CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 21, 1995
(Motion agreed to.) 16578
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16590
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16593
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16598
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16603
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16607
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16609
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16610
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 16611
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16612
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16613
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16613
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16614
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16614
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16614
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16615
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16615
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16615
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16615
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16616
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16616
Consideration resumed of motion 16621
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16621
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16640
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 81;Nays, 151 16640
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16641
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 80; Nays, 153 16641
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of report stageand amendment 16642
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 144; Nays, 89 16642
(Motion agreed to.) 16643
Bill C-317. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16643
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 104; Nays, 114 16643
(Motion negatived.) 16644
Bill C-275. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16644
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 154; Nays, 68 16645
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 16645
Consideration resumed of motion and of amendment 16645
16577
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 21, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the
House a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association concerning the 41st Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka from October 3
to 13, 1995. It is tabled in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has
been signed by a number of Canadians from Edmonton, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1010 )
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order, notice of which I gave the Chair
this morning.
This point of order concerns the government's disregard of
Standing Order 109, under which it is required within 150 days of
the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee to
table a comprehensive response.
On June 20, 1995 the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development presented its fifth report concerning its
review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the House
of Commons. According to Standing Order 109 the deadline for the
government to table its response to this report was yesterday,
Monday, November 20, 1995. As of today, Tuesday, November 21,
1995 the government has not tabled its response and has given no
indication of when it might do so.
Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1993 your predecessor ruled on two
questions of privilege raised by the members for
Scarborough-Rouge River and Winnipeg South Centre relating to
the issue of the late tabling of documents. In his ruling the former
Speaker had this to say:
16578
I find the situation particularly disheartening-There are people in
departments who are supposed to know these rules and are supposed to ensure that
they are carried out.
In both of these cases the government failed to do so until after the matter was
brought to the attention of this House-
As members are well aware, the tabling of documents constitutes a
fundamental procedure of this House.
It is part of our rules and ensures that members have access to the information
necessary to effectively deal with the issues before Parliament.
Your predecessor ruled that the Standing Committee on House
Management should examine the issue of late tabling and the
House agreed to such a motion moved by the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River.
Consequently, the committee tabled its report on this matter on
June 17, 1993.
The committee report stated:
The Speaker's ruling clearly sets out the issues involved.
There are provisions in the Standing Orders of the House as well as many
statutes passed by the House that require documents to be tabled in the House
within certain time periods.
Non-compliance with a deadline set out in a statute or the standing orders is a
serious matter. It constitutes a breach of law, or a rule of the House.
The committee believes that the statutory and procedural time limits must be
complied with.
I continue to quote from the committee's report:
If a document cannot be tabled within the prescribed time, the responsible
minister should advise the House accordingly before the deadline; it is not
acceptable that the deadline be ignored.
It may be that the time periods set out in the Standing Orders and certain
statutes need to be reviewed and, where necessary, amended.
Until this is done, however, it is essential that the deadlines be respected.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that, as the committee
that studied this matter recommended, until these time limits can
be reviewed, you rule that the government should immediately
table its response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development, as required by
Standing Order 109.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake for putting his point so succinctly.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just discovered the situation that the hon. member has described a
few moments before the sitting opened. Had I been aware of it
beforehand, certainly I would have made inquiries in order to
provide him with more detailed information for the reason for the
apparent lapse in the filing of this document on time.
I assure the hon. member I will take the matter up with the
Minister of the Environment and make inquiries as to why there
has been this apparent delay in the tabling of the report.
I thank the hon. member for drawing the point to the attention of
the House. The comments that he makes with respect to the
application of the rule and its importance to the workings of the
House are extremely apt and timely. I do not disagree with his
suggestion in that regard.
I will have to look into the facts surrounding the preparation of
the government response to the report and get back to the hon.
member and to the House at the earliest possible time. I hope to be
in a position to do that shortly after question period today.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take the matter under
advisement and thanks both members for their submissions. I will
expect the hon. parliamentary secretary to report back to the House
as indicated earlier today on this matter.
(1015 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you might find disposition on the
part of the House to give unanimous consent to the following
motion. I am sorry I was not ready to present it at the appropriate
time in Routine Proceedings. I move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), the Standing
Committee on Finance may make an interim report on the matters referred to in the
said standing order no later than December 12, 1995 and may deposit its final report
thereon with the Clerk of the House on January 17, 1996.
I understand there have been various discussions among the
parties in respect of the motion and agreements reached in the
Standing Committee on Finance. It is the intention of all parties
that those commitments be fulfilled in respect of the adoption of
the order.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
16578
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That the House condemn the government for having dropped the Canadian
content requirements in the contracts for the purchase of military equipment
and refusing to set up a genuine program for the conversion of the military
industry, thus endangering the Canadian aerospace industry located in
Montreal.
16579
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in support of the motion I put
forward will certainly go beyond this motion concerning the latest
statements made by the defence minister and the Department of
National Defence about the acquisition of certain pieces of
equipment.
First of all, this motion condemns the government for having
dropped the Canadian content requirements in the latest helicopter
contract announcement, when this condition was clearly respected
and even required in previous contracts.
I started by reviewing how this matter had evolved, a situation
that has prompted us to table this motion. During the summer, the
minister of defence announced the acquisition of British
submarines, which were to cost $1.6 billion excluding
maintenance, staff training, and renovations.
An hon. member: We did not buy them.
Mr. Collenette: You are still dreaming.
Mr. Jacob: Just one moment. I see that the department is
reacting rather quickly, and I will give you enough time to respond.
Allow me to continue.
Given the population's strong, I would even say violent,
opposition to the purchase of these submarines, they came back
with a new formula. The cost of the submarines went down to $500
million with ill-defined exchanges of training time whose value
was somewhat indeterminate.
The minister announced at the time that negotiations had not
started and would be postponed. They waited until the middle of
August, while it was still summer, before telling us that they had
bought new armoured personnel carriers for our Canadian soldiers.
We see that the Canadian content is very high. The contract was
awarded without tender to a London, Ontario company, a General
Motors subsidiary, for the manufacture of armoured personnel
carriers. I then said on behalf of the official opposition that buying
new armoured personnel carriers was a waste of money when we
already had over 1,700 of them in stock and when only about 215 or
218 were used for the most part during the mission in Bosnia.
(1020)
The minister had indicated at the time, during special joint
committee hearings, that a report had been prepared and that the
Bloc Quebecois agreed with the procurement of these armed
personnel carriers.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the minister bothered to read
the Bloc's dissenting report, because this report, drafted by the
Bloc Quebecois members of the Special Joint Committee on
Canada's Defence Policy, clearly stated that, in our view, buying
new APCs for better armour protection was only justified if Canada
and its peacekeepers were to continue to take part in warlike
actions and armed conflicts.
My understanding, based on what was discussed at committee
and elsewhere, was that a review of Canada's peace effort was
contemplated and that we would only participate in missions that
did not involve the use of weapons, as was always the case in the
past for our peacekeepers. It seems very clear to me that, if the
nature of peace missions was to be changed to focus again on
peacekeeping-the kind of missions the Canadian Armed Forces
have always being involved in and carried out remarkably-there
would be no point in having APCs with improved armour since our
role would have changed. That was clearly stated in the Bloc's
dissenting report. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois always stood
by its policy, remaining steadfast, regardless of what the minister
and his department might say.
Coming back to the history of the tendering for APCs, a certain
company was awarded without tender the $2 billion armoured
vehicle acquisition contract.
From then on, nothing could be done. When the government
makes a decision without taking into account the fact that we
oppose the acquisition of armoured personnel carriers and awards
the contract, since all members have the duty to look after the
interests of the people they represent in their region or province, we
ask that the government at least acknowledge the existence, in
Quebec, of a company whose expertise in manufacturing armoured
vehicle turrets is internationally recognized and that it even go a far
as demanding that the contract and economic benefits be split.
Shortly before the referendum, as I recall, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs had sent a letter to Oerlikon stating that
it would, of course, be considered for a later turret manufacturing
contract with GM. Later, we learned that there were no dealings
between GM and Oerlikon and that it was out of the question for
GM to be forced to go with Oerlikon. The turrets can easily be
ordered from the U.S. They had no qualms makings this kind of
statement. This reminds me that all this love expressed before the
referendum now appears to be dissipating like some sort of vapour
blown away by the wind.
I would like to add, regarding this famous armoured vehicle
renewal contract, that this is another instance where there seems to
be something of a double standard. As far as the work to be carried
out in Quebec is concerned, no problem, no requirements need to
be set. On the other hand, for those vehicles to be overhauled in
Chatham-because Chatham was affected by base closures-the
minister said the part of the work on the 450 armoured vehicles
must be carried out in Chatham to offset the losses caused by the
closure of CFB Chatham.
Strangely enough, there is no infrastructure whatsoever in
Chatham to support the repair and overhaul of these vehicles. This
means that subsidies will have to be granted, as this was done-as
several members probably remember-for the Canadian patrol
16580
frigates, since Halifax did not have the basic infrastructure required
to build the frigates. Between $350 million and $360 million was
spent in subsidies to put the infrastructure in place so that the
shipyard could secure the contract.
(1025)
A competitor for MIL Davie, in Lauzon, which had the required
infrastructure to execute the contract, appeared out of thin air.
Something similar is happening now. When there is a closing in a
place such as Chatham, some compensation must be made through
economic spinoffs. Consequently, the government requires that the
upgrading of the 450 armoured personnel carriers be done in
Chatham.
As for the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean and the
downsizing at the military base in that municipality, the
government should use the same approach, avoid any double
standard and say: ``Yes, the Saint-Jean region was adversely
affected. Consequently, since Oerlikon is located in the area, we
should tell GM that a portion of the armoured personnel carriers
contract ought to be awarded to Oerlikon''. But no.
The minister tells us that he cannot get involved in the
discussions going on between the companies. If this is the case,
why is it that he can require that part of the upgrading be done in
Chatham, where there is no existing infrastructure, but cannot do so
when a similar situation occurs in Quebec?
I now move on to the helicopter issue, more specifically the
recent announcement made by the defence minister concerning the
acquisition of 15 search and rescue helicopters. During the review
of Canada's defence policy, the Bloc did agree with the acquisition
of search and rescue helicopters.
However, it did not agree with buying armoured personnel
carriers and submarines and this is clearly stated in the dissenting
report. It might be worth taking a look at that document, so that we
are not accused of being inconsistent. The fact is that we did show
consistency in our approach to this issue.
In the case of the helicopter contract, there is again some sort of
a double standard. There is really no Canadian company that builds
search and rescue helicopters similar to the Labrador. You have to
go to Boeing with the Chinook, Sikorsky with the S-70, Eurocopter
with the Cougar, and Agusta-Westland with the Cormoran, as well
as another Russian company.
In Quebec, there is Bell Helicopter. This Quebec company,
Canadian company builds helicopters that do not quite meet the
requirements of the defence department for search and rescue
helicopters. Therefore, the minister decided to call for tenders.
Since no Canadian company builds these helicopters, a call for
tenders can be made. No Canadian content requirement has to be
met. Yet, in the case of these helicopters, we could, given the
existing infrastructures, have part of the contract executed by a
Canadian company, or at least demand that this be done, as in the
case of Chatham, or in the case of GM, in London.
As mentioned by the special joint committee in its discussions
on the procurement policy, the government is adamant about
calling for tenders, to save money. However, if you use that
approach, you have to do it all the time and in a consistent manner,
regardless of which industry is involved, or whether that industry is
located in Quebec or in Ontario. It is difficult to see any
consistency in the approach used by the department, since it applies
a given measure in one case and different one in another situation.
Let me give you another example. The defence minister tells us,
by calling for tenders, that we do not trust our Quebec companies.
Bell could bid to provide a portion of the helicopter's equipment,
and Oerlikon could bid to build the turrets of the armoured
personnel carriers, because we want some Canadian content and we
want to award contracts to existing companies. But the minister
tells us that we do not trust our companies.
(1030)
It seems to me that he has a funny way of showing his lack of
confidence in Ontario companies, since in the past five years the
federal government has awarded more than $3 billion worth of
contracts in Ontario without any bidding process.
I would like to see the same rule apply. If Canadian unity and the
federal government are so profitable to the provinces, let them put
their money where their mouth is. As far as I am concerned, the
only thing they are giving is one more demonstration that, in the
case of Quebec and, I might add, some other provinces as
well-Parenthetically, let me add, in connection with the base
closures in the west and the expansion of the base in Edmonton,
when you evaluate all of the costs of closing and reconstruction,
there are no savings; it will cost $60 million more.
There are some unkind souls who would say: ``Tough luck for
those living west of the Rockies, west of Edmonton, because they
had the misfortune of voting Reform and that is when the bases got
cut in their region''. I am beginning to realize that this is a kind of
repeat performance: if you do not vote for the Liberals, you pay for
it afterward.
If that is how Canadian unity is created, I am even more anxious
for Quebecers to finally wake up to the reality. I have the
impression that perhaps our colleagues in the West might
appreciate that too, at some point.
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Like in Northern Quebec?
16581
Mr. Jacob: The comments of my colleagues across the way are
most amusing.
To continue, I would like to add that, during the defence policy
review, we discussed procurement policy. A degree of agreement
was reached that National Defence ought in future to purchase from
companies already equipped with the necessary expertise and
infrastructures, in order to make optimum use of the taxpayers'
funds.
Here again, in the Bloc's dissenting report, reference was made
to certain situations in which it had been found that there had been
overruns, sometimes extremely substantial, and that the
construction of certain plants had cost the taxpayers dearly. I
referred earlier to the fact that Halifax got infrastructure subsidies
in order to obtain the frigate contract. Under such circumstances,
the costs are definitely greater.
Except where it would be more profitable to acquire systems
already available within Quebec or Canada, I am convinced that
this procurement policy is a good thing, nevertheless.
We must, however, avoid simplistic analyses of the situation. In
some areas of activity, there are Canadian and Quebec firms which
are totally competitive and competent and, contrary to some
people's desire to see all defence spending curtailed or totally
abolished, I feel that it is definitely necessary. The defence
industry, whether in Quebec or in Canada, includes certain high
tech jobs I feel are very important, if not vital, for certain regions,
whether in Quebec or in elsewhere in Canada.
However, as I said right at the start, it is important to have a
procurement policy but it must be applied consistently, whether in
a given sector within Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, the
Maritimes or Ontario for instance.
In the dissenting report, reference was made to the necessity of
our immediately opposing abandonment of the regional
redistribution policy, because it might serve the interests of Quebec
businesses in coming months.
(1035)
The systems whose manufacture is currently in the planning
stages call upon technical expertise located outside Quebec,
whereas the opposite situation has prevailed in the past.
For this reason, Quebec may well find it increasingly harder to
secure its ``fair share'' in future. It is unthinkable that a policy that
has been a barrier for Quebec in the past could be terminated now,
at a time when it could be invaluable.
That is what we said in the dissenting report prepared by the
Bloc Quebecois. When the minister says we agreed, we did have
certain reservations. The minister says we agreed with the purchase
of armoured personnel carriers, but we had certain reservations and
as far as the submarines were concerned, we were definitely
against that purchase.
I may add that at the Department of National Defence, at
Defence headquarters, there is a policy for defence procurement. It
is dated June 1995. This is not old stuff. This is an internal
document circulating within the department.
Here is one item that states: ``Contribute to long term regional
and industrial development and to achieving relevant national
objectives''.
This is another one: ``Priority shall be given to products and
services that are respectively manufactured and provided in Canada
and to certain other products and services if there is sufficient
competition''.
During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberals often referred
to a defence conversion program, and in fact this was part of the
Liberal Party's wonderful red book. They have now been here for
two years, and I wish someone would show me an example of
defence conversion. In any case, it certainly did not happen in
Quebec. If it did anywhere else, it was a well-kept secret. Maybe in
the maritimes because I vaguely remember that at some time, the
Minister of Supply and Services tried to take a certain amount from
the Department of National Defence for some industry.
Unfortunately, in every case the defence conversion program
proposed by the Liberals-and unfortunately people often call this
having a selective memory-when the Bloc Quebecois approved
the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters, that approval was
conditional on the implementation of a thorough and practical
defence conversion policy.
It has now been two years and nothing has transpired. Some of
my colleagues will expand a little on the DIPP and the new
development fund for defence conversion. Let us face it, this is a
worldwide phenomenon. Since the end of the cold war, the defence
industry has not been in the best of shapes. Just in Quebec, in the
past five years, deliveries of defence products have declined by 48
per cent.
This means Quebec has lost nearly 30 per cent of the jobs
connected with Canada's defence industry. Neither the policy nor
the promises in the Liberal Party's red book with respect to defence
conversion specify how this is supposed to work.
Several times the minister of defence told us that his budget had
no money for defence conversion and that it was the responsibility
of the Department of Industry. In the red book it was put very
clearly, but we have seen no results. When we in the Bloc point out
that certain expenditures seem to be a waste of money and the
government goes ahead anyway, we have no choice but to ask the
government to apply the same economic spinoff policies it applies
to Ontario or the maritimes but not to Quebec.
16582
(1040)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1994 White
Paper on Defence, published last December provided a mission
statement for the basic roles of the Department of National Defence
and the Canadian Armed Forces in a post cold war context.
The Department of National Defence's mission is to protect
Canada, to help keep the peace in the world and to promote
Canada's interests abroad.
Policy focuses on keeping the armed forces versatile and combat
ready, buying the broadest possible range of military options at a
reasonable price in Canada. Maintaining the forces enables us to
carry out our major defence roles, that is, of defending Canada and
North America and contributing to world security.
The defence policy responds to pressing needs to reduce federal
government expenditures in order to resolve Canada's serious
financial problems. Defence programs, arising from the 1995
federal budget, are totally in keeping with the policy set out in the
white paper. Military expenditures will be brought below $10
billion over this year and the coming two years. Even though the
$1.63 billion reduction over this period represents a 14 per cent
reduction in absolute terms, the department will in fact lose more
than 18 per cent of its purchasing power. I see this as a victory.
Our budget has been cut. We will nevertheless take a number of
measures to increase the forces' operational capacity. For Canadian
forces to be able to retain their combat potential, they will be
provided with indispensable equipment, such as the armoured
personnel carriers the government has just announced. I noted that
the hon. member spoke a lot about armoured vehicles and I will
come back to this a little later on in my speech.
The acquisitions program will focus on extending equipment life
whenever it is cost effective to do so. Only equipment vital to
maintaining Canadian forces capability will be acquired and
procurement will be off the shelf whenever possible.
[English]
Let us talk about this whole question of off the shelf procurement
and why it makes sense. I would like to dispel a number of myths
that have developed about off the shelf buying which have
appeared recently in the press, certainly in the press in the province
of Quebec.
It is a great oversimplification to think of off the shelf buying as
getting something that is all packaged and ready to pluck from a
local hardware store. The department of defence has been
developing and putting into practice a much broader concept of an
off the shelf acquisition process, one that incorporates elements of
a much simplified, less prescriptive acquisition approach. This
process can be viewed as buying better and buying smarter in a
more businesslike fashion in acquiring goods and services. It
maximizes the use of existing industry products, practices and
technologies.
The underlying rationale for this approach is an attempt to
reduce costs in buying and supporting equipment. Clearly off the
shelf acquisition is good for taxpayers since it does reduce costs
and puts our limited money where it is needed most. It is good for
soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen because it quickly gets the
needed equipment to them and ensures we have combat capable
forces.
My colleague the parliamentary secretary will talk a little about
the former practices of developing ideas, concepts, specifications,
the contracting process, Treasury Board approval and how long it
takes. He will talk about that from the perspective of being a
former naval officer, about what it means to the men and women in
the forces in relation to the delay in getting equipment.
Off the shelf procurement is good for industry. Canadian
industry, especially in the aerospace sector, is now quite mature,
has good capability and can compete with the best in the world.
[Translation]
I am surprised by the attitude of my colleague opposite, by his
lack of confidence in the Canadian aerospace industry, which is
located in the province of Quebec. He has no confidence in his own
industries, in his own province. This is further evidence of the
repressive mentality of the separatists and the sovereignists, which
views Quebec as poor and fragile. I for one do not accept this
argument.
(1045)
[English]
In the recent past there has been an increasing emphasis within
defence on off the shelf acquisitions. Basically we are trying to do a
number of things. Wherever possible we try to purchase equipment
where the performance has been demonstrated in the field. We try
to evaluate carefully the cost of marginal increases and the
capability of new equipment. We try to avoid unique Canadian
solutions that require expensive and risky research development or
modification of existing equipment. It sounds to me like that is not
a bad idea.
In other words, we in defence and in the government at large are
becoming smarter buyers. We are maximizing the purchase of what
is already available to meet defence requirements. We think this is
essential for the Canadian forces, because it provides our troops
with the necessary equipment in a timely and cost effective
manner. We have been very consistent in moving toward a greater
alliance on off the shelf procurement.
16583
[Translation]
In its 1994 report, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's
Defence Policy-I see that the hon. member was on this
committee-recommended that the procedure for buying military
equipment be simplified. The committee called for a commitment
to buy off the shelf military equipment and to avoid complex
procedures for buying custom made products. The report also said
that DND's acquisition policy should emphasize off the shelf
products.
Favouring off the shelf equipment does not mean that DND will
not consider the need for regional industrial benefits in Canada, but
there will be times when it is totally appropriate from an economic
point of view to buy commercially available products. DND will
certainly not want to needlessly increase procurement costs and
pay for extra work in order to provide regional benefits.
It is very interesting to note that, in his contradictory comments
on the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence
Policy, the hon. member from the Bloc stated that procurement cost
overruns are due in large part to the Canadian content restrictions,
for which taxpayers had to pay more because the existing industrial
base could not meet the needs.
What you have here is a glaring contradiction. What the hon.
member said today contradicts his Bloc colleagues' minority
response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's
Defence Policy, as well as all the sovereignist arguments we have
heard in recent months. They are always contradicting themselves.
[English]
I want to deal with one of the real canards-we use that in
English, but we do not use it in French in quite the same way-the
hon. member has thrown on the floor of the House of Commons:
this notion that the province of Quebec is once again subjected to
terrible things by the federal government, in this case in the area of
defence.
Quebec has about 25 per cent of the population of Canada. About
20 per cent of total defence expenditures are spent in the province
of Quebec, not quite the 25 per cent. However, when it comes to
capital purchases it is about 27 per cent. That is because much of
the defence industry in this country is located in the province of
Quebec.
The hon. member, as I said earlier, does not seem to have
confidence that the industry in his own province can compete in the
case of the search and rescue helicopters and in the case of the
armoured personnel carriers. He gives the impression that the
armoured personnel carriers are going to be totally and absolutely
built, every bolt, every part, in London, Ontario. That is crazy. He
knows that is not the truth.
The GM diesel division in London, Ontario assembles-and it
does a very good job-the armoured personnel carriers, but most of
the parts, the motors and other equipment come from other places.
Guess what? Some of those places just happen to be in the province
of Quebec, but he would not admit that because he does not have
faith.
(1050)
This is one contradiction we see in the separatist argument,
whether it is on national unity or on something like defence. They
do not have confidence in themselves. They do not have confidence
in what Quebec has attained within Canada. The aerospace industry
is primarily situated in the province of Quebec, and it does a pretty
good job. We recognize that. However, it would be nice if
somebody like the hon. member and his party, the Bloc Quebecois,
would recognize and have confidence in their own industry.
Let us talk about how Quebec has really been put under the
thumb in recent years. One of the few things the previous
government did that I could support was direct a contract to Bell
Helicopter in Montreal. The hon. member stood a few minutes ago
and lambasted us for directing the contract to General Motors
diesel division. The Tories did that, and guess who the beneficiary
was? It was Bell Helicopter. The condition was that they would
build a brand new plant in Mirabel. I have been through the plant
and I have been on the new Griffon helicopters, and they are
outstanding. That is technology that is in Quebec. The hon.
member does not recognize that. It was a $1.2 billion contract.
[Translation]
A $1.2 billion contract was awarded to a Quebec company, Bell
Helicopter.
[English]
Why? Because Bell Helicopter agreed to establish this plant as
the prime builder for certain lines of helicopters. It gave the world
product mandate to Bell Helicopter in Montreal.
General Motors of the United States has done the same thing in
Ontario on armoured personnel carriers and with diesel
locomotives. The diesel division of General Motors has a world
product mandate.
The hon. member could be mired in the isolationist, regional
politics of Quebec and of the past grievances, but I think even the
sovereignists in Quebec have to appreciate that the world has
changed, that we are competing globally, competing in a North
American free trade environment.
After making very painful adjustments, which hurt Quebec and
hurt Ontario in many of the manufacturing industries, Canada is
now starting to see some light. It is companies like General Motors
and Bell Helicopter and a raft of others that are getting the world
16584
product mandate for particular equipment, systems, and
technologies that will be the future of Canada and the future of
Quebec.
The hon. member has consistently attacked the government
defence policies with respect to closures.
[Translation]
It is not true to say that the closure of the Collège militaire royal
is the only closure in the country under the budget of two years ago,
it is not true.
It is very difficult as a Liberal minister to close bases in
Cornwallis and Shelburne, Nova Scotia and elsewhere in the
province, in Ottawa and Toronto and in Chatham, New Brunswick.
It is very difficult to close these bases. We closed 30 bases across
the country, but the word is the government closed only the Collège
militaire royal in Quebec. It is not true. This is another example of
selection of incorrect information.
In the last budget, we announced the closure of the base in
Chilliwack, British Columbia. One of the measures is to move a
school-where, you ask-to the Saint-Jean base in Quebec. Oh no.
The poor people of Quebec do not get their share of military
installations. Not true. We moved the cadet and recruit school from
Cornwallis to the Saint-Jean military base, to the big complex, the
big building. We moved this school, and, in the last budget, we
announced the move of the Chilliwack school to Saint-Jean.
(1055)
He talks about the expansion of the base in Edmonton, Alberta as
a major base. I know you are very interested in this base because
you are a member for Edmonton. This is logical.
The hon. member neglected to tell the House that we expanded
the Valcartier base, in his own riding. It is a big, big undertaking.
He is well aware that a lot of buildings went up and that there was a
lot of construction in his riding, but he forgets to mention it. It is a
political issue, because Quebec is always the victim in the
Canadian yoke. Not true.
[English]
What we see here are inaccuracies, half truths, a selection of
facts that do not add up with what we have done.
They want to talk about French speaking Canadians in the armed
forces. About 30 per cent of the army are francophones. About 27
per cent of our officer level are francophones. We have had no
trouble recruiting for the Royal Military College in Kingston.
The debate we had was interesting. My good friend, the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands, has successfully worked with
local officials in Kingston to expand the college.
[Translation]
I am proud as a Canadian to visit the Royal Military College in
Kingston and to see that it is bilingual. It is an institution that is not
in the province of Quebec, but it is entirely bilingual. Every day,
both English and French are spoken there. The atmosphere is very
Canadian, bilingual, and I think it came about as the result of a
decision to concentrate everything in Kingston.
However, I am told the hon. member for Charlesbourg visited the
college with a colleague and was disappointed. He was really
disappointed, because he could find nothing to criticize. He spoke
with young soldiers and cadets, and everyone told him things were
fine there.
We are well aware that it is not exactly the province of Quebec.
We know that Kingston is primarily an English city, but it has a
very warm welcome for francophones. The mayor and the people
of Kingston, the people at Queen's University and all of the
institutions made a real effort to welcome francophones to
Kingston.
He was really disappointed. I am told he saw no problems. He
was exasperated, because he would criticize the closure of the
Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean daily in the House, and when
he visited the college in Kingston, he realized that his criticism was
unfounded.
[English]
We have here yet another example of the separatists coming to
the House and provoking people's emotions. Every night on the
news in Quebec we saw stories of how this was terrible, that this
particular decision, which was taken for logical financial reasons,
was somehow anti-francophone, anti-Quebec. That is not the case.
I encourage any member to go to the Royal Military College in
Kingston and speak to francophones from Quebec. They will tell
you the atmosphere is welcoming and is conducive to study and
conducive to building a great nation with two official languages.
That is the by-product of a very tough decision. You do not get that
when you listen to the speeches of the hon. member. Somehow the
closing of the Collège militaire royal was the only thing that
happened in the defence budget that year. The fact is we announced
close to $7 billion worth of actual and projected cuts including the
cancellation of the EH-101.
(1100)
I want to talk for a few minutes about the acquisition program.
We are well on target. We have announced the armoured personnel
carriers. We have announced the search and rescue. We have not
addressed the other two major procurements in the white paper, but
those will be addressed one way or the other.
The hon. member talks about submarines. How many times does
a person have to repeat that the government has not made a
decision on whether or not to buy the submarines? If we decide not
16585
to, then we will announce it. Then the hon. member will be happy
but I am sure he will find something else to criticize. He is using
this as something with which to whip the government and it is not
based on fact.
I say with great respect that this motion certainly does not reflect
the actual situation in the country with respect to procurement, with
respect to Canadian content and with respect to defence policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no
questions but a few comments.
When the minister says there are contradictions in what we say, I
am sorry, but I think that the problem here is with understanding
and interpreting what was said. When I said earlier that there were
extra costs for Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, this was when there
were no infrastructures, as in the case of the Halifax shipyard for
the frigates contract. When the infrastructures are there, I made it
clear that it is possible, and I said that as well, to save money by
going on the market.
When the minister accuses us of bad faith or putting a spin on
certain things, I think he is very good at that himself, because when
I made the comparison with Chatham, where the military base was
closed-in fact I read what the Premier of New Brunswick had to
say about that-the minister compensated by ordering repair work
to be done in Chatham. Because the base was closed, the order was
given, in this case. In other cases, it was not.
I also mentioned several times that the Liberal Party's red book
referred to defence conversion, but neither the minister nor anyone
else ever brought this up. When we talk about procurement and we
say that Quebec is not getting its fair share, I do not see why, if the
infrastructures are there, we should not get the same treatment as
everybody else.
Finally, yes, I did visit the Royal Military College in Kingston
but the experience did not exasperate me, not at all. This is another
wrongful interpretation by the minister. I thought it was a very
beautiful location, except there may have been a conscious effort to
sugar coat this bitter pill, but it is a nice place, and I did not come
back exasperated, not at all.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say in my speech that in
the point that raised by the hon. member, the reference was to
Chatham, New Brunswick.
We made the announcement that there would be some work done
in Chatham, because closing that base was more difficult than
anywhere else in Canada, but he again forgot to say, and it is only
normal that he should forget, that in our announcement we also said
that most of the armoured personnel carriers would be repaired,
restored and overhauled in the National Defence workshops in East
Montreal.
[English]
In other words, he talks about the small benefit of 270 person
years and about $50 million that is going to Chatham, New
Brunswick. However he does not talk about the $400 million and
all the jobs that are going to be preserved in the east end of
Montreal. The people in the east end of Montreal knew what
defence did. When the votes came in on referendum night we saw
that the no vote was strong in the east end of Montreal, contrary to
the predictions made by the hon. member's party.
(1105)
We have a good story to tell. I only hope that in the future the
hon. member will admit to some of the great things we are doing in
Quebec, such as continuing the very competent workshop in the
east end of Montreal and the preservation of all those jobs.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today on behalf
of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and all
Canadians in opposition to the Bloc motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member rising on a question
or comment? We are still at the question or comment stage.
Mr. Hart: I am rising on debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there further questions or comments?
Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I find it strange that the
hon. member for Charlesbourg just a few short weeks ago was
soliciting members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join a new
Quebec armed forces and today he is actually trying to appear to be
concerned about the Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite frightening
to see this type of motion. I urge the hon. member to seriously read
section 62 of the Criminal Code and reflect on his actions of a few
short weeks ago.
I also take this opportunity to voice the outrage of Canadians
over the mismanagement of the defence portfolio by the Liberal
minister. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has its own provincial
angle on this issue, one which is largely out of touch with that of
the majority of Canadians, despite the Bloc's sacred title. The
Reform Party, the de facto opposition party in the House, opposes
the motion put forward today by the Bloc Quebecois because
grassroots Canadians want value for their tax dollars.
Canadians have told us that Canada desperately needs to replace
its aging military equipment with new equipment which can meet a
certain set of performance criteria. We need to buy this equipment
off the shelf so that we can purchase the best equipment with our
taxpayers' dollars. I support and I am determined to fight for the
16586
removal of all measures which are designed to insulate industries
from competition.
Canada is over $550 billion in debt. Much of our equipment is
older than the military personnel using it. We can no longer play
the regional development game when our armed forces need new
equipment within the current environment of fiscal restraint.
This does not preclude Canadian companies in the Canadian
province of Quebec from bidding on military procurement. I am
confident that Quebec's military and aerospace industry, like the
military and aerospace industry in other provinces, is up to the task
of competition with other national and international firms. An off
the shelf policy is certainly less threatening to Quebec industry
than the Bloc's attempts to separate from Canada. That would do
more harm to the military and aerospace industry in Quebec than
any government policy to seek the best price for military hardware.
The motion is almost amusing in light of last month's
referendum.
Can Canadian industry compete with the best in the world? I
must answer with a resounding yes. There are dozens of military
products and industries which are world class and have succeeded
or can succeed in the international marketplace.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to reprimand the government for
having dropped the Canadian content requirements in contracts for
the purchase of military equipment. That is ridiculous. Canadians
know that buying military hardware off the shelf is the only
practical way for military procurement in Canada.
Procurement is central to the operations of any military service.
In the modern era when weapons systems are so complex and
design and delivery stages can extend over a decade, successive
Canadian governments have too often overspecified Canadian
forces requirements. Successive Canadian governments have also
used the military as a tool for industrial benefits and for the pursuit
of regional economic development. The result has been costly to
Canadian taxpayers and the armed forces.
(1110)
These factors are responsible for the gigantic bureaucracy for the
management and control of military procurement. The costliness of
an all Canadian design that has not faced international competition
has resulted in our armed forces using outdated equipment. Too
many resources were being spent on one megaproject while the
modernization and upkeep of existing equipment was put on the
back burner.
In other words, whenever possible the armed forces must
purchase the most cost effective and capable military platforms,
such as helicopters, armoured personnel carriers or submarines. If
no Canadian defence industry can produce the entire platform at a
competitive price, then so be it. There will still be room for
Canadian industry in the development and manufacture of
subsystems and in the long term, maintenance of the platform.
In addition to acquiring military platforms for the armed forces
in a timely manner, the savings to taxpayers would be enormous.
The whole procurement process would be simplified. The role of
government agencies would be eliminated and significant costs
associated with seeking regional benefits would disappear. The end
result would be a better equipped armed forces for the money.
In some instances, Canadian industry will be able to compete
and acquire a licence to manufacture an existing platform in
Canada. I am sure Canadian industries will be highly successful in
competing globally for manufacturing rights to existing products.
When this occurs, the armed forces and the taxpayers are again the
winners. The procurement process will be streamlined. Jobs will be
created. Spending will remain in Canada and other Canadian firms
will get the opportunity to compete for subcontracts.
My fear is that the Bloc Quebecois motion is actually redundant.
I am not confident this government is going to follow through and
implement a true off the shelf policy. Let us look at the
government's procurement track record so far.
In 1994 the Minister of National Defence tabled his white paper
on defence, the first comprehensive look at Canada's defence
policy since 1987. In it the minister pays some lip service to the off
the shelf concept. The white paper states under the heading of
procurement: ``The Department of National Defence will adopt
better business practices. Greater reliances will, for example, be
placed on just in time delivery of common usage items to reduce
inventory costs. The department will increase the procurement of
off the shelf commercial technology which meets essential military
specifications and standards''.
While this is hardly a ringing endorsement of an off the shelf,
taxpayer friendly way to military procurement, it is a start. Maybe
this government's actions are stronger than its words. Let us look at
some of the specific purchases by the Minister of National Defence
since 1993 and see if he shows some concern for Canadian
taxpayers and Canadian military personnel and determine if he has
grasped the off the shelf concept.
One of the latest procurement contracts I am aware of is the
minister's $2,000 gold plated pen contract with an Ottawa firm. If
the minister had a concern for his troops and Canadian taxpayers,
he would have shopped around for a bargain. He would have gone
to Grand and Toy and Office Depot, to name two major pen
suppliers, which have commercially available pens that could be
purchased off the shelf. But no, the minister had a number of
specifications. They had to be quill pens with gold engraved
16587
lettering and supplied in a crushed velvet pouch. So much for the
minister and his lip service to off the shelf.
Wait. Maybe that purchase was just a fluke. Maybe the
minister's track record improves when we examine something that
is not for his personal use. Let us examine the government's track
record vis-à-vis one of the major equipment purchases this
government faces. Let us look at this government's handling of the
replacement of search and rescue shipborne helicopters.
(1115 )
This sorry tale begins in the dying days of the previous Tory
government. Prior to the 1993 election the Conservative
government had set in motion the purchase of the EH-101
replacement helicopter. By the fall of 1993 hundreds of millions of
dollars had been spent on research and development.
The hefty cost of the EH-101 which totalled $4.4 billion
including training personnel, spare parts, training manuals and
training programs prompted the Liberal Party to make a campaign
promise to scrap the purchase. This campaign ploy is proving to be
costly to taxpayers and a minefield for the Minister of National
Defence who has to replace our current deficient fleet while
showing the taxpayers that the Liberal government has saved them
money.
The fallout from this campaign promise has been great. Our
military personnel were told they would have to spend more time
flying obsolete and increasingly dangerous helicopters. Our ability
to enhance our defences and to get the most out of our new frigates
has been deferred. Taxpayers have been forced to waste up to some
$600 million on cancellation fees, but all the costs are not in yet.
Some experts are saying that the total could cost Canadian
taxpayers up to $1 billion at the end of the day.
Sadly the Liberal cabinet is playing politics again. The defence
minister has publicly committed himself to purchasing new
helicopters and finally announced last week that he would purchase
15 new search and rescue helicopters. He boldly proclaimed that
they would be purchased off the shelf for just $600 million. Six
hundred million dollars to $1 billion is the amount the Liberal
government has forced Canadian taxpayers to spend on helicopters
since the election of 1993. But where are the helicopters? The $600
million figure like our aging Labradors and Sea King helicopters
does not fly.
To purchase the 15 helicopters Canadian taxpayers are really
being asked to spend $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion when the EH-101
cancellation costs are factored in. That equals about $80 million to
$100 million each. That is probably more than the average cost of
each EH-101 helicopter.
The only reason the minister is forced to commit himself to an
off the shelf purchase of helicopters is the political game of
football the government has been playing with helicopters. The
EH-101 cost included spare parts, pilot training, manuals and other
incidentals. The defence minister left these costs out of his
assessment, making his new search and rescue variant more costly
to taxpayers.
There is more too. The minister has lowered the operational
specifications for the helicopter by 15 per cent. The EH-101 was
not an overspecified helicopter. The EH-101 had a set of
specifications to meet Canada's expansive geography and our
severe weather conditions. Specifications include a range of 550
miles; a speed of 160 knots; a hover capability for a 7,500-foot
altitude; a capacity to rescue and carry nine people; a day, all night
and all weather capability including severe icing conditions; and
the capability of making a safe recovery following the loss of one
engine.
The Liberals had wasted so much money calculating the EH-101
deal they could not afford to purchase an off the shelf helicopter
that could meet Canada's unique needs.
The announcement that the operational requirements for our
search and rescue helicopters is being reduced calls into question
the Liberal government's commitment to Canada's search and
rescue. What are we telling our fishers and their crew off the west
coast of Vancouver Island in an emergency situation? The
government is sending them a strong message, scribbled with a
pricey quill pen that says: ``We may not be able to assist you. The
weather is too bad and you are out of range. Good luck''.
As for the shipborne helicopters, the cabinet and the defence
minister are still wrangling over the difficulty in deciding how to
tell the public that they need to spend billions of dollars on a
project they cancelled as a campaign promise.
(1120 )
I expect to see the same result with the shipborne helicopters as
with the search and rescue variety. Canadians will get at best an
inferior helicopter in less numbers for the same price as the
EH-101.
Who are the losers? First Canadian taxpayers and second our
military personnel. The Minister of National Defence has an
approved defence budget and an approved white paper which
apparently account for the purchase of new shipborne helicopters.
Yet the minister is unable to get cabinet approval to make this
important decision. Why? Media reports speculate on the worst.
They believe cabinet is fighting over the division of regional
benefits.
In August the Financial Post claimed a Parliament Hill lobbyist
had said that the Minister of Human Resources Development and
16588
the Minister of Transport were pressing the Minister of National
Defence for investment in their regions.
When looking at other major procurement items on the
government's agenda it becomes apparent the minister was forced
into an off the shelf promise on helicopters because of the fiscal
mess the government has put itself in over the EH-101
cancellation.
The recent press conference the minister held to announce his
plans for search and rescue helicopters was a non-event, to say the
least. The minister only announced his intent to accept bids,
something most of us thought had occurred long ago. Normally the
minister would announce the items to be procured, the cost to the
taxpayers and the industry involved.
This is exactly what happened in August when the minister
announced his intent to purchase 240 new armoured personnel
carriers in addition to a program for refurbishing about 1,200 of our
existing M-113s, Grizzlies and Bisons. In this example the minister
threw the concept of off the shelf to the wind. It was lucky for him
that he had no APC cancellation contracts to contend with. In this
case the minister knew exactly which companies would be awarded
the contract. General Motors of London, Ontario was awarded the
contract to produce 240 new APCs for $800 million, with the
government keeping the door open to ordering another 411 at a
future date for a cost of just over $2 billion.
To determine whether this contract was value for money, I
submitted an access to information request in August asking for
documents showing the minister and his senior officials at DND
shopped around and bought the best APC for the money. The
information act states that the department must respond to requests
within 30 days of receiving them. It is now the end of November. I
have heard nothing from the Department of National Defence and I
expect the worst. I imagine the department is stonewalling because
it knows this is not an off the shelf purchase.
I bet those documents are sitting on the bottom of the in basket
of the deputy minister of defence as we speak. I also bet the next set
of defence estimates this spring will have a column under the APC
project entitled regional benefits.
While the verdict on the new APCs is not in yet, it is clear the
APC refurbishing contract awarded to Montreal's 202 workshop is
an exercise in regional pork barrelling. This was the price of
cabinet approval for the purchase and represents old style politics
at its worst.
The latest major purchase the minister has made known is the
option to purchase surplus British Upholder class submarines to
replace our aged Oberon class subs. The asking price of $800
million dollars for four Upholders, training vessels, spare parts and
documentation is a bargain. I suspect cabinet will not allow the
minister to announce this purchase because there is no pie to be
divided among the regions.
To conclude, the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is
the exact opposite to what Canada must do to get its fiscal house in
order. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that the
government has not embraced the off the shelf concept as a means
by which Canada can upgrade its aging and increasingly dangerous
military equipment.
If Canada is to maintain its modest military and continue to play
an effective role in our nation's defences and international affairs,
it must change and it must change quickly. As the Reform Party
defence critic I will be watching every aspect of DND's purchases,
from pens to submarines. I will ensure that taxpayers and our
dedicated military personnel are getting the most for their money.
(1125)
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the
subject before us this morning.
The political rhetoric I have heard from the two speakers in the
main opposition and the third parties somewhat disappointed me.
The tenor of the debate this morning was not the tenor present in
the standing special committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons in which there was a modicum of consensus. This did
not seem to come out on the floor of the House of Commons today.
Notwithstanding I should like to get rid of the political rhetoric and
talk about some of the reasons my party and I will not be in support
of the motion.
Essentially the procurement policies of national defence have
been developed over a period of time which has seen a lot of grief
with respect to procurement policies. Perhaps at the time they were
appropriate to the occasion but now, because of the paring down,
the lack of resources, the difficulties with funding, the end of the
cold war and the difficulties in planning defence procurement, we
have to do it differently.
I believe I can quote the auditor general in his 1993 report as
being objective in his major study of defence procurement policies.
The Deputy Speaker: I apologize to the hon. parliamentary
secretary. It is an opposition day and a Bloc motion. The Chair is in
the habit of going back and forth and made a mistake. It is not in
fact the turn of the parliamentary secretary.
The hon. member has returned to his chair and with permission I
ask that the hon. member for Shefford speak in proper order.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Certainly, as
we say south of the border, I will concede but I was hoping to ask
some questions to the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
16589
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to reverse the
speaking order so that the hon. member can put his question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rose to ask the member a question, but since Your
Honour recognized me on debate I thought I would commence my
debate.
The hon. member mentioned a couple of things I want to clarify,
but first I want to make a comment. I was a bit concerned about
some of the statements made by the hon. member for Charlesbourg,
some of which were raised by the Minister of National Defence,
when he suggested the only province that suffered defence
cutbacks was the province of Quebec.
I will say in a different manner and perhaps with a different
emphasis that I belong to the maritime provinces where the
economy is in very rough shape, particularly in Newfoundland. It
hurt me as parliamentary secretary to see my colleagues who
occupy 31 of the 32 seats in those four provinces being hit with a
tremendous blow because the necessary reductions in defence were
done objectively.
I refer to the closing of Canadian forces bases Chatham,
Cornwallis, Shelburne and the reduction in CFB Shearwater. These
were major economic blows to the Atlantic region. I do not think
we have heard any of those four members cry wolf. Despite the
hardship it has caused politically and otherwise, they have accepted
that it is part of government reduction. It would have been graceful
if other members had done the same thing.
With respect to my question to my hon. colleague in the third
party, he talked about the procurement policies and how they have
developed. He used a bit of politics, which I suppose is his duty as
the defence critic and which I accept in good spirit. I wonder if he
has read the 1993 report of the auditor general. Does he recall some
of the discussions we had in the special committee on national
defence with respect to some of the difficulties that the old
procurement policies had? The policies took a long time and
emphasized the wrong things. By the time the equipment was
developed, it was out of sync.
(1130)
I also want to make another comment and ask him to respond to
it. He said that the EH-101 was not an over designed helicopter. I
wonder if he realizes that the EH-101 specifications and capability
efficiencies were developed at the height of the cold war. By the
time the hardware was developed, it responded to a threat that no
longer existed.
I wonder if he has taken that into consideration when he says the
EH-101 was the best helicopter for the day.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the procurement
policies of governments in the past were not adequate. They were
not fair to Canadian taxpayers. They were not fair to the people
who pay the bills.
Under the old system, it could be 15 or 16 years from the time a
decision was made to purchase a piece of equipment until it is
actually delivered. The frigate program is a good example of that.
I was in the navy in 1973. It was about 1975 that the planners of
the frigate program started to come around to the ships to talk to the
sailors and to the people in the military about the purchase of new
frigates. As members know, we have just recently taken delivery of
the very frigates that were in the planning stages in the mid-1970s.
Our procurement process over the years has not been a good one.
It has not been value added for the Canadian taxpayer. It has left the
military personnel who are challenged with these very heavy
commitments that the government places on them with aging
equipment, as we see with the Labrador and Sea King helicopters.
They are literally falling out of the sky while we wait for an
announcement on helicopters.
The helicopters were a big campaign promise. Many would
argue that the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter was probably
what won the Liberal government victory in the last election
campaign.
What is happening now? The Canadian taxpayers are paying the
cost for cancelling the EH-101. I am not overwhelmingly endorsing
the EH-101 project but I am not going to say that we should have
ruled it out and used it as a political football, which is what the
Liberal Party did during the election campaign.
It did not come down to whether the specifications were right.
We did not talk about that in the election campaign. We did not talk
about whether it was value for the Canadian taxpayers. The
Liberals did not talk about that. They just said that they were going
to cancel it regardless of the requirement for it, the specifications
for it, the terrain that we have to live with in Canada, one of the
largest countries in the world. It has excessive weather.
They did not talk about that. They made it a campaign promise to
cancel the contract. The figures run about $600 million right now
for the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters. Now the taxpayers
know that those figures could reach $1 billion.
The member shakes his head and says no, it will not reach $1
billion. Why, since I have had access to information on this very
subject since the summer, has this government that claims to be
open, responsive and interested in letting Canadians know all the
16590
information not been forthright about the actual costs of
cancellation? It has not done that.
These members have not been forthright. If I can use the
members own words, the government is being opaque on this issue,
very much so.
(1135 )
This issue with the helicopters is so much like this Liberal
government. After spending $600 million in cancellation fees so
far, after the minister announces that the government is going to
spend $600 million on a new search and rescue helicopter with a
decreased capability of 15 per cent, we still do not have helicopters
today. That is $1.2 billion right there. The costs are not in yet and
Canadians do not have one helicopter to show for it.
This is hypocrisy. The government is going to have to get down
to real terms. It is going to have to go to the Canadian people and
tell them exactly what the requirements are for the search and
rescue helicopter. You cannot even get that information from the
minister and the department.
The government is supposed to be open, consulting with the
people. Why does it keep secret the information on this
procurement? It is not right. I will do everything in my power to
fight this and make sure that the government is held to the fire on
this one until a purchase is made.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, in response to that I would have to tell
the hon. member I do not know from where he is getting his
figures. I am disappointed he would use this kind of rhetoric to
suggest that these things are happening when in fact they are not.
I have another point I wish to make which I believe he
understands but may have miscued. He says the helicopters are
falling out of the sky. That is not true. Those helicopters are safe to
fly until the year 2000. He knows as well as I that the Canadian
forces will not permit their pilots to fly helicopters that are unsafe.
I want to clarify the record on that. He is looking over at me and
nodding, with a smile on his face. I know he is playing politics
again.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question, on my recent visit to Shearwater, while I was being told
that the Sea King helicopters were in the best condition they have
ever been in 30 years, cranes were lifting them off the flight decks
of the frigates.
Canadians might recall the words of a Canadian pilot who was a
trainer in Sea King helicopters. He was quoted in the Globe and
Mail: ``You only fly a Sea King as far as you want to fall''.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming the debate, with my apologies
to the member for Shefford.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
speak about the equity, or inequity if you prefer, of which Quebec is
a victim with respect to military procurement.
The recent government decisions to purchase new armoured
personnel carriers and 15 search and rescue helicopters are far from
reassuring to Quebec. It is now a well known fact that Quebec is far
from receiving its fair share of federal defence spending, and this
has been the case for some years.
All indications are that this inequality will increase rather than
decrease. In fact, the new National Defence procurement policy is
likely to affect Quebec even more than before.
My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, clearly
demonstrated this morning just how much Quebec is a victim of the
federal government's double standard.
I would like to add my voice to his in severely criticizing the
government for dropping any requirement for Canadian content
from its most recent military procurement policy. What is even
worse is that it refuses to put into place any true program for
defence conversion. It is very easy to imagine what the
consequences will be.
The consequences are that this new government policy will
directly endanger the entire aerospace industry. We all know that
this industry is mostly concentrated in Montreal, Quebec.
(1140)
My Bloc colleagues will have the opportunity later today to
address more specifically the important issue of defence
conversion.
I, for one, want to underline the negative impact the federal
government's new policy will have on Quebec. I should, however,
start by reminding you that Quebec has been cheated out of a
minimum $650 million a year on average in the distribution of
federal defence spending in the last 15 years at least, and I will not
go any further because it could be worse.
This does not come from me but from the defence department's
own statements and figures. In concrete terms, it means that, in the
last 15 years, Quebec has received only 17.9 per cent of all defence
spending, including 13 per cent of infrastructure costs and 15 per
cent of personnel expenditures.
I should also remind you of the conclusion reached by a defence
department official, Charles Trottier, in a study he released last
February. In the last 15 years, Quebec has received 27 per cent less
than its fair share of defence spending. Mr. Trottier compared this
loss to the James Bay project or $10 billion over 15 years. This
represents a $10 billion shortfall for Quebec. In terms of jobs, this
represents a loss to Quebec of 15,000 direct jobs and 25,000
16591
indirect jobs per year on average: nothing less than 40,000 direct
and indirect jobs.
In fact, if distribution had been fair, Quebec should have twice as
many defence facilities as it now has. Twice as many. Such
injustices to Quebec are systemic within the armed forces. This
demonstration clearly shows that the federal system is
fundamentally flawed, as I will try to explain to you.
Even the minister of defence confirmed that Quebec has been
treated unfairly. When he appeared on Radio-Canada's Enjeux last
April, the minister said about Quebec that they could not afford the
luxury of being totally fair.
I myself asked the minister how he could have the gall to
consider fairness a luxury. ``Fair''-that is all we ask-to Quebec.
Guess what he replied to me? In complete contradiction with his
own remarks and suggesting that Quebec was favoured by capital
expenditures, which is not true, he said, and I quote: ``The province
of Quebec generally leads the country in its share of defence capital
acquisition expenditures and probably will continue to do so in the
future when the new defence acquisitions are announced.''
Let us talk about these new defence acquisitions that Quebec is
allegedly getting its fair share of. Let us look at this. What are the
facts? We know that the government has taken a piecemeal
approach to announcing such acquisitions so that the pill will not
be too bitter for the taxpayers.
Let us start with the new armoured vehicles. What is Quebec's
share of this huge contract worth more than $2 billion? Try as we
may to find it, Quebec's fair share is nowhere to be found. Why?
Because it just does not exist.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government awarded
this contract, directly and without a tender call, to the GM plant in
London, Ontario. Quebec companies were not even invited to
tender for this contract.
(1145)
Worse yet, they are not even guaranteed a chance of putting a bid
with GM Ontario for subcontracts. But everyone is well aware of
the fact that Oerlikon of Saint-Jean, in the riding next to mine, in
Quebec, has all the expertise required to carry out at the very least
the turret part of the contract.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, will certainly
have an opportunity sometime today to get into this issue of
Oerlikon. In spite of the official opposition's pressing plea, this
government, the Liberal government absolutely refused to require
GM Ontario to go to tender for its subcontracts.
As a result, Ontario is the only province benefiting from this
great $2 billion contract. Two billion dollars is a lot of money. All
that for Ontario, a province which has a very strong majority in the
Liberal caucus. So, when the minister says that Quebec will
benefit from the new defence procurement, we can only conclude
that it will certainly not be through the armoured vehicles contract.
But let us give the minister another chance. Let us take a look at
the procurement contract for the 15 new search and rescue
helicopters. Perhaps we will find that Quebec gets its fair share in
that deal. After all, it would only make sense, since Quebec was the
big loser following the cancellation of the previous contract to buy
the EH-101 helicopters. We are not talking about a $2 billion
contract like the one awarded to Ontario for the armoured vehicles,
without any call for tenders, but it is nevertheless a deal worth $600
million. And $600 million is not peanuts.
Let us ask ourselves this question: Will Quebec, as the defence
minister claims, get its fair share of that second military
procurement contract? Again, anyone could foresee the answer to
that. Quebec has no guarantee whatsoever that this will be the case.
Why? Because the government suddenly changed its military
procurement policy.
This is a strange coincidence, is it not? While the aerospace
industry is primarily located in Quebec, the government suddenly
decides to call for tenders, contrary to what it did in the case of the
armoured vehicles contract, which was awarded to Ontario without
any call for tenders.
This is ironic, especially considering that Quebec was the
province most affected by the cancellation of the EH-101
helicopter contract. By the way, that was a $4.8 billion contract.
If I raised that issue, I would probably be told that we should not
oppose the government's decision to call for tenders, since it is in
the best interests of taxpayers, whose fiscal burden is already heavy
enough, and we certainly agree with that. Our public finances are
indeed in bad shape. The state itself is in bad shape. And that is not
our fault.
The Liberals were going to do marvellous things. What
marvellous things? I can use either an exclamation mark or a
question mark. In all sincerity, I will tell you that it is surely the
case. But then why did the government use a different approach in
the case of the armoured vehicles contract? Why did the Liberal
government not apply the same policy in the two cases? We are still
waiting for an answer.
(1150)
And why does the government refuse to require that GM Ontario
allow Quebec businesses to bid on those subcontracts? Again, we
are still waiting for answers that are not coming.
Wise observers might point out ironically that what it good for
Ontario is bad for Quebec or for the rest of Canada. The problem is
that the minister lacks the courage to say so publicly. We realize
that he comes from Ontario; that is obvious. In any case, if we take
for granted that calling for tenders is okay where Quebec is
concerned but that the same rule does not seem to apply to Ontario,
one question remains relevant. This question is why, in the case of
the search and rescue helicopter contract, the government has
16592
suddenly dropped all Canadian content requirements. This is rather
peculiar, especially since it could have disastrous consequences not
only for Quebec businesses but also for Canadian businesses.
Professor Yves Bélanger, who is also director of the University
of Quebec in Montreal's research group on the defence industry,
was quoted in yesterday's Le Devoir as saying that, by dropping the
Canadian content requirement, the Liberals have taken away from
Canadian businesses the best argument they had to force
multinationals to negotiate partnerships with them. We are now
familiar with the word ``partnership'', which came up repeatedly
during the referendum campaign. Partnerships are the future.
The spokesperson for the Aerospace Industries Association of
Canada also agrees. Let me read you what he said in relation to the
government's new procurement policy. He is what he said about it:
``If you push it to the extreme, all Canadian development programs
would disappear, making it extremely difficult to maintain our
defence industry.'' Thanks to whom? To the Liberal government.
These concerns are especially justified, since, according to
analysts, none of the manufacturers competing for this contract are
from Quebec or Canada. Apparently, there are two American
companies: Boeing and Sikorsky, and three European companies:
Eurocopter, Agusta-Westland and the Russian manufacturer
Kamov.
In the case of Agusta, there is cause for concern because serious
accusations of corruption have been made against this company in
Europe. But not only does the government refuse to investigate the
circumstances of the EH-101 contract award, as requested by the
now Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in
opposition-
An hon. member: That is different.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): It would indeed seem that, here, in
Canada, it is quite a different story, depending on which side of the
House you are sitting.
Also, one can wonder whether or not the government is getting
ready to offer a ``sweet deal'' to this company.
At any rate, let us come back to the remarks made by the defence
minister on Radio-Canada's program Enjeux in April. As I said
earlier, the minister had stated on that occasion that Quebec was
receiving its fair share of defence procurement. He said so. Now, if
Quebec, and Oerlikon of Saint-Jean in particular, is literally
excluded from the $2 billion APC acquisition contract, which was
awarded to Ontario, and if Quebec is not guaranteed any benefits
arising from the $600 million search and rescue helicopter
contract, what does this leave as Quebec's fair share?
That is hard to predict, since the federal government is
announcing its defence acquisitions in a piecemeal fashion, one
slice of baloney at a time, in the hope, of course, that taxpayers will
find the pill easier to swallow.
(1155)
That way the bill does not seem as steep, but if you add
everything the result is the same. However, according to the most
recent statements made by the defence minister regarding that
issue, we can presume that the government is about to buy, at a cost
of more than half a billion dollars plus several other considerations,
four used submarines that England is no longer interested in. That
country wants to get rid of these submarines and we are going to
buy them.
We will buy four old submarines which are no longer in use. This
is what we will get. We will then be better protected. What do you
think Quebec could get out of such a deal? As I just said, there is
every indication that these are British submarines. Quebec will
obviously not get anything out of that deal. But it will have to pay
its share, its 25 per cent. Quebec always gets 13, 14 or 15 per cent
of everything, but it pays 25 per cent. This is unacceptable.
The government's new policy no longer requires any Canadian
content, unless of course it applies to a procurement contract which
can help Ontario increase its large share of federal defence
spending. This creates a double standard. There is one policy for
Ontario and one for the rest of Canada. I can only conclude that
Quebec which, as we all know, is far from receiving its fair share of
federal military spending, will continue to be greatly and unfairly
penalized by this government.
It is no wonder that more and more Quebecers feel that the only
alternative is, to be sure, a sovereign Quebec. Quebec's sovereignty
will soon become a reality and, when that happens, Quebecers will
turn their backs on these injustices, which cost them dearly.
In conclusion, I have no choice but to blame the federal
government strongly for giving up the Canadian content
requirements in military procurement contracts. These
requirements were among the last guarantees that, some day,
Quebec might get its fair share-no more and no less-like the
others in Canada, that it might be recognized as a province, and that
it might get what it is entitled to.
Therefore, I join with our defence critic, the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, in blaming the government for its current action.
16593
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
member's remarks today. He has been very selective in his speech
and has forgotten some very important historical realities.
I would like to go back to the period of 1979 to 1981, when the
Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Right Hon.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, basically put the foundation in place for the
Quebec aerospace industry. The member conveniently did not
touch on that period of time; he conveniently overlooked it. This
tends to be the basic strategy of the Bloc Quebecois members. They
forget the foundation upon which an important industry like the
aerospace industry was brought to Quebec.
I remind the member of the government's decision in 1980 when
the Government of Canada purchased the F-18A. Almost 80 per
cent of the offsets that were part of that contract went to the
province of Quebec. In no way, shape or form do I begrudge that
because I am a Toronto member, an Ontario member. We
celebrated that great purchase under the leadership of Pierre
Trudeau.
(1200 )
I also remind the member that it was under the leadership of the
present Prime Minister that the decision was taken to get involved
with the Canadair Challenger jet. Canadian taxpayers, not Quebec
taxpayers, invested almost $1 billion into research and
development to lay the foundation that led not only to the Canadair
executive jet but also to the Canadair commuter jet, which is now
being manufactured in the province of Quebec not just through
Canadair-Bombardier but also through various aerospace
manufacturers.
I will give a third example. There was a contract given to
maintain the F-18As, I believe about four years ago. The actual
price submitted by Bristol Aerospace in the province of Manitoba
was cheaper than the contract price in Quebec. The government of
the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made sure under his leadership that
the maintenance contract for the F-18As, our fighter jet, went to the
province of Quebec.
I do not want to suggest that as a Toronto member I resent any of
those contracts going to those manufacturers in the aerospace
industry in Quebec.
When we talk about what is Quebec's fair share, I can point to a
specific example where a Liberal government under the leadership
of Pierre Trudeau laid the basic foundation for the aerospace
industry, which I recognize is an industry leader in the world.
We have to deal with something that happened during the regime
of the last government: the free trade agreement. I campaigned
vigorously against the free trade agreement. I campaigned against
it for many reasons. One reason was chapter 14 of the free trade
agreement, where essentially there was unfettered foreign access to
our markets, whether it was for procurement, manufacturing, or
investment opportunities. We essentially gave up a big part of our
sovereignty under that chapter.
Members of the Bloc voted for, supported and campaigned for
the free trade agreement. We must remember that one article in the
free trade agreement prohibits us as a nation from dictating
Canadian content. So when the member from the Bloc in his speech
today talked about the government not dictating Canadian content,
the member must realize that his leader campaigned against
dictating Canadian content when he supported the free trade
agreement. You cannot suck and blow at the same time. The
member from the Bloc Quebecois I know is fighting for his people,
and I respect that. But we must deal with the truth. The truth of the
matter is that we cannot dictate Canadian content.
I believe in the Quebec aerospace industry. When Pierre
Trudeau, a great Liberal Prime Minister, laid the foundation to put
that industry primarily in the province of Quebec, I believe he
made the right decision, not just on behalf of Quebecers but on
behalf of all of Canada. The member from the Bloc Quebecois is
forgetting a very important factor in any business equation. I want
to get to the point about procurement. I have confidence in the
Quebec aerospace industry in the sense that it does have the
capacity to produce a quality product at a better price.
(1205 )
If we were to promote and support the quality product and
competitive price that Quebec aerospace industry operators
provide, we could overcome this insecurity the Bloc Quebecois
member has about his own industry. Any businessman, if the
product is quality and the price is right, will always get the
business. Therefore we should not give up on the aerospace
industry not having the ability to produce a quality product or
service at a quality price. Rather than throw in the towel and give
up on the industry, let us rally around it.
I do not believe the member from the Bloc Quebecois has that
confidence. Essentially what he is saying today is that we should be
dictating that automatically these firms should get the business.
Before the free trade agreement I liked the situation in which we
tended to be a little more protectionist. I fought for a more
protectionist role. The member's current leader said we do not need
that kind of protection. We should be consistent when we are
having this debate. If the member would not be so selective and
instead would look at all the things in a total equation, I believe he
would see that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada
have done their absolute best to be fair to Quebec.
16594
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, it seems fairly
obvious that the hon. member considers former Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau his guru, since he has referred to him four times
within one short presentation.
What we in Quebec are demanding, and I use the word
``demand'' advisedly, is to have equity, to see Quebec treated
equitably, to see Quebec receive what it is entitled to. It is true that
by around the end of the Seventies, an aerospace system was in
place in Quebec, and now the government across the way cannot be
allowed to make use of legislation to kill it off bit by bit. This
government must not be allowed to use dubious laws, unwanted
laws, to cause Quebec's aerospace industry to disappear. I feel that
this is important, and those in the industry say the same. It is one
thing to establish an aerospace industry, but quite another thing to
destroy one, and that is what is being done now with the legislation
being passed and the way Canadian and Quebec companies are
being treated.
Personally, I have no problem at all with insecurity, despite what
the hon. member said about my seeming to be insecure. What I
want is to see Quebec treated equitably, fairly, more fairly than at
present. I think it is important-and there is no question of
insecurity in working on behalf of one's constituents, the people of
Quebec who elected us to this House-and I think it is important to
say so.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member took seven minutes to ask his
question, and it seems to me I ought to be able to respond to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You may respond within
the allocated ten minutes.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Madam Speaker, perhaps then he ought
to have taken a little less time, so that I could have as long as he.
But I respect your decision.
I merely wanted to say, in closing, that without the members
present here in the House when the Conservatives passed the Free
Trade Agreement-we know that the Liberals were opposed,
Ontario was opposed. Why? Because Ontario has always been
Number One. So, without the Quebec members-this is proof that
Quebecers have a world view. We are open to the rest of the world,
and we want to be able to negotiate, to trade with everyone.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, before I begin this debate I want to thank my hon.
colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for his usual intelligent,
logical, non-political intervention in this debate, which I think is
slowly starting to rise in its level of intelligence. He has introduced
some sense and some logic and some good debatable points into
this debate. Because I have such respect for the points he has
made, I am not going to reinforce them in my presentation.
(1210)
I want to start with the motion to provide a backdrop for my
debate this morning:
That the House condemn the government for having dropped the Canadian
content requirements in the contracts for the purchase of military equipment
and refusing to set up a genuine program for the conversion of the military
industry, thus endangering the Canadian aerospace industry located in
Montreal.
Coming from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I would expect
that it would take into consideration not just the aerospace industry
in Montreal but the aerospace industry in Canada, and indeed all
the military industry in Canada. You cannot talk about the military
industry and relate it to one province. We just do not do business
that way in our country. The hon. members know that as well.
I will give a personal experience, which will provide the thread
for my thesis. My thesis essentially is that we can no longer
continue to do business the way we have been doing it. The climate
is not the same. The military climate is not the same and the fiscal
climate is not the same. We have changed, and we have changed for
a reason. If the hon. members opposite would follow the logic of
my presentation, I give them forewarning that this is the general
pattern.
In my previous incarnation I had the fortune, or some would say
misfortune, to serve at Department of National Defence
headquarters. For an operational officer in any branch of the armed
forces, this is not considered the highlight of one's career. One
likes to be out in the field driving ships, tanks, airplanes, or
whatever the case may be.
My first tour, which was rather traumatic, came in 1967, my first
time in Department of National Defence headquarters, or Canadian
forces headquarters, as it was then called. One of the first projects I
became involved in was a replacement ship for the 20 St. Laurent
class destroyers that were built in the post-war period.
I have to say in deference to the issue, and I would be less than
honest if I did not, that they did have Canadian content and were
considered to be among the best in the world. It was a different
time, a different environment, different circumstances-post-war.
In 1967 the debate for the replacement of those destroyers had
begun. Not only had it begun but it had been going on for some
time, maybe a couple of years.
If you can take a snippet of this point in history, the genesis had
been set for the four gas turbine general purpose frigates, or
DDH-280s, as they became known. There were four special ships
in the making, but they had a long time to go as well.
In 1967 the debate had already begun on a replacement for the 20
post-war destroyers. On December 22, 1977, ten years later, a
16595
cabinet document approved the construction of the Canadian patrol
frigates. That was in December 1977.
I will now report that the last of that class of frigate will be
commissioned next year. Actually HMCS St. John's will be
commissioned in St. John's, Newfoundland on June 24, 1996, and
the last of that class will be commissioned in Cornwall, HMCS
Ottawa, in September 1996. After approval in 1977, the last to roll
off and be commissioned will be practically 20 years later. That is a
long time. That is 30 years from the conception to the last of the
class delivery. I do not care what anyone says. I do not care what
province they are from. I do not care what they represent or what
discipline they belong to. That is too long.
(1215)
During the cold war we produced equipment for something that
might happen. It is happening today. There are 50 wars going on
and we are involved in some of them. We cannot have equipment
for tomorrow; we have to have it for today. We cannot go on
planning for 30 years, expecting and not delivering.
If they do not want to heed what the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs has to say, I
refer them to none other than the auditor general. In his 1993 report
he essentially reinforced more eloquently and more specifically the
points which I have made. He found three major difficulties with
the present procurement system in national defence.
There were 550 major capital projects under way at one point in
time. A capital project was in the vicinity of $100 million. That in
itself is a challenge.
I am going to repeat this because if I heard somebody say this in
the House I would say that they were wrong by a multiplier of 10.
The first difficulty which the auditor general found was that it took
5,550 days from the time a capability deficiency was discovered in
the inventory of capital equipment in national defence until
Treasury Board approval. Not delivery, approval. It took 5,550
days which is 15 years. The system is cumbersome. The number of
man hours used in that process would indicate why national
defence headquarters was so large and why there was so much
difficulty in reaching agreement on the kind of equipment we
needed.
The second difficulty was that one of the major pieces of
baggage the defence program management system had was the
business of content and industrial regional benefits which were
always built into the program. As my hon. colleague for
Broadview-Greenwood has pointed out, that is no longer
permissible under the free trade agreement.
The difficulty was that in trying to build in regional industrial
benefits and offsets, quite often the major contract was averted.
The major project which was proceeding apace, logically and
reasonably, despite the time frame involved, got thrown off course
because of an interjection which was too far downstream to be
brought into the original concept of the contract. That threw the
system off. The end result was that we did not get the best
equipment for the money spent. Yes, it was rationalized, but the
auditor general did not believe the rationalization was reasonable.
The third major difficulty which the auditor general found in
1993 was that because of the length of time it took to produce
Treasury Board approval for the equipment and because of the
dynamic instability inherent in the system, by the time the product
was produced it did not necessarily relate to the threat or the
deficiency which existed 15, 20 or 30 years before.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The original
requirement.
Mr. Mifflin: The original requirement.
I do not want to belabour this, but the case in point was the
EH-101. It was a good helicopter, but it was too good for what was
needed at the time. It was designed for the cold war. By the time the
selection process had come to an end, the cold war was over and the
requirements had changed.
Where did we go from there? We had many discussions in the
special joint committee on national defence, in which I was
honoured to play a role, along with other colleagues of the House.
There was some disagreement, but I thought the work of that
committee was conducted very co-operatively. The report was
hailed as a good report from the bottom up. In 10 months of study
the committee consulted over 1,200 Canadians and every kind of
group which was involved and interested in national defence, from
the positive to the medium to the negative. We took into
consideration all of their concerns.
(1220 )
One of the major areas we spent time on was the procurement of
equipment. Major equipment groups, defence preparedness groups,
Canadian defence associations and the military equipment
requirement industry came and spoke with us. Our conclusion was
not in support of the motion the opposition has put forth.
In the major discussion one of the things we focused on was that
the procurement function was central to the operation of any
military service. If we do not have equipment we cannot really
have a decent force. This is especially so in the modern era where
weapons systems are becoming more complex, more sophisticated
and more expensive, not just because of the escalation in money
but also because of the escalation in complexity and sophistication.
The design and the delivery schedules extend over 10 to 15
years. I used the example of the Canadian patrol frigate. I think the
16596
first one was delivered in 1988 and we will be delivering those
ships until 1996. That is an eight to ten year delivery schedule.
The factor that was considered in the special joint committee
was the regrettable tendency for the Canadian forces to overspecify
the requirements and generally to use every procurement
opportunity as a chance to design and build the very best weapons
system possible. Best was the enemy of good enough.
The second point we focused on was that there was a stringent
set of oversight and accountability requirements imposed over the
years and probably for good reason by the Treasury Board.
Together these factors produced a bureaucracy and a system for
the management and control of federal procurement that has grown
out of all proportion to the real needs of the Canadian forces, out of
proportion to the size of the Canadian forces which over the last 10
years has been reduced both in size and in budget. I will mention
some figures on that in a few moments.
Our recommendations were threefold. We believed that a
significant reduction in the unnecessary superstructure was long
overdue. The recommendation was made that first of all the
government make a public commitment to purchasing military
equipment off the shelf and that it avoid the complex, slow moving
custom designed procurement and production processes that
characterized too many capital projects in recent years, some
examples of which I have given.
In this spirit the procurement policies of the department and the
Canadian forces should show a bias toward the purchase of
commercially available products whenever possible, be it Canadian
or offshore.
The final recommendation, and we felt strongly about this, was
that the deputy minister and chief of the defence staff working with
the officials of other concerned departments should take immediate
steps to modernize and streamline the procurement process. The
parliamentary secretary for industry and the parliamentary
secretary for public works will be commenting on that this
afternoon.
The white paper stemmed from our special joint committee. In
the white paper a considerable effort was devoted to looking at
capital equipment. The opening thoughts were that we had to
change security environment and we had to change fiscal
circumstance. This demanded that national defence radically
restructure its plans to purchase capital equipment.
To put it more succinctly, if we add up all the reductions, in the
last decade national defence has had funding reduced by $21 billion
which is a lot of money over a decade and 21,000 people in the
regular force which is a lot of people. I have not counted civilians
and I have not counted the reserve force.
We cannot give up that amount of funding for whatever reason
and expect to do business as usual.
An hon. member: Over how many years?
Mr. Mifflin: Over a decade. That is a lot. In the last two years
since 1993 there has been a reduction of $7 billion from the
department. That is from 1993 to 1999 and is in the 1993 budget. In
last year's budget there is another $2.8 billion. I am talking about a
lot of bucks here and a lot of jobs. I am talking about a lot of corner
cutting which has to be done to make do with the money we have to
buy the equipment we need. We cannot do business as usual which
is the point I am making here.
(1225)
First of all, we have put emphasis on extending the life of
equipment whenever cost effective and prudent. With respect to
new equipment, the acquisition will be only for purposes
considered essential to maintaining the capability of the Canadian
forces and for the widest range of defence roles. We want the
equipment to do as much as possible without compromising the
role and the major purpose of the equipment. We want to get fewer
types of equipment, which is now the case, and to purchase
equipment that is easier to maintain.
With respect to planned acquisitions, in 15 years capital
equipment alone was cut by $15 billion. I talked about $21 billion
but that involved other reductions in base closures and that kind of
thing. That is a lot of money.
The Department of National Defence had to adopt a better
business practice where greater reliance was placed on the just in
time delivery of common usage items to reduce inventory costs.
Also, in direct response to the recommendation made by the joint
committee, the department increased off the shelf procurement of
commercial technology which meets the essential military
specifications.
The Department of National Defence has embarked on a
program to enhance its partnership with the private sector. The
most recent and best example of this is the way we are going about
the acquisition of our 15 search and rescue helicopters, which does
indicate a tremendous partnership and co-operation with the
private sector. We have built in a lot of flexibility to the private
sector.
Where business case evaluations demonstrate potential for
increased cost effectiveness, support activities currently conducted
in house will be transferred completely to Canadian industry, or
shared with private industry under various partnership
arrangements. This again speaks of more flexibility, cost
effectiveness and efficiency.
We are also continuing to seek new ways to support our
operational forces. If we can contract out to maintain the
equipment, that is quite satisfactory to the department. I could
quote
16597
examples but because of the time I will finish the main thread of
my presentation.
In Canada today, 60,000 people are employed in high technology
industries, such as aerospace and electronics, which are directly
linked to defence procurement. These linkages extend beyond the
production of defence equipment to include technological spinoffs
into commercial products and access to international markets.
The challenge of lower R and D and capital spending, as I
alluded to earlier, and more off the shelf purchasing will be to
maintain and improve the industrial impact of those expenditures
which remain. To this end, it is the intention of the Department of
National Defence to work with Industry Canada and Public Works
and Government Services Canada toward harmonizing industrial
and defence policies to maintain essential defence and industrial
capability.
In general, the government will seek to foster defence
conversion despite what the motion suggests. We are going to
foster conversion not by a vast infusion of money, but through
other initiatives which the Minister of Industry has espoused in
very clear terms in this House during question period and in major
speeches he has made. I am surprised there is so much doubt on the
other side.
We are looking at overall industrial growth and the international
competitiveness of Canadian firms consistent with our
international trade agreements.
To summarize, what we did before may have been all right when
we had the budget to do it, when there was the threat climate to do
it and when circumstances permitted. All of the circumstances have
changed. We can no longer do business as usual. We have had a
major overhaul in the way we do business: in procurement, in life
cycle management, in life cycle maintenance.
(1230)
I look forward to the rest of the debate today to see if we can pick
up some more ideas to further enhance what I believe is already
tremendous progress in this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have two comments and a question for the parliamentary secretary.
I do not know whether this is a military tactic, but he digressed
somewhat from the topic at hand-I am actually very glad he did
so-to discuss timeframes and the whole structure at headquarters
for supervision, programming auditing, and so forth, all of which
takes forever. He said as long as 15 years, in some cases.
This is indeed one of the problems of defence procurement. The
Auditor General mentioned this in his 1993 report, and he made his
case very eloquently. We also discussed this on the special joint
committee, but I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary
what exactly has been done within this whole review process.
There was, for instance, the software for maintenance of the
frigates, for which the military had set certain criteria. After a lot of
negotiations and unavoidable delay, we finally obtained a small
percentage what the military had asked for. After spending about
$30 million on this software, we have yet to obtain what we want.
I wonder how the parliamentary secretary can say that things
have changed within the Department of National Defence. If we are
going to buy equipment directly on site, will defence testing
requirements become stricter or will they remain the same after
acquisition of this equipment?
We have now reduced the EH-101 capability to 15 per cent. Are
we going to upgrade it again afterwards? Because nothing has
happened to change the whole situation he referred to in the
department and at headquarters in the past two years. That is my
first comment. I would like to know whether the parliamentary
secretary has any specifics.
Second, in his speech he said that we could no longer afford to
use defence procurement as a tool for regional development, as the
federal government often did in the past. As I said earlier-and I
appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary talked about
being logical-when there is no infrastructure, I agree we should
not create a new infrastructure, but when it exists, when a company
has the infrastructure, then we can use and adapt it to defence
criteria.
When we talk about armoured personnel carriers, I am always
reminded of the fact that the last deliveries of Bisons, which are
now judged to be obsolete or old, were made in 1994. If defence
equipment is old after only one year, I really wonder about the
future of the Canadian army's equipment.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I recognize that he has agreed with some of the things we
have said, as he did in the special joint committee.
I emphasize that the changes I have just related to him and to the
House are not yet a year old. I assure him from the bottom of my
heart that the name of the game is what is the most cost effective
way of doing business. He is right in pointing out that we have done
things differently depending on the kind of contract we have.
However, that points out the flexibility in the system.
We no longer have to go through a system of hoops, milestones
and baggage difficulties because it says so in the manual. It is done
differently depending on which is the best way to do it and what is
the most cost effective way of doing it.
16598
The best example I could give the hon. member for
Charlesbourg is to tell him about one area of technology, which
I know he understands, so I will relate it to him very briefly.
(1235 )
In 1985 the Canadian navy had less than 350,000 lines of code. I
am talking about software now. A decade later the number of lines
of code in software in the computer and command control systems
and technology transfer systems has increased by a factor of 30. It
has just under 10 million lines of code now.
The member knows what that means with respect to software
managers, the number of people who work in the software
production areas and who are involved in maintenance and
producing programs.
Different ways have to be found to do this. Some work may have
to be contracted out as was done in one case. The member alluded
to the case of Paramax. I think he was satisfied with the number of
witnesses that were heard who indicated the difficulties we had
with that and in other areas. That is one area to which I would like
to respond.
However, this system is still evolving. The examples that he used
indicate that we are prepared to do things differently and hopefully
in the right manner. We may not get it right 100 per cent of the
time, which is always the case when we are making a change. But
we know that we have the major thrust right.
I want to respond to comments the hon. member made earlier
and to clarify, in case there is any doubt in his mind, with respect to
the submarines. He sat on the special joint committee. I am not
going to read the recommendation because it is very clear. I can
almost do it verbatim. The special joint committee said that,
reluctantly, as much as it believes Canada needs a third dimension
in surveillance of the oceans, which are the same size as the
country, a submarine capability is needed to replace the aging
submarines now. They are at the end of the line.
Pretty soon the capability to have people serve in submarines
will be lost because the submarines will be gone. Therefore the
capability will go with it. The report said, reluctantly, that Canada
could not afford to spend the $5 billion needed to get four new
submarines. However it did say that because Canada is a maritime
country and because it really needs this third dimension to see
beneath the surface as well as on and above the water, that if there
was an opportunity to buy four submarines that were fairly modern,
advantage should be taken of that.
As it turned out the British navy had retired its new submarines,
the Upholder class. They are not old submarines. One of them has
never been used. How can Canadian content be put into an
opportunity buy? The committee agreed and said that its members
did not specify a particular country. As it turns out it was the
Upholder class in Britain, but it could have been other classes. It
was not specified. The committee members did not restrict
themselves. They said: ``If we can get something at a bargain price
that somebody else does not need any more, then buy it''. It is like a
major capital equipment garage sale. I wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a question for my
colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Defence. The thrust of his speech dealt with the whole issue of off
the shelf. We must be more sensitive to off the shelf purchases.
I realize that some of the prime military manufacturers are not
Canadian yet Canada has some of the best component part
manufacturers in the aerospace industry. What is the government or
the Department of National Defence doing to marry our aerospace
component manufacturers with those prime military
manufacturers? Is there something that could evolve like the auto
pact which we have for the automotive sector?
Mr. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry put that
question. I must tell the House that we did not consult before.
The best example I can give him is the announcement made a
week ago last Wednesday by the Minister of National Defence with
respect to the acquisition of the capability for 15 search and rescue
helicopters.
(1240 )
It allows the aerospace industry to be totally flexible in the way
it goes about responding to this request. It can either provide
helicopters by saying that it thinks those are the ones that are the
best, and if it is assessed, that is the way it goes or the Canadian
companies can say that they will lease helicopters. Having leased
or bought them, the maintenance of the helicopters can be
contracted out using the aerospace industry in a manner that
perhaps was not conceived before and the inflexibility of this
cumbersome system that I described in my presentation did not
allow. More flexibility means more efficiency and better use of
Canada's considerable aerospace industry.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an interesting motion that we are debating this
afternoon:
That the House condemn the government for having dropped the Canadian
content requirements in the contracts for the purchase of military equipment
and refusing to set up a genuine program for the conversion of the military
industry, thus endangering the Canadian aerospace industry located in
Montreal.
Right off the top, I have to say that this motion has great
difficulty with one of the realities of the economic world today. We
16599
live in a global economy. The motion fails utterly and completely
to address the question that Canada must be competitive in that
world. It seems to state that looking for subsidies somehow seems
to be the answer. I could not disagree more with the thrust of the
motion. I might wish to condemn the government for other things
but that is certainly not one of them.
I would like to take a slightly different approach to this whole
business and look at it from the industrial point of view, from the
development of industry and, in particular, innovation and the
science and technology thrust that ought to happen in Canada. One
of the first of these is that Reformers encourage investment, not
subsidization.
This country needs to develop entrepreneurs, risk takers, people
who understand what it means to take a new idea and make it work.
It is, after all, these innovators in this new technological world that
are the engine of the new economy that is developing all around us.
We need to develop a culture that rewards entrepreneurship,
innovation and research and ensures that there is a level,
competitive and honest marketplace in which these people can
operate. That is what we need. This motion does the exact opposite.
It throws the whole marketplace and the honesty of the marketplace
right out the window. Therefore, we cannot approve it for that
reason.
If entrepreneurs are developed with the skills to be innovative
and to take the necessary risks, we will develop the kind of fibre in
the people who will make Canada strong and who will get us to the
competitive position that we need.
In order to do that, we need to do something else. We need to
encourage investment in capital structures, in buildings. We also
need to develop investment in equipment. That is obvious. The one
that is not so obvious is that we need to have investment in research
and development.
Let me draw members' attention to what the president of Digital
Canada had to say about Research and Development Canada: ``By
far, the most overriding issue is the investment climate for
innovation in Canada''. We have all heard stories of new Canadian
inventions. These are not so new. They have been around for a
while but they were new at one time. One was the heart pacemaker
and the other was the variable pitch propeller. Both of these
inventions were exploited not in Canada but in other countries
because of the reluctance of Canadians to take risks.
It is unlikely that Canadians are any more risk adverse than
anyone else in the world. They will take risks. However, we have
always had taxation and fiscal policies that encouraged investment
in enterprises that had hard assets to back them up as opposed to
enterprises that were based strictly on knowledge. That is the
direction we will be moving in the future.
I am so encouraged to see that at least some of our banking
community is beginning to recognize this. They are beginning to
recognize that we need to recognize assets that are not hard and
fixed but rather rest really in the minds, the capabilities, and the
skills of individuals.
(1245)
Then he goes on to an example of a particular company. Guess
which company it might be? The Digital Equipment Corporation,
which was founded in 1957 with only $70,000 of venture capital.
That was put up by a company in Boston called American Research
and Development. It took 70 per cent of the equity in the company
but also showed the founders of the company how to build and
manage a successful company. The result was that when that
company went public on the American Stock Exchange in 1966,
less than 10 years later, that $70,000 investment was worth about
$30 million. That is significant.
It was the tax provision that existed in the United States at that
time that made it possible for these ventures to succeed as they did.
We need to learn from these successful countries and do something
very similar. It has nothing to do with the kind of subsidization that
is being advocated in this motion.
We need to go one step further as well. Canadian investors and
Canadian entrepreneurs need to recognize that they need to have a
change toward venture capitalists. They seem to have the idea,
which is only human-I am certainly like that-that if something
is mine, it is mine, and I want it all.
When you get into the idea of venture capital, these people who
have the deep pockets with millions and sometimes billions of
dollars in them, and who are prepared to underwrite the venture, do
not want to just give that away. They want to say this is a good idea
and they want a part. The company we just looked at took 70 per
cent, but it became a $30 million investment later and gave a
tremendous return to the owner.
The person who has the great idea needs to recognize that they
have two options: they have all of the idea with no money to
develop it, which means they will never make any money and never
get rich; or they have the option of going to somebody who has a
deep pocket, venture the thing out, share the major risk on the other
side, and get rich in the process as well.
That attitude needs to develop in Canada. It needs to develop
among academicians. It needs to develop with our entrepreneurs. It
needs to develop on the part of parents of people who are seeking
success in the industrial world.
We need to move into another area as well. We need to get into
the area of management. When we get into high tech specialized
industries and we need specialized management as well. We need
16600
managers who understand science. We need managers who
understand technology.
You can be the most brilliant scientist, the most brilliant
technologist and understand all the machinations and all the
intricate workings of networks and things of that sort, but if you
cannot manage people it is no good. It takes a special kind of
management skill to do this. We need to do that.
There are two skills I would like to draw to our attention today.
The first of these is that these people need to learn how to solve
problems. That becomes the key. It is not so much are you able to
push the button or are you able to program the computer, but rather
can you solve a problem. Then you must recognize that you
probably cannot do it alone and that your skills need to be
combined with those of someone else, a third party and a fourth
party, so that the group together forms a team. That team then
begins to solve the problem. At different times, different members
of that team will become leaders. The whole concept of seniority
and the other things that are traditional with us will go out the
window.
This motion, on the other hand, says no, no, no, do not do that;
just create a government program for this industry so that it can be
diverted to peacetime operation rather than military operation. No.
Government needs to encourage the development of balanced
people who can do the kind of management we talked about. We
need to give to the individuals who seek this kind of education an
opportunity to do that.
Members in the House will remember that we proposed a
voucher system of education so that the student, the researcher, or
the scientist who wants to advance himself becomes a person who
selects where, when, and into how much detail he will go to get that
skill in development. It seems to me that is rather significant,
instead of having the university decide here is your program, here
are your answers, come and get them. The student says no, he needs
this kind of an answer, and asks if they have this kind of expertise.
He searches around until he finds it and then gives that voucher to
that institution and says he wants to do this. The institution
benefits, gets the money, and has the resources to give this student
what he needs.
(1250)
We need those kinds of things. We need new people, we need
investment, we need all those kinds of things. We need to go
beyond that as well. We need to develop a sound vehicle for the
transfer of technology from the place where the brains are to where
it is actually applied in a profitable way. Canada has a gap here.
That gap is an inability to adequately, effectively, and consistently
transfer technology from the research bodies, usually universities
and governments in some cases, to the development industries in
order to provide strategic technologies for manufacturing, service,
and resource based sectors.
Usually the best way to do that is to collaborate between sectors.
The centres of excellence do this to a degree, as does IRAP, but we
need to do something a little more advanced than that. We need to
support more industry driven networks like Innovation Place in
Saskatoon. That is an example of how university, industry, and
government can collaborate and bring about true advancement in
technology and the application of skill and innovation to new ideas.
It is becoming rather clear that some professors, who all want
seniority and who all want these great salaries, are having great
difficulty getting to the level of income they aspire to. At this
particular centre of innovation these professors are driving the best
cars around. They are living in the biggest houses. They have the
kinds of bank accounts they have always dreamed about. Why?
They have the willingness to take their intellectual property and
work together with an industrialist or entrepreneur and work
together with certain elements of the government and say together
we can build a whole new way of doing things. They have
succeeded in doing that, and congratulations to them.
There is something this government has done that is not too bad.
It has financed a study called ``The Commercialization of Research
in Canada''. Get a load of what this report advocates, which is very
interesting. I hope the government has the nerve to do this:
``Canada's universities should radically improve their intellectual
property policies and processes for transferring scientific
discoveries to industry or lose eligibility for government research
grants''. Madam Speaker, have you ever heard of this type of thing
before? This is absolutely unbelievable.
The report goes on to state: ``The policy should clearly articulate
a university stance on the following issues: the responsibility of
researchers to identify research results with possible economic or
social benefits; electronic publishing; ownership of the intellectual
property; a process for reporting and recording the facts of the case;
routes and options for the protection of the intellectual property;
options for revenue sharing; guidelines for technology transfers
and commercialization, especially with Canadian based
businesses; and exceptions to the policy in particular cases where a
special contract is more desirable with the terms of the policy, such
as in contract research, network research, or research involving a
prior intellectual property''. That is some of the most forward
thinking I have heard in a long time.
It goes on: ``Failure to develop such policies or to hire a person
responsible for identifying and disseminating intellectual property
and technology transfer policies to all individual researchers within
the university should preclude all of the school's researchers from
eligibility for government-industry targeted funding, such as
granting council strategic programs''.
16601
Is that not a refreshing sound to hear? This would be absolutely
amazing. Think of what this would do to the university. This
would bring together for once the community and the
academician. It would bring together the industrialists and the
taxpayers who fund all this stuff in the first place and show how
we can build a better Canada. That is the kind of motion we should
be debating today, not the kind of motion that is before the House.
(1255)
They are radical suggestions. Should they happen? Yes, they
should happen. The reason they should happen is because Canada
is in a globally competitive environment. Competition has become
the imperative. It is a sad thing to say that science is not sufficiently
recognized in the House. It is high time we recognized the
significance of the role science plays in our daily life. We need to
become aware that it is not only competition; it is also the role
science plays in our economy and in our industry. While that may
raise the ire of basic researchers who are afraid of having their
work hijacked by economic demands, it must be accepted.
There will be an inevitable division between the traditionalists
and the innovators. They will fight with each other. While neither
can be excluded, the innovators must receive attention. The
marketplace will ultimately decide that. Their time has come. They
are the ones who can provide Canada with a foundation of
economic independence. They will provide global
competitiveness. The innovators are skilled in technology and
science. The traditionalists, like all of us, will benefit from the
country's wealth. Their task will not be lost; it will be assured.
They will have jobs. We cannot let the naysayers turn us away from
what is necessary. We must support the innovators, choose the path
and move forward in that direction.
These are major new directions for our country. They are not
easy to develop. They will not happen overnight. They require
co-operation at all levels. I am very encouraged by some of the
things that have happened recently. The important thing to
recognize is that industry has to get into research. Industry must
form consortia to share the costs of research.
I would like to address the comments of the Auditor General of
Canada with respect to science and technology in Canada. He had
some pretty serious things to say. With respect to some of the
comments, we should stand back and say wait a minute, is it really
that bad? Yes, it is. He suggests that the lack of progress in previous
attempts to produce results oriented action plans can be attributed
to a lack of overall government-wide leadership, direction, and
accountability for implementing dramatic changes. That is
probably one of the worst indictments anybody could make about
the Government of Canada.
Seven billion dollars are spent on research and development in
Canada. This country has a debt of $560 billion. We spend $7
billion on research. Not one of those dollars should be taken away.
We need to spend that kind of money. In fact we should probably
spend more. When the Auditor General of Canada says this money
has not been focussed, has been spent in a manner that does not
have a general direction, I say shame.
We need a focus. We need direction. We have been waiting for
over two years for a policy on science and technology. It is still not
here. I hope it will come very soon. We need it desperately. If we
are to be an economically viable country, if we are to be
competitive globally, we must come to grips with this part of our
development.
We must oppose the motion. Instead of doing what the motion
proposes, we need to encourage investment. We need to encourage
innovation. We need to develop a new attitude toward venture
capital. We need to develop specialized management. We need a
sound vehicle for technology transfer. We need to recognize the
value of collaborative research. Finally, we must take seriously the
Auditor General of Canada's caution to get off our butts and get a
focus and a direction for the country.
(1300 )
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the
motion. The concept that the Government of Canada has not been
working hard to ensure a strong aerospace industry in Canada is
totally false. Canadian involvement in space and in the
development of the Canadian space industry has been exemplary.
The story of Canadians in space shows clearly that Canadians can
solve problems.
In typical Canadian fashion we have been modest in singing the
praises of Canada's accomplishments in space. I am here today to
ensure that Canadian scientists, Canadian engineers and Canadian
entrepreneurs get their full recognition in terms of the marvellous
accomplishments they have made and are making in the name of
Canada in space.
Canadians are space pioneers. More than 35 years ago Canada
launched Alouette. We were the third country in space, a pioneer. It
is the same today. Just last month we launched RADARSAT, the
world's most sophisticated earth observation satellite. Canada is
leading the world.
Last week we saw Major Chris Hadfield onboard NASA's
STS-74 shuttle mission to Mir using Canadian technology to help
bring together the Russian space station and the U.S. space
Atlantis. The two events showcased Canadian technology to the
world in an unprecedented way.
16602
I welcome the opportunity to tell Canada's story in space and
specifically to underscore today the very important role Quebec has
played in this effort. Ours is an increasingly competitive world and
governments cannot afford to invest time, effort and money in
ventures that do not bring significant gains both to scientific
knowledge and to economic and environmental benefits the world
over.
Canada's space program is a growth industry, aligned with the
new realities of information technology providing us not only
wonderful new technology for manipulating in space but new
communications technology. Canada is a world leader in this area.
The Canadian space industry provides employment for 4,000
Canadians and pulls in annual revenues of more than $500 million.
Over the last decade the average annual rate of growth in the space
industry has been 15 per cent, with Quebec a particularly high
performer.
[Translation]
Over the past ten years, the space industry in Canada has grown
annually by 15 per cent, with Quebec being a particularly strong
performer.
[English]
The space program was established to meet Canada's needs in
areas vital to our economy: telecommunications, resource
management, surveillance and environmental monitoring. Satellite
communications has been the way for the auto route of
information, the information highway, the 20th century equivalent
of the railway providing linkages that help bind the country
together from one end to the other.
The Canadian space program is also driven by a desire and a
political will to ensure the development of a globally competitive
economy. In a fashion, all regions of the country have been able to
draw on the government's space effort, to transfer space technology
from government laboratories to the private sector, and to
capitalize on employment and economic activity generated as a
result of this visionary program.
(1305 )
The province of Quebec and its aerospace industry have been
beneficiaries of the program. The location of the Canadian Space
Agency in Saint-Hubert on Montreal's south shore is testimony to
the importance of Quebec in this national effort. It underscores
Montreal's international role in space, in satellite communication
and in the information age.
The space agency has brought several hundred highly educated
scientific people to the greater Montreal area and has added to
Montreal's position as a centre of high technology. I am
particularly heightened by the fact that Quebec has shown
considerable leadership in the program, the industries and the
people of Quebec. More than $540 million in contracts have been
won by Quebec firms since 1988, which is more than 35 per cent of
budget of the space program.
Quebec's leadership position in the space sector is further
reinforced by strong engineering skills and industrial activities.
The RADARSAT satellite was built by the Spar aerospace facility
at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, as was MSAT, an advanced
telecommunications satellite scheduled to be launched in the first
quarter of the next calendar year. Mission control for RADARSAT
is located at the space station in Saint-Hubert.
In building the satellite Spar was able to draw on the skills of a
pool of highly specialized small and medium size enterprises that
provided various components of the RADARSAT satellite. In
economic terms some 60 per cent of the RADARSAT program was
awarded to Spar and its subcontractors. This is just the beginning of
the RADARSAT story.
Presently a study is under way to look at partnership
arrangements for the next generation of RADARSAT to ensure
commercialization of the RADARSAT system and launch of the
second RADARSAT satellite. It is significant that a major Quebec
based firm has become involved. I am referring to SNC-Lavalin, a
firm that has successfully established itself as a world leader in
project management.
Let me take a moment to talk about Canada's RADARSAT
satellite. It is a remarkable Canadian achievement to have built and
successfully launched a satellite earlier this month. The satellite
uses radar to allow continuous monitoring of the earth's surface.
Unlike most of the previously launched earth's observation
satellites which cannot see through clouds and cannot therefore
monitor much of the earth's surface much of the time, RADARSAT
can monitor it continuously. By using the radar it can peer through
the clouds and have a continuous assessment of the nature, the
events and the changes on the surface of the earth.
Not only does Canada's RADARSAT provide a complete and
continuous coverage of the earth's surface but it uses an
extraordinary technology developed in Canada to provide a
remarkably flexible, precise and complete coverage. RADARSAT
can provide full coverage of Canada's Arctic area every 24 hours,
full coverage of Canada's entire land mass within three days, every
three days, and full coverage of the total surface of the world, of
our globe, every seven days.
RADARSAT will provide for Canada and for the world a
remarkably new tool to monitor crop development, to assess the
status of crops, yield, insect infestations and all sorts of other
things that may happen to the crops planted and to assess the status
of forests, the growth, the harvesting, the regeneration and so forth.
It is a wonderful tool with the ability to monitor the world's forests
and specifically help Canada better manage its own forests.
16603
(1310 )
It is very important for shipping to know precisely what is
happening in terms of ice conditions like those in Hudson Bay or
the northern Atlantic. RADARSAT will be able to provide that. The
monitoring of water conditions to better control floods during
spring runoff not only in Canada but around the world is a
wonderful new technology that helps people the world over to live
better and have a higher quality of life.
These are but a few of the potential applications of RADARSAT.
Thanks to the foresight of our government, Canadian industries
now have an extraordinary commercial advantage in RADARSAT.
Canadian industry is well positioned to take advantage of the
benefits of the new satellite. Canadians have expertise in the
technology and are now actively marketing the potential of
RADARSAT, its satellite system and its earth monitoring
capabilities the world over.
I want to talk for a moment about the space agency in
Saint-Hubert, home to Canada's astronauts. Chris Hadfield landed
yesterday at the Kennedy Space Centre after a seven-day mission
of historical dimensions. Here again Canadian content in a mission
characterized by NASA as one of the most technically demanding
ever undertaken by the shuttle program was significant owing to
the Canadian role, the role of Canadian technology and Canadian
astronaut Chris Hadfield, in bringing together the United States and
Russia, the world's two space superpowers, in a successful
partnership in space.
Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, paved the way for
future Canadian flights on the shuttle. He will once again be space
bound next year. Julie Payette is continuing her training and we
expect this will lead to a flight opportunity in the years to come.
Canadian astronauts provide a wonderful role model for young
Canadians. They are very important in a world where such role
models are too infrequent. It is particularly significant as we try to
promote the development of the science culture to have role models
like Chris Hadfield, Marc Garneau and Julie Payette.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, the hon. Minister of
Industry and I unveiled the second long term space plan in June
1994. We reconfirmed that Canada would be a significant
contributor in space in the future. We reconfirmed that Canada
would make a significant contribution to the international space
station program, the largest scientific endeavour ever undertaken in
the history of the world.
The program will break new ground in fields as diverse as
biotechnology, physiology, material science and fluid physics, a
new era in understanding space medicine, to name just a few.
Canada will provide the technology that will make possible the
assembly and maintenance of the world's science and technology
institute in space. The operations of the Canadian contribution, the
mobile servicing system, a leading edge robotics system, will be
located in the space agency's facility in Saint-Hubert. Astronauts
and space station operators from around the world will come to
Saint-Hubert to train and to become knowledgeable about this very
sophisticated and, one could say, intelligent robotic system.
I am proud to have been associated with the Canadian space
program.
[Translation]
I am very proud to be associated with the Canadian space
program.
(1315)
[English]
Since we have become the government we have been privileged
to participate in and lead many initiatives to ensure the continued
prosperity of Canada and the Canadian Space Agency, to ensure the
continuity of our Canadian astronaut program, to ensure a
continued place for Canada in space, in new technology, in
communications. Canadians are justifiably proud of our
accomplishments. We should all be pleased with the social and
economic benefits that come from this national effort. In today's
information economy, we are indeed fortunate that Canada has
such a strong space program.
In closing, let me emphasize once more the important role and
the foresight our government has played in leading the Canadian
space effort. It has mobilized an effort that will transfer
increasingly some extraordinary technology to Canadian industry
and provide at the same time the technology that will help us
monitor and improve the global environment.
[Translation]
This is our future, this is Quebec's future, this is Canada's future.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Kootenay East. I hope my
voice will hang in there. If you see my lips moving and no sound,
you will know it has disappeared.
Today's topic is a rather interesting one. At this time I could see
a lot better wording than might be part of this question. We should
start off by saying as the last member has, how proud we are of our
aerospace industry and of our astronauts. Certainly every time we
hear the Canadarm mentioned, all of us feel proud of what we have
accomplished. Our future is in the area of technology and that is
certainly something all Canadians know and are proud of.
However, when we talk about this motion, about Canadian
content and about the protection of some industries over others, I
16604
cannot help but go back a little bit in history. I cannot help but go
back a little bit in terms of what some of the other members are
saying.
I cannot help but go back to the F-18 contract in Winnipeg.
Obviously the lowest bid was there and the recommendations were
there. The qualifications for doing the job were there. Certainly the
people of Manitoba, the people of the west do not forget the party
politics that were played in the decision to move the F-18 contract
to Montreal. Now we hear the other side of that. Now we hear the
fears that we are going to lose this industry for Quebec.
All of us are looking for a free enterprise system in which all
parts of Canada are treated equally, where one part does not have
favoured status over the other, where we stop playing party politics
and we start getting down to what is good for Canada. That should
be the emphasis instead of what we are talking about today.
We also have to look at the criteria when we look at defence
contracts. Obviously we want to have Canadian content, but not
Canadian content if it is not competitive. If it is not competitive, it
better get competitive if that industry is going to survive. If it has to
be subsidized and protected, then it is obviously very short term
and very short sighted planning by that company and by this
government.
We also must be aware of globalization and what that means. We
are now in a global market. We now have NAFTA and the World
Trade Organization. We cannot talk about protecting industry and
protecting the inefficiencies of the past.
We have to talk about being competitive in the world. We have
the training. We have the technology. We have the people. Let us
not hide behind government, behind bureaucracy, or behind rules
that set up how we are going to give contracts. Let us do it because
we are the best. Let us do it because we are the most competitive
and thus we will market our products around the world. That is
what globalization and free trade means. It is what the World Trade
Organization will mean in 10 years. Canada can do very well in that
field. So, let us not be embarrassed and shy and not be out front.
Let us not hide behind the past.
(1320)
We could also be talking about the Department of National
Defence today. We all know that it desperately needs new
equipment. All of us know of the helicopters. My hon. seatmate
here talked about helicopters falling out of the sky. Certainly the
search and rescue people need that equipment, but let us have a
game plan. DND must have a real game plan, what it needs and
what it is going to do. It seems as though we get knee-jerk
announcements. We have heard announcements about a $600
million expenditure for helicopters, but the minister does not know
for how many. I could not believe what I heard in that
announcement.
We obviously need all terrain vehicles. It was shameful what our
troops used in the former Yugoslavia. With regard to armaments,
we must keep modern and up to date and have the best for
Canadians.
Looking at the budgets, we can see that for years we have been
cutting budgets and we have increased the requirement for our
armed forces. This has done nothing except to cause morale
problems and equipment problems in the military.
We need to become diligent shoppers. That does not necessarily
mean we have to buy in Canada. Remember, we must be
competitive.
This is a very timely topic today. I would also like to know what
provisions we have in place to prevent the patronage of the past
which was so common. Everybody knew about it and it seems to
have carried on into the present government. We need to make sure
there are guidelines in place so that this does not happen again. It
does not give politicians a good name and it certainly does not give
Canadians a good name when this sort of thing takes place. We
should not be politicians for sale.
We also have to ask questions about DND and the seemingly
constant turmoil. It appears as though it is constantly having
problems. No sooner does one crisis go away than a new one
surfaces. We have to ask what it is doing to get its act together. That
could easily be a topic for today.
I refer to the former deputy minister of DND. I wonder why
approximately a year ago he quickly disappeared from the scene to
go to the United Nations as if to get him out of town.
What about the EH-101s? How much did it cost to pay those off?
The hon. member across the way mentioned that we should be
very proud of our students and graduates who are filling technical
jobs. I am very proud of them but I am concerned because at the
University of Waterloo for example, 91 per cent of graduates in the
electronics area are going to the U.S. for jobs. I am really
concerned about that. I am concerned that we spent that money on
training. That is a costly resource and we are losing them because
they cannot get a job in Canada. We must work on that because they
are the best.
We have to talk about peacekeeping as well when we talk about
armaments and DND. We need to know what to expect from our
military. We need to have that game plan before we actually start
talking about and worrying about the content of the equipment we
are buying. We need to discuss it in Parliament. We need to discuss
what those objectives and criteria are. We cannot keep doing things
on a knee-jerk basis. We cannot do things where we have
parliamentary debate and the decision has already been announced
outside the House. We cannot keep doing that.
16605
(1325)
We need to do something to restore public confidence as well.
There is a great pride in our Canadian peacekeepers. There is a
great pride in what we have, but when we send them underequipped
and poorly controlled we have problems. We know what that has
done to our reputation. We can talk about Somalia; we can talk
about Rwanda; we can talk about the former Yugoslavia. All of
those are problems which have hurt our reputation. We should be
concerned about that.
We need to set up criteria. We cannot go every place. We are not
equipped to do that. We do not have the equipment. We know that
we must ask about the cost, not that cost is more important than
lives, but that is the reality. We cannot go everywhere. We can only
afford so much and we have to ask those questions.
In looking at these criteria we do need new equipment. We need
to raise morale. We need efficiency. We need to get rid of the
bureaucracy that seems to be causing all the problems.
In closing, rather than whining about competition and Canadian
content, we should get competitive. We should worry about our
place in the marketplace. We should demand a fair and open
bidding system. We should get rid of the politics, the patronage and
the old line political games that so often go on. That will do more.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the
member opposite.
I commend the member for his deep interest in the Canadian
Armed Forces but at some point we have to fish or cut bait. I am not
exactly sure of the position of the Reform Party with respect to
procurement policy for the Canadian Armed Forces. I have listened
many times and I have heard the Reform Party talk about the
wholesale cutting of departments, that what the government has to
do first and foremost is to tame that debt and deficit monster. That
means wholesale cuts across the board to departmental
expenditures.
The member opposite knows full well that out of the
non-statutory expenditures of this government, the previous
government and the government before it, one of the largest
envelopes of non-statutory expenditures is in national defence.
What I am trying to ascertain from the member's comments is
whether he agrees there should be new expenditures in national
defence. If that is the case it may go contrary to what his party said
particularly during the last election about going in and cutting
those departments.
Is the member in favour or not in favour of the EH-101 contract
and its process? Does the member believe and advocate that the
government of the day go forward with further expenditures in
defence procurement? In particular, I am speaking about the
replacement program for the Sea King helicopters. The member
mentioned quite correctly that some of the search and rescue and
Sea King helicopters have had some difficulty because of their age.
Unfortunately there has even been loss of life as some of those
helicopters have gone down. I am not necessarily convinced it was
because of the age of the helicopters.
I want to seek something clear and unequivocal from the
member. Is he in favour of further defence procurement spending,
yes or no? If the answer is yes, does he wish to see this government
accelerate its procurement policy with respect to new helicopters?
Would he and his party support the government spending billions
of dollars for the replacement of the Sea King helicopters?
The hon. member talked a great deal about open procurement
policies. What he said during his comments was that far too often
these things are knee-jerk. Is the member not aware that a House of
Commons committee travelled and came up with a report dealing
with the future of the Canadian Armed Forces? In response to that
report the government came out with the defence white paper
which clearly outlines the government's policies with respect to
national defence. Last, he says that before these big procurements
are finalized they should be debated in the House. Is he an advocate
that House time should be spent debating each and every
procurement contract of the Government of Canada?
(1330)
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I am not sure I will get
all 20 questions answered, but I will make an attempt.
We are saying that national defence must have better equipment.
However before it gets better equipment, we have to target what we
are going to do. We have to establish the criteria and then we have
to do it.
He talks about the report that was presented. I was on the foreign
affairs part of the committee and there was communication
between the two committees. The point is that the
recommendations were to cut from the top. That has not been done.
If cuts are made at the top that money will be available for the
bottom. Cuts should not be across the board but certain things
should be targeted. Some things are gone 100 per cent, other things
will increase. The sort of slash and burn tactic that the member has
in mind is totally not what Reform members have in mind because
we will target. We will set our criteria and then we will have
something that is efficient. We will apply the same efficiencies that
business applies, which government has totally ignored for all
these years.
It is a matter of going after the top. Government does not seem to
be able to do that. It is too easy to cut from the bottom up.
16606
As for the EH-101s, that should have been looked at very
carefully. I am sure the government did, but did it know of the
potential costs of the cancellation? Did it really look at all of that?
From what experts say the EH-101 probably was not the
helicopter that was needed. What the minister is proposing is
probably a good idea, but he has to have his act together. How
much does it cost? How many are being bought? How many are
needed? That is what has to happen.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
very interesting that we meet here today to discuss a Bloc
Quebecois supply motion which attempts to get even more
Canadian dollars to spend in Montreal.
On the basis of the number of dollars that have been sent to the
province of Quebec from the so-called have provinces, Alberta,
British Columbia and Ontario, one would think there would already
have been a recognition of the tremendous amount of support there
has been on the part of all Canadian taxpayers to the idea of the old
line parties of attempting to buy the loyalty of the people, and I
think of them as being in the minority in the province of Quebec,
who would see Quebec secede from Canada.
It is also interesting that on this particular day we also note that
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has decided that he is going to
continue in the House of Commons as Her Majesty's official loyal
opposition, working his attempt to break up Canada, all the while
waiting to become the premier of the province of Quebec.
I seriously doubt the sincerity of the motion being brought
forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, in its own way it is rather
mischievous.
Furthermore, after taking a look at the issue of whether there
should be a Canadian content to our military procurements, it
strikes me that it runs a very strong parallel to the attitude of this
old line government, the Liberals, and their predecessors, the
Conservatives, relative to regional economic development grants.
It falls into exactly the same category.
There seems to be a will on the part of the old line parties to
create a national level playing field. In a matter of about 25
minutes, the auditor general's report on regional development
grants will be released. It will be very interesting to be able to focus
on a dispassionate review of how these grants have worked and
whether a national level playing field has been created.
(1335 )
With respect to the issue of taking military product off the shelf,
there is an over-arching issue. The over-arching issue is that
Canada, at the federal level, is not taking into account the
non-funded liability of the Canada pension plan, which is already
over half a trillion dollars in debt. It is approximately $550 billion
to $560 billion in debt. Much to the amazement of people when
they actually take the time to think about it, the government is
borrowing about $100 million every day to pay the interest on the
money which has been borrowed. Therefore, when talking about
necessary military equipment procurement, if there is a greater
value for Canada's tax dollars, that must be paramount in the
decision making process.
The idea of being able to intervene in the Montreal economy, or
for that matter to intervene in the Canadian economy, is appealing.
It certainly has been shown to have a tremendous appeal to
members of the old line political parties. The $100 million which is
borrowed daily will destroy our ability to fund health care,
post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan. Even old
age security is under threat as a direct result of the desire of the
government and its bedfellows, the Conservatives, to intervene in
the economy.
If an off the shelf policy for these procurements can be created
and achieve the savings which Canadians are looking for, then the
question is: What would that do to business in Canada?
As a proud Canadian I am constantly impressed with our ability
to compete. In the world there is no nation of people who are better
able to adapt and compete. Canadians do not need this kind of
over-arching government intervention to help competitiveness.
It also drives home the issue with which we were faced during
the latter days of the referendum. I recall being told that the
majority of Canada's CF-18s were at Bagotville, Quebec. I also
recall being told that the vast majority of armaments, that is, the
munitions for the Canadian Armed Forces, are in the east end of
Montreal. When the Bloc defence critic, on the letterhead of the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois, advised people in the Canadian army
to desert and join the new Quebec army, I really have to wonder
about the sincerity and the depth of thought which has been given
to this issue by the Bloc Quebecois. Why in the world would we
permit ourselves to fall into the situation in which there is even
more investment in that field in Montreal when the people who are
proposing this legislation are talking about separating Quebec from
Canada?
The defence critic, I presume, is shepherding this motion
through the Chamber on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. His
comments, in my judgment, were nothing short of sedition. You
cannot be telling people in the Canadian army to desert. That is
absolutely and totally unacceptable. I understand that a legal action
has been commenced. I rather hope it has some success.
(1340)
It is just about time to call a spade a spade. If the Bloc Quebecois
was serious about this motion, if it really wanted to see Canadian
procurement and if it is talking about taking Quebec out of Canada,
how in the world can it not be seen as being totally contradictory?
As a matter of fact, the two things are absolutely diametrically
16607
opposed to each other. They simply do not fit. In all good
conscience, how could any Canadian go along with this motion?
To get back to the smaller issue of procurement, because truly
the larger issue is that of the Bloc attempting to smash Canada,
Canadians, because of the size of the debt, must demand value for
their tax dollar. This motion simply would not achieve that.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to the
member for Kootenay East. It has to do with the issue of Canadian
content.
The greatest dollar value of exports, not just in terms of dollar
value but number of jobs created in the country today in the
manufacturing sector, is the automotive industry. The automotive
sector represents the greatest number of jobs and exports. The
foundation that has generated that reality today started when the
auto pact was negotiated with the United States of America.
In that auto pact, percentages of Canadian content were
negotiated. As the automotive industry was developed, the
taxpayers invested in the foundation stages hundreds of millions of
dollars in new equipment, in research and in the capacity to
manufacture a world class, automotive, technology manufacturing
capability.
When we have such a model of proven success in job creation in
a sector that is bringing literally billions of dollars to the treasury
right now when it is looked at in its totality, why should we not do a
careful analysis to see if we could not create the same opportunity
in the aerospace sector?
I realize that the free trade agreement states that Canadian
content can be dictated no longer. I opposed the free trade
agreement and that was one of the reasons why I opposed it. I felt
that it took a piece of our industrial policy making capability away
from us. However, why would we not take a look at the aerospace
industry in the same light as the automotive industry?
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I find that question to be very
reasonable. There is a very significant difference between myself
and the other member because I look at the aerospace sector and the
procurement of any of these armaments, be they tanks or
helicopters, as being dollars spent by Canadian taxpayers, whereas
the procurement of an automobile is dollars spent by a consumer.
(1345 )
I also contest and simply do not accept the concept that
Canadians directly invested dollars in General Motors or the Ford
plant. These are multinational corporations that have their own
investers and their own ability to borrow. While from time to time
they have depended on ill-thought programs the various old line
governments have come forward with, the reality is that the dollars
that are being invested are not only being invested by the
multinational corporations but are being raised by multinational
corporations.
I have a very significant difference of opinion with the other
member. To underline the major difference I just spoke about, the
dollars being spent on the procurement of equipment for our armed
forces are Canadian taxpayers' dollars. The dollars being spent for
the procurement of an automobile are being spent by the consumer.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Barely a minute remains.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg will allow for an answer.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would just like to say to the representative of the third party that, in
his list of figures and in his comments, when he talks of surplus
military equipment in Quebec, he is completely forgetting to
mention the navy.
There is nothing in Quebec to do with the navy. It is to be found
in the west and in the maritimes. As far as the F-18s are concerned,
most of them are not in Quebec. He should go over his figures and
inform himself better. As regards the awarding of contracts, I might
propose this list here of the latest contracts worth more than $3
billion, awarded to Ontario without call for tender. In the west, the
Western Star was obliged to accord part of this contract to
Quebec-6.5 per cent. In another contract, there was no mention of
Quebec at all.
All of this to say that often things are interpreted according to the
figures or information one has available. I would simply like to
point out to the member from the third party that, if he wants more
specific information in order to have a better understanding of
Quebec and its representatives, I would be pleased to provide it,
because, unfortunately, I have run out of time.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will
share my time with the hon. member for-
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe I was
asked a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Sorry, the time has
expired. I asked him to take 30 seconds. Please go ahead very
briefly.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I would suspect that the member,
along with many of the old line parties, sees the military as a make
work project. We do not.
Second, I was not referring to surplus purchases. What I was
referring to was that there was current active military equipment
based in Quebec that under the Bloc Quebecois, under the
separatists, would have ended up, as far as they were concerned,
under
16608
their control in the event the vote had gone the other way. I do not
think Canadians see that as being rational or reasonable.
[Translation]
Mr. Discepola: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate, because I finally
have the opportunity to set the record straight.
The Canadian space program, which has been running for 35
years already, has allowed Canada to carve out an enviable position
among developed countries. Canadians have reaped benefits from
it that have improved their quality of life, if only in terms of
satellite communications.
It is with much pride that I point out the excellent work of the
Canadian Space Agency, one of the most prestigious federal
institutions which now has its headquarters firmly established in
Saint-Hubert, near Montreal.
(1350)
As a member of the government, I am proud to be associated
with this success and to have been part of the agency's
accomplishments since my arrival in the House.
The construction of its headquarters in Saint-Hubert, an
investment of almost $80 million, has created, either directly or
indirectly, almost 1,000 person-years. According to studies that
were done to quantify the economic spinoffs of having the agency
in Saint-Hubert, it is estimated that it has injected about $75
million into the Quebec economy annually, both in terms of
salaries and the purchase of products and services.
These are the figures, but one of the main economic benefits of
having the agency in Quebec is its impact on that province's
industrial base. Here are some concrete examples: the development
of new cutting-edge technologies in strategic sectors such as
communications and data processing software; the international
reputation consolidating Montreal's status as a global player; and
the establishment in Saint-Hubert of other space facilities such as
the RADARSAT ground control station, the control centre for the
mobile servicing system and the astronaut and international space
station operator training system.
One of the main social advantages is the training of the hundred
or so students who come every year to specialize in high-tech areas.
Since 1988, Quebec has received over 35 per cent of the total
budget of the Canadian space program, which means that $540
million worth of contracts are awarded to Quebec-based
companies. Quebecers are among the main beneficiaries of the
Canadian space program.
Spar Aerospace alone, which is located in
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in my riding, has received a significant
portion of the contracts for the production of MSAT and
RADARSAT satellites, which testifies to the excellence of Quebec
engineers. RADARSAT, which was launched into orbit on
November 4, is the result of more than 15 years of co-operation and
political will. RADARSAT also ushers in a new global industry.
The resulting global trade will contribute to the development of a
new natural resources management and environmental monitoring
business. And it is mainly in Quebec that this great project has
materialized.
And that is not all. At present, a feasibility study is under way to
gather all that is required to implement Phase II of RADARSAT.
But what must be pointed out here is the participation of a new
player, namely SNC-Lavalin, whose reputation as the world leader
in large scale project management is firmly established.
The Canadian Space Program also promoted the diversification
of several Quebec businesses, which have gained a world-wide
reputation of excellence. Take these four for example: CAE
Electronics, of Ville-Saint-Laurent, with contracts totalling $90
million; MPB Technologies, of Montreal, whose contracts are
worth in excess of $16 million; FRE Composites, of Saint-André,
with a total contract worth of $11 million; and BONEM, of Quebec
City, with contracts totalling $4 million.
The need to adjust to new realities brought about by market
globalization and by the growing importance of a knowledge-based
economy represents a major challenge. In this context, it is
important that we be able to define new partnerships between
learning institutions and industry. Like the other provinces, Quebec
has displayed impeccable leadership. Fifteen years ago, there were
no university programs to prepare for the future in high-technology
sectors. Through an initiative of the Centre d'adaptation de la
main-d'oeuvre aérospatiale du Québec, post-graduate programs
meeting international standards were developed.
(1355)
Today, a particularly innovative university-industry partnership
has resulted in a master's degree in aerospace engineering being
offered in five Quebec universities. This training strategy is
proving to be very effective in enabling Quebec to keep playing a
lead role in the space industry.
To invest in the space industry is to invest in our children. This
vision born 35 years ago had not died; it keeps making Quebecers
and all Canadians prouder and prouder.
16609
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a short question. Since it
is almost two o'clock, I would prefer to begin my remarks after
question period.
I would like to build on the member for Vaudreuil's point. He
alluded to the notion of creating this infrastructure, which
ultimately leads to exports. This is the point I was trying to make
earlier to the member for Kootenay East when I asked the member
of the Reform Party if he did not see the investment that was made
in the automotive industry from the auto pact until the free trade
agreement. Under the free trade agreement we do not have the
same options of opportunity to invest in that industry, but thank
goodness it has a great foundation now: the auto pact leads, in
terms of job creation and exports, any sector in our country.
The point I was trying to make to the Reform Party is this
infrastructure we have invested in within the province of Quebec in
the aerospace industry now leads to tremendous exports not only in
terms of military hardware, helicopters, et cetera, but also aircraft
like the Canadair commuter jet, which is now being exported all
over the world, creating jobs not only within the province of
Quebec but across the country.
Could the member for Vaudreuil confirm for the House that the
investments the Liberal government has made in the aerospace
industry are now leading to all kinds of exports around the world,
which ultimately means jobs for Canadians?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood, I am proud that the commitment by our
government has always been to promote the industry and sustain
the industry.
I am hearing from the industry that it is not after handouts. It
really wants to be on a level playing field on an international scale.
If we take a look at the successes in the aerospace industry, a major
beneficiary of which is the region of Montreal, we would not have
to look very closely to see the success of Canadair, the success of
SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier, and recently the joint partnership that
Pratt & Whitney announced with Russia.
If we are to allow this industry to promote itself and to grow, we
have to give it the level playing field and the tools necessary for it
to compete on a world scale.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of
Commons, volume 3, dated November 1995.
[Translation]
I should remind the hon. members that, pursuant to Standing
Order 108(3)(d), this document is deemed permanently referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
As it is two o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
16609
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this year the Canadian National Institute for the Blind
dedicated its annual review to the more than 20,000 people from
across Canada who work as CNIB volunteers.
Volunteers work at all levels of the organization, from national
policy development to fundraising to the support of core services.
They enable the CNIB to do much more than would otherwise be
possible, transforming each $5 donation into an estimated $100 of
impact for clients.
The CNIB values its volunteers because the imagination,
experience, purpose and insight they willingly provide would be
difficult to buy at any price. Without volunteers its work would be
unthinkable.
I am sure all members join me in recognizing and thanking those
Canadians who give so generously of their time and energy in
support of the CNIB.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I drove 3,300 kilometres around Beaver River conducting my
fall tour. I talked to hundreds of people at town hall meetings,
school classrooms and in my office.
People are concerned about the government's bills on MP
pensions, employment equity, gun control and so on. The thing
they asked more questions about rather than anything else was the
referendum. Everybody in the meeting asked now what.
This morning we find out that now what means another
referendum. People at home recognize the distinctiveness of
Quebec with regard to language, culture and civil law. Because the
term distinct society is undefined they think it would be a lawyer's
delight to see it enshrined in the Constitution as it would be wide
open to
16610
interpretation. I even had a Liberal supporter ask me what part of
no the Liberals did not understand in the Charlottetown accord.
We must move forward to the new Canada, not backward to
failed ideas and plans. They did not work. They are not working
and will not work. Let us scrap the unity committee of politicians
and let the people speak.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
overall reductions to benefits paid to recipients of unemployment
insurance are adding to the welfare rolls of many provinces
including Saskatchewan.
The cumulative impact of the cuts to the unemployment
insurance program has been the addition of over 15,000 persons to
the Saskatchewan assistance plan caseload at a cost of $63 million.
In addition to the UI reductions, the Liberal government transferred
responsibility for providing assistance to off reserve status Indians,
adding another 10,000 people to the welfare roles at a cost of $38
million. In Saskatchewan, UI payments decreased by over 25 per
cent from $410 million in 1992-93 to $300 million in 1994-95.
The Liberal government was elected on a platform of providing
jobs. Instead it has thrown more workers on to welfare roles in
Saskatchewan than ever before, adding to the burden of
Saskatchewan taxpayers.
Canadians get angry when the unemployed are forced to live on
welfare while in Ottawa a Liberal MP receives a free new suit
simply for getting off his chair.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to Chris Hadfield on his voyage in space and best
wishes to members of his family in Peterborough riding: son Kyle
at school in Lakefield, sister Pat Bowlar in Norwood and Aunt
Caroline Kitchen in Peterborough.
A Canadian has now operated our Canadarm in space and it will
be the prototype for a giant space crane. Next year Marc Garneau,
one of our most distinguished astronauts, will be returning to
space. He will be followed by yet another Canadian astronaut: three
Canadians in space within a year and a half.
The astronaut program is one of the most successful features of
the Canadian Space Agency which is based in Montreal but which
has a nationwide science and technology network. Our astronauts
have inspired students from kindergarten to Ph.D. III. They have
had a healthy effect on all science and technology in Canada.
Canada is united in its space efforts. Let us remain united on this
blessed portion of the earth's surface.
[Translation]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ten years ago,
Ontario recognized French as one of its two official languages
before the courts. The province has since passed several provisions
which have made it increasingly bilingual in the judicial field. In
fact, a case can now be heard in French at any level of the
provincial legal system, including that of the appeal court.
The Association des juristes d'expression française, which held
its convention in Ottawa this past weekend, has always been at the
forefront of the movement to improve our bilingual judicial
system. This is a complex and difficult task, and I want to
congratulate the association for its dedication and its determination
in overcoming any obstacle to that very important goal.
The program benefits all Ontarians. It also shows that, in North
America, the French language and culture have a much better
chance of being preserved, and even expanding, in a bilingual
Canada than in separate states.
* * *
(1405)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
senators will decide tomorrow if they will oppose the House of
Commons firearms bill. Some of us may be in favour of Bill C-68,
some of us may be against certain provisions, but all members of
Parliament would agree that the voice of the people of Quebec and
of Canada has been heard on this issue, in this House.
The debates lasted a long time and several witnesses came to
express their concerns. The federal government rejected most of
the amendments put forward by the witnesses who appeared before
the committee, and the Liberal members rejected the amendments
proposed by the official opposition members.
However, Bill C-68 concerning the firearms was passed by hon.
members who were democratically elected by their constituents.
Respect for our democratic values should, in itself, prevent
senators from opposing this legislation. Whether they are Liberal
or Conservative, these senators do not speak for the people, they
only speak for themselves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent poll in the
Medical Post says that 58 per cent of
consumers and 76 per cent of physicians expect Canada's system of
health care to get worse in the next 10 years. To express the
16611
public's concern the Canadian health care coalition has declared
today, November 21, National Medicare Day.
In support I must question the mixed up priorities of a
government that maintains grants to businesses and industry, grants
to special interest groups, grants for multiculturalism and official
bilingualism and the latest list of waste and mismanagement in
today's report of the auditor general but cuts grants to the provinces
for medicare.
Recently the North Okanagan Labour Council brought the
public's concern about medicare to the attention of the city of
Vernon, the city of Kelowna, the district of Lake Country and the
north and central Okanagan regional districts.
I salute all these groups for expressing their strong support for
Canada's system of publicly funded health care.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend Canada's major banks for their corporate citizenship in
establishing a banking industry ombudsman. This will strengthen
procedures for handling complaints from small business when the
operation begins on April 1, 1996. Certainly the framework is
welcome news to the small business community that has often
voiced its frustration in dealing with lending institutions.
In addition they have announced the appointment of their own
internal ombudsman. I know that Mr. Al Horton who resides in my
riding has accepted the challenge involved in becoming the first
ombudsman for the Bank of Montreal.
Canadians should know that expenses to operate the system will
be borne by the banks and not by the taxpayers. The new
framework will benefit the small business community, a sector that
is vital to the Canadian economy and to job creation in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
November 10, I was pleased to join provincial counterparts,
Iceland Ambassador Einar Benediktsson and Icelandair
representatives in welcoming Icelandair to Halifax International
Airport in Nova Scotia.
Icelandair is a 60-year old privately run airline. It is no mere
beginner. It carries 1.2 million passengers every year. Icelandair
will begin scheduled service to Halifax on May 14 next year. It will
go from Halifax International Airport to some 20 destinations in
Europe through Reykajavik. We in Halifax West and in Nova
Scotia look forward to the tremendous potential this brings for
tourism in Nova Scotia.
Icelandair recently held a Reykjavik to Halifax flight for
Scandanavian tour operators, an important first step for this
exciting tourism opportunity. Icelandair knows what more and
more companies are coming to realize, that metropolitan Halifax
and the province of Nova Scotia are good places to do business.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, brain tumour
month is in October of each year. It has come and gone, but the
challenge to assist those afflicted remains with us.
Over 10,000 Canadians are diagnosed each year with a brain
tumour. A cause or cure has yet to be found for this devastating
disease. The key to successful treatment of a tumour is early
diagnosis which is only possible if people become aware of the
signs and symptoms of the tumour. Researchers are constantly
opening new doors to the possible causes.
The mission statement of the Brain Tumour Foundation of
Canada is to fund brain tumour research, provide patient and
family support services and educate the public. The foundation
needs our support.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after voting in favour of an antiscab bill brought forward by the
Bloc Quebecois in 1990, the Liberal Party is about to make an
about-turn by refusing today to support the bill that I introduced in
this House in order to prohibit the use of scabs during labour
disputes.
Again, the federal government is giving in to Ontario and
ignoring Quebec's legitimate demands. Need I remind members
that the Ontario government has just abolished its antiscab
legislation which protected workers in that province?
What the Liberal Party is about to do is totally outrageous. We
hope that, when Liberal members rise in the House to defeat the bill
this afternoon, they will realize that they are breaking promises
they made to workers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, prairie farmers and western Canadians were shocked and
16612
outraged to hear of the ludicrous benefits lavished on Canadian
Wheat Board commissioners. For the last 15 years, wheat board
commissioners have set their own perks and privileges that
included eight weeks of vacation per year and severance packages
of up to $290,000.
At last we have seen the reason for closed doors and secrecy at
the wheat board. Since they are not accountable to anyone they
have been able to fill their pockets at will. Shame on the Liberal
government for not fully correcting an injustice by removing these
benefits retroactively.
This is a damning reminder of the gold plated MP pension plan
all over again, farm bankruptcies and fat cat wheat board
commissioners. It is a prime example of the Liberal red book
promise of equality.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the
Reform Party has insulted the intelligence of the people of Prince
Edward Island and the rest of Atlantic Canada. The statement
yesterday by the member for Vegreville oozed with contempt not
only for local politicians but for the people themselves.
This patronizing, condescending attitude comes from a party
whose solution for the problems of Atlantic Canada is simply to
move people out. It comes from a party which opposes any form of
regional development funding for Atlantic Canada. It comes from a
party which espouses the belief that the only Canadians who
deserve full health care are those who can afford it. It comes from a
party which would replace the development of self-reliance in
strong communities by an individually oriented survival of the
fittest type society.
Perhaps most significant of all, it comes from a party that
received less than 1 per cent of the popular vote in P.E.I. in the last
federal election and will receive less in the next federal election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning, the Bloc Quebecois members were the first
to learn, directly from their leader, that he had decided to run for
office as successor to Jacques Parizeau as leader of the Parti
Quebecois. In our hearts, sadness was followed by pride and
confidence that this extraordinary man will help the Quebec people
achieve their legitimate ambitions with respect to their destiny.
We are all aware of the great qualities of this man and we know
he will muster the creativity and the energies of all the people, in
order to meet the many challenges that we, Quebecers, will have to
face.
We are proud of the work we did with him. His decision sets a
milestone in our common struggle for Quebec because our leader
and the Bloc Quebecois are engaged in the same struggle, the
struggle of the Quebec people.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
lately Reform Party members have been spending a lot of time
talking about Atlantic Canada. They have made a couple of trips
east and now claim to be instant experts on our region.
For example, these Reform experts believe that the Atlantic
fishery is dead, even though it was worth over $1 billion last year;
that we should have been softer on foreign overfishing; and that the
federal government should get out of Hibernia, despite the fact that
it creates thousands of jobs and means millions of dollars to the
Newfoundland economy.
(1415 )
As a Newfoundlander born and raised, who lives and pays taxes
in St. John's East, I would like to tell the third party what we do not
want. We do not want the Reform slash and burn agenda, which
includes massive cuts to UI, health, and regional development. We
do not want the Reform plan for a flat tax, which would guarantee
that poor people are taxed at the same rate as the rich.
It is clear that Reform's ignorance is far greater than its
knowledge of Atlantic Canada.
_____________________________________________
16612
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for
regional development in Quebec.
Yesterday, it was announced that CP Rail's head office in
Montreal will be closed and relocated to Calgary, leading to the
loss of 710 jobs in Montreal. CP Rail justifies its decision by
saying that an increasingly large portion of its activity is centred on
the western provinces. Ottawa's policies have always supported
western railway development at great cost, while encouraging rail
cutbacks in the east.
Does the minister acknowledge that CP Rail's move to the west
is the result of the discriminatory policies that have always been
practiced by the federal government with respect to rail
transportation?
16613
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always regrettable when there
are layoffs in any sector. I know how difficult job losses are for any
community. However, this was a decision made by a private
corporation whose board of directors had to take into account their
competitive situation not only in Canada but in North America.
This decision made by CP affects a number of people across the
country, including a 28 per cent change in Toronto, a 20 per cent
change in Vancouver, and also a change in Montreal.
On the broader question of what is this government doing to
ensure that we have a competitive, affordable transportation system
in this country, the member will know, because he is a member of
the Standing Committee on Transport, that we are determined to
ensure that we have a competitive, affordable railroad industry so
that our shippers and our customers can be well served and we can
continue to create jobs in the export market.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, be that as it may, given the extremely negative impact of
the federal government's discriminatory policies on Montreal,
what does the minister responsible for regional development plan
to do to compensate for the loss of 710 jobs as a result of the CP
Rail move to Calgary?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the eastern
headquarters of CP's operations will continue in Montreal. Over
2,500 good quality jobs for CP will remain in Montreal.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Montreal has the highest number of poor families in
Canada, and one of the highest rates of unemployment.
What hope do Montrealers have left, in the wake of the problems
created wholly by the federal government which lead to
unemployment, job loss and poverty in this major Quebec centre?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Liberal): Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the
assistance to small and medium business provided by this
government, if one looks at the federal policy on the
pharmaceutical industry, if one looks at the assistance to the
aeronautical industry located in Montreal, it is very clear that the
federal government has the well-being of Montrealers at heart.
Now the time has come to address the economic agenda and drop
the political agenda of the Bloc and the PQ.
(1420)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after thousands of jobs were lost as a result of a decision
by CN to streamline its operations, a decision that severely affected
Montreal, this city now faces a decision by CP Rail to move its
headquarters.
Since the federal government is responsible for a shift in railway
operations towards Western Canada and it has done nothing to
contain the negative impact of downsizing by CN and the CP
headquarters move, what excuse does the minister responsible for
regional development have for failing to deal with the major
economic problems that have affected Montreal in the past two
years?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member has just
mentioned CN, because this government has privatized CN, the
largest share issue in Canadian history, and it has gone extremely
well. Over $2.2 billion will come back to this government and this
country by virtue of CN's privatization.
Second, it should be noted that Bill C-101 builds on creating
opportunities for the creation of short line railroads in Quebec and
throughout the country, creating jobs, creating businesses. That is
what the government is committed to doing, creating jobs and
opportunities across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the inference is that a member from Ontario is looking
after regional development in Quebec.
This government claims to take care of the real problems of
Canadians. Well, the minister responsible for regional development
identified Montreal's real problems back in June 1992. He then
referred to innovative policies for defence conversion and a general
upgrading of the industrial infrastructure.
Since he has done nothing to stop unemployment in Montreal
and has in fact done the exact opposite, why does he not implement
a program for the economic renewal of Montreal, as he suggested
in 1992?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past year
66,000 new jobs were created in Quebec. These new jobs were
created thanks to this government's policies.
The hon. member referred to the national infrastructures
program. This program has helped to create hundreds and
thousands of jobs in Quebec. The Bank of Canada's monetary
policy has helped
16614
to bring interest rates down. The Canadian government's tax policy
has helped to reduce the deficit-meanwhile, the Quebec
government did nothing-which has given Quebecers something to
look forward to. I am very proud of our record.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to depart this
chamber for Quebec City. He is going to prepare for one last
attempt to take Quebec out of the federation.
The task in this chamber is to prepare the case for federalism and
to do so with a clarity and a vision that was completely missing
from the last referendum campaign. In the dying days of that
campaign, the Prime Minister belatedly promised to fundamentally
change the way the federal government operates. He promised
quick action.
Is the Prime Minister ready to act? What action does the Prime
Minister propose to fundamentally change the way federalism
operates so as to strengthen the case for federalism like it has never
been strengthened before?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said there were to be some changes and we will
proceed with some changes.
For example, we started more than a year ago signing
agreements with nine provincial governments to eliminate the
duplication that is mentioned on this side of the House and the
other side of the House. We hope we will be able to do the same
thing with the new government in Quebec so there will be less
duplication.
We will look at what can be done in terms of making the
federation work better, but I do not believe that dismantling the
federal government will solve the problem. We need a strong
federal government that has an active presence in all parts of
Canada and in Quebec. That would solve the problem. It is not by
dismantling Canada to make a community of ten communities that
we will succeed, as is the proposition of the leader of the third
party.
(1425)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no one has argued in favour of dismantling the federation.
This is typical of so much debate in the Chamber. No one debates
anyone's real position. The position is moved off to the extreme
and they debate the extreme, not the real position.
The fact of the matter is that 60 per cent of Canadians outside
Quebec and 80 per cent of people in Quebec want some change in
the alignment of powers between the federal and provincial
governments. They want control over natural resources, social
services, language and culture to be in the hands of the government
closest to them, and that is not the federal government.
When is the government going to do something practical and
concrete in response to this desire for change and a realignment of
the powers between the federal and provincial governments? This
is not dismantling; it is realignment.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is value to having a federal government. For
example, on this side of the House we are strongly in favour of a
medicare system that is equal for all citizens in every part of
Canada. It is not only the desire of the people of Alberta, B.C., and
Ontario; the people of Quebec want free medicare through which
all Canadian citizens and all citizens of Quebec can be admitted to
the hospital not because they have money but because they are
citizens.
When the leader of the third party talks about dismantling the
five conditions of medicare, he is on the way to dismantling the
country.
When we were fighting to keep Canada together, it was not very
useful for the leader of the third party to talk about the
Constitution. That was the time to talk about national unity and
jobs for all Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the weakness of the Prime Minister's answer profoundly
disappoints.
We were looking for action and all we got from the government
was a committee. We were looking for statesmanship at a time of
national crisis and all we got was political cheap shots. We are
looking for strength and all we get is tired old answers and
weakness.
The Prime Minister makes a profound mistake by interpreting
the demand for decentralization in Quebec or anywhere else as the
dismantling of federal programs.
When is the federal government going to propose some major
change in the alignment between the powers of the federal and
provincial governments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are working every day to make the federation more
efficient. But I am not working from the basis that we have to
destroy the federal government to be successful. We believe there
should be a resolution that is a two-way street, not a one-way street
of devolution.
It has always been my position that there are some things the
federal government should do for the good of all Canadians. That is
exactly what we are trying to do.
The leader of the third party is always talking in terms of
weakening the central government. If we do that, at the end of the
road we will not have Canada any more. We are fighting to keep
Canada united.
16615
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec.
In his report tabled today in the House, the auditor general casts
doubt on the ability of the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec to create sustainable jobs and revenues. In
Quebec alone, since 1988 FORD-Q has spent $1.15 billion on
businesses and organizations without first verifying their financial
viability. Of 11 businesses examined, five had to close their doors
before receiving the final government subsidy payment.
(1430)
How does the minister explain that, in the midst of a public
financial crisis, FORD-Q is incapable of awarding federal funding
more judiciously? Why is it taking so long to put a stop to this
endless wasting of taxpayers' money?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just in the years the
member mentioned-between 1988 and 1994-, the Federal Office
of Regional Development-Quebec committed $1.1 billion. This
commitment generated investments of $6.4 billion in over 4,000
projects in Quebec. This is job creation, and we are proud of it.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general indicates that program overlap in regional development is a
source of waste, as we all know, and that FORD-Q had no influence
on the policies of other federal governments.
Will the minister finally understand that the federal government
must get out of this area of jurisdiction and transfer the funds to the
provinces, which are in a better position to act, in any case?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the report the
hon. member is reading is different from the one I have.
First, I would point out to the member that most of the criticism
of FORD-Q applies to the 1980s. Things have changed since then.
That is, the programs of the 1980s cannot perhaps be adapted to the
1990s. This is why FORD-Q completely changed its programming
in order to create an SMB access centre, which has led to hugely
successful SMBs.
I would like to quote from the auditor general's report: ``The
development of the new programming framework is the result of
strategic reflection. FORD-Q's approach is well structured. Roles
and responsibilities were clearly defined, and appropriate
mechanisms put in place to ensure activity co-ordination and
follow up. Our examination revealed-this is the auditor general
speaking-that the department had given reasonable consideration
to information on past activities and on its internal and external
environments''.
The auditor general congratulated us, and I would like to
congratulate the department officials here today.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, reliable sources
confirm that foreign governments are very upset about our
SIGNET program of communication between our embassies and
Ottawa. SIGNET is leaking. SIGNET is leaking not only our
information but the information of our allies.
What has the Minister of Foreign Affairs personally done to
respond to the complaints of our allies to ensure that the secret
information in SIGNET is kept secret?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
yesterday in the House, the government does not discuss security or
intelligence matters.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is the same
answer I have been getting as I have tried to research this through
various people. I have talked to the acting director of SIGNET and I
have talked to security. It is our allies who are telling us to do
something.
In opposition the government whined about patronage, whined
about SIGNET costing too much, whined about the $100 million
that was being spent. Now the government risks losing not only
international trade, it also risks losing co-operation with our allies
and losing our reputation. What is the minister going to do to
change this?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see that the hon. member has been reading some press
articles which have motivated him to ask questions in the House.
I want to assure him that the system is fully operative. It is
working to the satisfaction of the government and to the people
who are using it.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for FORD-Q. In the report
he tabled today, the auditor general points at serious flaws in the
management of federal regional development programs. He states,
among other things, that since 1988, the federal government has
16616
spent $4.5 billion for these programs without knowing if they have
really helped create jobs and if they were properly spent.
Does the minister responsible recognize that it is inadmissible to
spend $4.5 billion, $1.15 of them in Quebec, without any clear
creation of jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a mater of fact,
quite a number of jobs have been created as a result of the Federal
Office of Regional Development's activities. I can tell you that
whenever I visit one of the 13 FORD-Q offices in Quebec, and
meet business people, I meet individuals who have created jobs
thanks to the federal office's activities.
Indeed, if there were problems with program evaluation, the
department recognized them and this is the reason why we changed
our programming and the way we operate. I do accept the
member's congratulations on our new programming.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, obviously,
the minister of finance is skating around the issue, but the auditor
general was very clear. Since the auditor general has pointed out
that FORD-Q's methods for evaluating program spinoffs are
flawed, does the minister intend to take corrective actions so that
taxpayers may have a clear and correct idea of reality?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did that two years
ago.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
His minister of agriculture was to release the final report of the
Canada-U.S. Commission on Grains two and a half months ago on
September 11. The minister of agriculture is rivalling the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development in the
do nothing department.
My question stems from his promises to launch reforms to a
number of key agriculture areas based on numerous reports and
studies. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why he allows his
agriculture minister to delay the Canada-U.S. joint commission
report, even though the commissioners who have drafted the report
have suggested the content is complete and is similar to material
released in the interim preliminary report?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this question on behalf of my colleague,
the minister of agriculture. Let me confess that I do not have the
kind of knowledge this question requires to give a good answer. But
I do know that the best minister of agriculture who lives and
breathes on the North American continent today sits to my left in
the House of Commons.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows no
bounds in his attempt to become the replacement for our current
Prime Minister.
One wonders if the minister's delay has more to do with the fact
that the report will give legitimate fodder for those farmers calling
for the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister
indicated yesterday in the House on a plebiscite that ``this
plebiscite was not the be all and end all of wheat and barley
marketing''. It seems that the minister fears allowing producers the
right to determine how they market wheat and barley.
Does the joint commission's report contain definitions and
content that the minister is withholding from the public's view
because it might influence the outcome of the Alberta plebiscite on
wheat and barley marketing toward an outcome the minister does
not particularly want?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, even a minister of fisheries knows you cannot put the
cart before the horse. The reality is the plebiscite results will not be
released until December 5. The member opposite would be the first
one to stand and complain if the minister of agriculture came to
conclusions in advance of knowing the plebiscite results and
finishing the consultations.
Be patient and a very excellent minister will do a very excellent
job as usual.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadian diplomats are having the government pay for plane
tickets that they do not use, and then getting refunds from the
airline and pocketing the money. This practice is such that a
diplomat posted to Australia with his family can derive benefits
equivalent to one third of his annual pay by cashing in his plane
tickets.
Given that his government is asking all Canadians to tighten
their belts, how can the Minister of Foreign Affairs justify
tolerating such an outrageous practice benefiting diplomats?
16617
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is not up to date. Had he attended the
foreign affairs standing committee's meetings, his question would
have already been answered, because this issue was raised and an
answer provided in committee.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have raised
this question in this House before, but never got any real answers.
That is why we are asking it again today.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain to Canadian
taxpayers why he refuses to immediately put an end to this
practice, which is unacceptable at a time when UI benefits are
being cut back to replenish the state's coffers?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not like the answer he was
given. As a matter of fact, he has just confirmed having received an
answer. He may not like it, but he must understand that
arrangements between government employees and Treasury Board
are made under the applicable collective agreements, which are
honoured by the government.
Should we exceed our powers and not comply with the terms of
these arrangements, the hon. member would be the first one to
complain that we are not respecting collective agreements.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we were all very proud to see Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield
return safely to earth yesterday from a successful eight-day mission
aboard the space shuttle
Atlantis.
This government has made it clear that it is very important to
establish spending priorities that meet the needs of Canadians.
Would the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development please tell this House what exactly are the benefits
Canadians receive from space flights like the one Chris Hadfield
returned from yesterday?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is true that sometimes when we are deep in snow on the
ground in Canada it is nice to have the sort of inspiration and hope
which is provided by Chris Hadfield up in space using Canadian
technology including the space vision system to link in partnership
in space two former cold war protagonists.
I should add as well that earlier this month we launched
RADARSAT which is positioning Canadian entrepreneurs
competitively in the global earth observation market with some
very new technology. It provides some remarkable advantages as
well in monitoring and being able to improve the quality of our
global environment.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of public works.
The auditor general accuses the regional agencies of inflating the
job creation numbers. Jobs are counted twice, part time jobs are
considered full time jobs and jobs that no longer exist are counted
as jobs. This is a serious indictment against this government whose
jobs platform has been shredded to pieces by the auditor general's
report.
Will the minister admit to Canadians that the government's job
creation strategy through borrowed money, infrastructure programs
and regional development agencies is a $10 billion failure?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. It clearly indicates to the House the clash
of ideologies between this party and that party. The ideology of that
party as it relates to Atlantic Canada is one of ``will the last one
leaving please turn off the lights''. It is migration out for the
Reform Party when it relates to Atlantic Canada.
(1445)
I welcome the auditor general's recommendations. We have
moved on many of them and hope to live up to almost all of them in
due course.
In the agency I represent two national reputable firms surveyed
1,150 of the various private sector companies that received
financial assistance from ACOA. They told us that 96 per cent of
the jobs the firms said they were going to create they did create.
The auditor general surveyed 51 companies and he found that
some of the precision, if you will, of the reporting could be
improved on, and we will do so.
He also said:
Our findings, while based on a significant portion of the reported jobs
created, cannot be used in place of the survey as an estimate of the jobs created
by the Agency's clients.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us take a
look at some examples. While the government was downsizing the
fish processing industry, it spent $2.2 million to upgrade a fish
plant. This caused a neighbouring fish plant to close down. The 250
jobs that were created were stolen from the other fish plant. The
second one closed down in 1994, yet somehow these 250 jobs that
disappeared entirely showed up as job creation.
16618
Will the minister tell us on what basis jobs stolen, jobs lost,
jobs eliminated and money wasted will count as jobs created?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
totally incorrect. The reality is that our particular agency vastly
underestimated the number of jobs which were created in our
region.
The auditor general reviewed only two programs. He did not
review the contribution that entrepreneurs and tourism, for
example, made to the Atlantic economy.
The hon. member might be interested to know that
notwithstanding the difficulties in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada,
the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, and in particular the minister,
can confirm that we do have in many parts of Atlantic Canada a
viable fishery. That fishery can grow. It can be enhanced. It has to
have the leadership of the private sector and as a regional agency
we want to work with them in order to enhance that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
same day the government announces its intention to call for bids on
15 new search and rescue helicopters, the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services announces the conclusion of an
agreement with Agusta to break the contract for the EH-101s.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. Are we to understand from the announcement of this
agreement with Agusta that the government has given up trying to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the
contract for the EH-101s, which is what the present Minister of
Human Resources Development was calling for when he was in
opposition?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know about
the appropriateness of the question in view of the fact that I believe
it is the subject matter of the opposition day today.
Let me repeat what I have said on three separate occasions. The
Government of Canada has entered into negotiations concerning
termination costs for two contractors with the Government of
Canada. We were successful with one. We have held very long,
very exhaustive negotiations with E. H. Industries on termination
costs. We have reached agreement. I hope to be able to provide the
details in due course, but because of certain confidentiality rules I
am not at liberty to provide that today.
I said before on the floor of the House of Commons and I have
said it outside of the House that this particular matter has been
resolved. When the details become available to all members, they
will realize that the Government of Canada has achieved its
particular objective.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given Agusta's involvement in dubious events in Belgium during
negotiations for a similar helicopter contract, and given that the
contract for the EH-101s was negotiated at the same time as the one
that was the focus of the scandal in Belgium, how can the minister
persist in his desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in
compensation to Agusta, without a preliminary investigation?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon.
member is incorrect. It is not compensation. It is termination cost.
We have reached agreement. In due course, the details will be
provided to the House.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries
Council of Canada wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
on November 10 graphically pointing out that the government
spends more than five times as much as Norway and ten times as
much as Iceland on fisheries administration even though both of
these countries catch more fish than Canada.
Will the minister admit that his department's spending on
fisheries administration is totally out of control and must be
drastically reduced if Canada's fishery is to remain viable and
competitive in the future?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do know a few things about fish. I will not make any
admission that the cost of administration within DFO is totally out
of control.
I know the member will want to carefully do his homework with
respect to making representations on behalf of the Fisheries
Council of Canada. What he should know is that the Fisheries
Council of Canada said that we should have a fishery more like
New Zealand. In New Zealand 73 per cent of all the quota available
in the whole country is held by only eight companies.
16619
If the Reform Party is seriously suggesting that some 64,000
fishermen ought to disappear so that eight corporations could hold
75 per cent of the quota, then the member should say so.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate
that the minister insists on spewing his bilge in the House rather
than answering questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am not sure about all the terms that are used in
fisheries and oceans, but I do not think that was very nice. I would
ask the hon. member to be a little more judicious in his words.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): I apologize, Mr. Speaker. We are not
talking about changing the structure of the Canadian fishery. We
are talking about getting the cost of administration under control.
The fisheries council states unequivocally that the minister's
plans to drastically increase access fees will make Canadian
fishermen even less competitive in world markets.
Will the minister commit to reducing spending in his department
by $50 million rather than saddling Canadian fishermen with
another $50 million in new access fees which are nothing more
than a tax?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member knows the difference between
bilge and bunk because what he is spewing now is bunk.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am not sure I understand but I would like the
hon. minister to get on with his answer.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a specific
question, will I cut the department of fisheries by $50 million? The
answer is no. I am cutting it by $250 million.
I want to advise the member that it is not the Fisheries Council of
Canada that speaks for the fishermen, it is the Harvesters Council.
We met them last Monday and the member should try doing the
same. Talk to a few fishermen once in a while.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Would the minister say whether the CPR consulted with or
advised the government before cutting 700 jobs in Montreal
yesterday and shifting its headquarters to Calgary? If so, what
reasons were given? Does the government have a plan to deal with
this additional loss of quality jobs in the Montreal area?
(1455)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows, the decision by CP Rail was one taken
by a private company. I have no knowledge of nor reason to believe
that the company or any of its directors either consulted or gave
information to the government in advance of that decision.
I point out that it is always regrettable when jobs are lost in any
community. However, if we are going to address the ability of the
private sector throughout Canada to create jobs we are going to
need to do it in a way that enhances and enables the private sector
to invest and thereby stimulate growth and jobs.
It would seem to me that it would be very advantageous for the
city of Montreal if the kind of co-operation that was offered by the
Government of Quebec was such that companies potentially
investing or staying in Quebec could feel that they were doing so in
an atmosphere of political stability and where they could have
confidence in seeing their investments grow and improve.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
There will be serious budget cuts in 1995-96 and 1996-97 for the
research funding councils. For instance, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council budget for that period will be cut by
$142.3 million.
Is the minister aware that cutting assistance to research carried
out outside federal laboratories will penalize Quebec most heavily,
because this is the type of federal merit-based research funding in
which Quebec receives a fair share?
[English]
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm to the
hon. member that decisions made by the granting councils, and in
particular the Natural Sciences and Engineering Granting Council
to which he referred, are taken impartially with reviewers from
across Canada in a way that is fair and recognizes excellence.
I am pleased to say that from the point of view of Quebec,
Quebec scientists and researchers are doing very well
competitively and, from the granting councils in general, they
receive their fair share and often very much more than that. It is a
good compliment to Quebec, under the circumstances, with the
granting councils operating fairly.
16620
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. In 1987, Wanda
Woodward was strangled by Daniel Gingras, a convicted murderer
who was out of prison on a birthday shopping pass.
Six years have passed since the family filed suit for damages
against the prison system. To date, the case has not been settled nor
has an apology been issued to the Woodward family.
Only a few weeks ago, the solicitor general eagerly defended
Correctional Services Canada for a $12,000 payout made to
convicted murderer John Lee because Lee was beaten up in jail.
If a criminal such as Lee is paid off so quickly and those actions
defended by the minister, why is he not coming to the defence of
the Woodward family and their plea for just compensation for their
daughter's murder?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when this matter was brought to my attention I began looking into
it. I can say that discussions are under way between the lawyers of
the Department of Justice and the lawyers for the plaintiff.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the
subject of land mines which kill or maim some 2,000 people every
month.
Mines Action Canada, Dr. Chris Giannou and others working for
a total Canadian ban on the stockpiling, production, export and use
of land mines welcomed the minister's recent statement supporting
these objectives.
Will the minister confirm the government's intention to
implement this important new policy? Will he also tell the House
when this new policy will take effect?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said on several occasions, the objective of the
Government of Canada is to eventually completely eliminate the
manufacture, export and use of land mines. There are, of course, a
number of countries doing this. This is why discussions are under
way in the UN to gain acceptance of this objective by all countries.
(1500)
Canada has already taken part in some meetings and will play an
extremely active role in the next, to be held in Geneva early this
coming January, in order to gain worldwide acceptance of the
objective we are pursuing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. It involves the
contracting out of household moving services for the furniture and
effects of employees of the federal government. The moneys
involved are in excess of $100 million annually.
Will the minister inform the House as to what steps he has taken
to ensure greater competition in awarding the moving contracts,
which will result in savings to the taxpayers of Canada?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, I have to tell the House
that the interdepartmental committee on household goods removal
has sought to deliver household goods in a more cost efficient
manner.
The committee, in consultation with industry and all members of
the House from four different parties, has developed an approach
that basically responds to and is approved by the Bureau of
Competition. It develops a strong potential for saving, increases the
level of competition and access by new entrants, and moderates the
implementation risks involved.
I am pleased to inform the House that this is a better method of
moving. I think it is agreed to by all members. I thank all those who
co-operated in the consultations.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw your attention to the presence in
the gallery of the Hon. Louise Dacquay, my sister Speaker of the
Manitoba Legislative Assembly.
Some hon. members: Hear. Hear.
* * *
The Speaker: This morning we had a point of order raised by
the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. The hon.
parliamentary secretary wants to speak to this point of order.
16621
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake and the point of order he raised this morning about the
government's lack of response to a report of the Standing
Committee on the Environment, I understand that the report of the
committee was a very lengthy one and involved 141
recommendations for change to the Environmental Protection Act.
That act is currently under review in light of the committee's
recommendations.
The government is preparing a response, but because of the
length of the report and the very complete report that was tabled by
the committee, it was unable to be completed for today. It is
anticipated that a response should be forthcoming within the next
couple of weeks.
I realize that the standing order requires tabling of a report
within a limited time, but rather than table a short or incomplete
report, which would not have answered all the committee's
concerns, the government chose to take extra time to do this. I
regret that this fact was not communicated to the House in advance
to warn hon. members so that the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake would not be in the position of asking
for this today.
I assure the House that the government will proceed with the
matter with dispatch. I hope I will be in a position to have the
Minister of the Environment here shortly, within a few weeks, to
table the government's response to this report.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have just a short response. First, I thank the hon. member
for his quick return with an answer to this very important question.
I appreciate the time he has taken today to bring the government's
response timetable to the attention of the House.
I wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Speaker's
ruling on a matter like this did indicate that it was disheartening
when a government missed a deadline.
(1505 )
The government committee that had studied this issue
previously said: ``If a document cannot be tabled within the
prescribed time, the responsible minister should advise the House
accordingly before the deadline. It is not acceptable that a deadline
is ignored''.
It should be very clear in the House that when the rules of the
House are put in place to aid and assist members of Parliament in
doing their jobs, the government has a responsibility to uphold
those rules. I believe very strongly that something has to be said to
the government and the minister responsible in this regard.
The deadline was missed. The government had an obligation to
come to the House prior to the deadline being missed. It is
unacceptable for them to have missed this deadline.
The Speaker: I think the point of order is well taken. I think the
hon. parliamentary secretary has given a response and a
commitment to the House that the information will be forthcoming
within the next few weeks.
I concur that the rules of the House should be adhered to and it is
regrettable when they are not. I hope that the explanation that was
given by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake at least in this particular case will
satisfy him.
The House has heard the commitment taken by the
parliamentary secretary. If that is acceptable to the House, I will
not rule on the point of order because it seems to have been
resolved at this point.
_____________________________________________
16621
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity
to share time with my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil, on this
Bloc Quebecois opposition day motion.
It is important to go over the words of this motion presented to
the House by the Bloc. They are condemning the government for
having dropped the Canadian content requirements in the contracts
for the purchase of military equipment and refusing to set up a
genuine program for the conversion of the military industry, thus
endangering the Canadian aerospace industry located in Montreal.
It is important for all Canadians to know, and specifically
Canadians from Quebec, people from Quebec who still believe in
Canada, and even the separatists for that matter, that it was a
Liberal government that basically set up the foundation of the
aerospace industry in the province of Quebec.
We only have to go back to when the current Prime Minister was
the minister of industry in 1977. As the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Commerce, he was the one who bought the rights for the
Canadair Challenger jet. That Canadair Challenger jet, which
started out as an executive jet, as we all know today is probably one
of the best commuter jets manufactured in the world. That industry
is alive and well in the province of Quebec, which is part of the
Bombardier Corporation.
We just need to go back to 1980-81, when the then Liberal
government under the direction and leadership of Pierre Elliott
Trudeau made a multi-billion dollar purchase of the F-18A fighter
aircraft and 80 per cent of the offsets in that fighter aircraft were
basically let out to the aerospace industry in Montreal.
16622
(1510 )
The history of and the commitment of the Liberal government to
the aerospace industry in the province of Quebec are well laid out.
There is a great commitment and there is great history. For the Bloc
Quebecois to suggest that we as a government are not committed to
supporting this industry is simply incorrect.
In the motion the Bloc Quebecois is saying that the government
dropped the Canadian content requirements. It is forgetting what
happened when many members of the government were in
opposition.
I would like to return to the free trade agreement. The leader of
the Bloc Quebecois supported the free trade agreement. Many of us
on this side of the House opposed the free trade agreement. One of
the reasons we opposed the free trade agreement was chapter 14,
which essentially gave people offshore unfettered access to and
unlimited control over the Canadian industry. As part of that
agreement, we now are prohibited from dictating Canadian content.
We have to remind the members of the Bloc Quebecois that they
cannot suck and blow at the same time. It is not possible. They
cannot stand up in the House to support the free trade agreement,
which essentially gives up our ability to dictate Canadian content,
and then come back three years later and condemn the government
for having dropped the Canadian content requirements. That is the
motion we have before us today.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois opposed the notion of
having control over Canadian content three years ago, and they are
regretting it today. It was the Liberal Party that opposed the free
trade agreement as it was negotiated by the previous government.
I have always believed that the auto pact was an example of a
negotiated trade agreement in which we could enshrine our
interests and our ability to ensure Canadian content. That was a
unique feature of the auto pact. However, we gave up the
opportunity to negotiate a similar agreement for the aerospace
industry.
It is very important for us to let Quebecers know that the Liberal
government is not opposed to the aerospace industry in Quebec
being a vibrant and healthy sector. The Liberal government will not
do anything to hurt the industry. If anything, we are going out of
our way to help it.
The question that was brought up by some Bloc Quebecois
members this morning is what is Quebec's fair share. The Canadian
space station is based in the province of Quebec. That is one of the
premier institutes of the industry. The commuter jet of Canadair is
being manufactured in Quebec. The maintenance of the F-18A, our
fighter aircraft, is being done in Quebec today. As a Toronto
member, an Ontario member, I have absolutely no difficulty with
that. It is a good move. By building a critical mass of expertise in
the province of Quebec in the aerospace industry we create a
capacity to bid on some available subcontracts, prime military
contracts available throughout the world.
(1515)
In other words, we obviously do not have the capacity to build
total military aircraft or total products in an off the shelf sense.
However, because of the component specialization that exists
within the aerospace industry in the province of Quebec, we can bid
on some component parts with any of the prime manufacturers not
only in the United States but anywhere in the world.
It is very important to make sure our fellow Canadians realize
this avenue of opportunity is available for people in the aerospace
industry in the province of Quebec.
It is true that in the past we were much more aggressive in
dictating Canadian content. However, because of the ability to
make a quality product at a competitive price, there is probably a
lot more opportunity in the aerospace industry in the province of
Quebec than Bloc members are giving it credit for.
As part of the new defence industry conversion program we are
trying to say to those people in the aerospace industry that although
we no longer give direct grants we will make sure we give them
marketing support. If they have a quality product in that sector at a
competitive price-and we certainly have an advantage because of
our Canadian dollar-then the secret would be centred in the whole
area of marketing. We have to market the aerospace industry in the
province of Quebec.
Rather than stand in the House today and cast doubt on the
ability of the aerospace industry to compete, we should be boasting
about the quality products made in the aerospace industry in the
province of Quebec and figuring out ways of doing things together.
The Speaker: I regret to inform the member that his time has
expired, but we have time for questions and comments if there are
any.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
opposition day, the debate is on a subject chosen by the Bloc
Quebecois, and I must say I have always had a special interest in
national defence.
There are a number of reasons why that is so, the main one being
that in my riding, we have an important entity that reports to the
Department of National Defence and I am, of course, referring to
the Bagotville Base.
The base is a major employer in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
area. Bagotville provides employment for more than 1,250 military
personnel and 280 civilians.
16623
(1520)
That alone makes it a major economic asset to a region that, need
I say it again, has the highest unemployment rate in Canada.
I am sure that the same could be said of other regions in Canada,
since there are always substantial economic spinoffs for a region
where a base is located. Many small industries gravitate around the
base itself and have often developed expertise in the defence
industry.
Cutting or downsizing at that level does not only affect National
Defence as such, it also affects small businesses in the vicinity.
There is cause for alarm when the federal government decides to
close part or all of its military infrastructures, since residents then
have to adjust their lives accordingly.
On February 22, 1994, the Minister of National Defence in this
government sent me the following letter, and I will read two
extracts: ``I regret to announce that the project to develop an air to
ground weapons range for CFB Bagotville in your riding has been
cancelled''.
The most important part of the letter is this: ``Although we
considered the importance of maintaining the balance of economic
and regional benefits, the decisive factor in making these difficult
decisions is as follows: they must be based on military and
economic considerations''.
The letter says: ``National Defence will work closely with other
departments and regional development agencies that will help
communities plan for the future''.
You may recall that subsequently, on July 10, 1995, the Minister
of National Defence replied as follows: ``There are plans to cut 305
military and 15 civilian positions in the 3rd Squadron at CFB
Bagotville. However, this information is only an estimate and
further changes may be made subsequently''. That probably means
additional cuts.
What surprises me is that following these cutbacks, the
Department of National Defence says it will work in close
co-operation with other government agencies to help these
communities plan their future. Well, despite the cuts in my area, we
have not seen and I have not sensed any willingness on the part of
other departments to get involved to deal with certain situations.
Certainly not. And of course a number of bills have been tabled in
the House, starting with the bill to establish the Department of
Human Resources Development, the department that is closing
employment centres. Employment centres are being closed while
the unemployment rate goes up.
We also have trouble retraining or providing new kinds of
training for people who have been laid off, and I am talking about
both the military and civilians.
(1525)
We must face the federal government's new choices. I think that
the government has forgotten that the economic development of
many communities is based on defence. When the federal
government decides to leave a region or change its equipment, it
should act a little more responsibly.
In the area of defence, a so-called responsible government
should focus on conversion. As my Bloc colleague said earlier, the
aerospace industry is one of the areas best suited for conversion.
Yet, it seems that this sector remains one of the most fragile in
Canada, at a time when several other countries have opted for
conversion.
The governments of all countries with significant aerospace
industries actively support this sector. One only has to think of
companies like General Dynamics in the U.S., which grew because
it received defence contracts from the U.S. government. The
governments of all these countries put in place major conversion
programs.
We, in Quebec, have expertise allowing us to believe in this
reality. We have engineering firms, architectural firms, trained
technicians who are ready to face these new challenges. In most
cases, the federal government's policy on projects requiring new
infrastructures is to go ahead without calling for tenders.
I am going to tell you something. Last week, the commander of
CFB Bagotville and I inaugurated a $2.8 million arena in my
riding. When this project was on the table, architectural and
engineering firms from outside Quebec were invited to prepare
plans and specifications, when we, in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, have construction firms that
can build massive dams like the James Bay project. Yet, they are
incapable of building a small arena for some 200 to 300 people, an
arena which has, of course, become very important for the military.
It is very important.
The question is not whether or not to have an arena, but rather
who will be the builders, architects and engineers involved. After
running around here, there and everywhere in various departments,
I managed to obtain that a firm from our area would at least be
allowed to submit a bit. Finally. Many thanks to the government
employee who told me: ``All right, Mr. Fillion, CEGERGO will be
invited to bid for building the arena''.
It was not a matter of favouring this particular firm over another,
but a matter of placing this firm on an equal footing, to at least give
the chance to a firm that is paying taxes to Canada and employing
hundreds of people to bid on an arena project.
16624
(1530)
The defence department, through its construction engineering
branch or what not, said the firm would be allowed to bid because it
had done some work in James Bay and built a 20-storey building in
Montreal. I guess they felt it had some credibility, so they decided
to accept it as a contender. Would you believe that the contract, a
turnkey contract, was eventually awarded to this very firm,
CEGERGO. Turnkey means that everything was run from the
office, using expertise from my region.
By going to tender, we give our regions a chance to develop. In
contracting however, it is important that everyone be given a
chance to compete. I am sure that we end up saving money this
way.
In the United States, between $4 billion and $6 billion is
allocated to conversion assistance in the Clinton plan. Of course,
their population is larger. In Europe also larger sums are invested in
this area. When you make an effort to look around and see what is
going on outside of Canada, you realize that, more and more,
Canada's track record as far as its aerospace industry is concerned
is not great.
In Canada, funding for programs designed to help the Canadian
defence industry was steadily cut year after year. We are told that a
great deal of streamlining is happening in terms of cuts to defence
spending, but at the same time people are left jobless. That is not
important. It is not important that, at some point, communities find
themselves in bad shape. However, they do not realize that, even
though cuts are being made in the defence budget, as well as in
other departments, Canadians have an increasingly heavier tax
burden. Try to make some sense out of that.
In the late 1980's, the budget was somewhere around $300
million. This year, in 1995-96, it is only $102 million and it is
constantly diminishing. The government does not care at all about
those who relied on the defence industry. As you know, the
aerospace industry plays a vital role in Quebec's economy. That is a
reality which we repeatedly stressed in this House. That industry is
important for many Quebecers, since the salaries paid in that sector
are quite good.
In 1993, close to 20,000 Quebecers worked in the aerospace
industry. Therefore, the federal government should increase its
research assistance in that field. In addition to increasing the
budgets allocated for research and development, Canada should
change its defence procurement policy regarding goods and
services as quickly as possible. This is all the more necessary,
given that the new policy no longer includes Canadian content
requirements, thereby jeopardizing the development, around each
and every base, of companies which have developed such
expertise.
(1535)
Given the federal government's lack of action, these companies
are forced to compete with foreign businesses, most of which are
heavily subsidized by their respective governments. This creates a
double standard. It is very difficult to be competitive when the
federal government reduces its subsidies. We are competitive in
terms of design and work, but we cannot compete at an economic
level since these foreign companies are subsidized by their
governments. Yet, we have the expertise. We provide quality
products and services.
How, then, can these businesses be competitive when the same
types of businesses elsewhere are heavily subsidized?
I can understand the concerns of the people who have built up
these businesses with their time and money and the sweat of their
brows. We need not be surprised if they also have to relocate
outside Canada in order to survive. There is no doubt whatsoever
that if Ottawa pulls out of funding research and development a lot
of people are going to be worried.
The Government of Quebec will be worried as well. The Quebec
minister of industry is committed to looking at ways his
government might offset the federal withdrawal. The federal
government, via the Department of National Defence, creates a
need and then when it finds itself no longer able to foot the bill
decides: ``Let us shift everything. The provincial government will
have to find some solutions''.
This is just another way of dumping responsibilities one has
assumed off onto the provincial government, withdrawing
gradually and leaving them to take up the slack.
In my opinion, this is not a responsible way for the federal
government to act. It must change its procurement policy in order
to foster the development of leading edge industries. We must take
a page from the book of other countries which encourage industrial
development.
I trust that this government will, in future, require a minimal
Canadian content when purchasing equipment.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to respond by making a comment on the hon.
member's presentation.
I congratulate him on coming from a great part of Canada, the
Chicoutimi area. I know the area quite well. I used to spend parts of
the summer there with my family staying at the Club de chasse in
Tadoussac. I fished on Lake Tadoussac at the mouth of the
Saguenay. It is a very beautiful part of the world.
16625
(1540)
With respect to the tenor of his comments, some of the things the
member said may sound sensible and logical. Perhaps in different
times we nurtured the idea of Canadian content when we could
afford it. It was a luxury. I point to the St. Laurent class destroyer,
to the DDH280 and to other acquisitions that had total Canadian
content, with some exceptions of boiler equipment and other
auxiliary machinery.
All countries are cutting back. In the course of my duties as
parliamentary secretary over the last two years I have had the
occasion to meet with the secretary of defense if the United States,
the minister of defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
minister of defence of Holland and other defence ministers. If there
is one thing we have in common it is that we are cutting back.
There is a peace dividend. The cold war is over. While we are
peacekeeping and fighting brush fires which are real wars in that
sense, the scale is different.
In the last decade the Department of National Defence has given
up $21 billion and 21,000 men and women in uniform, 45 per cent
of its civilian workforce. It has reduced the reserves from 29,000 to
23,000 in two years. We can no longer do what we used to do and I
did not find that factored into the equation presented by the hon.
member.
I know he did not intend to mislead. To talk about principles,
theories and things that would be nice if there were no limitation on
funding is one thing. However, if he would look at the reality of the
situation, at the issues that dictate procurement policy in national
defence, he might come up with a slightly different approach. I
want to ensure the hon. member has factored that into his equation.
It is the same with conversion. The answer to conversion is not a
massive infusion of money. Canada cannot afford that. Let us try to
do like other countries have done with initiatives and other ways of
doing it, as I suggested earlier in my presentation were presented
by the Minister of Industry and the minister of public works.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, first I think the hon. member should
come and visit the region before it closes down. As I said earlier,
we have a very high unemployment rate, and when you add all the
people who are on welfare, I think the government should go down
there and reassure these people. I would appreciate it if he came
down for a visit. I would be delighted to have him as a guest.
As for his comments, I must say that when they talk about
Canadian content and they tell us that when we had a lot of money,
we could afford Canadian content, we could give the people in our
regions something to hope for and tell them: ``Get into those fields,
start factories and small businesses and adjust to what is out
there''. Today, now there is nothing left, the government has
dropped the whole thing and we let others do the job.
If you consider all the government programs we have in this
country, I am sure we would be able to find the money to fund
defence conversion. There are so many programs.
In fact, the auditor general himself said today in one of his
reports that the Federal Office of Regional Development for
Quebec had spent $4.5 billion without knowing where it all went
and what it accomplished. In fact, this kind of money could be used
for programs to help develop this defence industry.
My point is, we should look at the various programs that exist
today, that are poorly managed and that cost us an awful lot in
terms of time, money, energy and interest, especially, and
accomplish absolutely nothing. We could give these industries a
special boost.
(1545)
In any case, if these industries are not given financial support,
they still remain competitive in terms of the products they
manufacture or the services they offer. And that is where the
answer lies. Because these businesses are competitive, we can
develop expertise, using programs that today are not accomplishing
a thing but could be reviewed and redirected to National Defence.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on the
Department of National Defence and the Canadian industrial base
as proposed by the official opposition.
[Translation]
This is the age of information, the age of rapid change. We are
not just talking about technological change, which most of us have
managed to keep up with over the course of the past ten years, but
about change in the very nature of the way people relate to each
other and the way things are done. With the fall of the Berlin wall,
we began a period of change more radical and intense than
anything we have known since the invention of the cold war.
[English]
I am here today to speak about those changes which affect the
relationship between DND and the defence industry and suggest a
view of what that new relationship may look like.
Actions in the world have caused a reaction in DND. Let me
trace the main actions and then the DND reaction. The first action
was the fall of the Berlin wall, which led to a reassessment of
Canadian defence concerns.
16626
The second action is the fiscal situation in the country. We have
a deficit and a significant debt. The negative effects of the
situation have been made clear to all of us over the past year.
There is now widespread agreement that this situation must be
revised through budget cuts.
The third action results from the need to reduce the number of
employees in the federal public service, including DND. This
results in a significant reduction in the workforce. All of these
actions affect DND, resulting in changed roles, reduced budgets
and reduced personnel.
[Translation]
Now let us have a look at the industry side. We can see that these
same events-the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reduction in military
personnel and budget cuts-have put considerable pressure on
Canadian industry and their export markets. This is the case,
specifically, for many of the companies involved in Canada's
defence industrial base, which we want to be able to count on in the
event of an emergency.
As for DND's reaction, it does not require a whole lot of
intelligence to realize that the department is no longer merely a
spectator in this age of change. It is a participant and must make its
own changes. DND must look after its affairs differently and
change its structure if it is to succeed in this new context.
(1550)
[English]
This need for change led to the defence white paper of December
1994. In general this document reconfirmed the need for
multi-purpose, combat capable sea, air and land forces to perform a
wide variety of tasks at home and abroad: the protection of
sovereignty and security; co-operation with the United States in the
defence of North America and contributions to peace and security
abroad.
In addition, the white paper indicated that to accomplish these
ends, DND would have to operate more efficiently and make
optimum use of equipment, infrastructure and human resources
specifically to focus on maintaining core capabilities, reduce and
refocus regular and reserve forces and the civilian workforce, to
reorganize the command and control systems and to purchase
affordable equipment.
The white paper also recognized the need for the department to
exchange or enhance its partnership with the private sector, work
toward harmonizing industrial and defence policies to maintain
essential industrial capabilities, transfer activities currently
conducted in-house to Canadian industry or to share them with
industry under various partnerships arrangements when a business
case of the same could be made, modernize and streamline
procurement process and in general to seek innovative ways to
support operational forces.
It must not only be said of the Canadian defence industrial base
that DND must adapt to the new circumstances but that our
industries must also do things in a different way with a different
structure if they hope to fulfil their corporate visions in the new
age.
It would be worthwhile to provide an overall context for the
Canadian defence industry through some relevant defence
statistics. Canadian defence spending is quite small compared with
that of other western nations. It is about 1.5 per cent of GDP.
Canadian defence and defence related industry accounts for little
more than 1 per cent of the gross domestic product and somewhat
less than 1 per cent of the Canadian labour force which equates to
between approximately 60,000 and 80,000 direct and indirect jobs.
With few exceptions like Bell Helicopter, CAE, the diesel
division of General Motors, Diemaco and Saint John Shipyard Ltd.,
our industry produces subsystems, components for niche markets
rather than complete systems. A Canadian defence industry is
highly specialized with particular strength in the areas of
aerospace, electronics and communications. This enables our
industries to be well positioned in the competitive process.
[Translation]
Canada's defence industry has the ability to diversify its
activities and to come to terms with niche markets, which augers
well for its future. As you can readily understand, Canada's
defence expenditures alone will not support Canada's current
defence industrial base. Our defence industry's survival and
prosperity depends on its selling or exporting dual purpose
commercial products.
I would now like to talk about the factors and new realities
governing relations between DND and the defence industry in
Canada. It is clear, on the one hand, that our present budget
precludes our supporting an industry base of the size we might have
had a few years ago. Funding additional resources is totally beyond
our present means.
(1555 )
[English]
Our desire today is for a sound Canadian defence industrial base
which optimizes the number of national sources of goods and
services available to support the Canadian forces during
operations.
In addition, the scenario for operations today for us and our
major allies is pretty much accepted to be ``come as you are''.
Under these conditions, our interests are best served by supporting
the overall health of a Canadian industrial base which includes a
broad range of technologies and support capabilities that we need.
16627
From another aspect, DND has the responsibility to recognize
the considerable impact which expenditures from the defence
budget have on the Canadian economy and the Canadian industrial
base.
DND must smoothly integrate other factors and government
program initiatives such as the development of dual use
technologies, demonstration of a peace dividend, defence industry
conversion, development of export markets and the like into its
procurement process.
Let me give some specific examples of our changing relations
with industry. Although DND's budget has been reduced, the
department remains committed to the goal of devoting a greater
share of defence expenditures to capital acquisition.
To maximize the return from these expenditures, the department
will be approaching its future capital procurement based on
principles such as the following. First, it will accelerate the shift to
off the shelf technology and commercial specs and standards.
Second, it will augment our reliance on the private sector in the day
to day support of commercial items. Third, it will seek to avoid
unique Canadian solutions that require expensive and risky
research development or modifications. Fourth, whenever possible
it will purchase equipment with performance which has been
demonstrated in the field.
As a result of the budget cuts and changes in thinking mentioned
earlier, it is only logical that the department will have to rely to a
much greater extent on the private sector to meet equipment
support needs of the Canadian forces in the future.
The trend will be government partnering with industry, that is
government seeking solutions from industry rather than dictating
solutions to industry. In addition, in order to allow Canadian firms
to increase their productivity and competitiveness, DND is looking
at how it can make doing business with government easier.
[Translation]
While both DND and the industry try to maintain a sufficient
industrial base, they are under considerable pressure and must
adapt to a completely different defence framework in industrial
terms. Exporting, which in the past was a way to compensate for a
low demand from Canadian forces, has become a double-edged
sword.
World over-supply and competition from the former eastern
block and Asian countries will create an increasingly competitive
market.
[English]
As defence budgets around the world began to shrink
significantly, there was much talk about the need to convert
military production to civilian or commercial production.
However, defence firms used to selling to one customer, the
government, find themselves ill-equipped for the commercial
market where tastes change rapidly.
The same problem of the conversion to the private sector market
was faced in the United States. The problem in defence downsizing
and conversion for the Canadian industry is much less significant
than that in other western industrialized nations.
As I stated previously, the Canadian defence industrial base is a
highly diversified one. In fact, only a handful of companies make
complete defence systems such as Oerlikon Aerospace and
Diemaco.
(1600 )
Also included in Canada's defence industry are several
companies that make complete dual use or commercial systems for
the global market, such as Canadair, CAE Electronics, and Bell
Helicopter; manufacturers that are primarily oriented toward niche
marketing and the exports of parts components and
sub-components, such as Pratt & Whitney Canada, Canadian
Marconi, and Allied Signal; and several repair and overhaul
contractors, such as IMP and CAE Aviation. As such, the Canadian
industry is well placed to respond to and weather the challenges
posed by defence downsizing.
Spar Aerospace, for example, has reduced its defence operation
and has increased its market diversity. At the same time, it has
vertically and horizontally integrated its operations by acquiring an
interest in Telesat Canada. Furthermore, it has acquired Comstream
and prior data giving an additional technology in the area of
satellite broadcasting and data compression as well as access to
additional markets.
Other companies, such as Computing Devices of Canada, have
chosen to remain in the defence market, realizing that there are still
many opportunities in the global defence market for competitive
high tech companies.
At this juncture I think it would be valuable to give an insight
into our assessment of what the major features of the defence
environment are likely to be. Broadly speaking, the following
characteristics will likely dominate. First, domestic procurement
expenditure by the Department of National Defence will not see
any appreciable increase and will decline across the board. Second,
the nature of what is bought and the size of the buys may change.
This could mean a move toward non-leading edge technology in
weapon systems and an increase in demand for repair and overhaul
items, thereby placing greater emphasis on services. Third, there
will be an excess capacity in the worldwide defence sector. Finally,
competition will grow, and worldwide protectionist tendencies will
be more difficult to maintain under the world trade agreement.
16628
The preceding features will affect government and industry
equally. However, the appropriate response to the new defence
environment will need to take into account the complementary but
unique role each plays.
Let me deal with industry first. The rationalization of a North
American defence industrial base will likely conform to the
following scenario.
First, there will be a gradual movement out of the defence sector,
particularly on part of those marginal firms that only entered the
defence business to take advantage of the increased DND
procurement activity and for which defence sales have always been
a marginal aspect of their sales. The pressure to exit may be offset
to some extent by the growth in the use of dual-use technologies,
giving rise to new marketing opportunities for the businesses.
Second, while still searching out export markets firms that
remain in defence sales will probably reduce still further the
portion of their business activity devoted to defence.
Third, there will be an increase in strategic downsizing, merger,
and joint venture activities. We must try to reduce risks and offset
unit cost increases. We have seen a great deal of evidence of this
with major U.S. contractors already. Firms are selling off
unprofitable divisions to concentrate on core expertise in particular
systems or acquiring competitors' divisions to remove former
competitors and emerge as centres of expertise.
Fourth, product lines will be re-evaluated in terms of the civilian
and military mix. Extra efforts will be made to respond where
possible to the new demands for innovative products.
Finally, there will be a renewed emphasis on technology based R
and D.
In spite of the difficult international environment that lies in
wait, the bottom line is that the Canadian defence industry has been
successful to a significant degree because of its outward business
approach.
On the government reactions, the Canadian defence industrial
base plays an important role in meeting the peacetime and wartime
requirements of the Canadian forces. As such, we ignore the health
of Canadian industry at our peril. The role of the government in
management of change in the industrial base falls into three
categories. First is the maintenance of a suitable trade environment
for Canadian industry. Second is to select support through
established programs or specialized assistance where warranted for
critical operational requirements. Third is enhancing the
Canada-U.S. material co-operation.
(1605)
In giving the House a brief overview of how the department is
responding to current challenges, I need to stress two factors. First,
DND's resources are finite. It cannot simply throw money at the
problems faced by industry, as the essence of its corporate problem
is a significantly reduced fiscal framework in which to operate.
Second, the fact that much of Canadian industry is focused on sales
abroad, to the U.S. in particular, presents DND and the government
with a unique policy challenge. A substantial degree of vitality of
Canadian industry and its ability to support our operational needs is
strongly influenced by developments in the U.S. Our industrial
base planning must take this unusual situation into account.
DND must smoothly integrate factors and government program
initiatives such as development of dual-use technologies and
demonstration of a peace dividend, defence industry conversion,
and development of export markets and the like into its
procurement processes.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to let you know that I will share my time with my colleague
from Terrebonne, who will join the debate in a moment. I
understand that I will have ten minutes to make my point.
To start with, I will say that this morning, when I came back
from Montreal, I turned on the parliamentary channel and watched
the debate on the motion before us now. I was surprised to see that
my Reform and Liberal friends were questioning the legitimacy of
the motion we moved in this House today.
Some were claiming that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was
going to be the premier of Quebec, others that my colleague from
Charlesbourg was basically guilty of insurgency. I could not help
but remember why I was elected to Ottawa. It should not be
forgotten that Quebecers pay $29 billion a year to Ottawa, and that
in return they are entitled to services at an equivalent level.
With regard to today's debate, which in a sense is the history of
the Canadian content requirement in defence spending, it should be
noted that for decades Quebec has not been given its fair share by
the defence department. For the past ten years, the shortfall has
been $600 million a year.
I believe that as elected members from Quebec we have every
right to move such a motion, which is perfectly legitimate, to boot.
I had a look at statistics. We know that for a long time now the
Saint-Jean area-and the Montreal area for that matter since
Saint-Jean is part of the Montreal region-has been the victim of
this kind of shortfall, which translates in terms of job loss.
I have the statistics right here. From 1990 to 1994, we lost 7,800
jobs out of a total of 13,900. I believe that in the current difficult
context, these jobs would be very valuable.
In my own riding, we too are victims. I do not wish to belabour
the point, but I will remind the Liberal Party of the terrible blow it
dealt Saint-Jean when it closed the royal military college. This
16629
represents a $32 million loss for our economy every year. Believe it
or not, this college was the most efficient, which means that it was
less expensive to train officer cadets in Saint-Jean than in Kingston
or Royal Roads.
In spite of that, the Liberal government decided to close the
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Thirty-two million dollars; it
was the most efficient and the most bilingual military college.
We all know that the Canadian Parliament often boasts of its
ideology and its policy on bilingualism. Pierre Elliott Trudeau
himself, not the greatest advocate of Quebec I must admit, came in
person to Saint-Jean and said that the college was the greatest proof
that bilingualism could succeed. Nonetheless, in its last budget, the
liberal party closed the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
Another inequity I would like to point out today is directly
related to the debate and the issue at hand; I am talking about
Oerlikon.
(1610)
The Oerlikon case is another example of inequity towards
Quebec and Saint-Jean. We all remember that the minister
announced, August 16, that he was planning to award a two billion
dollar contract to General Motors for the manufacture of armoured
personnel carriers. At the time-I remember it well-the minister
explained that the situation in London, Ontario was urgent. He said
that they were almost out of contracts in London and that, since it
was the centre of expertise for armoured vehicles, he had to award
the contract to GM without any call for tenders. Why did the
minister say that? Because it was also a centre of expertise. He said
that no other plant in Canada could build better armoured vehicles
than GM in Ontario.
Once again, the minister and the Liberal Party were forgetting
Quebec.
The hon. member just mentioned the case of Oerlikon and I hope
he is listening to me in the lobby. The Oerlikon situation is clearly
unfair in this regard since out of the $2 billion contract for
armoured personnel carriers about $500 to $600 million will be
used for the gun turret. It happens that Oerlikon Canada is the
centre of expertise for turrets in Canada.
Of course, General Motors said: ``Listen, you are giving us a
whole contract and you must understand that we have affiliates''.
Among others, there is one in Santa Barbara, called Delco, which is
specialized in gun turrets. Therefore, GM seems to be saying: ``You
give us the $2 billion contract and we will subcontract to whoever
we want''. And as good capitalists and good business people, they
give the subcontract to Delco of Santa Barbara, California. So you
can see the impact of the department's decision on the Canadian
content and on Quebec which, once again, is being excluded.
Canadian taxpayers are going to pay a $2 billion bill and almost
half the money will be used to create jobs in the U.S., in Santa
Barbara, California. I think this goes against the Liberal program
which we all read so carefully during the election campaign and
which said in English: ``Jobs, jobs, jobs'' and in French: ``Emplois,
emplois, emplois''.
At the first opportunity it had, the government cut the jobs and
sent them to California, saying to Canadian workers: ``You pay
your taxes to Ottawa and as for you, Quebecers, send $29 billion to
Ottawa and you will get $600 million less''.
We have here an opportunity to compensate for this shortfall for
one year, since the contract is worth some $500 million to $600
million, but the Liberal Party is missing this opportunity. I find this
totally deplorable because it shows a double standard.
If we recognize GM in London, Ontario as a centre of expertise
for armoured vehicles, why do we not also recognize Oerlikon as
the Canadian centre of expertise on turrets? We find this hard to
explain. As a buyer, the government should use all the means at its
disposal and ask General Motors in Ontario to have the turrets
made by Oerlikon in Saint-Jean, the Canadian centre of expertise
on turrets.
Lobby groups are at work. A number of people are trying to
convince the federal government that my arguments are valid, but
the government is not budging. Even the Bloc Quebecois has raised
several questions on this issue, but all the minister can say is,
``Submit your bids to GM and I might be able to talk to them,
perhaps we will see if your bid is the best''.
The federal government could even use this as an excuse to back
out, because Oerlikon executives claim that they have sufficient
expertise to carry out the contract for less than Delco in Santa
Barbara. Although this would save Canadian taxpayers money, the
minister continues to turn a deaf ear. I find this totally
unacceptable.
If at least the minister said, ``Look, Canadian content
requirements have been reduced; they are no longer mandatory. So
let us award the armoured personnel carrier contract to General
Motors in London and call for bids on the turret contract in a way
that is open and fair to everyone''.
(1615)
Even then, Oerlikon claims that it could do better than Delco any
day. I visited the plant, and it is true that asking them to make
turrets for armoured vehicles is like asking a Ferrari plant to build
Volkswagens. They are perfectly capable of performing the task.
16630
They are already producing Ferraris. The Ferrari of turrets are
produced in Saint-Jean.
Now they want the Volkswagen turret to equip the new armoured
vehicles to be sent elsewhere, claiming that General Motors was
awarded the whole contract and that nothing more can be done
because they do not want to interfere too much. They say: ``Delco
also makes them. Why meddle in this business. We just want to
give the contract to GM and have nothing else to do with it''. It
think that this is utterly unfair to the Saint-Jean area and for Quebec
as a whole.
Oerlikon has been lobbying extensively in the past little while.
In fact, I think that the company's president is here, in Ottawa,
today in a further attempt to make the government see reason. I
also think that those involved were quite forceful, because
perseverance did not get us anywhere so far. There are people who
try, day in and day out, to get across to the department that the
arguments I just mentioned are valid. Unfortunately, the federal
government is apparently doomed because, any time it
contemplates giving something to Quebec, it takes longer to make
a decision than it normally does for any other part of Canada.
It certainly did not take the minister very long to decide to award
the contract to GM. In no time flat, he decided: ``I must help GM. It
is a centre of excellence and short of contracts.'' As far as
Saint-Jean and Quebec are concerned, that is another story.
That is why I take this opportunity today to try to show, once
again, that this is unfair and that it is no too late to make it right. I
ask the Liberal government and all my government colleagues to
impress on the minister responsible that Canadian taxpayers, and
indirectly, Quebec taxpayers, stand to save money. The minister
should take his responsibilities and give Oerlikon the same
consideration he gave GM when awarding GM the contract. We are
dealing with two centers of expertise and potential savings to the
taxpayers.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks which I
listened to with great interest.
I want him to know I have quite a bit of sympathy for his
comments on the closing of Collège Saint-Jean. It is indeed a
beautiful military college with a great history and tradition. I want
to remind him that the government in closing Saint-Jean also
closed Royal Roads in British Columbia. A lot of my family live in
Victoria and I know Royal Roads very well. It was a very fine
military college with a great tradition.
All Canadians feel pain when cost cutting affects jobs and the
people of our regions. I sympathize with the Bloc member and all
Bloc members when they bring that kind of position forward in the
House. However I would submit to my hon. colleague that the
government did approach this matter, certainly in the closing of the
colleges over which it did have control with great equality of spirit.
Is the hon. member familiar with Royal Roads? Can he speak
with the same passion about this college near Victoria as he does
with Collège Saint-Jean? Does he not agree that however
unfortunate it was to close Collège Saint-Jean and Royal Roads
given that we had more college space than we needed in these cost
cutting times, the government really acted very responsibly and
with a sense of fairness?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving
me an opportunity to elaborate, particularly on the issue of
unfairness. There is unfairness at two levels. The first level is
rather ideological in nature and has to do with culture and
language. Saint-Jean was the main route for young francophones
interested in becoming officers in the Canadian forces.
(1620)
Closing the military college in Saint-Jean-and we have news
from Kingston today-will have an impact on the number of young
francophones in the Canadian forces. If I had more time, I would
give you figures which show that, already, this decision has had
such an impact.
But I want to go back to the financial issue raised by the hon.
member. It is true that Royal Roads was also closed. But, again,
there is an injustice related to the compensation given to the two
military colleges. Saint-Jean, which had an annual budget of $39
million, was given $5 million for each of the next five years. Royal
Roads, which had an annual budget of $19 million, was given the
same compensation.
So, Royal Roads, a college half the size, with half the budget and
half the number of officer cadets, gets the same compensation as
Saint-Jean. Not only is it unfair to close the military college in
Saint-Jean because it is the main route for francophones interested
in becoming officers in the Canadian forces, but there is also an
economic injustice in that the compensation of $5 million per year
given by the federal government is the same for both institutions,
even though one had an operating budget twice the size of the other.
Saint-Jean should have received $10 million per year, considering
the size of the two institutions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate, with the
second half of the twenty minutes allocated now being shared with
the hon. member for Terrebonne.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to make the House aware of the importance the Bloc Quebecois
16631
attaches to defence conversion. This is the main reason why we
selected it for our opposition day. It is important in Quebec and it is
important in my region. I should point out that I have SNC
Technologies in my riding, a munitions plant, and its employees are
extremely worried about federal government inaction on defence
conversion.
Before addressing the matter we are looking at today directly, I
would like to take this opportunity to denounce the Canadian
Armed Forces' lack of respect for francophones in its ranks. Last
February 22, the Office of the Commissioner for Official
Languages followed up on numerous complaints about the lack of
compliance with the Official Languages Act in the Canadian
Armed Forces. Its letter stated that there would be an investigation
to compare the situation of francophones in Moosejaw and that of
anglophones at Bagotville. The report was to be submitted within a
few weeks of the February letter. Nearly a year later, the report is
still secret, despite the Access to Information Act, probably
because the conclusions do not put the government in a very good
light.
All we are asking is for the investigation to be made public, first
of all, and then for them to comply with their own legislation. Now,
back to the key point of this debate, defence conversion; this must
be looked at on the world scale, but also in Quebec, primarily the
Montreal area, and in Canada. The situation is not a very
comfortable one. With the end of the cold war, defence industries
everywhere in the world are in a crisis situation. The market,
estimated to be in excess of $450 billion, dropped 10 per cent
between 1987 and 1994. This slump is far from over; according to
the international experts, there might be another drop of some 25
per cent within the next few years, which is why it is important to
have an eye to the future in this sector.
The result of this crisis in the industry has been major job losses
world wide. For example, 700,000 jobs have been lost in the USA,
and 600,000 in Europe. In Quebec and in Canada we are far from
being protected from the inroads being made upon the defence
industry world wide. In Quebec alone, sales figures in the defence
sector dropped 48 per cent between 1987 and 1992. During that
same period, lower defence sales resulted in the disappearance of
11,000 of the 57,000 jobs directly linked to defence.
As I have already stated, there is a company in my riding whose
500 employees are worried at the lack of action. Considering the
situation in the defence industry, there are two other points that
must be taken into consideration.
(1625)
First, we must remember that jobs lost in the defence industry
are jobs in a sector with a very high concentration of advanced
technology. The jobs that disappear are high calibre, lucrative
positions. In fact, salaries paid in the aerospace industry, which
plays a major role in the defence industry, tend to be 24 per cent
higher than the average salary in Canadian industry. Twenty-four
per cent is a lot.
Second, we must consider the fact that these changes in the
defence sector are particularly hard on Quebec, where a major part
of Canada's defence industry is located. This is not partisan
politics. This is the truth. Because of the way the industry is
distributed within the province, these changes come down hard on
the Montreal region which is the driving force of Quebec's
economy.
In other words, a lack of federal programs to help the defence
industry whether this crisis will be particularly damaging for
Quebec and weaken the ability of Quebecers to make advanced
technology one of the strengths of their economy.
I am referring here to sectors like telecommunications and the
aerospace industry, where we have to do everything we can to
promote development and provide a solid basis for competitive
growth in the long term. If we want to build this solid basis for the
future, it is important to help the defence industry negotiate the
rough spots it is experiencing today. This can be done partly by
helping the industry adjust to changing conditions, something the
government has failed to do.
For instance, we could provide incentives for defence producers
to develop civilian applications of their products.
Since the defence industry uses advanced technology which
benefits the economy as a whole, it would make sense for the
government to have programs that provide incentives for defence
conversion, which is already the case in other countries.
In the United States, the Clinton plan provides between 4 and 6
billion dollars worth of funding for defence conversion. In Europe,
largely thanks to the KONVER program, hundreds of millions of
dollars are invested for this purpose.
And then Canada. Does this country have a program similar to
the European and American programs that focus on defence
conversion? Unfortunately, it does not.
The only program that comes close is DIPP, which has been
around for several years, and it certainly does not focus exclusively
on defence conversion.
Its purpose is also to support companies that work in the defence
industry, especially in aerospace and avionics, and to facilitate and
consolidate R&D activities in these companies. It also focuses on
setting up networks of suppliers of derivatives and components for
these sectors and promoting investment and exports in
manufacturing sectors with a high added value.
The purpose of the program is to help defence industries remain
competitive on world and Canadian markets. It provides companies
in the defence sector with incentives to continue their activities. It
is only in recent years that part-and it must be remembered that it
is only a small part-of the budget for this program has been
allocated to promoting defence conversion.
16632
Here, we could perhaps point out that expenditures under the
DIPP program have a major economic impact. Every dollar spent
under the program is estimated to produce more than $40 worth
of economic benefits. We must not forget that, through its strong
participation and dynamic role in the defence industry, Quebec
enjoys a significant amount of these benefits.
This therefore is the only federal program with a goal of defence
conversion, even though it may be both limited and inadequate.
While the program does not entirely serve the needs of conversion,
it could at least serve as a basis for the work needed in this area. It
is simply a basis requiring constant work, but at least it is
something. Even the Liberals promised to face the challenge of
defence conversion in their famous red book. They have forgotten
in the meantime, as everyone will agree.
They acknowledged, and I quote: ``The defence industries today
employ directly and indirectly over 100,000 Canadians. The end of
the Cold War puts at risk tens of thousands of high-tech jobs''.
They promised in the red book, and I quote once again: ``A Liberal
government will introduce a defence conversion program to help
industries in transition from high-tech military production to
high-tech civilian production''.
(1630)
This then was a promise to build on the existing program to help
the sector through its difficult times. Where is it at today?
Forgotten, gone, like most of the other promises the other party
made.
Looking at the record to date, we see that the benefits derived
from the defence industry are substantial for Quebecers and
Canadians, but that the industry is facing a serious crisis. Some
adjustments must be made. Conversion of a significant portion of
the defence industry to civilian production would help us keep and
develop high calibre jobs. Other countries have taken on this
challenge, as I mentioned earlier.
In Canada however the federal government has not, truth be
known, managed to respond coherently to the problem, despite
empty promises-something that does not surprise us. The only
reaction to the crisis in the defence industry up to now has been a
few adjustments to an existing program and cuts to it, on top of
everything else. And yet, the Liberals had promised much more to
help the industry survive this crisis.
Despite the logic of providing more active support for defence
conversion, the Liberal government has not kept its promises. The
DIPP budget is in free fall. It reached its peak in 1989-90 at over
$300 million. In 1994-95, the figure was less than $144 million.
New cuts are expected for 1995-96. The DIPP will then amount to
only $102 million, a 66 per cent reduction over six years, at a time
when business is facing a serious crisis.
These cuts will only continue, and the 1997-98 budget should
drop to only $24 million. In fact, the program no longer accepts any
new projects, and the government is honouring only the
commitments it has already undertaken. This is a funny way for the
government to keep its promise to facilitate defence conversion, do
you not agree?
At a time when the industry needs it more than ever, the
government is drastically reducing its participation. Its budget cuts
are placing an enormous burden on Quebec. While Quebec
businesses received $168 million in 1989-90, this amount dropped
to $80 million in 1992-93. This is quite disturbing for the people
who work in this sector in Quebec and in the Montreal region.
In conclusion, I think that so far the federal Liberal government
has behaved inappropriately and irresponsibly by promising
assistance while at the same time cutting back on the defence
conversion program. This is a Machiavellian way of looking at
things and avoiding the problems by shoving them aside to make
them disappear. The time has come to initiate an honest program to
face the real, global crisis everyone recognizes. The government
must act now.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. He talked
about the cold war and the many jobs available during the cold war.
He seemed saddened by the fact that those jobs have disappeared
now that the cold war has come to an end. I would like to ask him if
the economic solution, according to the Bloc, is to go on with cold,
hot and lukewarm wars and to have jobs that support wars and
conflicts around the world.
Does he really believe that the key to a prosperous economy is to
perpetuate conflicts throughout the world and base our economic
future on arms sales?
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I feel like laughing. Where I come
from, we say of a nice action or activity that it is a good show. I
would say to the hon. member across the way that she is missing a
good show. She has missed good, coherent speeches.
(1635)
Most of all, I would like to remind her of her party's promises.
You said, my dear colleague, ``The defence industries today
employ directly and indirectly over 100,000 Canadians''. You
wrote, ``The end of the Cold War-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I simply wish to
remind members that they should address their comments to the
Chair.
Mr. Sauvageau: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberal Party wrote, ``The end of the Cold War puts at risk
tens of thousands of high-tech jobs''. This does not come from us
but from the red book. I say through you that I hope the hon.
16633
member agrees. The Liberal Party also wrote that it would
``introduce a defence conversion program to help industries in
transition from high-tech military production to high-tech civilian
production''.
The purpose of the Bloc Quebecois's opposition motion is
simply to remind the Liberal Party of its red book promises. We
have never, ever said that we wanted other conflicts. This is totally
unrealistic and does not make any sense.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Ridiculous.
Mr. Sauvageau: We heard the word ``ridiculous''.
But it is important to recognize that other countries are putting in
place defence conversion policies while Canada is cutting
conversion budgets.
I think this is a serious problem. We must stop treating this
matter lightly and start asking serious questions.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I enlighten the colleague who has just
spoken on this issue to what has been occurring in the industry of
which the motion speaks. He and his colleagues certainly seem not
to be as familiar with the industry as I would have expected them to
be.
It is somewhat suitable that we are having this debate the day
after Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield returned from a very
successful aerospace mission. It is also interesting to note that
RADARSAT was launched very recently. I seem to recall that the
city of Montreal was somehow involved in the launching of
RADARSAT into space. One of the things members opposite might
do is to watch events in Montreal and to be a little more familiar
with the ways in which Montreal companies and other companies
in Quebec are participating in this very prosperous industry.
Quite simply, the Bloc Quebecois has it wrong. The hon.
member for Charlesbourg who proposed this motion would have
this House believe there is no conversion of the military industry to
civilian production and that the Montreal companies in the
aerospace industry are facing hard times as a result. Perhaps he and
his colleagues were not listening when this House debated defence
conversion on May 5, 1994. Perhaps they did not participate in the
debate or perhaps the Bloc Quebecois simply wants to stir up the
pot, any pot. Let me give the member some of the facts.
First, the Canadian aerospace industry is already well on the road
to converting from military to civilian applications.
[Translation]
Montreal companies have been in the forefront of this trend and
provide excellent examples of firms that have managed to win a
niche in the international aerospace industry while at the same time
remaining competitive.
Here are statistics that are well known in the Montreal aerospace
sector.
In the 1980s, 70 per cent of the sales of the aerospace and
defence industry were for military use, and 30 per cent for
commercial use.
(1640)
Today, the mix is reversed, with sales of military equipment
down to 30 per cent while sales of commercial products have gone
up to 70 per cent. And the commercial component keeps growing.
Soon the civilian, commercial component will account for 80 per
cent of Canada's defence and aerospace sales.
If the hon. member took a closer look at the Montreal industry,
he would realize that these statistics reflect the reality and see how
Montreal aerospace firms run the entire range of commercial
aerospace design and manufacture.
Is the hon. member interested in final assembly of aircraft? He
should look at Bombardier and Canadair. They specialize in
commuter aircraft. Perhaps the hon. members across the way
should think about that before they raise the issue of defence
industry orientation.
Does the hon. member want examples of Montreal firms that
design and manufacture helicopters? There is Bell Helicopter
Textron.
Landing gears? Héroux Inc. Does he want to know more about
world class aircraft engine designers and manufacturers? He need
only remember that Canada is a world leader in the manufacturing
of small commercial turbo fan engines. One of the leading
manufacturers is, of course, Pratt and Whitney. Most of the
company's R&D is on advanced materials, which can be used for
any number of commercial purposes.
For avionics systems, the hon. member need only think of
Canadian Marcony.
Finally, if the hon. member for Charlesbourg and the other hon.
members who have taken part in the debate today want information
about flight simulators, they should talk to CAE Electronics Ltd.
They will learn that not only are this company's simulators used for
commercial as well as military aviation, but CAE has begun
drawing on its flight simulator technology to enter into the health
field.
These Montreal-area companies are world renowned for the
quality of their design. They have built a solid reputation in serving
particular niches in commercial aerospace.
16634
[English]
I certainly hope members opposite are listening. The Montreal
industry has prospered because it is part of a broader Canadian
aerospace sector.
Once again, let the hon. member look at the facts about the
aerospace industry in Canada. We have the sixth largest aerospace
industry in the world. In 1994 aerospace sales were $9.6 billion and
the industry employed 53,000 people. The Aerospace Industry
Association of Canada estimates that the sector will add more than
$8 billion to Canada's GDP from exports in the coming year. The
aerospace sector continues to be the one high tech industry where
Canada maintains a consistent trade surplus, which was $2.5 billion
last year. Let us go back one more year where more detailed
statistics are available.
(1645 )
In 1993 total Canadian sales of aircraft components and related
products and services were $7 billion, of which almost $5 billion
were exports. Quebec firms accounted for over $4 billion of the $7
billion worth of sales, representing 60 per cent of the total sales of
the Canadian aerospace industry.
Almost 200 aeronautics firms with approximately 25,000 people
are located in Quebec. The companies and the employees clearly
have a major interest in the continuing success of the aerospace
industry.
What are the keys to success? How did we reach the position
where Canada is a world leader in aerospace? There are many
reasons. I am sure hon. members across the floor would be happy to
list some of them. The skills of our workforce across the country
including Montreal, the quality of our educational institutions and
the high standard of living that attracts people from around the
world are characteristics of the industry and of the country.
[Translation]
But one of the most important reason for the success of the
aerospace industry in Montreal is one that Bloc members will never
mention or recognize, even though they must realize that it is the
truth. They will have to agree that one of the major reasons why the
Montreal aerospace industry has become a world leader in the
commercial aerospace sector is the benefits of a strong and united
Canada.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to thank the hon. member for Ottawa West for being so enthusiastic
in showing how dynamic Quebec aerospace industries are, and for
being so accurate in reading the directory of aerospace industries
located in the Montreal region. I do not think the hon. member
missed a lot of them, he inventory is excellent.
However, I want to ask her two very simple questions. There is a
federal defence conversion program called DIPP. I would like to
know the budget of that program and whether the Liberal
government intends to increase or reduce that budget in the coming
years.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member will
realize that I am not the Minister of Industry, that I am not his
parliamentary secretary, and that I am not a member of the standing
committee on industry. Consequently, I do not have the budget
figures in my head. However, I can reassure the hon. member. I
mentioned the case of CAE Electronics, in Montreal. The member
may not be aware that this company recently received $5 million
from the federal government for a project.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a comment and a clarification to the deputy whip. I
have some figures regarding the so-called vitality of aerospace
industries in the Montreal region. I will simply tell the hon.
member that, from 1990 to 1994, 7,391 direct jobs were lost in 30
companies, including 6,684 in the following eight companies
alone: Paramax, Expro, Marconi, MIL Davie, Vickers, SNC, Pratt
& Whitney, and Bendix. Again 6,684 jobs were lost in these eight
companies over a four-year period.
The aerospace industry is in fact experiencing a definite decline.
The 7,000 people who lost their jobs are certainly not proud of the
alleged vitality of that industry.
(1650)
I would also add that, if these companies have somehow
managed to expand and gain an international reputation, it is not
thanks to federalism but, rather, in spite of it.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my
colleague across the way that it is Canada which has a good name
worldwide in the aerospace industry, not the province of Quebec. I
might point out to him as well, perhaps, that about half of the jobs
in the aerospace industry are in the province of Quebec, and that 60
per cent of aerospace industry sales are in Quebec.
If he were properly acquainted with the industry, he would know
very well that it has always been constantly, frequently and rapidly
changing, and has always had its ups and downs. In general, the
industry has continued to improve, to grow, to step up its sales
everywhere in the world and Quebec has played a very important
role in this success.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Ottawa West has been accusing us for a while now of
not knowing our own program, of not being familiar with the
issues. We are not, however, speaking only of the aerospace
industry, but rather of defence conversion in our opposition
motion. A while ago, I asked a question about DIPP budgets and
she replied-this is not really an accusation-that she did not have
all the figures.
16635
I would simply remind her that, as the result of our efforts, the
budget has been cut 66 per cent over the past two years, a two
thirds reduction. Moreover, we plan to bring it down from $220
million to $24 million for 1997-98. So, I am reminding her of the
figures. At the same time, the program set out in the Liberal red
book indicated that investments in defence conversion would be
a priority.
Mr. Speaker, does the member not see a dichotomy between the
reality of short-term abolition of DIPP and the red book promise to
invest in defence conversion? I am not speaking of Montreal
aerospace companies, but of a defence conversion program in
conjunction with a promise about the defence industry and a
reality.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is precisely because
of the change in the world context, referred to by my colleague
previously, that programs must be changed. DIPP was a program
for the defence industry and is perhaps not appropriate in the
current context.
We have taken some very significant steps to improve the
situation, particularly in the very important small and medium size
industries, promoting world trade which is very important for this
sector of the industry; another very important thing we are doing is
promoting specific programs for small and medium businesses. I
think that the fact that a program has existed in the past does not
necessarily mean it is the program for the future, and in this case
DIPP was useful in the past when military sales were more
substantial than they are today.
(1655)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before debate resumes,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt-Department of National
Defence; the hon. member for Rosedale-Cuba; the hon. member
for Davenport-nuclear weapons; the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canadian Wheat Board.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have great difficulty accepting the proposition that the province of
Quebec has suffered a disproportionately low share of defence
spending over the years. I would aver that the greatest threat to the
Montreal aerospace industry is the unstable economic climate that
has resulted from the group of politicians who are trying to take
their province out of the Canadian federation.
Canada's aerospace industry, for example Bombardier of
Montreal and Bell Helicopter of Mirabel, has graduated from being
a one-product firm or branch plant to becoming full fledged
industry players capable of manufacturing a full range of aircraft.
This growth has placed even greater pressure on federal research
and development support and new aerospace project start ups cost
hundreds of millions of dollars. This may not be a large amount of
money by global aerospace industry standards which are heavily
subsidized, but the Canadian government has heavy debt and heavy
deficits and there are insufficient funds to go around.
As for Quebec, in the 1960s the Pearson Liberal government
moved the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal
for political reasons. Later the Progressive Conservative
government gave the F-18 maintenance contract to Montreal for
political reasons, despite the fact that Bristol Aerospace of
Winnipeg had submitted the lowest bid and the best bid.
Regional balancing efforts are still apparent and even now
industry rivals are positioning themselves for the best shot to bid
for the new helicopters. In the human resources minister's riding,
the consortium of Westland Group PLC and Agusta SPA is trying to
sign up Bristol Aerospace's Winnipeg operation.
When proposals were placed before the Liberal cabinet to
purchase the much needed helicopters, submarines and armoured
vehicles, they were stalled when regional pressures came into play.
The government must realize by now that it made a mistake in
cancelling the EH-101 contract. It is now trying to do a balancing
act to work out communications plans to announce which province
will get what specific work from contracts for military hardware.
For example, the armoured personnel carrier contract going to
General Motors of London, Ontario, has been balanced with the
Montreal workshop being given the contract to refurbish the M-113
armoured personnel carriers, even though the whole contract might
better have gone to New Brunswick. This is regional pork
barrelling and represents the essence of old style politics. However,
poor political decisions and poor planning must be corrected and
the armoured personnel carrier purchase starts in this direction.
Canadian soldiers have for too long been placed at risk because
of inadequate equipment. Our well trained, combat capable and
highly respected peacekeepers have been sent to war zones
outfitted with decades old equipment, some dating from the second
world war.
Morale is affected because the troops feel abandoned by their
senior leadership who seem to be more interested in pleasing their
political masters than taking care of their troops. Defence budgets
have been poorly managed. There has been gross waste at the top
and a growing rift between the frontline troops and those behind
desks at national defence headquarters.
That buck stops here in Parliament with government. Political
decisions will re-equip our army with modern armoured vehicles,
mine clearing equipment and provide enough helmets, socks or
flak jackets to outfit all our soldiers. These equipment shortages
point directly at this government and previous governments that
16636
have carried on their defence commitments without spending the
money to pay for them.
For example, our troops in the former Yugoslavia have had to
leave behind helmets and other basic equipment so new
replacement rotations would have these necessary tools. Our
defence minister has said:
We will commit forces to such operations if suitable resources are available,
and if our personnel can be appropriately armed and properly trained to carry
out the task and make a significant contribution to the success of the mission.
(1700 )
Suitable resources have not been made available to protect the
lives of Canadians and personnel have not been adequately armed.
If Canada remains unwilling to commit the necessary resources in a
timely fashion to protect and provide the needed resources for
Canadian forces soldiers, we will be forced to rely on the heavy
weapons of other countries or step back and let nations willing to
spend the money to equip their troops do the job.
If the government plans to deploy a larger force on multilateral
peacekeeping missions, our men and women will find themselves
short of everything from modern night vision gear to anti-armour
weapons, heavy machineguns, and updated communications
equipment.
The procurements of new equipment such as the helicopters,
armoured vehicles and submarines are vital replacements for aging
equipment, not new capabilities. They meet only the minimum
requirements to enable Canada to maintain a semblance of
controlling its destiny.
Canada is bound by law and treaty to provide domestic security,
collective defence, and participation in multilateral peacekeeping
operations. Each role requires its own capabilities. If the Canadian
forces are to do the tasks requested of them, they must have the
necessary tools to perform those tasks.
Government has belatedly addressed the need for new and
refurbished armoured vehicles and it seems there is enough money
in the defence budget for submarines to replace the navy's aging
Oberon class vessels, but cabinet is again dragging its feet, while
affordable options available now could be lost. These replacement
submarines could be picked up second hand from Britain at a
bargain price, but the window of opportunity is closing quickly.
Over many years the Canadian navy has developed substantial
experience in submarine and anti-submarine operations. Although
the cold war may have ended, there are still over 700 submarines in
service with more than 40 nations around the world and others are
under construction. Submarines have become the weapon of
choice for many small nations with limited defence budgets. It
would seem shortsighted for Canada's defence forces to forgo the
opportunity to retain and profit from their submarine expertise.
Canada's three Oberon class patrol submarines, procured in the
1960s, are now reaching the end of their operational life, having
become increasingly restricted and expensive to operate. Thus,
Canada must now choose whether to retain or give up our
submarine capability.
The Liberal government's cancellation of the 43 EH-101
shipborne and search and rescue helicopters because they were too
costly means that it will be necessary to buy aircraft off the shelf in
Europe or the United States. That means the government has
sacrificed benefits to the Canadian economy the EH-101 would
have created. The CH-133 Labradors, which have been in service
since 1963, will finally be replaced with up to 15 new helicopters,
type and capabilities unknown.
I have great difficulty in accepting the government's placing a
bid for up to 15 helicopters. How many do we need? Do we need
10? Do we need 12? Do we need 14? Or do we need 15? If we are
setting a dollar figure and saying we will buy as many as that figure
will buy, that does not seem to be the way to do the job. We either
need 15 helicopters or 14 or whatever the number is, and that is
what we should bid for.
Government tenders will be issued early next year for bids on the
new helicopters. The new fleet is to commence operations by
December 1998, with all replacement helicopters in service by
October 2001.
Without question, the government has had to reduce the
capabilities of the replacement helicopters by at least 15 per cent to
save on costs. These helicopters are to be used to save lives in
emergency situations and under predictably severe conditions. I do
not think the people who are on the receiving end of life saving
efforts will appreciate that they are being served by a less than fully
capable helicopter. By fully capably I mean all weather, icing and
night capabilities.
Canada is still left without a shipborne helicopter capability to
replace the troubled aging Sea Kings. In the 1970s DND began a
long term plan to replace Sea Kings, which at that time had been in
service for 15 years. It was understood that the Sea Kings would be
kept in service until the 1990s. Finally, in 1986 Treasury Board
gave approval to clear the way for industry to submit proposals on a
replacement helicopter.
(1705)
Aérospatiale of France and European Helicopter Industries, EHI,
both submitted proposals. In August 1987 the EH-101 was chosen.
In 1988 that contract was awarded.
16637
The Sea King replacement package will be very nearly as
expensive as the EH-101 would have been, but without any
Canadian industrial participation and benefits to regions across
Canada.
The government is well into its mandate and is attempting to put
together a package that will look good to the public. It is
announcing equipment purchases in bits and pieces to hide the real
costs involved, talking of leasing and staggering new purchases in
such a way as to camouflage the real costs.
The cost of cancelling the EH-101 may be as much as $680
million when termination penalties, sunk costs on the program, and
the acquisition costs are considered. In fact others have estimated
that the EH-101 cancellation costs will approach $1 billion.
British government auditors will review and certify claims for
compensation submitted by EH Industries to the Canadian
government. This would not be subject to negotiation, but behind
the scenes EH Industries could receive favoured status in the new
helicopter bidding in exchange for reduced compensation for the
cancelled contract.
The government had already paid $336 million toward the
EH-101 prior to its cancellation. The 1994 main estimates set aside
a further $250 million for settlement payments. Thus, if these
earmarked funds are spent the taxpayers will have paid $586
million without acquiring a single helicopter. This does not take
into account the loss of work in high tech jobs, the direct and
indirect compensation for Canadian industry, nor the military,
which was left dealing with the many problems associated with our
aging Sea Kings and Labradors.
Cancellation of this contract has left the frigates and the Tribal
class destroyers lacking the capabilities of a new shipborne
helicopter.
The government promised in the defence white paper that it
would immediately begin to identify options and plans to put into
service a new, affordable replacement shipborne helicopter by the
end of the decade.
The price tag attached to the EH-101 purchase included
approximately $1.6 billion to $2 billion for the training of air crew,
maintenance, spare parts, operating expenses, and administration.
It was an all-inclusive cost program, unlike any that had been run
before it, to my knowledge.
The 1992-93 fixed cost for the EH-101 program was $4.4 billion,
but a figure frequently used by the media and by the Liberal
government was $5.8 billion, which was the inflation adjusted
projected cost for the end of the program and not a true reflection
of the actual costs.
The EH-101 program was spread over 13 years and its life
expectancy was 30 to 40 years. Many alternative off the shelf
aircraft have only light icing capability, while the EH-101 was a
true all weather aircraft.
One of the key factors that led DND to select the EH-101 was
that it could replace both the Sea King and the Labrador, keeping
the costs of the new shipborne aircraft as low as possible.
Replacing both the Sea King and the Labrador with one aircraft
gave Canada the opportunity to lower the production and long term
maintenance costs. One aircraft means lower production costs per
airframe, one spares chain, a single maintenance schedule, and a
single pilot training program. Government has basically thrown the
baby out with the bath water because of ill-informed politically
based election strategy.
Now it is all smoke and mirrors. Contracts and announcements
are dragged out while the Canadian forces wait on their political
masters to determine their fate. Time is being frittered away.
Government must move ahead immediately, either to replace aging
equipment or reduce overseas commitments and obligations.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we believe that in defence
spending, as in other spending, the raison d'être should be the best
equipment at the best price. That means that we do not get into the
defence department supporting regional development. We buy
defence equipment based on defence needs and defence dollars are
spent on defence. Once we get into trying to prop up an area or
balance that prop with another prop elsewhere, the defence
department carries disproportionate costs, which do not accurately
reflect the money that is to be spent on the defence budget.
(1710)
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today as I look at the motion before the House,
in particular at the last lines of it, I am amazed by its wording. The
motion ends up saying ``thus endangering the Canadian aerospace
industry located in Montreal''.
What is being said there actually is that we cannot compete with
other people around the world. That is wrong. We as Canadians
have proven in the high tech field that we can compete around the
world and in many areas we lead the world. I will not accept for one
minute that the aerospace industry in Montreal or Boeing in
Canada or any others cannot compete.
As we talk about the Department of National Defence's support
for the Canadian defence industry, let us remember that a lot of
things have been done jointly between the military and civilian
companies to put success stories together. They have worked very
co-operatively over the years.
Let us look at some examples from the past several years of
Canadian defence company successes. The contracts awarded in
the late 1970s and early 1980s to a Quebec firm, Bombardier, for
jeeps and medium weight trucks are a good example. As we all
know, under able leadership the company established itself as
16638
world class while generating significant revenues and employment
in Quebec.
National Defence has continued to contract with
Bombardier-Canadair for the CF-18 systems engineering support.
Canadair is now endeavouring to market a CF-18 support expertise
abroad. The Department of National Defence is supporting these
efforts by way of making available technical personnel to brief
foreign defence officials on the Department of National Defence's
maintenance and support regimes and how Canadair fits in.
People who leave the Canadian forces through retirement quite
often go into other companies and take their expertise with them.
This is just an extension of defence helping them out during the
days of active service of a member of the forces.
More recently, the Department of National Defence provided
similar assistance to a Kitchener-Waterloo firm, Diemaco, a
manufacturer of small arms. The Department of National Defence
was there to assist Diemaco in its marketing efforts with the Dutch.
A defence materiel co-operation memorandum of understanding in
place with the Netherlands facilitated our efforts and those of
Diemaco.
Through our involvement in NATO, specifically in joint NATO
projects and through the NATO industrial advisory group, the
Department of National Defence in Canada has played a key role in
identifying opportunities for Canadian firms and assisting them to
participate in NATO projects in the development stage. Quebec
aerospace firms in particular are very active. Among them are
CAE, Canadian Marconi, Heroux, Oerlikon Aerospace, SNC, and
Bell Helicopter.
(1715 )
Examples of important contracts include: CAE simulators for
NATO AWACS aircraft which enabled the company to become a
major competitor for simulators on AWACS, airborne early
warning and control systems type aircraft; Héroux landing gear for
NATO AWACS aircraft which positioned it to compete for and win
other 707 aircraft business; allied signal actuation systems for
military air to air and shipborne missiles known as the NATO Sea
Sparrow.
[Translation]
National Defence offered its support along with other defence
departments in co-operation with other departments to Canadian
defence contractors. The most recent example is of the firm Héroux
Québec, which lost its bid for a contract to repair and maintain
landing gear for the American air force.
Héroux had been doing the work satisfactorily for many years.
However, when the contract came up for renewal, this Canadian
firm lost out to a bid made by a USAF depot under rather dubious
circumstances. Héroux appealed the awarding of the contract to
American authorities. With the help of our officials here in Ottawa
and in Washington, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade put considerable pressure on the American
authorities and on the USAF. Héroux and its advisors also made
very well supported appeals so that the work on the landing gear
could continue.
[English]
We realize that if Canadian defence contractors are to survive,
they cannot depend on Department of National Defence
procurement alone. This is more true as the Canadian forces have
been reduced in size. They must export or sell to commercial
markets or both. National defence has provided assistance in the
form of loans of equipment, material and personnel for
demonstration purposes and the use of facilities to test and evaluate
product enhancements or to demonstrate products. Generally
speaking, this form of assistance has not placed overly significant
demands on our resources.
We have however over the past three years devoted significant
time and effort in organizing industry promotional events in
conjunction with ship visits to foreign ports. Some 25 Canadian
companies, including the Quebec firms, Loral Canada, formerly
Paramax and UNYSIS Canada; CAE; Bell Helicopter; and
Canadian Marconi have participated in ship visits by Canadian
patrol frigates to ports in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, the United
States and South America. CAE, a company which participated in
every ship visit has told us that the ship visit to Korea led directly
to a major contract in that country.
(1720)
I have named but a few of the successful Canadian defence and
defence related companies. These companies are located in
virtually every region of the country. Canadian defence and
defence related companies are successful by their own efforts.
They build on their strengths and their reputations to produce
competitive leading edge technologies. They aggressively market
them throughout the world. They diversify into commercial or dual
use markets and also aggressively pursue those markets.
Again it is Quebec aerospace and defence electronics companies
like Héroux which recently won a major contract for commercial
aircraft work. Canadian Marconi and Spar Aerospace are in the
forefront of diversifying their operations and are going after
increased exports and commercial work. Other progressive firms
like Indal Technologies of Mississauga, Ontario are also building
on their expertise and aggressively pursuing foreign markets,
sonars for the royal navy, helicopter haul down systems for the U.S.
and Japanese navies.
16639
If I may go back to one of my original comments, Boeing
Incorporated has branch companies in Arnprior, Ontario and
Winnipeg, Manitoba. These companies have done well in Canada
when they have been given a chance to bid openly on the market.
However, during the latter years of the Conservative government
they were not even given a chance to bid. They have since revolted
against that type of attitude. Companies located here in Canada,
whether they are branch companies or original Canadian
companies, want a chance to bid on the open market for these
contracts. It is a healthy situation for all of them.
I know that Boeing was very disgusted with the bidding process
during the Conservative government years. We came to office with
the promise that we were going to open up the system for bids.
People were going to have an opportunity to play fair, to be able to
bid on the open market, to make up their engineering designs and
submit them and have them properly perused. A successful bidder
would be picked with integrity and honesty. That is the route this
government is taking.
As today's motion indicates, we are now opening up bids for
helicopters. A lot has been said about the cancellation of the
EH-101. Let us remember that particular contract had a bad
beginning. That was one company which had been given
favouritism and other companies in Canada did not have a chance
to openly bid on that contract. Helicopters were built for search and
rescue that were also built for on board ship helicopters. Those
helicopters do not have to be the same. Because everything was
built into both of them, the cost of those helicopters went through
the roof. That was one of the key problems with it.
(1725)
If the best deal is to buy a helicopter off the shelf and put the
goods into it here, then that is the way we should go, providing
everybody has the opportunity to buy those helicopters and to put
the equipment in them. Any subcontracting that would be done
would be open to Canadian companies. They would have a chance
to put their expertise and their various engineering departments to
work. They could sit down, draw their plans and present their best
effort. Experts in the defence department along with other
personnel would review these contracts and would decide which
was the lowest bid and the best bid. We would be getting the best
product for our money.
It is very important that these companies understand they have a
fair place to bid in the Canadian nation. To come forward and
insinuate in a motion to this House that a company located in
Montreal or in any other part of Canada is not capable of competing
responsibly does not give credit where credit is due to our
companies.
Many professionals are retiring from our armed forces. They are
going into these aerospace companies with their expertise and
years of experience having handled the equipment. They too will
have new ideas. They will have an excellent idea as to what must
be in that product if it is going to be the best for Canadian
aerospace products.
Our Canadian forces will be smaller. Therefore it is very
important that they have the best equipment in the years to come. I
was rather surprised when a senior person in the forces said to me
the other day that the new technologies the Canadian forces have
makes it almost possible for a regiment to do today what it took a
whole battalion to do a few years ago.
People who have worked over the years on aeroplanes, on
shipborne helicopters and on search and rescue helicopters know
what is needed in those desolate spots. They know what is needed
when there are high windstorms. They know what is needed when
facing great difficulties at sea. Those people are important to the
companies. They know what is needed and what should be
recommended.
The Department of National Defence with its expertise and
others it can draw upon put all of that in the bids to begin with.
There may be some very good suggestions thereafter on the part of
those experts who work for the companies making bids.
Suggestions are always welcome in the aerospace business as it is
in any other business.
It is good to have a debate in the House today on the subject of
the Minister of National Defence having made the announcement
that we are now open for bids on search and rescue helicopters.
That is not the route which the previous government would have
taken.
We have told Canadians through the Minister of National
Defence that search and rescue helicopters are now up for bid.
Companies can bid on them. May the best company with the best
product win. In that way our Canadian forces and those who are
going to be flying search and rescue helicopters in the future will
be well served. Those for whom the search is made will have a
better chance of survival because we have a good aerospace
business. Our people are quite capable of producing a good product
here.
Finally, I say buy the product off the shelf, put into it what we
absolutely need to make a good and reliable product and let us go
from there. It is an open system. It is a fair system. It is a bidding
system. It adds to the integrity that the government is trying to put
back into the minds of the Canadian public so that the taxpayers
will know they are getting the best for their dollar because the
bidding system is open again. It is not back rooms dealing, it is up
front bidding.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., it is my
duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81,
proceedings on the motion have expired.
>
16640
16640
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 9, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in
and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed, and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order adopted
Friday, November 10, 1995, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the member
for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
Call in the members.
(1750 )
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the two private member's items
to be voted on, namely Bills C-317 and C-275, be dealt with after
the government bills now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment.
The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:
(Division No. 370)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
Williams-81
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
16641
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-151
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Collenette
Daviault
Dupuy
Eggleton
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien
Young
(1800 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 20, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of
Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain
related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed with the deferred division on the
amendment of Mrs. Lalonde.
The division is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of
the vote on the amendment on third reading of Bill C-94 to the
motion now before the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting nay.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the first vote. I
would like to be recorded as voting with the government on this
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 371)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-80
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
16642
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-153
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Collenette
Daviault
Dupuy
Eggleton
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien
Young
(1805)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
[English]
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of Bill
C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend
the Auditor General Act.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the
previous motion be deemed to have voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote against it,
except those who choose to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House today will vote nay on this issue.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC members in the House will
vote nay on this issue.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 372)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
16643
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-144
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
Williams -89
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Collenette
Daviault
Dupuy
Eggleton
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
16643
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 10, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour
Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and
essential services), be read a second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.Kilger): Pursuant to the order adopted
Friday, October 10, 1995, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion by Mr. St-Laurent.
[English]
As it is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of
the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then
those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House
will be called.
[Translation]
Those opposed to the motion will be recorded in the same order.
All those at my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 373)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
16644
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blaikie
Brien
Caccia
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jacob
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Marchand
McLaughlin
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Taylor
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne
Verran
Wells
Wood
Zed -104
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Anawak
Anderson
Augustine
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Duhamel
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Murray
Nunziata
Paradis
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Williams -114
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Collenette
Daviault
Dupuy
Eggleton
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
(Motion negatived.)
* * *
(1820)
[English]
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and
rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made on
Monday, November 20, 1995, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion of the hon. member
for Davenport at second reading stage of Bill C-275.
As with the previous vote, the vote will take place row by row.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
16645
(Division No. 374)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood-154
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-68
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Canuel
Collenette
Daviault
Dupuy
Eggleton
Ménard
Mercier
O'Brien
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.30 p.m. the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The last time the matter was
before the House the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-
16646
sell, the chief government whip, had the floor and had
approximately five minutes remaining in debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago, when I was interrupted by a member
calling quorum, I was in the process of discussing the infrastructure
program, but an incident occurred. It is worthwhile reviewing it for
the House.
[English]
It went like this. The Reform Party proposed a motion. While we
were debating its motion it called quorum on itself. Then it failed to
produce the quorum it had asked for and we had to adjourn the
House. I understand from the annals of parliamentary history that
this is rather unprecedented.
We always have new things when we deal with the Reform Party
and calling quorum on oneself is one of those things. If that were
not bad enough, failing to produce it afterward beat it by a bit. In
any event it interrupted my speech for two weeks. I am just
catching my second wind but I will get around to it.
We have a motion from the Reform Party about infrastructure. It
tells us that the government should be in favour of improving
treatment of municipal sewage and so on. That is exactly what we
are doing through the infrastructure program, the very successful
infrastructure program, might I add, which has brought many
water, sewer and such improvements to a variety of localities in
Canada.
I know the member across the way is saying that is not good.
Mr. Harris: Not that many.
Mr. Boudria: ``Not that many'' he says. I am glad he asks how
many. Let me bring them to the attention of the House. In the
province of British Columbia water and sewer projects have been
approved so far in the order of $493 million. That is not enough,
says the Reformers; they said not many. In Alberta, a place familiar
perhaps to one or two Reform MPs, it was $149 million.
(1835)
We are only talking about water and sewer. We are not talking
about roads, highways, engineering, non-residential gas and oil,
equipment, dams and irrigation. We are only talking about those
infrastructure projects.
In Saskatchewan it was $80 million; in Manitoba, $53 million;
and in Ontario, $355 million again in the area of water and sewer.
In Quebec it was $537 million; in New Brunswick, $89 million;
and so on. I could go on and on with the numbers in this wonderful
program promised by the Liberal Party in the red book and
delivered for the benefit of all Canadians.
Those are grants under the infrastructure program for water and
sewer of the kind the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is asking
us to support. There is some dissension within the ranks of the
Reform Party on this subject, particularly in the mind of the
Reform Party member from Simcoe who denounced some weeks
ago the infrastructure program. He said that it was a porkfest or
something like that. Those were words he used.
However, not long before he had written a letter to the minister
responsible for infrastructure, the President of the Treasury Board
who does a fine job in this regard, by the way. This is the Reform
MP from Simcoe who had previously denounced such projects as
porkfests when they were in somebody else's riding. Now that they
were in his riding he sent a letter asking for the government to
support not one, not two, but three projects including the same kind
of arena he denounced in somebody else's riding. That is only a
coincidence. Yes, Reformers do that from time to time.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Boudria: My colleagues are totally upset. I ask them to
contain themselves. I know it is terribly upsetting for them to see
Reformers do it, but I am sure the recall process will take care of
them when they talk out of both sides of their mouths like that.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has also had a number of
such projects in his riding. For instance, in the village of Ucluelet it
cost $2.27 million to repair its inlet. In the regional district of
Comox-Strathcona it cost $749,000 to upgrade sewage pumps. In
Port Alberni it cost $113,000 to increase the sewage lagoon
capacity. In the village of Cumberland, which is a great name in my
riding as well, it cost $41,000 to upgrade sanitary sewers. The
government and the President of the Treasury Board should be
congratulated by the member for Comox-Alberni.
I thought I would have a few more minutes because I was
interrupted for two weeks, but if my time has expired I guess I will
have to accept it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know the member worked
diligently over the past few weeks to prepare himself for this
intervention but the rules must prevail.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As off target as they were, the hon.
member talked about some projects that involved sewer work,
work on the systems. However I think he missed the real intent of
the bill.
(1840)
The member of the Reform Party tried to address that there are a
number of major cities in the country that fail to treat some or all
their sewage. In other words, major cities such as Vancouver,
Victoria, Halifax and even Montreal are dumping large quantities
16647
of raw sewage untreated into the harbours. This is what the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni is trying to get at in the bill.
Most towns and cities across the country have sewage treatment
and sewage carrying facilities. It is difficult to believe that in 1995
major cities in Canada fail to treat their sewage in any way and
dump it raw into the oceans and rivers.
I mentioned the dumping of raw sewage occurs in Halifax,
Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal. It is interesting that it also
occurs in Montreal. Hon. members will be interested to note that
despite the fact Montreal has a very serious problem with its
sewage, it was awarded the NAFTA environmental secretariat by
the Liberal government. I assume a city would get such an award
because it practises good environmental standards. Yet the city of
Montreal, a very serious offender in the dumping of raw sewage,
was chosen by the Minister of the Environment to receive the
environmental secretariat.
Why would the minister overlook a serious environmental
problem and award a secretariat on environmental issues to the city
of Montreal? Could it be just another appeasement to the province
of Quebec that was not deserved in the first place?
In 1994 it was reported that 17 major cities in Canada failed to
treat some or all of their sewage. While provincial governments set
the standards for sewage treatments, it is up to the municipality to
actually treat the sewage. Many cities have lagoons that provide
minimal treatment. In some of the cities I mentioned raw sewage
minus the solids is dumped directly into the ocean or water basin.
Needless to say, the dumping of raw sewage poses a serious health
hazard.
In dealing with health hazards, one of the most notable examples
occurred earlier this year on a reserve in Manitoba when a number
of residents fell seriously ill because the treatment facility of their
town had fallen into disrepair.
Pollution resulting from sewage not only damages our health but
damages our economy. Members are aware the cities I mentioned
are in many cases large tourist attractions in Canada, particularly
Victoria and Vancouver, where probably a few million tourists
come to enjoy their aesthetic qualities. However they are shocked
to find a practice that allows the dumping of raw sewage into the
harbour. This does not bode well for the tourist industry. Members
will be aware that in some areas tourism is crucial to the economy.
Vancouver and Victoria are good examples.
(1845 )
Pollution from sewage is very damaging to the fishing industry.
Sewage degrades the water quality and dissolves oxygen levels
resulting in damage to marine life and polluted shorelines. Our
fishery plays an important role in the Canadian economy on both
the east and west coasts. While overfishing has damaged the
fishery to a great extent, it is shameful that it continues to be
damaged by our own wilful neglect in not setting some standards
for treating raw sewage.
The member for Comox-Alberni and I certainly think it is time
to take the matter of untreated sewage seriously. The red ink book
of the Liberals talks about the detrimental effects of untreated
sewage. It promises to assist provincial, regional and municipal
governments to finance new or renewed sewage treatment
infrastructure.
In order to facilitate a clean-up, the Liberal government
introduced its infrastructure program to look after some of these
problems. This program was introduced despite the fact the
government did not have any money, provincial governments do
not have any money and the municipalities do not have any
borrowing authority unless by a referendum or some other process
given to them by their citizens.
This program was intended to address some of the serious
problems in sewage treatment and sewage transport and that is
good. If specific areas of concern were addressed, then we would
probably have less problem with the infrastructure program than
we do even despite the fact that it was done on borrowed funds.
Where money was intended to go to water systems and
infrastructure at the municipal and provincial levels, instead we
find that a lot of these funds have been used for what we could
consider quite frivolous and unnecessary things. This should be of
concern. For example, funds have been used for things like circus
training centres, snow blowers and boccie courts. The Canadian
public is angry that we are spending $2 billion at the federal level,
$2 billion at the provincial level and another $2 billion at the
municipal level, money that we do not have.
There are such projects as $500,000 for a canoe hall of fame in
the Prime Minister's riding; $18,000 to improve the sound system
in a curling rink; $72,000 to build two outdoor tennis courts; $14.4
million for a building for circus training; $15 million for
renovations to Edmonton's hockey rink; and $173 million to build
a trade centre in Toronto. When average Canadians think about
infrastructure, they think about roads, sewers, culverts and things
that allow communities to grow and to look after some of the waste
problems they have.
The infrastructure program has become quite a joke in many
areas. The spending goes on and on yet sewage is still being
dumped into lakes and oceans. It is unacceptable that the
government did not place some stricter criteria on the spending of
moneys in its infrastructure program.
With respect to the amendment made by the Bloc member, all we
have here is the Bloc asking for something for nothing again. The
Bloc is saying if the government puts money in for a sewage
treatment plant or whatever in the province, if the province or the
municipality chooses to opt out they simply get the cash instead to
do with it as they like. This idea is another example of the Bloc
wanting something for nothing. It defeats the purpose of any kind
of infrastructure program funding in the first place.
16648
I ask hon. members in the House to support Motion No. 425 put
forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni.
(1850 )
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to address Motion No. 425 put forward by the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the
undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of
municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment
facilities.
The concern I have about the motion is that such a new
country-wide program would only duplicate existing efforts of the
federal government, provincial governments and territorial
governments.
Our government initiated the Canada infrastructure works
program which is geared specifically to upgrading infrastructure. I
note that sewage treatment was given a high priority in the
program. For example, in my riding of Halifax West, one of the
most important and costly projects which the program funded was
the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. It is a very
important program which will provide better service for the whole
Bedford-Sackville area. That is one of the two largest programs in
my riding. The other one relates to road building. Both are solid
traditional infrastructure programs.
There are other kinds of infrastructure. These days we have to
recognize that even things like fibre optics can be important for
infrastructure and for the ability of a community or a country to
develop its economic base.
I also note that the Reform Party did not support the
infrastructure program when it was first introduced.
I remind hon. members that the primary responsibility of
implementing standards or guidelines for fresh water, recreational
or drinking water quality and sewage treatment discharges rests
with provincial and territorial governments and not with the federal
government in Ottawa. The role of the federal government is to
supply leadership and advice in support of the provincial and
territorial governments through the co-operative establishment of
national guidelines and appropriate action in the federal domain.
National guidelines exist in this area and are constantly being
updated. For example, through federal and provincial
co-operation, health based guidelines for drinking water and
recreational water quality are developed. In fact, the fifth edition of
``The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality'' was
published in May 1993. This document is popular among those
who study water quality issues. The document recommends limits
for microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants which
have been found in drinking water and are known or suspected to
be harmful.
The guidelines are used in all parts of Canada. They are
developed in co-operation with the health and environment
ministries of the provinces and territories. The guidelines fall under
the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking
Water. It is important work which is in progress.
The process began in the 1970s. For this reason among others,
Canada's drinking water is one of the safest drinking waters in the
world. We have to recognize how fortunate we are in this country to
have this supply of safe fresh water.
The impact of standards for sewerage is to protect raw water
sources which might be used by Canadians for drinking water or
recreational purposes. It is the raw water sources which we are
talking about.
The environment is one of the key determinants of population
health. We all know these days about the increase in allergies and
respiratory illnesses which seem to be traceable to environmental
causes. Water quality is an important indicator of our efforts to
protect human health in this area.
Of the many environmental factors, the quality of their drinking
water is of major concern to Canadians. We know this from a
number of public surveys and consultations which the government
has undertaken. We also know that Canada is in the enviable
position of having great riches of fresh water within its boundaries.
I believe that Canada has the greatest resource of fresh water in the
world. Approximately 83 countries in the world do not have access
to fresh drinking water. It is atrocious. The problem is the greatest
in those countries which are highly populated.
Our infrastructure program is a co-operative effort of federal,
provincial, territorial and municipal governments. It is already
being used to upgrade and improve sewage treatment across the
country, just as it is in my riding with the upgrading of the Mill
Cove sewage treatment plant. This is in keeping with our red book
commitments.
(1855 )
In our present situation, the federal, provincial, territorial and
municipal governments are prioritizing the infrastructure works
program to benefit all Canadians because we have to look at what is
vital to Canadians. Microbiological characteristics of the water are
16649
still considered to be vital to public health protection and for that
reason guidelines are under continuous scrutiny.
There are microbiological guidelines for coliform and total
bacteria in drinking water. In fact, it was recently updated and
sections on viruses and protozoa in finished water are being
prepared. Microbiological contaminants will not be removed from
source water if we adopt this motion. This motion will not reduce
trace chemical contaminants in the fresh water supply to our
municipal drinking water systems.
It will not help, for example, in the case of Five Island Lake
where the lake system is contaminated by a PCB site or actually an
orphan site which has a number of toxins which need to be cleaned
up. This motion will not address the problem of that water system.
The establishment of a national primary sewage treatment
standard will not improve the microbiological qualities of drinking
water, nor will it significantly improve fresh water quality.
One of the important things we should be moving toward in this
regard and one of the things happening in Halifax, for example, is
the work toward the removal of toxins and other contaminants at
source. That is a very important step we have to take. It is a matter
of taking responsibility for the quality of our water and what we
dump into our sinks and into our water system.
We have an obligation to all Canadians to expend our resources
in the most efficient manner possible. Every dollar we spend must
have the maximum possible health benefit to the Canadian public.
Health Canada has a duty to Canadians to address serious health
issues affecting water quality. We are concerned with
disease-causing organisms and cancer-causing chemicals in our
water. We have to be concerned about those things more and more
these days.
These are the serious issues of the day that Health Canada is
addressing. These are also the issues that will not be touched on by
this proposed motion. Since primary sewage treatment will not
reduce organic substances found in source water from municipal
drinking water and disinfection is essential to maintain a safe
drinking water supply that will protect the public health, the
establishment of a minimum standard of primary treatment will
have little public health benefit with respect to drinking water.
Water quality improvements are already occurring under the
Canada infrastructure works program, the Canada-Ontario
agreement to clean up the Great Lakes and the Quebec-Canada
entente to address issues in the St. Lawrence River basin.
I believe the member for Comox-Alberni had the best of
intentions in putting forward this motion. Unfortunately, it does not
address the real problems facing Canadians today. An isolated
program to spend large sums of money on municipal sewage
treatment will cost Canadian taxpayers dearly without doing much
to increase public health protection.
Health Canada is working now in partnership with other levels of
government to improve water quality across the country. These are
the initiatives we must continue to develop to ensure that the
quality of our drinking water remains the envy of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I have a particular
interest in this topic, because the riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, which I have the privilege to
represent in this House, happens to have one of the largest waste
water treatment plants in Canada.
Officially opened on November 2, 1987, the Montreal Urban
Community waste water treatment plant today has an average
capacity of more than 23 cubic metres per second, so that between
January 1, 1995 and October 15, and this is just an example, the
plant processed about 578 million cubic metres of waste water. To
give you a better idea of what is involved, this is the equivalent of
the volume of the Olympic stadium.
(1900)
And to give you some idea of the amount of sludge left after this
process, imagine a line of 25 tonne trucks all the way from
Montreal to Ottawa, in other words, it is a plant operating at full
capacity.
I may add that to carry out these operations, the plant in my
riding has a total budget of about $43 million, in fact slightly more,
and employs a total of 290 people in treatment operations,
maintenance, engineering, mechanical engineering and data
processing, in other words, all the people who work in this plant.
Generally speaking, waste water treatment plants have become
indispensable in our modern cities.
That being said, the Bloc Quebecois takes the position that we
support the principle of protecting the environment, but to us it is
obvious that the environment is better protected when each
government does what it is supposed to do.
That is why the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Laurentides is so important, since if motion M-425 presented by
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were adopted in its present
form, without any changes, this would give the Liberal
government, the present government, further opportunities to do
what it always has done, which is to invade jurisdictions that are
not its responsibility. Basically, that is the reasoning behind the
motion of the hon. member for Laurentides.
Motion M-425 before the House today asks this House to
support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving
the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at
16650
least that of primary treatment facilities, in other words, facilities
that will eliminate phosphorus deposits.
Currently, managing the environment is largely a municipal
responsibility. Municipalities are responsible for supplying clean
water, as we said previously, for sewage treatment and garbage
collection and disposal.
Under the Constitution, and that is the crux of the matter,
municipalities are administrative units that receive their powers
from the provincial legislatures. Consequently, the federal
government has no legitimate right to deal directly with
municipalities.
Of course, in Quebec we are accustomed to seeing the federal
government proceed in this way. I may recall that it was this kind of
behaviour by the federal government that caused nearly half the
population of Quebec, nearly 50 per cent, to vote yes on October
30, and it will certainly be a little more than 50 per cent next time.
Since this government has shown it has no intention of changing
any of the bad habits we have been criticizing for the past 30 years,
we can assume that, at the time of the next referendum on Quebec,
more and more Quebecers will understand they have only two
choices left: become a majority with full control over their destiny
or remain a minority, with their interests subjugated to those of the
majority to which they will not belong.
To say the least, it is disappointing, but nevertheless, quite
incredible, that this motion is being proposed in this House by a
member of the Reform Party. We all know our friends in the
Reform Party claim to want to decentralize Canada. They see it as
the likely solution to our political problems. It might not be
constitutional decentralization, but a real decentralization of
powers to the provinces. Obviously this bill invades provincial
jurisdictions.
I find it unfortunate that the Reform Party is sponsoring this bill.
This party, it must be remembered, initially set itself up as the
alternative to the impasse Canada found itself in federally
following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and all that
followed. The text of the motion before us, however, shows that the
more things change, the more they stay the same. They are still
talking about more centralization, as if nothing happened in
Quebec.
As we know, and as the English language papers pointed out, our
Prime Minister succeeded to some extent in lulling Canada into a
bit of a stupor over what was actually happening in Quebec.
(1905)
Events in Quebec woke people up somewhat. Now they are
trying to pretend nothing happened and settle everyone down
again, while they go on centralizing in Ottawa, as if nothing has
changed.
By voting in favour of this motion without the necessary
amendments-one of which has been proposed by my colleague
for Laurentides-the federalist parties in this House will simply
confirm to Quebec voters that the no side did not favour change,
despite what they hoped and continue to hope.
That is why my colleague from Laurentides put forward an
amendment to this motion that would give all provinces the right to
opt out with full financial compensation, so that they themselves
could spend the money on the environment and not on anything
else.
This amendment would have two advantages among other
things. First, from a constitutional point of view, it would allow all
levels of government to exercise their powers properly in their
respective areas of jurisdiction, contrary to what is now the case. I
would like to remind you that the environment is not among the
areas of jurisdiction explicitly assigned by the constitution. It has
often been said that the environment was not on the agenda when
the constitution was drafted, but still. This is a so-called ancillary
power deriving from the areas of jurisdiction explicitly mentioned
in the Canadian constitution.
Before the mid-1980s, the Quebec government, which has
jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a key role in
assuming most environmental responsibilities. As provided for in
the constitution, the federal government was happy to get involved
in areas complementary to its jurisdiction, and everything was just
fine.
In 1985, the federal government started to become much more
involved in environmental matters. It did so mostly by using its
spending power and the new powers it had been granted by the
courts. This has led to many cases of overlap and duplication. This
situation has gotten worse since the election of the present Liberal
government, which is trying to further centralize decision making
in Ottawa.
If there is one thing that is perfectly clear about the bills that I
have seen tabled in this House, it is that almost every bill
introduced to amend other bills or to encroach on areas of
jurisdiction that may previously not have been clearly defined
gives ever more authority to the ministers.
At present, there is a great deal of duplication and overlap in
federal and provincial environmental regulations. Therefore,
private sector enterprises often have to spend time, energy and
money on gathering information on a large number of programs,
answering inquiries from both levels of government, attending
numerous committee meetings, preparing for inspections that are
often conducted by both levels, meeting requirements that are often
different depending on the level of government involved, and the
list goes on ad infinitum.
16651
For instance, there are currently eight federal regulations
overlapping existing Quebec regulations on the same subject. Yet,
they keep wanting to make more regulations and centralizing more
and more. Cases in point are the storage of PCB material
regulations and pulp and paper effluent regulations.
There are also environmental benefits, since appropriate
solutions to problems to be dealt with locally will be easier to find.
You will no doubt agree, Mr. Speaker, that local authorities are in a
better position than anyone else to find solutions suited to the
particular circumstances of their respective communities. As far as
the environment is concerned, government's ability to understand
local problems and challenges depends on how far removed it is
from the field. The further it is, the less it is able to find practical
solutions likely to gain acceptance and generate co-operation
within local communities. That is the spirit behind the amendment
moved by my hon. colleague for Laurentides, which we support.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am here today on behalf of the government to address MotionNo. M-425 put forward by the member for Comox-Alberni. It calls
for a country-wide program of improving the treatment of
municipal sewage to a minimum standard or at least that of primary
treatment facilities.
A basic weakness of the motion is that it proposes to solve the
problem of municipal waste water through the use of a specific
directed technology. Since when have Reform Party members
believed in imposing the use for every province of a uniform
method when they do not even believe in the consistent application
of a basic health care principle.
(1910 )
What we should be concerned about is not the process used to
effect treatment of municipal waste water, but the quality of the
final product and its subsequent short and long term effects on
humans and the ecosystem. The shortsightedness of this bill is
typical of many Reform motions: immediate, quick fixes that show
the lack of experience that comes from not really understanding
how other jurisdictions of government work, how the municipal
political mind works.
While the Canadian Federation of Mayors has been consistently
requesting an infrastructure program, the first government to take
the request seriously was the Liberal government. A minister was
put in charge of the program who has been a well respected, long
serving mayor and he tailored the program to suit the unique and
individual needs of all municipalities, municipalities that are
fiercely protective of their jurisdictions.
Under the federal Fisheries Act, for example, no person
including a municipality, is allowed to discharge water where fish
are found or treated water which contains any substance that is
harmful to fish. The focus should not be on what technology is used
to treat municipal water waste, including domestic sewage, but on
the final quality of the water.
As a technology for treating municipal waste water, primary
treatment is a physical, mechanical process, very simplistic at best.
It can remove material like sand, grit, stones, twigs and larger
objects like wood and plastic. It can settle out the heavy organics of
domestic sewage, but that is about all primary treatment can
achieve.
A fundamental concern related to municipal waste water is how
much oxygen demanding matter it contains. Oxygen demanding
matter takes up oxygen from its environment to decompose. A
primary treatment system, if efficiently designed and operated, can
only reduce up to 40 per cent of the oxygen demanding substances
found in municipal waste water. The remaining 60 per cent will be
discharged into the system.
It is important to remove as much organic matter as possible that
requires oxygen to decompose from municipal waste water so it
does not consume oxygen that fish need to thrive. Such matter does
not then demand heavy chlorination and subsequent disinfection
processes.
Primary treatment cannot address concerns related to toxins,
including removal of heavy metals that are commonly found in
Canadian municipalities.
A country-wide program of improving the treatment of
municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary
treatment facilities will not in all cases adequately conserve and
protect the environment. More important, in the jurisdiction of
water treatment, municipalities will, en masse, cry foul if the
federal government presumes to tell them how to achieve a
technology that many of them have to this date perfected in an
extremely economical manner.
I would not like to be the federal politician who attempts to tell
Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga, a mayor well known for
her strength of character, how to treat her water system rather than
what minimal standards should be maintained coming out of
Mississauga. In fact, when the current infrastructure program was
designed and offered to Mississauga, the city council did not
request money for water treatment. The basic structures were in
such good shape that Mississauga requested a one-third portion
contribution for a living arts centre which created, as an aside, 950
jobs.
The standard of water in Mississauga is absolutely one of the
highest in the country. No government has ever told the city how to
do this.
Improving the treatment of municipal sewage is a commendable
objective, but it does not fully address the issue of conservation and
effective management of Canada's water sources. What is urgently
needed at the municipal level is sewer use bylaws to restrict access
16652
to the sewer systems of substances not amenable to treatment. Also
municipalities should charge water users the full and true cost of
both supplying drinkable, usable water and treating waste water
after its use, as is done in Mississauga. At this very time water
charges in Mississauga are double, water amount going in and
water amount going out.
Municipal water in Canada has traditionally been underpriced in
comparison to other utilities or essential services. Many years of
water prices set at artificially low levels by municipalities have not
allowed Canadian communities to accumulate adequate reserve
funds for renovation and upgrading of water infrastructure. Also
low water prices have offered no incentive for technological
advance. Thus, the municipal water industry has been left with old
technologies, inefficient plants and very low levels of innovation.
A country-wide program to improve sewage treatment to at least
the level of primary treatment would still leave all current pricing
problems intact and without resolution.
(1915 )
According to 1991 statistics, which are the most recent figures
available, the level of revenues collected by Canadian
municipalities for water use and sewerage charges is in the order of
$3.3 billion. With the probable exception of property taxes,
revenues from water use are the largest source of income for
municipal governments. At current prices, for many Canadian
municipalities this revenue source is still insufficient for
municipalities to operate and maintain their water infrastructures.
What are Canadians to do to deal with this apparent shortfall?
Surprisingly, researchers have found that as the price of water
increases, the demand decreases. This is not witchcraft. We have
all seen this in the pricing of many commodities.
In accordance with the polluter pays principle, municipal water
customers should pay for waste water treatment according to their
level of water use. The federal government cannot be big brother
and pay for all minimal water treatment across the country.
Treatment according to the level of water use is the most important
product of proper water conservation.
Similarly, industries that use municipal sewers and treatment as
their primary or only method of waste water abatement should pay
for the extra stress they place on water treatment plants. Perhaps
municipalities should even pay their provinces in proportion to the
level of contamination of their effluent for the right to deposit their
waste water in lakes, rivers, and other communal waterways.
Cheap water in Canada has led to unnecessarily high water
usage. Higher water usage has led municipalities to install water
systems that are larger than would be needed if realistic pricing
policies were implemented by Canadian communities to bring out
true water conservation.
I believe water conservation is the real way of the future. Pricing
based on quantity of water used provides each user with the
incentive to conserve water. This leads to cost savings by water
consumers as well as municipalities themselves in terms of their
capital expenditures and maintenance costs of waste water
treatment plants. It also encourages less reliance on unpredictable
purification chemicals, which in the future may cause other
problems.
Let me emphasize that there is wastage by the consumer, who
has no incentive, financial or otherwise, to conserve water supplies.
In addition, public utilities find it cheaper to process and pump
more clean water through the system than to find and repair
expensive leaks. In some areas of Canada, system leakage accounts
for 40 per cent of total pumping. Country-wide primary treatment
for municipal sewage, as proposed by the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni, will do nothing to correct that.
If I may call the attention of the hon. members to the 1987
federal water policy, the concept of full cost pricing, which
includes extra sewer charges for industrial waste and the promotion
of universal metering, is a cornerstone of that document. The
infrastructure related components of the federal water policy
accord well with the policies outlined in Creating Opportunity, our
Liberal plan for Canada.
The 1987 federal water policy is based on a user pay principle.
This means users should be responsible for funding a particular
service in approximate proportion to their consumption. User pay
wherever possible is an appropriate principle for our times and one
this government endorses.
To monitor the progress of implementation of the 1987 federal
water policy, Environment Canada undertook in 1991 a survey of
water piping practices among Canadian municipalities of at least
1,000 inhabitants or more. The results were somewhat of a
disappointment. The Government of Canada had spent the four
years since the release of the 1987 federal water policy promoting
the benefits of full cost pricing as a means of water conservation
and adequate financing of water infrastructure programs.
Environment Canada found, however, that half of the surveyed
municipalities were still charging a flat rate for water use.
Under such circumstances there is no incentive for water
consumers to lower their consumption. In addition, water
customers often have no idea of how much water they are actually
using, as there is no meter attached to their facility or home,
counting and then compiling the number of cubic metres of water
used.
16653
In summary, a country-wide program that would have the sole
goal of improving municipal sewage treatment to the minimum
level of primary treatment will not solve Canada's problems in
the area of municipal waste water treatment. Minimal chemical
purification and ultimately a serious concern for conservation of
this valuable resource is the true direction this government should
be taking. Therefore I will not be supporting a very shortsighted
bill at this time.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
wager that if Motion M-425 came from the other side of the House
it would be getting a different hearing in the House.
(1920 )
I cannot imagine anyone concerned about clean water and health
issues saying that this bill will not look after all the problems of
Canada in terms of our water supply. Who says it would? Motion
425 simply calls for raising the standard in Canada to a minimal
standard, a standard that would have solid settling, chlorination,
and discharge of sewage in a much different manner from what we
have today. Is it simplistic to try to raise the standard of water
treatment in Canada? Where I come from it is not.
I would like to tell a little story relating to water quality. I am a
fisherman. I enjoy sport fishing. The river that flows through the
community near me is world class as a sport fishing river, the Bow
River. In my youth I fished in that river and was unable to eat the
fish. They were beautiful rainbow trout, wonderful to catch. A
24-inch rainbow would take me 20 minutes to land, but I released
every one. They were oily downstream of Calgary. There was a
huge amount of waste going into the Bow River.
I have a cousin in England who is a very keen fisherman. He
came all the way from England to fish in the Bow River with me.
He asked me whether I expected he would catch a wild trout in this
beautiful stretch of water. I pretty well guaranteed him that he
would. I told him what time of year to come. I said that I had some
experience there and had the opportunity to just about guarantee
him that unless there was a change in weather, a tremendous
amount of extra mud in the water, he would be guaranteed a fish.
He did catch the first wild rainbow trout of his life. I will never
forget him holding that beautiful fish out of the water and asking
for a picture to be taken, then saying to me, ``I must release this
fish, it will be polluted''. I was able to say to him, ``No, Derrick,
that fish today is edible''. Over the 25 years since I had been
fishing this river Calgary had cleaned up its act to the point where
this beautiful fish could be eaten. He said, ``I am a conservationist,
I think I will release it anyway''. And he did.
Does the treatment of effluent downstream of a big city make
any difference? I believe it does.
I heard all kinds of praise for the infrastructure program from
members opposite, an infrastructure program that I flatly think is
an abject failure. To borrow $6 billion and mortgage the future of
my children and my grandchildren to provide short term jobs in
Canada is fundamentally flawed.
I will give one example of how badly the infrastructure program
failed. This is a municipality I am responsible for in my own
constituency.
Ms. Cohen: Are you going to make the announcement?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): You bet. I am making that announcement
here in front of everybody in Canada.
The infrastructure program was a pronounced failure in a
constituency at home. What did the municipality do for
infrastructure in my own constituency? It bought a grader, a
Yankee-built grader. It shipped it home by a U.S. trucker. It paid for
it with borrowed dollars. It produced one job, just one job. The
infrastructure program in this municipality produced one job. Is
that an advantage? That is an advantage for whom? It is an
advantage for a U.S. manufacturer with a grader. The infrastructure
program is an abject failure.
(1925)
This bill will simply raise the standard in Canada. Will it solve
all the problems in Canada? It will not. If this bill were coming
from the other side of the House, there would be effusive praise for
such a bill. Since it is not, I am convinced it will not gain support.
I ask members opposite, how can they argue against cleaner
water in Canada? How can they argue with that?
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Motion M-425 because I want
my Reform colleagues to know that I support it wholeheartedly. I
am delighted indeed that the Reform Party has brought it forward.
I regret that my colleague from Mississauga West and I find
ourselves on different sides of this debate. The reason I support this
bill so wholeheartedly is that not only does it address a very serious
problem and address it in a very responsible way, but it also
addresses the problem of federalism versus regionalism. I find to
my absolute delight that the Reform Party has put a motion on the
floor that actually argues for a strong central government rather
than regionalism, as that party tends to support generally.
I am very aware of the sewage problem that occurs in Victoria,
where sewage treatment consists of building a longer pipe into the
ocean so that the effluent does not come back to the beaches of
Victoria. I am also aware that the United Kingdom is very angry
right now because constantly on the beaches of the Hebrides and
the Orkneys and the northern coast of Scotland are effluent, plastic
materials, and garbage that can be identified as coming from
Canada. This is absolutely an intolerable situation.
16654
Why can we not rely on municipalities to spend the money to
give the kinds of treatment facilities that are demanded by this
motion? The answer is that municipalities are driven by local
interests. Often they have priorities that are very local and are
unwilling to support things that actually pertain to society at large
and to our global environment. In other words, if it is not in one's
own local backyard then it is easier to spend elsewhere.
We have a situation where regional interests cannot look after
the problem and we must look to a strong federal government to
provide the money and the leadership to attack this problem. I
regret absolutely that we do not have in the Constitution some
provision that says the federal government would have the power to
prevent Victoria from simply dumping sewage into the sea.
Not only is this motion well taken, but it is ironic, because it
shows that the third party-and I have great admiration for the
third party on certain issues-supports the kind of concept that we
Liberals have when we see a strong central government showing
leadership in many ways.
I have to add that implicit in this motion is the suggestion that
the federal government should have the necessary funds to provide
minimum sewage treatment in various municipalities across the
land.
In conclusion, I do not support the Bloc amendment because that
is a regional amendment, but I want the Reform Party to know,
especially the member for Comox-Alberni, that this is a very fine
motion. I congratulate them on bringing it before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16654
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1930)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 on behalf of the
constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt on an issue of
national importance.
On October 3, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Defence a
question pertaining to Colonel Kenward who ordered the
destruction of video tape evidence of an airborne regiment hazing
video. The minister's response was, to say the least, insufficient.
The video tapes that were ordered destroyed impeded the
investigation of the military police. Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward
who was subsequently promoted to full colonel by the chief of the
defence staff despite the minister's own reservations ordered the
destruction of the video tapes. It was later revealed that three
copies of the video tape existed.
This does not justify the actions of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward.
There will never be any way of knowing whether the three copies
match the one destroyed by Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward's order.
This case is an example of the serious problems with the system
of justice at the Department of National Defence. This case may in
fact be providing details of a miscarriage of justice within the
senior command of the Department of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence notified me in his response on
October 3 that the chief of defence staff, General John de
Chastelain, would hold a press conference on the issue to clear the
air. I personally attended that press conference and I would like to
say that it did not clear the air. It muddied the waters further.
The CDS presented the official side of the story with a
documented audit trail detailing how Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward
was promoted to full colonel. What became clear from these
documents was that the chief of defence staff had intervened on
behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward to ensure his promotion.
Documents he released showed that he wrote to the Canadian
Armed Forces judge advocate general on behalf of
Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward. The correspondence included quotes
from Kenward himself denying that he had intended any
wrongdoing. The judge advocate general, after considering this
counsel from his superior, the chief of defence staff, cleared
Kenward's name and cleared the way for Kenward's promotion.
This type of shenanigans underlines the culture of cover-up at
the highest level of the Department of National Defence.
Kenward's promotion to full colonel was secured despite the
concerns of the military police and the Minister of National
Defence.
The minister has publicly admitted that he expressed his
concerns regarding the promotion to the chief of defence staff and
the chief of defence staff refused to heed them. Clearly the minister
has no confidence in the CDS and the CDS has little respect for the
minister's judgment.
16655
This case is indicative of the problems with our military justice
system. It is difficult to believe that the military police had their
investigation thwarted by the chief of defence staff and the judge
advocate general.
I believe that justice was not served. Canadians still want the
Minister of National Defence to clarify his position. When did the
Minister of National Defence learn that Colonel Kenward had
destroyed video tape evidence? Was it before or after the
promotion? Why did he have reservations about the promotion of
Kenward to full colonel?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this all relates to Somalia and the airborne. The hon.
member is clearly misguided in his attempts to discredit the
Minister of National Defence and the government.
The Reform Party platform of using specious arguments and half
truths for partisan gain has done nothing to help Canada deal with
the issue at hand.
By contrast, the Minister of National Defence and the
government have acted forthrightly and effectively. I believe this is
what Canadians are seeing and what they are asking for. They are
rejecting the disparaging arguments being put forth by the Reform
Party.
Let us look at the facts. It was this government that called for an
inquiry. More specifically, it was this member as opposition
defence critic who asked for the inquiry two and a half years ago,
not the Reform Party. It was this government that ensured the
inquiry would be public. It was this government that made the
commitment to make Canadian forces members available to the
commission when they were called upon to testify. It was this
government that encouraged people with any information that may
be of interest to the commission to go forward to the inquiry. It was
this government that ensured the Somali inquiry was provided with
complete and accurate information and that relevant documents
were made available to the commission.
(1935)
DND and the Canadian forces have and will continue to
co-operate fully with the commission that has been established.
Not all our actions have been easy. The public rightfully demanded
that the government address this serious issue in an expedient
manner, but this had to be tempered with prudence. Where others
may have attempted to score quick political points, we stayed the
course waiting for the Westray mine decision so that justice would
not later be undone as a result of a legal technicality.
These actions point toward leadership, integrity and a
willingness to get things done. There is nothing to sustain the
utterly fallacious and ultimately destructive arguments being put
forward by the Reform Party. We will certainly not be goaded into
taking ill advice and precipitous action. We are monitoring the
commission proceedings. Canadians can rest assured that
appropriate actions will be initiated when and where they are
warranted.
Now is the time to let the commission do its work. We look
forward to hearing the recommendations of the commission. In
summary, the Canadian forces have a long and proud heritage that
we are not prepared to discard. I suggest that the Reform Party
shares this sentiment.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some time ago
I had occasion to ask the minister about the issue of the
Helms-Burton bill dealing with an embargo against goods from
Cuba. I should like to introduce my question this evening by
reminding the representative of the ministry about some of the
facts of the bill.
We in Canada share the interest of American legislators and
Americans generally in seeing Cuba begin to respect human rights
and to open up its economy to forces from outside so that it has a
liberal, open economy for the benefit of all Cuban citizens. What
we are talking about here is the methodology whereby this change
may be obtained.
We believe, it seems to me in our government, in a form of open
trading whereby we can liberalize trade relationships by having
relations with one another. The United States, for some reason not
difficult to understand because it is rooted in U.S. domestic
politics, has chosen in respect of Cuba an embargo that flies in the
face of its policies with respect to other countries and that seeks to
penalize the Cuban government and the Cuban people for the fact
that they are unwilling to conform to U.S. standards and practices.
We do not deny that the United States has the right to embargo
Cuba if that is what its domestic policies call for it to do. What we
object to, what I will ask for further information on and what I
asked in the question I earlier posed to the minister was what we
were doing in Canada to ensure that the measures being adopted by
the American congress do not proceed in a way that would violate
international law, violate international obligations of the United
States to Canada and violate our rights to conduct our relationships
with Cuba and the Cuban people in a way that we can ensure
Canadian policies and Canadian law are respected.
The bill on which I asked the question, known colloquially as the
Helms-Burton bill, has in it several items that are very problematic
to us as Canadians. They prohibit U.S. persons from extending
financing to businesses that traffic in property confiscated by the
Cuban government. A U.S. person is defined in the bill in such a
way that it could extend to subsidiaries in Canada. It denies entry
into the United States of persons, individuals or shareholders of
corporations who traffic in U.S. property. It gives to the United
16656
States courts the jurisdiction to decide compensation claims for
property confiscated by any foreign government.
In all respects we have serious problems with these propositions.
It represents in many ways a secondary boycott which the United
States has said in the past it totally disapproves of in respect of the
Arab boycott of Israel. It represents extraterritorial measures
against Canadian corporations carrying on lawful business in this
country and with Cuba. It gives to the United States courts a
jurisdiction that frankly would introduce extraordinarily difficult
measures in respect of dealing with the United States in United
States courts.
These measures reflect a view of the United States congress that
is willing to take measures against the interests of the United States
in many respects, against international law, and against its
international obligations to Canada and other nations. As such, it is
a dangerous precedent because it reflects a sense of the United
States power which says it is above the rules it has set and in which
all of us participate.
(1940)
I would be anxious to know what measures the Government of
Canada can take to tell the U.S. Congress what we can do to protect
ourselves. How can we use the Extraterritorial Measures Act which
we already have? How can we respond to Congress to let the U.S.
know that we in this country intend to pursue our rightful place in
the international community in a way that respects our interests and
our proper commercial relationships with a friendly country?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Rosedale and the chairman of the parliamentary Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will agree
with me that Canada and the U.S. share common objectives of
democracy, human rights and market oriented reforms in Cuba.
However, we differ on the best way to achieve such goals. Canada
favours engagement and dialogue.
Currently there is legislation before the U.S. Congress which
would extend the U.S. embargo against Cuba. When the legislation
was first introduced in February, the Canadian government
examined it and found provisions which could be harmful to
Canadian interests. We made our concerns known to both the
administration and Congress. As well, businesses and other groups
on both sides of the border have opposed the legislation. Many
other countries have also expressed concerns over the legislation.
Canada's key concerns related to proposals which would restrict
imports of sugar and sugar-containing products from countries
which import sugar from Cuba and which would allow U.S.
citizens to make claims in U.S. courts against foreign companies
investing in property expropriated by the Cuban government. This
approach to claims would be contrary to generally accepted
principles of international law and could have repercussions on
international investments beyond Cuba. The proposals would
restrict entry into the U.S. of officers of certain foreign companies
which have business dealings with Cuba.
What is the current situation? Different versions of the bills have
been passed by the House and the Senate and these now have to be
reconciled in a conference committee. Canadian efforts were
successful in having the proposed sugar restrictions removed from
both versions of the bills.
Our other key concerns have been partly addressed. While the
version of the bill passed by the Senate removes the provisions on
investment claims and temporary entry, these remain in the House
version of the legislation. Canada is continuing to press for the
controversial provisions dropped from the version passed by the
Senate to not be reintroduced in any final version of the legislation.
It is not clear when the conference committee will present a
reconciled version of the legislation or if the common bill would be
able to muster enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate.
If passed, the final stage would be to send the bill to the President
for his consideration. As the hon. member knows, the U.S.
administration shares many of Canada's concerns. The U.S.
Secretary of State has told Congress that he will recommend that
President Clinton veto the bill if an unacceptable version is passed.
Should the objectionable provisions be reinserted, Canada would
urge a presidential veto of the bill.
I compliment the hon. member. I know he has many connections,
communications and dealings with colleagues in the United States.
He has also been playing a very important role in helping us to keep
a Canadian foreign policy, while letting the United States keep its
foreign policy in relation to Cuba.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 8 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs why Canada withdrew its sponsorship of UN
resolution L-3 which seeks a stop to nuclear weapons tests.
Nuclear tests are presently being carried out by the French
government and are being planned by the Government of China.
Both governments are contravening the spirit of the extended
nuclear non-proliferation treaty and negotiations toward a
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
It might be recalled that on September 5 the foreign affairs
minister issued a news release in which he deplored the tests. He
stated: ``Canada's policy on testing is clear: no testing by any
nuclear weapons state and speedy progress toward concluding a
comprehensive test ban treaty''. In keeping with this policy, on
16657
October 31, Canada and the United Nations chose to co-sponsor
UN resolution L-3 which seeks a stop to nuclear weapons tests.
(1945)
Suddenly, on November 7, Canada and the United Nations
decided to withdraw its co-sponsorship. The reason? It would
appear that the sponsorship was a mistake. Whose mistake is the
question.
The next day, November 8, the Prime Minister from New
Zealand re-emphasized Canada's position, stating that Canada
deplores the actions of the French government and that Canada
hopes the tests will stop rapidly.
Today, on November 21, the question is: How can we deplore
nuclear testing at the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Prime Minister, except to co-sponsor an important UN
resolution against testing and then a week later withdraw our
co-sponsorship of a resolution that is not only consistent with the
views of government leaders, but also consistent with our stated
unequivocal policy on nuclear weapons testing?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
respond to the hon. member for Davenport on the subject of
Canada's position on nuclear testing.
I can assure the hon. member that today, November 21, 1995,
Canada's position on nuclear testing rests on a bedrock of Canadian
tradition in support of a comprehensive test ban treaty. On this
issue, as the hon. member said, our position has been consistent
and clear. It remains unchanged to this day: no testing by any
nuclear weapons state.
The government has repeatedly stated Canada's deep
commitment to the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban
treaty. Such a treaty should prohibit all nuclear testing regardless of
size, in all environments for all time. For Canada, this remains our
most important and immediate arms control and disarmament
priority.
Last week, in the first committee of the United Nations General
Assembly, Canada voted in favour of a resolution strongly
deploring nuclear testing. Canada was also a lead co-sponsor of the
resolution which calls for the early completion of an effective
CTBT. Together these resolutions represent Canada's firm position
on testing.
Canada played a leading role in securing the indefinite extension
of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons last May.
The indefinite extension of the NPT provides the foundation for
real disarmament.
Among the decisions agreed by all the countries of the NPT
review conference, was the need to complete a comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty no later than 1996.
Canadian actions since then have been calibrated to ensure that
everything possible is done to meet the commitments taken in May
and to reinforce the integrity of the non-proliferation treaty.
Canada's active role in the CTBT negotiations in Geneva and our
efforts to develop the necessary political support for the early
conclusion of the CTBT within multilateral fora such as the OAS
and the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting have
been buttressed by the welcomed announcements made by the
U.S.A., U.K. and France that they support a zero threshold
comprehensive test ban treaty. A zero threshold CTBT would ban
all tests for all time.
We believe that these public affirmations by three of the five
nuclear weapon states will greatly assist the negotiations in
reaching an early and successful conclusion to the CTBT.
In conclusion, let me repeat yet again that Canada's position on
nuclear testing is clear and firm. We oppose all testing and remain
committed to a CTBT in 1996.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one of the most important issues facing prairie people
today is the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The vast majority
of prairie producers support the Canadian Wheat Board and yet
they feel that its future is being threatened. There are many reasons
for this, not the least of which has been the federal minister of
agriculture's complete reluctance to stand up for the board
whenever it needed defending.
The latest threat, however, is the continued freelancing of wheat
into the United States by individuals who seem to think they can
ignore the law to further their own goals.
(1950 )
There have been numerous organized attempts to cross the
border from Canada into the United States to sell wheat. These are
strictly prohibited by Canadian law. In doing so, these freelancers
are exacerbating trade tensions between Canada and the United
States, are risking the complete shutdown of agricultural trade
between Canada and the United States, or at the very least are
risking the imposition of yet another cap on the sales that currently
occur under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Things are not getting any better out there. Canada has enjoyed
some very good wheat sales into the United States. Millers and
pasta makers want our high quality durum and the Canadian Wheat
Board has been taking full advantage of that in promoting the high
quality Canadian product throughout the U.S. marketplace.
16658
But U.S. farmers do not like this. There is a lot of political and
public pressure on U.S. congressmen and senators to stop the
cross-border traffic in wheat. Canada could very well find itself
squaring off with the United States in the near future, not just
across our border, but in the world marketplace as well. This is
looking more and more likely as the new U.S. farm bill comes
into being.
The Americans are looking at maintaining a dominant role in the
world marketplace. They are looking to increase their grain
production. They are expecting to leave their export enhancement
program in place. When you add this into the pot with the negative
feeling toward those north of the border, that could certainly be bad
news for Canada.
In maintaining friendly trading relations with the United States,
the Canadian Wheat Board has successfully sold tonnes of wheat
into the United States over the years. The wheat has moved quietly
and quickly into the U.S. market and Canadian farmers who respect
the board have been rewarded with increased payments from the
board.
In supporting the board, Saskatchewan's minister of agriculture,
Andy Renaud, said: ``The Canadian Wheat Board can move grain
into the U.S. for the benefit of all prairie farmers, not just a few,
and do it in a way that minimizes as much as possible the threat of
new trade restrictions''.
He also said that the Saskatchewan government supports strong
action to stop illegal sales to ensure that the U.S. market remains
open for all farmers.
The Americans, and in particular the American multi-national
grain corporations, realize the strength of the board and have been
campaigning to force us to get rid of it. The board has been so
successful that the U.S. feels threatened by it. Now some Canadian
farmers are joining forces with these Americans to try to kill the
board.
They falsely believe that without the board they will have better
success at marketing their own grains in the United States. The
board is defending itself in the marketplace, but it needs help from
Canada's minister of agriculture. Good words are one thing, but
actions are more important.
At a recent grain industry general meeting, the minister said that
those who cross the border with grain for sale are law breakers and
that those who violate the law are harming their cause to get
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
In response, I urge the minister not to make changes to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. And one more time I ask him, is he
prepared to take whatever action is necessary to defend single desk
selling and enforce the rules and regulations as they have been set
out in Canadian law?
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 and his
comments.
I say at the outset that many, if not all my constituents, are going
to be surprised to see me stand up and answer a question on prairie
farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board, but as you know the duties
of a parliamentary secretary are many and varied, particularly
during the adjournment debate.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act and Canadian Wheat Board
regulations, as the hon. member knows, state that any export of
wheat and barley requires an export licence issued by the Canadian
Wheat Board. The law is very clear on this point.
The Customs Act, administered by Revenue Canada, is applied
in support of the Canadian Wheat Board program, requiring
exporters shipping wheat and barley to the United States to first
obtain an export licence. It is very clear.
Proceeds from the sales of the unauthorized exports are not
deposited into the Canadian Wheat Board pooling accounts.
Therefore, when this occurs, producers who comply with the wheat
board export program receive no benefit and are hurt by the
resultant loss of the potential export opportunities engendered by
the legal freelancers, as pointed out by the hon. member.
Within the democratic system of government in Canada there are
other ways to work for change without deliberately engaging in
unauthorized and illegal activities which may create unnecessary
problems with the management of our international trade relations.
The western grain marketing panel process was put in place so
that grain farmers, industry and other shareholders, could have an
opportunity to participate in a number of grassroot forums to
discuss the current grain marketing system, including the Canadian
Wheat Board.
On behalf of the minister of agriculture, I would advise those
who are dissatisfied with the current marketing system to
participate fully in the western grain marketing panel and its
process to improve the system and to do what the hon. member is
suggesting is a more orderly method of conducting business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.56 p.m.)