Bélanger-Campeau Commission at the time, but not any
more.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, turning up the volume does not make it a good
question.
Mr. Speaker, when appointing the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission, the leader of the government at the time consulted
the opposition. Everyone was fairly represented. It was not 13
against 2.
Second, among the statements in the 1,645 words the draft bill
contains, one says there will be an economic union with Canada.
That is not up to Quebec to decide. Canada will decide. It says
they will keep their Canadian citizenship. This is not up to the
Government of Quebec to decide. The Parliament of Canada will
decide. It says they will use Canadian currency. The Parliament
of Canada will determine interest rates, not the Government of
Quebec.
So in a bill like this one where all the decisions will be made
elsewhere, people should at least have a say, before concluding
that one can become independent and stay in Canada at the same
time.
I am glad to see there has been some progress. This is the first
time the word separation was used by the hon. member for
Roberval. Bravo. At last the truth is out.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I too, Mr. Speaker,
have a question for the Prime Minister.
8878
The referendum debate has been initiated and the people of
Quebec will soon be deciding their future democratically. In
his autobiography, the Prime Minister says that he and others
like him are betting on democracy, that they will set out to
convince the people of Quebec to remain within Canada and
win, and if they are not successful in their attempt, they will
abide by the wishes of the people and go along with the
separation.
Does the Prime Minister still stand by what he said in his
biography and does he still recognize that the people of Quebec
have the right to leave the Canadian federation if such is the
democratic choice they make in a referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made myself quite clear: all we want is that a
referendum be held as soon as possible, with a plain and clear
question.
(1125)
We all know what is going to happen. That is why they are
trying to dilute their proposal with 1,600 words, when the honest
question to ask would be: ``Do you want to separate from
Canada, yes or no?''
I do not even have to answer a hypothetical question. There is
no doubt in my mind that Canada will win. Come on!
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is three questions behind answering mine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Debien: Contrary to what the Prime Minister thinks, and
considering that the consultation process gives the people of
Quebec every chance to express their views not only on the
content of the political proposal, but also on the referendum
question, does the Prime Minister not recognize their right to
decide themselves the wording of the question that they will
have to answer in the referendum on their political future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec federalists have the right to have a say in the
wording of the question, so that it is plain and clear. The rest of
Canada is also entitled to a question that is plain and clear.
Just think of the number of people who are presently refusing
to participate because of the ambiguity, the trickiness; they are
trying to trick people, they are using gimmicks. The Conseil du
patronat, the Quebec chamber of commerce, the Quebec
farmers' union, the Quebec manufacturers' association, and
every federalist party in Quebec-and even Mario Dumont-do
not want to participate because they do not want gimmicks, they
want the truth, period.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Finance committee report which was tabled Thursday contains a
number of proposals and recommendations for possible tax
increases, taxes on gasoline, on lottery winnings, on businesses
and on cigarettes.
The deficit reduction surtax that is introduced would hit
everyone who lives and breathes. Just to make good and sure
that the report did not miss anybody the committee suggested
going after dead people too by introducing an inheritance tax.
Will the Minister of Finance distance himself from this grab
bag of potential taxation measures and commit to tabling a
budget which does not increase taxation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows that I will not comment on individual suggestions. He
also knows that the government's budget will come down when
it presents the budget.
I would like to take this occasion to congratulate all members
of the finance committee. They heard over 650 witnesses. I
would like to also congratulate the witnesses who came forth
and testified. I believe that the majority report will provide a
very valuable contribution to the debate. An enormous amount
of work went into it.
I would like to congratulate our members on our side of the
House. At the same time I would like to compliment the
members of the opposition and the third party who put a great
deal of work into their efforts. I assure members I will look at
each and every suggestion.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
appreciate the minister's comments with regard to the process.
In that Liberal majority report there is a very important item.
There is an indication that we could potentially have a $1 billion
tax grab by an increase on gasoline taxes.
One of the comments he raised as a challenge to the
committee was when he said in determining which areas of the
tax system should be scrutinized more closely, several
principles have been adopted. Initiative should help make the
economy more efficient. Initiative should improve the fairness
of the system and broadening the tax base is preferable to rate
increases.
Does the proposed gasoline tax satisfy any one of these three
principles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
will-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
8879
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): He was a minister. That is
why his questions often make sense, unlike the vast majority
of his colleagues.
(1130 )
I think what the committee attempted to do was really deal
with the unfortunate fact that when a government makes cuts, as
the member will know from his previous experience, those cuts
do not show up immediately, there is a lag time which must be
taken into account.
What was said in the report is that therefore certain tax actions
may well be required. That is part of the balance and it is
obviously the kind of thing the Minister of Finance and the
government will have to take into account.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of
those potential tax measures that may have to be taken in light of
what the minister said is the deficit reduction surtax that could
be used in an emergency contingency arrangement.
As Reformers we believe that if there is any kind of a
contingency plan in place it should be for expenditure reduction,
not for tax increases.
My question to the Minister of Finance is, having heard the
anti-tax sentiment of a majority of the witnesses who appeared
before the finance committee, can he support at this time
increasing taxes in any way on every single Canadian before one
dime is cut from the government's $1 billion boccie,
incorporated infrastructure program as an example?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand,
the members of the third party are going to be submitting their
suggestions as to that whole segment of government spending
that has not been dealt with yet in their report.
I hope when they do that they will deal first with the impact of
those particular cuts. I also hope that in terms of both segments
of their report they will deal with the timing as to when the cuts
will take place so that it can be dealt with on a rational basis.
The member is nodding. I am sure they will do that and I look
forward to receiving that report.
In terms of the infrastructure program, having gone across
this country, having talked to mayors in municipalities across
this country and to all the Canadians who went back to work and
seeing the effect on productivity of the very important reports,
that infrastructure program is an essential part of the Canadian
recovery.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Several months ago, the Solicitor General asked the Security
Intelligence Review Committee to look into the allegations
involving Grant Bristow when he worked at CSIS. Mr. Bristow
is accused, among other things, of creating the Heritage Front
and of inciting its members to racist violence.
Does the Solicitor General promise to table the review
committee's report on the Bristow affair with the Parliamentary
Committee on National Security before we adjourn for the
holiday season?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just received SIRC's report this morning. It is a very
bulky report. I must review it and see what I can do about
making it public in the light of the relevant legislation. I intend
to make public as much of this report as possible, and I will
make the necessary decisions as soon as possible.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Douglas Christie, a B.C. lawyer who defended
members of the extreme right in 1989, has accused CSIS of
inciting violence against Jews and of interfering in his clients'
trials.
Can the Solicitor General tell us if the recent investigation by
the review committee also dealt with Mr. Christie's
accusations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just received the report about an hour ago. I did not
have time to review it. However, I think that SIRC knew about
Mr. Christie's allegations and I look forward to reviewing this
report because, as I just said, I intend to make public as much of
it as possible.
[English]
Earlier this morning I received the report of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee on the allegations involving the
Heritage Front. It is a very comprehensive and bulky report. I
have not had time to review it. I intend to do this as quickly as
possible. Once I complete this review I will be able to make
decisions about how much can be made public in the light of the
relevant legislation.
It is my intention to make as much of this report public as
possible because of the interest in its contents, as much as I can
in the light of the legislation that deals with this matter.
8880
(1135 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
announced about an hour ago that Mr. Schelew, vice-chair of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, had chosen to resign rather
than face a judicial inquiry into his conduct. Government
counsel accepted his resignation and recommended to the judge
that the inquiry be halted immediately, saying that no public
interest would be served by pursuing this matter further.
Given the allegations of widespread irregularities in the IRB,
why did the justice minister not recommend that the inquiry be
expanded to include the entire operations of the IRB and what
led to this investigation in the first place?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will
understand that the inquiry was directed under a section of the
citizenship and immigration act which defines the proper ambit
of the inquiry.
Under that section a judge appointed for that purpose is
directed to inquire only into the allegations with respect to a
particular member of the board and is confined to making
recommendations with respect to what should happen as a
consequence of any findings. That is by statute. The terms of
reference for the judge in question were dictated by statute and
were provided accordingly.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Immigration and Refugee Board has lost its legitimacy and
credibility. I ask the minister again, in light of what he just said,
given that inquiry is done with, will he now order a new inquiry
to continue to get to the bottom of the allegations of impropriety
in the IRB? If not, why not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon.
member's question is completely untrue. The legitimacy and the
integrity of the board are not in question in these proceedings.
As to the broader question, this government has confidence in
the process. In the final analysis it will be up to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration to come to his own conclusion
about the broader matter which has been raised here today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the finance committee's report, the Liberal majority
suggests that the Minister of Finance increase the tax burden on
all Canadian taxpayers by levying new taxes, including a
temporary surtax which alone could raise at least over a billion
dollars for the federal treasury.
Can the Minister of Finance promise in this House to reject
any proposal for new taxes or charges that would affect mainly
the middle class, including this ridiculous idea of a surtax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I
repeat that I promise to read and consider carefully the
suggestions in the majority report. I also intend to read the
minority reports from the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, why does the minister not immediately rule out these
suggestions for new taxes and why does he not make a solemn
commitment to immediately attack the real issues, namely
family trusts, tax shelters, the $6 billion in unpaid taxes, waste
and duplication? That is what people came to tell the finance
committee. They did not come to say to raise taxes, to cut social
programs further, to attack the unemployed, the poor, students
and seniors. Had he been there, he would have understood right
away.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
knows very well that in our last budget, we closed a great many
loopholes and I must say that we really began to act in many
fields, even on the suggestions which the member just
mentioned.
That being said, I read the Bloc's report carefully and perhaps
I would like to ask a question myself, Mr. Speaker. I definitely
noted that the Bloc picked up Richard Le Hir's suggestion about
$3 billion in duplication and overlap. Am I to understand now
that Richard Le Hir is the big economic thinker for the separatist
movement in Canada?
* * *
(1140 )
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of Justice dismissed
opposition from provincial justice ministers saying: ``We
govern by what is right''. Reformers are getting calls from the
police on the street saying that registration will not work.
If the minister will not listen, why is he consulting? Is his only
justification for the registration of 10 million to 20 million
firearms that he and the Liberal cabinet think it is right? Can he
tell Canadians why he is ignoring such convincing and credible
opposition to his proposals?
8881
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has been asking for
this measure for the last dozen years.
The other point may explain why the hon. member is
receiving complaints. Last night I received a petition from a
colleague of the hon. member in his party, a petition signed by
people who oppose registration and other features. The petition
decried government legislation that would ban rifles and
shotguns, impose a $100 per gun registration fee and put limits
on the amount of ammunition that will be available for sale.
Those have nothing whatever to do with the proposals that we
have put before this House. I would sign that petition.
I am here to say that people should be honest with the
Canadian people about what these proposals are all about.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if this government would come clean and explain
exactly what registration is all about and what it would
accomplish, we would not have these difficulties.
The chief inspector and registrar of firearms in the state of
Victoria in Australia recommended that its firearms registration
be abolished after three years of trial in the 1980s because it did
not control the criminal misuse and irresponsible use of
firearms. If that were clearly communicated we would not have
this problem.
Does the minister have measurable objectives and what will
he do when his registration system fails to reduce violent
crimes? Will he abolish it like Australia did, or will he ban even
more guns and place more restrictions on law-abiding,
responsible gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Canadians want
advice with respect to their health they consult doctors. When
we want to know how to reduce the crime rate in this country we
speak to the police. The police in Canada, not in Australia, have
for a dozen years been asking this government for gun
registration. I suggest we take the advice of the experts and put
registration in place.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question was for the Prime Minister, but I will put it to the
Deputy Prime Minister.
While the international community continues to drag its feet
regarding the measures required to bring Bosnian Serbs to their
senses, and now threatens to withdraw its peacekeepers, Canada
does not seem to be making a significant contribution to the
peace process. Yet, the Minister of National Defence clearly
said that it was a shame that Canada was not part of the contact
group, adding that he hoped the Prime Minister would raise this
issue in Budapest.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the Prime Minister
raised this issue in Budapest, and will she confirm that Canada is
still not part of the contact group?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during his
visit to the CSE conference in Budapest, the Prime Minister had
a number of bilateral meetings with leaders from many
countries, including those of the contact group.
We have been assured that our views are being fully heard by
the members of that particular group and that our input is
valued. I think that goes some way to addressing the concerns
that I outlined last week.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are
we to understand from the minister's answer that Canada is still
a powerless actor and is content to be a mere onlooker, at a time
when negotiations are deadlocked? Is it not time for the
Canadian government to propose concrete solutions to convince
the Bosnian Serbs to accept a peace plan?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, events of the
last week have shown that the efforts to achieve peace in the
former Yugoslavia have broadened beyond any five countries
that are now in the contact group. A number of countries are
involved. I think the statements made by the Prime Minister
publicly and the representations made by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister privately should assure
Canadians that Canada's voice is being heard.
* * *
(1145 )
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
asked that an environmental assessment panel be appointed to
conduct a public review in the Lac de Gras area of the Northwest
Territories. The proposed review would focus on the
environmental and socioeconomic effects associated with the
BHP Minerals Canada Ltd. diamond mine.
8882
Would the minister please tell the House when this panel will
be appointed?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question from the member for Brandon-Souris. I wish to
inform the House that earlier today I announced the appointment
of a four person independent panel to conduct a full public
review of the BHP diamond mine proposal.
The panel will start its organizational work immediately. It
will make sure that all interested groups, individuals, parties
and organizations will be provided with the opportunity to
participate. It will ensure that any decisions on the BHP
proposal are only made after a full open and fair consultation
and consideration of environmental and socioeconomic effects.
* * *
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have stood in this House and repeatedly
stated that after an intense and lengthy consultation process they
have compiled a list of handguns, the primary use of which
could only be in the form of criminal activity.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. How is it possible
that the Shooting Federation of Canada that facilitates the rules
and regulations of this type of firearm to be utilized in shooting
competitions like the PanAm games and the Olympics was never
consulted by anyone from this Liberal government over the
practicality of banning these types of firearms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place I met
with representatives of that federation on more than one
occasion. The most recent meeting was in my office here in
Ottawa within the last six weeks.
Second, all of the international legitimate competitions using
handguns were considered. The conclusion to which we came
was not that the handguns proposed to be banned are primarily
used in crime as the hon. member stated. We concluded that the
handguns proposed to be banned are not used in legitimate
competition. If they have no legitimate use then the logical
question is: Why are they in the hands of Canadians?
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when we telephoned the organization in question it said
it was never consulted. It also suggested that because this
particular gun is used by many people in the Olympics and in the
PanAm games this puts the PanAm games in jeopardy because a
full length of programs cannot be offered.
Could the minister comment on the validity of those
statements?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to
speak with the hon. member and tell him about the particulars of
my meetings with the shooting federation.
The hon. member did not mention a particular handgun in the
course of his question, but if he has a specific calibre or model of
handgun in mind I would be happy to discuss it.
I can say there is a handgun which is specially registered. A
.22-.32 calibre interchangeable barrel is used in international
competition. We have already made it clear that firearm will be
permissible because it is indeed used in that sort of competition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A few weeks after the
Prime Minister's pompous economic mission to Asia, it is
important to bring up the sad story of Tran Trieu Quan, a
Canadian businessman held prisoner in Hanoi for over eight
months without any charges being laid against him. This case
could help us better understand the new attitude of a government
that considers respect for human rights less important than trade
relations.
(1150)
Are we to understand that if the Prime Minister took such a
timid stand for human rights in Asia, it was because of his
inability to protect the fundamental rights of this Canadian
prisoner in Vietnam?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to
thank the hon. member for raising this very importance issue. I
want to assure him that the Canadian government has raised the
issue on several occasions, not only with the Vietnamese
government, with whom we have had further talks, but also with
various organizations such as the United Nations.
I have noted his question and will get back to him as soon as
possible, on this specific case.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seeing
that the Canadian government is unable to resolve the Quan case
and obtain guarantees for the safety of Canadian
businesspeople, how can the Deputy Prime Minister pretend that
business executives will accept such risks in their future trade
relations with Asia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of International Trade explained quite
clearly, the Prime Minister himself raised the issue when he was
in Vietnam and he is pursuing the matter.
8883
That being said, it should be emphasized, as indeed we did
before the Prime Minister's Asian tour, that I have personally
reviewed every comment made by the Premier of Quebec when
he was the host of the governor of a Chinese province and, each
time, he adopted the same policy as the Government of Canada.
He stressed the issue intensely in private, but did not make
public statements. The Premier of Quebec never made any
public statement on human rights in China.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has stated that any new firearms
legislation will apply equally to all Canadians. On the other
hand, the Minister of Justice and the government have also made
assurances that special gun control provisions will apply to
Indians living in self-governed areas of Canada.
Will the Minister of Justice today clear the air and tell this
House if the government indeed is considering special firearms
provisions for Canadian Indians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say in response
that we emphasized in the material tabled last week that there
will be principles which govern firearms in Canada. They will
be universal, invariable and will apply to all. We also
emphasized that in their application we shall demonstrate a
flexibility which reflects the unique circumstances in various
regions of this country, including aboriginal communities where
for example some people hunt for sustenance.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, just as background, Bill C-34 permits
self-governing bands in the Yukon to control or prohibit the
possession and use of firearms. On October 4 the hon. Minister
of Justice did say he would consider special legislation and will
show respect to the Indian nations. Canadians are confused
about the justification of statements like this when they consider
themselves as responsible firearm owners as anyone else in the
country.
Would the minister clarify the issue today and tell Canadians
if there will in fact be equality in the application of the new
firearms legislation, or will special legislation regarding the use
of firearms be extended to Canadian Indians in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the principles will be
universal and invariable.
I visited the Northwest Territories to speak to the residents
about firearms. I visited a remote community and was told that
there are eight official languages in that territory, 75 small
communities, some of them hours apart. It became clear to me,
as it should be to all of us, that the universal principles in their
application to such communities must be flexible. We are not
proposing special legislation but flexibility in the application of
universal principles to the reality of local circumstances.
* * *
(1155 )
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday Canadians were distressed by reports in the Toronto
Sun that the department of immigration is browsing for
technology to produce the new permanent resident's card in the
United States. Say it ain't so. C'est incroyable. Surely it cannot
be true that our hon. minister has become a cross-border
shopper.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rush to
reassure the hon. member that it ain't so. Indeed the minister is
not only not cross-border shopping, he has been browsing and
shopping where he should, in Canada.
Two contracts have already been issued to Canadian
companies. The first was awarded to Datacard Canada Inc. of
Mississauga in the amount of $3,209,714 over a three year
period. The other was awarded to Security Card Systems Inc. of
Markham, Ontario in the amount of $1,608,500 over a three year
period. I thank the hon. member for the chance to clear up this
base canard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In September, cadet staff asked for a feasibility study on
moving the Saint-Honoré gliding school in the Saguenay region
to Saint-Jean. At a meeting on Wednesday, cadet leadership
confirmed to me and to the safeguard committee that the
requested study had been completed and that it could be sent to
us if permission was given.
Since a decision on this move must be made in the next few
days, can the minister declare an appropriate moratorium, ask
the department to provide a second assessment of the two sites,
especially with respect to safety, from the Department of
Transport so that the best possible decision can be made, and
have the feasibility study sent to us?
8884
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of the specific case the hon. member has outlined this
morning. I will certainly get him the details.
The hon. member should know that as a result of the white
paper, with the reduction of the reserves from 29,000 to 23,000
there will be some major changes as to how the reserves work in
Canada. This may affect a number of communities across the
country.
No decisions have been taken. We are working on a plan of
action to be fair to the cadet movement which we want to
enhance and also to the reserves in general. Certainly we believe
decisions that are taken must make operational sense.
I will get an answer for the hon. member and will
communicate with him directly.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
domestic violence is a serious problem in need of remedy, but
increased gun control is not the answer. Less than half of all
spousal homicides are committed with guns, whether they are
registered or not. Domestic violence has been studied for over
20 years. It has been studied to death and there has been no
action.
My question is for the justice minister. What specific plan
does he have to address the root causes of domestic violence
other than ineffective gun registration?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every six days a
woman is shot to death in this country. Seventy-five per cent of
the female victims of homicide are killed in their home by
somebody they know. By a margin of two to one the weapon of
choice for such murders is a firearm. In 80 per cent of those
cases that firearm is a rifle or shotgun legally owned. I cannot
accept the premise of this question that gun control does not at
least in part address the tragedy of domestic violence.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice on the eve of
International Human Rights Day.
(1200)
For over eight years, since March 1986, a series of justice
ministers have stood in the House and solemnly affirmed their
deep commitment to amend the human rights act to end
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In view of the fact that this minister has promised repeatedly
to table this amendment by the end of the year, this month, how
does he explain to lesbians and gay men that he may join
previous Conservative ministers in breaking this promise and
giving in to the Neanderthal McTeague 46 in his own caucus.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret the hon.
member's reference to the Liberal caucus. The commitment of
the government to the implementation of that amendment is
unquestioned.
Just the other day in the House I had the opportunity to
reaffirm it. The Prime Minister, the deputy Prime Minister and
this party stand firm with that commitment.
As I also said the other day, the question of timing is not the
one that should be central. The question is one of principle and
on that we are firm.
* * *
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recent newspaper articles state that the company Bausch and
Lomb has been misleading buyers of contact lenses. It appears
that the company's short, medium and long term use contact
lenses sell for $10 for the short term to $200 for the long term.
The problem is they are all the same contact lens.
What can the Minister of Industry do to protect consumers
against such deceptive marketing practices?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first may I assure the member that I am very concerned
with the published reports that were in the newspaper this week.
I have been advised that the Ontario College of Opticians is
ensuring that their customers are aware of this. It is important
that opticians make sure their customers see clearly the
difference between these types of lenses and their cost.
The bureau of competition policy, which administers the laws
with respect to misleading advertising, dealt with over 10,000
complaints of various sorts last year. As yet it has not received a
complaint concerning this matter. They are very attentive to the
situation and will deal with it accordingly.
_____________________________________________
8884
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 19 petitions.
8885
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 53rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
amendments to the standing orders.
[Translation]
I also have the honour to table the 54th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on how to promote
more direct involvement by citizens. This report is a follow-up
to the order of reference tabled in this House on February 7,
1994.
[English]
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I rose during the
item of presentation of Private Members' Bills. I have a bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
presentation of Private Members' Bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice to the table
that I seek to introduce a bill that would repeal the provisions of
the Criminal Code in section 43.
(1205 )
The Deputy Speaker: If members will be kind enough to give
us a moment, we will get the correct forms.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions I wish to table this
morning. The first one is a petition signed by a group of
Canadians asking that the serial killer board game be banned.
With this new tabling today, the total number of petitioners is
now 118,756.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 861 people who
would like to state their disagreement with any provision to
remove portions of the Criminal Code that would permit
assisted suicide.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from Canadians
asking that Canada not consider amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions urging Canadians to
set aside their differences and to work toward the betterment of
the economy and the future of all Canadians.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions asking that abortions
not be permitted in Canada. These are Canadians living in the
province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from residents also living in
Cape Breton. These Canadians ask that Parliament not permit
the aiding and abetting of suicide or any other form of
euthanasia.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
My final petition, Mr. Speaker, is also from people in Sydney,
Nova Scotia. They do not wish to see the phrase sexual
orientation included in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling three petitions on behalf of residents in the
riding of Carleton-Gloucester.
[English]
The first petition calls for Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be retained without changes and enforced in
order that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting
of suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition, which was circulated by Mrs. Rita
Curley and others, calls for Parliament to extend protection to
the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
8886
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a large number of petitions
from the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
The petitioners note that tobacco products are clearly linked
to many forms of cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema,
chronic bronchitis and many other illnesses; that the use of
tobacco products is responsible for the premature death of some
38,000 Canadians annually, and therefore that tobacco can
rightly be termed a hazardous product.
The petitioners call on Parliament to remove the exemption
for tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitions to present this afternoon. The
first petition asks that the protection enjoyed by born human
beings be extended to unborn human beings.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with assisted suicide.
(1210 )
The petitioners ask that the prohibition of assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition has to do with the witness protection
act. The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-206 at the
earliest opportunity to provide the statutory foundation for a
national witness relocation and protection program.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth petition deals with not allowing the
amending of the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, finally, petitioners request that Parliament refuse to
accept the anti-firearms proposal of the Minister of Justice and
insist that he bring forward legislation to convict and punish
criminals rather than persecute the innocent.
The last petition represents a number of constituencies,
including some petitioners from Okanagan Centre. The other
four petitions are all from constituents of Okanagan Centre.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36. I have the
honour and privilege to table three petitions duly certified by the
clerk of petitions and signed by constituents of
Brandon-Souris.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certain petitioners of Brandon-Souris pray that
Parliament enact legislation providing for a referendum of the
people to accept or reject two official languages, English and
French, for the government and the people of Canada.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the signatories of the third petition recognize that with
cutbacks to services to communities, families and individuals in
order to balance budgets, more than ever there is a need for
service clubs in all communities.
In recent years memberships of service clubs throughout the
country have been declining. In these times of monetary
restraint service clubs would find it easier to recruit new
members if the financial factor could be alleviated.
The Brandon-Souris petitioners pray that Parliament act
immediately to amend the Income Tax Act, allowing the
members to deduct their membership dues from their taxable
income in the same manner as union and professional dues.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present a petition this morning asking Parliament to act
quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law. It has my support.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a petition
with over 1,000 signatures from my constituents who pray that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
8887
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality.
I concur with the petition.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present five petitions dealing with
the subject of doctor assisted suicide.
The petitioners are opposed to any legislation that would
permit doctor assisted suicide because it demeans the value of
human life.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament not to enact any
legislation that would allow doctor assisted suicide.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by petitioners from my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway
including the Seton Villa seniors residence as well as residents
of Port Moody-Coquitlam and a number of other
constituencies.
The petition calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code
to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by
allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating
illnesses the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their
lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to
prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed,
competent and voluntary.
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of citizens of Winnipeg North Centre and elsewhere in
Winnipeg I wish to present the following petition.
We the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of
the House to the following-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will know that we
do not encourage the reading of petitions. Please give a
summary of it rather than read the wording.
(1215 )
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it deals with the decriminalization
of assisted suicide or legalizing euthanasia and asks that
Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide in Canada.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three sets of petitions to present.
The first one deals with the Young Offenders Act. The 44
petitioners ask that Parliament review and revise our laws
concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to
prosecute and punish young law breakers who are terrorizing
society.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from 33 petitioners. It is with regard to spouses at
home and is in response to the private member's bill of my
colleague from Mississauga South which asks that we
compensate spouses working in the home and caring for
preschool children.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): The third petition has
57 signatures and is presented by Mr. Norman of Nepean. It is on
assisted suicide.
It asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition from residents of Halifax West. They request
that Parliament not amend the human rights legislation to
include the phrase sexual orientation.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now revert to Private
Member's Bills for which unanimous consent was given earlier.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-296 , an act to amend the Criminal
Code (protection of children).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their
consent to introduce the bill at this time.
The purpose of the bill is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal
Code allowing corporal punishment of children by parents and
teachers.
Condoning corporal punishment can lead to physical and
psychological injury and death of children, contributes to
violence in society, and is contrary to both the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
Section 43 allows punishment causing bruising and
contusions. It allows children to be struck with belts and other
objects. It is the relic of a bygone age and has no place in a
democratic society that respects and values children.
Finally I would urge the section be repealed as part of the
recodification of the general part of the Criminal Code. Several
European countries have ended the legal approval of corporal
punishment. I urge our government to uphold the rights of
children and repeal this harmful and discriminatory section of
the Criminal Code of Canada.
8888
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all
the questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8888
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting
certain regulations made pursuant to that act, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to third reading of Bill
C-51, the Canada Grain Act amendments. At the same time I
express to the minister of agriculture my continuing support for
the Canadian Wheat Board. I point out to him, as I know he is
aware, the results of the recent wheat board advisory committee
elections.
The minister must know by now that wheat board supporters
won 10 of 11 seats, or perhaps I should say the supporters of dual
marketing lost all but 1 of 11 seats up for election. As far as
farmers and grain marketing are concerned it would appear that
farmers think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a fine job of
marketing western grain and want it to continue doing a
successful job.
(1220)
It is incumbent upon the government to accept the wishes of
the western farmer as expressed by this vote, which was
virtually a referendum on the issue of the future of the Canadian
Wheat Board, and begin issuing statements in support of the
board.
This week in the House of Commons the minister of
agriculture was given the opportunity to congratulate the elected
members of the advisory board and to declare his personal
support for the work of the board. Instead, he chose to repeat the
line that he must continue consulting with farmers.
Let me quote the minister from the December 7 edition of
Hansard, as reported at page 8784. He said:
I do not think it would be fair to say that the vote is the be all and the end all. I do
not think it would be fair to say it is the absolute last and ultimate word. It is one
very important piece of evidence which is clearly supportive of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of the evidence in front of
the minister, but I believe the minister must accept the wishes
put before him. Therefore I say the consultation must now be
concluded. Farmers have had the best opportunity they will ever
have to declare support for the board and they have taken it.
They support the board. They have demonstrated they support
the board. The minister must not now only acknowledge it; he
must act on it.
Today, however, we must also deal with the government's
amendments to the Canada Grain Act. I express my support for
the act and the amendments before us today, although there are
additional amendments that could be made to further strengthen
the act and how it applies to farmers.
Basically the latest changes in the grain act were proposed in
response to changing industry conditions and as a result of
producer group recommendations. They also reflect the findings
of the federal government's 1992-93 regulatory review that
supported deregulation and a more market responsive grain
industry, a review I have taken some issue with.
Primary producers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to
exploitation by various trading interests as protective
legislation is systematically deregulated. Deregulation
represents the transfer of power from the public to the private
sector. A loss of public power means a loss of sovereignty, a loss
of opportunity for redress when something goes wrong. The
more deregulated the industry the more vulnerable we become
and therefore ironically the more regulated we need to be. What
a situation.
As members are aware the Canada Grain Act is administered
by a special operating agency, the Canadian Grain Commission.
Its services are provided to clients on a cost recovery basis. It is
responsible for establishing and maintaining grain quality and
for regulating the grain handling system.
The bill before us is designed to deregulate elevator operation
charges, provide more flexibility to producers in moving their
grain, and tighten licensing and liability provisions. It gives
grain producers the primary responsibility for securing payment
for their grain shipments from elevator operators and grain
dealers licensed by the commission. It also imposes greater
responsibility on licensees of the commission for making such
payments.
According to some who have studied the bill, it attempts to
find a balance between promoting competitiveness and at the
same time maintaining quality. On the one hand, in attempting
to streamline the inspection process the amendments reduce the
regulatory power of the grain commission. On the other hand,
the grain commission is able to prescribe more activities in its
8889
role of protecting producers and grain quality. The grains
industry in Canada has a long and arduous history.
The bill in front of us is the latest in a long list of amendments
that have come before parliamentarians over the years in many
different attempts to improve the movement and storage of
grain.
For the record it is important for us to take a look at that
history. Members of the House may find it interesting to note
that the need for legislation was first recognized by a private
member of the House and first presented as a private member's
bill in 1898. Farmers represented a great power in the House of
Commons at that time. When the private elevator companies
were accused of cheating in weighing, grading and deducting for
weed seeds, discriminating as to whose grain they accepted and
of price fixing, it did not take long for Parliament to act.
(1225)
A royal commission was appointed in 1900. Later that year,
on the eve of a general election, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's
government enacted a majority of the commission's
recommendations. The 1900 Manitoba Grain Act established a
grain commission to license elevators, to bond elevator agents
and grain buyers, to approve handling tariffs, to inspect records
and to settle disputes.
Is it not interesting that the need to regulate came at a time
when the grain trade was dominated by competition from many
grain companies growing like crazy and operating in a
completely unregulated marketplace?
Deregulation is a direction the previous Tory government
wanted us to take and it seems to be the direction the current
government wants to continue. However it is a direction fraught
with danger and all of us must proceed with a great deal of care.
The first amendments to the Manitoba Grain Act came in 1902
in response not only to a good crop but to apparent blackmail
from the railways that were not supplying grain cars to the
elevators for the movement of grain.
Another royal commission was called in 1906 in response to
allegations against the grain companies. This commission
verified the allegations and recommended 50 additional
amendments to the act. These amendments include making
elevator companies liable for damages for weight frauds,
requiring samples of all bins to prevent grading fraud, paying
farmers for the commercial value of screenings, and authorizing
the grain commissioner to order equitable distribution of cars
and to dismiss agents for fraudulent practices.
Then again in 1908 Parliament gave the grain commission full
control of the cleaning, binning and shipping of grain from the
terminals and the power to inspect terminal records and receipts.
The point of all this is that in the unfettered marketplace of the
past farmers were being exploited or taken advantage of every
time they turned around. If there is anything to be learned from
our history, it is that farmers standing together with the help of
their elected officials ensured that they received better and
fairer treatment from the corporations then dominating the
marketplace.
In continuing to look at our history we see that the farmers'
need to take on the elevator companies and the railroads did not
end in 1908. There were more amendments in 1912 and again in
1919 after the war when complaints over the handling and
purchasing of grain again resurfaced.
Another royal commission was established in 1921 because
the complaints against the corporation persisted. More changes
were made and finally in 1930 things stabilized. The Canada
Grain Act continues to be the basis of Canada's reputation in the
world wheat market as a supplier of reliable, clean and
consistently graded grain.
However, the political and economic struggle over grains did
not end with the Canada Grain Act. The same forces which
worked for greater farmer control in handling, storage and
transportation also worked for control and fairness in
marketing. The Prairie Co-Operative Pools were created in the
1920s and, finally, in 1949 the Canadian Wheat Board was
formalized with monopoly control over marketing of western
wheat, oats and barley.
Whatever changes are considered to the way in which grain is
treated, it is very important to review history and take only those
steps that acknowledge the lessons learned along the way.
Today in agriculture there are numerous changes taking place
not only within Canada but around the world. The government
we are facing seems to be pushing farmers again into a world of
a more market oriented privatized industry where the
corporations dominate and the farmers must compete not only
against other countries but against themselves to participate in
the marketplace.
In our fights to maintain a vision of a strong agricultural
community with populated and productive rural areas, we find
ourselves having to give up those things which make us strong.
8890
(1230 )
The Crow benefit is under attack. The Canadian Wheat Board
is under attack and certain protections offered by the Canadian
Grain Commission are being discussed.
Just as in 1898 the farmers of Canada and the communities
they support today need the support of the Parliament of Canada
to ensure they are, each and every one, treated fairly in the
marketplace.
There is a tremendous opportunity in the world today both for
the export of bulk quality Canadian grain and in the process or
value added sector. Canadian producers have to remain in the
game through whatever tough times we have to face in order to
be here when those opportunities come knocking at our door.
I urge the minister of agriculture to ensure Canadian farmers
remain in the game. Give us the opportunities we need to stay on
the farm, to reap the rewards of the opportunities coming our
way in the future. Give us the opportunity to continue to ship to
port under the terms of the Crow benefit. Give us the
opportunity to continue marketing our grain under enhanced,
not reduced, powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and give us
the quality protection we need under the terms of the Canada
Grain Act to ensure our reputation in the world marketplace is
protected.
I believe the amendments put forward before us today in Bill
C-51 allow us to provide some of the protections that are
needed. That is why I will support the bill at third reading. I want
to ensure the direction the government is taking in agriculture is
changed to ensure that each of the farmers, each of the producers
can continue to do the work they want to do for their families and
their communities. I urge the government to take a strong look at
our history and the value of the product coming off the farm to
the future of our country.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I felt I
had to respond to the hon. member who has just spoken. My
response is with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board advisory
committee elections. I would like to talk briefly about the
tradition of these elections, what has happened in the past, what
the real issue was in the election this time and about some new
abuses that came into the voting this time.
The tradition of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory
committee elections is that there is a very low turn out at the
elections, this year under 40 per cent. The reason is that this
advisory committee really has no power whatsoever in terms of
the operations of the wheat board. It has no power so people tend
to stay away when it comes time to vote.
These elections in the past have been won in the garbage cans
of post offices. There is no personal identification involved in
the voting in these elections. There was not in the past, I am not
sure about this last election. People who support a particular
position strongly have gone to the garbage cans and picked out
numerous ballots and mailed in a good number of ballots. I have
seen this happen. I have talked to others who have seen it happen
and have been involved in it. That is the type of process that has
taken place in the voting in the past. To my knowledge this has
not been taken out this time, but I cannot say that for a fact.
There were some new abuses added to the election process
this time. This is very important to point out. The board of
commissioners, the commissioners who are government
appointed, not elected, is supposed to oversee the election
process. Therefore it plays a role very similar to Elections
Canada in a federal election.
In spite of that fact these same commissioners including the
chief commissioner, Lorne Hehn, were out campaigning for
those who were in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat
Board monopoly-
Mr. Penson: Trying to protect his $175,000 a year job.
Mr. Benoit: Out trying to protect his job.
We will see any monopoly and people involved in a monopoly
out to try to protect their job and their personal interest. That is
understandable except when this body is the body in charge of
the administration of the election.
This should never have been allowed to happen. It was very
improper behaviour on the part of those commissioners and I
believe they should do what is right and step down because of
that.
(1235)
This kind of abuse is totally unacceptable in any kind of
election, whether it is an important election or not. What this has
shown is that there is a great concern on the part of these
commissioners and those who supported maintaining the wheat
board monopoly that things would not go their way. I think this
is the reason that the commissioners, against all past tradition,
have decided to get involved this time.
Because of this involvement the issue changed from the issue
of dual marketing versus monopoly, which was never the issue
in this election. The real issue because of the way this was
presented by the commissioners and others was. Do you want
the wheat board or not? All of the candidates involved in this
advisory committee election want the wheat board. To my
knowledge they all support the wheat board. Yet that was the
way the issue was presented by the commissioners and by others
and through the farm media.
This election was to determine whether farmers wanted the
wheat board or not, except all of the candidates running wanted
the wheat board. I believe probably 70 per cent to 80 per cent of
farmers want the wheat board maintained.
That is not the issue that is important here with regard to the
wheat board. The important issue is whether the wheat board
should be run by an elected board of directors or by government
appointment. That is the key issue, should farmers get some
control over their organization, the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farmers pay the total operating cost of the wheat board. The
board supposedly exists for farmers. Why on earth will this
8891
government and others not allow them to control their
organization?
The advisory committee has no power and therefore is pretty
much unimportant in this whole process.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's
speech before. I did not hear a question in what he put. However,
I do have a couple of comments to make in response to the hon.
member for Vegreville.
I could not help but think as he was speaking today and as I
have heard him say in this House recently since the advisory
board elections were completed that when you lose on substance
you appeal on the basis of process.
In this case the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections, at
least in my part of the country where I had the great opportunity
to talk not only to the candidates running but to many of the
farmers responding, were very much discussed on the basis of
support for the monopoly powers and enhanced powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing.
Again, even in my own area the debate on the farm and in the
coffee shops was not concerning itself with process but on
substance. In the end when the ballots were counted the
substance of the debate I think was quite clearly heard in that
those who support the monopoly and enhanced powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board were successful.
The member for Vegreville indicated that in some cases less
than 40 per cent of farmers voted. Certainly this is not a low
number in terms of wheat board elections. This is a very good
turnout in terms of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board
advisory elections.
I believe that every farmer had the opportunity to express an
opinion and certainly those who did not quite often, as we know
in politics, represent those who are satisfied. Only when those
who are disgruntled vote in large numbers do we recognize the
protest in their voices.
A turnout of 40 per cent in which the majority supported the
Canadian Wheat Board indicates that those who did not vote
would also likely support the wheat board.
I was concerned that the member for Vegreville indicated that
he recognized improprieties in the voting. I am sure that on
behalf of the minister of agriculture and all Canadians I would
ask the member to name those he knows were involved in the
improprieties and ensure that the elections are conducted fair
and square and that those who are aware of the improprieties and
problems that may exist within the system bring them forward to
those who can act on them.
(1240 )
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, first of all, concerning the 40 per
cent, I only referred to that to show that it is not regarded as a
valid body that is being elected.
Does the hon. member feel that it is all right for the
commissioners who are responsible to oversee the election, as
Elections Canada is in a federal election, to actively campaign
on behalf of one side in this election? It twisted the issue from an
issue of dual marketing versus single desk marketing. They did
it from their massive coverage in farm papers and local papers
by twisting it instead to an issue of if you let the monopoly break
the board will disappear, it will be destroyed.
I would like to ask the member if he feels it is all right that the
commissioners campaigned in that way.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the message that the
Canadian Wheat Board commissioners brought forward is the
message that I was also discussing in my constituency and so
were the candidates who were running for the advisory
committee.
I did not see the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners
bringing forward any new information to the debate.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-51, the amendments to the
Canada Grain Act.
This bill covers also the Canadian Grain Commission. It is
designed to reduce the Canadian Grain Commission's
responsibility in a couple of areas. Today I would like to focus
my attention on government control over the whole grain
industry, including that by the Canadian Grain Commission.
We have one of the most controlled industries in the world,
the grain industry. No other industry I know of has the level of
government control this industry has. As an active farmer, I
believe this is not in our best interest. I am going to be pointing
out some of the reasons for that later.
We also have a body, the Canadian Grain Commission,
heavily controlled by the federal government but does not have
the funding from the federal government. In other words, 92 per
cent of the budget of the Canadian Grain Commission comes
from producers. Only 8 per cent comes from the federal
government, yet it wants to maintain in effect exclusive control.
I do not think that is a good thing. We also have the same thing
with the Canadian Wheat Board where it is a producer funded
body and yet the Canadian government maintains control and I
believe not in our best interest.
I understand the need to maintain standards. Canada is one of
the most reliable exporters of grain. It has a very high quality
and we have maintained a very good standard, one that could
easily be done by having the Canadian Grain Commission have
exclusive control through an elected board of directors rather
than appointed as they are now by the federal government.
8892
If producers are paying the bill they should have control.
They should have an elected board of officers. This could easily
accomplish the same goals of trying to maintain very good
standards in order to maintain our customers abroad.
This bill reduces the responsibility of the Canadian Grain
Commission in a couple of areas. Setting upper limits on tariffs
is one area where it is going to be backing off on controls. The
other is reduced payment of losses to the level of the bond of the
Canadian Grain Commission on the companies that are required
to post a bond.
The Canadian Grain Commission by maintaining this system
of bonds must maintain and monitor that these bonds are
actually effective. When a grain company is required to post a
bond, if it fails the Canadian Grain Commission's liability is
only to the level of the bond.
I have information from some industry people that grain
dealers who post a bond only have to get back to that level at the
end of every month. It is not uncommon for smaller under
capitalized grain dealers to be four or more times over exposed
to their bond level.
(1245 )
What message are we sending out to producers? That these
people have a bond which may be up to four times less than what
is really required? We should be sending a message of buyer
beware. They should check out these companies and see what
their reliability is and not give a false sense of security to
producers when they are dealing with companies by believing
that there is a bond in place to take care of the problems should
the company fail.
In the past there have been cases where companies have failed
and there has been heavy exposure by the taxpayer. That is not in
our interests either. We need a situation whereby producers deal
with companies based on their merit and historical performance.
Let them know they have to check out these bonds. It does not
have to be done by the Canadian Grain Commission. A false
sense of security is being put in place.
My main concern is that the regulation of our whole grain
industry is far too high. I talked about the Canadian Grain
Commission but it also applies to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The previous speaker talked about the Canadian Wheat Board
and how important it is. I agree. We are also calling for a
democratic election to the board of the directors of the wheat
board rather than appointments to the board. This would bring
responsibility back to this body which is very badly needed.
In this heavily controlled industry, including the Canadian
Wheat Board, a farmer who is producing his own wheat is
required to establish a mill on his farm to grind it into flour. The
farmer has to buy his own wheat back through the Canadian
Wheat Board and apply for permits to do that. This is ludicrous
in a time when people are looking for opportunities to expand
their business. This is the kind of heavy handed tactic we would
see in Russia.
The Western Grain Transportation Act is another area of
overregulation in the industry. It is a heavy government hand
where it is not required. Grain is being shipped to Thunder Bay,
back to Regina and then south across into the United States. It is
called backtracking. It costs the taxpayers hundreds of
thousands of dollars to continue this practice just to qualify for
the Crow benefit. It is absolute nonsense. We would have
expected this type of thing in Russia 10 years ago.
These are the kinds of controls we see on the Canadian grain
industry. As a grain farmer I know others believe this is very
much a business where we can compete very well by
government getting out of our faces and letting us get on with
our job. We will find the markets. We will find the most
effective way of getting it there at the lowest cost.
As long as we have a heavily regulated industry like we have
in the three areas I can think of offhand, the Canadian Grain
Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, both of which by the
way are undemocratic, and the western grain transportation
authority, it shows that we have some serious problems. In fact
we do not even comply with the new World Trade Organization
regulations. There is a better system outside of our country than
there is internally. Things have to be resolved.
I want to take a moment to talk about the Canadian Wheat
Board advisory committee and the recent elections. The member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake talked about how this was a
very important body. That is not how it is regarded in my
constituency nor is it generally throughout the industry.
The Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee is just that. It
is an advisory committee. It has absolutely no authority and no
power. In the industry it is really seen as a very minor player in
the whole scheme of things. It is seen as a public relations
exercise for the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government put as
much stock in the idea of having elections for the Canadian
Wheat Board directors as it does for the Canadian Wheat Board
advisory committee then we would be getting somewhere.
We have to apply the same principle. How can there be an
elected advisory committee and not an elected board of directors
of the wheat board? I think some of the reason is that the
Canadian Wheat Board commissioners do not want to open up
8893
the books, which is something that should be required. Let
producers see what is happening in the Canadian Wheat Board,
see if there are any inefficiencies taking place or any areas
where we can make some changes.
(1250)
Producers do not want to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What I have heard from many constituents is that they want to
open up the board and have it elected, effective and accountable.
That is the most important thing.
When members talk about how important this election was to
the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee, that is certainly
not what I am hearing throughout the country. Less than 40 per
cent of farmers voted in this election. It was actually one of the
higher ones, but generally it is not regarded as an effective
board. People just take it as a joke and that is the reason we are
not getting good turnouts. If we had an election for Canadian
Wheat Board commissioners themselves I think we would see a
very high turnout.
I will close by saying that with this heavily regulated grain
industry in Canada we have to ask the question: Who is asking
for this? It is certainly not the farmers I am listening to. People
are saying to open up the process. These producers want to do
more than grow grain. They want to have more control in saying
how this grain is marketed and transported. They do not want a
regulated industry. They want deregulation.
I believe that Canada and Russia passed in the night about two
or three years ago. At least Russia is going in the right direction.
It is trying to deregulate its industry while we are still going in
the opposite direction. I encourage the government to open up
the process or at least start by making these institutions
democratic. That is the very least we can do.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until
6.30 p.m. Monday, December 12.
The Government Whip on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to defer that vote from Monday at 6.30 p.m. until
Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement with the whip's
proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.) moved that Bill C-56, an Act to
amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the
third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, today we begin the last stage of the
debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This
debate has now been going on for ten years, a decade, and we are
finally at its conclusion.
During this decade, several eminent persons were involved in
the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
including the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment, Jean Charest, and the former Minister of the
Environment, Lucien Bouchard.
[English]
I would like to do a thumbnail sketch of how we got from
where we were in 1984 to where we are in 1994 on
environmental assessment.
(1255 )
Ten years ago the federal government of the day introduced
guidelines to be followed in the environmental assessment of all
projects which in one way or another involved the Government
of Canada. The intention of those guidelines was undoubtedly
good, but the result was chaos.
The guidelines were vague and subjective. On the one hand
they were incredibly complicated and on the other hand they
were incomplete. The result unfortunately was arbitrary and
haphazard decision making. That led to over 40 significant court
challenges, probably the most famous of which would be
characterized as the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman dam
decisions.
Business people were frustrated because they could not get a
straight answer on whether their projects were environmentally
acceptable or not. Environmentalists were frustrated because
the cause of protecting the environment was lost under the
weight of hundreds of thousands of pages of legal documents.
8894
[Translation]
The federal and provincial governments were bogged down in
legal battles on obscure points of interpretation. The people of
Canada felt excluded from the environmental assessment
process because, as individuals, they did not have the millions
needed to become involved in such battles, even if these fights
had a direct impact on their daily life, their immediate
environment and their economic prosperity.
[English]
All political parties in Parliament soon realized the need for a
law clearly defining what constitutes federal responsibility in
environmental assessment. After a number of years beginning
with the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Tom McMillan,
through to Minister Bouchard through to Mr. Charest,
Parliament passed that law with the support of every single
party. Unfortunately, once the law passed for a number of
reasons it sat on the shelf and was never actually brought into
force by the previous government.
During the last election, the Prime Minister promised that if
elected a Liberal government would proclaim the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. It would then introduce
amendments to simplify, open up and strengthen federal
environmental assessments.
Two months ago I was pleased to announce in this House that
we would keep the Prime Minister's red book promise and
proclaim the act. At the same time I was happy to introduce
amendments to make the act fairer, more open, more
straightforward and indeed to make the decision making more
public.
With the passage of Bill C-56 the government will keep its
red book promise. With the passage of this legislation
Parliament, we the parliamentarians of Canada, will put our
country at the forefront of nations in the world in approaching
the extremely important issue of environmental assessment.
As our Prime Minister leaves for Miami today for the
hemispheric summit, one of the issues that underpins economic
development around the world is the necessity for open,
transparent and public environmental assessment. Certainly this
legislation will indeed underline Canada's pre-eminent position
as a country that respects the open public and transparent
process before projects are begun.
Environmental assessment must be a powerful tool for the
future in which economic health, environmental health and
human health are integrated. Indeed, that is one of the functions
of the summit.
With that understanding in mind my colleagues and I have
spent the last year listening carefully to environmentalists,
academics, community representatives, business, labour and
other levels of government and indeed most important,
individual Canadians. We want to make sure the amendments we
are proposing will advance the cause of sustainable
development in the best possible sense. There are three simple
but key amendments.
First, the federal government is implementing the principle of
one project, one assessment for federal endeavours. We do not
want a complicated process where there is a big assessment at
the planning stage of a project, a second assessment at the
implementation stage and then another assessment every time
somebody decides to make a change. What is more, we do not
want a whole group of federal departments and agencies
conducting individual assessments on the same project. We
want environmental assessments to be tough and fair. One
comprehensive assessment of a project serves everyone's
interest much better than several half-baked separate
assessments.
(1300 )
[Translation]
Secondly, this bill guarantees the general public the right to
participate in major environmental assessments by providing
funding for their participation. This idea of involving the public
was first proposed in 1987 by the former Minister of the
Environment, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard, but was set aside in the
bill passed in 1992.
We always believed that it was a mistake to set the issue of
popular financing aside. Today, we are pleased to be able to
repair this deficiency in the legislation. It is all very well to say
that everyone has a right to participate, but we must ensure that
they have the resources required to really be able to do so.
[English]
It is one thing to say that people have a say. It is another thing
to give them the tools to exercise that right.
[Translation]
This amendment entrenches the public's right to really
participate. It is the most basic common sense that those who
have to live with a project have their say.
[English]
Third, Bill C-56 will take away the power of any individual
cabinet minister to ignore or overrule environmental
assessments produced by an independent panel.
Recommendations of an individual panel can only be
modified by a decision of the entire cabinet. Any changes to an
independent assessment will require a written, detailed public
explanation for those changes.
This amendment ends the era of backroom deals made at the
expense of the environment.
8895
[Translation]
I am proud that our government has the honour of giving
Canada a progressive, fair, practical, sensible environmental
assessment system. It introduces a new way of thinking. From
now on, we will make decisions with due consideration for their
environmental impact. The environment completely disregards
man-made geographical boundaries.
The Prime Minister constantly repeats how important
Canadians consider the environment to be and we must find
answers together. Canada is working actively to harmonize
environmental assessments throughout the world and will be
pleased to sign agreements on this. I know that every one of us
here in this House wants to protect the environment and that no
one wants to act against the environment for short-term gain.
I hope that our efforts to achieve positive results throughout
the world will have the same results here in Canada. We must
work together to avoid duplication and overlap.
[English]
We have demonstrated our willingness to co-operate on
environmental assessment by signing harmonization
agreements with two provinces already. We are a few months
away from signing harmonization agreements with two other
provinces. We are actively negotiating comparable
comprehensive agreements across the country.
We want to show that Canada's federalism can be flexible. We
want to show that at the federal level we are doing everything we
can to make Canada work better for the environment, for
individual Canadians, for the protection of the heritage of our
children.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, one government recently decided to boycott
the harmonization discussions: the Quebec government.
(1305 )
All those interested in protecting the environment must ask
the Quebec government if it really wants to avoid duplication
and overlap. Come back to the negotiation table; come back to
talk to us. We are not only prepared to speed up the
harmonization process, but also to meet Quebec's officials to
improve our environment. When it comes to the environment,
no one must act alone.
Sustainable development is a common goal for all; it is
everyone's responsibility and it knows no frontier. It is
important not to get involved in jurisdiction battles, so as to
ensure the best possible environment for our children.
[English]
The amendments before Parliament will not create
environmental paradise on earth overnight. They will, however,
produce a solid, thoughtful and democratic foundation for
environmental assessments and for making sure that
environmental thinking is a central component of planning.
That is what sustainable development is all about, making the
right decisions before the fact instead of cleaning up after the
fact.
Future decision makers, the young people of today and their
children, will have to think differently than the way we thought
in the past. Thanks to this legislation we believe they will have
the tools necessary to translate environmental goodwill into
every day decision making.
[Translation]
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is
extraordinary in that it changes our way of thinking. We must
think before we act. We must think about sustainable
development and we must think about the fact that the
environment knows no borders.
[English]
One project-one assessment, public involvement,
government accountability are three simple principles
translated into reality by today's amendments.
[Translation]
We are ready to translate into reality the principles stated by
the former Minister of the Environment.
[English]
With these three measures we will finally be ready to move
forward in January with the proclamation of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and the agency. We can finally
move forward to a new and wiser generation of environmental
assessment.
It has taken us 10 years to reach the point where finally we are
ready to move ahead. I want to thank the thousands of people
who participated in that process.
In absentia, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition
who was one of the first thinkers of how we could remake
environmental assessment. I want to thank the former Deputy
Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of the Environment. He
supported this new process of environmental assessment.
[Translation]
I want to thank the thousands of Canadians and Quebecers
who understand so well that the environmental assessment
process affects everyone's life, and that we not only have a right
but a duty to participate in it. We hope that the three simple
amendments which we propose-one project, one assessment;
public financing, and participation of every minister in the
decision-making process-will improve the process set in place
by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.
8896
(1310 )
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I start I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to
extend the clock for approximately five minutes so I may
complete my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House. I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.
Bill C-56 proposes amendments to three sections of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The basic principle
behind environmental assessment is addressing concerns in the
early stages of development in order that action can be taken
before the project is too far along. This is a relatively new
process at the federal level.
A number of years ago EARP, the environmental assessment
and review process, was introduced with guidelines. Not until
CEAA was passed by Parliament in June 1992 did we have any
meaningful legislation at the federal level. The Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act replaces the EARP guidelines
and provides for a new process of federal environmental
assessment.
It has taken two years for this bill to be proclaimed into law.
Although the bill was tabled two years ago the regulations were
only published two months ago.
The minister has stated that the amended act will be
proclaimed into law by January 1995. Once CEAA is proclaimed
federal environmental assessment will be legislatively
entrenched.
As this process is still quite new at the federal level, there are
still many bumps to be ironed out. The amendments to the act
contained in Bill C-56 attempt to address some of the problems
already encountered with federal environmental assessment.
Bill C-56 proposes to amend the act in three ways. First it
requires participant funding be established by the Minister of
the Environment. Second, it encourages, where possible, that
one federal environmental assessment be carried out per project.
Third, it requires cabinet approval instead of ministerial
approval of responses to panel recommendations.
At first sight these three recommendations appear quite
positive. However a closer look at these amendments reveals
that they represent few initiatives on the part of the government.
These three amendments do little to change the status quo.
Further, they are inadequate in living up to what they attempt to
accomplish.
During the course of the subcommittee hearings we heard
from several environmental experts regarding this bill. Many of
these presentations expressed a common concern that Bill C-56
does not live up to its expectations. Amendments to the act to
guarantee intervener funding, to broaden the scope of decision
making authority and to reduce timely and costly duplication, to
guarantee one assessment per project have been requested since
consultations on reforming the act began seven years ago. These
are worthy goals that need to be addressed but the goals are
simply not realized in this bill.
I would like to address each of these three amendments in
turn. The first clause amends section 4 of the act and adds a
clause which emphasizes the need for responsible authorities to
carry out their actions in a co-ordinated and efficient manner
with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the
environmental assessment process. This clause has been
referred to as the one project, one assessment clause.
As I mentioned during second reading of this bill, the
harmonization process simply does not go far enough. Although
the possibility for more than one federal assessment is reduced,
the fact remains there is still duplication of the federal and
provincial assessments as well as the possibility for federal
duplication between various departments.
Theoretically the amendment for one assessment per project
minimizes the potential for duplication of federal activities.
Where more than one department is involved, federal authorities
are to attempt to co-ordinate environmental assessment
activity. However I want to make it clear that this legislation
does not mandate one assessment per project. This amendment
merely makes it mandatory to take into account existing
assessments.
The bill changes the assessment process so that departmental
assessments should occur simultaneously rather than
sequentially. In other words, there could be simultaneous
co-ordinated effort but there will still not necessarily be one
assessment.
If decision making triggers occur at different points in time, a
single project may still endure more than one assessment.
Therefore multiple federal assessments are still possible under
the act as long as there are different federal triggers for any
project.
It is well understood that the single most critical issue to
industry is the length and the uncertainty of the assessment
process.
(1315)
Although I am pleased that this government is taking into
account the need to co-ordinate the efforts, this bill lacks teeth.
It lacks the teeth it needs to give it some meaning. We simply
must stop duplicating our efforts and this bill does not
decisively address that concern.
8897
As it stands the bill still fails to live up to Canadian
expectations for one assessment per project. The process needs
to be co-ordinated to ensure there is no duplication between
federal departments. This legislation would be improved if a
lead responsible authority could assist in ensuring that one
federal assessment is carried out. This would be a particularly
good role for the agency. Such a responsibility would give the
agency a greater role in the assessment process and would assist
government in streamlining its functions and ensuring that one
assessment per project becomes a reality, not just a
consideration.
The agency could be given the responsibility to notify
departments of their potential involvement in an upcoming
environmental assessment, thus streamlining and co-ordinating
the process. The agency could be the most effective body to
ensure that the principle of one assessment per project truly
becomes a reality.
We must not only deal with duplication between federal
departments but also address the duplication between federal
and provincial governments. At present we currently have two
federal-provincial harmonization agreements in place, one with
Alberta and one with Manitoba. Bilateral agreements as the
minister mentioned between federal and provincial
governments are being negotiated at other levels and they are
intended to reduce duplication by allowing for a co-ordinated
process.
We should be working toward a common set of environmental
standards and goals for both federal and provincial levels of
government. Federal-provincial harmonization agreements
need to be worked out and signed by the provinces and the
federal government to ensure that we truly have one joint
assessment per project.
Let me remind the House of the horrendous cost for
duplication. Forty-five per cent of federal programs
representing expenditures of $40 billion overlap and compete to
varying degrees with provincial programs. That comes straight
out of the Treasury Board. Canadians simply cannot afford this
costly duplication of services.
The second amendment to the act seeks to ensure that
responses to public panel recommendations are decided by
cabinet. This means that the decision to act or to reject on a
panel recommendation is not made solely by the Minister of the
Environment but by the cabinet. This amendment broadens the
decision making authority to include more members in the
decision. However, it simply does not go far enough.
As I mentioned earlier, the spirit of this clause is to ensure that
responses to public panel recommendations are decided by
cabinet, but cabinet remains undefined. Cabinet could be a few
ministers or it could refer to the full cabinet. The term cabinet is
very loose. Cabinet has many versions and it can be many
things. There are inner cabinets, outer cabinets and committees
of cabinet. The term cabinet is simply too loose. As it stands,
important environmental decisions can still be controlled by two
or three ministers with their own agendas.
Current government amendments represent only a small step
forward and they change very little. If we are to ensure that the
assessment process is fair and democratic this clause must be
amended to replace cabinet or governor in council by order in
council.
Not all responses by governor in council are orders in council.
Order in council responses are more formalized and must be
published in the Canada Gazette and tabled in Parliament. This
amendment, which would have improved the procedure, I
proposed during report stage and was unfortunately rejected by
the government.
Another problem with this bill is that there are no guidelines
on how or when cabinet review will be undertaken. There are no
guidelines which spell out which projects will be assessed or
which assessments, once completed, will be forwarded to
cabinet for review. I would hope guidelines for environmental
assessment procedures would make it very clear to all
participants exactly what the rules are.
As it stands, there is nothing to prevent cabinet from reading
the report and ignoring important recommendations. There is
nothing to prevent a few members of the cabinet from rejecting
panel recommendations purely on a political basis.
In addition, it is not clear whether the cabinet would be able to
change either a panel's recommendations or a mediator's report.
There is no clear definition of what the cabinet can or cannot do.
This must be clarified in the regulations that guide the
assessment process, otherwise we are no farther ahead than we
were before.
(1320 )
Bill C-56 is yet another example of this government's failure
to live up to its red book promises. Bill C-56 effectively takes
decision making authority from the minister and gives it to an
undefined cabinet. What it does not do is give authority to the
agency or panels as promised in the red book.
The Liberal red book promises to amend the act to shift
decision making powers to an independent Canadian
environmental assessment agency subject to an appeal to the
cabinet. The agency's relationship to government would be
roughly similar to that between the CRTC and the cabinet.
This agency simply has none of the powers of the CRTC as
promised in the red book. For example, this bill does not entrust
decision making powers to an independent Canadian
environmental assessment agency subject to an appeal to
cabinet.
8898
The head of the agency is not independent from the minister.
The minister appoints this person to the position, which again
makes it more of a patronage appointment than an independent
agency. In no way is this agency at arm's length from the
government.
Section 7 of the CRTC legislation gives the commission
licensing powers which are essentially final decision making
powers. There is clearly no similar commission being proposed
in this act. The panel or the CEAA is not given decision making
powers or powers as responsible authority.
In addition, the CRTC under the Broadcasting Act has all the
powers of the superior court. This is not the case with the
assessment agency.
The CRTC is a quasi-judicial commission. This is also not the
case with any of the decision making powers under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
The principles of fairness of decision making which are
required for the CRTC are not required for the process of
decision making under the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
During the hearings on this bill several witnesses presented
concerns that Bill C-56 does not give the agency or the panels
the power to make decisions with an appeal to cabinet. This bill
as presently drafted fails to address these concerns.
Clearly responsibility for environmental assessments are not
in this act vested in an independent agency as promised in the
red book and the relationship of the CRTC to government bears
little relation to that between the agency and government.
Yet when a motion was put forward during report stage
amendments to recognize the agency as an independent body,
the Liberals voted it down and in doing so voted against their
own red book promise. We hear so much about the red book, yet
here we have the government not only ignoring a promise, but
actually voting it down in the House.
There appears to be a great discrepancy between government
promises in the red book and government actions in the form of
legislation.
In Ontario the assessment process has been amended to make
all decision making by an environmental board binding unless
appealed to cabinet. In practice most decisions are final. This
process works, plus it saves time and money.
I would now like to move on to the third and final amendment
of this bill dealing with participant funding. Section 58(1)(i) of
the act currently enables the minister to establish a funding
program to facilitate public participation in mediation and
assessment by review panels. Bill C-56 proposes to repeal this
measure and replace it with a new section that requires the
minister to establish a participant funding program rather than
leaving it up to the minister's discretion as is currently the case.
Of all the stakeholders in the environmental decision making
process, ordinary Canadians are those most directly affected by
the environmental impact of projects. Participant funding is an
important tool as it enables stakeholders to participate in the
decision making process.
As I mentioned in the House on second reading, regulations
are needed to guide the amount and distribution of participant
funding. I recommend that the government broaden the scope
when developing these regulations. The participant funding
program will not be up and running until criteria are set up.
Regulations could take as long as a year before they are brought
into force which means that it will be some time before the
participant funding program becomes a reality.
Participant funding regulations should ensure that those
people directly affected by a project have an opportunity to
participate. However, there must be guidelines to ensure it does
not become a growth industry, funding courtesy of the taxpayer.
(1325 )
We do not want to start an intervener industry. Funding would
be at a level to allow effective participation by those who can
demonstrate they will be affected by a project. Guidelines for
participation should consider whether the applicant represents a
clearly ascertainable interest that should be heard at the hearing
and whether separate representation of the interest would assist
the panel and contribute to the hearing.
Guidelines should also take into consideration whether the
applicant has attempted to bring other related interests under an
umbrella group that would facilitate the retention of common
experts and council and whether direction is included that only
those costs that are directly related to the preparation and
presentation of a submission are recoverable.
Regard should be given to whether there is a requirement for
submissions and presentations to be conducted economically
and last, whether a special power is required to deny costs in
cases in which a submission or presentation is unnecessary,
irrelevant, improper or the cost claim is excessive.
Alberta currently has established criteria in place for
participant funding and could serve as a guide when regulations
are drafted. According to Environment Canada sources the
amount of participant funding is limited to $1.2 million per year
and comes from the green plan. Although funds are currently
limited by the budget, the number of dollars is open ended as the
government can decide to increase or decrease these funds in
future years.
8899
One proposed amendment which I brought up in committee
and which I feel still merits consideration for this act is that
of proponents paying a portion of the intervener funding. How
much the proponent would pay could be at the discretion of the
minister or included in the regulations.
Some of the witnesses on C-56 raised concerns that
intervener funding tends to be quite small, sometimes to the
point of undermining the usefulness of having any critique
whatsoever. As long as the funding comes only from taxpayers,
funding will be less than if the proponent paid for a portion of
the fund.
Let me make it clear, however, that I am not suggesting
proponents should be forced to pay for every interested critic of
a project. Guidelines would need to be quite specific in this area
to protect from abuse. Several of the witnesses also suggested
the agency be granted the authority to award participant funding
under ministerial guidelines rather than vesting the authority
solely with the minister.
This suggestion should be looked into either as an amendment
to the act or as a regulation guiding the participant funding
regulations. This amendment to the act would allow the agency
to be empowered with some decision making powers, decision
making powers that the agency is sorely lacking at present.
Participant funding regulations need to identify what the
money can be used for and accountability must be assured. This
amendment as it stands does not ensure that all Canadians and
interest groups can participate equally in a full and meaningful
way in all phases of various environmental assessment
processes. This is beyond the scope of the bill. However, some
choices must be made in the regulations which will ensure there
is a selection process to ensure those parties that play a
significant role have adequate funding.
In addition, attention must be paid to the fact that funds are
not endless, nor are the timeframes for the assessment process
without some constraints. It is not fair to subject one project to
an endless tirade of inquiries. There must be a balance in the
process to ensure a fair and reasonable assessment takes place.
In concluding I wish to take the opportunity to highlight
another problem with this bill. During second reading I raised
concerns regarding the amount of ministerial discretion allowed
in the act. I noted the minister may or may not call for a review,
and the fact that the minister appoints the mediator or panel
members. These concerns were also raised by a number of
witnesses.
Panel members are appointed by the minister. Therefore there
is no permanent body that one could refer to as an agency that
decides who will staff a particular hearing. The panel approach
is hardly an independent agency, as members can be appointed
at the whim of the minister to suit particular cases as the
minister sees fit. This has direct influence on the outcome of any
panel decision.
As well, during second reading I addressed concerns about the
exclusion and inclusion list that makes up the regulations
guiding what is and is not to be included in the assessment
process. In addition, the fact that there are no regulations
regarding the transport of hazardous waste still concerns me.
It is with regret I note the government has shown little
initiative with the bill. The act as it stands remains virtually
unchanged. We desperately need to move forward on
environmental issues. There is little point in spinning our
wheels for the sake of appearances. The bill requires reworking
before it will begin to live up to the spirit that was intended. I
have suggested some improvements for the bill, including my
motion to change the final decision making authority from
cabinet to order in council.
In conclusion, the government had the opportunity to move
legislation that would have had a substantial impact on how
environmental assessment is carried out in Canada.
Unfortunately it failed in the attempt.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hon. member for Don
Valley North has given me written notice that he will be unable
to present his motion during the hour provided for Private
Members' Business next Monday.
[English]
Despite our best efforts and many phone calls it has not been
possible to find a member who will substitute for him on
Monday. Accordingly I would request the table officers to drop
that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
[Translation]
The hour provided for Private Members' Business will
therefore be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2),
the House will meet at 11 a.m. for consideration of Government
Orders.
[English]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent for
the following: If a vote by division bell is requested on Motion
No. 257 later this day, the vote will not be deferred until Monday
but will be deferred until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8900
8900
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 257 under Private
Members' Business. The motion seeks to recognize the efforts
of certain important Canadians both in Lower Canada and in
Upper Canada. I applaud the initiative because it is important
for us to recognize the efforts of those important figures in our
history.
It is important to recall the efforts of such people as William
Lyon Mackenzie, the great Liberal leader who was the
grandfather of a great Liberal Prime Minister, William Lyon
Mackenzie King. It is very important to recognize the leadership
efforts of Louis-Joseph Papineau, an important reform leader in
Lower Canada. I applaud that initiative.
Unfortunately where I take some exception to the motion is
that it is somewhat incomplete. It ignores the efforts of some
important Canadians from the maritime region or Atlantic
Canada, most notably the great leader from Nova Scotia, Joseph
Howe, who was very instrumental in helping to achieve
responsible government in the country. It is absolutely silent on
the leadership efforts of Canadians such as Mr. Howe.
One would have to question somewhat the historical accuracy
of the motion as I see it before me. It speaks of the Patriots of
Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada. Then it
equates those to geographic regions as being Quebec and
Canada. For those of us who have had an opportunity to study
Canadian history that is historically inaccurate. The then Lower
Canada is roughly equivalent to the province of Quebec, which
has geographically grown many times since becoming part of
Canada or since 1867.
(1335 )
To equate the then Upper Canada with Canada is somewhat
misleading. One would conclude that it is the Canada of today.
Indeed that is very inaccurate. It ignores the Atlantic provinces,
the two founding members of Canada, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. As we know, under Confederation we had four
founding provinces. This particular historical equation ignores
Atlantic Canada and all provinces that subsequently became
members of Confederation. It is somewhat historically
inaccurate.
Its intention is probably good, but it is important that we
recognize in as total way as possible the efforts of all Canadians
such as Mr. Howe and others.
I have some difficulty supporting the motion. I can support its
main thrust but having noted its inaccuracies I just spoke to and
the incompleteness of the motion I would like to move the
following amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the words
``democratic government''.
It then becomes more accurate historically. It then addresses
the concerns I raised about ignoring the efforts of certain very
important Canadians in the fight for responsible government,
particularly those from Atlantic Canada and most notably Mr.
Howe. I submit that my amendment is an improvement upon the
member's motion.
The Deputy Speaker: While the Chair is waiting to examine
the amendment, we might continue with the debate and the
ruling will be made in due course as to the receivability of the
motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the
motion put forth by the member for Verchères. It would have the
government officially recognize the historical contribution of
the Patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada
to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic
government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of
Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots day.
It is extremely troubling for me to stand before the House and
unequivocally support a motion dealing with an issue that
historians have not even settled on. The hon. member is asking
us as parliamentarians to stand and officially recognize the
contribution of the Patriotes and reformers. That point is clear. I
cannot.
This is an issue which Canadians will have to make an
individual value judgment about and the appropriateness of
recognizing the extent of the contributions of the Patriotes and
reformers. It would be wrong for parliamentarians as a whole to
make a judgment about an event in history that is still
controversial in the minds of many Canadians.
In fact what lies at the heart of the controversy is the methods
used by the Patriotes and reformers. To some they are
considered to be great Patriots. Yet to others they are considered
to be nothing more than traitors who deserved what they
received.
I also state unequivocally that the Patriots and reformers have
some legitimate concerns which need to be addressed. I am sure
that everyone, and not only in the House but all Canadians,
would agree with that.
However we would be doing a great disservice to the idea that
it is possible to have the freedom to debate ideas and achieve
things through peaceful means, while at the same time lending
8901
credibility to the notion that the end justifies the means, that it
would be all right to raise arms against the state when there is a
dispute. By no means do I support the idea that violence is a way
to achieve a political end.
(1340)
Support for the motion would then also be essentially a stamp
of approval for the violence which took place during the revolts
of 1837 and 1838. There were many deaths during those
quasi-revolutions and I would certainly not want to suggest this
is the proper way to bring about change.
Let us now take a moment to look at a few of the major players
of the Patriote and reform debate, because I feel it is important
sometimes to look at the past as if the lessons learned are
forgotten. We are doomed to relearn them.
I also believe there are a number of similarities between the
Party Patriote and the Bloc which need to be highlighted. In fact
Papineau as Speaker of the House had no qualms about
pocketing a large government salary while at the same time
plotting his revolution. Interestingly enough we have seen much
of the same during this 35th session of Parliament.
Papineau was also quite happy to extract harsh levies from the
habitants living on seigneuries in the Ottawa Valley and
allowing English merchants to do the same.
Papineau, through his charisma, focused habitant grievances
against the English and reflected the fury of the francophone
professional class who, as they saw it, had been systematically
denied government advancement.
He also headed a party which demanded economic
development at the local and regional level. Their concerns
seem to be much of the same type of rhetoric to which many of
us have listened every day in the House.
It is extremely important to illustrate that the lower Canadian
revolution failed not only because of the division of the province
into French and English but because of the divisions among the
French themselves and of the type of men who attempted to
make it. To upset a regime requires more than oratory, more than
a prophetic fanatic such as Papineau was. It requires the support
of the masses. The Patriotes had none of this.
Joseph Howe was primarily responsible for the election of a
majority of reformers in Nova Scotia. He managed to bring
about political change and bring about responsible government
without having to resort to violence. This would be a good
lesson for everyone to remember.
There is a more subtle lesson to be learned from all this, that
the politicians might think they know what is best in terms of the
best interests of society and those who encompass it, but it is
ultimately up to the citizens of that society to determine what is
best for them. Politicians better start listening to the people and
not their own rhetoric.
Another key problem with the motion is the narrowness of its
scope. It does not even attempt to recognize that a lot of people
have made significant contributions to responsible government
in the country other than simply the Patriots and reformers,
many of whom are from western Canada. These other
individuals would include William Aberhaart, Ernest Manning
of the Alberta Social Credit and Agnes Macphail of the
Progressives who was the first woman ever elected to the House
of Commons. Let us not forget about the contributions of Henry
Wisewood of the Alberta wing of the Progressives during the
1920s.
A final problem we see with the motion is the fact that we
already celebrate the contributions of Canadians from the past
on Canada Day. It is a time when Canadians can look back and
reflect on all those individuals who contributed in some form or
another in terms of greater representative democratic
governments.
In conclusion, I will not impugn any motive or agenda beyond
the motion. Yet many people feel that the motion appears to be
the legitimization of a rebellion in the dismantling of the state
apparatus, the legitimization of the use of force. Therefore I
cannot support it.
As I mentioned earlier the reformers, Patriots and all their
followers certainly have enriched Canada's history. In opposing
the motion I do not want to belittle their contribution in any way.
However I am concerned that if we legitimize the actions of
those such as the Patriots we will be sending out the wrong
message to those Quebecois who are sovereignists.
(1345 )
The PQ seem to be using the battles of 1837 and 1838 to
legitimize its struggles against Canadian federalism. A Patriotes
in Quebec has become anti-English, anti-federalist. The
original Patriots fought for responsible government while the
PQ Patriotes seemed to be fighting for the demise of this great
country.
It is for these reasons I urge all the members of the House to
vote against Motion No. 257.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member
for Richmond-Wolfe, I wish to say that the amendment
proposed by the hon. member for London-Middlesex is in
order.
[English]
As it is in order it is therefore an amendment on which we will
vote next week.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to say to the member of the Reform Party who
just spoke that we recognize English Canada and anglophone
culture. They are our friends. And now, I welcome this
opportunity to take part, at the request of my party, in the debate
on the motion presented by the hon. member for Verchères, a
motion that reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House,
the government should officially recognize the historical
contribu-
8902
tion of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of
Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible
democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the
Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a
national patriots' day.
The dramatic events known as the Rebellion of 1837-38 have
often been depicted in textbooks and travel guides as the actions
of a band of criminals who challenged the established order. The
purpose of the motion submitted by the hon. member for
Verchères is to rectify this perception and to recognize officially
the historic contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and
the Reformers of Upper Canada towards establishing genuinely
democratic and responsible government in Canada and in
Quebec.
Perhaps I should make myself clear at this point. We are
talking about recognizing the merits of the Patriotes, not about
rehabilitating them or obtaining a pardon, as though they were
criminals. In fact, we think it is high time the federal
government recognized the fact that these events were part of
the historic current of social and political unrest that affected
both the colonies and their mother countries in the 18th and 19th
centuries.
In Canada these events, which occurred at a time of great
political upheaval in Western Europe, were centred in Ontario or
Upper Canada, in Quebec or Lower Canada, and in Nova Scotia.
The goals of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of
Upper Canada were threefold. Basically they were fighting for
civil and political rights, for the establishment of truly
democratic and responsible institutions, and for the
emancipation of their respective nations.
Above all, they were seeking recognition of the people of
Lower and Upper Canada as nations capable of taking control of
their own future. Any colony hopes one day to become the
master of its own political and economic destiny. In 1840, the
Act of Union completely denied our existence, ``a people
without history'', it was said. The confederative pact of 1867
seemed to want to establish a relationship based on the equality
of two founding peoples, but in the history of this country, the
francophone nation of North America has been confined to the
status of an ethnic group, only a little harder to assimilate than
other immigrants.
The Patriotes reflected the awareness of French-speaking
Canadians that they were a different nation. They wanted to
obtain recognition of this fact from London and the other
citizens of Canada. However, the definition of Canada in the
Constitution Act, 1982, still does not reflect the reality of two
founding peoples in Canadian society.
The second goal was the establishment of truly democratic
institutions. More specifically, the Patriotes demanded the
establishment of the principle of responsible government or, in
other words, the creation of an executive consisting primarily of
members of the House of Assembly and responsible to it, that is,
accountable to the people rather than to the British Crown.
(1350)
Thanks to the action of the Patriotes and Reformers, we have
inherited a system of responsible government as well as
democratic institutions and traditions of such great value to the
Western world.
Finally, the third reason for the Patriotes and Reformers to
revolt was, in large part, the civil, political and economic
liberties that several nations were starting to exercise. These
were commendable motives that left their mark on 19th century
history. In fact, the late René Lévesque wrote, in a letter dated
November 21, 1982, that the 1837-38 events and all the years
leading to these events were undeniably motivated by a genuine
and powerful democratic surge, coupled with a stronger than
ever national assertiveness.
Arguments against recognizing the Patriotes of Lower Canada
and the Reformers of Upper Canada do not hold water. It was
first argued that adding another public holiday to the calendar
would be both costly and unjustified. Allow me to point out that,
in the mind of my colleague from Verchères, there was never any
question of adding a public holiday or establishing a national
patriots' day in Canada. It was for information that the hon.
member for Verchères referred, in his motion, to the national
patriots' day proclaimed by the Government of Quebec.
They then said that the violence associated with the 1837
rebellion should not be condoned. Fine, but we must remember
that the Patriotes and Reformers expressed their grievances and
demands in pamphlets, newspaper articles, mass
demonstrations, pleas and speeches in the House of Assembly
for many years before some of them took up arms. This motion
is not intended to justify or legitimize the 1837-38 rebellion but
simply to pay tribute, regardless of these violent events, to these
men and women who believed in the need to establish a system
of responsible and truly democratic government.
Some of my colleagues rightly pointed out that the Patriotes
and Reformers are not the only ones who helped establish a
system of responsible government in Canada. Although the
Patriotes and Reformers are certainly not the only architects of
our system of responsible government, their very significant
contribution should not be ignored.
8903
That is why we, in the Official Opposition and the Bloc
Quebecois, are proud to support the motion of our colleague
from Verchères and to ask this House to approve it without
reservation.
The Deputy Speaker: As no one else apparently wishes to
speak, I recognize the hon. member for Verchères.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to go over the comments made
during these three hours of very useful and informative debate.
It is my responsibility to conclude the debate on this motion,
which I had the honour of tabling in this House, and which
merely seeks to recognize the undeniable historical contribution
of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper
Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible
democratic government in Canada and in Quebec.
Although I am a sovereignist, I have no intention of rejecting
our common values and experiences. And the chapter of our
history which saw the emergence of the patriot and reformer
movement is part of those common experiences.
I would like to read you an excerpt from a letter sent to me by
a government member from Ontario. I do not think he will be
upset, because I simply want to show to what extent these events
are part of our common history.
(1355)
He writes: ``If there was a time in Canada's history when
French-speaking and English-speaking people joined together
to defend democracy, it was definitely during the 1837-38
rebellion which shaped the country as we know it today. The
violence which occurred in Upper and Lower Canada was
minimal and short-lived, compared to what happened in just
about any other country that experienced similar incidents.
Since then, Canadians have resolved their differences through
debate, rather than with arms. This explains why a separatist
party is now the Official Opposition in Parliament, something I
am proud of''.
Mr. Speaker, this was made possible essentially by the actions
of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper
Canada.
Contrary to what the Reform Party member claimed,
Quebecers are not using the Patriotes to denigrate their
English-speaking comPatriots. Some prominent Patriotes and
Reformers were English-speaking, and we are proud that they
participated in the Patriotes movement.
My first speech in this House was to explain the relevance of
this motion. This second opportunity allows me to correct a
number of objections made by members of the other political
parties in the more than two hours of debate on this motion.
The first objection was that the Patriotes and the Reformers
were not the only ones who contributed to the establishment of
responsible government. We were reminded, and rightly so, of
the invaluable contribution of the Hon. Joseph Howe, a
politician from Nova Scotia, who also contributed greatly to the
establishment of a system of responsible government in Canada,
and we recognize it. However, that does not mean that we should
not also recognize the value of this structured movement which,
for years, conveyed the aspirations of many people in Lower and
Upper Canada.
The Patriotes and the Reformers were, first of all, honest
citizens-business people, politicians, farmers,
professionals-who, before some of them opted for armed
struggle, had tried to make their point democratically.
We do not deny that they were not the only ones to whom we
owe responsible government, but their very significant
contribution cannot be ignored. Does the fact that we recently
honoured the Canadian heroes who fought on the beaches of
Normandy diminish in any way the merit of those who
distinguished themselves at Vimy, Dieppe and Monte Cassino?
Of course not, Mr. Speaker. It is self-evident.
Then, honouring Patriotes and Reformers will in no way
diminish our gratefulness to persons like Joseph Howe,
something I wanted to stress in this House.
Second objection. It has been said that it would be costly and
unjustifiable to add a new legal holiday. We never said we
wanted a legal holiday. We wasted almost an hour debating this,
when it is not even in the motion.
With your permission, I will quote from the presentation I
made to the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, on
May 11, to make sure that this motion was deemed votable.
Allow me to quote myself: ``-the motion I am presenting to you
is not aimed at establishing a national statutory holiday in
honour of Patriotes and Reformers''.
That is to say that, even before this matter came to the House
of Commons, I had clearly stated that the motion was not
intended to establish a national statutory holiday to honour
Patriotes and Reformers. Of course, it will be up to the
government of Canada to decide how it wants to celebrate and
recognize the priceless contribution of the Patriotes and
Reformers.
This argument can be explained two ways, it is either due to a
blatant ignorance of the facts and of the meaning of the motion,
or to a deliberate manoeuvre to derail the debate, something I
am not accusing anybody of doing.
As I was saying, it has always been very clear in my mind, and
that of my colleagues, that it is up to the Government of Canada
to make the final decision, once the House adopts the motion, on
how it intends to honour and recognize the historical
contribution of the Patriotes and Reformers.
8904
(1400)
Third objection. We were told that the violence of the
rebellion of 1837-1838 could not be condoned. Fine, but it must
be recognized, as my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe so rightly
pointed out, that for years, Patriotes and Reformers had
expressed their point of view, their opinions, in speeches at the
House of Assembly and at public meetings, as well as in
newspaper articles. That is how Patriotes and Reformers had
presented their views.
In remembering the Patriotes' actions, one should not choose
to recall only the violence some of them ultimately resorted to.
The purpose of this motion is not in any way to legitimize or
justify the rebellions of 1837-38. Of course not. As my
colleague from Richmond-Wolfe mentioned, the motion
simply seeks to pay tribute to the men and women who,
notwithstanding these violent protests, believed it was
necessary to have a truly responsible and democratic
government in this country.
Of the people who believed and took part in this movement,
some entered public life and are still highly respected today for
their convictions, like Louis-Joseph Papineau,
Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin and
George-Étienne Cartier, to name a few.
After the first hour of debate, which was rather deplorable, I
might say and where all kinds of objections were used to
sidetrack the debate, I sent all members of this House a letter to
clarify the situation concerning the three objections that were
raised.
In the second hour of debate, we heard new objections. First,
we heard mainly from our colleagues in the Reform Party that
the bad sovereignists of today are using the actions of the
Patriotes and the Reformers to justify their claims. This
argument demonstrates a poor knowledge of our history.
I will remind the members that the Reformers, who would be
Ontarians today, are included in the motion. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the sovereignist movement. That is not why
we are presenting this motion. We want to recognize the
contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers to the
establishment of a system of responsible democratic
government.
I must also remind hon. members of something I mentioned in
the first hour of debate, namely that there are groups in Ontario
which support our initiative and encourage us to bring the House
to recognize the invaluable contribution of the Patriotes and the
Reformers.
Let us not forget that the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau
even went to Australia to unveil a plaque honouring the Patriotes
of Lower Canada and that another Canadian government official
unveiled a similar plaque in Tasmania to honour the Reformers
of Upper Canada. There has never been formal recognition from
the government, and that is what we are seeking.
Of course, it is possible to make a connection between the
actions of the Patriotes and the actions of today's sovereignists.
But if we had wanted to give that meaning to the motion before
us today, we certainly would have excluded any reference to the
Reformers of Upper Canada.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast said in her speech,
and I quote:
If this House is seriously fighting for a strong Canada, it would be hypocritical
for its members to vote in favour of this motion.
What a pity to make such a narrow and restrictive
interpretation of the motion before the House. I say to her that if
this House rejects this motion, it will be more than hypocritical.
Not to admit a historical reality for purely partisan reasons is
beneath the dignity of this House.
During the second hour of debate, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell presented a new objection to the
motion. He opposed the wording of the motion where it says the
Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada
contributed to the establishment of responsible government in
Canada and in Quebec. Using a geographical subterfuge, it was
argued that we could not talk about Canada and Quebec since we
were talking about Upper Canada and Lower Canada and that we
should therefore talk about Ontario and Quebec.
(1405)
I would simply like to say to the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that, putting aside the matter of
Ontario and Quebec, we must admit that the action of the
Patriotes and the Reformers was such that we can now enjoy
freedom everywhere in Canada and a democratic and
responsible government. The action of the Patriotes and the
Reformers cannot be limited to Ontario and Quebec.
The question I asked myself was this: Why then, if he really
intended to support the motion-because I must recognize in all
honesty that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
agreed with the substance, the principle of the motion, though he
was worried about its wording-why then did he not support the
motion? He had the right to do so. Our colleague has just
proposed an amendment which after all does not change the
meaning of the motion.
We would have been very disappointed if our colleagues
opposite had continued to oppose this motion only, it seems,
because of its wording. We are happy to see that we may come to
an agreement so that this House finally recommends that the
government recognize, more than a hundred years later, the
historical contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers to the
establishment of responsible government, of which we are so
proud.
8905
If they had continued to reject this motion only because of
its wording, they would have disappointed many groups in
Ontario and Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada that have
been supporting us in this process from the beginning.
If they had continued, for disgraceful and base partisan
motives, to try to deflect a supposedly level-headed debate on
the recognition that is more than due to the Patriotes, Liberals
and especially Reformers would have shown how low they could
go. But, fortunately, government members are much more open
today.
Refusing to recognize the invaluable contribution of the
Patriotes and the Reformers to the establishment of responsible
government, something we are so proud of today, is an insult to
the memory of great men like Louis-Joseph Papineau,
George-Étienne Cartier, William Lyon Mackenzie, Robert
Baldwin and Louis-Hyppolyte Lafontaine. Not all Patriotes
took up arms but we owe it to all of them that we live today in a
free and democratic society today.
I would invite hon. members, my Reform and Liberal
colleagues, to reflect on this before voting on this important
motion.
I would like to conclude very briefly by thanking members
from all sides for taking part in this debate. I would also like to
express my particular thanks to Mr. Onil Perrier, of the Patriotes
du pays, provided food for thought, and research material
throughout the process.
In closing, I would like to thank-and I am sure that you will
agree with me-my assistant and colleague, Catherine Beaudry,
who did most of the research. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you
agree with my words of thanks to her.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, since the right of reply
closes the debate, I must put the question to the House.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment adopted.
Amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is now on the main
motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier this
day, the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, December 13 at
5.30 p.m.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. Would it be possible, since we have already gone through
the procedure and voted on division, to go back and ask for a
recorded division?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has a duty to be fair to all
members. I know, as the hon. member just indicated, that there
are certain rules. It seems to me we have already had a division.
When I put the question, I was told they intended to rise.
Since they did, I must be fair to all members. They are entitled
to ask for a division, and as the hon. member just said, I think
they intended to do so.
Any further comments on this point?
[English]
It being 2.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.)