CONTENTS
Friday, June 9, 1995
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of report stage andon Motions Nos. 1 to 7 13513
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13513
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 13518
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 13520
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13523
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13526
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13526
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13526
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13527
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13527
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 13529
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 13529
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13533
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13543
Division on motion deferred. 13550
Bill S-7. Report stage (with amendment) 13551
Motions 2, 3, 5 and 6 13551
13513
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 9, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of Bill C-85,
an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee; and on
Motions Nos. 1 to 7.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to debate Bill C-85, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act, and the amendments the government
proposes. I am doing it in the short time that remains, given the
closure and time allocation tactics of the government.
The amendments to the bill submitted under my name and
under the name of the member for Calgary Centre have four
main functions. First, to bring the members of Parliament
pension plan into line with the private sector, both for MPs and
Senators. Second, to allow MPs in this and in all future
Parliaments to fully opt out of the pension plan. Third, to impose
a Canadian citizenship requirement on all plan members.
Fourth, to subject members pensions to the same clawback
provisions that exist to old age security, something the Liberal
government had opposed when it was in opposition but now
seems to believe is fully acceptable for ordinary Canadians.
We are debating the first set of motions. Motion No. 4
provides that if a province separated, members of Parliament
from that province would not automatically draw a pension from
the Canadian government. This is the effect of proposing a
citizenship requirement. We will be very interested to see
whether it is the intention of the government to guarantee
pensions to members who eventually may not be citizens of the
country.
I have heard some comments from members of the separatist
party in the House that they do not care what is happening in the
House because they will not be here in the fall anyway. I happen
to think they are wrong and they may be here much longer. In
any case this raises an interesting question.
[Translation]
It is because the members of the Bloc Quebecois are insisting
that Quebec is going to separate in the coming year, I suppose.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): This amendment in fact reveals
the strength of their convictions on this objective.
Bloc members' intention to guarantee their own Canadian
pension or participate in this retirement pension plan indicates a
lack of confidence in the possibility of separation. I suppose
there is an element of sacrifice in the sovereignty project.
Interestingly enough, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing putting
Quebecers in a position to lose the benefits of Confederation,
including pension benefits, but is pushing here for the adoption
of the Parliament's pension plan.
I would suggest that one way to show their good faith in the
matter would be to vote for this amendment and to support the
idea that things like pensions need to be negotiated, if, by
chance, Quebec should really separate after the referendum.
[English]
It will be interesting. I doubt the Bloc will be prepared to take
such a daring step in the House of Commons.
The effect of Motions Nos. 1 and 6 are to change the opting
out provisions so members of future Parliaments can make a one
time decision to opt in or out of the plan during the first 60 days
the House sits after they are elected. Reform MPs will save
taxpayers over $38 million by opting out and clearly in the
absence of substantive changes to the plan future
parliamentarians must have this option as well.
(1010)
We will keep in mind that the failures of the government are
starting to add up. While it may reject some of the populist
measures used by my party I expect the next federal election to
13514
be very much a referendum on issues like MP pensions. I do not
believe by any means this issue will go away even if government
members defeat this amendment.
We will see as in the Ontario election this is a hot issue and
will still be a hot issue in the next federal election. Voters will
ask for members to cut their pensions without any increase in
pay, a suggestion which I think is perfectly reasonable.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 change the bill so that a member who
dies before the expiry of the 60-day decision period is assumed
not to have opted in. Bill C-85 automatically opts these people
in. I guess Reformers would rather assume the best of people
than the worst of people.
It seems strange the government would make the default
option here an assumption of action of opting in. I understand a
lot of pressure is being placed on backbench Liberals to opt into
this plan so the driving forces of the plan, the Prime Minister
and the Deputy Prime Minister, do not look too bad. Forcing
dead MPs to opt into the pension plan is taking the idea of party
discipline to new heights or to new depths even for the Liberal
Party.
We know who will bear the brunt of the public backlash of this
in the next election. It will be the Liberal backbenchers who did
not really support the plan, who were told to participate and who
if they lose the election will lose all pension in any case. This is
really a remarkable coincidence of both lack of intelligence and
lack of integrity coming together on an issue.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 change the bill to allow all members to
opt out completely. Under Bill C-85 MPs who as of October
1993 already had six years of service could only opt out of
benefits earned after the last federal election, thus creating the
terms trough regular and trough light which we like to refer to,
the two tier system.
We have talked already about how this inability for longer
serving MPs to completely opt out of Bill C-85 creates the two
tier system. However, this is a minor issue in my opinion. The
real issue is the two tier system between MP pensions and what
is available to other Canadians.
One of the witnesses who testified before the committee
which studied this bill, and I use the term studied very loosely,
Mr. Brian Corbishley of Edmonton, testified the pension
proposed under Bill C-85 is about seven times more generous
than a typical public sector plan and four times more generous
than a typical private sector plan. Mr. Corbishley's testimony
and others should be listened to much more carefully and much
more seriously than some of the government members seem to
take this issue.
In Alberta Mr. Corbishley's firm, Peat Marwick, proposed a
pension scheme for MLAs much less generous than that which
existed in Alberta at the time. The plan in Alberta at the time was
almost identical to what the government is now proposing.
In the heat of the pre-election build up in Alberta the
government refused to significantly alter that plan to deal with
the objections of taxpayers and citizens and it was increasingly
looking like that government would face defeat in the election.
Ultimately Mr. Klein ended up abolishing the plan, a major
factor in his winning the election and doing some of the good
things in Alberta he is now trying to do.
What is interesting about this, and I urge Liberal members to
consider it very carefully, is ultimately a half hearted attempt to
reform the MLA pension plan in Alberta resulted in MLAs in
Alberta having no pension plan whatsoever, a situation which I
do not think is ideal but which will result if the government
follows the course it is on.
(1015 )
I urge members once again to consider some of these
amendments. They will significantly alter the bill to make it
more acceptable to the public. Ultimately the public will find
this bill unacceptable. We know the MP pension plan will die
because of the unreasonable form it is in today. It will die in any
form and there will be no increase in compensation that the
members on the other side so earnestly desire and do not
deserve.
In any case, I ask them to consider these amendments and I
thank them for their patience.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make a few points with respect to the
amendments put forward by the hon. member for Calgary West
because they deserve some comment.
They are clearly amendments-
An hon. member: You already gave your comments.
Mr. Milliken: No, I have not spoken on the bill. This is the
first time I have spoken to the bill at this stage in the House. The
hon. member should be pleased that he is getting a balanced
approach to the bill instead of the twisted rhetoric that the
Reform Party is engaging in.
I want to point out a couple of things that are important to the
Canadian public in viewing the bill. We are hearing a great deal
from members of the Reform Party about wanting to abolish the
pension altogether. They say that if we get rid of these pensions
then everything would come up roses and we would solve the
problem.
I want to point out first of all that some members of the House
were elected at a time when there was not significant discussion
in the House or in the country about abolition of these pensions.
13515
I draw the hon. member's attention to the 1988 election. He
was a Tory then and was working for a Tory member of
Parliament who was seeking re-election and who was going to
earn a pension. He may have already qualified for all I know.
I do not know who he was working for in those days but he was
very supportive of the whole thing. There was no public debate
about pensions in 1988.
Many members who were elected at that time in good faith
left their employment, took a reduction in the earnings they had
on the basis of a certain salary that was stated to be the salary for
members of Parliament plus the possibility of earning a pension
at the conclusion of their term of service in the House of
Commons.
The pension was generous. It is generous and remains
generous. That is true. However the members of Parliament who
entered the lists, as it were, for the election in 1988 and in all
previous elections did so on the basis that at the end of their term
of office they would be compensated in some way that was
generous but was designed to make up for the loss of income
they suffered in being elected to Parliament in the first place.
The hon. member is now saying that those people had
expectations that were out of line, that they do not qualify to
receive the pension to which they are entitled under the law.
These people in the Reform Party want to change the law to
prevent those persons from receiving those pensions.
I can understand their approach when only one of them has
qualified for a pension, when only one of them was a successful
candidate in 1988. In fact she lost in 1988 and then got elected in
a subsequent byelection. There was not a single one of them in
1988 and they were not talking pensions big time during that
election. It was a non-issue.
It was a non-issue for me in 1993. Nevertheless, the members
of the Reform Party insist that members who were elected
before are somehow pigs at the trough because they were elected
under a system of remuneration which they are now accepting.
Most people enter a career looking at the remuneration
package and seeing what it is like. When they are successful in
either choosing the job or in this case getting elected to the job,
they are then told by Reformers who come along later, Johnny
come latelys if ever there were any, that somehow they are pigs
at the trough because the remuneration package that they
accepted when they started the employment is unacceptable to
the new group.
First of all, that is a stupid argument. It is wrong. The
members of the House who were duly elected on the basis of a
package are entitled to receive the package they obtained.
What has the government done? It made two promises in 1993
to change that package. One was to prohibit double dipping and
the second one was to put a minimum age in place so that
members would not draw a pension at an unduly young age.
The bill fully complies with those promises. The age change
is there and the double dipping prohibition is there. The
government went beyond that and reduced the rate at which the
pension accrues which means members of Parliament who are
elected on a certain remuneration package will in fact get less.
That is a very significant change which is totally unappreciated
by the members of the Reform Party for one good reason. They
are all going to opt out.
(1020)
I suggest the electorate will opt them out of the pension
scheme. They will not qualify anyway. The only one that has
qualified is the member for Beaver River. I suggest none of the
others would qualify anyway.
The member for Beaver River has been on a rant on this issue
for one good reason. She has been cheated out of her pension by
her colleagues who have muzzled her, beaten her into the ground
and forced her to opt out of the pension scheme so she can join
their ranks. They will be taken away by the electorate anyway in
the next election. They will not qualify but they have muzzled
her into opting out so she is in a fit of rage.
She is the one, with her leader who asked for the opting out
clause and now wants it taken out of this bill. She wants it
removed from this bill because she wants her pension. She is
having a fit because she cannot get her pension. I hear she is
taking wrestling lessons in Calgary this weekend because she
needs to be able to deal with her caucus colleagues. She is being
wrestled to the ground.
I want to turn to one other aspect. We keep hearing we should
cut the pension more. We have not gone far enough. However,
we do not hear from the Reform Party that we should change the
double dipping scheme more by preventing double dipping not
just by people who take federal appointments but by those who
are receiving another pension from another source. Why is that?
Because there are at least three members on the other side who
are earning substantial pensions from the Government of
Canada.
Mr. Morrison: Federal?
Mr. Milliken: Yes, three of them are federal. They are getting
big, fat military pensions and maybe others. They are pocketing
that money while they sit in the House earning a salary. They do
not talk about extending double dipping because their
colleagues will feel it in the pocketbook. They should have more
sympathy for the hon. member for Beaver River and let her
express her own opinions without wrestling her into the ground
on this issue.
13516
Look at the other pensions they are getting. When hon.
members opposite stand up and say they are not taking their
pensions, why do they not also stand up and say: ``The reason
I am not taking my MPs' pension is because I am already
getting a pension from another source''. Why do they not come
clean and tell us about that? I do not have a pension from
another source, but some of the hon. members opposite I know
do have one.
Why do those members not stand up and say: ``I'm getting a
pension from another source, so I don't need an MPs' pension.
I'm happy to opt out''. I know why. They would be embarrassed
if they were caught double dipping later. It is amazing the
members that are double dipping now are not confessing to it.
We do not hear any talk about that. Why does the hon. member
for Calgary West, in his white knight charger set of
amendments, not propose the kind of amendments that will cut
out the double dippers in his own party? Why will he not do that?
I know why he will not. Because his leader told him not to.
His leader knows all about pensions and the way to collect
pensions. His father was in the Senate which is a pension haven.
Everybody knows that. His leader's father was a senator for
years.
It is quite unbelievable that members of the Reform Party who
speak on one side saying that we have to cut the pension will not
speak on the other and say that we should cut double dipping
more. Why will they not? They know all about double dipping.
They are pros at double dipping. They know how to get big, fat
pensions from other sources. I will not mention names but hon.
members opposite know who I mean when I say there are people
sitting there who are getting fat cat pensions of $40,000,
$50,000, $60,000 a year and they are earning their salary here as
MPs at the same time.
In many cases those pensions are paid out of public funds.
They may not be paid in every case by the federal government
but they are paid out of taxpayers' funds.
We do not hear a word about it either from the Reform Party or
from their friend David Somerville and the National Citizens'
Coalition who is a mouthpiece for the Reform Party on this
issue. The two of them have been in bed together for years.
The hon. member for Calgary West and the National Citizens'
Coalition conspired together to defeat the former Tory member
because of his views on the pension and on electoral reform. He
knows that. He knows they have been working together to do
this. The Reform Party members in the House and their
performance in calling other members names, calling other
members who have earned their pensions in good faith pigs, are
absolutely disgracing this House. They should be ashamed of
their conduct. The hon. member for Beaver River after her
performance yesterday, threatening to beat up members of the
House, should also be ashamed of her performance also.
(1025)
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In
reference to the member's remarks during his intervention,
where he accused a member of beating someone up, if he is
accusing her of doing that in the House I wonder if he could
retract that statement. It is absolute nonsense and he knows it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I have had
the benefit of being in the chair for the better part, if not the
entire portion, of this debate. I am well seized of the fact that it
has been a very vigorous debate. I would say respectfully to the
hon. member for Fraser Valley East that his point of order is a
matter of debate. It is not a point of order according to our
standing orders, our own rules in this House.
I would urge members on both sides participating in this
debate to be judicious and to continue to be respectful of one
another, and certainly of the collectivity of this institution, the
House of Commons.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, like my colleagues I rise to speak on Bill C-85 with a
heavy heart and a sense of despondency.
Yesterday we were again reminded that there is no respect for
the democratic process on the government benches. Once again
they have not once, not twice, but three times invoked time
allocation, thus stifling honest parliamentary debate on matters
of great importance to Canadians.
It is perhaps appropriate that I speak after the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader because I am one of
the people who he referred to as drawing a pension from the
military. I have no trouble admitting that. I served for over 36
years in the military. I paid into a pension fund 7.5 per cent of
my pay for 35 of those years, which was the maximum that I
could qualify for. The fund from which I draw my pension is
now $30 billion and growing as people continue to contribute to
it. Therefore, the idea that the taxpayer is paying my pension is
absolutely ludicrous.
I have no regrets about it. Double dipping has been adequately
defined as the retirement of a member of Parliament who has
been appointed to a government job and continues to draw his
pension and his salary at the same time.
I earned my place here. The people who elected me knew that
I was drawing a military pension and they knew that I would be
keeping that pension once I was elected. I feel there is no
problem, but I have some doubts about the honesty and
impartiality of the parliamentary secretary in this instance.
The Reform Party is placing before the House 35 amendments
to Bill C-85. First, if implemented, these amendments would
bring the MPs pension scheme into line with the private sector
for both MPs and senators, and failing that, second, the
amendments would change the opting out provisions so that
newly
13517
elected members would have a choice to opt out of the plan to
allow all MPs to withdraw from participation in the plan. Third,
Motion No. 4 would ensure that all members of the plan are
Canadian citizens. Fourth, Motion No. 34 is based on the private
member's bill of the hon. member for Yellowhead, which would
make provisions to recover former senators and MPs pensions
on the same basis as other income received by a former member,
if that former member was in that year entitled to receive old age
security.
(1030 )
These 35 motions are important for Parliament and for the
Canadian taxpayer. Unhappily, it appears that presentation of
these motions is a futile parliamentary exercise as it becomes
increasingly evident that the government has made up its mind
and will move ahead with the legislation as it stands.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have
been listening with interest to my friend from Saanich-Gulf
Islands. I believe him to be a man of integrity. I do not think he
meant to say it but he did say it quite directly. He questioned the
honesty of the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Under the rules, you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is not
permitted to cast aspersions on the integrity of an individual. I
would ask that you ask him to withdraw that aspersion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In listening to the
member's intervention I suppose what I should do and will do is
review the blues for verification of the wording and possibly the
spirit of what was said.
I take the member's point of order with great seriousness and,
if necessary, I will report back to the House.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation to withdraw the
comments the member for Burin-St. George's referred to.
They were uttered inadvertently. I did not intend to cast
aspersions on the parliamentary secretary's integrity or his
honesty.
The House has heard many arguments as to why the proposed
revisions to the MP pension plan are still too generous.
Committee members have received repeated testimony from
highly qualified witnesses who confirm that the plan is still far
too rich and is basically poor public policy.
Let me quote Paul McCrossan, a former member of
Parliament and now an actuary for Eckler Partners Ltd., who
appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs. He said:
My conclusion is that the bill is bad for you as members, bad for Parliament as
an institution and bad for Canada because, having acted on this bill, you will
hamstring this Parliament in dealing effectively with the most urgent challenges
it faces, namely redesigning Canada's national retirement income and medical
care systems to reflect the financial realities of Canada as well as Canada's
rapidly aging population.
This is exactly what is now happening. Parliament is
hamstrung from dealing with important issues of the day: our
increasing deficit and debt, social program reform and building
a stronger economy which will produce more jobs for
Canadians, to name just a few key problems.
Despite the apparent futility of our efforts, Reform members
cannot, with good conscience, allow the legislation to slip by
without resistance. Perhaps those large pink pigs placed on the
front lawn of Parliament to protest this pension scheme last
week say it best. Surely there is no other place in this great
nation where people are authorized to legislate the amount of
their own benefits and salaries.
I would agree with those who contend that the basic pay of
members of Parliament is insufficient when the responsibility
and workload are considered. However, this pension benefit
cannot be justified and continues to leave a foul taste in the
mouths of all taxpayers.
Is our government blind to what is right? Why, rather than
paying lip service, has it not undertaken realistic pension
reform? Certainly there have been enough good suggestions
given both in the House and in representations to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Reform member for Beaver River will refuse her million
dollar payout and, under the deliberately planned punitive
opting out provisions, will lose any government contributions
made to that plan.
Members will know that normal pension plans see the
employer matching employee contributions. Even with the
revisions to the pension plan instituted by the government, the
taxpayer will be contributing an excessive $3.60 for every dollar
members of Parliament contribute.
(1035 )
The government made the opting out provision punitive
because it very much wanted the member for Beaver River to opt
into the plan so that during the next election it could point the
finger at members of Reform Party and say that we were no
different from the others.
But we are different. We fought for these very principles
during the last election. The parliamentary secretary's reference
to the fact that it is Reformers who are bringing these measures
to Parliament is absolutely wrong. Yes, we are transmitting it,
but we are bringing the message from all Canadian taxpayers.
Unhappily, despite the wishes of the parliamentary secretary,
it would appear that the same issue will be around again in the
next election.
13518
I return to Paul McCrossan's testimony before the committee
about the legislation. Referring to the legislation he said:
It does nothing to develop a sensible compensation package for members and
may actually impede redesign. It entrenches your benefits at a level higher than
those available to general taxpayers. At the same time it reduces the cost of your
compensation package.
So when you come to redo a compensation package, you will be left with
having then to increase it from the level you have reduced it to and it is going to
make it much more difficult to do it in two steps rather than one.
It reduces compensation for future service but leaves benefits substantially
above the private sector and, indeed, public sector permissible levels.
It is just this that members from this side of the House have
been saying. The benefits go well beyond anything in the public
realm.
Some time in the future MPs will again decide that the
compensation package is not adequate and adjustments will be
made.
Many take great pride in pointing out that MPs have curtailed
their salaries in seven of the fourteen years since the present
pension scheme was adopted in 1981. Are the salaries kept low
in exchange for generous benefits? That question has been
raised many times in the House and in committee.
The study by Sabeco, Ernst and Young called for a 37 per cent
increase in MP salaries, accompanied by a reduction in pension
benefits, also recommending that they should be limited to
retirees who are at least 60 years of age.
The report further suggests that when the parliamentary wage
freeze is lifted in 1996 the MP basic annual salary be increased
to $75,000, and that prior to the next election Parliament be
urged to pass legislation to increase MPs' salaries to $86,000 to
take effect on the first day of the 36th Parliament.
Given the political climate, the ever present debt and deficit
and this ineffective pseudo pension reform, I do not believe the
government has the political will to make these badly needed
appropriate changes to current MP compensation and pension
arrangements.
Once again let me go back to Paul McCrossan who said:
I believe that legislating preferred treatment for yourselves, even if it is
reduced preferred treatment, as proposed under this bill-will continue to foster
cynicism.
Each of us holds a very privileged position and thus must
make every effort to avoid abuse of that position.
As long as Parliament holds the power to set members own
salaries, perks and pensions, the job will clearly not be
effectively achieved. Politics will come into play as they have in
this instance and longstanding MPs will resist every effort to
make appropriate changes to the pension plan.
Even in the Progressive Conservative government Wilson
budget of 1986 provisions were made to lower MP pensions to
private sector levels. We could wonder why this had not
happened but the answer is clear. Decisions such as this cannot
be left in the hands of Parliament. Rather, a competent,
independent body must be assigned to ensure appropriate
compensation and pension reforms are implemented.
It is not too late even at this report stage to make some
important changes. The proposed reductions make only a small
dent in the cost to the taxpayer. Treasury Board officials have
indicated that most of the savings will result from actuarial
factors rather than legislated changes.
For my own part, unless the government makes real changes
which bring the MP pension scheme into line with that of other
Canadians, I will be signifying my intention not to opt into the
proposed plan.
I call on government to go back to the drawing board, heed the
very clear direction given by its own constituents and make
meaningful, realistic changes to Bill C-85. I call on rank and file
members of the government to press for these changes. They
know what is right and proper. They know that Bill C-85 does
not meet this need, and they should know that a concerted effort
on their part could influence the changes needed to fulfil at least
one of the promises made in the red book.
(1040)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me deal with the point
of order raised by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. I
express my appreciation and respect for the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands for his withdrawal. I am not recognizing
or ruling that it was necessary, but I welcome his initiative. I
will not be reviewing the blues and consider the matter closed.
I should like to return momentarily to the point of order raised
previously by the member for Fraser Valley East. I ruled that it
was not a point of order and I continue to believe that to be the
case. The issue which occurred yesterday between two hon.
members is presently before the Speaker for a ruling. I would
deem any allusion to the incident inappropriate at this time.
Vigorous debate certainly will not be curtailed by myself
while I am in the chair, but I would ask that respect be extended
particularly to the institution and more specifically to the two
members involved.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee that studied the
bill. I also participated in second reading debate on the bill.
[Translation]
Today, I am again going to take a few minutes of the House's
time to give my opinion on this bill. I support the comments of
13519
one of my colleagues, who said yesterday that she had no qualms
about accepting her paycheque and the benefits of being a
member of Parliament, and neither do I. I consider that I work
and that I do the job expected of me. If the voters in my riding
consider this no longer to be the case at some point, I would
encourage them strongly to replace me, rather than lower the
salary and benefits of parliamentarians, thus probably reducing
the calibre of those who stand for public office.
[English]
I take exception to something the member for Calgary said a
little earlier today about members of the Bloc retiring and their
MPs pension. I am paraphrasing his remarks when he said that if
they lived in another country they should not receive their MPs
pension. I for one hope the country never separates. I pray it
does not. In the unlikely event that it would, the logic of the hon.
member would be absolutely disastrous to my constituents.
I have people in my riding who work in Quebec and live in
Ontario. Does that mean they would be denied the Quebec
pension plan, their employers' pension plans and so on? We can
see how stupid that kind of reasoning can be if applied. I
dissociate myself as a staunch federalist from the comments of
the hon. member. They are wrong and they further create and
augment the kind of division which he and others say should not
exist in the country. He is appealing to the lowest common
denominator in trying to get his point across.
An hon. member: You are grasping at straws.
Mr. Boudria: I am not grasping at straws. The unity of the
country is not straw. It is a strong principle. To try to run
roughshod over the benefits of my constituents is not grasping at
straws. It may be in the minds of some members across the way.
We know what they stand for.
Before getting into the issue of MPs' pensions let me talk
about the lack of understanding toward one another. Mr. Speaker
has made a judgment on one incident and I will not refer to that
one.
(1045 )
There is another incident that happened yesterday in which
members across, in the same party, said something as follows.
[Translation]
They said the Liberal and the Bloc members were conniving
in some sort of treason-that is what they said-because the
three bills will be adopted by the House by June 23. In support of
their remarks, they said that the reason was in order to celebrate
the Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday. First, as we know, the holiday
falls on a Saturday, this year. Second, if it fell during the week,
the House would not sit that day. So, that is wrong. Third, and
most important, as my hon. colleague for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has just said, celebrating
the Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday is not treasonous.
The members opposite have no sense of our country's culture.
They should learn about it. People in my riding celebrate the
Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday, and, this year, they will be
celebrating in the village of Cheney. Thousands will be there,
and they are not traitors. The members opposite who describe
them as such are mistaken. They should apologize to the House
and, more importantly, to all French speaking Canadians for
having made such stupid remarks about our fellow citizens. This
is what is important. Once again, the Reform Party members
stooped as low as they could to support their remarks.
[English]
They are using the same kind of thing now in the MPs pension
issue. The people in the third party across-it was them I was
referring to, not to any other colleague-talk selectively about
what they say is the unfair compensation MPs receive.
We had a member here making comments while he is
receiving a lucrative pension from the federal government,
claiming that he has a right to receive such a pension but that
nobody else does, and saying that with a straight face.
Other hon. members have said that they would not refer to the
MPs who were receiving some of these double dipping pensions.
As they say in the province of my hon. colleague from
Newfoundland, ``What is good for Goose Bay is good for
Gander''. So I do not mind raising some of these things.
It has been said that the Deputy Prime Minister, were she to
retire today-and not that she will, she will be an hon. member
of this House for decades to come-would receive a pension.
What is the difference then from the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, a Reform MP, who receives a pension as
a former military officer? He has a right to receive it. That is not
the point. Why does he think that nobody else does? What makes
him that god-like creature he thinks he is? What about the hon.
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, a general, who says that he
can receive a pension but others should not were they to retire in
the future?
What about the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a
former federal government employee? What about retired
teachers across the way? What about retired MLAs who are
receiving an MLA pension from a legislature across this
country? They stand up in this House and say they are not going
to get an MP pension. Do members know why? Because they are
getting one from elsewhere already from the public purse. That
is the truth.
13520
No matter how they try to camouflage and wrap that truth, the
truth will always be the truth. We know. That is not grasping at
straws, that is stating fact. Fact sometimes gets in the way of
Reform Party policy.
Reform Party MPs have said that the taxpayers of Canada
contribute these huge amounts toward MPs' pensions. I have
here the document tabled by the President of the Treasury
Board. It is a report on the administration of the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. There is not one year since
1952 in which the contributions to the plan were less than the
money going out of the plan in pensions-not one year.
(1050 )
Mr. Speaker, I will give you examples of various years. For
instance, the total receipts for the year 1990-91 were $7 million
to the plan and the disbursements were $6 million. The
disbursements in 1989-90 were $7 million, with $6.3 million in
withdrawals, and so on-total receipts, total disbursements.
When some members opposite claim that the amount creates a
huge debt of some sort, that is factually incorrect and they know
it. This report was tabled in the House by an officer of the
government. It was designed to show these numbers. But they
refuse to listen to that. They invent, they concoct numbers of
their own, supported by the likes of David Somerville, whose
claim to fame is to draw little pigs in newspapers. That is all they
have to support their argument.
Between that and the nonsense we heard today that only some
MPs should be entitled to a pension and others who have
different political views, such as Bloc members, are not entitled,
and that members should be able to get a military pension and an
MP's salary but that other people should not get a pension, that
is the kind of logic that works for Reform thinking but not for
logical thinking.
[Translation]
It is time to inject an element of intellectual honesty into this
debate. I am not ashamed of my salary as a member of
Parliament, I earn it. If the voters of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do not think I am worth this
salary, they should not lower it, they should find someone who
can do the job better, if that is what is required some day or
other.
I say to the members opposite that, if they do not think they
are earning their pay, they should work harder and not claim that
salaries should be cut. If they are embarrassed about their lack
of ability, they should improve their skills. If they are ashamed
because they are not working hard enough, let them work a little
harder for the voters who sent them here. I was elected by the
voters in my riding to do my best, and that is what I intend to do
so long as I am here.
That is what the members opposite should do instead of
continuing to make Canadians believe things that are the
opposite of the truth, to say the least.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thought it
might not be necessary for me to speak to this bill on the
parliamentarians' pension plan.
I have been a member of this House since 1984. I did not go
into politics because of the pension but because I had a vision of
the future. I did not run for Parliament because of the salary; I
did not even know how much members made until after I was
elected. So you can see, my first concern was not about salary
and pension. It was to defend the public interest, the interests of
the people of Longueuil, as well as my party's policies, which I
believe in.
Since the Reform Party says that Bloc members should not
receive a pension from the federal government if Quebec ever
becomes sovereign, I wish to reiterate what I said on several
occasions in response to English speaking journalists. I asked
them if someone now working for a U.S. company, who has
contributed to this company's pension fund for 10 or 15 years,
will not be entitled to receive his pension from a U.S. company
because he is Canadian.
I think that is the major issue in this case. I have been working
for the Canadian government for 11 years. We as members are
not employers, but we still work for the Canadian state, and the
day Quebec becomes sovereign, I will have made my own
contribution to a pension fund. I do not see how anyone can say
today that I would not have the right to receive what I paid into
this plan.
(1055)
That is why I think that such statements are totally disloyal
and a little twisted coming as they do from the Reform Party, and
from some journalists who have often argued that it would not be
legitimate for us to receive a pension should Quebec achieve
sovereignty.
I am feeling very legitimate and very comfortable, because I
have contributed to this pension fund and I am simply entitled to
it, whether it comes from an American or Canadian company or
from the Canadian government. I am entitled to it because I have
already contributed to this fund for 11 years.
Whenever I hear talk of a gold-plated pension plan, I think
that, as far as I know, the majority of people who go into politics
do not come here for the fat pension we receive after we leave.
Most politicians, at least those I know, did not go into politics
for the pension fund; they came here to further the interests of
their party and put forward what it stands for.
Such arguments do not seem valid to me, and I do not think
that the Reform Party will score very many points by trying to
give the public the impression that members of Parliament are
overpaid and that their pensions are too generous. I think that
this is of little concern to the people of Canada.
13521
All they want is, first and foremost, to have jobs and healthy
businesses that can create more jobs. Canadians want the kind
of climate that will be conducive to a sound economy that will
lead to job creation. I think that is what they want. Whether
MPs make $64,400, $64,00 or $75,000, they really do not care,
but they care about their member's performance. They also
want their MP to fulfil their aspirations in many respects. In
any case, people of my riding of Longueuil have seldom told
me that I was making too much money. Their comments had
more to do about whether they felt I was doing a good job or
not or representing them well or not.
As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said
earlier, the reason why constituents complain about their MPs is
not because they are making too much money but rather because
they are not paying enough attention to fulfilling their wishes.
That is the spirit in which this bill, which seems reasonable to
me, should be supported.
The government has come a long way, and if there is one
aspect that I might have questioned myself, it is the fact that
pensions are paid as soon as MPs leave public life one way or the
other, but this bill provides for pensions to start when MPs reach
the age of 55, and that sounds reasonable to me. Reducing
slightly pension benefits, which may have been on the high side,
also seems reasonable to me.
For these reasons, I support the bill on pensions.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements
by members under Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
13521
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the chemical weapons convention opened for
ratification in January 1993 and will become law when ratified
by a minimum of 65 states. According to authoritative doctrine,
it codifies the general principles of the international law of war
already recognized in customary international law from at least
the time of the Geneva protocol of 1925.
The treaty itself symbolically caps an historical process of
lawmaking already in place on interdiction of chemical
weapons, which applies legally whether or not and until the
treaty itself should become law in its own right.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because of the
federal government's inertia when it comes to adequately
maintaining the Quebec City bridge, 25 organizations, including
Quebec City authorities and municipalities located on the south
shore, formed a coalition to ask the federal Minister of
Transport to do what is necessary to save and promote this part
of our national heritage.
The coalition is also asking that the bridge be excluded from
CN's assets for the purposes of the bill on the privatization of
that railway company, as was done in the case of the CN tower,
in Toronto.
Quebecers are more and more fed up with the federal
government's double standard policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society has brought to my
attention an example of discrimination against Canadians that
should not be tolerated by this government.
It seems that when Canadians of Taiwanese origin apply for
visas to China their visa applications are refused. We know what
the policy of China toward Taiwan is. There probably is not a lot
the Canadian government can do about that. However, when
Canadian citizens are discriminated against overseas because of
the country of birth they list in their passports, then it is
incumbent on our government to get involved. This is not an
issue of two countries disagreeing over sovereignty. This is a
matter of the fair treatment of Canadians around the world.
I call on this government to get involved and to use its
newfound influence in China. We must not put trade above the
fair and just treatment of citizens of Canada. We must defend
what is right and attack what is wrong. End the unfair treatment
of Taiwanese Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with sadness that we note the passing of one of Canada's most
distinguished diplomats, Mr. Charles Ritchie.
Charles Ritchie did much to enhance Canada's stature in the
world community in the troubled years of the post World War II
period. In nearly 40 years of service with the Department of
External Affairs, Charles Ritchie served in high profile and
13522
demanding diplomatic posts as high commissioner to Great
Britain, ambassador to the United States, UN ambassador,
ambassador to NATO, Germany and in Ottawa as deputy
undersecretary of state for external affairs and special adviser to
the Privy Council Office.
After retiring in 1971, Mr. Ritchie enjoyed a successful career
as an author. He was later named a companion of the Order of
Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues, I express condolences to Mrs.
Ritchie, the family and friends.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Transportation Week is a fitting
time to recall the historical role played by transportation in the
prairie provinces.
We understand the importance of an efficient and cost
effective transportation system. We live surrounded by immense
distances. At one time in our history we relied completely on the
railway to link us with the rest of the country. Now we are served
by air and road as well as by rail. What is needed is an efficient
and cost effective national transportation system, not subsidies.
Western grain producers are ready to compete with the world.
With the repeal of the WGTA and the proposed amendments to
the National Transportation Act regarding efficiency measures,
we believe they will be even better prepared for the challenges
of the global economy.
The theme of this year's National Transportation Week is
``Careers in Transportation: Opportunities, Training and
Skills''. It should remind us that the future holds opportunities
as well as challenges.
If Canada is to have the transportation system it needs, we
will need to start now to recruit, educate and train those who will
keep the country moving in the years to come.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in praise of my home province
of Saskatchewan, in particular the town of St. Brieux in the
northeast corner of my riding.
St. Brieux is an extraordinary town. It is 90 minutes northeast
of Saskatoon with a vigorous farm equipment manufacturing
plant, lots of employment, business opportunities, schools and
is bilingual. The gateway to the northern lakes, it has golf,
hockey and no crime. So ran the ad in the Toronto Sun about two
weeks ago. A four bedroom house can be purchased for a mere
$48,000.
If it is quality of life they are seeking, Torontonians will soon
be flocking to St. Brieux, especially after last night's election
results. The possibility of living in a kinder, gentler and
economically robust environment should make Saskatchewan a
more attractive alternative than ever.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday, the Prime Minister said he had no objections to
letting a House committee review the recommendations made
by the Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
However, the Minister of Justice does not consider these
issues to be priorities. Indeed, while he did acknowledge
yesterday the importance of discussing these matters, the
minister would not say when and how Parliament would be
asked to review them.
(1105)
Could it be that the personal opinions of the Minister of
Justice might prevent Parliament from looking at these sensitive
issues in the near future? Let us not forget that the minister
already stated his opposition to legalizing euthanasia and
assisted suicide at the 1994 convention of the Liberal Party of
Canada. The attitude of the Minister of Justice says a lot about
the real will of this government to debate these important issues.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
two weeks we have heard those opposite stand and plead with
the citizens of Ontario to vote Liberal in the provincial election.
Their pleadings were to no avail.
Ontario has spoken and told those opposite they do not believe
Liberals will provide justice for victims of crime. The people of
Ontario have chosen instead the Reform ideal of putting victims
first. They voted for mandated discipline and structure in the
lives of young offenders as the best policy for preventing further
youth crime. The people have chosen the Reform principle of
holding criminals accountable for their crimes and that the best
form of deterrence is swift sure punishment for criminal
activity.
I am proud to say that the people chose Reform common sense
and abandoned the false ideology that criminals are victims and
must not be judged.
In Ontario the Liberal justice philosophy is dead. May it rest
in peace. Are you now listening Mr. Justice Minister?
13523
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to offer congratulations to Dawndale Farm
Supplies Ltd., located in Hunter River, Prince Edward Island, on
the occasion of its 10th anniversary and its recent investment in
new milling equipment and expansion of its business.
David and Jean Tingley have worked very hard over the past
10 years devoting their time and energy as well as money into
making their business a successful one. It is this type of
entrepreneurship which leads to economic prosperity, not only
to communities and provinces but to the country as well. When
communities thrive and prosper, everyone benefits. The
Tingleys are not just working for their community and their
business but they are also supporting community events like
4-H.
Congratulations to David and Jean and best wishes for
continued success with this latest investment not only to their
business but also to the farming communities they serve and
work with so well.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
day police officers across Canada face many tough challenges.
Perhaps the most delicate challenge is balancing what is
politically correct and what needs to be done to maintain law and
order. Police officers put their lives on the line. Often many of
them perish in the line of duty while making our communities
safer.
In my experience as a community representative for the past
nine years I have dealt with our local police on a number of
occasions. I am proud to say that we have one of the finest police
organizations anywhere in North America and perhaps in the
world.
I would like to congratulate the Ottawa-Carleton police on a
job well done. It is our duty and our responsibility to work with
our law enforcement officers and to support them so they can
continue to provide their excellent services to our communities.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to express my outrage with recent developments in the
Reform Party of western Canada's tactics in this Chamber. Its
new American style smear campaigning reflects the Reform
Party's underlying approach: no principles unless they are
politically expedient for the moment.
The Reform Party sends different messages to different
regions of the country on issues of importance to Canadians.
Take for example the recent comments by the Reform member
for Fraser Valley West who has been telling the people of
Atlantic Canada that the Reform Party opposes tolls on
highways. However, his boss, the leader of the third party, in
speeches delivered as recently as May 25 in New York City, said
that the rebuilding of roads will include everything from
privatization of publicly owned infrastructure to user pay
systems and public-private ventures.
What is the Reform policy? Who is telling the truth? Why the
mixed-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval East.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
this past week, political events have shown how quickly ethical
issues, so dear to the heart of the Liberal government, are being
sidetracked.
When the members of the party in power formed the official
opposition, they called for a stricter code of political conduct
and an end to Conservative patronage. However, now that their
party is in power, the government has been quick to adopt the
system cherished with such enthusiasm by its predecessors.
Unlike the Conservative government, however, the Prime
Minister did not ask his Minister of Canadian Heritage to resign
and he turned a blind eye to the minister's benefit dinners,
attended by guests who a few months later just happened to be
awarded major contracts.
(1110)
The Prime Minister will not admit that the lobbyist and
political organizer who made the arrangements was also
awarded contracts and represents associations that receive
money under government programs. This government's code of
ethics is obviously just a smoke screen.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform principles we ran on in 1993 have once again been
embraced by the voters in Ontario in their overwhelming
support of the Mike Harris common sense revolution.
Once again, the voters have shown they are miles ahead of the
politicians who still practise the top down, we know best politics
of the 1970s and 1980s. The common sense of the common
people as outlined in the Reform blue book will not be denied
and the common sense revolution responded to that.
13524
It is ironic that yesterday, while the Ontario voter was
rejecting undefined sexual orientation, gold plated pensions
and gun registration, this government was introducing closure
to ram legislation dealing with each of those through this
House.
The Liberals did not win in 1993; the Tories were thrown out.
Yesterday this government provided the voters in Ontario with
three very good reasons to throw them out in 1997 and elect a
government that is listening and responding to their concerns,
the Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
some time now I have been speaking in the House of the
importance of direct parental care for preschool children.
Research done by the Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research and the National Foundation for Family Research and
Education has shown clearly that poor quality care means a
higher likelihood of problems in the health, social and criminal
justice areas.
In 1961, 65 per cent of families with preschool children had
one parent in the home. That figure reduced to only 12 per cent
in 1991. What is the impact of reduced parental care? One
example is that the suicide rate for youth between the ages of 15
and 19 has increased by 600 per cent over the same period of
time.
We must invest in our children. An investment in our children
today is an investment in the future of all Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers in my Dauphin-Swan River riding rely on the
ribbon of steel that unites our country from east to west to move
their high quality commodities to market. Therefore it is crucial
that shippers from Dauphin-Swan River and across the prairies
have access to a rail system that moves their commodity quickly
and at competitive rates.
It is fitting that National Transportation Week comes at a time
when the Liberal government is making massive improvements
to our national rail system. These measures will increase
competition and lead to greater efficiency. It is crucial that these
efficiencies are passed along to prairie farmers, the highest
volume shippers in Canada.
I strongly encourage the Minister of Transport to ensure that
the interests of prairie farmers are at the forefront of all
decisions made regarding the future of our rail system.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the Liberals got yet another taste of how
quickly they can go from the top of the heap to official
opposition. Despite a commanding lead at the beginning of the
campaign, Ontario Liberals finished a distant second. That
makes three provinces which have provincially stated: ``We do
not like the example the federal Liberals are giving us''.
As for the resurgence of the PCs, look at the federal Tory
policies and then look at the Reform policies. Tell me whose
platform Ralph Klein and Mike Harris are really following.
On the subject of mergers, the leader of the federal PCs should
merge not with Reform but with the Liberals with whom he has
much more in common, especially since Liberal cabinet
ministers started to follow the corrupt patronage practices of the
former Tory government.
I am not one to wish my life away, but I am looking forward to
1997.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Saturday I had the great pleasure of manning the telephones
for two hours to raise money for the Children's Hospital of
Eastern Ontario. Once again the people of this region proved
their generosity as volunteers and hundreds came out.
This year they were helped by a marvellous group of young
people. Over half the pages of the House of Commons were out
volunteering for the telethon for the Children's Hospital of
Eastern Ontario.
(1115)
I had the great pleasure of having one of them bring me a
message and as I looked down I saw the message was coming
from another two pages down there answering phones and
scribbling out pledge forms.
On behalf of all the people of this region, I thank the pages
who come to our community, often from far away, and who start
fitting right in and making a contribution.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13524
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
stated that during the referendum campaign in Quebec, the
13525
federal government would comply with Quebec's referendum
legislation as it did in 1980, which is not very reassuring, when
we consider the contempt shown for this legislation by the
Trudeau government and its Quebec lieutenant, the present
Prime Minister of Canada, who spent millions of dollars and
ignored the spending limits imposed on the ``yes''and ``no''
umbrella committees.
Are we to conclude from yesterday's statements by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that in 1995, the federal
Liberals, like Trudeau did in 1980, intend to ignore the letter and
the intent of Quebec's referendum legislation, which sets
democratic rules for all such campaigns in Quebec?
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, yesterday I made it very clear that we complied
with the legislation in 1980 and intend to comply with the letter
and the intent of the legislation in 1995.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the following figures will illustrate the extent of this
compliance. In 1980, the federal government spent at least $17
million, although the spending ceiling for umbrella committees
was set at $2.7 million. It was slightly out of line here. And
according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
federal government intends to repeat this exercise during the
next referendum campaign.
Should we conclude that the Trudeau government's behaviour
during the 1980 campaign was a model of good faith and
transparency, which the present federal government intends to
follow during the next referendum campaign in Quebec?
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, speaking of compliance, I may remind the
members of the opposition that they made a promise there would
be a referendum, and they should keep that promise.
They promised it would be held in the first half of 1995, in
May or June, but they did not keep their promise. Now they
promise it will be in the fall. I hope that promise will be kept.
When I look at the money their big brother, the Parti
Quebecois, spends on regional commissions to sell sovereignty,
I think they should show some respect for the democratic system
in the province and for the spirit of the law, in addition to
making people abide by this legislation, which in fact we do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we said it would be in 1995. For the minister's
information, there are twelve months in 1995, and the year ends
on December 31.
Speaking of big brothers, what about those subsidies to big
brother, to Power Corporation, the real big brother of the Liberal
Party?
While the Government of Quebec acts openly, the federal
government acts behind the scenes by handing out subsidies that
are directly related to the referendum campaign. A few
examples: $35 million for tourism advertising, in addition to the
$15 million already budgeted; $6 million for the unity
operation; $1.1 million to celebrate the 30th birthday of the
Canadian flag; $2.2 million for the Charles Bronfman
Foundation, friends of the government. This plus the other
hidden costs.
Is that what the federal government means by complying with
the spirit of Quebec's referendum legislation?
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, I think that we on this side will refrain from
mentioning the advertising in the Montreal subway, the
Commission on Quebec's sovereignty and the regional
commissions.
(1120)
We will refrain, because we already abide by the law and
intend to comply with the spirit of the referendum legislation.
However, what this country needs is for the referendum to be
held as soon as possible, with a clear question, so that we will be
able to deal with this problem once and for all and can start
dealing with the real issues: creating jobs in Canada, including
Quebec, and reducing poverty in Canada and Quebec.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The federal
government gave $32 million to the Council for Canadian Unity
last year for its prereferendum campaign and the government
has pledged funding again for the coming year. In addition, the
Department of National Revenue has granted it charitable
status, and its number is 0333054-59.
Can the minister explain to us how the Council for Canadian
Unity can be considered a charity?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House a number of
times how the charitable status for organizations is given out. It
is given out on the basis of court decisions. There is no
legislation. It is not decision of the minister but a series of court
decisions which has determined that various areas of activity
13526
considered to be in the public interest should be permitted
charitable status to encourage that. It has resulted in substantial
improvements in Canadian living standards, in health and in all
sorts of other areas.
I am afraid, however, with respect to the specifics of the hon.
member's question I do not have in my hand the number he gave
out. If he would like to give it to me I could check out that
number.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Minister of National Revenue justify that big businesses
get a tax deduction for their contributions to the Council for
Canadian Unity, when charitable status is usually granted on the
basis of the following criteria: relief of poverty, promotion of
education or religion and other efforts to the benefit of the
community like the relief of suffering or sickness?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again with respect to companies as
opposed to individuals the rules are quite clear. A company can
make expenditures and provide money to organizations but the
final line in terms of determining this, which again is in the
courts and not in the hands of the department, is whether it
advances the business interests of the company involved.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government cannot seem to get its story straight over the
heritage minister's contract for dollars dinner.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated there was no
breach of ethics and therefore there was no need for the ethics
counsellor to investigate this paid access to the minister.
However, today we learn the ethics counsellor is investigating
the matter. It appears Mr. Wilson feels there is more to this affair
than meets the government's eye.
Is the ethics counsellor conducting an open investigation into
the minister of heritage's dinner? Will Mr. Wilson's report be
made public?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
informed the House two days ago that he had consulted Mr.
Wilson about the question. I spoke to the Prime Minister at
approximately 10.45 a.m. and he advised me, as he has stated
publicly in the House many times, that if there are questions
about the ethics of the government the ultimate arbiter of those
questions is not a bureaucrat, it is the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess
that is a question mark.
The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
heritage minister have suggested all the information on this
matter has been made public. However, the heritage minister
refuses to provide the House with a list of the people invited and
those who contributed to the dinner.
(1125 )
With the latest revelation that Guylaine Saucier donated
$1,000 to the minister's debt fund and was appointed chairman
of the CBC six months later, we have to wonder who did not get a
contract from the minister's private dinner.
When the Prime Minister appointed Guylaine Saucier as
chairman of the CBC, did he know she had contributed $1,000 to
the heritage minister's debt fund?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Guylaine Saucier
happens to be the first woman to be president of the Quebec
Chamber of Commerce. She has served on several boards
including the board of the Bank of Montreal, the board of Bell
Canada, the board of Petro-Canada. She has been active in a
number of community events including the University of
Montreal, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, the Hôtel-Dieu de
Montréal. She was appointed to the Order of Canada in 1989 by a
government that was not Liberal.
Madam Saucier has said she has contributed to numerous
political parties. She is a federalist and supports the role of
federal political parties in Canada.
If the member has a problem with the appointment of Madam
Saucier, then let him so state in the House because her
credentials speak for themselves.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, her
credentials were not questioned in any way. I asked if the Prime
Minister was aware that a donation had been made to that fund
before the appointment was made. The question was not
answered.
Canadians want ethical and honest government. The success
of Mike Harris' populous grassroots campaign proves that.
Instead of honesty and ethics, the Liberals are giving Canadians
the same old Mulroney style government they had from the
Progressive Conservatives.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage specifically targeted
clients of his department, invited them to a dinner to pay off his
campaign debts and then rewarded all of them, every single one,
with grants, contracts and chairmanships. This is a direct
conflict of interest and it is about time the government
recognized this.
What is this government afraid of? Why will it not release the
invitation list of those who contributed to the dinner? Why will
the Minister of Canadian Heritage not do the honourable thing
and resign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I challenge the
member to review his first question. Implicit in the question was
the
13527
suggestion that somehow Madam Saucier bought her position in
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I pointed out, as she
has publicly pointed out, she has contributed to several political
parties over a great number of years.
Every political party has the responsibility of collecting
funds. I refer the member to an article he might have missed:
``The Reform Party will soon be knocking on corporate doors in
Nova Scotia in search of political donations for its election war
chest. Nationally the party says it-has banked $2.4 million to
bankroll the next vote where it will be running candidates in 295
ridings. If you have an extra $125 and you would like to break
bread with Preston Manning, you are in luck. Reform's chief
will be in Halifax-for a fundraising dinner''.
Political parties raise money. I am sure the member would
agree with me that it would not be reasonable to exclude every
Canadian who donates to a political party from ever serving in a
capacity with the Government of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrated
Canada's lack of leadership in the Bosnian crisis by refusing to
publicly state Canada's position on the rapid reaction force,
while at the same time, behind closed doors, the Minister of
National Defence supported the initiative at a NATO meeting.
Now that we know, thanks to the media and the Minister of
National Defence, that Canada supports the creation of a rapid
reaction force in the former Yugoslavia, and the UN's leadership
of it, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the
government intends to contribute troops or to contribute
logistically to this rapid reaction force?
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
As he knows, there are activities under way by other allied
countries participating in Bosnia to look at a rapid reaction
force.
The Prime Minister stated in the House earlier in the week
that we are aware of the plans being made but at that time
Canada was not part of that activity. As I stand in the House
today I have to say the same thing. Canada is not part of that
activity and the decision has not yet been made.
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a
time when the United States' reaction to the rapid reaction force
is lukewarm, which is seriously hampering the effort of the
international community to consolidate the peacekeeping forces
in Bosnia, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether she
shares the opinion of the British secretary to the Foreign Office
that, if the rapid reaction force does not get up and running, the
only other option will be to withdraw the peacekeepers from
Bosnia?
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are 35 countries
involved in the former Yugoslavia. Canada is one of them. He
has asked me questions about other countries, but I can only
answer the question for Canada. I have answered that question
and I can do no more.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
almost since this House began sitting early in 1994, the
government has been attempting to redo the redistribution of
boundaries in the House of Commons. This latest bill, C-69,
which has been bouncing back and forth, is coming back to this
House. It will increase the size of the House and add $6 million
in redistribution costs. We saw last night in Ontario that the
people of Canada do not want to spend this kind of money on the
House of Commons.
I would ask the government House leader if he would now
consider doing the right thing by withdrawing Bill C-69, saving
$6 million, and allowing the redistribution to go ahead?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member in his question is reflecting adversely
and unfairly on the work of members of this House who for the
first time under the rules of parliamentary reform actually
brought in and drafted a bill. Instead of his unwarranted
criticism, he should be recognizing this good work and urging
his friends in the Senate to respect the wishes of the elected
people of this House and let this bill go through.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure how many friends I have in the Senate.
In the Ontario election last night premier-elect Harris
defeated the Liberals partly by proposing that there be a 25 per
cent reduction to the number of seats in the Ontario legislature.
If the government is not willing to at least let the redistribution
go
13528
ahead, would it consider combining the redistribution with the
modest 10 per cent reduction to the number of seats that the
Reform Party has proposed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the increase in seats that would come into effect, not
just in the bill he is talking about but in the redistribution
process that was interrupted by it, is provided for in a formula in
the Constitution of Canada.
This government does not propose opening a new round of
constitutional discussions. I am surprised my hon. friend wants
to take up the time of the country with a new round of
constitutional discussions. I am sure the people of Ontario and
British Columbia would be most displeased and disheartened to
learn that he does not want them to have fair representation in
the Parliament of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture.
In response to the Official Opposition's questions in the
House regarding the fraudulent use of the growth hormone
somatotropin, the Minister of Agriculture announced close to a
month ago that he would investigate dairy producers and single
out the ones that are guilty of fraud.
Will the minister tell us whether, as part of his inquiry, he
requested and obtained the collaboration of producers'
associations, Canada Customs officers and Health Canada
inspectors, and will he reveal to us the fruit of his research?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member
that no further information has been drawn to my attention since
the issue was first raised a number of days ago in the House.
The issue is obviously one, as he implies in his question, that
would involve co-operation among a number of departments,
most particularly the two departments he referred to, the
Department of Health and the customs department.
If and when there is further pertinent material that is drawn to
my attention as a result of the inquiries we are making, I would
be most happy to inform him and all other hon. members.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out that the minister has already had the question in his
hands for one month, not just for a couple of days and that we are
waiting for the results.
Will the minister tell us whether, as a follow up to his inquiry,
he intends to pursue this issue further and to take legal action
against those who used somatotropin illegally, given that the
hormone had not yet been declared safe by Health Canada?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it would be
imprudent and inappropriate to make any references to the
possibility of illegal conduct.
Obviously if in the course of these inquiries or any other
inquiries that are being made there is evidence that comes to
light of activity that would be in violation of the law, the
appropriate action would be taken.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
All the polls and pundits have indicated that a major reason
behind Mike Harris' victory last night in Ontario was due to his
position on employment equity. He was not messing around; he
said he was going to scrap the employment equity plan.
On this side of the House we are very interested to know if the
federal government is going to take a lesson from this victory
last night. I realize that the Charest-Mulroney gang brought in
employment equity, but is this government going to stop now
trying to bring in an expanded employment equity plan? Will it
withdraw its plans on Bill C-64?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member had better
make up his mind. His colleagues were running around saying
that the victory was as a result of gun control.
The Speaker: My colleagues, just to remind you very gently,
when we refer to each other in the House, sitting members, we
refer to our ridings as opposed to our names.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose there are quite a few Reform policies that got the Mike
Harris government elected.
The director of communications for the Prime Minister's
office said that the federal Liberals would be helping the Ontario
13529
Liberals in their campaigns. The quote is: ``They helped us, we
help them. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.'' I am sure Lyn
McLeod is saying to herself this morning, ``With friends like
this, who needs enemies?''
Since the voters of Ontario totally rejected the Liberal
concept of employment equity, will the minister listen to the
voters and back down on the government's own employment
equity plans, its plans to expand employment equity, or is it
going to take a federal election defeat for the Liberals before
they listen to the people and understand that employment equity
is not wanted?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Unlike the Reform Party, we
actually believe in employment equity, and unlike the Reform
Party, we actually believe in political democracy.
Unlike the Reform Party, we did not put the jackboots to
provincial Reformers who wanted to run in the Ontario
provincial election. We allow and encourage everybody to
become members of the Liberal Party because we are not afraid
of a little competition at the provincial level.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is Friday, everyone is a bit on edge.
My question is for the Minister of Health.
Although the studies on the impact of somatotropin on human
and animal health are not yet complete, Quebec and Canadian
consumers are finding this hormone in dairy products they
purchase, since, despite the Health Canada prohibition, certain
producers are not afraid to use it, particularly since the Minister
of Agriculture seems in no hurry to do a serious investigation.
Would the Minister of Health tell us what measures she has
taken to ensure that somatotropin, the sale of which is prohibited
by her department, is not found in dairy products?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, so long as this hormone remains unapproved, it is
illegal to use it. We will do all we have to, not only at the
Department of Health, but at customs and at the Department of
Agriculture.
(1140)
As my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has just said, it
is early yet to really assess the situation and lay any charges. If
you have any information that can help us, please let us know,
because we are interested.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if I have understood the minister's response, she is
counting on her colleague in agriculture to do the investigating.
What the Minister of Agriculture has told us, unless I
misunderstood him, is that he was not exactly sure where he was
going.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether she can
explain why she is letting the Minister of Agriculture carry out
the investigation all by himself, when she is responsible for
prohibiting the use and sale of the hormone somatotropin in
Canada?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in reply to the
earlier question, the issue that has been raised relates to the
jurisdictional responsibilities of several ministers, including the
Minister of Health, the Minister of National Revenue, with his
responsibility for customs, and agriculture with its obvious
interest in the dairy industry. All of us are endeavouring to be as
vigilant as we can to ensure that the laws of Canada are fully and
faithfully respected.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment.
It is very important that the government lead by example in all
things, including environmental matters. One of the most
visible symbols of government is the national capital region.
Our national capital is beautiful at this time of year, but I ask the
Minister of the Environment what she is doing to ensure that it is
and remains truly green.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the intention of the
Government of Canada is to ensure that every part of Canada is
green. Obviously one of those very important parts is the
national capital region.
We believe that some of the recently announced policies on
issues like the Commission for Sustainable Development and
also the very excellent initiative of Bill S-7 by Senator Colin
Kenny, which will begin to create a market for alternative fuels
in this country, will get smog out of the air and keep those tulips
growing and make sure that all urban areas of the country also
benefit from a cleaner environment, which is something we owe
our kids.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister first claimed that his gun control legislation would cost
13530
the taxpayers no more than $85 million. Estimates the justice
minister tabled later with the standing committee revealed the
cost to be $118.9 million. These estimates did not include the
cost for the gun inspectors who will now have to be hired and
trained to ensure compliance with the Firearms Act.
I ask the justice minister, how much will the hiring and
training of these new gun inspectors add to the cost of the gun
legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the entire cost of the
program was put before the committee, of which the hon.
member was an active and hard-working member. The
committee examined the cost estimates and for weeks heard 70
witnesses discussing costs, among other things.
I conclude from the committee's work and its report to the
House, which is due next week, that it found that the estimates
presented by the government were indeed accurate and
complete.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that
were true then I would not be standing here asking about the cost
of the program.
I have been told by the justice minister that he will not even
reply to requests from some authorities in areas of the country
regarding the failure of the federal government to reimburse
them for the cost to administer the present gun control
legislation.
Did the justice minister discuss with the provinces and the
territories the additional cost of hiring and training the required
gun inspectors before he imposed these conditions on them
through his amendments to his gun control legislation?
(1145 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the the hon. member
knows, we have told the provinces and territories the cost of
establishing, implementing and designing the registration
system will be borne by the federal government. We have also
told them the cost of administering the registration system will
be paid by revenues generated through the reasonable fees that
will be charged.
Based on the figures we put before the committee and the very
reliable estimates we produced, there is no basis in cost to
oppose the registration of firearms.
I wish the hon. member would put aside the details he is trying
to raise which have been fully explored in committee, and
explain to the House and the country why he is opposing
something the police forces in his own province, and by a
margin of two out of three, the people in his own province want
to see the House put in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health
must be aware that the European Community has declared a
seven-year moratorium on the use of recombinant bovine
somatotropin because this product is a health hazard to both
humans and animals.
Given that Health Canada has not yet completed its studies
and that the voluntary moratorium expires in 22 days, does the
minister intend to take action by imposing a real moratorium?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Health Canada's role is to determine if a product is safe
and does what it is supposed to do. The moratorium that has been
in effect for a year was arrived at through negotiations between
Agriculture Canada and the producers, with the approval of
Health Canada. Health Canada's only responsibility is to ensure
that the product is safe.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier,
my colleagues reminded this House of the illegalities committed
during this voluntary moratorium. How can the minister
condone the use of a product that is banned in Canada, when her
department does not even enforce the legislation? Will she allow
the lifting of the moratorium? Is this what she calls taking
action?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after consultations with officials in Quebec, with
Customs Canada, with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we
have not found any evidence that the product is being used
illegally in Canada.
If the hon. member has any evidence of that nature please
bring it forward. It is not being sold in Canada nor is it about to
be sold unless Health Canada proves it is safe and effective and
that has not happened.
It was a voluntary moratorium arrived at through negotiations
with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the producers of
the product. If there is going to be an extension of the
moratorium I believe it has to be negotiated again between
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the producers of BST.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In my riding of Peace River some farmers have diversified
and are now growing organically grown wheat. This is a special-
13531
ty product which the Canadian Wheat Board simply cannot
handle. Organic farmers have had to find their own markets, yet
the wheat board insists these farmers go through all its costly red
tape.
The fine for bypassing the Canadian Wheat Board on this
issue is $12,000 and two years in jail.
Will the minister allow organic farmers to sell their product
without jumping through all the wheat board hoops necessary?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last number of months
the Canadian Wheat Board has made a substantial effort to find
the appropriate regulatory and other means to accommodate the
needs of organic producers.
It is my view, which I think is shared by the board, that in the
future organic production, whether of wheat or potentially a
great many other commodities, will be able to find very
significant and valuable niche markets that may over time grow
to be much more than just niches in terms of the future
marketing potential.
(1150 )
The hon. member may rest assured that we will be
endeavouring by all possible means to promote the maximum
marketing opportunities because those opportunities are
valuable not only to the individual producers of the organic
product but also to the entire grains economy.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the minister of agriculture.
As he knows, the current system is simply not working. It is
penalizing farmers who are struggling to diversify. It is ironic
that at a time when the federal government has spent millions of
dollars on western diversification, the wheat board is standing in
the way of those farmers who have already found their markets
and simply want to market their grain.
Will the minister at least amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act to remove organic crops from wheat board jurisdiction and
allow this industry to develop?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows,
there is a substantial division of opinion in western Canada on
the issue he has just raised.
It is important for all producers, whether they be organic
producers or others, to have the opportunity to examine the
marketing system and all the various options, all the pros and the
cons, all the benefits and the consequences, to understand
completely what is involved in the marketing decisions that
need to be made in the future.
The opportunity for that kind of dialogue and discussion
among farmers and farm organizations will be forthcoming very
soon.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question concerns Canada's tourism industry.
Over the last number of years Canada has lost a large part of
its tourism business from all over the world, but in particular,
from the United States.
Is the current campaign having any effect on our tourist
business and at what cost?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me stress for the hon. member the importance
of the tourism sector to the government's jobs and growth
agenda.
I am pleased to tell him the $50 million commitment that the
government made to the Canadian Tourism Commission has
already leveraged an addition $30 million from the private
sector, no strings attached.
The campaigns are under way, both on television as well as in
newspapers. The responses are formidable. I would like to
mention to the House that in the first quarter of 1995, we already
have very encouraging numbers.
Travel receipts are up by 19.5 per cent and the travel deficit
figures for the same period are down by 11.3 per cent. Tourism is
jobs for Canadians in all parts of the country. It is jobs and
growth.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, the Canadian government banned
the export of PCBs to the United States without prior
authorization by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency,
which systematically refused PCB shipments, thus making any
PCB export virtually impossible.
This created an opportunity for a fledgling PCB destruction
industry to develop in Canada and Quebec. In the spirit of the
Basel convention, Canada now tends to look after the disposal of
its own hazardous wastes, thereby avoiding the serious
problems associated with long haul shipping of these products.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is she
prepared to make a public commitment to maintain the policy
position that Canada must manage its own waste, no matter what
decisions the EPA may make in the future, and does she
undertake to press the U.S to do the same?
13532
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the regulations
proposed by the former environment minister, the hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Jean, were designed to govern PCB exports, but
these were never approved. This is what the minister proposed
but it was never confirmed in the legislation.
That said, we have taken the position at the EPA hearings
currently going on in Washington that we would rather see to the
disposal of our PCBs ourselves.
(1155)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the situation has evolved since
1990, does the minister undertake to amend the PCB Waste
Export Regulations to prevent once and for all Canada from
being tempted in the future to dispose of its PCBs by shipping
them to the U.S., which would compromise the development of
emerging industries in Canada and Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat in
English what I said in French. The former Minister of the
Environment promised to ban the export of PCBs in 1990. It was
announced but never proclaimed. Therefore, it is not currently
the law that PCBs cannot be exported.
However, it has been the policy of Canada, despite the fact
that the minister of the day did not follow through on his
commitment to make it illegal. It is still the position of the
government that the handling of PCBs should be done in Canada
by Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the agriculture minister.
Farmers have notified the minister of their deep concern over
the questionable activities of the Canadian Wheat Board. Very
simply, when will the minister take these people seriously and
address their concerns about the grain marketing system?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I presume the question relates
to the discussion which has been ongoing in western Canada for
some time about the appropriate jurisdiction of the Canadian
Wheat Board and the issue that some have referred to as dual
marketing or other types of marketing options.
As I indicated in reply to an earlier question with respect to
organic crops, it is important for farmers and all of the
stakeholders in the Canadian grains industry to have the
opportunity to examine the issue of their preferred marketing
options and marketing systems in a fully informed, fully
comprehensive and rational manner.
I undertook some time ago to provide a forum within which
that dialogue could take place. As I said in response to the
previous question, that forum will be forthcoming very shortly.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not just about dual marketing or whatever system.
It is about mismanagement.
It is reported today that the Canadian Wheat Board is hauling
barley to be shipped to Japan by rail from Thunder Bay to
California at a cost of $82 Canadian a ton. This is $9 a ton more
than the farmer gets for it initially, plus they have to pay the
freight to Thunder Bay.
When will the minister start acting like a minister of
agriculture and look after the concerns of western farmers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been
following closely the developments with respect to barley sales
and marketing over the course of the last number of weeks and
months, he would have known that the Canadian Wheat Board
has had considerable challenges before it in enticing the right
kind of barley into the system to meet the sales opportunities we
do have.
The board is obviously, in the circumstances referred to by the
hon. gentleman, going to some extraordinary lengths to make
sure that Canada meets the marketing opportunities it has before
it. The wheat board would not be engaging in that pattern of
marketing unless it was convinced it was in the best interest of
farmers in making money for farmers.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for International
Trade have spoken recently about the need to strengthen
economic ties between North America and Europe.
Would the Minister for International Trade please bring the
House up to date on the status of this initiative?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister some months ago raised
the question of closer economic ties between Europe and North
America, including the possibility of an eventual free trade
agreement. He did so because on this side of the House we
recognize that in the post cold war period, the era of the cold war
having past, the security emphasis is no longer so central to our
13533
relationship and should be further underpinned by closer
economic ties.
D (1200 )
In addition, we are a government that recognizes the
possibilities of going beyond the commitments we made in the
World Trade Organization to reduce trade barriers. We believe
that initiative could be embodied in a freer trade agreement with
Europe, as we have already committed to over a longer period
with Asia Pacific and the western hemisphere.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was reported yesterday that the minister of immigration is
considering granting minister's permits to up to 17,000 refugees
who cannot be given permanent residency in Canada. They
cannot get permanent residency because they came to Canada
with no identity documents and we have no idea who they are or
what crimes they may have committed. We do know that most
came from a country that was ripped apart by bloody civil war
and terrible violent crime.
Will the minister promise to protect Canadians by not
granting residency to one single individual if we do not know the
full background and complete history of the person?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is under active
consideration. There is a concern that a number of individuals
have accepted refugee status from the Immigration and Refugee
Board. On their application for landing, according to law, they
clearly have to demonstrate documentation.
A number of individuals are in this catch-22 situation. They
come from countries where there is not only no government but
no valid documentation to obtain. It is not an easy black or white
situation. The government and the department are seriously
looking at this file to try to come up with a solution which will
clearly protect the Canadian community and also try to benefit
individuals who have been accepted as refugees and want to
become members of the Canadian family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. Following the last budget, the minister announced
cuts to various cultural organizations, including the Canada
Council. On March 1, the Canada Council itself announced the
closing of the Art Bank. That decision was strongly denounced
by several organizations in Quebec and in Canada, including
Quebec's association of visual arts artists.
Given that the Canada Council did not first consult visual arts
stakeholders, what action will the minister take to force it to
reconsider a decision which was made in stealth and seemingly
in a hurry?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Art Bank is the exclusive responsibility
of the Canada Council. It is up to that organization to decide
what it wants to do with the bank. However, I would be very
pleased if arrangements can be made with the private sector and
other interested parties to ensure the survival of the bank.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), I move:
That, commencing on June 12, 1995 and concluding on June 23, 1995, on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the House shall continue to sit
until 11.30 p.m. and, on Fridays until 5 p.m., for the purpose of considering
Government Orders, provided that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38
shall, when applicable, be taken up between 11.30 p.m. and 12 a.m.
(1205 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a normal proposal at this
time of year. The standing orders anticipate that there will
usually be a backlog of business before the House in June.
Therefore, as part of what might be called a trade off in the rules
which provide for an automatic summer adjournment beginning
on June 23, there is a provision for an extension of sitting hours
during the two weeks prior to that date, the intention being that
the additional time be used to complete business that the public
interest requires.
When the House resumed the session last September, there
were five government bills on the Order Paper and seven in
committee. Fifty-two more government bills have been
introduced since that time. We have passed 34 of the bills and
have made progress on 20 more, but we are now at that point of
the parliamentary calendar when the rules I mentioned were
designed to come into effect to facilitate a special effort to help
complete the legislative agenda.
I should like to outline for the House the business the
government would like to see done by June 23, which I repeat is
the date of adjournment for the summer period specified by the
rules.
It is our intention to seek completion of all remaining stages
of Bill C-68, the firearms bill; Bill C-41, the sentencing
legislation; Bill C-85, the parliamentary retiring allowances
13534
bill; and Bill C-72, dealing with the defence of criminal
intoxication.
We also will give similarly high priority to the completion of
the debate on the motion for a special joint committee of the
House and Senate to consider an update of a code of conduct for
parliamentarians, that is, both members of Parliament and
senators.
We also would consider it a high priority to deal with, if
necessary, any messages from the Senate concerning Bill C-22
regarding Pearson airport and Bill C-69 concerning electoral
boundaries.
There are a number of other bills to which it would be very
much in the public interest for the House to give third reading
before we adjourn on June 23. Some of these are bills which
have an impact on the fiscal position of the government or on
economic development for the country. These include: Bill
C-70, amending the Income Tax Act; Bill C-82, regarding the
Royal Canadian Mint; Bill C-86, concerning the Canadian
Dairy Commission; Bill C-88, regarding the removal of internal
trade barriers; Bill C-89, the CNR commercialization
legislation; Bill C-91, regarding the business development
bank; Bill C-92, regarding the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill
C-94, regarding the fuel additive MMT.
There is also an international commitment which Canada has
for quick passage of Bill C-87 regarding chemical weapons.
In addition, there are a number of bills that have been before
the House for some time which ought to have their report stage
and third reading completed so they can be moved on to the
Senate very soon. I am speaking about Bill C-45, to update our
parole and corrections system; Bill C-52, reorganizing the
Department of Public Works and Government Services; Bill
C-54, concerning administration of the old age security and
Canada pension plan systems; and Bill C-65, to reorganize or
eliminate certain government agencies.
(1210)
We would also like to send to the appropriate parliamentary
committee for consideration before second reading two rather
complicated bills, Bill C-62 regarding regulatory reform and
Bill C-84 also concerning regulations.
This is a rather heavy legislative agenda. It is for this reason
that we are proposing extensive additional sitting hours for the
next two weeks, that is until June 23, the normal date of
adjournment for the summer provided for to come into place
automatically under the rules.
Our proposal is for the House to sit until 11.30 p.m. with an
additional half hour for the adjournment debate Monday through
Thursday, and until 5 p.m. on Friday. We have opted for later
hours than in the past because of the heavy agenda, but we are
prepared to be flexible on a day to day basis.
To conclude, I want to say accordingly it is our hope to be able
to work with the opposition in the detailed scheduling of the
business I have outlined with a view to serving the public
interest, the interests of all Canadians. Therefore we seek the
co-operation of all members of this House. I make special
reference to the opposition parties in this effort.
I urge the House to support this motion. It is very much in the
public interest that this motion be adopted and the legislative
agenda I have outlined be completed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by way
of comment I might draw to the solicitor general's attention the
fact that I have just made a list of the number of items he has
given to this House. If my addition is correct it is 22 items.
Unless I am mistaken there are only nine working days in which
we are supposed to be putting the 22 items through.
He speaks in grandiose terms about serving the public
interest. Truly in this House of Commons as members of
Parliament we come here to serve the best interests of the people
of Canada. I have to ask the solicitor general, how does it
possibly serve the public interest when he comes to this House
two weeks before the time when he wants to end this particular
session, two weeks, nine working days, and gives the House 22
items? To any reasonable minded Canadian reading Hansard or
watching this debate on television, does it not give the
appearance that this government is treating the House of
Commons like a rubber stamp?
Coming forward with 22 items to be dealt with in nine days in
my judgment is irresponsible. Would the solicitor general care
to comment on that?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the
list of bills I have mentioned, they are almost all bills that have
already had extensive debate in this House and extensive
consideration in committee. With respect to most of them we are
only asking the House to move on the final stages of debate,
report stage and third reading.
Why would the hon. member want to hold up for months more
Bill C-45, to update our parole and corrections system? I
thought that would be something the Reform Party would want
to see in effect. Why is it backing down on something like this?
This is the kind of thing we want to make progress on. We are
providing extensive additional hours of debate.
There are some measures that we are simply asking to be the
subject of motions and referred to committee for more detailed
study. Almost without exception we are talking about measures
that have already had very extensive debate in this House and in
committee. We are only asking that the final stages of debate,
report stage and third reading, be proceeded with. We have
extensive additional hours, which we hope all members of the
House will be willing to use to complete these stages.
13535
D (1215)
That is the answer to my hon. friend's question. Again, I hope
we will have his and his party's co-operation in making progress
on these bills in the overall public interest.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House leader. The Reform
Party is alleging this list was provided to it just now in an effort
to adjourn the House, according to what the member says is the
House leader's wish, on June 23.
Is it not true that opposition parties have been consulted about
the agenda on a weekly basis and that the list provided today or
something close to it was submitted to the opposition many
times before? Is it not also true that the rule provides that we can
start using this mechanism of extending hours only next
Monday? Finally, is it not also true that when we tried to extend
hours in the past, very often the same people have refused to
extend the hours when we wanted to complete the particular bill
that day?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, we ordinarily do not discuss before
the House consultations we have with other parties outside the
House with respect to the business of the House. Under the
circumstances, I can only agree with what the hon. member has
said.
We have shared this list or one very similar to it with
opposition parties, not today in my speech for the first time but a
number of days ago. We have sought co-operation-I point
especially to the Reform Party-on working out the schedule to
get this set of measures completed.
The attitude of the Reform Party speaks for itself as to the
degree of co-operation it has offered. I would not like to say the
degree of co-operation it has offered can be characterized by the
word zilch because I am not sure the word zilch is
parliamentary; if it is not, I will withdraw it. If it is all right I
will leave it on the record and everybody will know what I mean.
It is quite correct that under the rules we could not move this
motion for extended hours until today. There have been other
occasions, I have been reminded by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when efforts have been made to
extend hours on individual measures, and opposition members,
especially Reform members, have always blocked that. They
could easily have had additional time to consider some of these
measures individually in the past, and I am informed they
blocked efforts to do this.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has
raised some interesting points. I hope my comments have shed
some light on these matters.
I further add that contrary to what was suggested by the leader
of the Reform Party in some quite unwarranted remarks I saw
reported in the press this morning, the date of June 23 is the date
for the adjournment of the House for a summer break, which
comes into place automatically under the rules of this House and
has been part of the rules for some time. This should be borne in
mind in assessing measures being taken to facilitate the business
of the House in the days leading up to June 23.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when Bill
C-68 came before this House everyone knew it was a very
contentious bill. Yet all members were denied the opportunity to
express the concerns of their constituents on that very extensive
bill.
Then the bill was rushed into committee and a deadline was
set for the committee hearings. I did not object to that. I was
only concerned that we were able to get the necessary witnesses
before the committee in order to consider their testimony. Then
we were rushed into clause by clause on this committee.
(1220)
I ask the solicitor general why that we are in such a rush to
move such a huge bill through the House in such a hurry when it
is not going to become mandatory until 2003. What is the rush?
Why could we not at least allow that bill to be set over until this
fall, when everyone would have an opportunity to examine the
large number of amendments that will be tabled before this
House on that bill?
I understand that there are well over 100 amendments. Yet
time allocation is being imposed. Why is Bill C-68, many
portions of which will not become mandatory for eight years,
being looked at with such urgency? Why could we not relieve
the demands upon the government, upon this House, and upon
the members by simply allowing that bill to be moved and taken
up when we resume sitting in the fall? I do not understand that.
Would the solicitor general care to comment?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. member that
Bill C-68, the bill to which he refers, was debated for days and
days in this House. It was then studied for weeks and weeks in
committee.
The hon. member speaks of 100 amendments. Most of them
are his party's amendments. I can ask why the amendments of
his party were not proposed in the parliamentary committee,
which is the normal time and place for amendments. Is the
purpose of the hon. member at this time to use the device of
proposing amendments simply to engage in what amounts to a
filibuster? That is a question the majority of Canadians, who
want this legislation, can validly ask the Reform Party, although
the majority of Canadians who support this legislation already
know the answer.
The hon. member should be aware that in our parliamentary
system the other place still has to consider this measure. That is
its right and duty under our Constitution. If the hon. member
does not want to see this bill and its implementation delayed
13536
even longer than the date provided for in the statute, and if he
wants to have adequate time for its orderly and fair
implementation, then rather than urging that there be further
delay until the fall for the consideration of this bill in this House
of Commons, he will be applauding our efforts to have it voted
on before June 23.
In my view, this is a fair and reasonable step to make sure that
the bill is not only law but is adopted and implemented in a fair
and reasonable way to serve the overall public interest when it
comes to protecting Canadians from improper and unlawful use
of firearms, which the majority of Canadians indicate over and
over again in public opinion polls that they want from this
Parliament.
I am surprised that my hon. friend, interested as he says his
party is in listening to people, refuses to listen to them on this
important issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, the period for
questions and comments has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the
official opposition on the motion to extend the sitting hours in
the House of Commons for the next two weeks.
I would first like to clarify a few points concerning our party's
position regarding extending the hours of the House of
Commons.
In the past, the Bloc Quebecois has never objected, far from it,
to extended sittings in the House of Commons, because it
wanted to ensure that the parliamentary machine ran in a calm,
democratic and efficient way. Each time it was proposed to
extend the House's sitting hours, we have always replied ``count
us in''.
(1225)
For example, during the last debate on the railway conflict,
our members came to the House in great numbers over the
week-end, Saturday and Sunday, which was quite
exceptional-apparently these hours of sitting were
unprecedented-to discuss the measure proposed by the
government, whereas our colleagues of other political stripes
were less diligent in this regard.
The same thing will apply this time, but do not think that the
Bloc Quebecois will support the government's motion
lightheartedly. In fact, the sore point in this case is the timing of
the government's decision to impose extended hours on the
House. First of all, we must ask ourselves why the federal
government waited until now, just before the session adjourns,
to extend the hours of sitting in the House.
Why did the government not extend the hours in a more
balanced manner, in the weeks preceding the usual end of the
Parliamentary session? There are several possible explanations,
but the most plausible is that the government has again been laid
low by two ills that have dogged it since it was elected, and by
which, it would seem, it continues to be dogged. They are
amateurism and improvisation.
The amateurism is nothing new. As one example among many,
we had the federal government calling an emergency debate
with less than 24 hours' notice to discuss whether or not the
peacekeepers should remain in the former Yugoslavia, just as
their mandate was about to expire. Then, we were treated to a
technical presentation by the Department of National Defence
and the Department of Foreign Affairs only two hours before
debate began. As they say, incredible but true.
And yet, more recently, this same government had to be
pushed to hold an emergency debate on whether our troops
should remain in the former Yugoslavia, following the dramatic
and tragic events that took place in that country not so long ago.
Amateurism and improvisation still characterize the actions of
this government now, for if it truly wanted to see its legislative
menu passed before the summer, it should have known, it should
have seen that at the rate things were proceeding, it was going to
be virtually impossible to complete all business before the
present session was adjourned.
With all the resources at its disposal, the federal government
should have foreseen that, in the present context, the House was
going to have to extend the hours sooner or later. Although all
the signs were there, the government preferred to stick its head
in the sand, which has led to the present situation in which we
must rush through a number of important bills. Unfortunately
for the people of Quebec and Canadians in general, the proposed
extension of the hours of sitting until late at night from Monday
until Thursday will make it more difficult to follow the
proceedings of the House of Commons on television.
Similarly, the extremely heavy legislative agenda the
government wants to ram through over the coming weeks could
well compromise significantly the quality of debate in this
House. The normal democratic process will thus be negatively
affected. I mentioned earlier that a number of reasons could
underlie the government's decision to extend the hours of work
of the House of Commons beyond the usual times.
I have just pointed out that the most plausible reason is the
amateurish and improvisational approach of the government,
which prevents it from planning its legislative agenda.
However, I would like to come back to the point that, by
extending the hours of work of the House beyond the normal
times set out in the Standing Orders, the federal government will
use the opportunity to push through major legislation that will
hit Quebec's interests hard.
13537
In this regard, and unfortunately for Quebec, the federal
government has already used its majority in the House to have
a number of bills passed, which have hurt Quebec's interests
significantly. I refer to Bill C-76, among others, which
concerns the budget provisions for the 1995-96 fiscal year and
which implemented the provisions on the reduction in transfer
payments to the provinces.
(1230)
Perhaps you will also permit me to say a few words on this
bill, which is now before the Senate, in view of the extent of the
damage it is causing to Quebec interests.
Bill C-76 is nothing less than the implementation of the latest
disastrous decisions in the federal government's most recent
budget. This is the budget in which, need I remind you, the
government made the unacceptable decision to transfer $7
billion of its own deficit to the provinces. You will agree with
me, Mr. Speaker, that $7 billion will likely make a substantial
hole in the provinces' budget.
Unable to properly manage the money of taxpayers in Quebec
and Canada, this minor league government, through Bill C-76,
is shirking its responsibilities by transferring to the provinces
$7 billion out of its deficit.
It goes without saying that Quebec will receive its share of
this poisoned gift, which will directly affect its own public
finances in the years to come. However, unlike the federal
government, the Quebec government has already indicated in its
last budget that it did not intend to offload its own deficit onto
the municipalities. In doing so, Quebec has shown that it can
take its responsibilities in public finance management, despite
the blow it just took from the federal government.
The federal government will merge into a single program,
called the Canadian social transfer, two of the three transfer
payments to the provinces, namely the Canada assistance plan
and established programs financing. In 1996-97, after merging
these two programs, Ottawa will cut $2.5 billion from transfer
payments to the provinces.
In the following fiscal year, the federal government will cut
by $4.5 billion the Canada social transfer to the provinces.
These unfortunate actions by the federal government will
translate into a $650 million shortfall for Quebec in 1996-97.
And, in 1997-98, this shortfall could go up to $1.9 billion.
In fact, Bill C-76 helps us understand better the federal
government's talk about cost-effective federalism. What could
be more cost-effective for Ottawa than cutting the funds to be
transferred to the provinces, when it is unable to manage its own
finances? That is the cost-effective, flexible federalism they
have been harping on about for several months.
The federal government's actions with regard to Bill C-76
hide a problem that is more serious than simply shovelling the
Canadian deficit into the provinces' backyards, although this is
indeed a major problem.
Canada is facing a fiscal crisis, and transferring the federal
deficit to the provinces is only the beginning of the central
government's inevitable process to withdraw from its
obligations.
In this regard, we must remember that, in 1980, during the
first referendum on sovereignty, the federal debt amounted to
roughly $90 billion. Fifteen years later, the federal debt is nearly
$550 billion. At this rate, according to the available estimates,
the public debt accumulated in Canada will push its way past the
$800 billion mark by the year 2000. You will agree with me that
there is cause for concern and that these figures are telling us
something.
Bill C-76 is clear proof of the fact that, unlike Canada,
Quebec is already able to take charge of its own public finances
and would do well take full responsibility for them as a
sovereign State. Also, Bill C-76 is underhanded in that it
provides for the establishment of new national standards. While
cutting back transfers to the provinces, the federal government
will not only maintain national standards for health but also
introduce additional national standards for social assistance and
post-secondary education, areas which, must we be reminded,
both come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
(1235)
This means that, under clause 48 of this bill, Ottawa will be
able to interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
With the federal government holding the purse's string, Quebec
would be exposing itself to being cut off by the federal
government any time it failed to comply with these federal
national standards.
Moreover, in an area as important as education, one can
wonder how Canadian standards can possibly meet the
aspirations and expectations of Quebecers in that area, when
Canada cannot even recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
As we say where I come from, you can see just by looking. We
did not need a constitutional agreement to see-it is clear as
day-that Quebec is a distinct society. Given that even this
obvious fact could not be recognized, what can we hope to get
from this system?
In fact, Bill C-76 gives a free hand to the federal government
to regard post-secondary as a social program. From now on,
Ottawa will be able to enforce national standards in this area of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. If Quebec rejected the stan-
13538
dards and refused or failed to comply with them, the federal
government would be authorized to stop all transfers, even
though this money is our own money, money coming straight out
of Quebec taxpayers's pockets.
Similarly, there is nothing in this bill to force the federal
government to look for a consensus amongst the provinces
before putting these new national standards in place. Indeed,
while the federal government must consult the provinces, at
least in theory, it is not required to get their unanimous consent
before going ahead and implementing new national standards.
Moreover, Quebec and the other provinces could, at any time,
be the victims of new federal rules, since Ottawa has the
authority to unilaterally amend the legislation.
I want to say a word on the government's legislative agenda,
assuming of course that it has one. Not long ago, the federal
government informed the official opposition of its intention to
pass, in the next two weeks, several important bills, including
Bill C-88 on internal trade.
The purpose of Bill C-88 is to implement the Agreement on
Internal Trade. As shown during the debates on NAFTA and on
the Uruguay Round agreements establishing the World Trade
Organization, the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of
trade liberalization and it supports the principle underlying that
bill. It is common knowledge that Quebec is a free trader, and
has been one for a long time.
However, the wording of some provisions, particularly clause
9, poses some problems. Clause 9, in particular, provides for a
wider interpretation which could allow the federal government
to intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when it is not
involved in the dispute. The federal government is giving itself
very important powers.
Then there is Bill C-91, which concerns the Federal Business
Development Bank. That bill, which is a new attempt by the
federal to centralize, will again result in useless and costly
duplication which will increase the government's deficit.
While the trend, at least in Quebec, is toward regionalization,
the federal government pursues its secular centralizing
tradition. This is mind-boggling. I can only hope that Quebec's
interests will not suffer too much when these bills are reviewed.
This is doubtful though, considering what happened with Bill
C-76.
Should this government hurt Quebec's interests with these
bills, as it usually does, it will find us in its way, like it has since
October 1993. We will vigorously and tenaciously defend
Quebec's interests, as we have done since we were elected.
(1240)
The contempt shown toward Quebecers will only last for so
long. Soon, with the referendum, the federal government will
realize the price to be paid for constantly attacking Quebec's
interests and basic values.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech,
and you will not be surprised to learn that I am not entirely in
agreement with some of the things he said because, of course,
the Government of Canada, and the Liberal Party in particular,
has made it a habit of defending Quebec's interests and that is
what the Government of Canada will continue to do with the
same level of interest as it has shown in the past and that is what
it will continue to do in a prosperous and united Canada.
I would ask my colleague to look at his own track record and
that of his party regarding the number of times they have
supported attempts to extend hours in order to increase the
number of bills which could be voted on by the hon. members in
the past, before accusing the government of not moving fast
enough to get certain bills through. We have appealed to them
many times. Will he tell us how many times his party came out in
favour of this? I think that the answer is zero.
Will he also tell us whether he is aware that Standing Order 24
and Standing Order 28 in particular provide for the
Parliamentary calendar, and whether he is aware of Standing
Order 27, which stipulates that we could not propose before
today a systematic extension of sitting hours for the coming
weeks? Since it is the first day and the first hour of the first day,
how could we possibly have proposed a systematic extension of
hours before today? After all, it is the first day.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some
of the things the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said. He says the federal
government has always made a point of defending the interests
of Quebec. I have my doubts about that.
If ever a government chose to ignore the interests of Quebec,
it is the Liberal government. Or should I say governments, to be
as specific as the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, the successive
governments under the Liberals.
People tell us: You have good representation in Ottawa, you
have ministers from Quebec, you have a Prime Minister from
Quebec. For more than 20 years, Canada's Prime Ministers have
been Quebecers. The word window dressing comes to mind
because, basically, has it done Quebec any good to have a prime
minister or powerful cabinet ministers from Quebec in Ottawa?
Did it prevent the implementation of the War Measures Act in
1970? Did it prevent the unilateral patriation of the Constitution
in 1982? Did it prevent the demise of Meech Lake? What does
13539
Quebec have to show for the fact that a number of federal
cabinet ministers and prime ministers were from Quebec?
Mr. Paré: An illusion!
Mr. Bergeron: An illusion, as the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert said. It was the illusion of French power. We have
realized since then it was only an illusion, and Quebecers have
realized this as well and will act accordingly this fall.
That being said, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked about a prosperous and
united country. United it still is, at least theoretically, under the
constitution. We will see about that this fall. But prosperous is
something else. Prosperous, I am not so sure. I talked about this
in my speech, and if the hon. member had listened carefully, he
would have noticed that this country is not as prosperous as he
says it is.
But first of all, to answer his question, I wonder why the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked me a question
in the House when he already knows the answer; in fact he gave
the answer himself.
(1245)
I said we had always shown we were ready and willing when
asked to sit for extended hours, especially during that one
weekend when we debated the government's outrageous
proposal to deal with the railway dispute. Many of us were here
when the House sat throughout the weekend to express our
objections to the federal government's proposals. I said earlier
that some of our colleagues did not show the same stamina, but
that is not the point.
As for the other question about Standing Order 27, I may
remind the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who says he listened to my speech, that basically, my point was
not that the government had failed to extend the sitting hours of
the House before. I said that because of the government's poor
planning, now, towards the end of the session, we have a kind of
bottleneck and will have to pass a number of bills at breakneck
speed, which will not improve the quality of debate in this
House.
That was the point I was trying to make in my speech. The
hon. member should listen more carefully next time.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always unfortunate that when a Bloc member speaks, we end up
dropping into this whole us versus them; Canada, Quebec
discussion and so on and so forth. The real issue here, as far as
this motion is concerned, has more to do with the management
of the affairs of the government.
I wonder if my friend from the Bloc might not agree that what
is going on here is the government has purposely backed up
legislation to the point that it will be able to put pressure on
certain issues and certainly on certain people in its back bench
by bringing in time allocation on some of the so-called hotter
issues.
I would suggest-Mr. Speaker, you will have to correct me
because I got away with this word the other day-that it is
legislation by stealth. It is unfortunate that in Canada, where we
live in a democracy, that the government would bring in time
allocation, or closure by any other name, and then go forward
with this knowing full well that we are coming to the 23rd. It is
no surprise to the government any more than it is a surprise to
my leader or any of the members in the House that we are
coming to this point and yet we have this backlog.
I wonder if the member from the Bloc would not agree with
me that the motion we are talking about really goes to the whole
core issue of the lack of management on the part of the
government or, in the alternative, that the government is
attempting to bring in legislation and treating members of the
House as though they were rubber stamps.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
Kootenay East for his question. I thank him, because he is
allowing me to drive home my message. I agree with him
entirely. This is exactly what I was saying in my speech and in
my response to my colleague for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I said that, with its motion
today, the government is behaving with unprecedented
amateurism and lack of foresight.
I agree entirely with my colleague when he says there is a
complete lack of planning on the part of the government. My
remarks were in fact intended to point out the government's bad
planning of its activities, leaving us at the end of the session
with a bottleneck of bills to consider and adopt in a very short
period of time. This will affect the quality of debate and the
quality of speeches, particularly, I would say, for my colleagues
in the Reform Party in connection with the bill on gun control. I
imagine they would have liked to say more about it, although I
think a perfectly reasonable amount of time has been accorded
it. I expect it is a concern for them.
Our concern is for other bills, which will have to be debated in
great haste and which perhaps could have been debated longer,
in our view. The government, however, decided to submit a
series of bills at the last minute, and so here we are with all these
bills to consider, debate and adopt within two weeks.
(1250)
So it is a planning problem. It has nothing to do, as my
colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell explained earlier,
with the fact that the hours of debate should have been extended
earlier in the session. It has to do with the fact that the
legislation now before the House should have been tabled
earlier.
13540
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
mentioned in my question to my colleague from the Bloc the fact
that the government and everyone in Canada knew June 23 was
coming. We can all look at a calendar.
In my question to the House leader I asked how it could be that
we have 22 items that are supposed to be jammed through the
House in nine days. I suggest now, as I suggested in my question
to my colleague, that I cannot help but believe the government
purposely and intentionally backed up the legislation to the
point that when we come to debate these bills, the quality of
debate will not be there because it will not be extensive enough.
I can speak for myself on the issue of Bill C-68. As revenue
critic I had an opportunity to speak on an amendment we had
brought and discuss the question of how the revenue minister
and the customs department were not going to be able to enforce
the provisions in the bill. However I have not had an opportunity
to express to the House, to these members, to Canada the
concerns people have in my constituency over the issues that
have arisen on the issues in Bill C-68.
Reform has tried to encourage the government to deal with
issues Canadians really care about, namely the deficit and debt.
Bring in legislation, bring forward motions that deal with the
whole issue of deficit and debt. Instead, on Tuesday night we
came to the House and again worked like rubber stamps because
that is the way the system works.
Why are we not discussing how the system is going to be
changed so that the members, as the representatives of the
people of Canada, can regain control or even gain control over
some aspects of the expenditures of the government?
We should be here talking about tax reductions. We should be
here talking about the issue of crime, not the paper thin way the
government has come forward with its amendments, for
example on the Young Offenders Act, but something with some
real teeth.
We should be talking about referendums, citizen's initiatives
and free votes. We should be doing things that are going to make
a change for Canadians. What has the government done? ``Oh,
we are going to have a big change. We're going to bring Bill
C-68'', which I submit is nothing more than a warm fuzzy. It
makes people feel good.
People are not dumb. Canadians have looked at that
legislation. While many of the people who may want to see
registration may say that they register cars and they register this
and that. But when they are asked if they think registration will
make any difference to society, to violence on the streets, they
say that it will not make any difference but that it will make
them feel better.
The government is bringing forward things like affirmative
action which was repudiated by the people of Ontario last night.
The members know one of the major things Mike Harris won on
was the issue of employment equity or quotas which the
government is trying to bring forward and to strengthen. Come
on.
The government is also talking about bringing forward a
toonie, which is the duplicate of a loonie. Why are we worried
about $2 coins? Why are we not worried about making sure the
coins get to stay in Canadians' pockets? Why are we worried
about those kinds of things? Of course the government is going
to say that the Reform Party is just trying to be obstructionist, to
block things.
(1255)
An hon. member: True.
Mr. Abbott: The member says true, that is exactly what they
are trying to do.
The people in my constituency and I suspect anybody in a
coffee shop anywhere in Canada is starting to become familiar
with the word ``spin''. What kind of spin is the government
going to put on an issue? It is really unfortunate that there are
times when the spins are done in such an intentionally dishonest
way.
For example, I read in the Montreal Gazette an article with the
name of my leader mentioned which talks of treason in a closure
deal. ``The Reform leader charged that the federal Liberals made
a deal close to treasonist with the Bloc to close down the House
of Commons for the summer by June 23 to allow separatists to
begin campaigning for Quebec sovereignty on St. Jean Baptiste
Day''.
I find this next part really very unfortunate because there is
spin and then there is unfortunate spin. It says that the Reform
Party leader's accusation became distorted before it even got off
Parliament Hill: ``To pretend the celebration of St. Jean Baptiste
Day is somehow associated with treason is I think an insult to all
French Canadians'', said the government whip. That is what he
told reporters.
We had some fun the other evening during the votes when the
Reform Party whip stood and complimented the government
whip, saying what an intelligent person he was. There was a bit
of bickering and some fun over that compliment.
I will say again that as with all members the government whip
is an intelligent person. Therefore I have to ask if he was not
intentionally distorting the words of the leader of the Reform
Party when he was referring to the fact that the government had
done a deal with the devil so that the House would be able to rise
on June 23. This would allow Bloc members to get involved in
all their separatist games on St. Jean Baptiste Day.
That is exactly what my leader said. Unless the member has
been misquoted, let us assume that Terrance Wills from the
Gazette Ottawa Bureau misheard what the government whip
said. However, for him to pretend that the celebration of St. Jean
13541
Baptiste Day is somehow associated with treason is an insult to
all French Canadians. That is just an absolute total distortion of
anything even remotely close to reason.
Why do we have this kind of pressure situation right at this
moment? Let us take a look at some of the bills that the
government thinks are so important.
When Reformers came to the House, unlike most of the
government members, we had been listening to the concerns of
Canadians with respect to the porky pension plan that MPs have.
When we arrived here, for an extended period of time, almost
three and a half months, we hammered and hammered at the
Prime Minister: ``Will you do something about these pensions?
Will you get them revised? Will you open the door so that we, as
members of Parliament, can say: ``No, we do not consider
ourselves a special group a people. We are not on a special
plateau''. Will the Prime Minister do something about this?''
That went on through the spring of 1994. The Prime Minister
said: ``Well, you know there will be an election in 1997. Nobody
will have to worry about pensions until 1997. We will get around
to it. Sooner or later it will happen. There is lots of time''.
(1300 )
Then out of the clear blue sky the President of the Treasury
Board introduced Bill C-85. Interestingly, he just happened to
choose a Friday afternoon. It was a very slow Friday afternoon.
Because the Tory convention was happening over in Hull that
afternoon, there was no attention in the news media to the fact
that Bill C-85, the little bit of fine tuning the government was
doing on the porky pension plan, was being introduced.
Then the Liberals brought it back to the House and with a
number of different procedures attempted to get it out of the
House. Reform Party members, to a person, have stated it is
unconscionable that members of Parliament would put
themselves on a different level from other Canadians. As a
consequence, we stood against it. We stood and we stood until,
oh, my goodness, we suddenly have it in committee.
So government members could understand the frustration
Canadians feel, I have suggested it might have been a good idea
to expose that bill to Canadians so that Canadians could have
some input on it. But no, the Liberals decided they were going to
have their very own hand chosen experts. I would suggest to
their embarrassment the vast majority of their hand chosen
experts really did not come forward with the kind of
recommendations or testimony they were looking for in order to
fit into their little porky plan.
When the Reform member for Calgary West got up and left
the room at the end of the testimony, in disgust I might add, the
members opposite did the clause by clause study on Bill C-85 in
12 minutes. It is called lightning speed, the speed of light. All of
us know that the whole parliamentary system and a glacier have
a lot in common. To get something through in 12 minutes makes
me think that maybe it was sliding along on pig fat it went so
fast.
What we are looking at in the whole issue of legislation is the
issue of exposure to the Canadian people. I use a three legged
analogy when I speak to students. I enjoy speaking to students
because I want them to appreciate the wonderful democracy we
have. In spite of some of the things the government does, we still
do live in a democracy.
There are three legs to the stool of democracy in order for it to
work. The first leg is the people. The people become involved.
The second leg is the politicians. The politicians come forward
with proper, sound, right thinking legislation. The third leg is
the press. If we did not have the press, and if we did not have
what the politicians are doing exposed to the people by the press,
we would not have a three legged stool. We would have
something that would not stand.
With the issue of Bill C-85, the government, knowing that the
press is not necessarily going to run and jump on this issue all
that quickly, wants to get it in and out of the House as quickly as
it possibly can. The government tries to destroy that one leg and
the whole process of democracy ends up falling over.
The government House leader raised a number of interesting
bills. For example I cite Bill C-72. As a matter of fact, my
colleague from Wild Rose was trying to get the government to
move forward so we could have vote on this bill weeks ago.
(1305 )
We were prepared to put Bill C-72 through the House in one
day. What is the bill about? It has to do with the self-induced
intoxication defence. This defence cannot stand. This is wrong.
Students and other people in my community have asked me what
the government is going to do. To its credit, the government has
come forward with Bill C-72. If we, and I do not doubt for a
second, the Bloc were prepared to put it through in one day, why
now is he raising issues like this and saying that we must hit the
June 23 deadline?
The hon. member for Wild Rose has also brought to the
attention of the House the issue of the admissibility of DNA
testing in criminal cases. We have absolutely tragic situations,
hearings pending in court where DNA evidence will not be
permissible. If the government wants to sit all night long, the
Reform Party will be here to put through the legislation so that
DNA evidence can be admissible in court. That is a commitment
I know I can make on behalf of the members of my party.
13542
The issue is not that we are trying to stop legislation. In fact,
we are trying to get the government to move on things like
self-induced intoxication, DNA and fiscal issues. We are trying
to get the government to move. For it to turn around and suggest
we are trying to be obstructionist is an awful stretch of the truth.
Let us look at Bill C-41, the much desired bill. Is this the bill
which all Canadians are clambering for? I think not. Bill C-41
has to do with sentencing. As many people in Canada know,
there is one clause in particular which is singularly troublesome.
That clause in the judgment of the Reform Party basically
creates categories of victims. We believe that all Canadians are
equal regardless of race, language, creed, colour, religion or
gender. For us to be applying a test, to be applying a shopping
list to create categories of victims is a step backward. It puts
people who do not fall into that shopping list at a disadvantage.
We would be voting against that bill on the basis of that clause
alone as it presently stands. The most difficult part of that clause
is putting the undefined term of sexual orientation into the
shopping list. I believe that at least 80 per cent of Canadians are
opposed to the inclusion of the undefined term of sexual
orientation, yet the government is prepared to go ahead against
the wishes of Canadians and against the wishes of many of its
own backbenchers. Government backbenchers know there is a
problem.
Another thing which has happened is that there has been the
passage under pressure of Bill C-76, the bill which got our
friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce into so much trouble. The
whip will be turfing him off his committee, trying to get
everybody whipped into line. I guess that is why he is called the
whip. The hon. member I just mentioned, although I absolutely
disagree with his position, nonetheless is a person of principle
who is prepared to stand and say that the Liberal Party does not
have a mandate to go ahead with Bill C-76 and that he is not
about to support it.
(1310 )
The red book promised openness, protection of health. I
suggest that the government is prepared to ram things through
the House, to treat the House like a rubber stamp. I suggest if it
walks like a pig, if it grunts like a pig, if it smells like a pig, it is
probably a pig. If the government is trying to jam things through
the House of Commons with closure, time allocation and with
extended hours, it is legislation by stealth.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
like most members I would like to get on with the business of the
House. However since the member thought to take up 20
minutes of House time to babble on about a number of things
which he obviously knows nothing about, I want to question him
on a couple of matters.
First, the member said that the House should be talking about
matters such as tax reductions. Why is it that his party when it
proposed its budget to the House did not include any tax
reductions in its plans and simply cut social programs?
Another reason I think the member knows nothing about what
he was talking about is his comments to do with the proposal for
a $2 coin. He somehow trivialized the proposal for the $2 coin.
The member ought to know because it has been presented and
debated in this House that the introduction of a $2 coin will save
Canada $250 million over a 20-year period, simply because of
the savings on reprinting $2 bills which erode. It is a very simple
reason.
The impact to the Canadian economy, to small business
people who operate coin vending machines, is also going to be
very substantial. The member has trivialized a move that will
save Canadians $250 million. He has trivialized the impact on
small business, all for partisan and opportunistic purposes. This
member should explain himself.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to explain
myself.
On the issue of tax reductions, anybody who knows anything,
and I know this member has an accounting background, would
know that the biggest single problem Canada is faced with today
is that the government refuses to acknowledge that we are
spending $1,800 per second more than we are taking in right
now. The problem is expenditures.
We can come forward with tax reductions when we reach the
point that this or any other government is prepared to bite the
bullet and tell the people the truth. As the member for
Willowdale, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on
Finance said the other day, until this government realizes that
there must be cuts in the area of social spending under its CHST,
there cannot be any balancing of the budget. Until there is a
balancing of the budget, there cannot be tax reductions.
On the matter of the toonie, what we are really coming down
to is a question that has never been asked to the best of my
knowledge, which is whether or not we need a $2 denomination.
If the hon. member is talking about saving $250 million by
replacing a $2 bill with a $2 loonie or whatever it is going to be
called, I wonder how many dollars would be saved if we just did
away with the $2 denomination. I want to make my position
clear. I am not suggesting that nor am I recommending that. I am
saying we should be looking at that before the bill comes before
the House. I do not believe there has been any study done on
that.
13543
(1315 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to speak against extending the
hours.
It seems to me that we have a contradiction on the basis of
what happened yesterday. We have the government invoking
closure three times so that it can ram through some very
unpopular legislation. On the one hand, time allocation or
closure is being forced on the House. On the other hand, we are
talking about extending the hours.
If the government were serious about quality discussion and
quality debate on any of the bills, the last thing it should be
looking at is closure so that we cannot have a full airing and
debate of issues that are important to the Canadian people.
In view of what happened in this place yesterday and what
happened in the province of Ontario, it is interesting that closure
was being rammed through the House on three very contentious
bills. At the same time voters in Ontario went to the polls and
rejected the bills, the government is attempting to ram through
the House of Commons. It is unbelievable.
It raises the suspicion that perhaps that was the agenda, that
some very unpopular bills were not to be allowed to remain in
the public arena for further exposure because things are starting
to fall apart and they have to be rammed through. The wheels are
falling off. MP pension plans, gun control and undefined sexual
orientation are three issues that were overwhelmingly defeated
in the Ontario provincial election.
The government talks about zilch co-operation coming from
the opposition. In my experience there has been zilch shown by
the government in the way in which it has organized its agenda
and brought to the Canadian people very important issues that
need to be discussed.
Two other things were very big factors in the Ontario election.
One was that the common sense revolution was very much
opposed to employment equity or hiring quotas based on race
and sex, another bill the government is determined to put
through in spite of the fact that it has been rejected by the people
of the province of Ontario.
I should like to talk a bit about the three bills because they are
key to closure and trying to ram through legislation. I will start
with the MPs pension plan. While it does not represent a whole
lot of dollars, it is the flashpoint with the Canadian voter.
We have seen it in Alberta where the premier of that province
started out a campaign being less than double digit in the
opinion polls. He started to listen to the people and realized that
a gold plated pension plan was not supported in any way by
them. Therefore he did away with it in Alberta. As a result he
gained some credibility and the people started listening to him.
It was leadership by example. Somebody was showing real
concern for the problem of overspending and debt by doing
something about a gold plated pension plan.
Let us move into Ontario. Mr. Harris stood and said that the
gold plated pension plan was gone. That was a big part of his
platform. It was the part of his platform that gave Mr. Harris the
credibility he needed when he addressed other issues. Two
provinces have addressed the concern and because of it have
been rewarded by tremendous support by the voters. It is
unbelievable that the message has not reached the House. The
government thinks the bit of tinkering done on the bill will
satisfy Canadian voters. It is an absolute sham.
When I was campaigning and after I was elected I cannot
think of a public meeting where questions and comments were
invited at which the issue of the MPs pension plan did not come
up. Voter after voter said to get rid of it, and I agree. It is an
abuse of our office. We want fair compensation. There is no
argument about that, but the pension plan is not fair. It should be
made more in line with what is available in the private sector.
(1320)
Here we have an issue of high profile that touches all
Canadian voters. Many of our citizens would love to have
pension plans. Some do not have them. Some are struggling
without work. Many people are unemployed. Indeed many
young people are underemployed. Because the government is
showing no leadership in attacking that serious problem the
dilemma continues.
The MPs pension plan is nothing more than another broken
red book promise. I know the red book was loosely worded. I
have suggested that perhaps it should have started out with:
``Once upon a time''. The problem with loose wording is that
while it may get us off the hook by saying that we did not exactly
say this or this is what we meant to say, the voters will make the
same interpretation and say that they think this is what was said.
When we do not follow through it is indeed a broken promise to
voters.
The comment made by my colleague from Calgary Centre
about the $150,000 compensation has been referred to many
times by the opposition. The point that was missed and
continues to be missed by the government was that whatever our
compensation the total package should be up front and on the
table with no special deals and no tax exempt expense accounts.
That was the point he was making regardless of the number.
Perhaps he used the wrong number, but the main point he was
making was that whatever we were to be paid should be up front
and fair and we should make sure that all Canadian people know
exactly what we are being paid.
It goes back to the heart of credibility. Because of the failure
of the government to attack and do something about the gold
plated pension plan it lost all credibility on the deficit and the
debt. How can we go to Canadian voters and ask them to accept
13544
spending cuts when we are not prepared to show some
leadership by example in making some sacrifice?
The thing that continues to mystify me on the pension plan is
that poll after poll clearly indicates Canadian people
overwhelmingly want the plan changed. It is not even close.
When a poll is broken down by party affiliation, the Liberal
supporters also show overwhelming support for having it
changed.
We might have a problem with what is known as selective
hearing. We hear what we want to hear and we ignore what the
Canadian people are really saying.
Money should never be the motivating factor for coming to
this place. I do not think it is with many members. When I came
to this place I had no idea of what the total package was and
frankly I could care less. I was more concerned about the issues
and bringing some fiscal sanity to this place. Compensation was
secondary. We do not dispute there should be fair compensation.
That is all Canadian people are asking for.
The arrogance and the contempt for Parliament shown
yesterday in the House have to be coming from the inflated
popularity opinion poll numbers that are coming out. Liberals
think they can do no wrong and the people love them. We saw
what happened in Ontario to a Liberal party that thought it was
up in the polls and could no wrong. It said: ``We will do nothing.
We won't rock the boat. We will just ride this out''.
Mr. Penson: The same thing happened in Manitoba.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): That is right. The same thing
in Manitoba.
On the basis of inflated opinion polls that have no depth and
when the rubber hits the road as it did in Ontario and Manitoba,
the real poll comes out and the voters respond to politicians who
are not listening to them. I am proud to say I opted out of the
pension plan and all my Reform colleagues have opted out of it.
I am looking forward to the next federal election. I am looking
forward to a debate on MPs pension plans, anytime, anywhere,
anyplace. I would relish it.
(1325)
I have mixed emotions when I deal with the matter. While I
want change on the one hand, I am absolutely convinced the
Liberals are digging a hole they will never get out of. They are
ensuring a Reform victory in 1997. There is no question about it.
They do not understand. They are not listening.
They think they won the election. They did not win the
election. The Conservatives lost it. The Conservatives were
thrown out. The Liberals just happened to be there. Canadian
voters were very sure of what they did not want. They were not
too sure who they should vote for but the message was that
Canadian voters were voting on the issues. They are watching
the politicians. They are watching the promises being made and
for integrity. Not following through on the promises made will
cost them very dearly in the next election. So many of the
promises in the red book have been broken at this point that I
cannot see how the Liberals can possibly survive.
We just had an indication of how good the red book is because
the daughter of red book that was used in Ontario did them
absolutely no good at all. It destroyed them.
So much for pensions. I dealt with pensions because even
though it is not a whole lot of dollars it is a major issue with the
Canadian voter. It was in 1993 and it will be even bigger in 1997.
There is no question about it because our financial position will
have worsened, absolutely. There is no doubt about that. With
the road the government is taking us down our debt situation will
be far worse than it is today. We will be $600 billion in debt. We
will still be overspending by $25 billion and we will have
interest payments of $50 billion a year. When we try to balance
the books to accommodate $50 billion in interest payments it is a
real challenge for any government. The Liberals are not meeting
their target.
Let us talk about the gun control bill, one of the three being
rammed through the House so that we do not have quality debate
and we as the opposition do not get an opportunity to fully air all
concerns. The gun control bill is a red herring. It is a smoke
screen. It is an attempt to make the government look like a
government in action. If we asked Canadian people what the 10
most important issues are in Canada today, gun control would
not make 11. Here we are wasting all this time and all this
discussion on a bill that will do absolutely nothing to clean up
the problems it is supposed to address: unsafe homes, unsafe
streets and unsafe communities. It will do absolutely nothing.
Mr. Ramsay: It will not come into effect for eight years.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): It will not come into effect for
eight years. The Liberals have made a major issue of something
that is not a major issue. They have not been dealing with major
issues like the deficit and debt, the criminal justice system and
creating jobs. Those are the issues Canadian people want
addressed and they are not being addressed. Gun control was
just a sham to make the government look like a government in
action.
When we talk about the gun control bill I hear comments from
the other side indicating that it is supported by the people. That
support is diminishing. When we ask people whether they
support gun control they answer: ``Yes, we do''. When we ask
them whether they think it will achieve a reduction in crime they
answer: ``No, we do not''. They support gun control and admitat the same time that it will not do what the government says itwill do.
13545
How do we adjust to that? Why would the government not
respond to that?
Mr. Hanger: They will spend money anyway.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): They say: ``Let's spend it
because we said we were going to. It does not matter what the
voter wants. Let's give it to them. We know what is best. Never
mind the mindless masses out there. The government knows
what is best''. Members are told: ``Don't listen to your people.
We know what is best for them''. Do ot let them fool you. They
really do not understand; we do. We have some kind of superior
intelligence here and we know what is best out there''.
(1330)
Mulroney thought that and he found out to his sorrow that
when politicians do not listen to the Canadian people, as his
government did not, they pay very dearly when they go back to
the voters at the next election.
During the Ontario election, Mr. Harris said he was opposed
to gun registration. That is the other part about the bill which
makes no sense. It is almost like it was an intentional deception.
We are mixing apples and oranges in the bill. It is unbelievable.
It is mixing law-abiding citizens with the criminals. It makes
absolutely no sense.
We made an attempt to have the bill split. There is 100 per
cent support, I am sure in all parties and in all parts of Canada,
for getting tough with the criminal misuse of firearms. That is
where the problem is. That is where we have to address our
attention. That will contribute to making our homes safer, our
streets safer and our communities safer. No, we had to have the
whole package. We had to have the harassment of the legitimate
gun owner and combined with that the spending of all the tax
dollars we do not have to accomplish nothing.
Poll after poll has indicated the bill will not do what the
government has said it will do. Time after time polls have shown
that. It is a charade and the voters will see through it. The
government is not listening. It is not paying attention. Perhaps it
is selective hearing.
On hate crimes, Ontario voters said they do not want the
undefined phrase sexual orientation in there. Mr. Harris won on
that. Here again we have the government pushing through one of
three bills which nobody wants. The voters do not want them. I
cannot believe the government does not the message. It is not
listening. It does not want to hear. It will dearly; one term
members. I am looking forward to the next election.
The deficit and the debt is the issue we should be dealing with.
We wasted all of this time on other bills which are not on the
main agenda. We will extend hours to debate bills secondary in
importance to the majority of Canadians. The number one issue,
the burning issue, is the deficit and the debt, and we continue to
fiddle while Rome burns. It is unbelievable.
Unfortunately the first part of the budget did absolutely
nothing. It is amazing the government took office after being in
opposition for as long as it had and did not know what the major
problem in Canada was and or know how to deal with it. We
heard: ``Give us a year. We did not realize how serious the
situation was. We need some time to have a look at it and see if
we can do something about it''. It wasted a whole year. The
government had been in opposition supposedly preparing to take
office.
Then we hear the government inherited the problem. At first
the government would not even admit that it was a problem.
What we heard about the deficit was: ``Do not be too concerned
about it. Be happy. It is all right. Take an Aspirin, go to bed,
wake up in the morning and you will be fine''.
We were honest with the Canadian voters. We said this is a
serious problem when we were campaigning. We were the only
party to put in writing a plan to eliminate the deficit in three
years with no new or increased taxes. We are the only party that
had the courage to do that. We produced a document which
actually had some numbers in it, not a red book full of rhetoric; a
masterpiece of writing, an absolute fairy tale.
(1335)
We did worse than waste a year in the first budget. In that first
year we gave away what it said was to be $350 million when we
gave in to the smugglers. The government said it would cost
only $350 million; $350 million when we were in debt to the
point that we were is unbelievable. However, we found out later
the government's numbers were wrong. It underestimated by
about $500 million-only $500 million.
In effect we gave away almost a billion dollars to the
smugglers when we were so deep in debt and in overspending it
was absolutely unbelievable. That is typical. It is avoidance of
this issue and here again is where the gun control bill comes in,
smoke and mirrors, let us hide the fact that we are not dealing
with the real problem.
I am looking forward to the next election because what
happened in the House yesterday has absolutely ensured a
victory for the only party listening to the Canadian voter and
that will respond to the concerns we are hearing.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member said something I agree with and that I think all members
agree with. When we ran to become the elected representatives
of our constituents and to serve in this place we did so because
we wanted to make a contribution. We wanted to do what we
could to make Canada a better place.
The hon. member discussed what he felt was a number of
deficiencies. Gun control came up, that registration will do
nothing. I will share examples of how registration will help to
13546
reduce crime. Some 47 per cent of crimes involving firearms in
Canada are committed with long arms, as reported by the
Canadian chiefs of police.
Today we have registration of handguns and this piece of
legislation will now bring all firearms under registration. A
specific example has to do with imported guns. Today a
legitimate importer does not have to register the guns. In a case
recently in Toronto guns imported were then turned around and
black marketed to the criminal element.
Under this legislation imported guns must be registered at the
time of importation. As a result those weapons now cannot be
very easily sold to the criminal element and used in criminal
activity. That registration element alone will help to reduce the
number of weapons getting out of the hands of law-abiding
citizens.
The member also made reference to Bill C-41. He referred to
it as the sexual orientation bill and the hate bill when he knows
full well it is a sentencing bill. There are some important things
in that bill. I have a motion at report stage, which I hope all
members will support, concerning sentencing provisions as they
relate to aggravating circumstances. There are two
circumstances, first where bias, prejudice or hate is involved
and second where there is an abuse of trust or authority
relationships. The motion I have raised with all parties and all
members is to provide stiffer sentences for spousal abusers.
(1340 )
This is an important element of the bill and I have asked all
members and particularly this member for support on a very
important issue. Bill C-41 is not about one issue. It is a
sentencing bill, an extremely important bill that will help deal
with crime in Canada.
The member referred to the member for Calgary Centre's
saying we should eliminate all forms of alternative
compensation for members of Parliament and that members of
Parliament should be paid $150,000 a year instead. This
unacceptable.
The member also said he may have used the wrong number.
He has used the wrong number. What he has failed to recognize
is that if we incorporate legitimate business expenses in income
grossed up those expenses also become deductible on a tax
return and there would be no limit. The tax act presently says all
expenses directly or indirectly associated with earning income
will be deductible. As a result there would be virtually no limits
on what members could spend for what purposes. If $150,000 a
year is not the number, what is the number?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments and question from the member for Mississauga
South.
Dealing with the compensation package and the real number,
we do not know what that number is. We are not putting a
number forward. We are saying the total compensation package
has to be looked at and all the loopholes have to be eliminated so
that whatever we are being paid we have no special deals, no
gold plated pension plan, no tax exempt status. We can put it all
right out on the table and let the voters, an independent group,
decide what our compensation figure should be, not the
members in the House. I am quite prepared to do that.
The burning issue with Canadian voters is get it out in the
open, stop this double standard of a better deal for us than they
can get in the private sector. They are infuriated by that. You
miss the message and you continue to miss the message and that
was-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know that with great
enthusiasm at times in debate we become more animated but I
remind colleagues on both sides of the House that all
interventions must be made through the Chair and not directly to
one another.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I did get carried
away and I apologize for that. I will go through the Chair.
On compensation the mistake was putting a number when a
number did not need to be put. The point by the member for
Calgary West was it should be above board.
If we were to ask the Canadian people the top 10 issues they
want to see the government dealing with, gun control would not
make that list. It is a sham because we are not dealing with those
issues. In dealing with the gun control bill we ask for proof that
the registration program will do what the government says it
will, but we do not get that.
Polls show that people who say they support the bill do not
believe it will achieve what the government says it is will. It is
incumbent on the government to prove if it can that the bill will
reduce crime. It cannot do it and that is why the voters are
rejecting it. That is why Mike Harris won with the huge majority
he did.
On Bill C-42, it is a sentencing bill. It contains something the
voters do not want. I keep hearing in the House it is what we
want. What is important is not what we want but what the people
we are representing want.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Obviously a lot of people
want to speak on this topic but I can only give the floor to one at
a time.
(1345 )
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to
remain focused on you rather than getting into a debate.
13547
The point that I was making is that it is what the voters want,
not what we want or what we think they want. The point I made
when I started out was that Mike Harris won in Ontario because
he listened to the voters and adapted his agenda. The Liberal
Party, on the other hand, provincially and federally, are not
listening to the voters. They paid the price for it in the province
in Ontario.
My suggestion to the member and all members of the
government is that you will pay the price for it in the next federal
election because you are not listening to the Canadian people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will make a suggestion. I
think if we could all be somewhat conscious of the fact that
when we use the word ``you'' it leads to something less than
what we desire in the Chamber. I will leave it at that for today.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hear the howls of dread on the other side and I do not
understand why. I can only imagine it is because fear of the truth
is striking the cords of their vocal organs.
I can understand their reluctance to hear some facts. I have
come today armed with the odd fact to deal with the question of
time allocation that members have raised in the course of their
remarks and the extension of hours that we are going to enjoy
together next week.
The first thing I want to say is that the hon. member for
Simcoe Centre talked about what the voters want. He seems to
have forgotten the lesson of October 1993.
Mr. Abbott: Talk to us about the Ontario election.
Mr. Milliken: I am talking about this House, not about the
Ontario legislature. The Liberal Party of Canada put forward the
most comprehensive and acceptable program that has ever been
put forward by a political party in the history of the country and
that was the red book.
I am sorry I do not have my copy here today because I know
the hon. member who is making all the noise over there and who
I urged a few weeks ago to get a copy and put it under his pillow,
would not be so vociferous this afternoon if he had spent a little
more time studying the red book. I can tell him that the voters of
Canada chose the Liberal Party of Canada to be the government
because of the promises in the red book.
In other words, the voters chose what they wanted when the
election was held. They made their choice on October 25, 1993.
They are getting delivered to them what it was they voted for in
the red book. Every one of the campaign promises from the red
book are being enforced in legislation today. The legislation we
will be dealing with next week under time allocation was
contained in the red book. The government is living up to the
commitment it made to the Canadian electorate in 1993 in the
red book.
I notice the Bloc is silent and agreeable on these points
because it knows that governments are elected to fulfil certain
commitments. Frankly, its members recognize the commitments
we made were good and valid ones so they are agreeing with us
in this respect. However, the members of the Reform Party like
to think of themselves as a government that got elected but in
fact, because of their success, having had no one here before
except the hon. member for Beaver River, they think they won
the election because a whole bunch of them got elected.
However, what percentage of the vote did they have? Did they
break 10 per cent or was it 15 per cent? Whatever it was it was
not a number that inspires confidence in the hearts of Canadians.
While hon. members in the Reform Party can argue that they
may have won the confidence of the people in their
constituencies, which some of them did, one of them had the
lowest percentage anyone had to get elected, I think it was 28 per
cent or 29 per cent of the vote. He still managed to get in. It
shows how badly split the electors were in that riding. The fact is
they did not win the confidence of Canadians with the votes they
had. In my constituency the Reform candidate had 12 per cent of
the votes. Canadians did not vote for Reform policies. They
voted for Liberal policies. They voted for Liberal policies as
outlined in the red book. Those are the policies that are
contained in the legislation we are debating, and were contained
in the list of bills presented by the government House leader
during his remarks earlier today when he presented the motion
to extend hours.
(1350)
While I can understand a certain disagreement between the
Reform Party members and the members of the government
because of ideological points of view or differences in policy-I
remember the little blue book had other promises in it-the fact
remains our party was elected with a substantial majority of
seats in the House, a very substantial portion of the popular vote
in the country and we are proceeding to fulfil the promises we
outlined to the electorate in 1993.
Instead of asking us to substitute-
Mr. Abbott: Allmand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am going to draw on an
experience of a previous life, that of a hockey referee.
One of the principles we strived for was not to have ``rabbit
ears''. I am not seeking to hear more than I would customarily
hear. I would not want to put in question or in doubt the validity
of the convention of not mentioning members in the House by
name but in fact by their ridings.
13548
The Chair understands the vigour of the debate, of the
co-operation necessary within the rules and spirit of that debate
in this Chamber and I hope all of us will keep that in mind.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not refer to someone
by name. I try to avoid that. I apologize for doing that if I did. I
do not recall.
As I was saying, hon. members opposite may feel their views
represent the majority of Canadians but it is not an opinion
shared (a) by the majority of Canadians, and (b) by the vast
majority of the members of the House. While they might want us
to substitute Reform Party policy for the red book we will not do
it. We will not be dissuaded from proceeding with the policies
outlined in the red book because of a lot of shouting and yelling
from the other side of the House. Nor will we do so because of
obstruction practised by members from the opposite side of the
House. I want to refer to that right now. I have some statistics
that hon. members opposite may want to hear.
In respect of Bill C-68, about which we heard a lot of bleating
and whining yesterday when we applied a time allocation
motion to the debate on it, I want to point out what has gone on
here. This bill was introduced in February, debated at second
reading on February 16, February 27, March 13, March 27,
March 28 and April 5 for a total of 20 hours and 21 minutes.
Over 38 members of the Reform Party spoke in the debate on
second reading of this bill.
Mr. Abbott: And we're proud of it.
Mr. Milliken: They may be proud of it but I would have been
embarrassed at some of the speeches I heard. After 20 hours of
debate the bill went to committee where it spent something like
five or six weeks. I have forgotten the amount of time.
Ms. Meredith: How many witnesses were refused to be
heard?
Mr. Milliken: ``How many witnesses'', says the hon.
member. Hundreds. The committee heard witnesses night and
day four or five days a week for four weeks. Then it spent over a
week studying the bill in committee with something over 200
amendments, I am told.
Mr. Morrison: Four hundred and five.
Mr. Milliken: Four hundred and five, the hon. member says.
He only serves to prove my point. Hon. members opposite are
wasting the time of the House and Parliament. They are
deliberately trying to obstruct the bill. They have no interest in
seeing that democracy takes its full course. Members of the
House are entitled to express their view by a vote. That is the
normal way of concluding debate. That is what the government
is seeking to do by the time allocation motion it has brought in
respect of this bill.
I do not know why the government House leader was so
generous as to allow six hours on each stage but he did. The fact
is we will be debating this bill next week. Hon. members
opposite will have a chance to express their views along with the
other members of the House, the members of the official
opposition and the members of the governing party.
I am pleased we will have an orderly debate and that we will
conclude debate with a vote to see what happens to the bill. I
strongly suspect it is going to pass, notwithstanding the
objections of hon. members opposite.
Let us turn to Bill C-85, another bill dear to the heart of the
hon. member for Calgary West. This bill was also debated in the
House at great length. We are hearing bleats and whines again
from the Reform Party about the time allocation motion in
respect of this bill. It was debated on May 4, May 9, May 10 and
May 12 for a total of 15 hours and 57 minutes. That is almost 16
hours of debate. Then it was referred to committee.
(1355)
The committee proceedings were expeditious. The matter was
dealt with in a day. We heard five, six or seven different
witnesses during the course of the day. Then, as I pointed out
when I tabled the report from the committee, every clause was
carried unanimously in the course of the clause by clause study
in that committee.
Now the hon. member for Calgary West is objecting. He has a
whole string of amendments which he wants to bring to the
House. He did not bring them in committee. He got up in a huff
and huffed and puffed and blew himself out of the room. He was
not there to propose his amendments. We did not have any
discussion on any amendments. Now he thinks maybe we had
better change the bill, so we are busy debating amendments in
the House.
We have allocated four hours to debate the amendments of the
hon. member for Calgary West, then we will have a vote and then
four hours on third reading. After 16 hours on second reading,
four hours on third reading, four hours in report stage and a full
day in committee, I do not know what objection there could be to
passing the bill. The bill was in the red book. Everything in the
bill was promised in the red book except the extra things we
have added which can only help make hon. members feel more
comfortable.
What did we add? Opting out of the pension plan, which they
asked for. They asked to be allowed to opt out and that has been
granted in the bill. They asked that the pension be reduced and it
has been reduced in the bill. It is not enough for them, but it has
been reduced.
Let us turn to Bill C-41. This is another bill which hon.
members opposite think should not come under time allocation.
We have heard nothing but complaints from hon. members
opposite about the bill; not about the whole bill of course, just
about one clause. Again, we have another red book promise
being implemented by the government. Hon. members opposite
13549
were not elected on the red book so they should not ask us to
substitute their opinion for ours. We chose what we were going
to run on. We put the platform forward in the red book and the
people voted for it in droves.
Let us look at the record on Bill C-41. It was given first
reading in June 1994. It was debated in the House on September
20, September 22 and October 18 for a total of 8.5 hours. It went
to committee on October 18, 1994 and did not come back from
committee until March 22.
Yet the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley is bleating from her seat about the fact that the bill was
in committee for six months. What did she do all that time? Did
she sit and obstruct the bill? Why did she not call witnesses and
move amendments then? There has been a whole pile of
amendments moved to the bill. The hon. member clearly does
not want a decision in the House, she just wants to obstruct and
cause delay.
The government has to make a decision. That is what
governments are elected to do. This government made a
decision. Its decision was outlined in the red book. It brought the
bill before Parliament. It has allowed ample time for debate,
ample time for discussion, ample time to hear witnesses and
ample time to consult. There comes a day when you have to bite
the bullet and make a decision and, by George, we are going to
do it next week. The great thing is that we are going to be able to
sit until late to do it.
Mr. Abbott: Just what we all want.
Mr. Milliken: Exactly. It is just what we all want, as the hon.
member says. I am glad he is as enthusiastic at the prospect as I
am. I will have supper with the hon. member in the lobby.
As we look forward to next week's late night debates and,
undoubtedly, very late night votes, I can only say that I hope the
weather stays a little cooler. I know that debate will be heated on
many of these bills. I recognize there is a difference of opinion.
However, the fact is that the government has to bring these
matters to a decision at some point in time and the time has
come. These bills have been around and they have been debated
extensively in Parliament.
An hon. member: No, they have not.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says they have not. I have
just been through the facts. I wish he would listen to my speech.
If he would listen he would agree with me.
The fact is these bills have been debated extensively and
Canadians have been consulted. There is disagreement. Of
course there is disagreement. We recognise that. However, the
government made a commitment to the Canadian people in the
red book. The government made a series of commitments, and
those commitments form the basis of government action in the
House and will continue to form the basis of government action
in the months and years to come.
(1400)
The Prime Minister made it very clear when he was
campaigning, and I remember hearing him say this, that at the
end of the day Canadians will be able to turn to the red book, go
through it and say this government lived up to its commitments.
As Prime Minister, he will be going to Canadians in the next
election, whether it is 1997 or 1998-it cannot be too soon, and
hon. members opposite must be very nervous at that
prospect-and he will say: ``Here is the red book. Here are the
commitments we made. Here are the promises that we kept, one
after the other.''
Mr. Abbott: That would be a short speech.
An hon. member: What about the ones you did not keep?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says what about the ones we
did not keep. We were not elected for two years, we were elected
for four or five. There is ample time for us to live up to the red
book commitments. It was a blueprint for action, not for one or
two years but for the full term of a Liberal government. That is
what the government is doing.
Hon. members opposite refer to the Ontario election as though
it is some kind of setback.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: I can only say to hon. members opposite that in
spite of their laughter, the setback is going to be with them. If we
go to most of the ridings around Ontario-and the hon. member
for Simcoe Centre knows this very well, and it is Ontario they
are now concerned about because of this election, which is why I
am referring to those particular seats-we have to add up the
Reform vote and the Tory vote in the last election and see what it
comes to. Had the two been together-and of course we know
they are becoming bedfellows over there-they might have won
a few more seats than the one they got in Ontario in 1993.
The success in the Ontario election can be attributed to the
fact that the Reform Party failed to field any candidates in the
provincial election. We know why they did not. As a national
party they are going to have a tough time the next time living
this down.
Mr. Abbott: It is because our members said no.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says it is because their
members said no. We know it is because their leader said no, not
because their members said no. Their members in Ontario
wanted to run, but their leader said no. We all know about the
dictatorial powers possessed by their leader. Let me get the little
green book again, if members do not believe me on that score.
13550
I know hon. members opposite do not like me to quote from
the little green book, the little book of Reform, the gospel
according to Preston Manning and the Reform Party.
Mr. Abbott: Is that an authorized publication?
Mr. Milliken: If the hon. member who is doing all the yelling
kept this little book under his head at night he would not sleep
well. I suspect that is the problem.
Listen to this on the struggle against the usual charges. I
cannot really read this; it is in small print. It says: ``Reform
candidates must effectively combat the charges of separatism,
extremism and eccentricity, which are invariably levelled
against any new party originating in the west''. That is on the
Reform Party questionnaire, but it does not say how they do it.
Ms. Meredith: If you are going to use a prop, give us the
name of it.
Mr. Milliken: I will read one more quote from the leader:
``People make assumptions that we are eccentric, that we have
weird baggage''-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia on a point of order.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. parliamentary
secretary is using a prop.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): No, I would rule that is
not a point of order. In fact he is quoting from a document, as I
understand it.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest
it would be valuable if the parliamentary secretary were to
identify the document he is reading from. I am making a
statement that there is no such authorized publication by the
Reform Party in that form.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I say respectfully to the
hon. member for Kootenay East that the accuracy of the actual
document being quoted from that might be debated. But it is
certainly not a point of order.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I understand the members'
discomfort. They are simply trying to run out my time.
Mr. Abbott: Well, identify the document.
Mr. Milliken: I did. I read the title to the hon. member. It
says: ``The Little Book of Reform: The Gospel According to
Preston Manning and the Reform Party''. It is published by
Little Red Book, Arsenal Pulp Press. It is compiled by
Christopher Gudgeon and Mark Leiren-Young.
Mr. Abbott: A little red book? Oh.
Mr. Milliken: I am sorry that hon. members do not have
copies. Anyway, I would like to quote from their leader before
my time runs out.
(1405 )
He said: ``People make assumptions that we are eccentric,
that we have weird baggage on policy, that we are extreme and
that we are separatists. We are not extreme. We are not crazy. We
are not separatists.'' That is the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest.
With great respect, hon. members opposite are asking us to
substitute Reform policy for Liberal policy. The Liberal Party,
as a government elected on principles outlined in the red book,
will not do that. I ask hon. members to stop asking for that. Vote
against these bills if members want to do so, but for heaven's
sake, recognize that the government has an obligation to do what
it said it would do.
If the Reform Party were in government I hope they would try
to live up to their promises, as we are succeeding in living up to
ours.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order. One, is it
common when one quotes from a book or whatever that the
member would table that document?
Second, during his remarks the member made mention that
the Reform Party was somehow in bed with the Conservatives.
He is imputing motives, and I so not think that is right.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me be brief and
succinct. That is no point of order.
And more than five members have risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 27, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now
before the House. 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 yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
June 12, 1995, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
13551
13551
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages and
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to
21 petitions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.08 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
Before we proceed to private members' business, I get
indication from a number of members who were possibly
waiting for tabling of petitions. Regrettably, in terms of process,
given the events of the day, daily routine of business in those
circumstances is cut off after government bills. If any further
information might be required by any member I would simply
advise members to seek the expertise of our table officers.
_____________________________________________
13551
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-7, an act
to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are six motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for
motor vehicles. Motions 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.
(1410 )
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate. A vote
on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6.
[Translation]
I will now submit Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 to the House.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill S-7, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 14, on page 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill S-7, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the
following:
``federal bodies will be''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill S-7 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6
That Bill S-7, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15, on page 4,
with the following:
``end of each fiscal year, by the President of the Treasury Board, a report for the
year on the application of this Act in respect of all federal bodies.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, of these four amendments, the
amendment of substance, which required the tabling of the other
three, is Motion No. 5, that Bill S-7 be amended by deleting
clause 5. The objective is to remove crown corporations from
being covered by this bill.
Historically, crown corporations are supposed to act at arm's
length from political interference. In recent years they have
even in some cases been expected to make money and to run
their operations in the same manner as private business.
Therefore, although this House can, if it wishes, proceed to pass
laws to regulate the operations of federal departments, I suggest
that when it starts delving into the minute detail of the
operations of a crown corporation it is exceeding its authority.
Therefore I have tabled these amendments.
If we are going to talk about what government should and
should not do, I would like to elaborate a little more on that. It is
not the business of government to pick winners and losers in the
marketplace. I have received more intense corporate lobbying in
favour of this bill than I have ever encountered in the brief year
and a half that I have been in this place. Let us be clear about
something. I do not have a problem with the practical purposes
of this bill. The objectives are fine. The intentions are fine. But
we know where the road goes that is paved with these intentions.
The bill is very general in its wording, but it mandates a
market specifically for propane and natural gas. There is
mention in passing in the bill to ethanol, to hydrogen, to
electricity, but let us be realistic, let us be honest: what we are
talking about is propane and natural gas. The propane and
natural gas companies have been doing the intense lobbying,
along with various manufacturers and jobbers who would have a
special interest in converting the government fleet.
I do not have any problem with the products of these
corporations being used as automotive fuels. Propane and
natural gas have a very legitimate place in the energy mix and
they have a well-defined applicability for vehicle fleets with
high usage rates, especially in urban areas.
13552
In my riding we produce large amounts of both natural gas
and liquid petroleum, so I do not believe I can be accused of
geographic bias. My objections to this bill are based on
technological, economic, and environmental considerations. In
other words, I am not lobbying for anyone.
(1415 )
I previously stated that there are certain applications where
the use of these alternate fuels makes economic sense.
Unfortunately, within the government fleet a very small number
of vehicles have a sufficiently high annual fuel consumption or
cover a sufficiently high annual distance to make them
economically viable for conversion. This has been brought out
by one of the government's own studies, the Bronson study,
which indicated that only some 10 to 20 per cent of government
vehicles are really good candidates for conversion.
However, in this bill the schedule of conversions suggests that
by April 1, 1997, 50 per cent of all new vehicle purchases have
to be for vehicles with alternate fuel capacity, one year later it is
60 per cent and finally building up to 75 per cent of new vehicle
purchases in 1999. Ultimately 75 per cent of all vehicles in the
fleet will have to run on some alternate fuel.
An amendment has been presented and passed in committee
adding the words ``where it is economically feasible''. When
this was discussed in committee nobody seemed to know exactly
what that meant. Frankly, I do not know what it means either
because where economically feasible can mean whatever one
wants it to mean depending on who is presenting the argument.
This muddy bill has been mudified even further with this
amendment.
Let us do what we are supposed to do in this House which is to
formulate policy. Let us not tell our fleet managers for heaven's
sake how to manage their fleets. How nitpicking in detail do we
get and for what reason?
I would suggest that the lobbyists who are pressing for this
bill want to set a precedent. They want to show that there is an
opening for their product. If they cannot sell it in the
marketplace or convince people to convert on the basis of sound
economics then they say: ``Let us have the government mandate
a market for us, even if it is just a little tiny one of 39,000
vehicles''. If my amendment is accepted, it would be 25,000
vehicles out of some seven million cars and vans. It is not going
to make a great deal of difference to them on the spot. However,
it sets a precedent of government interference in the normal
course of doing business in the fuel industry. That is what I and
the Reform Party do not want to see.
I mentioned the environmental aspects. Everything is not
black and white on the environmental effects of converting from
gasoline or diesel over to natural gas and propane. Some
emissions actually are worse with the compressed gas products
than they are with gasoline and diesel.
I refer specifically to nitrous oxides. Because of the higher
compression ratios of the gas powered vehicles they are
produced in considerably higher quantities than they are in
gasoline and diesel motors. This has a profound effect on acid
rain among other things. Other pollutants such as carbon dioxide
are produced in lower quantities than the gaseous fuels.
However, it is not entirely black and white.
Therefore, I am stating flatly that these decisions should be
left to the experts, the people we pay to operate our motor pools.
We as politicians should keep out of it. We are not all mechanics
or engineers. Let us let the marketplace decide what will happen
here. If the product is good these lobbyists should be out selling
it to the people who have to do the buying, not selling it here in
Parliament.
(1420 )
I almost hate to admit it but in part of our government we do
have some good management, in the RCMP fleet. It has 32 per
cent of the vehicles owned by the federal government apart from
the crown vehicles. It certainly does not want to be put in a
position of being mandated to do a conversion. Can we envisage
pursuit cars on the highway powered by propane? The RCMP
could change its slogan from ``we get our man'' to ``we
sometimes catch him if he does not have a good start''.
Propane has its place; natural gas has its place. These places
should be decided on the basis of practicality and realism, not on
the basis of what some high powered lobbyist wants the
government to do.
During first reading there was some comment about ways the
government, if it is sincere about wanting to do away with
emissions, could solve some of the problems without getting
into conversion. I believe my hon. colleague from Macleod
suggested the ministers with their big fat limousines could have
their chauffeurs turn the motors off once in a while in winter
when they are parked out front.
Maybe they could even go to smaller vehicles. I would like to
see all the ministers put in very small cars. If the government
really wants to cut down on the emission of noxious gases in the
precincts of government it could drive the whole bunch of them
into the Ottawa River. That would be a good form of closure.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
you have been very patient so far, and I hope you will be patient
with me, too.
This planet was loaned to us, so to speak, so that we could
improve it if possible. If we want to leave a valuable legacy to
our children, we must protect the earth. Obviously, I am in
favour of Bill S-7, because its purpose is to convert 75 per cent
13553
of all federal vehicles by the year 2004 so that they can run on
fuels that are less damaging to the environment. I think that this
should have been done a long time ago.
The bill defines alternative fuels as fuels that are less
damaging to the environment. What I find harder to understand
is that the expression ``less damaging'' is not defined in the bill.
What does that mean?
In proper French, propane gas should be called ``propane''
instead of ``propane gas''.
Here are some facts. The federal fleet now includes more than
39,000 vehicles, which emit some 156,000 tonnes of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every year. This is terrible.
Every year, 570 million tonnes of various greenhouses gases
are emitted into the air from coast to coast. This is called
pollution. For the past 18 years or so, the gases accumulated in
the air have caused a gradual warming of the planet. The best
experts predict that the earth's average temperature will rise by
1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius within a few years, which is almost
unbelievable.
(1425)
This rise in temperature will have a major impact on sea
levels, on ecosystems, of course, on the amount of drinking
water and, as a result, on agriculture and human health.
Every year, new diseases appear. We do not know where they
come from, but we know very well where they are leading us.
They are leading us to our death, of course, without our realizing
it. By polluting the environment, thus aggravating these
diseases, we are killing thousands of children.
We will then spend enormous amounts on detecting these
diseases. It is an endless cycle because, humans being what they
are, they cannot keep adapt to nature. You know, nature is
brilliantly organized; yet, with all our brains, we are going to
destroy it.
The Canadian government has committed itself in front of the
international community to stabilizing greenhouse gas
emissions at their 1990 level by the year 2000. The problem is
however that, while she was prepared to do that much, the hon.
minister was unable to get Cabinet approval. This means that
there are several ministers on the other side of this House who
are not aware of the consequences. That is a tragedy.
Carbon dioxide emissions in Quebec are half the Canadian
average. We, in Quebec, have been taking our responsibilities in
this regard for many years. If only the federal government would
follow our lead. I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory
in Quebec; much needs to be done, but compared to others, we
are certainly on the right track.
Some, like the Reformers, question the validity of scientific
results pointing to the existence of a greenhouse effect. I would
like to share with you some of the reasons why I am for Bill S-7.
In addition, this bill was introduced by a senator, and I
congratulate him on that.
In a speech to this House, I said that the senators were
creatures living in a large aquarium, in which they swim now
and then, although not too fast, and then rest. But seriously-I
must be logical and responsible here-there are senators who do
an excellent job and the sponsor of this bill is one of them.
By passing Bill S-7, we will force the Canadian government
to set an example. It will have to practice what it preaches,
which it has never done yet.
Of course, Treasury Board directives were issued regarding
the conversion and improved management of the federal fleet.
However, we are forced to recognize that these have hit a wall of
inaction and resistance to change. Only through legislation will
the government departments and agencies be forced to comply
with the new environmental priorities.
In addition, the federal government will save approximately
$43 million in fuel over five years and another $15 million in the
following years. Of course it will be a little more expensive. It
will cost almost $1,500 more per vehicle purchased, a total of
approximately $38.5 million more over a period of five years.
However, it should also create savings of $7 million over five
years.
(1430)
Converting the federal government's fleet will have a ripple
effect which will break the vicious circle of the low demand for
converted vehicles because of the small number of outlets
selling the fuel, which itself is caused by the small number of
converted vehicles on the road, etc, etc. We hope that the large
car manufacturers and fuel suppliers will take this opportunity
to develop new models and to cultivate new markets.
Clause 2, however, sets three conditions in the legal definition
of an ``alternative fuel''. The three conditions are the following.
The fuel must be: (a) for use in motor vehicles to deliver direct
propulsion; (b) less damaging to the environment than
conventional fuels, and (c) prescribed by regulation.
I have some doubts about that definition, even though we
support this bill.
One can, nevertheless, not help but wonder about the
relevance of designating specific fuels which, after scientific
analyses and the development of new technology, could very
well be condemned within a few years as more harmful to the
environment than other fuels.
I will give you an example. According to an article in Le
Devoir, a study carried out by Carnegie University revealed that
a 1988 vehicle which ran on electricity emitted 60 times more
13554
lead into the environment per kilometre than a comparable
vehicle which ran on leaded gasoline.
What is considered less harmful at a given point in time can
change drastically because of new developments and new
technology.
Despite these reservations, we support Bill S-7. Canada, the
second largest producer of garbage in the world, the second
greatest energy consumer and second highest emitter of
greenhouse gases per capita, cannot afford to once miss such an
opportunity.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I join in the debate today with a mixed message. Very
few things we encounter in Parliament and in life are entirely
black or entirely white. They are usually a shade of grey, with
the notable exception of the ongoing pension debate which is
fairly direct in black and white. One is either on the side of the
angels on that one or not. Today we are talking about Bill S-7,
the alternative fuels act. In my opinion it is not quite so cut and
dried.
Our party is basically a free enterprise party. Our position is
that if it can be done in the marketplace by the marketplace that
is probably where the motivation and the determination for what
happens in life should be made, primarily if we are talking about
things commercial.
The legislation is typical of government's desire to somehow
manipulate the market or determine what is best for Canadians
rather than let the marketplace decide what is best for
Canadians.
(1435 )
On the other side of the coin is the fact that most people are
very much aware that some alternative fuels, specifically
propane and natural gas, are far less polluting to the atmosphere.
They are in great supply in Canada and are relatively cheap.
If we could induce the marketplace to convert to propane or to
natural gas, we would definitely be in a win-win situation,
especially if the inducement for the marketplace to convert was
of a moral suasion nature rather than an inducement by having to
spend taxpayers' money to do it.
Other aspects of the bill on alternative fuels are not so benign.
My colleague who spoke before me raised the point about
electric cars. There is a possibility that electric cars put more
lead into the atmosphere than people had anticipated. When we
talk about converting to ethanol we have to look beyond the
immediate where it makes sense to use ethanol as a replaceable
product. We can grow it. We can get it from the farms. It is not a
depleting resource. It makes sense, especially if it is mixed with
gas. However, as we dig into the ethanol situation we discover
the cost to the environment to produce ethanol is not so benign.
It has to be fertilized. It costs a fair amount to grow the crop.
Then resources have to be put into the refining of ethanol. The
cost relative to gasoline is substantially higher.
The bill is not quite so easy. While part of it deals with
alternative fuels which are readily changeable to and are very
good for the environment, part of it also deals with other
alternative fuels that may not be.
I should like to put on record a few thoughts about what
happened in Brazil's mandate to move to ethanol:
Brazil's ethanol program is the world's largest and most ambitious
government initiative supporting alternative motor fuels. In 1979, Brazil's
passenger car fleet was comprised almost exclusively of gasoline vehicles; a
decade later, about 30 per cent of its vehicles were built to run on ethanol. In the
period 1975 to 1979, ethanol was blended with gasoline as a fuel extender in a 20
per cent ethanol-80 per cent gasoline blend.
In 1979, as a result of large oil price increases, the government decided that a
new fuel-96 per cent ethanol-was needed to replace gasoline at the fastest
possible rate. This decision meant that new fuel and automotive infrastructures
were required. A large expansion of ethanol production capacity was needed to
meet the government's new target of 10.7 billion litres by 1985. This changed the
cost and character of the program: until 1979, ethanol production had been
increased by using existing distilleries at sugar refineries; the 1985 ethanol
production target could only be met by building new free-standing distilleries
dedicated to producing ethanol. There were also new demands placed on the fuel
distribution system. For example, local fuel stations needed to add pumps
dedicated exclusively to dispensing ethanol fuel.
Consumers who had converted vehicles to take advantage of ethanol prices
encountered problems with poor quality conversions. Also, after 1980,
consumers faced higher fuel prices when the government increased ethanol
prices [previously as low as 40 per cent of the price of gasoline].
This begs a question. We were going through the effort then to
convert to alternative fuels that are cheaper today. What will
happen when the market supply is such that suddenly there is
enough demand? The price is likely to go up and we will not
have a price advantage. That is the way the marketplace tends to
work.
(1440)
The quotation continues:
Consumers reacted rapidly, and ethanol vehicle sales fell to less than 10 per
cent of total vehicle sales by July 1981.
The government then renewed its support for the program by holding ethanol
prices at 59 per cent of gasoline prices for two years and extending ethanol
vehicle purchase incentives. Auto makers improved ethanol vehicles by using
corrosion resistant materials, adding a small pump to inject gasoline to reduce
cold starting problems and improving ethanol vehicle warranties. Public
confidence in ethanol vehicles steadily recovered, with purchases peaking in
1985 at about 95 per cent of the vehicle sales.
Ethanol demand began to outstrip production as early as 1986. From late 1989
to early 1990, there was an acute shortage of ethanol, and consumers with
dedicated ethanol vehicles waited in long fuel lines. Ethanol vehicle sales dropped
from over 50 per cent of the 1988 market to less than 4 per cent of vehicle sales in
13555
mid-1990. Most cars made in Brazil now are designed for ethanol/gasoline blends
rather than neat ethanol.
That was a long quote, but I thought it important to refer to the
fact that once the government gets into the marketplace by
regulating either the gasoline that can be sold, or the types of
vehicles that should be sold, or in one way or another artificially
changing the cost of a particular fuel, it sets up an intrinsic,
automatic adjustment in the marketplace. The marketplace will
be its own master. No matter how beneficial or how benign the
intent behind a government motion might be, we cannot
automatically assume that the result in the marketplace will
have the same benign reaction.
As I said earlier, there are conversions which on the face of
them make great sense: the conversion to propane or to liquefied
natural gas, particularly the conversion to propane in Canada. I
believe there are over 3,000 stations in existence today in
Canada that will allow people to fill up their vehicles with
propane. Propane is significantly lower in price than gasoline. It
has wide acceptance in fleets of taxis. It has wide acceptance in
other industrial fleets. It is a consumer recognized good product.
There is really no need for the government to provide any
particular incentive for people to use common sense. We as a
nation do not have the money any longer to be inducing
consumers or changing the marketplace at our whim.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to rise to speak to this issue today. You can tell by
looking at me that I am a person who believes in great efficiency.
We ought to do everything possible to utilize our available
fuel sources in the most efficient manner and to conserve our
environment. They are two very worthy goals and probably
there is no debate from anyone on that point. There should be no
difference. I believe all Canadians in general would agree.
If the goals in terms of moving people and materials in a
transportation system are the most efficient use of limited
resources and the elimination or reduction as much as possible
of pollution of the air, ground and water environments, how
should those goals be accomplished?
(1445)
Once again we have an example of a government thinking that
unless it legislates it, it will not happen. I reject that hypothesis
forthwith. I am sure people who come up with ideas to pass these
laws are well motivated. There is no doubt about that but when
one thinks of producing a law such as the one we are looking at
today, it does start out with the assumption that if this law were
not passed nothing would happen.
That is not true. By and large Canadians are becoming more
aware of their environmental responsibilities and simply
because of that they are beginning to make adjustments in their
lifestyles. Members of my family and I have been doing this for
a long time. We used alternate fuels to the day many years ago.
When it was possible we rode our bicycles.
Maybe what the government should do is say everybody in the
federal civil service instead of having a vehicle should have a
bicycle. Maybe we should ask our Prime Minister who has gone
from his Cadillac, Lincoln or whatever he had before to the
Chevy to get a bicycle built for two. His assistant could help him
provide the power. He would come toddling down Sussex Drive
to the Hill every day.
Mr. Abbott: He rode a bike in Beijing.
Mr. Epp: He has proven he is athletically oriented and that
would be a wonderful statement of government leadership in
how to move passengers in an efficient way.
Members may know if they have ever read Scientific
American that of all the modes of transportation the one
requiring the least amount of energy per kilometre is the
bicycle; the clear winner over every other form of
transportation. If we want to reduce costs and pollution we
ought to be pushing bicycles.
Bill S-7 specifies we should go for alternate fuels. One of the
things that disturbs me or causes me the most amount of concern
is here again we have the push toward quotas and legislative
requirements. I know it is good to set goals. There is nothing
wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with saying we ought to
set a goal but the error in this bill is instead of using the
legislation to set a performance goal we are using the legislation
to set a method goal.
In other words, we are not saying we want to have vehicles run
with better and cheaper fuel that pollute the atmosphere less. We
are saying we require a certain quota of vehicles converted for
alternate fuel.
I noticed in scanning the bill there is an internal contradiction.
It states that by a 2001 the goal is to have 75 per cent of vehicles
on alternate fuels. If 75 per cent of the vehicles are on a certain
type of fuel, the other ones are the alternate because these are
now in the majority. If we did that our definitions would have to
be changed. That is a moot point but it is one where we need to
be careful in what we say.
Most important, is it really cost effective? We know that to
convert vehicles manufactured for one type of fuel is a costly
activity. The return economically on that conversion is only
there if the vehicle is driven a sufficient distance per year. For
most of these conversion costs the fuel source is also less
expensive and so there is a financial gain to be had. However,
unless one drives the vehicle a sufficient distance it is not
economical.
13556
D (1450)
Approximately 70 per cent of vehicles owned by the federal
government or its agencies are driven a distance less than the
critical point at which it is economical to do the conversion. We
need to go back one step and say that instead of converting
existing vehicles we need to produce vehicles in the first place
with the ability to handle current or alternate fuels.
Here again we have a great problem because it is impossible
to predict with accuracy the future. It could well be because of
certain economic or environmental disasters or things beyond
our control that certain types of fuels will become unavailable in
sufficient quantity. As the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest mentioned, there have been examples of vehicles
designed to run on one kind of fuel suddenly being parked
because no fuel is available. It is wise to have dual fuel vehicles
not only for the availability of the fuel but also in the event it
goes out of the range of the alternate fuel station.
There are many dual vehicles. I have been a passenger in a
vehicle in which there is a switch on the dash. It drives along on
propane and as soon as the propane is gone and the propane
station is out of range, the driver can flip a switch and the
vehicle will resume running on gasoline as it was originally
intended. That is a cost item. Vehicles which run on two fuels
require a greater cost in manufacturing if it is done at the
manufacturing level and certainly involves a cost if done at the
conversion level.
Another factor is what proportion of the cost is the actual cost
of producing the fuel and what proportion is the taxation.
Provinces and certainly the federal government have fuel taxes.
There has been a bit of publicity given to the latest fuel tax the
government had the audacity to introduce in the last budget. It
was a nominal 1.5 per cent per litre. Many Canadians do not
realize that figure is not accurate; it is a new tax of 1.605 cents
per litre since GST is paid on the tax as well. The government is
not happy unless it is taxing the taxes.
Propane, compressed natural gas and normal gasoline, as we
call it, have different taxation levels. It is no secret, at least in
Alberta, that one of the main reasons propane is economical is
simply that the government is not taxing it. At the
manufacturing or refinery level the cost of the two fuels was not
that much different. The tax differentiated them.
Perhaps we should simply change the tax structure to give a
slight advantage to one fuel if it can be proven advantageous to
the environment. Here again I express caution because we are
now intruding in the marketplace and what we ought to be doing
is setting performance standards, not method standards. In other
words, we do not care how the goal is achieved; rather we do
care the stated environmental goal is achieved.
I can think of specific examples in which governments have
tried to encourage good environmental practices. I remember
the $100 tax on air conditioning. That was really a very bad tax,
because there were a lot of vehicles that were much more
efficient with air conditioning than without.
(1455)
I would simply urge the government to think very carefully
about passing bills of this nature, which are so coercive and are
not clearly defined in terms of objectives to be met.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
an old saying for the Liberals: ``If it moves, regulate it; if it does
not, tax it''. It seems to me that this bill is yet another one of
them that is being supported. I recognize that it came originally
from the other place of great rest. We took a look at it and we are
wondering what we should be doing about it. Then when the
Liberals took it under their wing as if it were one of their own,
we really started to take a look at it and we realized that it fit the
principle of ``if it moves, regulate it''.
One of the biggest problems we have in Canada today,
whether it is this bill or anything else, is the constant,
never-ending interference of all levels of government in
everything we could possibly imagine: if it is interaction
between people, let us legislate it and get it made right by
legislation; if it is interaction between people relative to
commerce then we have to make sure we have that absolutely
airtight.
What do we have motor pool managers for? Why do we have
departments in the government and crown corporations that look
after matters like this? What is their job? If their job is not to
manage, if their job is not to make good sound judgments that
can be based strictly on economics or can be based on a
combination of economics and environment or can be made
strictly for the purpose of environment, what are they there for?
The government desires to consistently interfere and get into the
faces, get into the lives, get into the wallets, get into the back
pockets of every Canadian. It is a piece of work.
In doing a little research for this, I reviewed a document
called ``Comparative Analysis of Alternative Transportation
Fuels'', put out by Clean Fuels Consulting Inc. in Toronto with
branches in the States. I was interested in page 5 of the document
which relates directly to my question of what do we have motor
pool managers for, why are they there, do they not have any level
of expertise. I do not profess to have any expertise so I went to
the source.
As an example: ``High alcohol fuels have problems with cold
starts because the fuel does not vaporize easily. This problem
does not exist for compressed natural gas and propane, where
the fuel is already in the vapour phase to begin with. However,
13557
these gases have a high ignition temperature and a high ignition
delay, which could cause some cold start problems.''
Rather than taking the time of the House to read more of this
documentation, I just cite that as one example of the little bit of
research that even a novice like myself can do to come across the
fact that there are some serious problems that professional
motor pool managers, people in the whole business of moving
vehicles, moving people or materials in those vehicles, should
be able to have a handle on. I would bow to their wisdom before I
would bow to the wisdom of any member of the House, unless
they had equal understanding, background, and schooling.
For example, in talking about gasoline, another piece of
research that came to me is that emission controls are working.
In the past 15 years, unburned hydrocarbon emissions have been
reduced by 98 per cent, nitrous oxides by 90 per cent, and carbon
monoxide by 96 per cent.
Again, I do not cite these numbers to in any way infer that I am
an expert on this topic. I am merely asking, other than any
members in the House who by pure coincidence happen to be
experts, why are we as members of Parliament coming forward
with this kind of legislation that will give quotas?
(1500 )
I go back to the fact the government seems to have a thing
about quotas for everything. If the country does not have enough
of this kind of person in this kind of industry, then we will have a
quota. We have seen what the people of Ontario thought about
that kind of legislation last night.
The government just does not get it. It does not understand
there is such a thing as a free market that actually drives the
economy, that brings us to a norm, to a proper level.
This morning I received a letter from a gentleman from
Superior Propane in Unionville, Ontario via fax. I appreciated
receiving the letter. He was trying to suggest to me reasons why
this is a good bill and should be passed. His concluding sentence
is: ``I look forward to the record of the vote showing your
endorsement of this valuable bill''.
I am prepared to listen to the debate on this bill and make a
determination which way I will be voting at the conclusion of
the debate but it is pretty obvious which direction I am leaning at
this point.
He says: ``I am contacting you regarding S-7, an important
piece of legislation awaiting third reading in the House''. Then
he explains five benefits of passing the bill like ``industrial
benefits resulting from increased private sector investment of
$40 million to $50 million''.
With government mandating certain things through
legislation we are going to be generating $40 million to $50
million worth of private sector investment. The question I have
is, if we were not mandating this would that private sector
investment be happening? In other words, I want to get a balance
between those things.
His second point is diversification of transportation energy,
thus increasing competition among transportation fuel suppliers
and economies to consumers. His third point is expanded
markets for canola farmers. His fourth point is diversification of
the western economy.
It raises this question in my mind. If we have literally millions
of vehicles that roll up and down the road, whether private
vehicles, cars, trucks or whatever, or if we have vehicles that are
not in the private sector but are owned by government, what is
the comparison?
The number of government vehicles is in the tens of thousands
whereas the number of vehicles that are actually on the road are
in the many millions. It then begs the question: Why are we
doing this? We are talking about expanded markets for canola
farmers. Surely converting the tens of thousands of vehicles that
are owned by the federal government is not going to make a
significant difference to canola farmers, and diversification of
the western economies is, with all due respect to this gentleman,
something of a stretch.
However, in his fifth point he suggests the savings to the
taxpayers resulting from reduced operating costs in the federal
fleet are estimated at $4 million to $6 million annually. It then
begs the question: If savings of $4 million to $6 million annually
could be had by making these conversions, and if the
government presently is trying to watch every dollar it is
presently spending, why is it necessary to pass legislation? If the
motor pool managers and the people who are in charge of these
fleets cannot see there is a $4 million to $6 million annual
savings and they are not prepared to do it, maybe they should be
fired.
I go back to page 13 of my research on this comparative
analysis of alternative transportation fuels. I refer to what my
colleague from Edmonton Southwest was mentioning about the
situation in Brazil and I will recall one sentence. From 1989 to
early 1990 there was an acute shortage of ethanol and consumers
with dedicated ethanol vehicles waited in long fuel lines.
(1505)
We have seen with this and also with the artificial level of
taxation on propane that the government has a tremendous
ability to manipulate the private sector. Within the bill there
consistently appears the phrase ``where it is cost effective and
operationally feasible''. I am suggesting, is this legislation
actually necessary? Are there not some other ways of achieving
exactly the same thing? Surely we can reduce the amount of
legislation that is currently on our slate. It seems to be pushing
the government to all of these wonderful hours of time
allocation and extended hours. Perhaps we could just dispose of
this bill.
13558
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the House that at
3.10 p.m. I will put the question.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will just make a few remarks.
My hon. friend from Elk Island mentioned perhaps buying
bicycles and saving some energy that way. I would suggest
perhaps we should match the speed of our vehicles to the speed
that the government moves. It would mean that we would go
back to the horse and buggy days.
Putting horses on the Hill might have a double advantage. We
could collect the methane produced by these animals and run the
little green buses. In that way we could really save energy. It
would help tremendously environmentally and also help
non-renewable resources.
When I heard the member for Kingston and the Islands this
afternoon there was so much hot air coming from that side of the
House it led me to think we could do away with the airlines and
travel by hot air balloons. That would really help us conserve
energy in the air industry. We have good ideas around here, if we
could just get the government to move fast enough to implement
them.
I have mentioned before but I will mention again that over the
last two years we have been backtracking grain from the west to
Thunder Bay. As we heard today, we then take it from Thunder
Bay to California. If we had changed our attitude and gone the
shortest route we could have probably saved enough energy for
the House and crown corporations to operate their vehicles on
regular fuel and still be gallons and gallons ahead as far as
energy consumption is concerned.
It is always a matter of using the most reliable and most
efficient system. Back in the 1940s and early 1950s a big move
was on toward propane in the farm industry, especially for
tractors and some other vehicles. Very soon it was realized the
value of the energy was not there. It slowed down machinery and
the conversions that were done quickly faded away. It was just a
matter of wasted money.
One of the members pointed out that the RCMP would look
very foolish with a propane car. That is probably what would
happen. Substitutions would be made. Vehicles would be
switched over to different fuels and because of taxes or
inefficiencies of that system they would be done away with and
vehicles would return to the regular energy.
I appreciate these few minutes. I hope that some day I do see
the horses and buggies back on the Hill, because it will sure
speed up things the way this government is moving on some of
this stuff.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I might have
inadvertently misled you when in my exuberance and it being
Friday and wanting to get to other duties I said I would put the
question. It was in fact the wrong technical term.
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.
It being 3.10 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 3.11 p.m.)