CONTENTS
Monday, February 13, 1995
Bill C-59. Report stage 9508
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 9508
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9510
Division on motion deferred 9514
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 9515
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9528
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9528
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9528
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9529
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9529
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9529
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9529
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9531
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9531
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9531
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9532
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9534
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9534
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9535
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9535
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9536
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 9537
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9537
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9538
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9538
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 9539
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 9545
Bill C-66. Motion for second reading 9545
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 9562
9499
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 13, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
pursue negotiations with the provinces and agri-food industry in order to
reassign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and
duplication.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce debate
on this votable motion. In discussing this motion I would like to
share with the House a proposal that I refer to as reconfederating
agriculture.
Today I will discuss the proposal in broad terms. Later in the
debate I will suggest what the proposal means in practical detail
about the policies, programs and budgets for governments, the
agri-food industry and farmers.
Let there be no doubt about it, there has to be and there will be
significant change in the way we do agriculture in the future. I
hope it will be change for the better and that we will have an
agriculture sector that is more market oriented, knowledge
based and more productive and efficient.
I believe that we are at a time in our history when we must
debate very basic ideas. We must ask ourselves, if we had to start
all over again at square one knowing what we know now, what
kind of agriculture sector would we design?
Someone has said that the difficulty is not in developing new
ideas but in escaping from old ones. For too long we have let
past ideas about how things have been determine future courses
of action. New ideas are important for progress.
My motion is based on the premise that it is time to examine
not only how government works but also what government does.
At the end of this millennium our priority task is to determine
areas where government should be involved and play a role and
then seek to improve performance in those areas. In other words,
we must be effective and do the right things and then we must be
efficient and do the things right.
(1105)
My proposal today builds on statements and ideas put forward
in this House by my colleagues beginning in May of 1994. It also
reflects the ideas which are being generated by many farmers,
academics and farm leaders across the country. There is a real
momentum building to radically alter and redesign how
governments and industry function together in agriculture, in
other natural resource sectors and in many other sectors of our
society. This is an issue on which people are ahead of the
governments in their thinking, in their ideas and in their
proposals. It is time to bring those ideas and proposals to the
legislative table, to look at them honestly and openly, to have the
debate and discussion needed and to move forward. I am not
suggesting what I will share today is the first or final word but it
is a starting point for discussion and dialogue.
I want to ask three basic questions about agriculture in Canada
in my remarks today. One, what does it mean to reconfederate
agriculture and why do we need to do it now? Two, what should
governments do in agriculture? Three, what should the
agri-food industry do?
In answering the question of what it means to reconfederate
agriculture and why we need to do it now, we are talking about
outlining a more effective and efficient division of
responsibilities between the federal government, the provincial
governments and the agri-food industry.
The federal and provincial governments are both heavily
involved in supporting the agri-food industry through
expenditures. Because of the concurrent jurisdiction under the
constitutions of the two levels of government, both federal and
provincial resources tend to be allocated to similar activities.
This is the basic reason for overlaps, duplications, excessive red
tape and costly bureaucracies. Complicated regulations are
confusing and intimidating for many farmers and processors.
Confusion creates frustration and mistrust between
governments and industry.
By way of current illustration of government involvement, in
1994-95 the 10 Canadian provinces will spend a total of almost
$2.2 billion of taxpayers' money in support of agriculture. The
federal government will kick in an additional $2.2 billion with
the 10 provinces for a total of $4.4 billion. The 10 provinces had
just over 10,000 agriculture civil servants employed in their
agriculture departments this year, as well as the federal govern-
9500
ment in its department, for a total of over 20,000 full time
equivalent people on the public payroll in support of the private
sector agriculture and agri-food industry. This translates into
one agriculture civil servant for every 14 farms in Canada, or
one person on the public payroll for every 19 farm operators.
We must examine the effectiveness and efficiency of these
manpower and financial expenditures and what the return on
investment is. For example, I have examined each province's
current share of agricultural gross domestic product with the
public dollars which are being spent supporting the agricultural
industry in that particular province. This allows us to see how
many public dollars are spent for each 1 per cent of the
province's agriculture GDP share. Expressed another way, it
shows how effective the agriculture industry is in a particular
province by taking that public dollar and multiplying it into a
share of GDP.
I have also compared the number of agricultural civil servants
in each province with the number of farms and farm operators in
that province. I have also compared the departmental
organizations of each province with each other and with the
federal department of agriculture.
The purpose of these comparisons is to see how we might be
more effective and efficient. By honestly looking at these things
we can learn from each other and get agriculture done smarter
and cheaper. It is time to get past the political turf wars. We must
address the spending of our governments in a co-operative and
bold way with the vision of a new way of doing agriculture. The
legal advice that I have received is that we do not need to open
the Constitution. All we need to do is develop a shared vision
and the political will.
I realize that we cannot just analyse organizational and
economic facts and figures. Each province also has unique
natural endowments such as climatic conditions, proximities to
markets and the selling power of products.
(1110 )
It is mother nature who is not bound by geopolitical borders
that determine farming activity, productivity and policy.
Nevertheless, a comparison of the factors I have suggested can
be helpful in determining how to do agriculture better.
Reconfederating agriculture means that we will develop a
system of government in which more decisions are made at the
local levels and at the farm gate. It means the devolution of some
federal government responsibilities to the provincial and local
levels, to the agriculture industry and to the farmer.
Why to we need to do it now? For the first time in a long time
good economics and good politics are converging. We now live
in a global trading environment made accessible by our market
oriented, knowledge based, technologically equipped farming
industry.
Developing a new system such as this does not mean an
absolutely watertight allocation of responsibilities among
players. We must try to reconcile competing tendencies. For
example, there is a need to be global in outlook but local in
application, to be small and big, to be centralized and
decentralized, and to be capable of generating both economic
freedom and justice for all the players. This process of
reconfederating agriculture will therefore be an ongoing process
of learning.
This leads to the second question. What should governments
do in agriculture? I begin by reiterating what my colleagues and
I have said previously in this House when we have proposed a
clearer division of jurisdictions between the federal and
provincial governments. It is my thinking that the jurisdiction of
the provincial governments be in the physical and human
resource areas. This is because those are the elements that are
most unique to each province or region and are most manageable
by them.
I have then proposed that the responsibility of the federal
government be in one, trade policy and trade distortion
adjustment support; two, whole farm income stabilization
programs; three, health and safety standards; four,
macrophysical, monetary and taxation policy.
These responsibilities reflect the true nature of the federal
government. They assist lower levels of government by taking
responsibility for those elements that span provincial
boundaries and are common to all farmers and concern the
whole farming industry right across the country.
We propose that the federal and provincial governments have
more distinct areas of jurisdiction. This will result in public cost
savings by reducing overlap and duplication. It will result in
industry expansion and competitiveness by reducing the
regulatory and tax burden.
Proposing this clear division of responsibilities between
levels of government as well as between the public and private
sectors is based on some basic assumptions about what
government should do in agriculture.
I want to now briefly discuss six functions that government
can most appropriately perform in support of agriculture or, for
that matter, in support of other industries in the private sector.
The first is research and development, an information sharing
function. The purpose of basic research is to ensure we have a
thing of value before we attempt to add value to it. This is often
also called precommercial research and is thus usually done by
the public sector.
Basic research deals with Canada's physical resources.
Canada's agriculture industry is oriented on an east-west basis
and covers three distinct climatic zones. The provinces that span
this east-west orientation are thus blessed with different
physical
9501
resources. This is why I argue that the provinces should be more
directly responsible for the physical resources of our country.
In pre-commercial basic research and development the
provinces should work jointly with the federal government. This
is where major public dollars should be spent. All the
intellectual resources of our country should be harnessed
together for pre-commercial R and D. Both government
partners would also have a role in the sharing of information
about the resources.
Second, governments have a limited commercial function. I
assert that if we expect governments to maximize their
pre-commercial activity we should also expect them to
minimize their commercial functions.
A limited commercial function for governments means that
they should provide a good or service that is normally not
capturable by the private sector. These are called public goods
or services. Their nature is that they are non-rival and
non-excludable and thus not capturable for commercial
purposes. Usually an entity like government is needed to
identify the demand for these public goods and services, make
arrangements for their provision and impose a payment on their
beneficiaries.
(1115)
This matter of the appropriate commercial function for
government is one of the most salient and important discussions
taking place today in countries and economies right around the
world.
Many are saying that the obligation to provide a particular
good or service should be assigned to the public or private sector
based on this differentiation between non-commercial and
commercial interests. Debate about which sector should provide
the good or service should focus on the complementarity that
each sector can bring to the society. The operative word is not
compete but complete.
The choice between private and public sectors should not be
one of politics but a seeking of balance, cost effectiveness and
efficiency. Government should clearly invest mostly in the
pre-commercial and non-commercial provision of public goods
and services.
The third function that governments have is a regulatory role.
All levels of government are needed to provide an appropriate
and acceptable minimum level of regulatory policy upon the
private sector. They should regulate in their separate areas of
jurisdiction so as to minimize overlap and duplication.
One of the immediate improvements we could make in
agriculture is to take all legislation that affects the industry
directly and indirectly both federally and provincially, rewrite it
in simple terms under one set of guidelines and administer it
through a highly trained, effective single system of regulation
throughout the industry.
I want to emphasize minimum level of regulatory burden.
Farmers and agricultural players up and down the food chain
want governments off their backs as much as possible.
The fourth function that governments perform is service.
Service to the agri-food industry and general public is the sole
reason for the governmental departments of agriculture and
agri-food. The system of government should be of the people,
by the people and for the people. Government is simply the
chosen way that citizens have determined to manage their
collective affairs.
The services provided by governments can be varied, however
the basic role of government is to facilitate the private sector. In
recent times this has come to be known as third party
government, that is, an effort by elected representatives to raise
resources and set social priorities through a democratic political
process while leaving the private sector to do what it does best:
organize for the production of goods and services.
It is not government's obligation to provide all services but
rather to see that they are provided. To provide their service,
governments have a taxation role, a corporate organizational
role, and a spending role.
Governments should establish as low a level of taxation
regime as possible. Taxation policies should not create
dependency on the public sector but rather facilitate private
sector entrepreneurs. Tax policy should ease the
intergenerational transfer of assets. Tax money should be used
primarily as investments in pre-commercial productivity and
marketing enhancing programs like research and development
and physical infrastructure.
In providing their services governments must efficiently and
effectively organize themselves. There is lots of room for
improvement in that area. The spending of public funds must be
done effectively and efficiently. Public servants are stewards of
funds entrusted to them by private citizens.
It is absolutely essential that taxation, spending and
regulatory policy be set democratically, be clear and simple and
be fair and equal for all the players. Governments should
develop a taxation, spending and regulatory climate in which a
free market system can flourish with justice. Governments
should act as the referee who adjudicates a fair set of rules
binding upon all.
The fifth function that governments have is a mediation role.
Democratic governments are needed to mediate and attempt to
reconcile specialized and sometimes competing interests among
the sector players.
9502
Sixth and finally, governments have an education and
training function which I have already indicated is most
appropriately handled by the provinces.
These then are some proposals about what governments
should do in agriculture.
Finally, the third question I ask is: What should the agri-food
industry do? I reiterate that we are proposing a clearer division
of responsibility for the agri-food industry than what exists
now. Government is too involved in the commercial business
aspects of agriculture.
(1120)
The basic responsibility of private industry stakeholders is to
supply the demand for private goods. The industry has a
commercial interest in providing a private good or service for
exchange and profit. The entire life cycle of a private good or
service from its envisagement through its development to its
sale provides opportunities during which and from which
financial benefit can occur to the provider of that good or
service.
The vast majority of these private sector responsibilities and
decisions should be made by the industry with minimum
involvement by the government. At the commercial research
and development stage private industry could profitably
research and develop all material and non-material goods and
services related to agriculture, including foods, animals, plants,
genetics, biotechnologies, non-food products, machinery,
equipment, and climate and weather forecasting, et cetera.
At the production stage private industry could profitably
provide for the acquisition, preparation, planting, feeding,
controlling and harvesting of livestock, plants and lands. This
includes value-added initiatives.
At the processing stage the private industry could manage all
matters related to goods or service, storage, inspection, grading,
packing, assembly, pricing, marking and labelling.
At the transportation stage the private sector can profitably
provide for the orderly process of an agri-food good or service
from farm or processing gate to point of sale or export.
At the marketing stage the private sector can profitably
provide for the advertising, promoting and selling of an
agri-food good or service. This includes the concept of
individual and/or group marketing.
Last, farm financing and insurance could profitably be done
by the private sector. This includes all matters relating to
securing, managing and the accounting of funds needed for the
agri-food good or service life cycle and the ensuring of the
material assets of the farm, including crops and livestock in the
food processing industry.
There may be small niche roles for public financial services.
However, the vast majority of these private sector,
commercially profitable responsibilities should be handled by
the private sector with minimal involvement by the government.
As I mentioned, later in the debate I will propose how we need
to transfer specific policies, programs and involvements that
governments now have to the industry.
The private sector is better suited to performing the six
business functions than government is. These functions include
the commercial function which is the provision of goods and
services that are capturable by an entrepreneur and can provide
him or her with the profit upon provision and sale. In other
words, we want to have a free and just market system. This again
is one of the most salient issues occupying the attention of
economists and politicians around the world today.
That is why my colleagues and I insist on the importance of
direct farmer and businessman involvement in developing
agricultural policy. We must work from the bottom to the top.
Business and governments alike are realizing that the more
democratic they are, the more economically and socially
successful they are.
Industry stakeholders should be able to democratically
organize, carry out their activities-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Recognizing that the
mover of this bill has 20 minutes, I am under the impression that
the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre might require a few
additional minutes to conclude his intervention. I wonder if
there might be consent to allow the member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre to conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that support from my
colleagues.
I want to conclude at this point. Certainly in the next two or
three hours I will have the opportunity to go into much more
detail than I have done.
I began by saying it is time to reconfederate agriculture in
Canada. The time is right and the need is now. I have suggested
that we cannot just tinker with policies here and there. There
must be a whole new way of doing agriculture based on more
distinct and co-operative roles for both levels of government, as
much as possible separate from each other and separate from the
private sector industry. These suggestions are based on sound
economic, organizational and democratic principles.
(1125 )
The first act our Fathers of Confederation passed some 125
years ago was the Agriculture Act of 1868. At the end of this
century perhaps we as parliamentarians could have the foresight
9503
and vision our predecessors had, the boldness, the courage, the
openness and the good will to develop a new vision of
responsibilities for agriculture.
I have sketched out a modest proposal. However, I would urge
that we all look at this matter seriously and that we see how we
can work smarter and cheaper and that we continue to provide
Canadians and people around the world with the highest quality
agriculture products possible.
I look forward to discussions with all my colleagues and for
the House to vote in favour of this motion. More than that, I hope
that serious dialogue will begin immediately with the provinces
and the industry.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for
giving me and my colleagues in the next hours of debate on this
motion the opportunity to tell the House how the government
has been working with the provinces and the industry to advance
agriculture and the agri-food sector.
I appreciate his concern for the viability of this important
sector of our economy, one that employs 1.8 million Canadians
and 15 per cent of our Canadian workforce. It is a concern I
share, a concern the minister shares, and a concern our
government and all of us on this side of the House share.
We also share his concern about overlap and duplication, not
just in agriculture and agri-food but in all areas. That is why the
government has launched a process to improve the efficiency of
the federation.
The hon. member will be pleased to know that the objectives
and the successes of this process are certainly ones that have
gone unmatched before. The objectives and the successes are in
these areas: to reduce overlap and duplication, as the hon.
member is pointing out; to improve effectiveness of programs
through federal-provincial co-operation; to reduce
administrative costs through streamlined program
arrangements; and to improve client services so that all
Canadians receive the best service possible as efficiently and as
effectively as we can possibly deliver to them.
In agriculture and agri-food this process is resulting in a
number of important activities. All of us know the first major
issue this government had to deal with after taking office
somewhat over a year ago was the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, or GATT.
I am pleased to say I was able to join the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food in those last few days in Geneva. We
returned from Geneva in December 1993 with the new
agreement. Before we arrived back in Canada the minister had
invited all of the provincial ministers of agriculture and
agri-food to Ottawa for a meeting which took place less than 24
hours after we returned. This meeting was held to discuss the
implications and to plan together how we could and would meet
those obligations.
As a result of that meeting I was asked to head a
federal-provincial task force on orderly marketing which
reported to the ministers during the middle of last year and again
in December 1994. As a result of everyone pulling together to
get the job done, our supply managed sectors are moving
forward to meet the challenges of the new trade regime. That job
is not yet complete but again I want to thank everyone, every
stakeholder in the industry, who got together around the same
table to talk about how we can all go forward to strengthen and
encourage the supply managed sectors in Canada.
The new GATT also brings the opportunity for us to take
advantage of the new trading rules to expand our markets and
especially to broaden our horizon beyond the United States.
Last July federal and provincial ministers of agriculture
reaffirmed their commitment to work to see the Canadian
agri-food exports reach $20 billion per year by the year 2000.
They added a further target in a further challenge which is to
regain Canada's traditional 3.5 per cent share of the global
agri-food trade. When we put that challenge forward that goal
moves on from $20 billion per year to $23 billion per year. With
the advances made the last number of months, everyone is
becoming more and more confident that we can meet and
hopefully beat the $23 billion target.
(1130)
The Federal-Provincial Market Development Council has
developed a comprehensive work plan to accomplish these goals
and both levels of government are working actively and
effectively to eliminate overlap and duplication. The provinces
and the federal government are also co-operating to develop a
single window point of access for federal and provincial
marketing programs.
Another area where we are making progress and reducing
duplication is in the provision of financial services to the
agri-food community. We know this is very important.
Agriculture is an industry that takes a tremendous amount of
capital. We must assist primary producers in all sectors to put
their business plans together so they can be successful.
The Farm Credit Corporation and interested provinces are
discussing strategies to reduce duplication of government
services. As part of this process the Farm Credit Corporation has
acquired the New Brunswick Agriculture Development Board's
$37.4 million portfolio. In addition a Canada-Alberta pilot
project was launched last June to combine the lending services
of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Alberta Finance Services
Corporation into a single delivery point. Needless to say, that
makes a lot of sense. We are continuing to hold discussions with
other provinces to improve efficiencies in this area.
9504
I would like to make it clear that this is simply not a
government to government process. The examples I have used
so far have been primarily that. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada is working closely with the private sector and the
universities on research. Last year the department ran a pilot
project called the matching investment initiative, matching
dollar for dollar the money industry was willing to put up for
research and research projects. The department and the private
sector have been doing this in a collaborative way for a number
of years with great success.
There are some other areas where that co-operation is
working very well. We have safety nets, the Canada food
inspection system. I could go on but I will leave those examples
and a few more words to some of my colleagues who will be
taking part in the debate as time goes on.
These two initiatives are significant achievements in that they
show federal, provincial and even municipal co-operation to
reduce overlap and duplication and to improve service.
In conclusion, I would like to again point out to everyone that
agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between the federal
government and the provincial governments under the
Constitution. This has meant that the two levels of government
have had to work together since Confederation, which is 127
years ago.
In recent years federal and provincial governments have
focused on working together to make the management of this
shared jurisdiction as effective as possible. A report prepared
for and by the Government of Quebec last year showed that the
two levels of government work well together and that the
overlap and duplication is minimal. The report put the cost of
overlap and duplication at 1 per cent of combined federal and
provincial spending in agriculture in the province of Quebec.
That is not very much.
However, I would be the first to agree that is probably 1 per
cent too much. We will continue to work constantly in
co-operation with all provinces and with the industry to ensure
that the Canadian public gets the maximum value for its tax
dollars.
In order to keep within my allotted time, I have had to reduce
the number of examples I could use. However, I know that my
colleagues will express more of those as we go on in the debate.
We look forward to comments from everyone and suggestions as
to where we can continue to make improvements.
The facts presented here today should show clearly that if we
were to adopt the hon. member's motion to ``immediately
pursue negotiations with the provinces and agri-food industry to
eliminate overlap and duplication'', we would be reinventing
the wheel. We are all doing that at the present time. I appreciate
the emphasis and the encouragement he has given. On behalf of
the government I can assure him that we will continue to move
in that direction and make the federal role with our colleagues
in the provinces, industry and universities even more effective
than it is at the present time.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I
start, I would ask for your consent and that of the House. I have a
20-minute speech and I will be the only speaker during the
three-hour debate today. Therefore, I ask for unanimous consent
to deliver my speech in full.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Our colleague from
Lotbinière has explained to us his predicament. He wishes his
intervention to be of 20 minutes' duration, which is twice as
long as usual.
He gives his assurance to the House, and as the presiding
officer I take the undertaking from the hon. member for
Lotbinière that no other member of the Bloc Quebecois will
speak on this bill during its duration, which is three hours.
The hon. member for Lotbinière is asking, as the only
spokesperson from the Bloc Quebecois on this bill, that he be
allowed to speak for 20 minutes. He assures us he will be the
only member from the Bloc Quebecois to speak on this bill.
[Translation]
Did I explain the situation correctly?
[English]
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and all members of this
House. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion M-314 put
forward by the Reform Party. Allow me to read the motion in
question:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
pursue negotiations with the provinces and agri-food industry in order to
re-assign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap
and duplication.
There is no need to reiterate my party's position regarding
overlap. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois has been
fighting against all these unnecessary and, above all, extremely
costly cases of overlap since its arrival in this House. That is
why the motion put forward by my Reform colleague is quite
acceptable and even desirable.
Yet, common sense seems in short supply in this government.
We find ourselves repeating over and over again why it is
essential to eliminate overlap between Ottawa and the prov-
9505
inces. The Minister of Finance should listen to us instead of
going after the most disadvantaged and the middle class when he
tables the budget in a few days. It is never too late to make
amends.
In agriculture as in all other sectors, the federal government's
presence in areas of shared jurisdiction creates unnecessary and
costly overlap, as I was saying a moment ago, not only in terms
of administrative costs but also in terms of duplication of
policies, which often compete with or contradict each other.
This, in turn, reduces the effectiveness of government measures.
Measures adopted by two different levels of government
regularly cancel each other out. Each level wants its priorities
and objectives to prevail, and the tugging back and forth is
endless as neither will let go.
But Quebec has been asking for years for control, not only
over agriculture, but also over regional development, natural
resources, manpower training and so on. There are also
problems in areas other than areas of shared jurisdiction. The
federal government does not respect the provinces' exclusive
jurisdiction over areas of provincial jurisdiction, and never did.
The Reform member's motion is relevant, but does he realize
that the federal government has always been, and continues to
be, centralizing? Quebec knows that this government turns a
deaf ear to even the most sensible suggestions when it comes to
decentralizing powers to the provinces. Let us be wary of
transfers of administrative responsibilities in lieu of
jurisdictions. With the former, the provinces are at the mercy of
the federal government which can, at any given time, cut budget
allocations. In the present situation, the Liberals are likely to
suggest such transfers, when we know full well that it is just
passing the buck to the provinces.
(1140)
The provinces are asking for responsibility, of course, but
also for the income tax points that come with it. We know that
the so-called flexibility of the federal government is nothing but
a sham, an empty word that the big guns of federalism use to
deceive us once again.
Only by becoming sovereign can Quebec exercise any real
control over its socio-economic development. So, when I say
that we support the motion, this means that we realize that the
federal government never paid any attention to this.
The federal-provincial division of powers issue will become
irrelevant once Quebec has achieved sovereignty. However, you
will agree that, for some provinces, including Quebec, a federal
Department of Agriculture and Agri-food is more of a burden
than a benefit.
In Quebec we have two departments of agriculture, each with
its own farm income stabilization scheme; we have federal and
provincial involvement in marketing board systems; and we
have two levels of government involved in agricultural research
and farm credit. The result? The kind of overlap that causes
constant fiction between both levels of government, with federal
decisions being made at the expense of Quebec, and that
generates major costs in the agriculture and agri-food sector, a
sector that has to live with two regulatory levels and meet the
requirements of programs that do not reflect the same policies.
To support this motion means putting an end to the friction
caused by unclear jurisdictional divisions. For years, Quebec
has received from Ottawa only half or as little as one third of
federal taxes earmarked for the agricultural sector.
The several hundred million dollars foregone annually could
be used to create jobs in an industry that is responsible for 11 per
cent of total employment in Quebec. In 1993, Quebec received
$372 million of the $3 billion budget of the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, a meagre 12.4 per cent, and this was
better than usual.
Between 1986-87 and 1991-92, Quebec's share was 8.3 per
cent, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Interestingly, Quebec's revenues in the agricultural sector
represented 16 per cent of total Canadian revenues in this sector.
Furthermore, in terms of added value, the Quebec food industry
represents 25.4 per cent of the Canadian food industry,
according to Statistics Canada.
The following is an example of the utter confusion caused by
the involvement of two levels of government in health standards
and meat inspection. At the present time, at least three
inspectors visit farms to get exactly the same information,
which is then transferred to Health Canada, to Agriculture and
Agri-Food and to the Quebec Department of Agriculture,
respectively.
The federal government spends $275 million each year on
inspection and regulatory procedures, in an area that is covered
almost identically by the Government of Quebec. For Quebec,
this outright duplication means an annual loss of $64 million.
If the provinces were given jurisdiction over agriculture and
agri-food, Quebec could stop subsidizing the central
government, whose policies are based on the needs of the west,
as we have repeatedly pointed out in the House. These policies
are based on the needs of a grain export industry, whereas
Quebec's supply management policies are designed to support
the livestock industry. One advantage for us would be not having
to invest so much energy in Ottawa any more to establish the
legitimacy of our own programs.
At this point, the short sighted view of the federal government
would indicate dark days ahead for agriculture. We remain at the
mercy of Ottawa's unilateral cuts. The upcoming budget
provides for major cuts to the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, cuts that are likely to affect service to the industry
and to the public.
9506
(1145)
These cuts are the result of Ottawa's wastage of public funds.
This is what happens when unnecessary overlap continues
unchecked.
It would be appropriate to recall here the position taken by the
Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec in its brief to the
Bélanger-Campeau commission in December 1990. It stated
that, in the area of agriculture, Quebec wanted to take its
legitimate share of federal funds and invest it according to its
own priorities, policies and programs. It wanted to continue to
develop agriculture in the province with the federal funds
granted to it on the basis of the four forms of support to
agriculture: supply management, income stabilization, farm
credit and crop insurance. Each time, energy was wasted in
confrontations, for the most part to no avail, trying to assert its
point of view on this matter.
Obviously, Quebec is entirely prepared to assume its
responsibilities in respect of agriculture and agri-food. We have
all the tools to develop our industry and a strategy to do so. I
myself have described this strategy to the House on more than
one occasion. I would like to review its main points.
The stakeholders and parties in Quebec interested in regional
development and agri-food matters met in February 1991 in
Montreal and decreed that the community should take charge of
its own future. The following objectives were identified during
these rural estates general: respecting and promoting regional
and local values; dialogue with regional and local partners;
protecting and renewing resources; redistributing political
power from the top down.
Thus round tables on the food sector were established in
Quebec. During the conference in Trois-Rivières in June 1992,
they came to an agreement on the main areas to be emphasized to
ensure development of the agri-food sector in Quebec. These
included, in particular, recognizing, developing and supporting
human resources training; ensuring continuity, development
and growth in agri-food companies; readjusting current income
security programs on the basis of production costs; developing
income security programs consistent with the rules of
international trade; promoting funding for agricultural
businesses and their transfer without incurring massive debt;
providing for support for non-viable businesses likely to be
reorganized within the sector and providing assistance to
persons getting out of the agricultural business. Stakeholders in
the Quebec agricultural community have taken measures to
control decision-making in their area.
All the while, the federal government is gearing its
agricultural policy to the needs of farmers out west. The
agricultural bills that have been introduced in the House over the
past year all dealt with the grain sector. In addition to Bill C-61,
there has been Bill C-49 to amend the Department of
Agriculture, Bill C-50 on the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-51
on Canadian grain and, now, Bill C-66 on western grain
transportation.
Yes, Quebec is ready to assume full responsibility for its
agricultural and agri-food sectors, but we need adequate
financing, which we can only get by recovering our share of
taxes earmarked for those sectors.
If by some miracle the federal government should adopt the
motion and agree to transfer jurisdiction over agriculture and
agri-food to provinces that want it, the provinces will have to be
involved throughout the process. Therefore, the governments
which will assume responsibility for the jurisdiction will have to
be included in discussions on the transfer of responsibilities and
in negotiations with the industry.
We must be on guard: the federal government cannot enter
unilaterally into negotiations with the industry to make major
changes in responsibilities between it and the industry while it is
in the process of transferring jurisdiction to the provinces.
(1150)
And the government should make no mistake: we are not
talking about a transfer of responsibilities, but of jurisdiction.
We will not be dumped on. In the case of agriculture, the power
will be strictly provincial when administered by the provinces.
In Quebec, we know from our experience with fisheries that a
transfer of responsibility can be unilaterally cancelled by
Ottawa. We must avoid, at all costs, repeating this catastrophe in
the agricultural sector.
Thus, we say yes to the motion. We would also like to say that
we, the Bloc Quebecois, are able to say yes to any motion that is
good, whether proposed by a Reformer, a Liberal or a
Conservative. Yes to a transfer of jurisdiction, but no to
transferring responsibility without transferring tax points.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know there were some
discussions with the Chair as to who would speak next. During
private members' hour the Chair has a great deal more
flexibility in terms of recognizing members alternating from the
government to opposition parties.
In this instance, just to make sure I sustain debate, I wanted to
be assured whether the member for Lotbinière was going to be
speaking for or against the motion. Having spoken for the
motion, I will now go to a speaker who I suspect will be against
the motion. I should not assume that; in private members' hour it
is a free-for-all.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has already referred
to the work the government has done with the provinces and
industry to develop a whole new farm safety net program.
9507
I would like to elaborate. The problem that had to be resolved
in this process was to design a national whole farm safety net
program that would still meet the specific needs of each
province.
In December 1994 federal and provincial ministers received
the final report of the national safety net consulting committee.
A consensus was reached consistent with the recommendations
of the committee. The farm income protection policy centred on
three key elements: crop insurance, a national farm income
program, and specific companion programs.
The new whole farm program will be built on the existing net
income stabilization account, NISA. A number of changes will
be reviewed with the industry to make the program trade neutral
and cost effective. Companion programs would derive support
tailored at provincial levels to allow for flexibility to meet
specific provincial circumstances.
What is most important in this consensus is that the provinces
will be able through the companion programs to identify where
they want to spend their money in co-operation with the federal
government.
Currently provincial and federal officials are completing the
necessary details for a multilateral memorandum of
understanding. The policy is based on a 60 per cent federal and
40 per cent provincial cost sharing arrangements, monitoring
and management process. Once it is completed we will develop
federal-provincial bilateral arrangements with each province to
allow for specific companion programs.
What I have just outlined is but one example of how federal
and provincial governments are continuing to work together to
reduce overlap and duplication. In view of the work that is being
done, I urge my hon. colleagues to reject Motion No. 314.
(1155)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on the private member's motion of the member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre on jurisdictional responsibilities in
agriculture. The motion encourages a complete rethinking of the
role and scope of governmental involvement in the agricultural
industry.
Like most farmers everywhere in Canada I believe
agricultural support is not always delivered in a way that is
beneficial to farmers. Taxpayers are consumers. Some of the
activities performed by both federal and provincial
governments are duplicated, counterproductive or even working
at cross purposes. It is high time a thorough overhaul of the
system was done.
Within my province of Alberta many federal programs and
provincial programs are in place. Therefore the case for
consolidation is clear. What started out as a way of helping
farmers through the rough times has grown into a top heavy
bureaucracy that needs to be pared. As a result of the growth of
the department there is now one agricultural bureaucrat for
every 14 farmers, which ratio is unsustainable in the long term.
We owe it to both farmers and the public service to design a
stable and sustainable system.
The overlap and duplication in the system make clear the case
for consolidation. There are two forces pushing on the farm
industry providing the impetus for making changes now. They
are trade agreements with our international partners and the
country's fiscal situation. However the most important reason
for making the kinds of reforms the motion proposes is that
farmers will receive better service from the government. It will
cost less and we will all be far better off as a result.
It is important to remember that the well-being of the farming
community is at the heart of why we have agricultural support
programs. They are not make work programs for public servants
or regional development initiatives or even ways of competing
with trading partners. It is vital we keep the welfare of the farm
and the farm family at the centre of our focus.
The recent trade agreements we have entered into with other
nations, such as NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade
Organization, have created a set of international subsidy and
transportation rules to which we are a signatory. It has become
clear to us that many of our current programs will have to be
altered dramatically to comply with international trade rules.
Being as we have to change our programs anyway to fit the new
world trading system, it makes sense to take this opportunity to
overhaul our approach to agriculture.
Another reason for systemic reform as I mentioned earlier is
that our national finances are in a mess. We all know that. The
cost of administering these programs, hundreds of them from
coast to coast, is unsustainable even in the short term.
Farmers are not seeing any benefit from much of the moneys
spent by the ministry of agriculture because far too much of it is
spent on administration. Taxpayers are growing weary of paying
more and more for less and less. The time for revolt is coming
close. We hear about it in the papers every day: a tax revolt here
or a tax revolt in Toronto. All across Ontario, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Alberta, everywhere, we are hearing about tax
revolts.
(1200)
If we can reduce the number of program overlaps with the
provinces, bring better service to farmers and save taxpayers'
money, that is sufficient reason to carry out an industry wide
review. There is considerable evidence that government
intervention and programs designed from the top down are very
often not in the best interest of farmers.
Those of us who have been in the industry for a while will
remember the LIFT program from the early seventies. This was
a program designed by the minister of the day to deal with low
grain prices caused by a glut of grain. Farmers were given
financial incentives to leave land out of production in an attempt
9508
to firm up demand for the product. Demand did rise
dramatically because right about that time the Soviets, among
others, began buying vast amounts of grain on the international
market. The price of grain rose dramatically.
Unfortunately most of the farmers could not take advantage of
the higher prices because they had been encouraged by the
government to take the land out of production. They lost the
revenue. Most grain farmers ended up worse off financially as a
direct result of government intervention. Farmers were told to
stop growing grain. As soon as that happened, the price of the
grain went up. Taxpayers paid farmers to stop producing and
they could have made more money if they produced and sold it
on the world market.
This is a typical situation of government intervention at the
wrong time, in the wrong place, in the wrong way, that totally
distorts the whole market. We end up being much worse off
because of it.
Another of the great government flip-flops in agricultural
policy has been the GRIP. This has been a dud from the word go.
The initiative that spawned GRIP was the growing together
exercise, as it was billed by the then minister of agriculture
Mazankowski ``a great consultation with farmers that would
discover their needs and develop programs to deal with them''.
When introducing the GRIP program to the prairie pools, the
minister referred to it as an unprecedented exercise in
partnership. He said that people on the prairies want the
government to consult with them before making major
decisions.
The motion put forward by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre is admirable, should be given every consideration and
should be supported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When we come to the
debate during second hour on this motion someone from the
government side will lead off that hour of debate.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9508
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax application
rules, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is one motion in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax and the income tax
application rules.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in the last budget, the federal
government decided to reduce the age credit. As we know, all
taxpayers aged 65 and over can ask for a tax credit equal to 17
per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and 20 per cent of $2,200
in Quebec.
This credit is non-refundable, that is, it applies to the tax
payable; the excess portion is non-refundable but can be applied
to the spouse.
The amendment made in the last budget is aimed at reducing
this credit for seniors with a net income exceeding $25,921. This
threshold will be indexed annually to the increase in the
consumer price index, and this measure will be implemented
gradually.
(1205)
We oppose this measure because it reflects, in our opinion, a
deliberate effort by the government opposite to go after the
middle class, as demonstrated by the so-called social program
review and by a proposal to cut UI benefits, since some
recipients can earn between $25,000 and $50,000.
By targeting only those with incomes under $25,000 or
$18,000-we are not against helping them, quite the opposite, as
you know-by cutting off ties between those with incomes over
$25,000 and those making less than $25,000, the government
goes beyond simply bringing universal measures to a sudden
end. It is more serious than that. Universality is not just a
buzzword; it also means solidarity.
Does the government think that a senior citizen with an
income of $25,000 is a rich taxpayer? Yet, it is attacking this
very group, who can now enjoy themselves a little after working
hard all their lives. But on $25,000 a year, you still need to
manage your money carefully throughout the year if you want to
enjoy yourself. It is those people who are targeted by the
amendment to this tax credit.
9509
For government that claims to be liberal to be attacking the
middle class is a serious matter, because the middle class is the
one largely responsible, by its work, for the financial support
of government and, more importantly, the one responsible also
for creating solidarity. But the middle class does not want to
be the only group to pay. What is happening? Instead of
reforming the tax system, as is urgently needed, the
governement attacks the middle class, the unemployed and the
less affluent. We were non-equivocally reminded of this fact
at the rally held yesterday in Montreal by community groups
and central labour bodies denouncing the fact that the proposed
Axworthy reform-and it is the same thing with this change to
the age tax credit-attacks the middle class, the unemployed
and the less affluent instead of attending to the much-awaited
review of the Canadian tax system.
Let me remind you that speaking of the budget, Lloyd
Axworthy himself stated in 1985, when he was-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to remind the
hon. members that, in addressing a minister, they should refer to
his position: the Minister of Human Resources Development,
the Minister of Finance, and so forth.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker. I
have been on a long Canada-wide tour, as you know; some of the
veneer of parliamentary procedure may have worn off. I do not
think I will need to be reminded again.
The current Minister of Human Resources Development, who
was opposition critic at the time, said it was a fact that the
buying power of seniors had been cut substantially and
retroactively. First the government had taken their income
assistance away, and now it was taking their buying power away.
As if this were not enough, they were struck a third blow with a
$2 billion cut in provincial transfers by 1990. He added that it
was clear the budget was an attack the income of seniors in many
regards.
(1210)
What would this same Liberal critic say, were he a critic for
the opposition, not only about a so-called reform of social
programs, but also about this important age tax credit? If the
Liberal government wishes to maintain throughout this country,
which we crossed as members of the human resources
committee, the slightest faith in some fairness in the taxation
system, it must move swiftly to truly examine that system,
ensuring that the unemployed, the poorest and the middle class
are not saddled with the burden of the deficit and the debt.
Yes there is a debt, but certain parties who remain in the
background are not worried, and in fact are helping, perhaps
even cheerfully, to dismantle what provided some well-being to
so many such people who are slaving away, struggling, having
difficulty paying their rent or affording to take a vacation. These
are the people who are threatened at this time by the proposals as
a whole, both for reforming social programs and those
contained in this amendment. This is why we are asking the
House to adopt our amendment, and thus amend the bill.
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the
amendment put forward by the official opposition.
It is correct that Bill C-59 will subject the age credit to an
income test. Canada's debt and the burden of high taxes and
interest rates it imposes on all Canadians, including seniors,
demands that government spending be both fair and effective.
This measure meets that test by ensuring that assistance goes
to seniors who need it but not to those with annual incomes
hitting $50,000. Under the current tax system, all Canadians 65
and older are eligible for the age credit. It delivers a combined
federal-provincial tax reduction of about $950 a year.
Under the proposed legislation, individuals with net incomes
below $25,921 will retain their full credit. For people with net
incomes above the threshold, the credit will be reduced at a rate
of 15 per cent of their net incomes exceeding $25,981. The
threshold will be indexed.
[Translation]
I would like to make it very clear that 75 per cent of all
seniors, 2.6 million people, will not be affected. In addition,
most of the people who are affected will continue to receive
partial benefits. In fact, only six per cent of all seniors, those
whose income is over the $49,134 threshold, will stop receiving
benefits altogether.
It is also important to note that the reduction will be staggered
over a period of more than 12 years. In 1994, the reduction
would reach half of the figure that otherwise would have been
set. In addition, people will still be able to transfer the age tax
credit to a spouse.
[English]
Let me assure the House that we do not take this measure
lightly. It is today's senior citizens who built this country into
what is considered by many the best place in the world. Our
government will never forget the obligation it has to helping
seniors and why.
9510
(1215)
We also must remember the obligation we owe to all
Canadians to restore the fiscal responsibility that makes
possible lower taxes, easing in interest rates and more jobs.
The Toronto Star in an editorial this morning made the point
that as it scrambles to cut spending Ottawa can achieve fairness
only if it allocates its limited resources on the basis of real need.
By itself the age of 65 is not a measure of need.
That is why Bill C-59 moves to sustain aid to those seniors
who do need it but not for those with significant incomes.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity of being able to enter into this
discussion on Bill C-59. I want to say very clearly to begin with
that I do not support the amendment which was moved by the
hon. member for Mercier today. There are some very strong
reasons we cannot support what was suggested.
The recommendation that came in the 1994-95 budget is
certainly a policy change by the Liberal government. It is a
move away from universality. Now the program is targeted and
takes into consideration those people most in need of additional
assistance to carry out their daily responsibilities.
As has been pointed out not only by the mover but by the hon.
member from the government who just spoke, this amendment
would continue universality and put back in place a federal tax
credit of 17 per cent or an amount of about $3,482 for any and
every taxpayer 65 or over. At this point we have to ask whether
we can afford it and continue to do that.
The Liberal government and Liberals when they were in
opposition argued that universality should be sustained and it
should continue and that should be the policy of government
forever after. They argued that when the question of the
clawback on old age assistance was presented before this House
in the last sitting. At that time the Conservative government
made the decision that we should put a clawback in place. Now
that is in place and old age assistance is somewhat more targeted
toward those in need.
Now we are at the stage at which the Liberals, now in
government, see that the reality of our fiscal situation is
bringing us to this kind of decision making and that it is most
necessary. We must be able to target government funds toward
those most in need. If we supported this Bloc amendment it
would revert to universality and I do not think that would be
realistic in light of today's current economic circumstances.
I would like to make one or two remarks with respect to the
case put forward by the hon. member for Mercier today. The
hon. member said in her presentation that the change of the
federal tax credit from universality to one which is targeted and
institutes the clawback principle is a deliberate attack on the
middle class. The hon. member went on to say that it abruptly
ends universality. She said that before we do these kinds of
things we should have tax reform. She said we want to keep a
feeling in Canada that everybody belongs and that we should
keep taxes off of the unemployed, the middle class and those
most in need.
That sounds like an ideal society that a socialist point of view
would certainly put forward in this House.
(1220 )
It is always the underlying premise that one is going to take
away from the rich somewhere and give to someone else. One is
going to transfer payments continually to look after someone
else in our society. One can understand that from people who
have this kind of a left wing socialist approach to life in which
they think that somebody is rich, that somebody else is earning
more money than they and that through government law they
must transfer those earnings to somebody else they may feel is
in need.
If we look at this policy here where we had the tax credit to all
taxpayers over the age of 65 it will tag seniors who have retired
with huge incomes. It could be $1 million or $100,000 or
$200,000 a year, we were providing an extra benefit to the rich. I
do not know how well that sits with someone who looks at it
from a rather left wing, socialist approach as the Bloc Quebecois
does.
I have been most disappointed to hear that kind of view from
that party in its contribution to this House. Most likely it has
made a very good replacement in some sense for the New
Democratic Party which once sat somewhere in this relative
position in the House.
However, we must look at reality today. The Government of
Canada has a deficit of $39.7 billion. We have interest payments
of $40 billion on a debt of over $500 billion and it is moving
toward $50 billion per year as our debt continues to accumulate
as we continue to spend. That is the way it is. Every one minute
$18,000 is added to the debt. If we look at that in terms of the
income of members of Parliament, every four minutes we add
$64,000 to the debt of this country on to the current accumulated
debt. That is adding up very quickly and we need to do
something about it.
Fiscal responsibility must be part of the policy that we have in
front of us here. We must recognize that the decrease in cost to
the government of some $300 million is part of an expenditure
reduction program that was necessary and is necessary to be
used to try and keep the level of deficit down and keep the level
of interest costs down so we can get this country back on a more
pay as you go basis.
Bloc members do not understand that kind of language. They
feel they can have it both ways. They feel they can spend here,
9511
tell one crowd that we are going to spend and keep all these
benefits for them on this hand and at the same time we are never
going to have to face fiscal reality and deal with this big deficit
in the country or deal with the accumulating debt of the country.
Those two policies, if they were told in the same building at the
same time, would look very foolish. These inconsistencies are
continually presented on the floor of this House and Canadians
are not buying that kind of approach.
I know the people of Quebec, as they may watch this debate
today and as members of this House point out the
inconsistencies of this debate that is presented, they will not buy
the kind of message that the Bloc Quebecois is presenting to
Canadians in this House and in the referendum that is going on
in Quebec trying to present to the people of Quebec. They will
not buy it. They will see the inconsistencies. They will see that it
is the wrong approach to building Canada. It is the wrong
approach to building any city in Quebec. It is the wrong
approach to building any community in Quebec. It is not the
approach that will bring fiscal accountability to Canada, nor will
it bring fiscal accountability to the province of Quebec as it
should.
This amendment before us is unacceptable in principle and
unacceptable in terms of the current circumstances. It is
unacceptable because it comes from a philosophic bent that is
unacceptable to Canadians. It is one that will not build this
nation of ours.
(1225)
I encourage the members of this House to vote against the
amendment because it just does not fit in terms of today's
reality.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to support the amendment standing in the name
of the hon. member for Mercier, whose purpose is to eliminate
one of the proposals in the bill before the House today which
would involve a considerable reduction in the age credit, the tax
credit for seniors. As you know, the citizens of this country are
entitled to special tax relief on the basis of age. This age credit is
currently set at $3,482, which works out to a reduction in federal
income tax of about $610 annually for all tax-paying seniors.
Combined with the credit allowed by most provinces, this adds
up to about $950.
The proposal, which our amendment before the House today
would eliminate, would apply an income test to the credit, so
that seniors whose net income exceeds $25,921 would see the
value of their tax credit go down and, in the case of seniors
whose net income exceeds $49,134, disappear altogether in two
years' time. Let me explain. The proposed amendment to the
Income Tax Act will initially have no impact on seniors who are
among the neediest in our society. Seniors with an income of
less than $25,920 will not be affected. This will only have an
impact on seniors with a net income between $25,000 and
$50,000.
These people belong to the middle class. These are people
who have worked all their lives, have saved money for their
retirement and have a net income of about $30,000 or $40,000.
These people are not wealthy. These are members of the middle
class who have worked to enjoy a good life during their
retirement. These are the people who will be hit, and that is why
the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this amendment. I heard
members of other parties say: ``Sure, but this tax credit also
benefited people earning $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000''. I
think that is rather exaggerated, since the vast majority of those
who will be affected are people in the middle class with average
incomes.
The message this amendment sends to people, especially to
seniors, is that our society does not appreciate them. The age
credit provision was included in the Income Tax Act-at least,
that was my understanding-to provide some recognition for
people who worked so hard to build our country and who
managed to save some money for their retirement, and I think
the country, whether we are talking about Canada or Quebec,
should recognize their contribution. I think the age credit was a
way to tell them that society valued their contribution.
The other thing I see in all this is that those who want to
reduce the credit believe that seniors have a fair amount of
money, that there is not enough money to go around, that there is
a deficit, and that everyone has to pay. But in fact not everyone
in Canada pays. I think that, before we go after the incomes of
seniors, we should really look elsewhere. Over the past year, and
even during budget preparation, the Bloc Quebecois suggested
places to the Minister of Finance where money could surely be
found to replenish government coffers so that the people in the
middle class and, particularly, those 65 and over in Canada
could be left alone.
(1230)
They talk about family trusts, a way for the very rich to shelter
large amounts of capital from taxes. They could be a source of
hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is the whole business of tax havens. You know, Canada
has agreements with some 15 or 16 countries, which allow
companies in Canada and other countries to spread out profits
and therefore to avoid paying taxes. It is primarily in countries
that welcome big multinationals where people with a knack for
accounting arrange for these companies not to pay any taxes.
I think we should look at these agreements and get the money
that is due to Revenue Canada-Taxation. Here again, hundreds
of millions of dollars are involved. This is where we should be
looking, instead of targeting people who have worked hard all
their lives to enjoy decent retirements.
9512
Furthermore, we should take another look at the real
minimum tax that could be charged on the profits of major
corporations. Do you know that, right now in Canada-and I
think many people find it disgusting; it is a real sin-there are
companies, big corporations, not paying any taxes. They make
profits, but they do not pay any taxes.
Under a particular accounting policy, they can carry over
losses incurred in previous years. So, in a year when they make a
profit, they can carry over losses from preceding years to offset
it and avoid having to pay taxes.
If individual taxpayers were allowed to do the same, I think
that we might be surprised by the results. Some people earn a lot
of money one year and considerably less the following year, for
any number of reasons. I do not think it is that easy for
individuals to carry losses over from one year to the next.
There is a great deal of money to be made with a minimum tax
on corporations and at the same time this would put an end to an
outrageous situation that people read about in the papers: large
corporations not paying a cent in income tax while individual
taxpayers are seeing $500, $600, $1,000 or $2,000 deductions
taken away from them. I think there is something wrong in terms
of tax fairness and, as a result, the public doubts that the
Canadian tax collection process is fair and equitable.
Finally, I would like to remind you that the auditor general
reported that there some $6.6 billion was currently owed to the
federal treasury in Canada. For one reason or another, the tax
man did not collect the amounts due. At least 80 per cent of these
unpaid taxes could still be recovered. This adds up to several
billion dollars.
I think that, with the assurance that all amounts due will be
collected, the public would accept more readily that measures
such as the one we proposed this morning, although debatable,
be adopted.
But first, the federal government and the Minister of Finance
must demonstrate that the Canadian tax system is really fair, that
corporations pay their share, that the rich pay their share, that all
those who owe back taxes pay them. I think that we must resist
any further tax increase on the middle class. The middle class is
large. Small amounts times millions of taxpayers amount to a lot
of money in the end.
But when the most heavily-taxed middle class, whether
retired or younger people, come to realize that the system is no
longer equitable, this gives rise to situations where people
protest and refuse to pay taxes, not because they think that it is
not fair to pay taxes, but because they feel that not everyone is
paying his fair share.
(1235)
So, I hope that my hon. colleague's amendment will be passed
and that plans to eliminate the age tax credit will be
reconsidered as far as certain categories of seniors are
concerned, in particular middle class seniors.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak against the motion put forward by the Bloc to remove
means testing whereby the tax credit for seniors is reduced as
their incomes go up. As I have said in the House before and will
say again, members of the Bloc are not only separatists but
socialists too. They always want to ensure the status quo is
protected: we cannot change anything given to a group of people
even though it has been shown to be no longer appropriate.
We have a fiscal crisis in the country. The finance minister is
starting to recognize it. The Reform Party has recognized it for a
long time and has been able to raise awareness of that fact. Now
the government is coming on side and saying that we really have
a problem.
The Minister of Finance promised us a tough budget with
some more tax increases in the name of fairness. Some may
question the fairness but they are certainly tax increases. We are
going to see some cuts. The Reform Party has been proposing
these for many years. We ran in the election on balancing the
budget within three years. We must get the job done to ensure
that our social programs for those in need are protected. That is
the number one priority. After that we have to ensure that we get
the budget balanced.
The motion put forward by the Bloc would suggest that we
continue the old situation of taxing the poor to pay for the rich.
We have millionaires in the country who spend their winters in
Florida, in Mexico, in southern United States and in Hawaii
because they are retired. They have large incomes and a large
amount of assets. Yet we continue to give them a tax break paid
through the additional taxes of young families struggling to pay
mortgages, young families trying to raise children, educate
them and get on their feet. These people are being focused. We
are calling them the middle class and saying: ``You have to pay
more in order that a certain segment can live in the lap of luxury
and get a tax break too''.
Surely it makes sense to recognize that the elderly poor need
assistance, to focus on them and to remove the credit for those
who can afford to pay their share of taxes. That is what it is
coming down to. We want to be really fair and not like the
Minister of Finance who suggests that fairness is an increase.
We want to ensure we are fair and focus the money where it
will do the greatest amount of good. We should remove the tax
credits from those who can afford to do without them. It is not
9513
pleasant. We would rather not do it but unfortunately with the
situation the country is in we really do not have a choice.
We hoped the Liberal government would have acted quickly
and decisively to get the job done a year ago. We are $45 billion
or $55 billion more in debt, and the Minister of Finance says: ``I
think I am going to start this time''. I do not think that is good
enough, but it is water under the bridge, the horse is out of the
barn or whatever. Here we are today; let us hope this time the
Minister of Finance will make an aggressive start rather than
continue his policy of gradualism to get the budget balanced
some time down the road.
Let us get the job done. If we do not get the job done we will
not only find that we have to reduce the tax credit for seniors this
year but we will have to eliminate it for everybody another year.
We will have to cut social programs we can no longer afford that
are not only desirable but almost mandatory. However we will
not have the money for them.
That is the crisis looming ahead if we do not act decisively
now. I cannot understand why the Bloc would suggest that we
should continue allowing this tax credit for millionaires. The
point is that we must move ahead.
(1240)
Our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, has said quite
specifically on several occasions that we are going to introduce
a budget and the Minister of Finance is going to have a budget
and he is prepared to debate the two of them.
The Minister of Finance is playing games again. He told us he
was going to reduce the deficit to $25 billion in three years. A
couple of weeks ago he said we were to have two-year rolling
targets. Everybody thought that was progress until they realized
that he was only going to release them one at a time. Now he is
going to say: ``Guess what, my two-year rolling target is $25
billion in 1996-97''.
We knew that a year and a half ago. We have not moved
forward. He admitted back in October when he appeared before
the finance committee that things were falling apart and he had
to make extra cuts between $9 billion and $15 billion to meet his
goal. Interest rates have gone up even more since then. The cost
of the debt has gone up even more since then. His figures are
even more off track. Yet he still has a policy of gradualism.
Death by a thousand cuts is one thing I was looking at. I was
looking at Bill C-59 and the number of tax increases being
proposed. These are just last year's budget increases. We have
not even started to get the job done. We have seen the budget
reduced from $40 billion to $39.7 billion, a minuscule drop. We
have seen the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption
eliminated. We have seen extended the taxation on employer
provided benefits to include the first $25,000 of life insurance.
There is the age credit we are talking about today. Business
meals and entertainment expenses have been reduced from 80
per cent to 50 per cent. Divisive corporate reorganizations
curtail a tax avoidance tactic that allows capital gains and so on.
Investment tax credits reduce the rate at which a tax credit is
calculated and so on. It is death by a thousand cuts and we have
not started the job.
The deficit still has not come down in any meaningful way
until the Minister of Finance introduces another budget in a few
weeks time. If interest rates continue to rise that will not do any
good whatsoever.
Therefore, while we support the reduction being proposed in
Bill C-59 that is opposed by the Bloc, we are also saying loudly
and clearly to the Minister of Finance: ``Get the job done''. If he
gets off this policy of gradualism and deals with the crisis
effectively, we can say to seniors and others who depend on
social programs that we recognize we have a responsibility and
want to preserve social programs for those in need. If the
Minister of Finance does not get the job done now and get it done
quickly, these programs will be in jeopardy because the
government could not get the job done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
duty to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, since this bill includes several tax provisions
that were announced in the last budget almost a year ago.
Consequently, I will support the amendment moved by my
colleague, the hon. member for Mercier.
This bill reflects an effort to correct certain shortcomings in
the tax provisions, but I am not sure that the goal will be
achieved since this government managed to divide Canadians
and Quebecers into several categories: the rich, the poor, and the
disadvantaged.
(1245)
Once again, the government is going after the most
disadvantaged in society. It wants to take half a billion dollars
from the pockets of seniors by reducing their age credit. That is
really outrageous. A lack of money precludes any kind of
participation in community life. Take off your masks and tell us
clearly what you have in store for our seniors, a growing number
of whom live in poverty.
Is this the kind of life the Liberal government has in mind for
our seniors? As you know, in 1992, the average income for
seniors was $18,000 a year. Furthermore, 21 per cent of seniors
are low income earners living at or below the poverty level. The
government now thinks that a senior with a $25,000 income is
rich. The provision in this bill is based on these people's low
income. It would be unconscionable to collect such amounts
when there are so many ways to get more money elsewhere.
9514
Seniors are now eligible for non-refundable tax credits.
Many of them-from across Canada, I think-are very
concerned that this credit might be cut or eliminated altogether.
The Liberal government decided to reduce this tax credit. This
amendment is aimed at reducing, for seniors with a net income
of $25,921 or over, the tax credit by 15 per cent of the amount
by which the individual's net income exceeds $25,900. This
credit will be completely eliminated when individual income
reaches $49,000.
The government wants to implement this measure gradually
over two years. In other words, half of the amount calculated
will be eliminated in 1994 and the other half in 1995. This
measure will affect about 250,000 senior citizens. Of that
number, 170,000 are considered to be on low incomes. This
verges on outright injustice to seniors on average incomes, and
all for the sake of an estimated savings of $20 million in
1994-95, $170 million in 1995-96 and $300 million in 1996-97.
It is outrageous, when we realize that this money will come
directly out of the pockets of our senior citizens.
Need I recall that the Liberals were the first off the mark to
criticize the Conservatives for cuts affecting senior citizens? In
fact, on June 18, 1985, when the Minister of Human Resources
Development was in the opposition, he said: ``The fact of the
matter is that the government has substantially reduced in a
regressive way the purchasing power of senior citizens. Not only
has their direct income support been taken away, but their
purchasing power has been taken away. As if that were not
enough, a third whammy is added through reductions in transfer
payments to the provinces by $2 billion between now and 1990.
The Budget is clearly a multifaceted attack on the income base
of senior citizens''.
(1250)
And where is the Minister of Human Resources Development,
now that he has changed his tune? Now that his party is in power,
the minister's policies are right in step with the same policies he
used to criticize so roundly, and I am referring to the reductions
in transfer payments and the purchasing power of senior
citizens. This government was all about promises and a red
book, but now they are in power, the red book is fading fast.
The Prime Minister is a good example. After promising he
would not raise taxes, he is now leaning towards taxing RRSPs,
another way to increase the tax burden on the middle class. This
will lead people to put less money in their RRSPs, at a time when
public pension funds are showing signs that they will be unable
to meet the needs of an ageing population.
The government can get its half billion dollars somewhere
else. Do something about tax evasion! Many hundreds of
millions of dollars are locked up in family trusts because of tax
treaties with foreign countries. The perfect tax haven.
This government has a funny way of showing its recognition
to people who have worked hard all their lives. What does it
want? Let senior citizens enjoy their well-deserved retirement
in dignity.
Unemployment is over 10 per cent. Youth unemployment is
close to 17 per cent. In Quebec, more than one million people are
on unemployment insurance or welfare. The government should
be doing something about unemployment, for a change. Let us
restore the pride of Canadians and Quebecers by putting them
back to work. The government should stop taking money from
the poor, but Bill C-59 is one more step in that direction, with its
measures against senior citizens.
The Bloc Quebecois condemns this bill which does nothing to
help this section of our population and will merely add to the
number of poor people in our society. In concluding, I want to
ask the following question: Is this flexible federalism? If so, this
is one more reason to get out.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the Chief Opposition Whip to defer the division until a later
time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded not more than 15 minutes.
9515
(1255)
[English]
The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of
administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the
Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers
Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the
Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act, and the
Seeds Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of my speech on Bill C-61 is threefold. First, I will
outline what is contained within this bill and what it intends to
achieve. Second, I will outline three areas of concern I have with
this bill and offer some constructive alternatives to those
concerns. Third, I will outline the positive aspects of increasing
the monetary penalties for offences dealt with by the courts.
At this time I am not speaking either for or against the bill
which leads me to wonder whether I am becoming too much of a
politician. For the most part I will be asking questions of the
minister. I hope the answers will explain some parts of this
legislation which will help me in preparing to deal with this
issue in committee and in later debate in this House.
First, I will outline the purpose of this bill. Industry
associations have pointed out the need for more equitable
enforcement of regulations and more equitable treatment
between imported and domestic products. This bill is an attempt
to apply consistent standards to both imported and domestic
products and to promote the competitiveness of the agriculture
and agri-food sector.
To address these concerns the food production and inspection
branch has proposed an administrative monetary penalty system
to decriminalize certain federal regulatory offences. This bill
permits the minister of agriculture, if he is requested to do so, to
conclude compliance agreements with those who commit
regulatory violations.
The rationale behind these monetary penalties is to use the
threat of a financial penalty to obtain compliance rather than to
simply punish. The system is based on negotiating solutions to
regulatory violations. Monetary penalties range from $50 to
$15,000.
Bill C-61 gives the department of agriculture more options
and greater authority to enforce relevant regulations. Currently
most violations of regulations under these acts are treated as
offences and are prosecuted through the courts.
The new system is intended to streamline the process by
implementing a ticketing system at ports of entry into Canada
and monetary fines for other infractions. Only the most serious
infractions will end up being prosecuted through the courts as
offences. One important result of this bill could be lowering the
number of cases going to court. The end result of a cost saving to
taxpayers is of course very important.
Bill C-61 adds to the enforcement options of certain
legislation administered by the department of agriculture by
allowing a system of administrative monetary penalties to be
imposed for these regulatory violations. Under this legislation a
violation would result in a ticket or a monetary fine.
For example, a violation could include the failure to meet
certain sanitary regulations at a meat processing plant, or the
mislabelling of an agricultural product. However, an offence
which is considered a more serious infraction of the regulations
for imported and domestic products would remain subject to
prosecution through the courts. An example of an offence would
be taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it, thus
endangering consumers.
Under compliance agreements administrative monetary
penalties may be reduced or cancelled if the violator agrees to
the actions necessary to ensure future compliance.
Monetary penalties are subject to review by a board of
arbitration or a review tribunal. The system of administrative
monetary penalties would apply to the following acts: the
Canada Agriculture Products Act; the Feeds Act; the Fertilizers
Act; the Health of Animals Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the
Pest Control Products Act; the Plant Protection Act; and the
Seeds Act. Certain monetary penalties already exist within the
Departments of Transport and Employment and Immigration.
They are also used in the United States and Europe.
(1300)
I will outline three areas of concern that I have with this bill. I
agree with the overall intent of this bill. Reformers favour
streamlining a regulatory process to make it work more
efficiently and reduce costs. Currently most regulatory
violations are prosecuted through the courts. For the most part
this a cumbersome and ineffective process. Because there are
limited alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance
with the law outside of criminal prosecution, minor violations
and violators are often ignored.
I have three main areas of concern and I also have three
questions, the answers to which could alleviate these concerns.
Are the penalties set high enough to be an effective deterrent,
particularly to large companies? Why have the ministerial
powers been so dramatically strengthened? Why is it the sole
9516
discretion of the minister to appoint and expand the board of
arbitration and the review tribunal?
My first area of concern is the size of penalties. Are the
penalties set high enough to be an effective deterrent? I agree
with the goal of compliance instead of punishment, and this is
positive because it will reduce the burden of the courts, but will
it also increase the likelihood of violations since the
consequences will not lead to criminal action?
Corporations may deliberately engage in minor infractions
which are by regulation subject only to monetary penalties and
not to court action. The company will therefore simply pay the
penalty and in accordance with the changes made in clause 23
have its record wiped clean after five years.
For example, corporations knowingly emit more pollutants
into the air than is acceptable under Canada's environmental
regulations. Because the benefits to the company outweigh the
costs, some companies would rather break the law, pay the
minimal fine and continue operating at a maximum profit level.
A solution to this problem would be to ensure that repeat
violators will be prosecuted in court. For example, a two strikes
and you are out system could be implemented. This means that
after a company has received a monetary penalty twice for a
violation a further violation would automatically be deemed an
offence and court action would be taken.
In order to strengthen the effects of regulatory violations, I
would propose that the five year period for retaining records of
violation as outlined in clause 23 of Bill C-61 be extended to ten
years so a record of infraction takes longer to wipe away.
The second area of concern is that the ministerial powers have
once again been substantially strengthened. Clause 5 allows the
minister to decide what constitutes a violation subject to
monetary penalty and what constitutes an offence subject to the
courts.
For example, under the Fertilizers Act the minister can decide
whether a violation has occurred which is subject to a maximum
fine of $15,000 or whether an offence has occurred which is
subject to a maximum fine of $250,000. That is a lot of power in
the hands of a minister without precise legislation to guide.
In the case of a violation clause 6 allows the minister to decide
who will receive a notice of violation and to determine the form
and the content of that violation. Clause 7 allows the minister to
make regulations that set penalties for each violation or not to
impose a penalty at all. Under clauses 9 to 13 the minister may
also make exceptions which would allow a penalty to be reduced
or increased.
All of these situations create an opportunity for political
favouritism. Companies that are friends of the government
could be let off lighter than those that are not friends of the
government. If clear guidelines are in place to alleviate this
concern, I would ask the minister to provide them to me. If his
answer is that an alleged violator can take recourse through a
board of arbitration or a review tribunal, this offers me no
comfort.
(1305)
Let me explain by discussing my third area of concern, how
appointments are made to these two boards. It is clear there is
too much ministerial involvement in appointing and expanding
the board of arbitration and the review tribunal.
Monetary penalties are imposed on the basis of absolute
liability which means a penalty can be imposed without proving
fault. The briefing from the food production and inspection
branch of the agriculture department cites essentially regulatory
nature of the violations, the relatively modest levels of the
penalties and the absence of the probability of imprisonment as
factors to support the use of absolute liability. In the real world,
though, these penalties are large enough and can be used
effectively to punish enemies of the minister.
This legislation states that if an alleged violator objects to the
penalty assessment he has received, a review by an appropriate
government official and by a tribunal may be requested. This is
outlined in clause 9(3) which states a person may request to
enter into a compliance agreement or a review by the minister or
a review by the tribunal.
The practices of departmental review and review by a board of
arbitration and review tribunal were in place before Bill C-61.
However, clause 28 of this bill eliminates the ceiling for
membership on these minister appointed boards.
Under the existing Canada Agriculture Products Act both the
board of arbitration and the review tribunal can only consist of a
minimum of three and a maximum of five members, all
appointed by the minister.
Clause 28 of this bill allows the minister to appoint an
unlimited number of members to these boards. The current
process is already open to government patronage. Lifting the
ceiling on the number of members to the board of arbitration and
review tribunal only allows for more patronage to occur.
Here is another chance for the Liberal government to add to
that list of patronage appointments that was presented in the
Globe and Mail last week. Is this the intent of this section of the
legislation?
I do not believe that there are legitimate reasons for the
minister to have sole discretion in appointing members to the
board of arbitration and the review tribunal. This direct and
deliberate patronage can be avoided by vetting all appointments
through the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
in an open and thorough process.
9517
Even though this is a Liberal dominated committee, at least
it would provide the opportunity for open and honest
discussion, the opportunity to critique the qualities of those
considered for the appointment.
With respect to the elimination of the ceiling for membership
on the board of arbitration and the review tribunal, if the
government has a legitimate reason for removing the maximum
number of members for the board, for removing the level that
was set previously, I would like to know what the reasons are. I
ask the minister to provide me with this list of reasons. Next
week or sooner would be fine.
As stated in my introduction, the third aspect of my speech
will deal with what I consider to be a positive aspect of this bill,
that the monetary penalties for offences dealt with through the
courts have been strengthened.
For cases involving a gross offence, the department still
retains the option of criminal prosecution through the courts. In
such cases administrative monetary penalties will not be
imposed.
Fines proposed for indictable offences have been drastically
increased. For example, clause 52 increases the maximum
penalty for an offence under the Fertilizers Act from $500 to
$50,000 and for an indictable offence from $2,000 to $250,000,
a substantial increase. Strengthening these penalties may
increase the deterrent to breaking Canadian regulations.
Reducing regulatory infractions through deterrence is a positive
goal.
Mr. Vanclief: Recall.
Mr. Benoit: Some members opposite are referring to recall. I
would just like to remind them that the hon. member for Beaver
River in early November introduced the recall bill into this
House. Had the members opposite voted for that recall bill
instead of against it, people in my constituency would have had
the right to invoke a recall petition. Therefore, I encourage them
to bring this bill up on their own to show that they really do
believe in direct democracy. I would be more than happy to
honour that recall legislation.
(1310)
I have outlined what this bill attempts to achieve. I have
discussed my three main areas of concern with this bill and I
have outlined what I consider to be the most positive aspects of
this bill.
I have one final comment on this bill. Achieving the best
balance between which details should actually be included in
legislation and which should be left up to ministerial discretion
is often difficult. By adding more detail, which is often covered
by regulation rather than in the legislation itself, a bill can limit
the flexibility of implementation. This can be positive or
negative. The more detail added to the legislation the less
discretion the minister has in implementing the legislation. Less
discretion means less power.
I believe this legislation needs more details. If it sounds like I
do not trust government and bureaucracy, that is true. It has been
well demonstrated in the past that it is wise to view government
with a certain level of distrust. Governments have earned this
reputation. This was very apparent to me this last weekend as I
canvassed for the Reform candidates in Ottawa-Vanier and
Saint-Henri-Westmount. Many people I talked to expressed a
high level of distrust of both present and past governments.
Because I am leery of giving the government too much
flexibility in implementing legislation, I will be looking for
more detail to be added in third reading. I look forward to
getting the answers to the questions that I have presented to the
minister today and I look forward to discussing Bill C-61 in
committee and in further debate in this House.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak on Bill C-61 which is before the House this
afternoon. I wish to add my voice to supporting Bill C-61, an act
to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for
the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the
Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the
Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant
Protection Act and the Seeds Act.
I think we are all aware of the purpose of the acts, but for those
of you without agricultural backgrounds let me share with you
how important they are for a poultry producer who farms near
Holstein, Ontario.
The Seeds Act ensures that the seed I buy to grow feed for my
chickens conforms to the prescribed standards, marked and
packed and packaged labelled as required. The western growers
would know what tombstone would mean to wheat production if
it were able to get farther into the seed system than what it is
right now.
The Health of Animals Act helps to ensure that my flock will
be disease free. Within the poultry industry there is a disease
called ILT, infectious laryngotracheitis. Try saying that three
times. It is something that a producer would look at losing 70 per
cent to 80 per cent of his flock of chickens which would be
economic disaster.
The Plant Protection Act provides for the prevention of pests
injurious to plant life in agriculture and forestry sectors. I think
we all remember back to Ontario and the outbreak of elm disease
and all the trees that had to be destroyed because of that.
The Feeds Act ensures that no person will manufacture, sell or
import into Canada any feed that may adversely affect animal or
9518
human health. In that situation with all the animal feeds we have
right now which are very highly mixed, with computer
technology, farmers are aware of how micro toxins can
adversely affect the health of their livestock.
(1315)
The Fertilizers Act provides that any fertilizer when utilized
in accordance with directions does not contain destructive
ingredients.
Finally, the Pest Control Act regulates the products used for
the control of pests and organic functions of animals and plants.
As can be readily seen, the operation of my farm and its
success depends as much on my ability as manager as it depends
on the federally enforced standards and also supply management
in my case. Without these standards and the enforcement of
these standards, Canadian agriculture would be unable to
compete in the global marketplace. Unable to guarantee quality,
domestic and foreign markets would soon disappear.
As colleagues have noted this bill does more than impose
monetary penalties. It authorizes the minister, if requested to do
so, to conclude compliance agreements with individuals who
commit violations. Under these compliance agreements
administrative monetary penalties can be reduced or cancelled if
persons agree to make appropriate corrective action to comply
with the agri-food acts and regulations.
Notwithstanding the ability to assess monetary penalties the
bill also provides for an independent tribunal to review such
penalties in keeping with the government's belief in due
process. It is important to protect the integrity of Canadian
agriculture and agri-food products. This bill will strengthen the
concept and the quality that is central to the Canadian agri-food
industry.
I will give an example. This is probably a question that my
hon. colleagues on the other side of the House would want to
know. How many administrative monetary penalties does the
department expect to issue this year? The estimate is that the
food production and inspection branch will issue approximately
350 notices of violations. Currently it will probably prosecute
220 of these offences. We will currently and after this be able to
issue administrative monetary penalties for all but a few of these
offences.
As this system is more effective and efficient than
prosecuting in the courts we will be able to increase our
enforcement activities. In addition to the 350 notices of
violations we will probably issue approximately 1,200 tickets at
the ports of entry. These tickets will be issued for high risk
violations by the public who try to illegally bring in meat or
meat products or plants or plant products at the airports.
This problem is a serious one because of the possibility of
introducing plant or animal diseases into Canada as I have
previously stated.
As colleagues have noted this bill will help to reinforce the
many unique things that we do in Canada which will ensure that
everything from the seeds that we grow to the food that is on our
table is the very best. That is what the Canadian consumer has
come to expect from Agriculture Canada. This bill will affirm
that quality will continue to be the foundation of Canada's
agri-food strategy.
It is important to note that while classifying each infraction as
a minor violation or as a serious violation or as a very serious
violation with the accompanying escalation in monetary
penalties imposed, it should be remembered that nothing in the
bill precludes the minister from seeking greater penalties by
proceeding with the infraction as an indictable or summary
offence before the courts rather than as a violation. At present
the department only prosecutes serious non-compliance with 90
per cent of the penalties not going to hearings.
(1320)
The industry wants the importers to comply with the high
domestic standards we have, thereby giving them a level playing
field to compete on. However, it is important to reiterate that not
only is there an appeal mechanism in place when the person is
judged in the violation, we also have the opportunity of
overturning such penalties that have been imposed.
Where the minister is satisfied that a person who has entered
into a compliance agreement has complied with the said
agreement, any security given under the compliance agreed by
the person shall be returned.
This ability to pursue through the courts those judged to be in
flagrant violation of the aforementioned acts, while treating
with compassion those who comply, is one of the strengths of
this legislation. The element of fairness that gives this bill its
greatest strength is the balance. We all want compliance, not
punishment, so the integrity of the agri-food industry is without
question. The bill would give us the opportunity to maintain
these standards of quality.
I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food for his leadership. The bill typifies the way the
government deals with issues. With the support and assistance
of the industries being regulated, the government has proposed
effective changes intended to improve the operating and
administrative efficiencies relating to the enforcement of the
agri-food industry standards.
Taken together, the amendments to the various acts offer
Canadians a comprehensive package of measures that support
efforts to ensure the quality and safety of agri-food products
here in Canada and around the world. For these reasons I most
9519
heartily encourage the members of the House to support this
bill.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in defence of my colleague from Vegreville, I feel there
is a need to repeat something. I do not think the government
hears us the first time. It is very important that we make our
point.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I agree and
can support the idea of less regulation when it comes to court
cases or the idea of compliance. What bothers me about Bill
C-61-the member mentioned it as well-is that it will give the
minister far more latitude in some of the powers he has in these
regulations.
What protection is built into this bill that would protect
consumers and the industry from the wide-ranging powers of
this minister or any other minister that may sit in the House from
time to time?
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I would say the integrity of the
department would go a long way to protect the individual
producer. Also it would probably be underneath a vote too.
I know the hon. member has probably never been in this
situation but it is like speeding down the highway. You might
have been five miles over the speed limit. The police officer
comes up beside him. The police officer has the right to charge
him for speeding. I know there have been some instances where
the police officer has said: ``Listen. Don't do it again. You have
12 hours. This is a warning.''
I would say that is probably a fair answer to the member's
question.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it must be my lucky day. It seems like I have been up
every half hour this morning and early afternoon.
(1325 )
It brings a concern to my mind. Like the rest of my colleagues,
I have been sitting in the House for somewhat over a year now. I
sometimes wonder about the priority the government puts on
agriculture. Last year when we started in January we sat until
almost May before we had a debate on agriculture.
This concerns me because I am a farmer from Saskatchewan.
Many of the constituents who elected me in Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre are farmers. Certainly most or all of them are concerned
about what happens in the agriculture industry. It is a concern
that there seems to be a lack of interest in the whole idea of
agriculture. It is good to see that we have a number of bills
before the House now that are pertinent and relevant to today's
agricultural communities.
I want to talk for a few minutes on Bill C-61. Bill C-61
proposes a system of administrative and monetary policies for
the enforcement of the Agriculture Products Act, the Feeds Act,
the Fertilizer Protection Act and the Seeds Act. It proposes some
new provisions and also various amendments to the current acts.
Basically the bill gives the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-food more options and greater authority in enforcing the
relevant agriculture legislation. Currently most contraventions
of regulations under these acts are treated as offences and
prosecuted as such. We have already said that puts a burden on
the court system and is generally very inefficient.
The new system is intended to streamline the process by
utilizing a ticketing system that will include AMPs but will not
be treated as a criminal offence unless it is deemed serious
enough.
One of my great concerns is who will deem it serious enough
to be a criminal offence? Will it be the minister? Will it be a
board or a tribunal that is appointed by the minister? It concerns
me, if not for the current minister, but for future ministers. We
have no guarantee and no protection, in my mind, that protects
consumers and the industry from a minister who would want to
play heavy-handed politics in the industry. That is probably my
one great concern with Bill C-61. Up until this time I do not feel
the question has been answered on how we will be protected
from a heavy-handed minister.
I do not believe a lot of accountability is built into Bill C-61.
The debate on this bill should also focus on the amount of
regulation in general. Some of the regulations relevant to this
bill are quite necessary.
For example, the regulations dealing with health of animals
and meat inspection have to be a concern and must be a priority
for government as I mentioned this morning in another speech
on another subject. In areas such as these we could talk about the
need for the industry to regulate itself. That is something of
which the industry would be in favour and in which industry
would be willing to negotiate and get involved.
Some amendments should be put forward to this bill. I can
think of numerous things. Again I want to mention the idea of
protection for the consumer and those involved in the industry.
Canadians want the safety that this bill will provide for them
in areas like the illegal and undeclared importation of plants,
plant products, meat or meat products. It is a serious concern
because of the probable introduction of plant or animal diseases.
Those could cost millions of taxpayers' dollars for control and
elimination. When we look at a $500 billion plus debt, everyone
in this House would agree that we have to be concerned and
make sure that we do not spend any taxpayers' dollars than is
absolutely necessary.
The current process involves prosecution in the courts which
really has not been all that effective. There are also limited
alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance. This
bill proposes the implementation of a ticketing offence proce-
9520
dure at ports of entry in the hope of increasing efficiency and
effectiveness in dealing with this problem.
(1330 )
The second point I would like to make is that Canadians want
less but more effective regulatory burden. Overall the
streamlining of the regulatory process is a very worthy goal, as
is reducing court costs and the associated regulatory burden.
With this process however, will there be a bottleneck and an
overload of people wanting to pursue the compliance agreement
process? What industries have asked for development of this
legislation or something similar to it? Are there any companies
out there that would be opposed to this type of legislation? If so,
why?
Assuming we already agree with the regulations under the
eight agriculture acts I can personally support in principle
measures which would increase compliance with this legislation
and the regulations.
The decriminalization of the federal regulatory offences is an
important component. It would reduce the burden of the
criminal court system, but will it reduce the likelihood of
violations since the consequences will be less likely to include
criminal prosecution? This probably would not be the case for
individuals but perhaps for large corporations, if they would
rather absorb a monetary penalty as opposed to a criminal
penalty which could mean the loss of their licence. The
compliance record would be wiped clean after five years which
could make this route more appealing to some.
The examples I have developed which would likely be treated
as violations could include things such as unsanitary facilities in
a meat processing establishment or the mislabelling of
agriculture products. Examples of a contravention which would
likely be treated as a criminal offence could include taking an
animal out of quarantine and marketing it, thereby endangering
the health of consumers.
The main goal of compliance instead of punishment does
seem agreeable. Transport Canada, by the way, and employment
and immigration use the administrative monetary penalty
system at this point in time.
The third point I would like to make is: How much power do
we want to give to the minister? The powers granted to the
minister are extensive. He may make regulations which decide
what constitutes a violation and what constitutes an offence. In
the case of a violation, he can decide whether it is minor, serious
or very serious and set penalties for each violation. In my mind I
can see a scenario taking place sometime in the future, whether
it is next year or 10 years down the road where any particular
minister could in effect wield power and clout that could be far
beyond what he or she should be allowed to do.
I can see the possibility of this getting very political.
Someone who did not support any particular party and ran a
corporation for instance could be in trouble with any particular
minister should that minister decide the corporation is close to
the line. The minister would have the option to decide what
would be a violation and what would be a criminal offence. That
scares me.
Right now the minister is given the power to decide whether a
contravention should be treated as a violation or an offence. The
fines we have talked about. There is no need to go into the
increase in fines. There is no problem with that.
The fourth point I would like to make concerns the board of
arbitration. My colleague from Vegreville mentioned it and I
certainly am in agreement with him. It is important that we have
a board of arbitration. I would like very much before the board is
appointed to have the appointees brought before the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a good hard look
at who these people might be.
I wonder if these types of regulations will be binding upon all,
including the big players. We have seen the problem of
backtracking where millions of dollars are wasted every year.
This Transport Canada system certainly has not solved the
problem. Is this a reluctance to go after the major players in the
industry? The railways have not been punished in the past for
failure to perform their duties. This type of system is only useful
if it is applied fairly and uniformly, but with so much power
given to the minister there is really no assurance of that.
Let us not forget that one of the main causes of regulation
violation is business frustration with the regulatory and taxation
burden. Therefore, one of the best things the government could
do in my mind to increase regulatory compliance is to lower the
input costs for doing business, lower the tax burden and thereby
increase the profitability margin. My thinking on this is that
happy campers are compliant campers and they are good
campers.
(1335)
Speaking of the non-criminal remedies available to the
government departments, I would ask if the minister of
agriculture would offer some of his advice to the Minister of
Justice who wants to make criminals out of law-abiding gun
owners.
In conclusion, as I mentioned at the outset, there are some
good points in this bill. For me to stand here and say that I
personally would oppose this bill based on the theory would be
wrong for me to do and I certainly will not do that. As I have
mentioned two or three times during my speech, there are some
areas we have to look at which could be subject to amendments,
certainly the major one being the powers given to the minister.
9521
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, comments have been made about the hon. minister of
agriculture being heavy handed but there have been no
specifics. The comments have been long on rhetoric but short
on specifics.
With the quick resolution of the dispute over durum wheat
exports to the United States, does the hon. member feel that is
heavy handed on the part of the minister of agriculture? Does the
hon. member consider the minister's acting to protect our supply
management system in parts of Canada protecting the best food
supply system perhaps in the world is being heavy handed? Does
the hon. member feel that acting with due haste to make sure the
regulatory system in Canada particularly in areas like the
biotech industry and trying to streamline it and getting it done
very quickly is perhaps another example of the minister being
heavy handed?
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague was
listening to my speech because I saw him listening to my speech.
But if he had been truly listening he would have heard me clearly
say that it would not necessarily be this minister, it could be any
minister. It could be any minister now or in the future who could
be heavy handed and could take absolute control of this
regulatory process.
The member stated I was short on specifics and has asked that
I give specifics. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food has been somewhat short on action. When I look
at things like the backhauling issue, and I know that will be
coming up in this House very shortly, I realize this has been
going on for over a year and no one has bothered to stop it. That
would be my response to my hon. colleague.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too was listening very attentively to the remarks of
the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I too have a little
difficulty with his suggestion that this would give too much
power to the minister. He offers as an alternative the setting up
of a tribunal which would look after this type of thing.
I point out to him that his party and another colleague in the
House have spoken out very eloquently many times against the
refugee board in another context suggesting that it is another
tribunal which is a waste of taxpayers' money. Now we hear the
hon. member proposing yet another tribunal which would draw
on the public purse. Would he explain the economics of that for
me, please?
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon.
member that there are certainly differences between good
tribunals and bad tribunals.
The concept of the tribunal is already laid out in Bill C-61. I
personally do not have a major problem with the idea or the
theory of a tribunal. The concern I have is that tribunals could be
very susceptible to political patronage appointments.
We have seen that. Look at the current Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food and some of the appointments which have taken
place over the past six months to a year. Look through the
records. There is clearly a trend to political appointments. That
is my concern with an appointed tribunal.
(1340)
All I have said is that any proposed tribunal should go to the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food before its
members are accepted. Obviously there would be a huge Liberal
majority in the standing committee. That is a given, but let us
have the opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the act makes reference to the
minister, it does not mean the minister, it means the department.
Therefore the idea that there would be some interference by the
minister is completely inappropriate.
With these types of regulations the minister does not even see
or become aware of their enforcement. They are handled at the
departmental or administrative level. That is the first
clarification we need to make.
First you indicate that there needs to be-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While we are on the
merits of clarification, let me clarify a good rule of the House.
That is to direct interventions to the Speaker.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, it has only been 15 months; I will
be getting the hang of it shortly.
The hon. member wants a streamlined system. Right now the
only way to enforce these types of regulations is through the
courts. Now the hon. member wishes to set up a tribunal system
which is just another court. This is in fact increasing the
regulation and the steps people have to take to solve the
problem.
What is being suggested here is that you cannot have it both
ways. Either the system is simplified by delegating the authority
to the department or it goes through the courts.
I might add that this type of process is ultimately subject to an
appeal to the Federal Court which will deal with any of the
concerns the hon. member has. If he still has concerns, I would
like to hear them.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I heard something that I will ask
the member later if he would clarify it with me. He said in his
comments it is the department to appoint these boards or to
make these regulations. Then what would the minister's job be?
Does that mean the tail should wag the dog? I think I heard
something to that effect.
If the member would look at Bill C-61, he knows there is a
tribunal already in place for these types of things. It is nothing
9522
new. It is nothing that I have said should happen. It is something
which came through the government.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member across the way talk about
the issue of these appointments to the board. He indicated these
appointments should be reviewed by a parliamentary
committee.
I am wondering if he is familiar with the fact that the present
House rules provide that any parliamentary committee can
review orders in council that are referred to it. All orders in
council are referred to a parliamentary committee which has 30
days to make such a review.
Perhaps he could tell us how many times he has availed
himself of that process.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments. As a member of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to have the opportunity
to review these appointments at the nomination stage rather than
at the appointment stage. I will keep that in mind the next time
we do have orders in council. As a member of the standing
committee I can ask for that.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support Bill C-61 in the name of my
hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(1345 )
Bill C-61 introduces an administrative monetary penalty
system that should result in a higher rate of compliance with the
regulations respecting imported or domestic agri-food
products. It would also enable employees of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada to more effectively enforce federal
regulations.
Under the current system the only options available to
regional inspectors are to give warnings, to seize or detain
products that are not in compliance with standards, and to
prosecute alleged violations in the courts. Although recourse to
the courts is sometimes necessary, in most cases it is preferable
not to proceed through the criminal justice system. This saves
time and money.
We all know how costly the criminal justice process can be
both to government and the private sector. Moreover criminal
prosecution is usually considered an excessive reaction to
regulatory violations as it can lead to a criminal record and
imprisonment. As a result we had to find effective mechanisms
that were as non-coercive as possible to bring firms into
compliance with our regulations.
In my view the administrative monetary penalty system is the
best approach for decriminalizing violations of the regulations.
It brings these regulations into the 21st century for higher
efficiency.
As the name suggests, the administrative monetary penalty
system provides for a broad range of monetary penalties for
enforcing Canadian regulations respecting agriculture and
agri-food products. For instance, small fines would be issued
for minor violations while larger penalties would be issued for
more serious offences. That being said, Bill C-61 precludes
criminal prosecution in cases of serious and repeated violations.
However the criminal justice system would only be used as a last
resort when all other options have failed.
The centrepiece of Bill C-61 is the compliance agreements
that can be negotiated under AMPS. Officials representing
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would have the authority to
negotiate the terms of compliance agreements with offenders. In
addition, inspectors would be able to reduce or waive fines if the
offender takes the necessary steps to ensure future compliance.
Inspectors would obtain assurances that corrective action would
be made at the source.
In some cases this might involve upgrading a plant, replacing
obsolete equipment, making changes to manufacturing
processes or implementing a more stringent quality control
system. In other cases proper employee training at the plant
might remedy the situation. In brief the inspectors would have
credible indicators that the problem would be resolved in the
very short term.
The objective of Bill C-61 is not to punish offenders. In fact
offenders can completely avoid penalties by taking immediate
corrective action. It is clear this is the best way to achieve
co-operation from violators without delays in a very precious
time frame.
A monetary penalty system similar to that proposed by Bill
C-61 is already being used successfully by Transport Canada
and several departments in the United States. In their experience
nine out of ten offenders pay their fines outright. As a result very
few cases go before a review tribunal or court of appeal.
On the basis of this experience it looks in the future like
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would be in a much better
position to carry out its broader control activities.
As we know, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
must inspect plants and animal products imported into Canada
by the travelling public. Among other things, plants, skins, live
animals and meat products must be declared to protect the
agri-food sector and consumers against the potential risks of
exotic disease.
In addition, inspectors are permanently assigned to most ports
of entry to control the safety of food products and to ensure
compliance with regulations. This aspect is of critical
importance for Canadian firms that compete directly with
imported products.
9523
(1350)
The program review currently under way at Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada is clearly favourable to the implementation
of the administrative monetary penalty system. It is felt that
inspectors need this tool to improve the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the regulatory system.
Canadian agri-food organizations feel that the new system is
essential given the current context of the liberalization of trade.
I should also mention that the United States, Mexico and a
number of countries of the European community have already
implemented monetary penalty systems. The implementation of
Bill C-61 would ensure a level playing field for everyone.
To conclude, the administrative monetary penalty system
would facilitate the job of inspectors and give them the tools
they need to be more effective in enforcing regulations. This
would improve our business relations with foreign firms and
would ensure compliance of both domestic and imported
agri-food products with Canada's regulatory system.
The bill ensures the fundamental controls and regulations are
in place to take Canada into the 21st century. At the same time it
ensures a quality and safe supply of food to Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we had an
interesting interchange a few moments ago on the issue of
appointments to boards and how those appointments are
reviewed in committee.
I would be quite interested in the member's comments. When
those appointments are reviewed, would she think it was better
to review them at the nomination stage or at the appointment
stage? If the member feels it is okay to nominate at the
appointment stage, how many times have board appointments
been turned down in the history of Canadian Parliament?
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I understand the system has been in place probably as
long as the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada.
As the hon. member recognizes, from community and
municipal governments to provincial and federal governments it
is necessary that citizens become involved. They should take
part in the process of government. The names of those citizens
come from throughout society. It has been my experience to
keep a resume, as I have at the municipal and provincial levels
of government, of citizens in the community who are prepared to
give their time, energy and commitment to the process of fair
and equitable government and to give their intelligence, which
is what is required in managing the regulations and boards in our
government process.
The government is prepared to receive names at any time from
all citizens in society who may be prepared to participate in the
democratic process.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
whole issue of the board and how it is going to resolve disputes
or complaints is very important.
Let us look at the parole board. It is an appointed body. The
Immigration and Refugee Board is another appointed body. I
believe the CRTC falls in the same category. There are
numerous other ad hoc appointments, crown prosecutors for
one. Now we are looking at an agricultural board. Each one has a
similar problem.
How much more accountable is the minister without the board
than the board having no accountability to the minister? The
ministers across the way time and time again have stated that
they cannot intervene or interfere with a quasi-judicial body and
the matters are never resolved.
What makes the hon. member think this board will not suffer
from the same problem that all other quasi-judicial bodies under
the government suffer?
(1355 )
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is
missing a fundamental point in the bill. The bill is classified in
specific violations: a minor violation, a serious violation or a
very serious violation. These violations will be classified
according to regulatory personnel, the public servants of
Canada. The minister, the bill and the process today which you
are part of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. When whoever is
in the Chair rises, I would ask your co-operation in giving up the
floor. Obviously I rise for a reason.
I want to remind colleagues once again that when addressing
any issue all interventions should be made through the Speaker.
As debates sometimes take on greater emotion and more passion
it becomes even more important to our parliamentary process.
I would like to verify if the member for
Cumberland-Colchester had concluded her remarks.
Mrs. Brushett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I heard a
couple of comments and I would ask for some clarification from
the previous speaker.
The member said that civil servants and bureaucrats would
have the opportunity to reduce and waive fines. That to me
seems to destroy the whole system of credibility,
trustworthiness and fairness.
If we are to allow people who break the regulations, break the
law, to be able to negotiate with public servants about whether or
9524
not they will be fined for doing so opens a whole situation for
bribery, corruption and puts the whole regulatory process into
question.
I wanted the member to comment on another point. She said
small fines for small offences. Last year a I saw bill passed in the
House that required a book publisher to send two books to the
national library. Failure to do so used to account for a fine of up
to $200. That was changed to a fine of $25,000 for failure to send
two books to the national library.
When the member says small fines for small offences, could
she clarify what she means?
The Speaker: We are running a bit tight. Perhaps the hon.
member could think about the response and give it after question
period. I hope I never borrow those two books at that price; it is a
bit up there.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9524
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw to
the attention of the House the Black Creek Orphans' Project in
Mbiko, Uganda. This impressive international development
initiative was started by Billy Vlaad and Kristi Taylor, two of my
constituents in their early twenties from Espanola, Ontario.
Theirs is an example of the good news the new Governor
General asked us to speak about.
While Billy and Kristi were participating in a university
sponsored development project in Uganda a couple of years ago,
local residents expressed a desire to see the development of a
program that would instil pride and self-sufficiency among the
residents and many orphans in the village of Mbiko. The Black
Creek Orphans' Project assists the guardians of local orphans in
setting up business ventures through a capital loans system and
access to technical and business skills training. The profits from
these business ventures will be used to fund educational
opportunities for orphans under their care.
Mr. Vlaad and Ms. Taylor returned to Canada from the site of
their project in Uganda several months ago to work on the
Canadian portion of their organization. Since that time they
have obtained charitable status designation from Revenue
Canada. We should applaud their worthy efforts on behalf of the
orphans of Uganda.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw your attention and that of all Quebecers to
additional moneys in the amount of $5.9 million granted to the
Department of Intergovernmental Affairs last autumn.
We now know what this taxpayers' money is being used for: to
fund the federal government group on the referendum.
We understand why these civil servants shun the cameras,
why their offices are all unmarked and why their names do not
appear in the government telephone directory. They do not want
people to know that they are working on federal strategy for the
no side.
Yes, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs prefers to have
his civil servants engage in a partisan struggle against the
official opposition rather than work on eliminating costly
duplication and overlap and on restructuring the federal public
service.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
year ago I asked the Solicitor General why we were not able to
kick Mr. Colin Wood, a non-resident, out of Canada after he
committed his first serious offence. At that time the Solicitor
General responded that it was a policy that somebody convicted
of an offence should serve the sentence imposed by law. He
stated: ``If my hon. friend's proposal were followed we would be
doing the convicted foreigner a favour by getting him out of the
country before he paid the penalty required by Canadian law''.
Why is it that suddenly out of the blue the chairman of the
standing committee on justice asked: ``Why spend any money
on them at all? Let us kick them out right away''. Is this another
example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is
doing? Is the Solicitor General now prepared to support getting
rid of non-citizen criminals as suggested by the committee
chairman?
When will this government get its act together and tell us what
it intends to do with foreign criminals? Now is the time to act.
Let us get them out of here. We do not need them. Let us make
Canadians safe.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
between the Yukon and Alaska the Porcupine caribou herd
regularly migrates across the Canada-U.S. border. As they have
for centuries, the Gwich'in people rely on the caribou for food.
However, this resource is threatened by a recent Alaska
legislature resolution encouraging oil and gas exploration on the
calving grounds of the Porcupine herd. Thus, the herd is in
serious danger.
9525
The Prime Minister and President Clinton are on record
favouring the protection of the calving grounds. When they meet
next week in Ottawa they could make a strong statement of
support for the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd and the
survival of the Gwich'in people.
Many of us in this House urge them to do so.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in honouring Black History Month and the
contribution made by blacks in Nova Scotia, I wish to bring to
the attention of this honourable House the name Vera Clyke.
Mrs. Clyke's family came to Canada from the United States in
1860, seeking freedom from slavery and discrimination.
As choir director and organist for Zion Baptist Church in
Truro, she has served faithfully since 1927, some 68 years. In
1965 she represented Nova Scotia in the Dominion Day
celebrations on Parliament Hill.
On February 4 Vera Clyke was honoured by her church and
community and I presented certificates on behalf of the Prime
Minister, the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and
the Status of Women, the hon. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and myself, duly recognizing her leadership, her
community participation and model citizenship.
By all community standards Vera Clyke is an outstanding
Canadian, and at the age of 86 she continues to play the church
organ.
Today I salute Vera Clyke and other Canadians like her who
have laboured a lifetime to make their community richer just for
living there.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate my hon.
colleague, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions, for
the proposals released in his white paper.
By ensuring that supervisory and regulatory systems
governing financial institutions are brought up to date, the
Government of Canada will ensure the system is more effective.
We will continue to have the confidence of the Canadian people
as they will have greater access to information and a fiscally
responsible method of ensuring that their rights as financial
consumers are protected.
By addressing those elements of our financial system that
need closer scrutiny and by preserving those aspects that have
served Canadians well, the proposals outlined in the white
paper will build on the positives and minimize the negatives.
I applaud the call for enhanced disclosure of financial
information, earlier intervention in problem institutions,
increased protection for policy holders and a stronger
framework within which systemic risk will be controlled.
These proposals will work to strengthen Canada's financial
system and demonstrate our government's commitment to the
financial security and well-being of its citizens.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in stating that a sovereign Quebec would not
be part of GATT and NAFTA, the Prime Minister has once again,
for lack of other arguments, resorted to scare tactics. With his
remarks, the Prime Minister is increasing the risk that his own
people of Saint-Maurice will be isolated.
The Prime Minister is also going against the interests of the
rest of Canada for which maintaining trade with Quebec will
continue to be an unavoidable necessity. The most recent poll by
Léger & Léger indicates that nearly 60 per cent of English
Canadians would want to maintain economic ties with a
sovereign Quebec.
Nor is there any doubt that provisions under GATT and
NAFTA will effectively apply to a sovereign Quebec, the second
most important trading partner for the rest of Canada and the
eighth most important for the United States.
Would the Prime Minister care to explain why he so prefers
Valparaiso, Chili to Shawinigan, Quebec?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers have done it again. Last night marked our
third cross-Canada live interactive electronic town hall meeting
which generated more than 10,000 calls.
Ninety-four per cent of all callers favoured spending cuts
over tax increases. Ninety-six per cent favoured legislation to
cap federal tax levels. Ninety-five per cent stated unequivocally
that taxes are too high.
This echoes what the Reform Party has been saying in this
House for more than a year and we have been continuously
ignored by this government.
I hope, as do all Canadians, that the Prime Minister and the
finance minister take their heads out of the sand and start paying
9526
attention to what real Canadians want. Canadians are fed up
with taxes and with government mismanagement.
I challenge the finance minister to-
The Speaker: The hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, particularly the Minister
of Health and the minister of Indian affairs, has an obligation to
respond quickly to the recommendations made by the royal
commission on aboriginal peoples in its special report on
suicide among aboriginal people released last week.
The royal commission argues that there has been a steady
stream of studies and reports by aboriginal and non-aboriginal
analysts over at least 20 years which has called attention to the
problem of suicide among aboriginal people but there has been
little result. The studies and reports have presented a long march
of compelling evidence that aboriginal people have been dying
by their own hands much too often and for far too long. Yet
Canadian governments have never made suicide prevention a
high priority issue for themselves.
The royal commission's recommendations stress the urgency
of this significant matter. This time the federal government must
respond quickly and adequately to ensure that the long process
of healing can finally begin.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the majority of my Carleton-Charlotte constituency
lies along the 49th parallel between New Brunswick and the
state of Maine. There are ten regular border crossing points in
Carleton-Charlotte. As I am sure you can appreciate, Mr.
Speaker, there are many family ties on both sides of the border.
The citizens of Campobello Island, who are Canadians, must
cross the U.S. border twice, first at Lubec, Maine and then drive
an hour through the American state and cross again at Calais to
arrive at major services in St. Stephen and Milltown, New
Brunswick.
The recent proposal by President Clinton suggesting a fee be
charged per person and per vehicle entering the United States is
both unreasonable and unwarranted.
This proposal would foster unfriendly relations between the
two countries which have enjoyed friendly relations for many
years. I encourage the Prime Minister and the Ministers for
International Trade and Foreign Affairs to address this proposal
at once and if necessary again during the President's upcoming
visit to Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on January 17
of this year a massive earthquake ripped through central Japan,
killing nearly 5,000 people, leaving 25,000 injured and 300,000
people homeless. This is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
I would like to offer the sympathy and support of the people of
the Erie riding to the people of the Hyogo Prefecture.
Like all Canadians I was glad to hear that Canada was sending
assistance and I commend the Prime Minister for acting quickly
to lend support to Japan, a good friend and trading partner.
Canada has helped to set up short term housing and provide
basic necessities. Canadian engineers are aiding in the
assessment of damaged buildings to help the Japanese and other
governments to put forward building codes and regulations
which might ensure the survival of buildings and structures
during future earthquakes.
I believe the Canadian government has shown the true heart of
Canada in its quick response to this disaster. This true and
honest desire by all Canadians to help those in real need is
something that we as parliamentarians should never forget.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
30 years ago on February 15, 1965 the national flag with the
distinctive maple leaf was first raised on Parliament Hill by the
then Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.
Since that time our nation has grown to become one of the
world's leading democracies. Canadians are known as a
compassionate people, ready to respond when natural disaster
strikes or war torn regions need help to keep the peace.
Our flag is a symbol of Canada. I encourage all members of
this House to support the official federal proclamation of
February 15 as Canadian Flag Day, not as an official holiday but
as an annual day of recognition.
The Canadian flag is more than just a piece of cloth. It stands
for peace, harmony and freedom. It stands for you, Mr. Speaker.
It stands for me. It stands on guard for thee.
9527
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
very moment the Minister of Human Resources Development
was confirming his reform would follow its course, thousands of
students, workers and individuals from social groups in Quebec
were vigorously demonstrating, despite the perishing cold, their
opposition to his reform of social programs. With one voice,
they told the minister they had had enough cuts in social
programs and they would not let young people be the main
victims of the battle with the federal deficit.
They denounced the minister's double talk about wanting to
provide Canadians with training and education, while raising
educational costs, thereby limiting access to higher education.
The students warned the federal government, finally, that, by
always cutting in the same spot and by always targeting the same
people, it was confirming the belief widely held among ordinary
people that there is no tax equity in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as I speak three byelections are happening in
Canada. I would like to congratulate the three excellent Reform
candidates and their teams for the quality campaigns they have
undertaken for Reform and against higher taxes and Liberal
government mismanagement.
In Brome-Missisquoi, Line Maheux showed Quebecers a
better option than the status quo, do nothing approach of the
Liberals or the pack up and quit proposal of the Bloc.
In St. Henri-Westmount, Gaétan Morency was the only
candidate who correctly identified Montreal's depressed
economy as being the result of high taxes which lead to fewer
jobs. Morency proclaimed that red book economics are a
disaster in Montreal.
Here in Ottawa-Vanier, Kevin Gaudet is catching the eyes of
worried voters who know that the Liberals tax everybody for all
their worth and make cuts only at the bottom to save their own
hides.
Thank you, Maheux, Morency and Gaudet for taking Reform
another step closer to sweeping out the Conservative-Liberal
debris so that we can build a new and better Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the spokespersons for the sovereignty commissions are
increasingly confusing Quebecers.
Mrs. Monique Vézina, chair of the seniors' commission,
stated in Hull last Thursday that the federal government would
continue to pay pension benefits to federal public servants after
Quebec's independence.
That statement contradicts what the question and answers
manual for perfect sovereignists says. On page 23 of the
separatist booklet it says that the Quebec government, not the
federal government, will clearly promise to acknowledge the
vested rights of federal employees from Quebec, including their
accumulated rights to a pension.
Today, federal public servants from the Quebec side of the
Outaouais region are left wondering whether the many
contradictory promises they have been made will ultimately be
worth anything.
It is the duty of the PQ and the Bloc to tell federal public
servants from Quebec the truth.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tourism
is the world's fourth largest industry. To promote the growth of
Canada's tourism, the Minister of Industry recently announced
$50 million of federal funding for the National Tourism
Commission, chaired by a former member for London West, the
hon. Judd Buchanan.
A welcomed partnership between industry experts and
federal, provincial and territorial governments, this commission
will work to improve Canada's performance in this promising
segment of our national economy.
Canadian tourism has the potential to be our richest resource.
We have a beautiful country to enjoy and to share with our
visitors. It is time to reverse the tourism deficit which amounted
$7.9 billion in 1993. Tourism creates jobs for Canadians; more
than 590,000 in over 60,000 businesses across the country.
(1415)
I was grateful for my first employment which was in the
tourism industry. Colleagues should assist tourism. Canadian
tourism can be part of the good news.
9528
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the weekend I was happy to read the details of
another Reform convert.
The premier of British Columbia is now talking like a
responsible Reform member as he spells out $9.3 billion in
federal spending reductions. Many of these ideas were borrowed
from Reform, such as the elimination of regional development
departments and transport subsidies.
While it is true the premier has not shown the same type of
financial restraint in dealing with B.C.'s deficit problem, it is
encouraging to note he appears to have had a change of heart.
Reformers and the premier of British Columbia are
advocating a plan of sound spending cuts and zero tax increases
to get the country back on the road to fiscal health. If we can now
drag the government and other provincial players on to the Team
Canada deficit reduction bandwagon, we will be sending a
strong message of unity and commitment to international
financial institutions.
_____________________________________________
9528
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the recent revelations concerning the existence of a
third videotape involving the airborne regiment in Petawawa,
the minister of defence gave one press conference after another
and said that the situation was totally bizarre. Obviously
overtaken by the events, the minister has lost control of his
department.
Now that the minister has decided to dismantle the 2nd
Airborne Regiment, are we to understand that the removal of
Major-General Vernon, who was designated as scapegoat,
constitutes phase II of the minister's strategy to bury the
Petawawa powder keg without getting to the bottom of this
matter?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chief of
defence staff today relieved Major-General Vernon of all of his
responsibilities as commander, land forces command which is in
effect Ontario central command.
He did this because General Vernon was the author of a report
to the chief of the army, Lieutenant-General Reay, to General de
Chastelain and myself concerning the activities of the airborne
regiment with respect to what has become known as the second
video.
The three of us were misled. As a result the chief of defence
staff, who is the one responsible for all disciplinary measures
within the Canadian Armed Forces, has taken the appropriate
action today.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister of defence tell us if the decision to relieve
Major-General Vernon of his duties is based solely on the fact
that he played down the contents of the third videotape or if,
following his recent investigation, the minister has learned
other, more serious facts of which he had not been informed?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered
that question. I quote from the chief of defence staff that the
reason General Vernon was removed from his duties was
because the report, which I have just mentioned, contains
inaccurate and misleading information that caused the chief of
defence staff to misinform the Minister of National Defence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister of defence tell us if, in addition to removing
Major-General Vernon, the minister intends to take disciplinary
measures against other Petawawa officers, including those who
attended or took part in the events recorded on the videotapes?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of the
activities contained in the videotapes with respect to the
airborne regiment are now being investigated by the military
police.
* * *
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In
anticipation of the federal-provincial meeting of finance
ministers scheduled for tomorrow, the provinces have cautioned
Ottawa against the temptation to cut federal transfer payments
to the provinces, thus irresponsibly shovelling its deficit into
their back yards. The provinces clearly refuse to be left holding
the bag as Ottawa withdraws its financial support for social
programs.
9529
Will the Minister of Finance undertake tomorrow to transfer
to the provinces not only the responsibility for social programs,
but also adequate fiscal resources to fund these programs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I discussed with
the provincial finance ministers ages ago the fact that we would
not do as the previous government did and cause surprises. And
we certainly have no intention of causing any surprises
tomorrow.
We have a deficit at the national level. The provinces
certainly realize it and they have asked us to really start cutting
from our end, which we intend to do. I think the system needs to
be changed at the national level, at the provincial level.
Everybody agrees on this and that is what we intend to do.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Minister of Finance recognize that, as the
Saskatchewan finance minister suggested, it would be hard and
appalling for Ottawa, following an eventual withdrawal, to ask
the provinces to cut social program spending while at the same
time imposing national or Canada-wide standards, whatever
they are called?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that
the vast majority of provinces certainly realize the situation this
government is in. In fact, several of them are facing exactly the
same situation. But at the same time I think there is a realization
that we all have to work together.
Allow me to quote the Premier of Newfoundland, who said
this morning that potential cuts in transfer payments worried
him, but that he would support these cuts because what matters
above all is that the national government put its fiscal house in
order. I think that Mr. Wells is voicing an opinion that I have
heard from the vast majority of the other provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in an interview over the weekend, the finance minister
said that any tax hikes in this month's budget will be taken from
the top first. What Canadians want is for the government to start
at the top with spending cuts, not tax increases.
For example, the government is going to spend $12 million to
build an office tower in Sault Ste. Marie, a city that already has
one of the highest vacancy rates in the country.
Why does the finance minister continue to propose tax
increases when there is still so much visible waste and
inefficiency in government spending? Why not wring that
inefficiency and waste out of the government before they wring
more dollars out of taxpayers' pockets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
very conscious of the degree to which Canadians feel they bear
too great a tax burden.
The government is also very much aware of the degree of
waste that exists in any large institution and certainly within the
institution of government. That is why over the course of the last
budget we did not increase taxes. It is the first time in a long
time that has happened.
It is also the reason the Minister responsible for Public
Service Renewal has worked so hard along with the President of
the Treasury Board to eliminate waste in the operations of
government and why we have been able to make, over the course
of the year, a series of announcements on the elimination of
boards and commissions that have waste.
This is one case where action speaks louder than words. We
have demonstrated very strong action.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this wringing of waste has a long way to go. Twelve
million dollars for an office building in Sault Ste. Marie is just
the tip of the iceberg. Many federal bureaucrats are trying to
blow out their remaining budgets before the end of the fiscal
year.
Both the department of furniture and oceans and the
department of public works are spending $10 million on
unnecessary computers-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1425 )
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member inadvertently
mentioned another department.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the department of public works are
spending close to $10 million on unnecessary computer
upgrades; over $15 million is earmarked for getting a fax
machine on virtually every public servant's desk. That is $37
million in unnecessary expenditures right there.
My question is for finance minister. In the name of common
sense and in the name of taxpayer relief, will the finance
minister order an immediate freeze on such unnecessary capital
expenditures until the budget is balanced?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib ): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the
hon.
9530
member, and this will become very clear in the budget, that both
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister of public
works have gone at their departments very hard in terms of
waste and the kind of unfortunate management practices they
inherited from a previous government.
I hope the leader of the third party will support all members of
cabinet who have gone at their departments tooth and comb, line
by line, to eliminate the kind of waste that we inherited as a
result of the activities of the previous government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the ministers are going after waste and inefficiency
with the vigour that the finance minister suggests, why do we
continually, day after day, see these illustrations such as the
office building in Sault Ste. Marie and the unnecessary
computer expenditures?
If there has been this huge, deep, passionate commitment to
eliminating waste, why do these instances continue to show
themselves day after day after day?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be an effective
member of Parliament one must have all the facts.
The hon. member opposite has forgotten to share with the
House the fact that the building which is to be constructed in
Sault Ste. Marie will save the taxpayers of Canada $500,000 per
year in operating costs.
It is becoming a common occurrence with the hon. member
that he stands in his place and gives certain information which I
would suggest is somewhat inaccurate. The software to which
the hon. member refers will save the government $4.6 million.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In its statement
of policy last week, the government set human rights as a matter
for priority action in its foreign policy. It is therefore not clear
why Canada is not speaking out on the intensified intervention
of the Mexican army in Chiapas.
How could the Canadian government close its eyes to what is
happening in Mexico, one of its principal economic partners, as
the army is bombarding civilian groups in an attempt to stop the
Zapatista movement?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's eyes are wide open and watching
the events in Mexico very closely. Clearly, we do not want this
situation to end in reprehensible acts of violence. We have
always advocated moderation and particularly efforts at
conciliation between the parties in order to bring about a
peaceful solution to the crisis in Chiapas.
The Canadian government's position is well known, and I
cannot accept the comments by the hon. member, who is well
aware of the government's position and is trying to make
political points over a very serious situation.
(1430 )
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is why
we are here, to make political points.
How can the Canadian government, which claims to be
concerned about human rights, allow the Mexican authorities to
deny access to the press in the areas of conflict and does it intend
to intervene directly with the Mexican government in order to
promote respect for human rights in Chiapas?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his candour. It is very
clear why he is in politics, and I find it absolutely reprehensible.
The situation in Mexico is serious. A remarkable job is being
done by Canadians, working through non governmental
organizations, with the support of the Canadian international
development agency and Canadian groups promoting peace and
the protection of individual rights and freedoms. I believe the
hon. member knows perfectly well that everyone working there
has the support of the Canadian government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the airborne regiment was tried, convicted and
sentenced by the media. The Minister of National Defence
carried out the execution.
Unquestionably, the airborne has suffered from command and
control problems, but Canadians' sense of fair play does not
support the punishment of a whole regiment for the
unacceptable actions of a few. They recognize, as does the
minister, the continuing need for a quick reaction force.
There is a compromise available. Will the minister consider
the following course of action: suspend airborne operations
rather than disband the regiment, then suspend all courts martial
and proceed immediately with the promised public inquiry and
finally, decide the fate of the airborne after a full hearing based
on-
The Speaker: My colleagues, in the questions if we could
have a question and a very short added question, but surely not
three. I would ask the hon. minister to answer the first two
questions.
9531
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded for the reasons
given a couple of weeks ago. There will be no reconsideration
of that decision. It is firm, it is fixed and it is final.
With respect to the airborne capability to which the hon.
member refers, that can be discharged in any number of ways.
General Reay, who is in charge of land forces, has been tasked to
come up with alternative arrangements to ensure there is the
airborne capability in the armed forces.
Last, I have repeated this so many times. A full inquiry which
will be public and will be headed by a civilian will look into all
the matters concerning the deployment of the airborne to
Somalia in 1992 and 1993. That will begin as soon as the last
court martial is terminated.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is now clear that the hazing rituals are not limited to
the airborne. They exist in the parent regiments. They exist in
the navy. The so-called systemic troubles for which the minister
disbanded the airborne are widespread.
Will the minister accept that leadership from the top and not
behaviour at the bottom is the real problem in the Canadian
forces, or does he eventually plan to disband his whole
department?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
unfortunate events shown in the videos relating to ceremonies
involving the airborne have enlightened Canadians, perhaps
somewhat in a negative way, as to some of the traditions in the
armed forces.
Another tape was released a few days ago. I am glad the navy
was quick to correct the record. It felt that ordinary members of
the public would have the reaction I had which was that at first
blush it seemed to be quite offensive. It corrected that
impression.
Because of all of these questions that have been raised, the
chief of defence staff will be bringing all of the commanders to
Ottawa this week to talk about these matters: what is
permissible, what is not permissible; what is in the military
tradition and what is not. Once he has a chance to talk with the
commanders and they then inform the troops under their
command across the country, this matter will come to rest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Johanne McDuff's book
published in French under the title
Le sang qui tue presents
damning information about the events in the early 1980s which
led to the contaminated blood tragedy. Several hundred
hemophiliacs contracted the AIDS virus as a result of
incomprehensible stalling and irrational acts on the part of
federal authorities.
(1435 )
Given the overwhelmingly negative report by the expert
working group attached to the Krever Commission and the facts
presented in Johannne McDuff's book, does the minister intend
to take immediate and concrete measures to avoid repeating the
errors of the past?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you will understand that I cannot comment on past
events investigated by Justice Krever. But I can say in this
House to the people of Canada that, since I have been minister of
health, we have done everything possible to ensure the safety of
the blood supply system.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the Minister of Health explain why the country which, by her
own account, allegedly has the best blood supply system in the
world is still not authorized to send its blood products to the
United States for processing because American authorities still
maintain that they do not meet the required quality standards?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to shipping blood products to the United
States, we are working very closely with the U.S. authorities in
order to harmonize the regulations and that we take the best of
both systems. That is what we are doing at this time.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week in this House we were talking about patronage and the
Prime Minister said: ``If the hon. member can prove that the
person is incompetent, we will not give him or her that job''.
Last week we were talking about Bill Callahan's appointment
to the CRTC. In just three years Mr. Callahan ran a 100-year old
newspaper into the ground-
Mr. Speaker: The preambles to the questions, my dear
colleagues, seem to be getting a little bit longer. I would ask all
hon. members to please try to make the preamble a short
sentence or two and then into the question. The same with the
answers.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West, his question, please.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, we found that
Mr. Callahan in fact is not an objective individual.
9532
Will the Prime Minister keep the promise he made in the
House last week and remove Bill Callahan from his post at
CRTC, or is this Liberal government still intent on mimicking
the Conservatives?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every single order in
council appointment is subject to the review of the appropriate
parliamentary committee.
Mr. Callahan's name was brought before the parliamentary
committee. The member had an opportunity at that time to make
any statement, however slanderous, he might choose to make.
He chose to remain silent through that 30-day period.
I have only to ask him the question: Why did he not bring
these alleged facts to light rather than slandering this individual
here on the floor of the House of Commons?
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess it is our privilege to ask the questions here. Rather than
use the word ``slander'' I would use the word ``hypocrisy''.
Now we are hearing about another prominent Liberal who is
in line for the plum of the week in my province of British
Columbia. Can the Prime Minister explain specifically what
May Brown's qualifications are for the position of
Lieutenant-Governor, besides being campaign manager for the
current Liberal leader and campaign manager for John Turner of
all people?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, another hypothesis by
the member which does not deserve an answer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government is on the verge of paying oil and mining
companies the contested $1.2 billion they claimed through tax
loopholes in a case that has dragged on for 21 years. The
minister says that he does not want to upset anyone. Does he
have to wait 21 years to avoid upsetting people?
(1440 )
In addition to this case, which the federal government says it
wants to settle soon, it is on the verge of paying out millions of
dollars, because the income tax payable by these companies is
still in dispute.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to ask his
question immediately.
Mr. Belisle: On the eve of the budget, Mr. Speaker, how can
Canadian taxpayers trust the Minister of Finance, who is taking
no concrete measures to settle this dispute and whose inaction
will cost them millions of dollars?
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, we cannot comment individually on any specific
taxpayers. Many resource companies will be entitled to refunds
as a result of the 1992 decision of the Federal Court.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how is it
that the minister so ably imposed billion dollar cuts to the
unemployment insurance system but is unable to settle tax
disputes that cost hundreds of millions and benefit big business?
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just informed the
hon. member, there is a procedure we go through in dealing with
taxpayers. We cannot comment on individual situations. They
are dealt with accordingly and changes are made accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last year alone, the lives of six Winnipeg children could have
been saved from house fires had the previous government
fulfilled its promise to require cigarette lighters to be made
child resistant.
When will the minister implement tough regulations to
prevent further injuries and tragic deaths among Canada's
children?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to address this very serious problem, I have
asked the officials in my department to draft amendments to the
regulations under the Hazardous Products Act concerning safety
of disposable lighters.
These amendments will be published in part I of The Canada
Gazette within the next few weeks. We expect these regulations
to be in effect as of the middle of the summer. Disposable
lighters sold in this country will have to be childproof.
Meanwhile we have launched a program of awareness to ensure
that caregivers are aware of the dangers of these disposable
lighters.
9533
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
located in Sydney, Nova Scotia is what has been described as the
worst environmental disaster in Canada, the Sydney tar ponds.
Over the last nine years both the federal and provincial
governments have been working on an incinerator to burn over
700,000 tonnes of toxic waste which includes PCBs and a deadly
brew of various hydrocarbons. Nine years and $55 million later,
the project still does not work.
Can the environment minister justify why the people of
Sydney, Nova Scotia now have the highest cancer rate in North
America and the government waste, mismanagement and
inaction on the cleanup of this toxic cesspool?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member
has brought to the attention of the House that indeed there is an
investment of $55 million to clean up tar ponds that obviously
took many years to build up.
As one whose grandfather was born there I know the sacrifices
of the people in the Sydney area. I know the sacrifices of
industrial workers who have lived with pollution for eight
decades of this century.
The Sydney tar ponds cleanup is proceeding. The level of
incineration at the moment is being examined regularly to
ensure that the health and safety of the people in the area is not
affected. We hope the cleanup of this mess will not take the
decades it took to accumulate.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would disagree with the minister. Her own project manager says
the project does not work. It is going to have to go out to private
tender to make it work.
The Canadian Council of Environment Ministers agreed to a
set of environmental guidelines for the burning of toxic waste.
Both the Nova Scotia minister and the federal minister are
signatories.
Can the minister explain why the Sydney incineration permit
completely disregards these guidelines? The permit allows
levels 10 times higher than those allowed in the guidelines.
(1445 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Sydney emission
levels are below the levels that were set by CCME. The Sydney
levels not only meet the current Nova Scotia guidelines but also
the guidelines established by the CCME.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. According to audit
reports that the minister received on census surveys of
aboriginal people living on reserves, the government continues
to use incomplete, unreliable and questionable data, to quote the
exact terms used in the reports. In June, the opposition brought
this situation to the minister's attention.
Will the minister tell us whether Statistics Canada's census
takers will have access to reserves in the future in order to take
exact population counts, since grants for aboriginal people are
calculated on a per capita basis?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure after 15 months the
hon. member knows this. Most of the social programs we do on
First Nations are not based on Statistics Canada figures. When
we build a school, we go in there and count the number of
students, whether it is an elementary school or a high school in
some cases. Or, the Minister of Health will go in there with
Operation Head Start. If it is a health facility the same applies.
The only time we use statistics is when we fund tribal councils
but we do not use those of Statistics Canada. Again we go in and
count the numbers on site. This is the way it is done. The
Statistics Canada figures are a tool that I use to check what we
are doing, but no more or no less than a tool.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister admitted himself, he uses statistics for certain
programs.
Can the minister explain why eight months have gone by since
he agreed that adjustments should be made, yet no corrective
measures have been taken to ensure that the calculation of grants
for bands are based on exact population counts of aboriginal
people?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after my friend raised this
matter the last time, which was several months ago, I believe I
directed the staff that once a year where we use statistics the
band officer provides us-there are 605 First Nations-with a
statutory declaration of the actual numbers.
Again this is another tool, but it is not primarily what 80 per
cent of the services with aboriginal people are based on. They
are based on actual counts between the regional director gener-
9534
als and the people in the field who know whom we are dealing
with. If we do not, we should not be in there.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last June I asked the justice minister to undertake a
national study to determine the source of firearms used in
criminal activities. Despite assurances by his parliamentary
secretary eight months later Canadians are still waiting.
Three months ago I put a question on the Order Paper asking
how many registered gun owners used their guns in the
commission of a crime anywhere in Canada.
My question for the Minister of Justice is simple. By its own
admission the government has no comprehensive statistics on
which if any of the more than 1.2 million registered guns in the
country were used for criminal activity. Therefore how can he
defend spending millions of dollars on gun registration as a
solution to crime when he has no proof that the legal owners of
firearms are part of the problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Canadians want
advice on matters of health they go to physicians. When they
want to know about the law they go to lawyers. When Canadians
want advice on what to do about crime and community safety
they go to the police.
The police in the country have for 10 years been calling upon
the federal government to introduce a national system of
registration. As recently as last summer the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution exactly to
that effect. I take that as pretty solid advice.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the justice minister for the answer.
I do not know whom he has spoken with but over past months I
have spoken with and listened to a number of police officers
both in my riding and across the country. I have yet to find a
police officer below the rank of superintendent or chief of police
who believes universal gun registration will do anything to
prevent crime.
(1450 )
For the minister's plan to work it must have the support of
rank and file police officers whose lives are on the line. Could
the minister provide the House with evidence of their support?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past the
Canadian Police Association has spoken to this issue. I can tell
the hon. member that in the past the Canadian Police
Association has passed resolutions favouring universal
registration.
May I also point out that in Edmonton last fall when this very
controversy broke out and the police force, the constables, not
the chiefs, were asked, 60 per cent in a plebiscite favoured
registration of all firearms.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadian participation in the United Nations mission in Haiti
demonstrates our commitment to restoring democracy in that
country. Could the minister tell us exactly what Canada's
contribution to the UN mission in Haiti will entail?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to convey to the hon. member, in this
House, the Canadian government's commitment to democracy
in Haiti.
First, a group of Canadian police officers have trained
Haitians who will be called upon to perform civil police duties
in the coming weeks. Second, a Canadian Armed Forces
contingent will join in the peacekeeping operations as soon as
the UN decides to send out a peacekeeping contingent to replace
the multinational force presently serving in Haiti.
The Government of Canada has launched a program to
support the Aristide government by investing substantial
amounts in helping non governmental organizations provide
what is referred to as basic care and essential services to the
people of Haiti.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Almost a year ago, the Government of Vietnam threw Tran
Trieu Quan, a Canadian citizen, in jail without laying any
charges against him. Last December, Hanoi, through the good
offices of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs, put a price
on Mr. Tran's freedom by demanding that his family pay what
amounts to a $100,000 ransom. Two weeks ago, the Vietnamese
government withdrew this offer.
How can the minister explain his decision to give Vietnam
several millions of dollars in Canadian aid when that country
disregards all rules of basic justice by keeping a Canadian
citizen in jail without any formal charges?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. member that his press
conference in Quebec City did not do much to help Mr. Quan.
Certainly, such media events here in Canada are not looked upon
and interpreted very favourably by Vietnamese authorities.
9535
Furthermore, I can assure Mr. Quan's family that the
Government of Canada, through its ambassador and through the
Prime Minister himself, who made direct representations to
Vietnamese authorities during his trip, is pursuing this matter
and trying to convince Vietnamese authorities to either bring
specific charges against Mr. Quan or let him return to Canada.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand from the foreign affairs minister's comments that
his efforts and those of the Prime Minister were unsuccessful
and that he is unable to protect a Canadian citizen whose
fundamental rights are being flouted in Vietnam?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what must be understood is that the hon. member's
actions, instead of helping us find a solution to Mr. Quan's
problem, are making it considerably tougher for the Canadian
government to make representations on behalf of Mr. Quan and
his family.
* * *
(1455 )
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a
Globe
and Mail newspaper article dated April 23, 1993 the present
Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
``He believes that the new gun control law passed by Parliament within the
past year should be given a chance to work before the Liberals see whether it
should be tougher''.
I ask the Prime Minister: What made him change his mind?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposals we
announced on November 30 are intended as part of the
government's concerted effort to achieve what we described in
the election campaign as safe homes and safe streets.
We believe they are integral to an effort government wide to
deal effectively with the criminal misuse of firearms, to achieve
better control at our borders with respect to what firearms enter
Canada, and to enhance public safety.
I might add, knowing the hon. member's connection with the
province of Alberta, that there is increasing evidence the people
of that province are entirely in accordance with our view.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister continually states to the House and the people of
Canada that if we want to know about a question of policing we
should ask the police chiefs.
Why does the minister not accept and embrace the decision of
the police chiefs on their stand on capital punishment and their
stand on the removal of section 745 if he really believes what he
is saying?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take it implicit in the
question by the hon. member is an acknowledgement that the
police chiefs are in favour of the registration of firearms.
May I say that not only in relation to firearms but on a broad
range of subjects the police are supportive of the agenda of the
government to achieve public safety.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The next budget will show Canadians whether the government
intends to build Canada or to dismantle Canada. There have been
a number of suggestions that the government is contemplating
block transfers not just for social programs but for health
programs.
As the Minister of Finance will be meeting with provincial
and territorial ministers tomorrow, will he today in the House
and tomorrow in his meeting clarify how he sees the
government's budget ensuring that the Canada Health Care Act
remains as it is now and ensuring that Canadians will have
health care regardless of what area they live in or how rich or
how poor they are?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the finance
ministers tomorrow. I will not be going into the details of the
budget with them for the reasons I have stressed many times in
the House. However we will certainly be discussing the vast
range of relationships that exist between both levels of
government and how a future budget might well impact on them.
I can however assure the member opposite that the question of
health care, which is one of the proudest legacies of the Liberal
Party, will never be abandoned by a Liberal government.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House how block
transfers in health care would ensure that there would be a
Canada health care standard and that the Canada health care act
would remain intact?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the
budget we
9536
discuss each and every one of the budgetary items. We will
explain them all. It would not be incumbent upon me to make
any reference to any matter that may or may not be in the budget.
It is interesting, I must say however in response to this
questioner, that one of the most concrete suggestions for mass
transfers of power from the federal government to provincial
governments which she seems to take some objection to was one
made by the premier of British Columbia, a member of her own
party.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
In these difficult budgetary times I am deeply concerned
about the risk of erosion of national institutions and processes.
One example is our ability to do research and to train researchers
in our national centres and ministries and in our colleges and
universities.
Can the minister assure us that he will nurture Canada's
capacity to conduct creative research and to train young
researchers?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this age of doing
more with fewer resources, our government has already
provided leadership in launching initiatives like the Canadian
technology network, the Canadian medical discovery fund, the
technology partnerships program, the environmental industries
initiative, phase II of CANARIE and PRECARN. These
initiatives use very limited government resources to lever very
substantial efforts in science and research and technology;
efforts which meet the needs of Canadians, which provide
exciting careers for young Canadians.
I want to reassure the hon. member that even if our federal
government resources are constricted in the short term, we shall
not flag or fail in our efforts to be innovative, in our efforts to
work with all Canadians to ensure a strong future.
_____________________________________________
9536
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the 27th annual
report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board covering the
period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
five petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before this House on day six of this initiative to present
petition No. 6 on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson. His date for
parole hearing is set for April 11, 1995.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murders.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to present 11 petitions signed by
over 2,000 people from several communities in my constituency
of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents are of the opinion that existing controls on
law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more than enough
to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon Parliament to
support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals
who use weapons in the commission of a crime and support new
Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and
protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms; support legislation which will repeal or
modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public
safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to
be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
These petitions are presented with my concurrence.
(1505 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am
honoured to present two petitions from my constituents, the first
being from 25 who call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
9537
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition includes 82 names. This petition basically requests that
this House amend the the laws of Canada to prohibit the
important, distribution, sale or manufacture of killer cards in
law and to advise producers of killer cards that their products if
destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions, one of which calls upon 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.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 on a
petition with 44 signatures from my riding.
The petitioners in my riding request that under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms we guarantee that everyone has the right to
protection against discrimination and that the Government of
Canada has recognized this including discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of
my constituents who are concerned about the proposal to put
forward legislation embodying sexual orientation in the Human
Rights Act.
I concur with them in their opposition to that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
my great honour today to table in this House a petition bearing
1,080 signatures from my riding.
This petition denounces the government's proposal with
respect to voice mail boxes. I am pleased to join with these many
petitioners in the conviction that services must be adapted to
users and not to bureaucratic machinery.
Thus the people of Quebec City wish to draw the attention of
Parliament to the following: Whereas senior citizens are
naturally less experienced with the technology of voice mail;
and whereas senior citizens are entitled to appropriate service,
particularly in response to their income security inquiries, these
petitioners call upon Parliament to ask the government to
abandon its plan to install voice mail for senior citizens.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it pleases me to offer three
petitions today. The first two come from in and around the city
of Winnipeg, Manitoba with 300 signatures on pink paper from
women who would like to draw to the attention of the House that
the proposed amendments to firearm control legislation by the
justice minister are unduly harsh and will waste dwindling
financial resources while attacking the rights of law-abiding
citizens without affecting crime.
They request that the provisions be separated and that
Parliament proceed to strengthen border patrols and strengthen
measures to deal with the criminal use of firearms but not
proceed with the proposed enhanced controls on legal ownership
of firearms.
There are 300 signatures on this petition from the women of
Manitoba and I have an identical one with nearly 900 signatures
from men.
The third petition from Calgary requests that Parliament
support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals
who use weapons in the commission of crime, support new
Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and
protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal
and modify existing gun control laws which have not proved
public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have
proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or
unenforceable.
I concur with these petitions.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.
The first states that the majority of Canadians respect the
sanctity of human life and the majority of Canadians believe that
physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end
them.
(1510)
Therefore the petitioners pray 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 which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition, with which I do not concur, calls upon Parliament to
9538
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two quick petitions.
One is calling upon Parliament to ensure that the CRTC
recognizes that Canadians do not need to be shocked to be
entertained and that foul language, excessive violence and
explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality entertainment.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other petition calls upon Parliament to act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have a petition representing the views of
over 290 constituents which I wish to present to the House.
The petition states that public safety is the number one
priority of the criminal justice system and that the target for all
gun control laws in the Criminal Code of Canada must be that
criminals are a danger to that public safety.
These petitioners make three requests to Parliament. They ask
Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent
criminals. They ask Parliament to recognize the right of all
law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms. They ask
Parliament to support legislation that would repeal or modify
existing firearms legislation that does not improve public
safety.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with two petitions representing views of
constituents in Brandon-Souris.
The first petition calls on the government to enforce the
existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide. It also asks that no further changes be made in the law
which would sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active
or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls upon Parliament not to amend
the human rights code, the Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way that would indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the two same subject matters, the first one regarding
assisted suicide. The petitioners call upon Parliament to make
no changes in the law that would sanction assisted suicide.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the other set of petitions is regarding same sex benefits and the
amending of the Canadian Human Rights Act. People in my
riding in these petitions are suggesting that the government
should not amend the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the
clerk of petitions on behalf of 32 constituents of Saanich-Gulf
Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding
upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages,
English and French, for the government and for the people of
Canada.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present several petitions to the House.
The first petition requests that Parliament not amend 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 Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation. I table that with my approval.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition requests that Parliament amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec
Civil Code which states that in no case may a father or mother
without serious cause place obstacles between the child and
grandparents.
Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the
relations should be settled by court; further, an amendment to
the Divorce Act should give a grandparent who is granted access
to a grandchild the right to make inquiries and to be given
information as to the health, education and welfare of the child. I
concur with that as well.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 44 residents of the Kingston
area in which they call upon Parliament not to enact any further
firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.
I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf.
9539
(1515 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 123 will be answered today and I would
ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Text]
Question No. 123-Mr. Leroux:
With respect to the Council for Canadian Unity, or any agency or organization
attached to or working for the council, (a) have there been any increases in the
annual budget(s) since January 1994 and if so, on what precise date(s) did the
increases occur and how, item by item, were they allocated, (b) has it undertaken
or contracted out the undertaking of any public opinion poll or polls of Canadians
or Quebecers and if so, what was the wording of the questions and the result of the
poll(s), question by question and (c) what are the government's intentions with
respect to the council's budget for hiring personnel or borrowing personnel from
other departments on assignment for this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year, in
actual numbers?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): The Council for Canadian Unity is not a Government of
Canada organization. The Council should be contacted directly
to obtain this information.
The address is: Council for Canadian Unity, 2055 Peel Street,
Suite 475, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1V4. Tel: 514-843-4124.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the question mentioned by
the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the
remaining questions stand?
The member for Abitibi, on a point of order.
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in
respect of Question No. 86 which I submitted on 29 September
1994, over four months ago, to which the government has not yet
replied.
A question on the Order Paper should be answered within 45
days. I therefore ask the government to explain this delay which
I consider unreasonable.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, as always, the government
attempts to answer all questions, and we prepare these answers
as quickly as possible. I am sorry, but I do not have an answer for
the hon. member today. I will ask some questions of certain
people to find an answer which I will then report to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Given this explanation, shall the
remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Mr. Deshaies: I will get back to the Speaker to ask my
question again tomorrow or the next day.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9539
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary
penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural
Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of
Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products
Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hon. member for
Cumberland-Colchester was into questions and comments. I
understand that eight minutes remain.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the question that was put before
question period by the hon. member concerning the regulatory
process, it is the hope and expectation of the government that
after consulting with industry the regulations would be
designated as infractions, whether they were an offence of a
minor nature, a more serious nature or a very serious nature.
Those would be decided on in combination with the private
sector of the resource that we are referring to, as well as
government regulators. It would be dealt with in a very fair and
reasonable manner and, as indicated earlier, would prohibit
taking every single infraction to the courts, thus saving time and
money.
In response to the hon. member's second question regarding
how regulators will be kept fair and honest, it is my assumption
that public servants try to put in a fair day's work for a fair day's
pay. In no way would they look aside or turn a blind eye when
there may be infractions such as unsanitary conditions in a meat
inspection plant, for example. In no way would they disregard
that infraction when tainted meat could appear on supermarket
shelves, which in turn might land on their own family's supper
plate.
I have every hope and expectation that the regulators of the
Canadian public service will pursue this with all sincerity to
ensure that we have a safe and quality food supply for all
Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will go back
to the question that was posed before question period. The hon.
member did not answer it for me. It was a two-part question.
9540
Since an appointment by order in council has never been
turned down in Canada's history, since a single individual has
never been turned down, could the hon. member please
comment for me on whether it would be better to review these
appointments at the nomination stage rather than the
appointment stage on committees.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, again as I reiterated prior to
question period, it is my understanding that many Canadians
desire to serve in the public domain of Canada. They are sincere
when taking on the responsibility of serving their communities,
municipally, provincially and federally.
(1520 )
It is a grave responsibility but the people appointed desire to
serve. It is to the benefit of the public. Canadians are responsible
people. Look at volunteerism, the responsibility that they take
for their communities. It would be a great burden to the country
to pay for the work done through volunteerism.
I believe the government is willing to listen to any name
coming from any party as to who may be a responsible serving
citizen.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I know that sometimes a
political answer is the only appropriate one. However, this is
such a straightforward question.
I would ask my question for the third time. I am not trying to
be cute or tricky. Would it not be more appropriate to have the
committee review the names that are to be presented at the
nomination stage? Then the names go to the PMO and the PMO
would pluck from that group of names to make the process
useful.
If there has never been in history a single person turned down
for an order in council appointment, surely it is a sham. Should it
not be nomination, review; appointment, no need to review.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief comment. I
believe it is an insult to the integrity of the Canadian people. If
their names are put forward at any level of government, they
should participate in the democracy of the country.
It has been in our interest throughout the history of this
government to listen to those names.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to
address this bill.
I was looking at my notes and I realize they were written last
October. We do not work very fast. I will try to refresh my
memory as I speak from my notes.
I will outline the concerns I have with this bill and how I see it
affecting farmers in my region. When I am talking to farmers
and tell them the fines will be $100,000 to $250,000 for
non-compliance, they throw up their hands and say: ``Hey,
we've never had money like that. How are we ever supposed to
pay a fine?'' I always reassure them. ``Look at the positive side
because you haven't had to pay the fine. At the speed this
government works the Canadians dollar will probably be worth
less than a Mexican peso, so it won't amount to too much''. That
reassures them things are not going to go too fast.
For instance, if the fine exceeds $2,000, the person named in
the notice of violation can request a compliance agreement. The
minister may request a security payment as a guarantee that the
person will comply with the agreement. It will be returned when
the minister deems the person has satisfactorily complied with
the agreement.
It really does not matter whether the violator feels he has
complied. The minister will make the decision. That worries me
somewhat.
If the minister subsequently decides the person who has
entered into the compliance agreement has not complied with
the agreement, the minister can impose a penalty of twice the
original amount and can retain any security given by the person
who is deemed to be in violation. That is a very powerful tool. I
cannot see how that can be accomplished in this bill or why it
should be unless there is an agreement between the violator and
the board that he did not comply.
The board of arbitration appointed by the minister and the
review tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council will settle
disputes between buyers and sellers. The tribunal hears reviews
of the minister's decision at the request of a person who has been
deemed to be in violation of the act. I think that is a good
procedure and could probably work, but I am very worried about
when compliance is deemed to have been carried out and when
not.
(1525 )
Bill C-61 greatly increases some of the fines for offences.
These should not be confused with violations which will be dealt
with through the agriculture monetary penalty contained in
various agriculture acts. For example, it amends the Feeds Act
to increase fines for an indictable offence from $1,000 to
$250,000. That seems to be a huge increase and I hope I never
have to pay one of these penalties because it would break me. It
is intended to discourage someone from committing a
contravention that would likely be pursued as an offence.
One of the main areas of contention seems to be the board of
arbitration and the review tribunals. Each of these bodies
currently consists of between three to five members but Bill
C-61 removes the limit to the number of board members. I feel
this is a very grave error. It should have a cap on it because it can
create another bureaucracy and could go to 20 or 30 members.
We know what the costs would be for operating a board or a
tribunal of that size. It also makes it very possible that we could
have some more political appointments for people with close
9541
political ties who are out of jobs. It would be a nice place to find
another job for them. I do not think we need that.
The selection process does nothing to dissuade the patronage
appointments. I believe that has been stressed this afternoon.
A great deal of power is given to the minister. He can decide
whether to pursue a contravention as a violation or as an offence
and has leeway in setting or reducing or increasing fines. There
is not much accountability built into this legislation.
It really worries me when I see this kind of power given to a
board or to a minister. The court system does not seem to be able
to deal with some of these matters in a very efficient manner and
it is a lengthy debate sometimes whether it is a violation that is
serious or whether it is a violation that is moderate or maybe just
a minor one.
Clause 23, which is an amendment we proposed, would at
least retain the violations to a 10-year period. I think it is of
major importance that this amendment be passed if this bill does
pass.
Clause 28 is an amendment to remove the ceiling on the
number of members on the board of arbitration. The amendment
would propose to retain this ceiling. I support the amendment
that there be a ceiling because we do not want another board or
another review tribunal with about 30 people who we find are
very expensive to maintain.
An amendment proposed that would disqualify a public
servant from being a member of the board of arbitration is a
must. When a public servant ruled on an arbitration or sat on a
tribunal board I would hesitate to go before a tribunal because
the violator has very poor chance of getting a fair hearing.
Illegal and undeclared importation of plant products, meat or
meat products is a serious concern because the introduction of
plant or animal diseases into Canada could cost millions of
dollars for control or elimination. We had a very good example
of what could happen when the Grandin issue come before the
courts or before the government. When Grandin wheat was
brought illegally into this country, for some reason the
Department of Agriculture overstepped its bounds and took
away the responsibility from excise and customs officers and
allowed it to continue. That was a very serious violation of what
the Customs Act should have been doing. It is an example that
shows us very vividly how a minister or a department with too
much power overrides issues and makes bad decisions.
The current process involves prosecution in courts of law and
has not been all that effective. There are limited alternatives in
the current system to enforce compliance with the law outside of
criminal prosecution which involves court costs and delays.
(1530 )
The bill proposes implementation of a ticketing procedure at
ports of entry into Canada in the hope of increasing efficiency
and effectiveness in dealing with this problem.
When the courts cannot address this issue effectively how will
a ticketing process by this act resolve the problem? Penalties
will be imposed, fines and offences under eight related acts.
This will be a tremendous burden for the minister or the
department to administer.
When I see under the Fertilizers Act a fine going from $500 to
$50,000 and for an indictable offence to $250,000, it scares me.
I am wondering who will be falling under the compliance act. It
cannot be farmers because it will break them. It will have to be
somebody with the multinationals or huge corporations who can
really be addressed through this act.
Overall streamlining of the regulatory process is a worthy
goal as it is reducing court costs and the associated regulatory
burden. But will this extra power of a minister be exercised
fairly? That is a concern I have about this act. If the minister, the
department or the tribunal favour large violators, multinationals
or large corporations as opposed to individuals, we are going to
be addressing a huge problem of unfairness and probably
discrimination.
It is only fair that we look at this act very seriously and
address some of the issues which have been pointed out today
concerning the setting up of a tribunal and also the arbitration
board.
Examples of contraventions likely to be treated as violations
include unsanitary facilities in a meat processing establishment.
This raises another issue which we talked somewhat of this
morning. Is it a provincial or a federal jurisdiction? We could
find that we have a dispute between this act and some of the
provincial regulatory processes or bodies. Mislabelling of
agriculture products is very simple. It is more or less a major
federal jurisdiction, but the other one could cause us some
problems.
Taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it and
thereby endangering the health of consumers and maybe the
health of certain industries is another grave concern. This is
becoming more and more of a concern when we see new
enterprises springing up in wildlife animal farming or bringing
in ostriches, emus or whatever specialty enterprise is
considered.
The main goal of compliance instead of punishment seems to
be agreeable. I would however warn that we do not make
compliance too easy because it can just become a matter of
paying an extra few dollars in fines and continuing with the
non-compliance.
9542
Transport Canada and employment and immigration use this
type of process. I do not think it has been very responsive to
some of the issues, especially if we look at the Western Grain
Transportation Act.
The powers granted to this minister are extensive. The
minister may make regulations, not just enforce them. When we
have an act where we can change regulations and the compliance
during the life of the act I think it becomes very suspect.
That decisions can be either designated as a violation or an
offence is another thing I am worried about. Whether it is a
minor, a serious or a very serious offence or non-compliance is
also given to the minister or the boards. These things seem to set
up a system with which we could have more problems than
solutions. I do not think that is what we want.
The minister is given the power to decide whether it is a
contravention or whether it should be treated as a violation. That
is totally wrong. We need a better guideline, a better system of
defining what is an offence or non-compliance.
(1535 )
I would warn this House very strongly that we do not want to
pass an act or regulations that will more or less give the
individual fewer powers or less of a chance to be heard than the
corporations or multinationals. We see that too much today
already.
The railways had a non-performance clause in the Western
Grain Transportation Act. It provided for monetary penalties.
That act has been in force for over 10 years. There has never
been a monetary penalty assessed to any railway for
non-compliance of the act.
This points out very strongly why we in this House should be
very cautious about passing this bill before we make some
definite amendments to it. It is almost as if we are trying to do
away with democracy and trying to enlist a sort of dictatorship.
I have said in my speeches in the House before that sometimes
when I look at the agriculture policies we are making it seems
that this Liberal government is lost in the dust. It cannot really
see what the results will be, how it will affect the farmers or the
producers.
It is better if we start clearing the dust, waving our hands
around a bit and saying that the individual producer is the one
who is going to be affected. Let us give him a break and let us see
that he stays healthy and productive. Otherwise we do not have
much of a chance in turning this country's monetary or financial
situation around.
I hope the hon. minister has listened this afternoon and knows
that the farmer is always dear to my heart. The farmers are the
ones who put me here and the ones I am going to speak up for.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in
support of Bill C-61, a bill to introduce an administrative
monetary penalty system, or AMPS as it is more commonly
know. This bill will provide a broader range of enforcement
options to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's inspection
officials by allowing them to levy monetary policies for
non-compliance with the regulations.
As it now stands a criminal prosecution is relied on too
heavily. It is often the only option available to inspectors with
the department's food production and inspection branch when
they are faced with a violation of this country's statutes
regarding food and animal health and safety.
By introducing AMPS, inspectors will have at their disposal a
range of monetary policies. They will not have to rely on seizure
and detention of a product and prosecution through the courts
with the attendant delays and costs to the taxpayers that
involves.
Technically, administrative monetary penalties are not fines
but I will use that word for simplicity. Initially, fines will range
from $50 to $6,000 depending on the seriousness of the
violation. This legislation will however give the department the
ability to impose fines of up to $15,000 for very serious
non-compliance to our regulations.
These fines or monetary penalties are not levied without any
recourse. Anyone who believes the fine is unjustified will be
able to make use of an appeal process. This process will include
a departmental review, a review by an independent tribunal and
if necessary will proceed to the Federal Court of Canada.
It should be noted that this initiative emphasizes obtaining
compliance by offenders and not simply punishment. AMPS
will allow the department to negotiate solutions to
non-compliance with the offending parties. Fines can be
reduced or waived if corrections, for example, processing
modifications, are made by the industry.
Immediate corrective action results in a better product,
improved health and safety, more effective enforcement and the
protection of Canada's reputation for high quality control
standards in relation to agri-food products. In today's highly
competitive market, there is no doubt we must do all we can to
enhance our reputation for quality and in fact deliver high
quality food to the world's consumers.
(1540 )
In order to ensure that the system operates as effectively as
possible and to avoid frivolous appeals, the government is
making available a fine reduction option. Offenders who pay
their fines without asking for a review will receive a 50 per cent
reduction in their penalty.
9543
Reviews cost money and this option is used by other
departments in other jurisdictions quite successfully. While this
may seem counterproductive to some, let me remind everyone
that the administrative monetary penalty system stresses
compliance and not punishment. The department does not see
this initiative as a money making venture. It will gladly reduce
or even waive a fine if the offender is willing to show
compliance with Canada's regulations.
While criminal prosecution will still be an option, AMPS will
lead to better compliance rates and more effective enforcement
action taken by the branch. The administrative monetary
penalties will enable greater enforcement of compliance among
importers, thereby helping to create a level playing field for the
domestic industry.
This move by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is
consistent with the initiatives being taken by other departments
and with the entire regulatory framework in Canada. Transport
Canada currently has an administrative monetary penalty
system. The one being proposed for this department builds
significantly on the transport model, and other departments are
considering the adoption of this system.
This system has been developed in conjunction with the
Department of Justice through the regulatory compliance
project. One of the goals of this project is to look at alternatives
to criminal prosecution of regulatory violations. In many cases
criminal prosecution is considered too severe as this course of
action can lead to a criminal record and even the possibility of
imprisonment. This is another step in our goal of
decriminalizing regulatory infractions.
Federal regulatory policies encourage the use of the least
coercive alternative models. AMPS will provide the department
and the food production and inspection branch with a less
coercive alternative.
It pleases me to note that this administrative monetary penalty
system not only has the support of a number of federal
departments, but it has the solid support of industry associations
as well. This latter support is, in my mind, the most important
since it is the industry and our farmers who have not only asked
for this but it is the industry that will have to work with it as
well.
During recent consultations industry associations
recommended the active enforcement of domestic standards to
imported products. This is because Canadian industry needs to
be able to compete on a level playing field if it is to remain
competitive in the global market.
It is important also for Canada to protect its international
reputation for high quality health and safety standards when it
comes to agriculture and agri-food products. The introduction
of AMPS was also one of the recommendations of the
department's regulatory review undertaken in 1992.
The goal of the federal approach to the regulatory system is to
create a regime that is not just cost effective but is flexible and
addresses the realities of doing business in a new way. The
government and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
require a system that is more cost effective and more
appropriate.
To my mind, the administrative monetary penalty system
meets all of these criteria. I must point out that the AMPS is also
used by the United States department of agriculture where it has
been shown to be very successful in increasing compliance. Our
system will allow us to harmonize our regulatory enforcement
with the United States and also with some of our trading partners
in Europe who also use this type of system.
Better regulatory compliance will help industry not just at
home but it will improve its global competitiveness as well.
Increased compliance will help ensure that Canadian export
products maintain their high reputation internationally. It will
do so by enabling the department to take effective action against
importers or domestic companies marketing products that do not
meet Canadian health, safety or quality standards.
(1545 )
Business will welcome clear rules that will help to increase
compliance and remove unfairness from the system. The
agricultural community will welcome any activity that
strengthens our enforcement at border points, increases equity
of enforcement between commodities and promotes the
marketability of Canadian products.
The system highlights the joint responsibility that
governments and industry share for ensuring compliance. By
consulting with industry the government has devised a system
that will benefit everyone. It will give government inspectors a
wider range of enforcement options when they are faced with
regulatory violation. It emphasises compliance, not
punishment, by permitting monetary penalties to be waived or
mitigated if the violator takes corrective actions to ensure future
compliance.
It will improve the competitiveness of industry at home by
applying consistent standards to both imported and domestic
products and abroad by helping to ensure Canada's protects its
high reputation internationally.
I commend our minister of agriculture who has done a terrific
job in identifying problems and going through extensive
consultation on this issue and many other issues. As is typical,
once this process is completed a very sensible, workable
solution comes out the other end. I thank and congratulate the
minister.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am particularly interested in one aspect of the proposed
legislation that deals with the tribunal. I gather it is a dispute
settling mechanism to clear any violations that may be made in
some sort of judicial setting.
9544
In the interest of natural justice there has to be some sort of
a fair procedure set up such as an unbiased adjudicator and the
opportunity for a hearing. Given the track record of the
quasi-judicial bodies that exist in the government today-and
I use the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board and
the parole board-can we consider them to be that of unbiased
adjudication when individuals who are appointed through the
process and orders in council reflect patronage, are friends of
ministers and friends of others who sit within the Liberal
government?
My concern and the reasons why I would be very hesitant
about supporting the bill are based on these particular points of
concern, and I refer to subsection 4.1(2):
A person is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Tribunal unless the
person is knowledgeable about or has experience related to agriculture or
agri-food and the Chairperson of the Tribunal and at least one other member of
the Tribunal must, in addition, be a barrister or advocate of at least ten years
standing at the bar of any province or a notary of at least ten years standing at the
Chambre des notaires du Quebéc.
In the appointment process for individuals sitting on this
board, how much of a guarantee will we have that we will not run
into the same problems as those of the Immigration and Refugee
Board or the parole board? They apparently had qualified people
on them, yet when it came to the actual decision making process
they differed vastly from the concerns of the public and the
decisions rendered were very questionable. That aspect dealing
with concerns has not been addressed in this piece of legislation.
(1550 )
I am not a lawyer but I know there are many on the other side
of the House who seem to relish the thought of putting together
legislation that only lawyers can understand. One thing of
concern to me deals with some process of natural justice, that is
that a fair procedure be introduced.
I am looking at some of the clauses in Bill C-61 wherein the
rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing. Again I ask
members on the government side why the rules of evidence
would not apply in any hearing if we are looking for a fair and
just procedure to solve or settle any of the concerns that may
come before it.
When I consider some of the concerns in this document and
look at the Immigration and Refugee Board I see that the process
is not driven by the concerns of Canadians through the minister
or through the member but rather by special interest groups that
may want the decision making process structured in their favour.
With all these issues, when we ask for quasi-judicial bodies
are we actually promoting something fair and unbiased that will
benefit society as a whole?
The minister of immigration and the Solicitor General have
been very evasive in dealing with the specifics. When situations
or complaints have arisen they stand back and make this
comment: ``No, I cannot interfere in the process because that
would be interfering with a quasi-judicial body and would be
outside the realm of my jurisdiction''.
My question to all members on the government side is: Should
not the minister be accountable for everything that goes on in his
department? Why should it be taken from him and passed on to a
quasi-judicial body to take the heat off himself? I do not agree
with some of these dispute settlement mechanisms.
I am particularly interested that they talk about the tribunal.
So often it divorces itself from the minister. It takes
accountability away from much of the decision making process
and takes responsibility and accountability away from the
minister. On that basis alone I could not support the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has asked a number of
questions in his intervention. It may be confusing for people
watching us, but the minister may respond to the questions
under the umbrella of asking a question or making a comment
himself.
I see the member for Cumberland-Colchester has risen first.
I will have to recognize her first and then the colleague to her
right.
(1555 )
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we discussed the bill in the House today, on
repeated occasions the hon. member referred to interference by
the minister: ``What protection does the bill give us that there
will not be interference?''
I would like to suggest that hon. members are talking out of
both sides of their mouths. On one question they want no
interference. On the next question the hon. member asks why the
minister does not take full responsibility and interfere. They
cannot have it both ways.
I have a question for the hon. member. There has been
reference to the parole board and the Solicitor General
repeatedly today. How many times has the hon. member heard of
interference by the Solicitor General of Canada in the parole
board?
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, if the parole board or some other
quasi-judicial body makes a serious blunder I would hope
somebody would be held accountable and heads would roll.
However that does not happen.
The parole board has made terrible decisions in the past that
have jeopardized the lives and safety of Canadians. I am not
saying this quasi-judicial body will necessarily do that, but we
9545
must remember that we are talking about heavy fines being
levied against businesses. Someone somewhere should be held
accountable.
Under the quasi-judicial system the board makes the decision
and the minister stands back and says: ``No, I am not
accountable. They are responsible. They have been given the
sole authority''. Where does the buck stop? Is the board held
accountable? They are not elected officials. I am saying that the
minister or the criminal courts where often these matters are
resolved should be the bottom line.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast as well, in
particular when he started talking about subsections 14(1) and
14(2) and the credible people who would sit on the tribunal. I
listened to the hon. member across the room say many times that
he would like to see credible people on the parole board. I have
to agree with him; I would like to see that too.
However, what could be more credible than a person on this
tribunal with extensive agricultural background and legal
background? Maybe the hon. member could tell me who would
be more credible than that.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the track record of
both the parole board and the Immigration and Refugee Board.
They are people who have been placed within the system and
supposedly have qualified backgrounds.
Yet, what is happening? They are friends of ministers. They
are friends of the Liberal Party. Prior they were friends of the
Conservative Party. In some instances they were unqualified but
were placed on that board. What is to prevent that from
happening with this particular board by order in council
appointments? Nothing.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the comments made in the
course of the debate today I take it there is recognition, given the
process being established by the legislation, that there needs to
be as a part of the process a tribunal to adjudicate upon disputes
and alleged offences.
The whole purpose of establishing such a tribunal as a
quasi-judicial body is to remove the adjudicative procedure
from my office, which is a political office, and to put it in the
hands of a body, an organization or a tribunal that can be at arm's
length and not influenced by the day to day flow of political
events. The whole reason for having a quasi-judicial tribunal
assume that responsibility is to separate responsibility from any
kind of appearance of political interference. I would think my
hon. friends in the Reform Party would agree there ought to be
that arm's length relationship and in fact that the functioning of
this kind of tribunal should not be subject to day to day political
considerations.
(1600 )
Finally, I would point out, as my friend from Prince Albert did
earlier today, if there is a concern about a decision rendered by
the adjudicative tribunal, it can in fact be appealed to the Federal
Court of Canada.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his clear
explanation. It is not unlike, as I suspected, the quasi-judicial
Immigration and Refugee Board which is fraught with all kinds
of problems and a minister who is reluctant to step in when he
should and steps in when he should not. The Federal Court,
already backlogged when it sits with immigration cases, will
now undoubtedly be backlogged even further with agricultural
problems.
I suggest that the agricultural tribunal as proposed is going to
be just as flawed as the Immigration and Refugee Board and the
parole board.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the time is up unless there
is a unanimous desire to continue. I take it there is not.
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 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. I
declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Western Grain
Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and in
particular on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport, I
am pleased to open debate on Bill C-66, an act to make certain
short term amendments to the Western Grain Transportation
Act, commonly known as the WGTA.
This bill deals with three specific changes to the current
legislation. Two amendments address problems in the move-
9546
ment of grain to port for export. The third removes the WGTA
subsidy on shipments of wheat to Mexico and is intended to
facilitate our continued access to a very important market for
Canada in Latin America.
At the outset I should note that the amendments in Bill C-66
are no substitute and are not intended to be a substitute for the
major reforms of the grain handling and transportation system
which will be brought before this House later on in this session.
Rather, this bill fulfils a commitment that the government has
made to farm leaders and to the grains industry that we would
deal with certain particular issues that have caused significant
delays and other problems in Canada's grain transportation
system, especially over the course of the last year or so.
Because it is essential procedurally that these amendments
are in place before the beginning of the 1995-96 crop year in
western Canada which begins on August 1, the government
tabled the legislation which is now before us in December. We
are urging its quick passage through the House so that the
legislation can be in effect in time for the beginning of the next
crop year.
(1605 )
On the broader reform issues, we will be moving forward with
them just as soon as possible after the upcoming federal budget.
One of the specific changes in Bill C-66 will end the practice
of backhauling, that is the so-called scenic route backhaul
subsidy on U.S. bound grain which has been moving from the
prairies to Thunder Bay and then back to either Fort Frances or
Winnipeg before finally heading south toward its final
destination.
This practice has arisen because the existing transportation
subsidy in fact makes it cheaper for shippers to move their grain
to Thunder Bay at subsdized rates before moving it to
destinations in the United States at commercial rates, rather than
moving it directly at commercial rates for the whole distance.
Using Winnipeg as a reference point, backtracking or
backhauling increases the length of hauling grain by about 450
miles in the case of Canadian National Railways and about 860
miles in the case of Canadian Pacific railway. Obviously this
practice is inefficient and has led to longer car cycle times and
much less effective use of the grain car fleet. The WGTA was
never intended to foster this kind of backhaul situation and
everyone agrees that it must be terminated.
With the passage of Bill C-66 the amendment to end
subsidized backhauling would take effect no later than August 1,
1995, that is, the beginning of the next crop year. It could be
brought into force earlier by order of the governor in council if
there is a consensus in the grains industry that an earlier
implementation date would be desirable.
I must point out that the opinion of virtually all of the players
in the industry I have spoken to with some exceptions is that the
most convenient and expeditious date for the implementation of
the change would be coincident with the beginning of the new
crop year on August 1.
Another change included in Bill C-66 will implement a
system of demurrage and storage charges on railcars carrying
grain, other crops and products under the WGTA when they are
in fact misused by shippers for storage purposes. This will be
coupled with a despatch system to encourage the expeditious use
of cars.
Demurrage refers to charges that are levied when a shipper
does not load or unload a railcar, a ship or a truck within the
specified free time at either the origin or the destination point of
the railcar. Car storage is similar to demurrage but refers to
excessive time that a car spends on railway property before
being positioned for unloading. Despatch refers to benefits that
a shipper can earn by loading or unloading a car in less time than
that which is considered normal or reasonable in the
circumstances.
Under this bill the railways would be able to implement
demurrage and car storage charges for delays in loading and
unloading. This measure would encourage faster turnaround in
the use of railcars. This is obviously important in our grain
transportation system which is stretched to the limit with no cars
to spare.
This amendment would also come into force for the beginning
of the next crop year, no later that August 1, 1995. Or again, it
could be implemented earlier by an order in council.
On the flip side of the storage, demurrage and despatch for the
use of railcars equation, we have to focus upon the issue of
railway performance. The WGTA already provides for sanctions
to be applied against the railways if they fall short in their
obligations in grain transportation. That provision has been in
the WGTA since the act was first enacted about 10 years ago.
Therefore it is not necessary for us to amend the legislation to
put in the law the provisions with respect to sanctions having to
do with railway performance.
What has been missing in terms of enforcement of any such
sanctions is a precise government regulation to give practical
effect to what is already in the WGTA about railway
performance. I am pleased to inform the House that the
necessary research and analytical work has been done. The
drafting work has been done pertaining to such a regulation.
Such a regulation could be brought forward very quickly if one
is needed in respect of railway performance. I mention this point
just for the sake of balance.
(1610 )
If there are to be demurrage charges and storage charges in the
system of despatch applying to the shippers in order to ensure
that they conduct themselves properly in terms of the use of
railcars and other aspects of the grain handling and transporta-
9547
tion system, we must also point out there needs to be a
corresponding system affecting the activities of the railways.
Should a regulation be required, it will be brought forward
quickly.
The two proposed amendments in Bill C-66 to which I have
referred aimed at reducing inefficiencies in the grain
transportation system have very widespread support from
industry. They are a direct result of industry-government
collaboration and consultations over the last number of months,
a period which began in May 1994.
During the first half of 1993, all of the best brains in the grains
industry in Canada were looking forward to the 1993-94 crop
year as what everybody expected would be a fairly normal grain
shipping season. Then it started to rain in the Mississippi valley.
The colossal flooding that resulted was the worst in 300 years. It
caused the United States to use up all available railway rolling
stock, including that which would otherwise have been available
for leasing, as was the normal practice, into Canada.
In addition to that shortage of railcars, our harvest in the
1993-94 crop year was complicated by very poor quality. Added
to that was a severe winter which limited unloading at country
elevators and slowed movement through the system. The winter
season through the Rockies was particularly difficult.
The port of Vancouver was tied up for a short while in an
industrial dispute and we were stuck with one big transportation
backlog. At one point there was a backlog of 41 vessels on the
west coast waiting for grain. This situation cost Canadian
producers about $35 million in ship demurrage charges imposed
by the ship operators who were waiting in the harbour.
These factors along with others led many of our grains and
oilseeds customers overseas to question Canada's reputation as
a reliable supplier in the marketplace. In China, Japan and Korea
last spring I heard those complaints firsthand. Our customers
were not happy.
To avoid any finger pointing, buck passing or stalling, I called
all the major operational players in the system together for a
face to face meeting. It was held on May 16 in Winnipeg. They
were to work out practical solutions to alleviate the immediate
backlog problem and to prevent, as much as humanly possible,
that situation from happening again.
The issues were also studied by subcommittees of the House
of Commons standing committees on transport and agriculture
and agri-food. Joint hearings were held in the spring of 1994.
Again I want to commend those subcommittees for their very
good work and for the production of a useful report.
I discussed the report in detail with all the private sector
players involved in our grain handling and transportation
system at the meeting in Winnipeg on May 16 and thereafter. I
am pleased to say that not quite all but virtually all of the
recommendations that came forward from those subcommittees
have now been implemented.
The amendments before the House today have the support of
the group of industry and labour leaders who are now referred to
as the May 16 group. I hope they also have the support of the
House committees that studied these issues last year.
At my invitation, the May 16 group of farm and industry
leaders continued to meet about every two months or so through
1994. They were to deal with the immediate issues of getting our
grains and oilseeds to port and to do a little brainstorming about
the future direction of the grains and oilseeds industry in
Canada.
(1615 )
At one of the meetings of that May 16 group held in October
there was general agreement that the two amendments I have
mentioned so far in my remarks today should be in place for the
1995-96 crop year. This would allow time for grain marketers
and shippers to adjust sales and supply programs accordingly
and to get used to the changes that are coming.
In a perfect world I would have preferred an earlier
implementation date. However, it was broadly agreed that
implementation of these two amendments part way through a
crop year would add to congestion problems and thus aggravate
the very kind of situation we were trying to solve. Therefore, we
have selected August 1, 1995 as the implementation date unless
there is a prior consensus in the grains industry that we could
move more quickly than that.
Today we are more than half way through delivery of the
1994-95 crop. I am happy to report that we have made very
steady progress in dealing with our grain handling and
transportation situation. We caught up on that 1994 backlog
during the summer. So far in this crop year the situation has
improved.
I remember in the late winter and early spring of 1994 reading
the newspaper stories and seeing the clippings of the situation
that was developing in terms of that backlog at the west coast.
The clippings were not very positive. Today we see newspaper
stories from the Regina Leader-Post on February 2 talking
about how the grain trains are rolling.
Another story on February 2 in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
``Grain cars are hopping''. This is a much more positive
scenario in the winter heading toward the spring of 1995 than we
saw a year ago.
As of the end of January, half way through the current crop
year, our grain transportation system has shipped some 16
9548
million tonnes of grain, with 10 million tonnes through the west
coast and 6 million tonnes through Thunder Bay. In the
movement going both east and west our performance this year is
43 per cent better than at the midway point in the previous crop
year.
Even more important, our grain handling and transportation
performance to date in 1994-95 is also 20 per cent better than
the long term five-year average. So far, so good. However, we
are by no means out of the woods yet. We have half of the crop
year yet to go. No one can take anything for granted or rest on
any laurels. For the balance of this year we are going to need full
co-operation and flat out top performance from all of the
players in the system to get the necessary volume of grain
through our ports and into export position.
Bill C-66 also proposes to eliminate the WGTA subsidy on
wheat shipments to Mexico. This is obviously a separate issue
from the other two I have been discussing so far this afternoon.
Last April the Mexican government, concerned that
subsidized wheat imports from both the United States and
Canada were having an adverse effect on its domestic market,
launched a countervailing duty investigation. Canada
participated in the Mexican government's investigation in order
to ensure that all of the relevant facts were brought forward.
For example, we wanted to ensure that our Mexican friends
and customers were fully aware of the fundamental differences
between Canadian programs and policies like the WGTA and the
far more insidious and damaging American trade distortions
caused by things like the U.S. export enhancement program.
Our move now in Bill C-66 is to eliminate the WGTA subsidy
on wheat movements to Mexico. It is intended to help resolve
this outstanding countervailing duty investigation in Mexico as
far as Canada is concerned and help ensure continued access to
that very important market for Canadian farmers.
(1620 )
In the 1993-94 crop year Canada exported 909,000 tonnes of
wheat to Mexico. If a countervailing duty were imposed by
Mexico the potential cost to Canadian wheat exporters of losing
that market could be over $22 million a year. It is obviously very
important that we work hard to alleviate the Mexican concern.
It is very important to note, though, that this is not a case of
unilateral disarmament on the part of Canada. The United States
has voluntarily agreed to withdraw its use of its export
enhancement program on wheat exports to Mexico. In addition,
in order to safeguard the Canadian position we retain the option
of reinstating the WGTA subsidy by order in council if that
should be necessary and appropriate at some future date.
Payment of the subsidy would end whenever Bill C-66 is
proclaimed.
As I close, let me remake two points. First, the amendments
contained in Bill C-66 are short term measures flowing from the
circumstances experienced last year in the Canadian grain
handling and transportation system. They have broad support
from farm organizations and industry leaders. They are intended
to take effect at the beginning of the next crop year or earlier if
possible and reasonable. I hope the House will deal with them
promptly and positively.
However, the important but relatively minor changes
proposed in Bill C-66 will not be sufficient in themselves to fix
everything that ails our grain handling and transportation
system today. Broader reforms are necessary for four very
strong reasons.
First, we must deal with the harsh reality of fiscal limitations
and the battle against debt and deficits. Second, we must comply
with the requirements of the new GATT agreement with respect
to the disciplines that apply on trade distorting export subsidies.
Third, we need to unlock new grain handling and transportation
efficiencies, leading to a lower cost and faster system overall.
Fourth, we need to foster greater agricultural diversification and
a trend toward more value added processing and further
processing.
To accomplish these objectives and to lay the foundation for
the needed broader reforms, the Minister of Transport and I have
been conducting two sets of comprehensive consultations with
all of the players in the Canadian grain handling and
transportation system over the last number of months.
For my part I have been concentrating on the issue of how the
so-called Crow benefit under the WGTA can best be paid to
western farmers themselves rather than indirectly through the
railways.
For his part, the Minister of Transport has been focusing in his
consultations on a broad range of transportation efficiency
issues. In the next short while we will bring these two sets of
inputs together in one set of comprehensive and inter-related
grain transportation reforms. These will obviously go
substantially beyond the short term measures that are put
forward in Bill C-66.
While I am sure members will be anxious to debate Bill C-66
in great detail, I hope that will just whet their appetite for the
larger debate that is to come a few weeks down the road.
My second and last point is to express my thanks to all of the
farm leaders, farm organizations and grains industry
representatives that have been intensely involved over the past
several months in all of the various consultative processes I
have referred to today. They have been involved since May 16
last year in the work that has led up to Bill C-66. The group of
people who worked very hard at the May 16 meeting and in a
series of meetings since that original encounter deserve a lot of
credit for bridging their gaps and differences and working
9549
constructively together to arrive at practical solutions to keep
the grain moving and never mind the fights over turf.
(1625 )
The process that will lead to the broader reforms with respect
to the WGTA that I just referred to has also been a process in
which consultation has been extremely important. In that
process with respect to the broader reforms very close to 100
different individuals, groups, organizations, private firms and
levels of government have been involved in the consultative
effort. They have worked very hard and very conscientiously to
bring forward the best possible advice to address what all of us
in this House know are some very thorny issues in terms of
western transportation policy.
To all of those who have participated in this consultative
process in the House of Commons committees that were
involved, in the May 16 group as it evolved over the course of
1994 and most recently those who have been involved in the
broader consultations about the future of the WGTA, on my own
behalf and I am sure on behalf of the Minister of Transport and
the government I want them to know that their efforts are very
much appreciated.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the official opposition
regarding Bill C-66. This bill to amend the Western Grain
Transportation Act, Bill C-66, has two main objectives.
The first is to implement measures to make rail shipments
under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA, more
efficient, in order to avoid the grain transport problems that a
lack of railway cars caused last year. The problem was, in fact,
that the railway cars were being rotated too slowly. The second
is to eliminate subsidies on wheat movements to Mexico, which
is on the brink of taking retaliatory measures against Canada.
I doubt that Canada will meet these objectives. First of all, the
bill's scope is too limited and it is far from certain that it will be
sufficient to prevent a situation such as that which arose last
year regarding the lack of railway cars. We must also ask
ourselves why the federal government has tabled this bill
containing urgent measures. Does the government intend, in the
near future, to table a much more substantial bill to substantially
amend the WGTA? The draft bill on major reforms to the WGTA
has been around for more than a year.
The WGTA has had a destabilizing and unhealthy effect on
rail transport. Its effect has been to considerably distort the rail
market. Take for example the subsidy of over $550 million that
rail carriers receive for shipping western grain. This subsidy
was distributed among all the rail carriers in addition to the very
profitable network in the west, while a large part of the
secondary network is in the east, and remains in a deficit
position. It is understandable, under such conditions, that
pressure by rail carriers to rationalize their network is strongest
in the east.
In addition, the government considers preserving the rail
network used to transport western grain an issue of national
interest. In fact, the federal government has imposed a
moratorium on abandonment of railway lines used to transport
western grain. Many of these lines are nevertheless under-used
and the western rail network has never really been rationalized.
From the viewpoint of privatizing CN, and given the
mounting competitive pressures on the Canadian rail network, it
is imperative and urgent that such a rationalization take place. It
must, however, be carried out on the entire network of both
national carriers.
Rationalizing the eastern network would only undermine the
competitiveness of western carriers which would be stuck with
an inefficient network. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has
proposed a motion to lift the moratorium on the abandonment of
western rail lines. Perhaps I may repeat it here.
(1630)
To allow for fair and effective restructuring of the Canadian
railway system and to ensure that our national railway carriers
will be competitive in the future, the House urges the
government to proceed with the following:
Cancel the order in council concerning the moratorium on
abandonment of railway lines used for grain transportation in
western Canada.
Revise the Western Grain Transportation Act and procedures
for allocating grain transportation subsidies, so as to avoid
distortion on the railway transportation market. It is the opinion
of this House that allowing the railway transportation sector to
operate on a more commercial basis would be beneficial for
Canada.
Ensure that the criteria used by the National Transportation
Agency to determine the merits of applications by railway
companies to abandon railway lines are applied uniformly
across Canada and to the entire railway network.
We make this request because the criteria used by the federal
government to allow the abandonment of railway lines are
extremely narrow and show a lack of vision with respect to
transportation.
This government takes a dollars and cents approach to a sector
that is crucial to economic development, especially in the
regions. For instance, when reviewing applications for
abandonment, it fails to consider the economic impact of
operating a railway line. It is only concerned about the
commercial viability of the line for the carrier. It is clear that
negative economic impact of the abandonment of certain lines in
Canada has been
9550
more significant than the operating losses incurred by the
carriers.
We realize that the railway network of Canada's two major
railway carriers must be restructured if they are to be viable
once again and able to compete with other carriers. Unless our
railway carriers increase their productivity, they will not have
the resources to update equipment and maintain a first class
network.
However, the railways are vital to the national interest, and
the government cannot afford to dismantle certain lines if it
means losing major economic spin-offs. It is essential that the
government take into account all possible economic
repercussions when considering the application to abandon a
railway line. Unfortunately, the financial vision of the federal
government and its Department of Transport is simply too
short-sighted to provide us with a modern and efficient
intermodal transport system.
A sovereign Quebec would be better able to establish an
effective intermodal transport policy reflecting the real needs of
its people, as it would have control over all modes of transport.
In particular, it would be in a better position to understand
regional transport problems. We have no objection to the federal
government withdrawing from the transport sector but it should
do so completely by transferring regulatory powers and without
destroying existing facilities simply because of financial
considerations.
Let us take the example of the
Chibougamau-Chapais-Chambord line in the Lac-Saint-Jean
region. Many thousands of jobs are at stake in the softwood
lumber, mineral, newsprint, pulp and precision cutting sectors.
Eliminating train service, with or without transfer to a railhead
in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, would have dramatic
repercussions for 10 out of 15 businesses without a transfer and
would affect profitability and result in eventual closure for 12 of
them with or without a transfer.
In Abitibi, diverting all rail traffic to the road system would
generate additional revenues of $830,000 the first year for the
Quebec government, while the federal government's tax
revenues would go down by $510,000 a year over the same
period. On the other hand, increased road use in the Abitibi
region would cost at least an extra $4.8 million a year.
(1635)
As we can see, a traffic shift from rail to road would result in
major cost increases especially since the local road system is in
pitiful shape.
In spite of Transport Canada's efforts, roads, the bearing
capacity of which is not even known, continue to wear down.
Increased road traffic would not only make the road surface
grind away faster, but it could jeopardize the road base in a very
short time.
The government will indeed have to look at several issues in
developing the future national rail transportation policy that
Transport Canada had promised for this year. Unfortunately,
nothing in the bill before us today addresses these substantive
issues.
All this bill does is eliminate backtracking from Thunder Bay
and impose storage charges on cars used for in-transit grain
storage.
Bill C-66 makes only minor changes to the Western Grain
Transportation Act, changes that will only marginally improve
rail transportation in Western Canada.
Eliminating this practice of backtracking, where it was often
most cost-effective for the shipper to ship Prairie grain to
Thunder Bay and have it backtrack as far west as Winnipeg than
shipping it directly to the United States at commercial rates, will
save an estimated $4 million.
This amount, released by the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, will be used, however, to reduce average freight
rates, that is to say the price paid by producers to ship wheat and
barley.
No cuts will be made before the budget is tabled. The
government is careful not to make any major or significant
changes, changes which are nonetheless essential if we want to
have an efficient transportation system.
The government is motivated by fear, the fear of a debate on
the principle behind this issue. It is not only deplorable but also
worrisome that the government not attempt to rectify a situation
that could have a major negative impact on the Canadian
transportation network and the Canadian economy. That is why
we have presented a motion to force the Liberal government to
act as soon as possible on this.
Over a year ago, on January 24, 1994, the Grain
Transportation Agency made recommendations to expedite the
streamlining of sidings. The information I am providing you
comes from these recommendations.
First of all, regarding the Crow rate, the report suggests
paying the subsidy to western grain producers and not to the
railway companies, a position that is garnering increasing
support. However, this is a form of assistance to western
economic diversification that would be acceptable if the
transition period is a reasonable one-the report mentions four
years-and if after the transition period, the subsidy is
transferred to an income support account to which all Canadian
and Quebec producers would have access. That is, in fact, the
position taken by the Quebec coalition on western grain
transportation.
To speed up the restructuring process, the agency suggests
expanding the definition of class 1 lines-those that can take
loads of up to 220,000 pounds or whose shipments are not in
excess of 500 tonnes of grain per mile, with the restriction that
this would apply only to lines from where grain shipments
9551
originate. This would exclude the CN line linking the Port of
Churchill to the network. However, the agency recommends that
the government assess the future of the silo in Churchill and its
role with respect to grain exports. At the present time, class 1
lines extend over nearly 1,000 miles or 17 per cent of the 6,060
miles of grain branch lines, and carry 4 per cent of the total
shipments.
(1640)
Second, the report suggests allowing the inclusion in class 1
of lines judged to be no longer viable, where the cost of
maintenance or renovation would be prohibitive. Assessments
would be done by independent inspectors. Third, the report
suggests immediately eliminating protection orders concerning
unused lines, which may or may not be grain transportation
branch lines. Fourth, it suggests setting the time limit for
evaluating applications for operating alternative services at
thirty days from the date of receipt of the application.
Many other recommendations could have been added to this
bill which, I repeat, only deals with the most important issues.
Let us turn now to the second main objective of Bill C-66, the
elimination of subsidies for Canadian wheat exports to Mexico.
The government is taking this step because the Mexican
government is preparing to impose countervailing duties on
Canadian exports.
We know that the United States has not used its subsidy
program-the Export Enhancement Program-for exports to
Mexico since March 1994. Mexico is now asking Canada to
follow suit. Yet American subsidies exist in other forms. Such
subsidies may not be known as direct export subsidies, but they
nevertheless give rise to unfair competition with Canadian
exports.
I would like to know why this aspect is so strikingly absent
from the bill to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has provided the following
explanation in a background paper: ``An investigation of
countervailing duties applicable to Canadian and American
wheat exports has changed wheat exports to Mexico. The United
States has eliminated sums paid under the Export Enhancement
Program for wheat exported to the United States, and Canada
has proposed to refrain from applying subsidized rates in
accordance with the Western Grain Transportation Act for wheat
exported to Mexico.
Eliminating the subsidies applicable for wheat exported to
Mexico will help achieve compliance with the maximum
volumes stipulated in the GATT provision on subsidies and
exports, for the category of wheat and wheat flour. This will
allow us, the department asserts, to meet the goals of the North
American Free Trade Agreement in respect of the gradual
elimination of export subsidies by member countries. By
changing its exports to Mexico, Canada will ensure continued
access to this important market''.
I would die laughing if I were American and, indeed,
Americans often die laughing at our expense. In 1994, the
United States imposed a ceiling on Canadian wheat exports.
This measure was intended to control Canadian exports which
had reached record highs. The Bloc Quebecois denounced this
measure, given that Canada was not guilty of anything in the
matter of the wheat, since it had dropped the export subsidy for
grain destined for the United States. The Canadian government
agreed to the ceiling set by the United States, deeming it an
acceptable compromise and less expensive for grain producers
than the American countervailing duties.
Since then, a study group has been set up to look at the
question and to evaluate domestic subsidies in Canada and the
United States. The results of the study will, I hope, mean a return
to fairer trading rules. However, we do not believe that Canada
is equal to the task in these bilateral negotiations with the United
States on agricultural trade. Canada bows and scrapes, even
when it has an airtight case. As we can see, this defeatist attitude
is now having disastrous results for our trade with Mexico.
(1645)
We are concerned about western grain producers who now
will have to compete directly with American wheat exports to
Mexico, knowing full well that they are receiving assistance
from within. The Canadian government should have included
this point in its discussions with Mexico. No, instead, Canada
keeps quiet, says nothing and drops its export subsidy without
hesitation.
Furthermore, I read with my own eyes that the bill would
allow the Canadian government to reinstate, if necessary, the
subsidy on exports to Mexico. Public servants specified that it
would be possible to do that if, for example, the United States
decided to reinstate its export enhancement subsidies on
shipments to Mexico. This logic is surprising: Can we be sure
that Mexico will resort to ``fair'' countervailing duties, both
against Canada and against the United States? Have there been
negotiations on this issue?
I invite the government to table as quickly as possible its more
substantial bill, since one does exist-correct me if I am wrong.
I find it hard to believe that the government hatched Bill C-66,
which has a very limited scope, whereas a draft bill on a major
reform of the WGTA has been around for a year.
It is true that the government, which is getting a lot of
pressure from the west, the east and various interest groups
affected by the WGTA, is in a difficult political situation, but is
that a reason for tabling a bill that falls far short of remedying
the situation? Is that a reason for giving in to the United States
9552
and Mexico? That, nevertheless, will be the outcome of Bill
C-66.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was kind of blind-sided here today. I did not realize
Bill C-66 was coming up for debate so I have been-
Mr. Goodale: I hope you will do better than the last one.
Mr. Hoeppner: I will sure throw some junk at you if nothing
else, hon. minister. I will take some time.
The Deputy Speaker: During this session of Parliament all
the Speakers have been asked to make doubly certain that
members put their comments through the Chair only, not
because we are not going to sleep if you do not but it is because
we are trying to avoid exchanges and tempers getting aroused
across the floor. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member and all
hon. members to please put their remarks through the Chair. If
they are going to say the word ``you'' they must be referring to
whoever is in the chair.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, through you I will say to the
minister that I will probably throw some junk, some garbage or
maybe dockage, whatever you call it in the farm industry,
because I was really surprised at some of the comments that I
heard here today when I see how well we have done in this
transportation system with this backtracking issue.
I would like to read what Mr. Ted Allen said to the standing
committee on agriculture on our grain handling system on
November 29, 1994: ``We measure performance in this country
against our transportation constraints. We say how much better
we are doing because we had an abysmal year, so we do quite a
bit better than in a really poor year. We never measure our
performance against what the opportunity was and how close to
maximizing the opportunity we came, which every other
marketer I know of does''.
Why have we not taken the opportunities when the
subcommittee on transportation a year ago said to stop the
backtracking, it is costing us millions and millions of dollars?
Every member on that subcommittee said now. Every member
on the agriculture committee said now. This is a violation of the
Western Grain Transportation Act. This was a loophole that the
grain companies and the railways found. We could not stop it.
(1650)
It has cost us $15 million since last July 31 for this
backtracking. Not only the backtracking has been the cost but
the car allocation. We have failed to meet commitments again
and again.
I will read another comment that Mr. Allen made. This was
last year in November: ``Yesterday I was talking to an elevator
manager from Hargrave, Manitoba, who happened to be in my
office. He was telling me that he has 25 orders for cars that he
was supposed to have received a long time ago. The other day he
finally got three of them''. That is performance. I cannot
imagine how much better we can get if that is the way we are
running our railway system.
When I looked at the log book today from Vancouver for last
October, November and December and saw that a ship sat there
for 27 days waiting for grain to be loaded, I think we have room
for improvement. It does not seem to me that if we made 40 per
cent improvement in the last six, seven or eight months why
these ships are waiting that long. We want to congratulate each
other when we do make improvements but let us not overdo it.
We could become very complacent in this House.
The other thing I would like to address is the Mexican issue. I
was not aware that there was a trade action against us until we
were briefed by the agriculture people the other day on Bill
C-66.
I asked why we are stopping backtracking to Mexico. Are we
shipping grain to Mexico? I thought this was a backtracking bill.
They said: ``There could be a few loads going in that direction.
We will have to find out. We do not know''. That is how
knowledgeable the people were who briefed us on this.
After a few phone calls I finally found out that Mexico had a
trade sanction against us for shipping subsidized wheat to it; not
just to us, also to the Americans.
If the members will read the Canada-U.S. free trade
agreement they will start to realize that the Americans promised
not to dump EEP wheat into our markets, of which Mexico is
one. That is where the problem started. That is why there was a
trade sanction against us.
If this government is trying to tell us that Mexico can take
action against us with a trade sanction, I want to ask under what
kind of clout or under what kind of conditions it can do that.
Mexico has a trade surplus of almost $3 billion with Canada.
Where in the heavens can a trading partner tell me that I am not
trading fairly when I import four times as much as it takes from
us?
Statistics Canada says that out of a $37 billion trade surplus
that we have with the U.S. we dwindle that down by $20 billion
with other countries like Australia and New Zealand which
bring in boneless beef by the thousands of pounds. Our farmers
are going bankrupt.
Is this the way our government is trading? Is this how we get
trade actions against us? It sure seems like good business to me.
No wonder we are going bankrupt.
The trade surplus it has with us is $2.77 billion in total
products. It could be other than agriculture. These are Statistics
Canada figures that I am using. If they are not correct maybe we
can get rid of Statistics Canada.
9553
It is time Reform starts throwing a few of these figures
around. When I see Australia with a trade surplus of $181
million wanting to bring in more boneless beef, and I see New
Zealand with a $126 million trade surplus wanting to bring in
more beef, where do we finally go with our beef? Where do we
finally get the jobs that we were promised in that nice little red
book? We have to start milling our wheat, we have to start
milling our pasta, we have to start doing something.
(1655)
As a farmer I know that if I continually buy more than I sell I
am going to have a big problem. This is what has happened to
this country. It is not just interest rates. If we take $20 billion
trade deficits and borrow that at 8 per cent, just figure that out.
Mr. Goodale: We have a trade surplus, what is the problem?
Mr. Hoeppner: With Mexico? I would like to see it. We have
a trade deficit. Mexico has its trade surplus. I am afraid that the
Liberals are completely lost in the dust and they have even lost
the field. They are somewhere in the neighbour's. When they
cannot take Statistics Canada figures and read them that shows
what is happening. Something is wrong.
I will give the hon. minister a minute to look at that and see
whether my eyes are that bad or whether I am that old that I
cannot see what a surplus or a deficit is. While he is looking at
that, I would like to talk about another item, the Churchill issue.
This is what Mr. Allen said about a boatload of grain to
Mexico. Tell me whether we are giving it a bad deal or not. We
had a 25-tonne vessel going to Mexico in November 1994. The
Mexicans bought number three red wheat. We loaded 9,000
tonnes of number one red, 5,000 tonnes of number two red and
the balance, which was less than half the cargo, was number
three red which they bought. I would sure like to throw a trade
action against the partner that gives me number one wheat
instead of number three.
Where does the trading sense of this government come in? It
amazes me that these things go on and we sit idly and say
everything is good in this country, we are only $540 billion in
debt, so why not a few hundred billion more?
I look at Bill C-66 and look at three little clauses that took a
lawyer a whole year to draw up, that has cost us $50 billion in
backtracking costs, delayed cars for I do not know how many
days. We are behind in canola shipments months and we are still
doing a great job? Why do we not pat each other on the back?
I went up to Churchill last July. I wanted to see how efficiently
the agriculture department was running everything. I was there
the last day in July. There was a ship coming in that wanted to
load 40,000 tonnes of grain and there were 4,000 tonnes in that
whole terminal, five million bushels. That is performance?
We have ships sitting for three weeks waiting to pick up grain
out of Churchill, of all places, where nobody wants to buy grain
from. That is performance and I am supposed to be quiet here
and sit silently by and let these things go on and pat hon.
members across the way on the back?
I am sorry, hon. members, I was elected to start things moving
in this House. I hope I can accomplish that. I hear giggles and I
hear screams. They must be listening so I must be
accomplishing something. We will have to paint these ships a
faded red so that they will start getting a little more action into
their process and loaded a little faster.
(1700)
I went over to Robert's Bank when I was in Vancouver and I
saw a 150,000 tonne coal ship loaded within a day. Then I saw
what the consequences were. That company paid the terminal
$5,000 to load that ship within the three-day limit. We wait 27
days to load a ship with grain. We have a tremendous system
going for us. I cannot comprehend the amount of stress,
disappointment and disillusionment in the farm community with
this kind of system.
For 10 years now the WGTA has held the railway system and
the grain companies hostage so that the system cannot be
revamped. The Minister of Transport said the United States
railway system is 64 per cent more efficient as far as labour is
concerned. Are we doing a tremendous job in Canada? When are
we going to face the facts? When are we going to take charge of
these problems and do something?
Mr. Goodale: What about the freight rates?
Mr. Hoeppner: I do not know what the freight rate is. But I
can tell the member what the handling charges are. If I ship a
bushel of grain from my point to Seattle, compared to my point
to Vancouver I will save $16.50 per tonne. If 20 million tonnes
are shipped out of Canada that is $320 million that came out of
the pockets of farmers, just in the elevator system. That is
without the transportation system.
Someone tell me why farmers need subsidies. It is because
somebody is pulling it out of their pocket faster than they can
put it back in. That is not going to last forever.
An hon. member: Be careful. They will ask for examples.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read another
statement by Mr. Hehn, chief commissioner of the wheat board.
When I asked him about the backtracking he said: ``It is not a
wheat board issue''. The chairman of the agriculture committee
said: ``Thank you''. Mr. Hehn replied: ``Our job is to maximize
returns for farmers and if the backtracking option is there, we
9554
are going to use it''. He does not care a hoot how long it ties up
cars or how inefficient it makes the system as long as he can
move a bushel of wheat that is worth $3. Forget about the canola
that is worth $8, $9 or $10. That is efficiency. That is the kind of
efficiency this Liberal government is promoting.
It is time for somebody to take the bull by the horns and do
something. There is a lot of bull on that side. We hear a lot of it.
We are not short of that.
Mr. Silye: The backbenchers are getting restless, Jake.
Mr. Hoeppner: Maybe it is time they got restless. Maybe it is
time for them to get a few ants in their pants and start moving on
some of these issues. When I hear that it takes a whole year to
draw up a bill like this, I have a feeling we will be all dead before
it is implemented.
Maybe I have said enough. I do not want to wake the hon.
members up too much because they might not be able to sleep
very well tonight. We would like to see them back here
tomorrow morning and go at them again.
It is real pleasure to address these people. We know they try
their best. There is not much they can accomplish in a year so we
will give them another year or two.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very
important issue, the amendment to the Western Grain
Transportation Act tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-food, dealing with Bill C-66 as put forward on December
15, 1994.
Bill C-66 is a short term response to problems that have
arisen in our grain handling and transportation. It will help
ensure speedier delivery of Canadian grain to our customers
around the world. Bill C-66 is not intended to be a substitute or a
reform to the system.
(1705 )
I am convinced the short term amendments presented to the
House today will benefit all those concerned. These changes
will see an end to the system of backhauling through the U.S.
and allow grain to qualify for WGTA subsidies. The
amendments will implement a system of demurrage and storage
charges on rail cars that are misused by shippers for storage
purposes. They will end the WGTA subsidy on grain shipments
to Mexico and ensure continued access to important markets.
These corrective measures were initiated by a group
assembled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on
May 16, 1994. We all realize the WGTA has some weaknesses
that need to be reformed that can no longer wait to be dealt with.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said,
maintaining the status quo is an option that makes less and less
sense. Longer term reform is essential and it is essential to
achieve a compliance with the new World Trade Agreement. It is
essential because the current subsidy distorts markets,
encourages producers to ship grain to markets rather than
processing it. It is essential to respond to the country's fiscal
responsibilities with fewer government dollars. It is essential to
promote the economic growth and diversification across the
prairies.
I would like to discuss these long term reforms today. As
members know the federal transport minister is now in the
process of concluding extensive consultations on a package of
grain transportation efficiencies. At the same time, the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food is concluding productive
consultations with major key players of the sector on the future
method of paying the WGTA benefit.
Throughout these consultations leaders of farm groups and
industry have been given the opportunity to make significant
contributions by going over specific questions on how best to
allocate WGTA funds. The intent of these consultations was and
still is to elaborate effective and viable solutions that will fit the
long term needs, be comprehensive in nature and be progressive
for the industry.
The question is not about whether to change the WGTA but
rather the best way to deliver the program to Canadian farmers.
If the WGTA is left unchanged, the GATT could have significant
impacts on certain crops such as canola.
We basically have two choices. We can change the WGTA so
it is no longer within the definition of an export subsidy, or we
can continue to pay the railways, but do so only with volume and
monetary limits allowed by GATT. If we choose to continue to
pay the railways, there will be immediate and severe restrictions
on the volume shipped through the west coast and Churchill.
That will be a problem with regard to the eligibility for subsidy.
For the first few years, the monetary limitations are not a
significant problem, because the value of the WGTA has
declined over the years from its peak amount.
However, the volume limitations are the major problem.
Volumes have gone up dramatically, specifically in the new
crops like canola and other specialty crops. The GATT value
limiting oilseeds and special crops will very likely be reached
sometime during the first part of the 1995-96 crop year.
That means sometime during that year shippers will suddenly
run out of subsidy. As the volume exceeds that level, they will
have to pay the full cost of the WGTA to the ports of Churchill
and the west coast. Once those volume triggers are reached a
tremendous problem will be created for them. That is obviously
untenable and unacceptable.
9555
(1710)
There have been suggestions that if we were to subsidize all
the grain movements into British Columbia, not just those for
export, we might be able to disguise the situation. This would be
called a domestication argument. It is an interesting concept but
in reality it would likely not work.
The GATT agreement states that the export subsidy
provisions shall not be applied in a manner which threatens to
lead to circumvention of export subsidy commitments.
The notion of domestication is clearly and admittedly an
attempt at circumvention. Canada cannot expect other exporters
to allow that to go by unchallenged. The U.S. and the European
Community would most certainly complain and probably win. If
we were to expect them to honour their GATT commitments,
which we do, then certainly it is incumbent upon us to be
prepared to do the same.
Three options on the future method of paying the WGTA
benefit are now being considered. One was put forward by the
producer payment panel in June of 1994 and one by the Alberta
government one month later. The third alternative consists of an
upfront buyout plan. This type of option has been discussed and
there will be a process worked out in the very near future. I know
that the University of Saskatchewan has professors putting
forward ideas.
Let us look at the producer payment panel recommendation. It
suggests that across the prairies the benefits of the WGTA be
distributed directly to producers. Producers would initially be
paid on a cultivated acreage and then phased into an arable
acreage payment. The panel also recommended that some of the
funds be put into safety nets.
For its part, Alberta proposed allocating each prairie province
their historic share of WGTA funds and allowing variations on
how the payments would be paid to producers within a set of
principles. The Alberta government proposal recommended
against putting WGTA funds into safety nets. That was also
supported by the Government of Saskatchewan.
In the near future the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
will bring all of the input received together in a reform to be
presented to Parliament for its final consideration. The proposal
will have to be consistent with the new rules of the World Trade
Organization and will have to fit with our fiscal realities.
We still have some work to do before we reform the WGTA.
The major amendments to be addressed on long term issues will
be introduced soon. In the meantime, I urge all members to
support the short term amendments contained in Bill C-66.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Saskatchewan talk
about the initiatives which the government is undertaking, but
there are a lot of things that he neglected to mention. Perhaps I
might take a minute to remind him of a couple of them.
First, the government caved in on protecting durum
producers, and maintaining the most rapidly expanding market,
which is the market in the United States. Mr. Speaker, can you
imagine if half of our car exports to the United States were
suddenly cut off. There would be a hue and cry. The government
did nothing to oppose the cut in the export of durum to the
United States.
It is one of the most disastrous policies undertaken by the
government and by the current minister of agriculture. It has the
potential to be devastating to durum producers if they lose such
a strong market. In this market, the buyer pays cash and the
producers do not have to work on loan programs and offer credit
to the purchaser. The producers are receiving good dollars for
their product, which is the best in the world.
Also the potential is there for the government to cave in as far
as the sugar industry is concerned. The minister of agriculture
has not come out strongly and said he would stand up to the
Americans in their rumblings about taking trade actions against
us on sugar.
(1715 )
We know the current government has been pitifully slow at
reforming and reorganizing the department of agriculture and
producer support programs. We know that the government has
wasted a year on this backtracking issue. We are talking about it
in February 1995 and the Liberals took power in 1994. Of course
the Conservatives before them balked at fixing one of the most
stupid problems we have ever faced in western Canada.
I am now wondering what steps the member's government is
taking to prevent another serious disaster in the western
Canadian grain economy that would take place if there were a
disruption in grain movement to port created by a rail strike.
What steps is the government taking to prevent a potential
disaster?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, concerning a number of the
observations made by the member opposite with regard to the
minister of agriculture, I think his dealings on many issues,
whether it be on sugar, barley or durum, have been very concise
and accurate. They reflected the needs and wishes of the
agriculture community of Saskatchewan and of Canada.
With regard to the problem that may be confronting us at the
end of this month concerning rail companies and whether they
will continue to provide service through their unions, I along
with the member opposite have real concern about what will
happen.
9556
However, I can assure the member that the Minister of
Transport and the minister of agriculture will deal with those
situations in a very proper, efficient and significant manner to
look after the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and any other
province. I appreciate the member's concern, but I think he will
see that they will deal with those matters very quickly as they
have with all other matters.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for
Souris-Moose Mountain. I know he supports the government
quite fully and he is a good Liberal. I congratulate him and pat
him on the back for that.
We had a trade agreement signed by the agriculture minister
with a peace clause in it that we would not be harassed by the
Americans any more. I see now they are starting to use the end
user certificate against us. This is a real detriment to farmers.
What could the member do to influence the agriculture
minister to get a little tougher on some deals that he has made to
make the Americans, the Japanese, the Mexicans or whomever
live up to the agreements that were signed?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, with regard to end user certificates,
the hon. members knows that we have them. I understand what
he is saying. Certainly we want to be assured that we are playing
on a level playing field with our counterparts whether they be
the United States or any other country.
I share the concern that when we enter into an agreement we
expect that those people are going to live up to and honour the
agreement. I have some problems when they use the export
enhancement program improperly. It is a program that will have
to be reviewed and they will have to be accountable in the world
they trade in.
They are going to be challenged by all of us, Canadians and all
other countries, to play on a level and fair trading field. You will
see that they will be forced to reduce their export enhancement
program. That is something all of us share. We want to deal with
all our counterparts throughout the world in a fair way.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask all hon. members not to say
``you'' when referring to other members.
The hon. member for Vegreville is not the culprit; he has not
spoken.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a few comments and a question for the member.
The member was talking about the proposed changes to the
WGTA. I would like to ask a broader question with regard to
future reform of the WGTA. In particular I would like to ask the
member if he believes when the National Transportation Act
replaces the WGTA that reform is necessary to the National
Transportation Act to make it work in the grain business.
(1720)
As the WGTA has changed there are other restrictions that
will have to be removed to make the whole transportation grain
handling industry work, particularly the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to ask two questions with regard to the Canadian
Wheat Board. First, does the member favour a board of directors
elected by farmers to replace the appointed commissioners?
Second, does the member support the use of a plebiscite to allow
farmers to decide what they want the Canadian Wheat Board to
be in the future?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the questions
directed to me concerning the Canadian Wheat Board, the
member will find that our party is on record as being in support
of the farming community at large wanting to make some
changes. That is the direction in which we would want to go. The
farming community should be able to do that. We are certainly
not in opposition to that kind of approach.
With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board and the structure
that is in place now, I feel the process is a good one in terms of
those who are elected and serve.
The hon. member is right, though. Those members who served
on the Canadian Wheat Board have a commitment. We know
that their job will be carried out properly. We feel as well that the
Canadian Wheat Board like all boards needs to be reviewed from
time to time and improved.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-66, an act to amend the Western
Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA. The bill received first
reading on December 15, 1994, just prior to the House rising for
its Christmas break.
I would imagine all hon. colleagues are well advised that the
minister has been consulting with all sectors of the agri-food
industry and all political colleagues in neighbouring provinces
on these major reforms to the WGTA.
As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-66 deals with three issues. I
intend however to speak only to the issue of exports to Mexico,
which is very important to NAFTA and other trading
arrangements Canada has recently entered into.
On April 4, 1994 the Government of Mexico launched a
countervail duty investigation of both Canadian WGTA wheat
shipments to that country and U.S. exports under its export
enhancement program or its EEP. At that time Mexico had
concerns that wheat imports from Canada and the U.S. were
affecting its domestic market. It believed that the WGTA was a
subsidy which along with U.S. EEP subsidized wheat sales into
9557
Mexico. This was affecting the price of wheat received from
Mexican farmers and grain companies.
Over the following months our federal government
participated in the investigation of the Government of Mexico
and wanted to ensure that all facts were brought forward
explaining Canada's grain marketing system. After much
discussion the federal government reached a negotiated
resolution to Mexico's concerns about the impact of Canadian
WGTA supported wheat exports to that country. Under the
agreement Canada will refrain from making payments under the
WGTA on Canadian wheat shipped to Mexico. In return,
Mexico's current countervailing duty investigation of Canadian
wheat exports will be terminated.
(1725)
The federal government has always indicated its preference
for a negotiated solution to this matter rather than run the risk of
having excessive countervailing duties in place.
I know there are some people in Canada, indeed some in the
House today, who will cynically see the agreement as a loss.
These people will point to it as an example of Canada making
concessions while receiving nothing in return. As usual this is
not the case.
First, the agreement will in no way interfere with or limit the
amount of high quality wheat Canada can export to Mexican
customers. The Canadian Wheat Board has already indicated to
the federal government that it will continue to have a major
presence in the Mexican market even with the voluntary
withdrawal of WGTA.
Second, perhaps the greatest benefit is that the U.S. has
voluntarily agreed to withdraw use of the export enhancement
program from Mexico. Mexico was not included in the recently
issued list of countries eligible for U.S. EEP allocations for the
1994-95 marketing year. In the previous year, 1993-94,
Mexico's EEP allocation for wheat was some 1.4 million tonnes.
This move by the U.S. to rein in its EEP restores a level playing
field in that market with the result that prices will increase to
North American levels.
Should the U.S. at some point decide to revert to its trade
distorting subsidy program and resume using EEP on a large
scale in the Mexican market, Canada will use NAFTA
provisions to request the Government of Mexico to resume its
countervail duty against the EEP.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has often
referred to the EEP as ``the most trade distorting program on the
face of the earth''. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with
Canada's recent bilateral agri-food trading relations with the
U.S. will attest to the accuracy of the remark. By agreeing to
remove WGTA payments on wheat to Mexico, Canada has in
effect restored a level playing field or contributed to such in the
Mexican market. I might add that this is a growing and
promising market for Canadian wheat in the future.
Bill C-66 will permit Canada to continue to sell wheat into the
Mexican market without having to worry about possible
excessive countervailing duties. It will also be able to do this
without having to worry about competing against EEP and the
billions in the U.S. treasury.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris whether he is not a little concerned about
Thunder Bay since wheat going to Thunder Bay is not declared
an export subsidy. How is he going to keep wheat from
Brandon-Souris going to Thunder Bay? I am sure the Mexicans
are going to refuse it if there is a subsidy on it. Could the hon.
member answer that question?
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, our wheat from
Brandon-Souris will be going everywhere.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
few comments and questions for the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris.
The first one is to ask the hon. member what impact removing
the WGTA subsidy on shipments to Mexico will have. What
kind of an impact will it be? How many tonnes or how many
dollars are we talking about in that regard?
Second, I would like to ask the same questions I asked the last
speaker from that side of the House concerning the Canadian
Wheat Board. It fits in with the WGTA because of the restriction
that comes into play due to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
There are two things in particular. Does the hon. member
opposite favour replacing the appointed commissioners who
now control the Canadian Wheat Board with a board of directors
that would be elected by farmers? Would the hon. member
favour a plebiscite which would allow farmers to determine
exactly what the wheat board would be and how it would work?
(1730)
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will work in reverse on the
questions. In terms of a plebiscite and getting membership on
the wheat board, I have concerns to some degree about the
political process that may come into play by having people
seeking the appointment, perhaps currying favours in some
areas geographically, somewhat like the advisory committees to
the wheat board.
I believe the first question was on the impact of the WGTA
subsidy being removed. The minister indicated that there were
909,000 tonnes or $22 million in place. I have no reason to
believe that is necessarily going to change. However, I do not
have any data at my disposal to honestly answer the question.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is good
with figures. He was in the teaching profession for a long time.
The data I have are from the Grain Transportation Agency. I
seem to be getting data that are no good. I hope these are good.
9558
They point out that a rail car going to Vancouver travels at a rate
of 5.05 miles per hour and one going to Thunder Bay travels at
3.62 miles per hour.
I wonder if he thinks this was excessive speed for these rail
cars or whether somehow the Liberals could speed up that whole
transportation system a bit.
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because of those
high mountains. Once we climb to those heights, it runs
downhill all the way to the west. To the east it is because of the
high air density that is created from Winnipeg that blows in that
direction.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member
a question. It has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board again.
The first question was whether the hon. member favours an
elected board of directors to replace the appointed
commissioners. Second, following the election of a board of
directors would the hon. member favour the use of direct
democracy plebiscite, and it can be controlled, as a mechanism
for determining what the wheat board would be in the future?
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold concerning
plebiscites, having served as a mayor of a community for many
years I have had great concerns about engaging in the plebiscite
game. Once you start, where do you stop?
In terms of elected representation, I have no problem if the
farm community feels that is the most applicable means of
putting a knowledgeable board in place. I sense that the majority
of appointed commissioners have a very strong agricultural
background that makes them very effective.
In terms of whether elected they could do a better job, I do not
feel I can evaluate that kind of question.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise again
today to speak in support of Bill C-66, an act to amend the
Western Grain Transportation Act.
I wish to sincerely thank and congratulate the minister of
agriculture for bringing forward more legislation to assist the
prairie farmer in a very positive way.
(1735 )
This legislation is the result of identifying a longstanding
problem that has existed within our nation for many years,
bringing together all of the stakeholders who were affected by
the existing circumstances or will be affected by the proposed
changes and by working together with them to find an
appropriate and fair solution.
Our minister is a problem solver and has already contributed
much to assist the economic well-being of our prairie farmers.
The successful completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT
was good for Canada. By agreement the Americans and the
Europeans will be forced to reduce unfair subsidization of
agricultural products, thereby making Canadian agricultural
products more saleable and competitive on the world market.
The minister-
The Deputy Speaker: The bill, as the member will know, is
summarized in two sentences. There is a rule we are all expected
to obey in this House called relevance. In borderline cases the
member should be given the benefit of the doubt, although the
Speaker has frequently admonished members who have strayed
in debate.
I would respectfully bring that to my colleague's attention and
ask him please to remember the relevance rule in his further
comments.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, if I might, this is a preamble very
much fitting in and leading up to the bulk of my statement.
Further, with respect to other speeches I have heard today I
would submit this line of discussion is perhaps far more relevant
than others that have existed. I wish to continue this line.
The minister also found a solution to the troubling durum
wheat dispute with the United States, retaining for Canada an
upper limit of shipments of wheat well above historic levels,
thereby allowing Canadians farmers to continue shipping our
high quality product to the United States.
Our minister of agriculture has developed a very predictable
pattern to resolve problems in agriculture. He identifies the
issue, he consults broadly with all stakeholders and in
consultation with these stakeholders he puts forward concrete
solutions to help our farmers.
Bill C-66, an act to amend the Western Grain Transportation
Act, follows that successful approach. The purpose of these
amendments is to eliminate the WGTA subsidy on movements to
Thunder Bay of grain subsequently moved westward by rail to
destinations in the United States.
Second, these amendments will provide the railways with the
authority to implement demurrage and storage charges and
dispatch rail cars carrying grains, crops and products under the
WGTA.
Third, these amendments will eliminate the WGTA subsidy
on wheat shipments to Mexico. In respect of the Thunder Bay
backtracking, the way the present WGTA subsidy operates is to
encourage the rail companies to ship grain to Thunder Bay from
the prairies. When they wish to ship it to the United States, they
ship it all the way back to either Fort Frances or Winnipeg before
it is shipped to the United States.
9559
The problems with this approach are many. It increases the
time grain cars are in use, therefore reducing the speed at which
grain can be shipped to market. It costs the government money
to send the grain the extra miles. I do not think the grain really
appreciates the extra scenery the taxpayers are paying for.
This amendment will reduce the cost to the Canadian taxpayer
and will enhance the reliability of Canada as a shipper and seller
of high quality grains. An improved reputation as a supplier will
increase the demand for our product. No doubt because of its
very high quality, when we have this very stable and enhanced
reputation as a dependable supplier the buyers are going to
come. All of this will be good for the Canadians farmer.
Certainly that is very good news.
Presently under the WGTA storage and demurrage costs
cannot be charged against cars hauling grain qualifying for the
subsidy rates. This has resulted in grain cars being used for
storage of grain, sitting there holding the grain, but not moving
it.
(1740 )
Grain cars were built to move grain. With this type of
amendment that is what they are going to be doing. Allowing for
storage to merge and dispatch will ensure quick transfer of grain
to market and will further enhance Canada's reputation as a
prompt supplier of high quality grains.
This bill will alleviate the countervail duty investigation
currently lodged against Canadian wheat exports by Mexico.
The removal of the subsidy will be beneficial in meeting the
volume limits of the export subsidy provisions of the GATT for
wheat and wheat flour categories. Canada, therefore, will
maintain access to the growing Mexican market.
I wish to once again thank our minister for acting, after
consultation, in a very prompt fashion to get the grain moving in
western Canada. He is doing a great job. One problem at a time,
our system is improving.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
wondering if the previous speaker could tell us why the Liberal
government waited for 18 months before introducing this very
minor piece of legislation which is going to have a great effect
on the way we ship grain around on the prairies.
He mentioned that he could only see that we were going to
save a little time and a little money. He forgot about efficiency
and I think he forgot about straightforward common sense. I
cannot imagine why we would be moving grain to Thunder Bay
and back again for 16 months before this government gets
around to doing anything after ``W5'' highlighted the program
and basically acted as its eyes and ears.
What about fairness? The Minister of Finance tells us he
wants to be fair. Why should the Canadian taxpayer be paying
taxes to move wheat to Thunder Bay and back for 16 months
while this Liberal government sat around saying there is no
problem with the way it spends money in this country? It took a
television program to point out to the government that it was a
ludicrous waste of money. The Reform Party is saying multiply
that a thousand times. We have identified $10 billion in savings,
this being one.
I would like to ask the hon. member why the government has
waited this long to save this amount of money when it could
have been done a year ago and we could have been further ahead.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture and the
government have been aware of this problem and have acted
with all the haste possible in order to fix the problem.
Hon. members opposite only learned about this problem from
a television program. The people on this side of the House were
aware of it before it was televised and publicized.
This government believes that in order to get an effective
settlement and an effective solution we need to discuss these
types of issues with all of the stakeholders involved. There are
many people who will be affected by the changes which are
being brought forward. The government and the minister of
agriculture needed to have full discussion with these people to
devise the best solution possible for the people of Canada.
People on this side of the House believe in consultation and
long term effective solutions, not solutions which will come
unravelled overnight because of lack of preparation and lack of
thought, which is what the Reform Party would like to see
happen.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Western Grain Transportation Act was instituted in
1984. This loophole has been there for 12 years and the
government knew about it. Why did it have to wait this long?
I would suggest that special interest groups had a lot to do
with it because the railways were milking the system, the grain
companies were milking the system, and the cow has gone dry.
We have a debt problem and finally we are starting to realize it.
I would like to ask the hon. member why the government did
not realize this faster when the problem was there 10 years ago.
Mr. Kirkby: In 1984 there was a different government in
place, one that you no doubt supported. With respect, our
minister of agriculture has moved forcefully and quickly in
bringing people together to get a solution that is going to work
for all Canadian taxpayers, including the Canadian farmers.
9560
(1745)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, clause 2
of this very short bill deals with the issue of allowing under the
WGTA for demurrage and storage charges for grain that is being
stored on rail cars to be levied against the railway. How does the
hon. member opposite see this being implemented? Will it be
used? If so, how often?
We know that rail cars are used for storage in many cases and
certainly the system is not efficient. There is an average
turnaround time of 20 days or more, the same as 80 years ago.
How does the hon. member see this part of the bill being used to
ensure quicker turnaround and more efficiency in the rail
system?
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, the portion of the bill dealing with
demurrage and storage charges will encourage the rail
companies to utilize the grain cars to move the grain as opposed
to letting it sit there, storing them, or leaving the cars sitting
around.
There have been many problems identified on this issue. Each
one of these little pieces goes together to make for a more
efficient grain system. That is what the minister has set out to
achieve. That is what he will achieve by utilizing this type of
system to encourage the people to move the grain. It is better for
us to pay for grain to be moved than pay to have it sit.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-66, an
act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already
indicated, this bill covers short term amendments aimed at
addressing inefficiencies that have been identified in our grain
transportation and handling system.
Specifically, Bill C-66 would authorize the railways to
implement demurrage, car storage charges, and despatch. It
would also eliminate the WGTA subsidy on grain movement to
Mexico and end the practice of routing U.S. bound grain to
Thunder Bay and backhauling it to Fort Frances or Winnipeg
before finally sending it into the United States.
Until now the railways' inability to levy demurrage charges or
car storage charges has led to the use of rail cars for storage
purposes, as was just stated by the member across the floor. It
obviously reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of the grain
car fleet. We do not know where our cars are. They are all over
the place. They could be in the United States. They could be
anywhere. We end up putting more cars into the system.
As a result, we need more cars to move our grain than what we
should need. The backtracking practice has evolved because it is
cheaper for a shipper to send U.S. bound grain to Thunder Bay in
order to qualify for the WGTA subsidy and then backhaul it to
Fort Frances or Winnipeg before it is moved at commercial
rates to destinations in the United States than it would be to ship
it directly at commercial rates.
Using Winnipeg as a reference point, this practice increases
the length of grain haul by about 450 miles over CN lines and
about 860 miles over CP tracks. This practice is clearly
inefficient and results in longer car cycle times and less
effective use of the grain car fleet. In the 1993-94 crop year, 1.1
million tonnes of grain were shipped to the U.S. via this scenic
route.
Regarding the removal of the WGTA subsidy on wheat
shipments to Mexico, we expect that the amendments in this bill
will resolve the current countervailing duty investigation in
Mexico and ensure our continued access to an important market
for Canada.
(1750)
It is important to note that these proposed changes are short
term amendments only. They are not intended to replace
comprehensive reform of the WGTA. I should also point out that
they have received widespread industry support.
In fact, these changes were suggested by and have support in
principle from the subcommittees of the House standing
committees on transportation and agriculture and agri-food, as
well as the May 16 group which includes representatives from
grain companies, the railways, labour and management.
Both of those forums have suggested a number of initiatives
to reduce inefficiencies, improve the capability of the grain
transportation and handling system and facilitate the movement
of grain to markets. Many of their suggestions have been
implemented. However, some of the proposed changes require
legislation, hence the bill we are debating here today.
The government would like to proceed with these short term
amendments now in order to eliminate the subsidy on wheat to
Mexico as soon as possible and to ensure that demurrage and
backtracking issues are dealt with before the 1995-96 crop year
which begins August 1, 1995.
As I indicated earlier, there was agreement in principle to
eliminate these inefficient practices. After further
consultations, a consensus emerged among the May 16 group
that the WGTA amendments should take effect at the beginning
of the crop year. The group favoured this timing because it
would allow time for grain marketers and shippers to adjust
sales and supply programs accordingly.
It is important to note that although August 1 has been
selected as the implementation date for some of these changes,
the amendments dealing with demurrage, storage charges and
despatch as well as backtracking could be implemented earlier if
the government is satisfied that there is sufficient agreement
9561
between the railways and the shippers on the commercial details
of the changes.
I would like to make it clear that this proposed legislation in
no way lessens this government's commitment to making
decisions on broader WGTA reform in the near future. The
passage of this legislation will enable the government to
continue with the consultations that are so vital to the
development of the long term solutions for problems in our
grain handling system. At the same time, it will address the
immediate problems which members of government and
industry representing the grain companies, the railways, labour
and management have identified.
Members of the House, I ask for your support in the rapid
passage of this legislation. The measures proposed by Bill C-66
will help make Canada's grain transportation more efficient and
better able to meet the needs of our customers around the world.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy the hon. member's comments. We have
served on the standing committee for awhile and I have always
appreciated him and know he is also a good farmer.
The only thing I am surprised at is that he forgets we have
calendars. There was a crop year on August 1, 1994. In the
spring of that year the standing committee stated that it should
be stopped, that it was illegal and it was costing us money. I
would suggest that if this government is not going to work faster
in implementing legislation, some day in the hon. member's
chicken business all the eggs will be hatched and nobody will
have eggs for breakfast, putting his whole industry in jeopardy.
I hope he will urge the minister to move a little faster because
we need some action. I wonder how he would comment on that
because this has been delayed a whole year.
(1755 )
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, they are making poultry jokes here.
In all my years as a farmer, and I grew up on a farm and have
been actively farming since 1973, I know the hon. member
across the floor who shares the same background in agriculture
that I do knows that haste makes waste. If you are going to fix it,
fix it right the first time because the second time it costs you a
lot of money.
Basically what we are saying right now is that the railways,
the shippers and the wheat board all have to become responsive
to the changes we are making.
The challenge through you, Mr. Speaker-I do not want you to
feel like the Maytag repairman-is that we have to look at how
wheat is hauled down into the United States and the rate that is
applied to it. Is it going to cost the same to move a car of potash
into the United States as what it does to move a carload of wheat
into the United States? We have to watch that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
on you talked about relevance. We have been into poultry and
now we are into potash. I thought we were talking about moving
grain down into the United States and Mexico.
The member's comment was that by stopping this movement
of grain back and forth from Thunder Bay it was going to
eliminate the countervailing duty investigation by Mexico. I ask
myself, how on earth can we do this to ourselves? How can we
pay to move grain to Thunder Bay, move it back to the prairies
on subsidized lines and find out that because we do that Mexico
is going to investigate us for subsidizing grain? Whereas if we
stop shooting ourselves in the foot there is no subsidy and we
can put it down to the United States more efficiently, as they
admit, in a more timely fashion, as they admit, and the whole
market system would just work so much better.
I cannot imagine why the government is trying to mess up the
whole market system entirely through these rules which just
make no sense whatsoever. I still come back to this concept of
why it takes so long. I thought when this bill was passed that it
would come into force. Now I find out it will not be until August
1.
Can the member please explain to me why it is going to take
another six or eight months before it comes into effect? Why
would we subsidize grain that-I am at a loss for words, but I
want to know why we are going to wait until August.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I am very heartened to hear that the
Reform Party across the floor is going to support us in the
speedy passage of the amendments to the WGTA. It heartens me
greatly.
The member has already said, which I agree with, that it does
not make sense to transport grain to Thunder Bay and back to
Winnipeg and down into the United States. We have to make
sure we find the most effective way to ship it down at the best
price. We want to make sure that the railway companies are
honest about this. Also we want to make sure that Mexico does
not look on WGTA the same way it looks on the export
enhancement program. I think we are going to avoid it with the
amendments.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of questions for the hon. member opposite.
I congratulate the transport minister for bringing these
changes forward. We have been pushing for these exact changes
since we started meeting in the agriculture committee and in the
House. Of course we will support these measures but we would
have supported them a year ago more happily.
9562
How does the hon. member see the demurrage charges and
the storage charges that are allowed now under the second
clause in this bill used? There certainly is a need for this
measure, but how is this government going to use them? Is it
going to use them? The powers are there in the WGTA right
now and they are not used. Will they be used now?
Mr. Speaker, I suppose you are not going to let me ask my
questions about the Canadian Wheat Board. Are are going to
rule them irrelevant? I will not ask those then.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for the demurrage
and the storage charges for these rail cars is the fact that they
were being used before as rolling warehouses with no charge
attached.
With the demurrage and storage charges now it will make the
shippers much more responsible to make sure they get those cars
in, get them unloaded, get them back out on the track and
heading back to-
Mr. Benoit: Thunder Bay.
Mr. Calder: -be filled up with more wheat. It is a more
efficient way of doing it. If there is a cost penalty behind it, it is
another incentive to make it work better.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to call it 6.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement in the
House for calling it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 p.m., as there are no
members available unfortunately for the late show, as it is
referred to, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m.
(House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.)