TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 14, 1994
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5265
Bill C-11. Motion for third reading. 5267
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5269
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5272
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5274
Bill C-36. Motion for second reading 5274
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 5282
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 5282
Bill C-22. Report stage (with amendment) 5282
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5282
Division on motion No. 1 deferred 5292
Bill C-12. Report stage (with amendments) 5292
Motion for concurrence 5292
Motion for third reading 5292
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5292
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5292
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of report stage and Motions Nos. 1 and 2 5294
Division on motion deferred 5295
Bill C-38. Consideration resumed of motion 5295
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 5296
Bill C-31. Consideration of report stage 5296
Motion for concurrence 5296
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5296
Motion for third reading 5296
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5301
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5301
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5302
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5304
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5304
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5305
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5307
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5307
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5308
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5309
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 5310
Bill C-34. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5310
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 185; Nays, 44 5311
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee.) 5311
Bill C-33. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5312
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee.) 5312
Bill C-16. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5312
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5312
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed at report stage 5312
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas 95; Nays, 135. 5312
Motion for concurrence 5313
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 135; Nays, 95. 5313
Bill C-31. Resumption of Third Reading 5314
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5314
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5316
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5319
Bill S-5. Motion for second reading 5319
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported,concurred in and,
by unanimous consent, read the third time and passed.) 5320
Bill C-210. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5320
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5320
5265
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 14, 1994
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): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 12
petitions.
* * *
(1005 )
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
regarding Bill C-28. The committee has examined the bill and
has agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
present two petitions on behalf of my constituents pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first is signed by several dozen residents of Walpole
Island, First Nation, who call upon the government to maintain
at all times their no GST status on or off the reserves for any
purchases they might make.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, the second petition
is signed by hundreds of my constituents of Kent who call upon
the government to support a domestic ethanol industry in light
of the fact that a $170 million plant for Chatham is in jeopardy
without federal involvement and since legislative support of
ethanol is Liberal policy. The petitioners want it to become
government policy.
Also, in Chatham on Friday there was an Ethanol rally
sponsored by the city of Chatham in the county of Kent. It was
an outstanding day with enthusiasm and high spirits.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from business men and women who point out that some
progress has indeed been made by government and the private
sector with regard to access to more capital to provide more
growth and therefore more jobs.
They also point out that there is a need to continue to work
hard to eliminate the red tape which is often an impediment to
conducting business in Canada. They see the current goods and
services tax as cumbersome, as wasteful and as burdensome.
They want the GST replaced and while doing so they want
government and those who are working with government on an
alternative not to forget the small and medium size business men
and women.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present two petitions
signed by several thousands of constituents.
The first petition which has 2,343 signature wishes to draw to
the attention of the House that the incidents of sexual abuse
directed toward children are becoming more and more frequent;
that each incident of paedophilia harms the public and that there
would be fewer such incidents if such persons were immediately
taken off the streets for the protection of our children and the
safety of our communities.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact
legislation that would remand to custody any person charged
with the act of paedophilia and that such person be denied bail
until such time as this person has been proven innocent or until
they have served the full length of sentence imposed upon them.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition has some 465 signatures and draws to the attention of
the House that the senior citizens of New Brunswick are
outraged at the amount of taxation imposed upon them by the
government.
5266
Therefore they ask the House of Commons to oppose the
taxation measures directed at Canadian seniors in the last
federal budget.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
numerous residents of Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Glenburnie,
Belleville and Kingston. That pretty well covers the
communities that have signed, all of which are objecting to
changes in the human rights code of the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with same
sex relationships and approval thereof.
Most of the constituents are from the neighbouring riding of
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington but for whatever
reason the petition was forwarded to me by them. I present it to
the House on that basis.
(1010 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition dealing with the issue of
changes to the Criminal Code regarding assisted suicide.
The petitioners who signed this are from the same
communities. They ask that the prohibition against assisted
suicide be retained without changes and that the current law be
enforced so that Parliament is not seen to be aiding or abetting
assisted suicide.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to
present a petition signed by people in my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton and other areas concerning young
offenders.
No doubt they are joining the thousands of Canadians who are
concerned about the violence in our communities, in particular
the disturbing rise in youth violence.
This petition has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions
and calls on Parliament to review and revise our laws
concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to
prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing
our society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit
to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 49 and 50.
[Text]
Question No. 49-Mr. Simmons:
What action has the Department of Environment taken in response to the
concerns raised by the Auditor General in his 1993 report that ``parliamentarians
and stakeholders were not comprehensively and equally informed about key
issues affecting the effectiveness and cost of the pulp and paper regulations?''
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Environment Canada accepts these
criticisms and is modifying its process. In the future, the process
will involve early consultation with all stakeholders and
partners (provinces, parliamentarians, industries, NGOs) in the
development of options for a particular environmental issue.
Accordingly, Environment Canada has committed itself to
implement a process that will fulfil the principles of: public
participation, openness and transparency in the
decision-making process; exploring options beyond traditional
command and control regulations such as: market-based tools
(trading programs, taxes and charges, financial incentives,
environmental liability and deposit/refund systems); voluntary
actions (guidelines and multistakeholder protocols);
information provision (environmental labelling, technology
development and transfer, government reports/inventories,
citizenship); and regulations/guidelines/environmental quality
objectives; and cost effectiveness, flexibility, and harmonizing
environmental management regimes among federal and
provincial governments.
[Text]
Question No. 50-Mr. Simmons:
Is the Department of Environment taking the necessary measures to ensure
that its regulatory impact analysis statements contain full and accurate
information on its proposed regulatory initiatives, and will they remain ``the
essential means of disclosing information to cabinet, Parliament and the
public''?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): The Department of Environment will
continue to ensure that the regulatory impact analysis
statements (RIAS) fulfil the Treasury Board requirements in
terms of providing clear and concise information on:
1. the rationale for the environmental measure (regulations or
economic instrument);
2. an assessment of alternatives to the selected environmental
measure;
3. evaluation of both costs and benefits (quantifiable where
possible);
5267
4. the comments received in the course of the consultation
period; and
5. how the environmental measure will be enforced.
Since the RIAS is a summary of technical and economic
studies, any economic related information or questions could be
answered by providing interested parties with these studies.
These are available upon request and upon the publication of the
RIAS in the Canada Gazette, Part I.
If any additional information needs to be clarified, the
resource persons identified in the last section of the RIAS may
be contacted.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would like to
bring to the attention of the House a printing error that has crept
into today's Order Paper.
[English]
The order for third reading of Bill C-11 which appears in
today's Projected Order of Business at third reading stage is
unfortunately not printed in the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5267
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of National
Revenue) moved that Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act,
the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, be
read the third time and passed.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure every member
appreciates, smuggling is both a serious and complex problem.
It threatens our economy and the health of young Canadians.
Bill C-11 plays an important role in the fight against
smuggling and in protecting the health of young Canadians.
We know that the Prime Minister's four point,
anti-smuggling initiative announced on February 8, 1994 is
having a positive impact in the fight against tobacco smuggling.
Cigarette exports have plummeted. These exports represented
the major source of smuggled products.
However, we need to maintain the momentum we established
with the government's anti-smuggling initiative. The decisions
by Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and
Nova Scotia to lower their tobacco tax rates and work within the
Prime Minister's anti-smuggling framework are very
encouraging.
Bill C-11 deals with the legislative changes we need to make
to give our law enforcement agencies the flexibility and tools
they need to fight the smuggling problem in its entirety. The
proposed amendments to the Excise Act will allow the
government to designate other Canadian police forces as
appropriate with the authority to enforce certain seizure related
sections of the act.
For example, section 88.(2) of the Excise Act provides an
officer with the authority to seize vehicles that have been or are
being used for the purpose of transporting contraband. As well,
subsection 163.(3) will allow an officer to seize contraband
spirits in any vehicle used to transport contraband spirits.
These powers have always been available to the RCMP. With
Bill C-11, however, we can now extend these powers to other
Canadian police forces. In particular, Bill C-11 allows us to
respond to requests from Ontario and Quebec for additional
powers for their provincial police forces.
In addition to this measure, Bill C-11 includes an amendment
that will allow these law enforcement agencies to immediately
destroy seized contraband without hindering the ability of
authorities to bring criminals to successful prosecution.
(1015 )
This measure will provide our law enforcement agencies with
increased flexibility in dealing with the smuggling trade without
jeopardizing prosecutions. It will also save taxpayers over
$200,000 a year in storage costs. This figure represents savings
only to the Department of National Revenue. It does not include
amounts to be saved by the RCMP.
An amendment to the Excise Act will also require individual
cigarettes to be stamped. This measure will enable our law
enforcement agencies and all law-abiding Canadians to more
easily identify contraband tobacco products.
Under an amendment to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons
Act, Bill C-11 would also ban the importation of tobacco
products by persons under the age of 18. This amendment will
help to protect young Canadians from accessing tobacco
products from outside the country.
5268
In short, Bill C-11 will help us crack down on smuggling. It
will help us break the criminal networks that control the
smuggling trade. It will help to protect the health of young
Canadians and it is enforceable.
Finally, when we deal with smuggling we also address the
underground economy and the problems it creates. Bill C-11
promotes greater co-operation between governments. We are
better able to address the challenges we are facing and do it more
efficiently by working together.
In closing, I want to highlight an observation that I made
during the debate on Bill C-11 in the House and in committee. It
appeared to me that all sides of the House agreed on the need to
strengthen the anti-smuggling powers of our law enforcement
agencies and on the need to protect and educate young
Canadians on the dangers of tobacco. I believe that my
statements here today have shown this government's
commitment toward resolving these problems.
In the House of Commons on February 8 the Prime Minister
stated that we must act to eliminate smuggling to protect the
health of young Canadians and to restore respect for the law. Bill
C-11 plays an important role in accomplishing these objectives.
I hope members of this House will act together to support this
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-11, An Act to amend
the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young
Persons Act.
I congratulate the government on finally living up to its
responsibilities and bringing in amendments so that the Act can
be applied more effectively. Unfortunately, it seems that the
government has decided to tackle the serious problems caused
by cigarette smuggling on the backs of the manufacturers and
retailers.
Instead of applying the Act to the letter and having goods
seized and offenders arrested, on Indian reserves among other
places, the government has opted for dissuasion and retaliation
against honest citizens. The Prime Minister himself has
admitted that he had difficulty getting the Act applied.
Under the weight of public pressure, the Minister of Health,
the Hon. Diane Marleau, the same one who gave her word that
taxes on tobacco products would not be lowered, had no choice
but to give in. You have to admit it is sad to see that the current
government seems to prefer protecting criminals who break the
law to concerning itself with the health of Quebeckers and
Canadians.
Despite that, there are some good provisions in Bill C-11,
although some others ought to be amended. I am going to use the
few minutes at my disposal to discuss these provisions with my
fellow members here in the House. The bill contains the
following amendment to section 7.1(1) of the Tobacco Sales to
Young Persons Act: ``No person shall sell or offer for sale
cigarettes unless they are sold or offered for sale in packages
containing at least 20 cigarettes per package''.
(1020)
It should be noted that packs of less than 20 cigarettes are
primarily bought and consumed by young people. You might be
inclined to think that the purchase of cigarettes by young people
would now drop significantly, except that the government has
just lowered the tax on cigarettes, which could have the opposite
effect to the government's stated goal, thus making it easier for
young people to get access to tobacco products.
This brings me to what it costs young people to smoke.
Although some young people have a bit of work, often at the
minimum wage, they are not rich, and so it is to be hoped that
they will decide to stop smoking and invest their money in
something more constructive. This may be a hollow hope, since
it was estimated in 1989 that 90 per cent of young Canadians
aged 12 to 19 years of age smoked every day. The total volume
of purchases by this segment of the population represents$436 million.
You will agree that this is a huge amount of money:$436 million gone up in smoke-if you will allow me a small
pun-especially when 40 per cent of young Quebecers were
living below the poverty line in 1990. My figures are a few years
old, but the situation has hardly changed.
Equally appalling is the fact that adolescents are starting to
smoke younger and younger, a situation that alarms me very
much indeed. I know what I am talking about, because one of my
own children is 12 years old now, and I am sure that I am not the
only member of this House to be confronted with this harsh
reality. You can try your best to persuade them not to smoke, but
at that age young people often succumb to peer pressure.
Moreover, it is often before the age of 17 that dependence on
cigarettes develops, and the older you get, the harder it is to
break the habit.
According to Health and Welfare Canada, 38,000 people die
each year of illnesses directly or indirectly related to tobacco
use. And what about the years of diminished productivity caused
by inability to work thanks to tobacco-related illness? The
amounts that have to be paid out by the government-and that
means by you and me, through our taxes-for leave and health
care are enormous.
Another aspect of the bill that perplexes me is the control of
the age restrictions on people who want to buy tobacco products.
It is commendable to make access to tobacco products more
difficult for the young. One of the provisions in the bill prohibits
vendors from selling tobacco products to anyone under the age
of 18, on pain of fines or imprisonment. The problem I see with
this clause is that of controls and application.
5269
The government says controls will be tighter, since some300 Health Canada inspectors will be responsible for ensuring
that the legislation is applied to the letter. If these amendments
are applied in the same way as those governing the sale of
alcohol to minors, we are entitled to wonder about their
relevance. We all know how easy it is for young people to obtain
alcohol from unscrupulous vendors. You have only to visit any
corner store in Quebec to realize that.
To follow up on what I have just said I would now like to speak
about the fines that vendors would have to pay for selling
tobacco products to minors, and manufactures for packaging
cigarettes less than 20 to a pack.
The amendment that the bill proposes to section 7.2(1) of the
Act would make anyone convicted of selling cigarettes to a
minor liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than
$2,000 or a prison term of not more than six months.
(1025)
You will agree with me that $2,000 is not a lot of money. In my
opinion, the fine should be a little stiffer, to give the bill more
teeth. On the other hand, the fines by the cigarette
manufacturers will probably have a strong deterrent effect since
they range from $100,000 to $500,000 and from six months to
two years in prison.
In my opinion, education about the dangers and the cost of
smoking, among both young and old people, is still one of the
most effective ways of eliminating the problem of tobacco use in
Canada-on condition, though, that the messages conveyed are
relevant. Unfortunately, the government's publicity campaigns
put forward in recent years by Health Canada are far from
having had the desired effect. In the opinion of young people
themselves, those campaigns did not get their attention. Instead
of telling them that it is stupid to smoke or that their friends will
drop them if they keep on smoking, we should show young
people what really happens when people smoke.
In closing, I shall address the point of view of the tobacco
product manufacturers and retailers concerning Bill C-11, an
act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco
Sales to Young Persons Act.
The cigarette manufacturers have agreed to stop
manufacturing packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes, and
the retailers have agreed to stop selling them. However, the time
allowed by the government to sell off that stock is too short, in
the opinion of the manufacturers, distributors and retailers.
Stopping the production of packs containing fewer than 20
cigarettes will entail considerable costs.
Nor is taking packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes off the
market right away justified: these products are not faulty and
have no manufacturing defects.
Another point that should be noted is that whether the
distributors and retailers have packs containing fewer than 20
cigarettes in stock depends, essentially, on their sales in the
past, when these packs were legal. A retailer who had ordered a
large quantity of packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes but
had not sold many of them would need more time to sell off that
stock.
Nor should we forget that the cigarette companies will have to
remove all machines that distribute only packs containing fewer
than 20 cigarettes, a move that also entails costs.
For all the reasons I have just mentioned, we in the Bloc
Quebecois ask the government to extend the deadline for
manufacturers, distributors and retailers so that they may sell
off their stock while suffering as few losses as possible.
In conclusion, I express the wish that the amendments to Bill
C-11, An Act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the
Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, will be strictly enforced
and will help eliminate smoking, particularly among young
people.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a few remarks in the third reading of this bill.
It has been a number of months since Bill C-11 was first
debated in the House. During second reading of Bill C-11 in
February the Reform Party used the opportunity to discuss and
debate all the changes proposed by the government as a part of
our national action plan to combat smuggling, particularly our
opposition to the tax reduction on cigarettes. That was our main
concern.
I wish to make it clear that while Reformers support the
changes to Bill C-11, we are still opposed to the tax reductions
on cigarettes which were recently introduced in Bill C-32.
(1030 )
Yesterday we introduced an amendment that would make it
more difficult for young people to obtain chewing tobacco. We
have grave concerns in that regard. We appreciate very much
that the government listened. At this time it is not going to
implement the amendment, but we appreciate its openness and
acceptance of the idea.
Bill C-11 will improve enforcement under the excise and
customs acts by giving the government the authority to allow
police forces other than the RCMP to enforce specific
provisions. Provincial and municipal forces can be designated
with the authority to seize alcohol or tobacco, to seize vehicles
used
5270
to transport contraband, and to seize equipment used in illicit
activities. Reformers support these increased enforcement
measures.
Bill C-11 provides for the immediate destruction of certain
seized goods, primarily tobacco and alcohol. Currently these
goods would have to be kept for one month. It is estimated the
measure would save taxpayers $200,000 per year in storage
costs. Bill C-11 also provides for compensation to be paid to a
person who is entitled to have the seized goods returned but the
goods have been sold or destroyed.
Reformers have some concerns about this provision because it
is not completely clear to us whether the person would get the
fair market value of the goods if the goods were sold. I am
referring to subsection 9(3) which states that if it is not possible
to return them ``the person shall be paid (a) where the goods
were sold the proceeds from the sale''.
Our concern is that the proceeds from the sale may not be the
fair market value for the goods, vehicles or equipment sold.
While we have some reservations concerning compensation for
seized goods that have been sold or destroyed, Reformers still
support the new provision.
Bill C-11 will also amend the Excise Act in order to require
individual cigarettes to be clearly stamped to indicate that
excise duties have been paid. This will make it easier for
everyone to identify those persons who are smoking contraband
tobacco products.
The Canadian Cancer Society still believes that individual
stamping of cigarettes may not be visible enough and has
recommended that Bill C-11 be amended to make it possible to
require tobacco manufacturers to produce cigarettes with
different coloured paper. If individual stamping does not prove
to be effective, certainly a different coloured cigarette would be
more noticeable. While Reformers support the amendment
proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society, we will still support
Bill C-11.
Just as an aside, I think it would be an interesting research
project to see what effect black paper would have on the outside
of cigarettes rather than white paper. It would be an interesting
research project for someone to do some time.
Bill C-11 also amends the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons
Act by raising the legal age of purchase to 18 years and
prohibiting the sale of so-called kiddie packs. The amendment
will make it illegal for tobacco vendors to sell kiddie packs and
make it illegal for tobacco manufacturers to package cigarettes
in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
There has been some concern by tobacco manufacturers about
the cost and the timing of the implementation of the amendment,
but Reformers believe it is not a major issue. The health of
young people is more important and we support the
government's amendment.
I wish to remind the government of the comments made by the
hon. member for Wild Rose in the House on February 22. I
should like to quote them at this time: ``Stopping the so-called
kiddie packs is one thing that is excellent about this bill. The
only problem is that we will not have to worry about kiddie
packs any more because now they can afford the 25 packs''.
This statement illustrates a real concern about the
government's national action plan to combat smuggling. The tax
reduction on cigarettes has made cigarettes more affordable for
everyone, especially young people. We just do not know how
many thousands of people will start smoking or start smoking
more as a result of the tax reduction on cigarettes. Consequently
we do not know how much the government's action plan will
cost taxpayers in increased health care costs. This is a major
concern for us.
(1035)
Our concerns were confirmed when the Parliamentary
Secretary for the Minister of Health appeared before the
Standing Committee on Finance on June 7 and advised that the
government's goal was ``to reduce the demand for tobacco, the
number one cause of preventable death in Canada. It is the
number one cause of preventable death''. She went on to say:
``The government fully recognized that the action plan to
combat smuggling and the tax measures associated with it would
pose health risks''.
It is inconceivable to me how the government could
rationalize those two statements. It recognizes the problem and
it recognizes that what it has done will compound the problem. I
think this needs to be addressed.
In conclusion, once again I express our support for Bill C-11,
as amended, even though we oppose the government's tax
reduction on cigarettes. Reformers look forward to the real
debate on the government's national action plan to combat
smuggling when Bill C-32 comes back to the House from
committee.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take but a few minutes to say a few words on
the bill.
As the member of Parliament who has the honour and
privilege of representing Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and
more particularly Glengarry for the purpose of this
conversation, I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments
in the House to express my gratitude to hon. members for
supporting the legislation.
Unless members have actually seen what it was like in and
around Cornwall, Ontario, at this time last year they really
cannot have an appreciation of how big and how serious the
issue was for our government. It was obvious to the previous
government that the problem would never go away on its own
and that very drastic measures needed to be taken.
5271
I remember around this period last year receiving telephone
calls in my constituency office and in my Ottawa office virtually
every day from people who were telling me: ``Last night there
was a van parked in my driveway along the St. Lawrence River
when I got home. People were loading cigarettes right in my
yard''. I remember people telling me: ``I was sitting on the
veranda. A boat came up to my house and just stopped. A van
wheeled in and they unloaded cigarettes and in 10 seconds flat
they were gone. They had unloaded a cargo in my yard before my
very eyes in the daylight''. I remember constituents telling me
how the smugglers would shoot their guns to frighten them into
their homes so that they could continue their illegal activity.
We saw all of that in my riding. We saw it for a long time. We
saw that kind of illegal activity going on. We also know how all
of it was run by organized crime, or at least the great majority of
it. This was no cottage industry for a few local people. No, it was
way beyond that. I am sure deep down inside all members know
this as well.
To pretend that simply applying an export tax to tobacco
would solve this problem is wrong, and I think members know it.
To pretend that changing the colour of the cigarette and making
it obvious that anything not that colour is contraband would
solve the problem is also wrong. People were proudly
displaying, otherwise law-abiding Canadians, in their pockets
cigarette packages that were strictly made for the contraband
market.
(1040 )
I will never forget the day when I found a package of
contraband cigarettes beside a dumpster near the West Block
and I brought it to the attention of the House at that time.
We all knew the contraband market was everywhere.
Changing the colour of the barrel of the cigarette, plain
packaging or a few other measures like those simply could not
work on their own. We needed an all encompassing plan. As the
centrepiece of that plan we required a reduction in cigarette
taxes.
[Translation]
And that is the only thing that makes the plan work. Without
that main element, without that cornerstone, nothing would have
worked, and parliamentarians know it.
My colleagues in the Bloc know it perhaps better, certainly a
bit better than the Reform members, because Quebec and
eastern Ontario were affected by the smuggling much more than
were some other regions.
But the country was not spared, not in the east, not in the west,
or anywhere else. We heard about major seizures, even in cities
like Edmonton. Mr Speaker, you heard about them yourself:
seizures of smuggled goods worth millions of dollars. So, that
we know.
[English]
The announcement by the Prime Minister came on February 8.
I conclude by reading a bit from an article in the Standard
Freeholder of February 16, eight days after the government
announced its plan. That was barely enough time for smugglers
to liquidate their stock of illegal cigarettes. Yet eight days later
the following story was on the front page of Cornwall's daily
newspaper, the Standard Freeholder:
Smuggling is down to a trickle. The volume of black market cigarettes moving
through this region has dropped significantly since the federal government's
crackdown on smuggling began one week ago today.
OPP Det. Inspector Chris Lewis said police have seized some smuggled
smokes since the federal anti-smuggling plan went into effect last Wednesday.
But the volume of contraband seized in the past week has ``been quite a bit less''
than the police had been accustomed to seizing in a seven-day period.
Lewis, with the Anti-Smuggling Task Force in Cornwall, could not give
specific figures, but he did attribute the slowdown to the stepped-up police
enforcement.
Snowmobile activity on the river has slowed down as well. Lewis said during
the week there was a lot of activity from mainland U.S. to Cornwall Island but
very little between Cornwall Island and mainland Ontario. This too he attributes
to the stepped-up enforcement.
Then there is the quote from then Grand Chief of the Mohawk
community of Akwesasne, Mike Mitchell, who said: ``If there is
anything moving it is just a trickle''.
[Translation]
In eight days, the plague that had stricken my constituency
had been eliminated: eight days.
[English]
My constituents experienced in a free and democratic society
not even being able to leave their homes to go outside in their
own backyards without being threatened by gunshots. This was
not in Sarajevo, not in Mogadishu and not in Rwanda but50 miles from Parliament Hill. That is what my constituents
were subjected to. That is what they had to live through for a
long period of time.
To anyone who tells me that these high cigarette taxes should
be reimposed like I heard yesterday I say: ``Do not try selling
that policy in Glengarry. Do not try selling that policy to the
millions of Canadians who know the illegal activity that went on
and the fact that otherwise law-abiding Canadians by the
millions were no longer respecting that law''.
(1045 )
The social contract had broken down, not the Bob Rae social
contract but the Hobbesian kind, that rule by which we all agree
to respect the laws of this country. That rule no longer existed as
it pertained to taxes on cigarettes. When society decides
collectively that the rule no longer exists, it ceases to exist. That
is the reality.
5272
Yes, we could bury our heads in the sand and say ``Oh, no, no,
we could have hired six more policemen to patrol a 4,000 mile
unprotected border and that would have fixed it''.
Mr. Harris Hire as many as you need.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, right. Members across say hire as many as
you need. The deficit reduction bunch across the way say yes,
hire as many as you need.
Do you know how many police officers it would take to patrol
the Canada-U.S. border if you had one per kilometre? It would
take around 6,000 of them three shifts a day, seven days a week,
just to patrol the border if you had one every kilometre. That is
how idiotic that kind of a solution to the problem is. No, that was
not the solution.
A letter signed by the person in charge of the RCMP, Norman
Inkster, was tabled in the House. It stated that it was not the
solution and that there was only one solution left. Two years
before perhaps there could have been other solutions, but it was
too late. Now we had to take the drastic action taken by the
Prime Minister.
On behalf of all of my constituents, those who lived through
that sad period of time, those who had their lives threatened and
those people who are no longer with us because they were killed
in the process, I want to thank the government for doing the right
thing.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very closely to the what the member had to say. I
appreciate the fact that the government can act decisively when
it chooses and it can drag its feet when it chooses.
I have a couple of comments and I hope the member will
respond to them. He described how tobacco products were being
brought in and smuggled right through people's yards and so on.
When the taxes were reduced, of course there were no more
tobacco products being smuggled. Now the problem is alcohol
and guns according to my understanding.
If organized crime is the problem, why was that not dealt
with? We have simply given them something else to focus on
because it is no longer profitable to deal with tobacco and
cigarettes. The problem in Manitoba demonstrates that. This
reduction in taxes only made organized crime turn to something
else.
Enforcement could have been tried. We could have worked
together with the American authorities. We could have had an
export tax. There are other avenues that could have been
pursued.
Now the smuggling goes on between provinces. We have only
shifted the problem into other areas. The government did not get
to the root of the problem with organized crime so it is now
turning to other things. I am very curious to know what the
decisive action of the government will be in this regard or
whether it will drag its feet on this.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all about this dragging of
one's feet, nonsense. This government was sworn into office in
November. The initiative was announced on February 8, only a
few days after Parliament was recalled. I asked for three years in
the previous government to do something. I asked this new
government, three weeks and it was done. This dragging of the
feet allegation is sheer and utter nonsense. The member knows
it.
(1050 )
In terms of anti-smuggling, obviously the 25 per cent
increase in the police force was not just for tobacco smuggling.
As I indicated to the member, it was not just a reducing of the
taxes. It was the centrepiece of the program. Other things were
done as well. The member alluded to some of them, but those
things on their own could not work according to the RCMP and
according to the people of my riding unless you included that
centrepiece which was the reduction of taxes.
The member talks about the smuggling of arms and the
smuggling of liquor and so on. First, how does the member think
we are catching these people now? It is because we have
increased the number of police that we have. Because we no
longer have that scourge of tobacco smuggling we can
concentrate our efforts elsewhere. Otherwise we would not even
know the problem was there. That is how it came to our
attention.
Finally, the smuggling of arms and the smuggling of liquor is
not done in the same way as tobacco smuggling. I could sit down
with the member and describe to him how some of these things
occur. There is a link but it is not nearly as direct. You do not
smuggle liquor on snowmobiles in the winter or on boats across
the river at Akwesasne, at least not generally.
The liquor is smuggled largely by tanker cars, false bottoms
and things of that nature. Furthermore, a lot of the liquor is
smuggled for institutional use as opposed to domestic use. It is
smuggled in large barrels and containers. It is then emptied into
smaller bottles by hotel and bar operators and so on and used in
that way. It is not the same as the problem of cigarettes where
society was probably displaying a smuggled pack. It is vastly
different.
On the gun issue, there are many differences again where guns
are smuggled on the bottom of trucks. Containers are fastened to
the underside of trucks as they cross the border and things like
that. I am told the same applies to railway cars, that sort of thing.
It is a vastly different network.
Finally, on the issue of liquor, if I can just go back to that
point, liquor taxes are not federal taxes. The member would
know that as well. Between 80 per cent and 85 per cent of liquor
taxes are provincial. They are not federal taxes. The solution
5273
could not be the same even if it were advocated and of course it
is not in any case.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): What about the
tobacco smuggling issue between provinces?
Mr. Boudria: On the issue of tobacco smuggling between
provinces, perhaps I was not paying close enough attention. I
had not recognized that question as being part of his series of
questions that he asked. I apologize for that.
On the issue of tobacco smuggling between provinces, the
member would know that it is the responsibility of the
provincial government to ensure that the provincial taxes in the
respective jurisdictions are adhered to. The difficulty there is
that many provinces saw that the appropriate way to go was to
co-operate with the federal government in an effort to reduce
the smuggling. They did so. It is thanks to those provinces that
we managed to get rid of the problem that we had.
I say to the House, let us not forget that it is estimated that80 per cent of the tobacco smuggling in Canada was coming into
the country through my riding. One million dollars a day in
illegal money in my riding alone, 1,000 cases smuggled a day at
$1,000 a case. There was $1 million a day that went through the
underworld.
I congratulate the government again for having put an end to
that.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, as I sit here and listen to the hon. member's
rationalization of this government's soft position on criminal
justice and a stricter law enforcement, I have some serious
questions.
The hon. member said that the party opposite, meaning us,
talks about deficit reduction and yet is willing to spend more
money on law enforcement issues and the hiring of more staff.
This party campaigned on increased spending and criminal
justice.
(1055 )
The member opposite has taken what was essentially a
criminal problem, a problem of breaking the law. Smuggling is
not a taxation problem. It is a problem where people were
breaking the law. This government refused to send in the
necessary police forces to control it.
This member just told us that a million dollars a day in
tobacco products was coming across the border. That is a huge
amount. I would suggest to this member that if they had been
willing to go to the source, to the territory where that smuggling
was taking place, which they were not, with the appropriate law
enforcement people that that could have been curtailed.
There is no way that one can rationalize that a million dollars
a day worth of tobacco products is just simply too hard to find
for the police and the cost would be too great. What about the
cost that is going to be incurred by the health of this country with
the increase in smoking? It will increase because now the price
of cigarettes is affordable.
This government has refused to take a hard stand on criminal
justice and has refused to enforce the laws to take necessary
action to control crime in this country. It is typical of the Liberal
philosophy that no individual is responsible for crimes they
commit. It is society to blame.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member across did not major
in geography. To say that one could actually design the patrol of
that area and actually get rid of the problem that way, clearly
indicates a lack of knowledge in that regard.
I say to the hon. member to come with me to the area and he
will understand. We hired RCMP additional officers. It takes
approximately eight months to a year before they are actually
over there doing that kind of thing once one they have been
trained.
Did he want a million dollars a day for another year in illegal
money to be made while we did that? I did not want to see that
illegal activity, my constituents being shot at for another year,
no. I wanted action, tough action, immediate action. I wanted
protection for my constituents and we got it thanks to this
government.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has apparently
forgotten that this country has a well equipped armed forces that
could have been used in that situation.
This government is trying to define a role for the armed
forces. Here was an excellent example of a role that the militia
of this country could have played. The army could have been
sent in to control this situation. Yet, it refused to do that. Why?
I am inclined to think it is because of where the problem was
happening. There were other issues involved here and this was
an area that this government did not want to touch.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I understand I have only a few
seconds left.
The member is advocating a military intervention at
Akwasasne and outside of Akwasasne in an area some 40 miles
long on the Canada-U.S. border. That may be the hon. member's
idea on how to have laws respected. It is not mine. Heaven
forbid that we would undertake an issue like that.
The other thing it would involve effectively is militarizing the
Canada-U.S. border. The member knows how porous the border
is and to shift an issue one mile either way is not very hard. I say
to the member that unless he has seen the area, unless he knows
how to get in and out of that area, unless he knows that
smuggling had reached such proportions that in the spring it was
even occurring by helicopter, how can he say that we should
have sent the army to patrol the Canada-U.S. border?
5274
No, not on the Canada-U.S. border and least not in my riding
and least not again at Akwasasne. Nowhere will that be done if I
have anything to do with it.
(1100 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-36, an act
respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of
land, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House on Bill C-36,
the Split Lake Cree First Nation settlement agreement. Before I
do so I would like to make some general comments with regard
to what the government is trying to do to assist aboriginal people
to get to a point where they can get more control over their lives.
I would like to go back to some comments that were made last
week by an hon. member. It says here: ``You do not have to stir
the wood in the stove in order to cook meals. Instead of having to
tend a garden in the summer you just buy the food from the
supermarket''.
I just came in from my hometown of Repulse Bay yesterday,
which is right on the Arctic circle. I was out seal hunting, along
with a lot of the people of my hometown who were out seal
hunting for their food. They were not going to the grocery store
to buy their food. They were going out to hunt the food.
I do not think the remark that was made is quite correct. I
really did not see any people who were staying home because
they felt lazy. Even when they were very tired they went out
hunting.
As a result of these comments some may be thinking that
aboriginal people must be lazy, wearing sun glasses and
Bermuda shorts on some island. When we talk about bills like
this, and we are trying to correct some wrongs, we do not want to
give the wrong impression to the people of Canada.
One of the first remarks that a constituent of mine from Iqaluit
made to me yesterday was: ``We should invite that person from
the Reform Party to come up in February with sun glasses and
Bermuda shorts and we will go to some island''. I think there
was a similar invitation from the chief of the Opaskwayak Cree
Nation yesterday.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A point of order, the hon.
member for Athabasca.
(1105 )
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the speaker talk
about an issue that I believe was dealt with and settled in this
House some time ago. The debate on this bill concerns the flood
management-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With all due
respect to the hon. member, he does not have a point of order. It
is a matter of debate and so I would ask the parliamentary
secretary to continue his intervention.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I was commenting on what we are
trying to do as a government to help the aboriginal people. I
make these comments because of comments made last week in
the House and I think the hon. members from that party could
learn an awful lot if they would just listen.
I will quote some more: ``I do not know the answer to the
native communities and the problems which persist''. It should
be fairly obvious that if the hon. member could keep the people
thinking that he is ignorant of aboriginal issues and kept silent
instead of opening his mouth and proving it, then we would all
be much better off.
In the debates when we are trying to do as much as we can to
ensure that aboriginal people have a rightful place by righting
some of the wrongs that have been done over the years, the
members opposite would like us to go back a further 100 years
and just say it is not your land. We do not have to help you. You
should be on your own. We are not asking for that kind of help.
We are asking for righting some of the wrongs that have been
done over the last 200 years. We have resided in this country for
40,000 years.
I would like to go on to the bill to address the Split Lake Cree
First Nation's flood agreement. As hon. members are aware, this
is a very short bill. It is nonetheless an important bill because it
ensures that certain commitments of the Government of Canada
will be met. I would like to explain why it is before the House.
5275
In 1977 the northern flood agreement was signed by the
Governments of Canada and Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and
the northern flood committee which represents five Manitoba
First Nations.
It was intended to resolve a number of issues that arose after
11,861 acres of reserve lands were flooded by hydro related
projects on the Churchill and Nelson Rivers. This project also
flooded up to 528,000 acres of non-reserve land, much of which
was traditionally used by the affected First Nations for hunting
and trapping. The affected waterways were used as a source of
drinking water, for recreational pursuits, for food and
commercial fishing, and for transportation.
The northern flood agreement sets out a compensation
program to the more than 9,000 status Indians adversely
affected by the Lake Winnipeg regulation and Churchill River
diversion project.
Unfortunately the northern flood agreement has been very
difficult to implement. Its vague and inadequate wording, along
with its failure to anticipate all the issues that have arisen, have
lead the parties to seek arbitration on many points.
A total of 172 claims have been filed and this has occurred at a
great expense to taxpayers. To resolve these problems, in July
1990 the four parties agreed to a proposed basis of settlement for
addressing outstanding issues under the northern flood
agreement.
This new accord approved a long list of matters to be resolved
and provided a basis for band specific negotiations relating to
them.
(1110 )
The only such negotiations to be completed to date involve
the Split Lake Cree First Nation. An agreement was signed with
this First Nation in June 1992 and it is now being implemented
with no significant problems.
In addition to providing financial compensation to this First
Nation, the settlement agreement increases socioeconomic
opportunities for the Split Lake Cree and releases Canada from
further obligations to this First Nation under the northern flood
agreement in return for compensation provided.
The Split Lake Cree settlement agreement includes a
commitment by the Government of Canada to implement certain
provisions of the agreement through legislation. This is what
Bill C-36 sets out to do. It does not give force to the Split Lake
Cree settlement agreement. This agreement has its own legal
force and is already being implemented.
It does not include commitments by the Government of
Canada which have not already been made by the agreement
itself. It does not make any grand promises to aboriginal people
and it does not make any new demands on the federal purse. Bill
C-36 simply ensures that the government lives up to one of its
commitments to aboriginal people. That is something that all
Canadians and all members of the House would want to do.
Bill C-36 will achieve four specific objectives. I would like to
quickly review them for the House. First it provides, as intended
by the agreement, that moneys owed under the Split Lake Cree
agreement are not payable to the crown. This means these
payments will not be considered Indian moneys under the Indian
Act. This is very important for a couple of reasons. First, it
means that the moneys paid under the Split Lake Cree agreement
will be administered by a trustee at the direction of the First
Nation, rather than by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Not only does this reduce our administrative burden but it also
gives the affected band much greater control over these moneys
than it would have over Indian Act moneys. It also removes a
potential source of friction between the Split Lake Cree and the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over
the management of its money. This is strictly in keeping with
our objective of empowering First Nations to set their own
destiny.
The second thing Bill C-36 does is clarify the status of fee
simple lands owed to the Split Lake Cree First Nation.
Specifically, the legislation ensures, again as intended by this
agreement, that 2,800 acres of provincial crown lands that are
provided in fee simple title will not become special reserves
under sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Act.
The objective is to give the Split Lake Cree more control over
the use and management of their lands, including any future
potential development than would be possible if they were
reserve lands. This stipulation means that the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development will not have the
responsibility for these lands, along with the related costs and
administrative burdens.
Third, Bill C-36 ensures that individual band members can
continue to make certain claims against Manitoba Hydro under
the northern flood agreement. However, settlement or
adjudication processes set out in the band specific agreement
will have precedence over the process included in the northern
flood agreement, which as I mentioned earlier, is cumbersome
and costly.
Bill C-36 ensures that the Government of Canada can utilize
the Manitoba Arbitration Act when matters are in dispute under
the northern flood agreement. Currently Canada is the only
party to the agreement that does not have access to these
arbitration mechanisms.
I want to assure hon. members that Bill C-36 was developed
in full consultation with the Split Lake Cree. The four northern
flood agreement bands that have not yet signed settlement
agreements will not be affected by the proposed legislation,
which is band specific and deals only with the Split Lake Cree
First Nation.
5276
As well, the province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro
support the bill, as it simply implements some provisions of an
agreement that was signed three years ago. Hon. members
should also be aware that the province of Manitoba is now in the
process of drafting companion legislation to Bill C-36.
(1115 )
The Split Lake Cree settlement agreement has provided an
important new beginning for this First Nation. It has given them
control over their own future and the resources needed to
support their socioeconomic advancement.
This House is being asked to help fulfil all of Canada's
commitments under that important agreement. I urge hon.
members to join me in supporting Bill C-36. In so doing we will
send an important message to aboriginal people, a message of
action, commitment, partnership and respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would
like by way of introduction to note that living conditions in the
territories covered by this agreement, like those in many parts of
Canada's North, are in no way comparable to those of South Sea
islands. This needs emphasis, because in these territories the
temperature can drop to 30 or 40 degrees below zero. It is often
sunny, and you do have to wear your dark glasses, but bermuda
shorts and sandals are not recommended. I have been there
myself, and I can tell you that I was very happy to have my heavy
parka, because even all bundled up I was very cold. So bermuda
shorts were quite out of the question.
So living conditions are very difficult there. The cost of living
is very high, as well. That has to be borne in mind, because I
think it's important to set the scene before we zero in on the bill,
so that we understand why the bill is important. I was very
surprised to find that three litres of milk, for example, cost about
$11 there.
I would also like to invite my colleagues to listen to me on
Thursday afternoon, because I am going to table in this House a
motion dealing with this very question of food distribution in
the North, setting out and demonstrating clearly and in detail
that it is in Canada's best interests to ensure that food is
distributed more cheaply. Many of the families there pay up to
100 per cent of their income for food alone. So not only is life
hard, but the cost of living is extremely high.
As for working conditions, in the rest of the country we talk
about the unemployment rate; there they talk about the
employment rate. The First Nations north of 60 are often said to
have an employment rate of 20 per cent. While we are indignant
because we have an unemployment rate of 20 per cent, they have
an employment rate of 20 per cent, which means an
unemployment rate of 80 per cent. So of course they are
dependent on government social programs. There are certain
things in this bill that I have reservations about, but it is a step in
the right direction, toward helping them regain control of their
future.
As is my custom, I would also like to put these people's past in
perspective. It is, I believe, important for seeing how the new
situation fits into the old. The name ``Cree'', like certain others,
probably comes from a French word. When the Europeans came
in contact with the Cree about 200 years ago, they called them
the ``Cristinois''. The word ``Cree'' probably derives from that.
Five hundred years ago the territory occupied by the Cree was
extremely vast. It stretched from the eastern shore of James Bay
along the rivers that run north into the Bay to the northern tip of
Lake Winnipeg. Pottery has been found that marks the Crees'
travels through that territory almost 1,000 years ago. Here again
is evidence that the first occupants of this land were not
Europeans at all but aboriginal inhabitants. Their traces go back
1,000 years.
By some estimates there were 15,000 people speaking Cree at
that time, and today there are about 11,000. I will talk about that
a little later. The plural form ``Crees'' sounds rather like the
French word ``crise'', meaning crisis; I trust there is no
connection, and I do not think there is.
(1120)
Cree women were noted for their traditional embroidery,
made with moose and reindeer hairs. Those are other traces they
left in their territory.
Having read up on the Cree, I can tell you that they were
regarded by the first Europeans as spirited people, very
attractive, good at getting along with others, great admirers of
eloquence. They would certainly have been at home here. I do
not know whether my hon. colleague has any Cree ancestors, but
he is certainly eloquent. Native people as a general rule do
appreciate eloquence, so he is in his element in the House of
Commons.
I would now like to move quickly to the bill that is before us at
this time. In 1977, Manitoba Hydro decided to flood 11,861
acres of land belonging to the Cree, about 10 per cent, by the by,
of their territory. The flooding completely destroyed the
traditional trapping and hunting territory. Finally it was realized
that an agreement had to be reached with the Cree.
As I mentioned earlier, there are now 11,000 Cree living in
five bands on the land in question. I will name them because I
think we are coming to the nub of the difficulty; we will not be
able to give the bill our full support and the question will have to
be referred to committee. There are five bands involved. The
agreement is with the Split Lake Cree First Nation but there are
other First Nations affected by the agreement and they are the
Cross Lake, the Nelson House, the Norway House and the York
Factory First Nations. These four other First Nations will be
indirectly affected by the bill. I think this point ought to be
clarified.
5277
In 1977, an agreement was reached with the Northern Flood
Committee. The Northern Flood Committee is made up of the
five First Nations I just listed. Manitoba Hydro, the government
of Canada and the Northern Flood Committee reached an
agreement, but many matters were left unresolved in that
agreement, among them the question of what form
compensation for the flooded land would take. Perhaps
employment of band members on hydroelectric projects is an
option, because the bill before us today deals with compensation
for which the government of Canada recognizes it has a
responsibility as well as Manitoba Hydro.
At the time, people said that compensation would be paid for
the flooded land, but there were ambiguities. Among other
questions, how many band members could work on
hydroelectric projects? How much would it cost to implement
the agreement? What about environmental monitoring? These
were all questions that there was no time to deal with in any
depth. The result was 174 claims for arbitration. It was evident
that the agreement was far from clear and was contributing to
increased numbers of claims. This led to new negotiations in
1989. In July 1990, the four negotiators of the agreement
relating to the flooding of land in northern Manitoba reached an
agreement on settling the claims.
Unfortunately, only one band accepted the negotiators'
recommendations, and that was the Split Lake band. There are
2,129 Cree registered as members of that band, but only 1,400
live on the reserve itself. I will cover the salient points of the
agreement. As I have said, only the Split Lake Cree are
involved. Other agreements are under negotiation but none has
yet been concluded. The objective is to settle with the Nelson
House band in 1994, but as far as I could tell from discussions
this morning with the Northern Flood Committee, not much
progress has been made in the negotiations.
(1125)
The trouble is not the financial compensation; the trouble is
the water level, because in the agreement itself, Manitoba Hydro
is exonerated from any responsibility if the water flows fall
below a certain level. There is the trouble: below a certain level.
The Split Lake First Nation reached an agreement. However,
the York Factory band, the other Indian band with direct access
to the lake, is not included in that agreement, and its members
are saying: ``Listen, we realize you have reached an agreement
with the Split Lake First Nation. But if Manitoba Hydro intends
to do anything that will affect the level of the lake and if it has an
agreement with the Split Lake First Nation, that will have a
direct effect on us''.
There is the trouble. And yet-this is something noteworthy
that I must point out-the Split Lake Cree have become very
skilled in water cleanup. I find it important to note that, because
with very traditional, very limited means, these people have
managed to set up a small, inexpensive laboratory, and they are
treating the lake water. It is well known that the water in that
kind of lake contains a great deal of lead and that, if you want to
clean it up, there certainly is a lot of environmental work
involved.
These people have become so skilled that they are setting up
an exchange of information network with South American
countries, including Chile, and I think that is noteworthy.
The agreement also specifies which lands are to be transferred
to Canada by Manitoba and set aside as reserve lands, some with
flooding rights. All that is in the agreement; the legislation
simply clarifies some of those provisions. Of course, resource
management and environmental monitoring are a capstone of
the agreement.
As is the case in several agreements affecting the First
Nations, -this is something that is of very great importance to
them, as I keep repeating, because it is noteworthy-First
Nations always attach a great deal of importance to the
environment and consequently, where resource management is
concerned and when a major player like Manitoba Hydro comes
along, they often have to set up joint systems to accurately
monitor the environmental effects. I think it is important that it
be done that way.
I now come to the compensation fund. The compensation fund
is a fund of $20 million; a series of trust accounts will be set up
and administered. That is important because, in practice, the
money will not go directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund
for the Department of Indian Affairs, but will constitute a fund
to be administered directly by the Cree.
Of course, there were other negotiations, on consultation and
arbitration jurisdictions, because an agreement is often subject
to arbitration and disputes occur, and there must be systems that
ensure that these disputes can be settled. Then, Canada and
Manitoba are exonerated from any obligation or claim having to
do with the Split Lake Cree under the agreement. So exoneration
from obligations and claims is provided for.
Bill C-36, I repeat, affects only the Split Lake First Nation.
So, that means that the four other nations I mentioned earlier are
not affected by this agreement, although, according to what we
claim, according to the discussions we had with the main parties
concerned, the bill has significant effects on the four other bands
and that is why we have reservations about the bill.
5278
There is one statement, contained in the usual explanatory
notes accompanying a bill, that this version of the bill was
developed in co-operation with the five bands. It would appear
that this is not the case, because I have here a document signed
by the four other chiefs saying that they did not have any part in
this bill's being tabled in the House and were not adequately
consulted.
(1130)
Another odd thing in the explanatory notes accompanying the
bill is that the English version states that there was consultation
only with the Split Lake First Nation, while the French version
states that all the bands were consulted. There seems to be an
inconsistency there, and I think it would be worthwhile for the
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to consider the true
background for this agreement.
I mentioned the $20 million fund. I have the details about how
this fund will be allocated. Of course, the Government of
Canada and Manitoba Hydro are the ones paying into the fund.
They have agreed on shared contributions to be spread out until
1997.
As well, at present, money is owing that came due in April
1993 and April 1994. This money owing will be paid as soon as
the bill is passed. So it is important to note that Canada and
Manitoba Hydro have acknowledged their responsibility
concerning the flooding during the early 1970s.
Instead of going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the
money is to be put directly into a trust account set up for the
Split Lake Cree. As I was just saying, the money will be
transferred as soon as the Act comes into force. Lands will also
be ceded to the Cree, and a provision in the Act states that they
will not be special reserves. That is important to those people.
Normally certain provisions of the Indian Act should apply but,
at the express request of the Split Lake First Nation negotiators,
they will not apply in this case.
Provision has also been made for arbitration in the bill. Some
systems are provided for, so that, in case of disagreement, the
Cree and Manitoba Hydro can reach agreement under a system
of arbitration.
In conclusion, I think that, like most bills that have been
tabled concerning aboriginal peoples, including Bills C-16,
C-33 and C-34, this one is in fact a step in the right direction.
The clear intent is freedom from guardianship of the aboriginal
peoples; through this type of agreement, we are freeing
ourselves from it in part, by providing compensation fees and by
setting up committees.
We plan to address the 80 per cent unemployment rate by
giving the aboriginal peoples a chance to take charge of their
lives. These are not programs applied from Ottawa. They are the
ones in charge of certain aspects of jurisdiction. That is entirely
in accordance with what the Bloc québécois wanted: the
dismantling of this legislation that is, to some extent, the
equivalent of apartheid in North America.
I must also give high marks to those who paved the way for
this type of agreement. I must mention the James Bay
Agreement, a very sophisticated, very advanced agreement in
Quebec that, in my opinion, paved the way for the type of
agreement we have before us today and the type of bill we are
considering today. Quebec is very proud to say that we gave a
great deal in compensation to the Cree and that the agreement
and the legislation were reached in common agreement among
the Cree, the Province of Quebec, and the Government of
Canada. I think that is noteworthy. Quebec has something to be
proud of. The agreements like the one we have before us today
will be largely based on and similar to the James Bay
Agreement.
Lastly, I must tell you that the Bloc Quebecois will ask simply
that the bill be referred to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs,
solely because of the lack of consultation. I do not think that we
are in an emergency situation, as was the case in the Yukon,
where people waited for 20 years and exerted tremendous
pressure for the bill to be passed before the end of the session.
(1135)
Negotiations surrounding this compensation agreement have
been underway since 1977. I do not think waiting a bit longer
will be catastrophic. The Bloc Quebecois would be hard put to
agree to the bill concerning the Split Lake Cree First Nation
without taking into consideration its effect on the other four
nations. Having examined the agreement and the scope of the
bill, I think it does impact on the other nations. In my opinion,
therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs to closely assess the impact of this whole
decision on the other four nations.
Therefore, we will simply propose, after second reading, that
the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs for a closer study of its scope.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-36, the Split Lake
Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act.
This legislation comes as a result of a Manitoba hydro project
initiated back in the 1940s. This project flooded 11,800 acres of
land on five Indian band reserves. This economic development
project flooded 10 per cent of the reserve lands with negative
consequences for the bands at Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson
House, Norway House and York Factory affecting their
traditional activities.
5279
Negotiations in the 1970s to deal with the effects of the Lake
Winnipeg regulations and Churchill River diversion projects led
to an economic development known as the northern flood
agreement. In 1977 this agreement was signed by the five bands,
Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba hydro. This agreement turned
out to be unsatisfactory in the ensuing 10 years due to
ambiguities in such areas as reserve land compensation and
social aspects including employment and environmental issues.
These uncertainties led to another agreement among the Split
Lake Cree, Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in June
1992. This agreement calls for compensation in dollars and
lands and other benefits. Specific agreements with the other four
bands are in the course of negotiation.
The Split Lake agreement requires the governments of
Canada and Manitoba to recommend legislation implementing
the agreement. That is why we are here.
Bill C-36 provides that moneys payable to the Cree pursuant
to an agreement by Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the
Split Lake Cree dated June 24, 1982 are not paid to the federal
government and then administered under the Indian Act, but
rather to a band trust for administration.
This bill also provides that the fee simple lands to be provided
by the province to the Cree are not subject to becoming special
reserves under the Indian Act. This act also provides that
individual Cree as well as the band or its agents can bring certain
claims against Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba arbitration law will
apply in this regard.
The approval of the 1977 and 1992 agreements are not the
issue here, only the exemptions and rights under the provisions.
I just mentioned that this is a unique situation concerning
specific claims arising through unusual circumstances. Those
circumstances are the flooding and therefore loss of reserve land
for a hydro project.
(1140 )
Background briefing provided by the department is sketchy in
some areas and this gives rise to some questions. For example,
my party is concerned with the administration of the trust fund.
We would like to be sure that generally accepted accounting
principles are followed and that there will be accountability.
As well we ask if fee simple lands involved in a transfer
replacement here are to be held by the band collectively. If they
are, can they be sold and to whom? If they are sold, who will
receive the proceeds from the sale? These are operative
questions and we do not have the answers. Furthermore,
concerning taxation it is unclear if the fee simple lands are
subject to property taxation. It would be preferable to clear up
these loose ends.
The Reform Party supports legitimate native grievances and
Bill C-36 addresses a grievance. We trust checks and balances
were put in place in negotiations with the input and participation
of the province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now move to the next
stage of debate in which members will have 20 minutes for their
interventions, followed by 10 minutes of questions or
comments.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address the House on Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation
Flooded Land Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
to this bill. I want to commend my colleague, the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for introducing this
legislation to the House.
My hon. colleague spoke briefly about the history behind Bill
C-36. I would like to expand on that because I think it is
important for this House to understand how the northern flood
agreement impacted on the five bands in the area.
During the late 1960s and into the 1970s a number of projects
were undertaken to divert the Churchill River in northern
Manitoba to increase water flows to hydro stations on the
Nelson River. These hydro stations were part of a scheme to
support economic growth and development in the province.
Indeed they have served their purpose and served it well.
Today the generating stations on the Nelson River are making
an important contribution to the Manitoba economy. But a price
has been paid and once again, as has been the case all too often in
the past, too much of the price was paid by aboriginal people,
our aboriginal people in Manitoba.
The Churchill River diversion projects flooded more than
4,800 hectares of Indian reserve lands. This flooding deprived
many aboriginal communities of their traditional fishing,
gathering, hunting and trapping areas. The flooding also
disrupted or destroyed traditional water transportation routes
and shoreline access points. In many cases personal property
and community infrastructure were damaged or destroyed.
Five First Nations were affected by the flooding: Split Lake,
Cross Lake, Nelson House, Norway House, and York Factory.
Although these bands lost the benefits of flooded or damaged
lands and resources that had supported them for many
generations, they received few jobs or other benefits from these
hydro projects.
Action to compensate the affected bands was finally taken in
1977 when the northern flood agreement was signed by the
governments of Canada and Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and a
committee representing the five bands. In addition to cash
compensation this agreement contained provisions for land
management, resource development, community infrastructure,
5280
navigation, and so on. It also provided for the appointment of an
arbitrator to deal with claims arising under the agreement.
The implementation of this agreement has been rife with
problems and created considerable difficulties for those
aboriginal people involved in this process. It is safe to say that
most parties had different expectations of the agreement. Few of
these expectations have been fully met. Because of the vague
wording on certain issues such as additions to reserve lands,
employment of band members on the hydro projects,
implementation costs and environmental monitoring could not
be resolved.
(1145)
When it became clear that the northern flood agreement was
not properly addressing these issues the five First Nations began
of course to explore other options. This led to the negotiation of
a proposed basis of settlement which has paved the way for band
specific negotiations on the outstanding issues. Such an
agreement was signed with the Split Lake Cree in June of 1992.
This agreement is important to all parties. It addresses the
outstanding obligations of the governments and Manitoba
Hydro in this instance to the Split Lake Cree Band. It provides
for additional compensation and, in doing so, releases the
federal government from any further claims. Equally as
important, it provides the people of the Split Lake Cree First
Nation with the means and resources to take control of their own
future.
For example, this agreement ensures that the Split Lake Cree
will have a more substantial and secure land base with which to
pursue economic development. Over time the band will receive
permits and fee simple title to more than 1,000 hectares of land
throughout its traditional hunting grounds. As well, two new
reserves will be established and a 46,000 square kilometre area
will be co-managed by the band and the province of Manitoba.
This agreement also provides for the establishment of a band
controlled environmental monitoring agency. It gives the Split
Lake Cree a strong voice in how their compensation moneys will
be managed.
For the information of hon. members, these moneys will be
used to support economic and social development, to
compensate the Split Lake Cree for the adverse effects of the
flooding on their natural resource base and to remunerate the
band and its members for damage to property and infrastructure.
I want to assure hon. members that Bill C-36 in no way
expands or diminishes the commitments made in this settlement
agreement. It follows through on some of the provisions of this
agreement.
Let me reiterate what this bill sets out to do. It ensures that
money under the Split Lake Cree First Nation agreement will not
be considered Indian moneys and it will therefore be
administered on its behalf by a trustee and not the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I want to assure the
hon. member from the Reform Party that standard accounting
practices will be adhered to I am sure by the band.
It is ensures that provincial crown lands provided in fee
simple title will not become a special reserve under the Indian
Act. It provides that any specific adjudication process that is set
out in this band specific settlement agreement will take
precedence over the processes set out in the northern flood
agreement. It ensures that the Government of Canada can utilize
the Manitoba Arbitration Act as do the other three parties in the
northern flood agreement.
I also want to remind hon. members that Bill C-36 will apply
only to the Split Lake Cree Band. This is an important feature. It
will not apply to the other northern flood agreement First
Nations which have not yet negotiated band specific settlement
agreements, and we wish to respect that.
As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has said, the province of Manitoba is currently preparing
companion legislation based on Bill C-36. This provincial
legislation will further protect the interests of the Split Lake
Cree First Nation.
I want to thank the minister for confirming that consultations
have been undertaken with the affected First Nation, with the
provincial government and with Manitoba Hydro. This has
resulted in a clear and concise bill that has the support of all
parties to the Split Lake Cree settlement agreement.
Finally, I want to join my hon. colleagues, the minister of
Indian affairs and the parliamentary secretary to the minister, in
urging quick approval of this bill. It will put into place the final
elements of the implementation process for the Split Lake Cree
agreement. It will demonstrate to the Split Lake Cree Nation, to
First Nations across Canada and to all Canadians that this
government is committed to implementing its lawful
obligations to the aboriginal people of Canada.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to make a direct comment on the words spoken by
both the hon. member from the Bloc, two speakers previously,
and the hon. member from the government House, a speaker
before that.
(1150 )
I want to recognize the contribution made by the Split Lake
Cree First Nation and indeed all our First Nations people and
remind this House that earlier in this session it was a member of
the Reform Party who spoke for and argued for the rich cultural
heritage given to us by our First Nations people and that
therefore we must retain lacrosse as our national sport.
5281
Not one member on the government side or from the Bloc
spoke in recognition of this rich cultural heritage in our First
Nations people.
Perhaps it is time for all members in this House to stop
making hurtful and unproductive comments and remarks in the
House. I respectfully submit it is unparliamentary.
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the
Reform Party for her comments. I and all members on this side
of the House wish to have an intelligent and informed debate
about matters as important as our first peoples in Canada,
particularly when it comes to our obligations as a government to
respect those rights and implement our fiduciary duties.
I would assure the member that the respect that she is
suggesting regarding ongoing discussions and issues is
something that we want to adhere to. I do not believe for a
moment that anyone in this House wishes to engage in any kind
of language that is inflammatory or hurtful, to use her words. We
are quite prepared to get down to business if the Reform Party
members are to see that this bill gets through with quick and
speedy passage.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to the transfer of lands, is this land to be taxed in the
usual manner as land held fee simple by anyone?
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. member
that I do not have the details in terms of the taxation provisions.
Certainly this is a complicated matter, something that has been
discussed in a number of research and white papers, discussion
papers since the 1970s.
It is a complicated matter, one that will have to be negotiated
in some detail. I have not checked the exact provisions of the act
on particular questions of taxation and resource based sharing
agreements with the province or the federal government. I
would of course agree that it is an important question and
perhaps something that could be considered.
I believe that the legislation is comprehensive, that these
issues have been dealt with. Certainly I would support a sound
tax base, as in any local government that both the hon. member
and I work with at our community levels, that tax provisions for
the ongoing support services for aboriginal communities are
necessary and important.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, the member
assured the speaker from the Reform Party that standard
accounting practices would be used in the administration of the
funds that are being transferred to the Split Lake Band.
I would like to ask the member what basis he is using to give
us those assurances. Is he using some wording in the agreement
or the legislation to give us those assurances?
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, to provide a clarification on the
taxation side, I am quite sure there will be tax provisions,
sufficient provisions. In answer to that specific question, as the
hon. member knows full well, the aboriginal First Nations
across this country have entered into agreements and
undertakings with the Government of Canada on a number of
specific kinds of initiatives.
We have everything from health care services to education to
transfers of welfare services to the bands. I would assure the
hon. member that under almost all of those circumstances the
bands have been practising good management and standard
accounting practices that are reported at this time through
specific kinds of agencies in the department of Indian affairs. I
cannot see any reason why the band would not under these
circumstances and local government control continue to follow
those same practices of good government.
(1155)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak briefly to Bill C-36.
Generally as the House has heard our party supports the goals
of this legislation, the transfer of the moneys in the agreement to
the Split Lake Cree Nation rather than being held in trust by the
department of Indian affairs. Certainly we do not argue with the
compensation in land, replacing that land which was flooded
under the hydro project.
However, it appears the reopening of the northern flood
agreement to accomplish these provisions considerably tops up
the compensation provided in the northern flood agreement and
enriches it considerably.
There are a number of questions that need to be answered. As
we heard before, the briefing material provided by the
department on this particular piece of legislation is very vague
and incomprehensive, and it is hard to find the answers to the
questions we are looking for. Hopefully we will be able to
accomplish that in committee.
On a number of questions like the one of standard accounting
practices, I do not really think it is reasonable to assume that
because most other Indian bands across this country follow
standard accounting practices it is reasonable to be able to
assure all Canadians that standard accounting practices will be
followed in this instance.
There need to be provisions in the agreement, in the act, to
provide for that specifically considering that the administration
of these funds is removed from the auspices of the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and therefore also
5282
removed from the jurisdiction of the Auditor General. That
specific concern should be addressed.
One of my other concerns is why when all five bands were
covered by the northern flood agreement are we now separating
it out and dealing with one specific band instead of all five bands
in a single piece of legislation or a single act to provide the same
provisions for all the bands?
As I said, generally we support the objectives of this bill and
hopefully if those answers can be provided to us in committee in
areas with which we are concerned I am sure we can provide
support and help a speedy passage of this bill through the
process to enactment.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, since I do not
think that the matter was raised, I have a question. When we
dealt with the Americans concerning Hydro-Québec, all
compensation payments were made by Hydro-Québec. In this
matter, I would like to get confirmation that three quarters of the
compensation are coming from the federal government,
Manitoba Hydro paying the remaining quarter.
I merely want some light shed on the subject. Is the federal
government really paying three quarters and Manitoba Hydro
and the Government of Manitoba a quarter? I would like the hon.
member to confirm this to the House.
[English]
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I think this really goes to
demonstrate the confusion and the lack of understanding of the
provisions of this bill in the briefing material that we received.
(1200 )
I certainly cannot answer the hon. member's question because
I have not been able to make the same determination from the
material provided. Hopefully those questions can be answered
by others in committee or in the House, but I do not know the
answer to the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, an act
respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment
and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me share with
members a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Bill C-22.
There are two motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for
the report stage of Bill C-22, an act respecting certain
agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of
terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but will be
voted on as follows:
(A) If motion No. 1 is concurred in, it will be unnecessary to
proceed with the vote on motion No. 2.
(B) If motion No. 1 is negatived, a vote will be necessary on
motion No. 2.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-22, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 35, on page 3,
the following:
``(4) The Minister shall cause to be laid before the House of Commons any
agreement entered into under this section not later than five days following the
entering into of the agreement or, if the House of Commons is not then sitting,
on the first day thereafter that the House is sitting.
(5) An agreement referred to in subsection (4) shall be referred for review to
a standing committee of the House of Commons or the Senate or to a joint
committee appointed for that purpose by Parliament.''
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans) moved:
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
[
English]
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, consideration of this bill has been
long and very perplexing for many of us. We have dealt with it in
the House and we have dealt with it at committee. We think there
are still some very serious problems with it.
Essentially I believe that two wrongs do not make a right.
Many wrongs have been alleged in this bill. Right from the very
start of the whole Pearson development program there has been
an allegation of interference in the system of setting up the
contract and awarding it.
5283
There have been allegations of inappropriate lobby tactics and
of crown princing, which is when something is designed so that
only one prechosen person or group can qualify for it. There
have also been allegations of generally improper government
contacts in setting up this whole contract.
(1205)
A public hearing in this whole process would have been
desirable. A public hearing could have laid to rest who was at
fault, whether or not this was a bad deal in terms of the contract
itself, and whether or not the entire process by which this was
done was flawed. This was something we tried for. It was
something the opposition also tried for, but we were not
successful in getting the government to agree.
What we got instead was the Nixon report which in effect was
a non-report. We are not quite sure as the public is not sure
exactly what the terms of reference were for Mr. Nixon. We are
not sure exactly how he conducted this. We do know he did not
call on several of the principals involved in this contract. We
know he did not have anybody testify under oath. We know he
did not make the information he received public. We know that
the principals involved did not get an opportunity to refute any
of the information he had gathered. He then made a
recommendation to the government which interestingly
coincided exactly with what the government planned to do.
There should have been some process whereby all the people
involved in this contract and the way it was set up and awarded
would have made public the very things they were involved in.
We did ask many of the principals and the lobbyists to attend
meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Unfortunately, most of the principals and virtually all of the
lobbyists declined to appear. We in the opposition attempted to
put in a very long list of witnesses for the committee to subpoena
but this was not done.
After two attempts at getting the principal witnesses in and
their choosing not to attend, the committee decided there was no
need to go any further. On the basis of the fact that these people
were invited to committee and they chose-and I do use that
word very clearly-they chose not to attend, this puts to rest for
all intents and purposes the whole question of whether it was a
good deal and whether it was a flawed system by which this
whole contract operated. They had the opportunity to come
forward and expose where they thought the government was
making a mistake and this is something they did not do.
I am not aware of this in Canada but in the United States legal
system there is a plea of no contest in addition to guilty or not
guilty. No contest is when someone accuses you of something or
alleges certain wrongdoings and you simply choose not to deny
these and the court makes its decision accordingly.
While we may not have that legal concept in Canada that is in
essence what has occurred in Bill C-22. The people involved
who say they have been wronged chose not to come to the
committee meetings. The government, which says this was a
very bad deal and a bad system, also chose not to go public and
expose to Canadians what in effect was wrong with this deal.
Since they have chosen to do this I am essentially prepared to go
with that and say that fine, if the principals do not wish to
contest that they were unfairly dealt with and the government
chooses not to defend its decision, then so be it.
It does leave one last aspect on which the government has to
have some input and some knowledge of the process that is
taking place. That is the process of the government arbitrarily
choosing behind closed doors to pay or not to pay compensation
to the players in this whole deal.
Given that they were not prepared to come forward and defend
themselves in terms of whether or not the government made a
bad decision brings to question whether or not any
compensation should in fact be paid. I am certainly more than
willing to listen to the claims they might have. I proposed an
amendment at committee stage so they could bring their claims
to committee, but that did not pass.
(1210)
Now we have a situation in which the minister can choose to
either accept or reject claims. The public and for that matter
even the committee in this House are not going to be privy to
what those claims were, what the justification was or even to
whom these claims are paid.
As the master contract was to the Pearson Development
Corporation it is quite possible the minister may choose to make
the payment, if he makes one, to the Pearson Development
Corporation. It can then disburse the funds within its own
organization and we will never know who really got paid.
This whole process is wrong. The government has now hired
Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright is not running this whole program but he
is collecting these claims to the government. They are then
being turned over to auditors who examine them to see if they
involve lobbyist fees or lost profits and a recommendation will
flow from that to the minister. He can then choose to accept or
reject the recommendation.
Mr. Wright is being paid $1,000 a day on top of his expenses. I
am not questioning whether or not Mr. Wright is worth that
money. I am questioning why we hired Mr. Wright when the
proper conduit for these claims and for these claimants to come
5284
forward and make their case should have been to the Standing
Committee on Transport. That is the proper process.
We are here to represent all of the people of Canada. In that
way they can see that justice was done. That is the process we
still need. That is why I brought forward this motion. I want it to
go on record that it was originally drafted by the Bloc
Quebecois. The Bloc brought forward the motion but held off in
favour of the amendment I brought in. I bring it forward now
because we are still seeking some way to keep this entire process
visible and transparent.
My amendment did not tie the minister to following our
recommendations, only that we got to see and make those
recommendations in the first place.
I would like to close by simply suggesting that we have to do
the right thing. A wrong process has been flowing through this
program all the way. I will conclude by repeating what I said at
the beginning of my speech: Two wrongs do not make a right.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport presented the
committee's report to the House, following its consideration of
Bill C-22. You will agree that the amendments proposed to this
House hardly deal with the questions we have raised since the
bill was tabled for first reading on April 13.
What the report proposes to hon. members of this House boils
down to three short recommendations. The first one is on Clause
11, where we are asked to strike out line 36 on page 3 and
substitute the following therefor: ``The Governor in Council
may, etc.'' The second recommendation is to add, immediately
after line 2, on page 4, the following: ``An order made by the
Governor in Council under sub-section (1) shall be laid before
the House of Commons not later than the fifth sitting day of the
House of Commons after it is made''. And the third brief
recommendation: ``A copy of the Minutes of Proceedings and
Evidence, relating to this Bill-Issues 7, 8, 9 and 10-is
tabled''.
After the many hours we have spent working in the House of
Commons and the Transport Committee, it is astonishing to read
these recommendations by the committee of which I am a
member, although a dissident one. Let me explain. On June 11,
the Ottawa Citizen gave a good summary of the drawbacks of
this legislation and the problems encountered by the transport
committee, except that it mistakenly reported, and I quote:
[English]
Gouk for instance tried to have key Pearson players subpoenaed to testify
before the committee after only seven witnesses showed up out of the 17 who
were invited to appear. The Liberals killed that move.
(1215)
[Translation]
With respect, the Ottawa Citizen was wrong. It was the Bloc
Quebecois member who made that request-in fact, yours
truly-and I think the hon. member will agree that the
attribution was erroneous. However, the Ottawa Citizen was
right when it said that the Liberals turned down my request. I
submitted a list of 17 witnesses, 13 of whom declined to appear.
I asked for three people to be subpoenaed: Otto Jelinek, Peter
Couglin and Senator Leo Kolber. This motion was also defeated,
thanks to the Liberal majority on the committee. These
witnesses would have clarified the issues for the committee and,
in that case, the report to the House would not have been the
same.
It was not a frivolous request on my part. These three people
were closely linked to the process that awarded the contract to
Pearson Development Corporation. In fact, Peter Couglin was
president of Pearson Development Corporation, and he was not
heard. Liberal Senator Leo Kolber, was, according to the
Financial Post Directory of Directors, a director of Claridge.
Canadians will recall that during the last election campaign, at
his residence in Westmount, this valiant senator entertained
guests such as Charles Bronfman, who is linked to the project, at
a $1,000-a-plate dinner to hear the present Prime Minister who
was then trying to get elected.
I had also asked that Mr. Otto Jelinek, former Conservative
minister, who now heads the Matthews Group branch
responsible for Asia, be subpoenaed.
Why did the Liberal members on the transport committee
refuse my request? What were they afraid of? Why did 13 of the
17 witnesses on the list presented by the Bloc Quebecois refuse
to appear in front of the transport committee?
Since the bill was introduced in the House on April 13 last, the
opposition parties have been suggesting numerous amendments,
making many requests, and demanding a royal commission of
inquiry to get to the bottom of dealings the Prime Minister
himself denounced during the election campaign. And yet, his
Liberal government is turning down all our requests, either in
committee or in the House of Commons. Democracy is all fine
and good, Mr. Speaker, but the Liberal version of it is you talk
and we decide.
There is a limit to people's patience. I said it many times here,
Canadians were expecting transparency from this government
and all they have seen so far is scheming. The Conservatives and
the Liberals are cast from the same mold.
5285
I am getting repetitive, you will say. Unfortunately people in
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, whom I am proud to
represent, and I have lost faith in the present system.
All the parties in this House are aware that the Pearson airport
contract was awarded to the Pearson Development Corporation
to benefit friends of the Conservative Party. The proof is that
before the elections, the present Prime Minister promised to
cancel the deal for the reasons I just mentioned. And yet, today,
he refuses to get to the bottom of things and introduces a bill to
compensate friends of the former regime. Could it be that he has
the same friends and the same financial backers? I do not know,
but it makes me wonder.
We cannot allow the minister, with the approval of the
Governor in Council, pursuant to clause 10 of the bill, to enter
into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the
payment of such amounts as the minister considers appropriate
in connection with the coming into force of the act, subject to the
terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate. As
you can see, I quoted clause 10, which we find contentious. We
cannot agree to that as long as this House does not have all the
facts and does not know exactly how much the cancellation of
the contract awarded to the Pearson Development Corporation
to manage Pearson airport will cost taxpayers.
(1220)
Nor can we authorize the Governor in Council to enter into an
agreement and simply lay it before the House not later than five
days following the entering into the agreement. First of all, we
have to know the truth. Considering that requests have been
made and rejected, I feel compelled to propose a motion.
I propose the following motion:
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
There is a good reason for this motion. Given that, in
committee, the minister told us that compensation could be nil,
zero dollars, I tell you that, having played an active role in the
work of the committee, I am not in a position to determine
whether compensation, if granted, will be reasonable. With
respect, I ask my colleagues in this House to support this motion
and refuse to give the Minister of Transport a blank cheque.
The Deputy Speaker: This motion has indeed been received
and judged to be in order, therefore the debate is on this motion
and the other one.
It is now the turn of a government member. I recognize the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity in
addressing the two amendments to make some comments
vis-à-vis what both opposition members have indicated.
I thank all members of the committee and the chairman
specifically for the way he managed the affairs of the
committee. I also thank the critics of both the Bloc Quebecois
and the Reform Party for their co-operation on a very difficult
issue. We understand that and their co-operation was necessary.
However I must disagree with what has been said today. It is
important for me to clarify some of the allegations made by both
my friend from the Bloc and my friend from the Reform Party.
The government wants to do the right thing and wants to do
things right. Let us not forget that the bill before the House does
what we promised to do during the election. One was a promise
to review the Pearson privatization bill and appoint an arbitrator
to take a look at the process and the deal to ensure the public
interest was being protected. Mr. Nixon did that in an admirable
fashion. He made a recommendation to the Prime Minister and
the Prime Minister, as promised during the election, cancelled
the Pearson deal after we became the government.
This bill formally cancels a bill and an agreement signed
behind closed doors by the former government two weeks before
the election. We know the process was not right. We know the
public interest was not being served. By virtue of Bill C-22 the
government has formally cancelled the bill and the contract. We
have honoured our commitment to the Canadian people who put
their trust in the Liberal Party to do exactly that.
Let it be very clear that we are not talking about a process
whereby we are trying to hide behind the curtains or trying to do
something behind closed doors. The agreement formally cancels
the Pearson deal and puts Pearson back into the hands of the
government. Therefore we are doing the right thing.
The Reform Party said that two wrongs did not make a right. I
would agree with that philosophy but there were not two wrongs.
There was one wrong and that was the putting together of the
deal by the former government. We know what happened to the
former government. It was thrown out of office at election time
because of the way it operated generally and because of the way
it operated on that bill.
To suggest that this bill and the conduct of this government
are wrong is absolutely false. First our program and bill state
that we will cancel the agreement, and that is what we are doing.
Second, there will be no compensation paid, especially for
lobbyist fees, profits and lost opportunities.
(1225)
The people who entered into the agreement were warned
before the election not to sign it. The new government in waiting
gave them notice not to sign it. They chose to sign two weeks
before an election. They took their chances. However the bill
specifically says that we will only pay out of pocket expenses.
We will only pay invoices where there was value for work done.
If they cannot prove there was value for work done by way of an
invoice, they do not get any money. It may very well be. Clause
10 says there may be no compensation unless they can prove that
5286
they had a bona fide invoice prior to their signing the agreement
or even after signing the agreement on October 7.
I also want to talk about some allegations that were made here
today. Government members on the committee did not stand in
the way of calling witnesses. Of the 17 witnesses the Bloc and
Reform parties put forward, government members had said to
invite them all in to tell their story and shed some light on the
process. We only objected to two witnesses because we felt they
were doing the negotiating. Mr. Wright and Mr. Nixon had
already given advice to the government. Government members
agreed to invite every other witness to the committee on that list,
including Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Cogler and Senator Kobler.
We cannot force them to come to the committee if they do not
want. Mr. Jelinek could not make it. Mr. Coughlin did not. I
cannot remember whether or not former Prime Minister
Campbell was invited. I do not know. A number of them chose
not come before the committee.
The Bloc critic suggested that we should subpoena them. I
understand the subpoena method has not been used in the House
of Commons since 1913 or 1930. It is a complicated process that
would have taken months. The House of Commons would have
to be involved; the Senate may have to be involved. It could have
taken months.
The Canadian people want us to put the matter to bed. They
want us to cancel the agreement, get on with taking over Pearson
and start to look at the opportunities with regard to Pearson. We
have to formally cancel the contract. The bill does so.
We have to move forward. The delaying tactics the Bloc has
put forward such as subpoenas and public inquiries would have
cost millions of dollars. They would have taken too much time
and at the end of the day, guess what? We would have arrived at
the same conclusion the government arrived at: to put a bill
before the House to cancel the contract and negotiate fair
compensation, whether or not there should be any
compensation. I think we are at that stage.
I want to get to the meat of the amendments put forward by the
Reform Party and the Bloc. As far as transparency is concerned
the Reform Party has suggested in its amendment that the
minister shall cause to be laid before the House any agreement
entered into. While that might sound innocent enough, let me
suggest to the member who put it forward that it is redundant.
There are checks and balances in the system that will lay
transparency and accountability at the feet of the minister.
Anything the minister pays-one nickel, one penny or one
dollar-will be subject to public scrutiny of the auditor general.
It will be subject to the public accounts committee of which a
Bloc member is the chair. After an agreement it could ask to
review the agreement.
The House of Commons indirectly deals with those matters.
Government is transparent. Government will be subjected to the
court of public opinion. Whether or not compensation is finally
arrived at, if any, it will be in the court of public opinion. The
process is transparent. Accountability is to the House and to the
government, which in a democracy is exactly where it should be.
For the Bloc to suggest by virtue of its amendment that no
compensation should be paid whatsoever is wrong. We have said
that there shall be no compensation for lost profits. There shall
be no compensation for lobbyists. This was a signed agreement,
maybe repugnant. We may not agree with the process. We may
not even agree with the content but it was signed legally by a
government and legally by another party.
(1230)
Our clause 10 suggests that you have to show value for work.
We will not pay more than one cent than we have to. That is what
the Prime Minister had indicated and I think that is reasonable.
We have international obligations. We have to be seen as
being reasonable. This was a unique bill for some very unique
circumstances. Never in the history of this country I believe has
such a bill said either you negotiate, and you have 30 days to
negotiate, and after proclamation you have 30 days thereafter or
there shall be no compensation whatsoever.
This government took bold action because it agreed that the
process was flawed, that the public interest was not being served
at all. We cancelled the Pearson deal and we said to those people
``come to us with the legitimate invoices and we will only pay
what we can and if you don't like what we think about what you
should be paid there shall be no compensation whatsoever''.
We need to get control of our destiny in terms of Pearson and
this bill does it. Those amendments do nothing to this bill to
improve it but in fact move to waste more of the taxpayers'
money and cause us more time loss.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite.
There is no doubt in the minds of members of the Reform
Party that the government did the right thing by cancelling the
Pearson airport deal. I am sure all members would agree with
that.
I think it is important to carry this one step further by way of
this amendment. The minister has promised openness and
transparency in finalizing the examination of any claims. We are
simply asking that the government extend this transparency just
one step further.
5287
There is no doubt in anybody's mind in this House I am sure
that this was a deal that maybe contained the dirtiest part of
politics in this country. It was a deal made between political
friends of the past government. It was a deal made that probably
epitomized the way that the Canadian public mistrusts the way
business with government has been done in this country.
Mr. Keyes: Sleaze, all of it sleaze.
Mr. Harris: Sleaze, yes, Mr. Speaker, it was sleaze and no
other word probably defines it.
Mr. Keyes: Tory sleaze.
Mr. Harris: Tory sleaze, yes. I thank the hon. member for
helping me out in this presentation.
All we in the Reform Party are doing is asking that the
government just do one more small thing to try and restore the
confidence of the Canadian voters and that is to let the settling of
this agreement, the cancelling of this agreement, the wrap-up of
it become one small bit more transparent.
It is not our intention to hold this thing up for a length of time
that would in fact cost millions of dollars as the hon. member
opposite indicated. We simply want the government once it has
determined if any, and I hope that there is none, claims are
worthy to be considered for payment that it would simply
present these claims either to the Standing Committee on
Transport for examination by all three parties or to a special
committee formed by the government, whatever the case. It
would not entail a long period of time to get a recommendation
from that committee.
This is not a huge order in the scope of this. This is just one
more small step that the government can take to toward
restoring the confidence of the voters and in fulfilling its
election promise of transparency and openness in the way the
government does business.
(1235 )
People have a lot of questions about the Pearson airport deal.
They never want to see a deal like this again in this country. It is
incumbent upon the government to consider laying all the facts
before the public and the three parties in this House so that they
can be examined in detail.
We are not asking for a huge delay, just one more small
opportunity to open this up so that the public will be able to see
in a timely fashion and not wait until the Auditor General makes
a report next year because the voting public wants to see this
openness happening now. They want to see examples of it on a
daily basis. That is what this amendment would do.
It would actually help the government in power to get its
message of openness across. I am surprised frankly that there is
any opposition to this by the government. I urge those members
to reconsider their position. Let us forget about partisan politics
here and put the interests of the Canadian public first and
foremost in everything we do. Let us do the right thing in this
House.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened attentively to the remarks being made by the opposition
parties to Bill C-22, and in particular the amendments that have
been put forward, especially by the Bloc member.
Let me begin by saying I am privileged to be the chairman of
the transport committee of the House. I congratulate members of
the Reform and in particular the Bloc, especially the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who worked very hard and
diligently in ensuring that the public interest was always held
high and that work was being accomplished at committee with
the valid, helpful suggestions being put forward by the Bloc
member in requesting particular witnesses to appear before the
committee.
I will address the last question put to government by the
Reform first. The hon. member referred to extending
transparency, saying that he simply wants the government to
determine that if any claims are made by third party interveners
that a government committee examine the payments.
We argued this in committee. It was made pretty clear by
government members on the transport committee to the hon.
member of the Reform Party, the Reform Party that by the way is
against duplication of process, a Reform Party I believe that is
against a waste of government members' time or the cost of
doing government and the expense involved in having
committee meetings. He wants to have the committee examine
all these third party expenses being allocated by the government
to the third parties.
There is a process available now that will ensure that these
payments are above board and that will be done by the Auditor
General of this country. Why are we duplicating a process by a
Reform request to take what are literally these mounds of third
party receipts and requests for payments? Somebody laid down
some gravel at the site or somebody made a contract for the
outhouses to be placed on site. We have to consider all these
things. They are legitimate third party payouts. That process is
going on right now.
Why do we want to take all that and look at it all over again
when there will be an opportunity for the Auditor General to
complete that work? Let us save the taxpayers of Canada some
money, I say to the Reform. Let us save ourselves some time I
say to the Reform.
5288
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The Auditor General
is the third party.
Mr. Keyes: My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood does
bring up the fact that the Auditor General is an independent third
party, not three different parties sitting down and looking at
receipts. It is an independent third party. That being said, I hope
the hon. member is satisfied with that answer.
Getting back to the Bloc member, the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans, he is the critic of course
for transport for the Bloc. He is doing a solid job. He put forward
the list of witnesses we needed at that committee. I am proud to
say the committee said sure, bring them all on.
(1240)
There were a few exceptions like Mr. Nixon, for example.Mr. Nixon submitted his report. He is more than above board. He
has given us a full documentation of all the facts that he could
present to us. We dragged him to a committee and asked him the
same questions that were answered in a report that he filed with
our committee. Again, let us not waste the time of the House or
of hon. members. Let us get to the job. Let us get to the bottom
line. Let us look at the bottom line, which is that Canadians
asked us to kill the deal. Canadians said it was a lousy deal, so
just get to it.
Pearson International Airport is an economic hub, a revenue
generator, a very important link and element to transportation
not only just in southern Ontario but in Canada. It is also an
economic engine for Canada, aside from the fact that it happens
to be an aviation hub.
We have to ensure that everything that is going on at Pearson
airport is being completed on time in a very time sensitive
industry, the airline industry. We have to plan today for what
that airline policy and industry is going to look like tomorrow. If
we do not, we get caught with our pants down. We will. It has
happened in the past under Tory administrations. But that will
not happen with this government, with this party. That is not
going to be allowed to happen. We are going to keep on top of it
and we congratulate the Minister of Transport for keeping on top
of it.
There is no wishy-washy decision making here. What do
Canadians want? They said it was a lousy deal. Fine. It is a lousy
deal. ``Do you want us to kill it?''-yes. We killed the deal.
Sensitivities are made because we do not want to pay lobbyists
and we do not want to pay for potential profits of the future.
Come on, potential future profits, give us a break.
After all it was a legal document and the previous
administration did sign and we have obligations to the
international community. Therefore, we are sensitive enough to
say: ``Look we are not going to go fully this way and say the deal
is cut, finished, done, dry. You are all hung out to dry''. No,
some legitimate third party claims been made and we are going
to respond to them. We are not so insensitive as to not respond to
those claims. We are going to do that and they are going to be
cross checked by the Auditor General an independent third
party.
The bottom line I suppose is that we invited all the witnesses
to come forward, except for Mr. Nixon, for example. Let us go to
the beginning.
Seventeen names were requested by the Bloc. Except for two
or three of those names they were all invited. Those individuals
responded. Either they were out of the country or they were
going through their third party legal counsel. I do not even want
to remind the House of his name. I am seeing a smile and hearing
laughter from the Reform. Some of this stuff that was brought
forward by this legal counsel for some of these individuals was
just ridiculous.
However, they were all invited and either they were out of the
country or were unable to attend and we said fine. Then there
was a request for the chairman to invite them. The chairman
invited a shortened list. Again those individuals said: ``Sorry, I
am out of the country''. Can you imagine Jelinek or Corbeil,
who were on the list, coming back? Ghosts from Tory
administrations past. Who cares? I frankly do not give a damn
what Jelinek or Corbeil have to say about this issue because it
was a lousy deal. We cut the deal, we ended the deal and I really
do not care about what they have to say.
I was hoping as the non-partisan chairman that the committee
would not allow individuals to what, come and clear their name?
``Hey, I am really a good guy and it really was a good deal but the
Liberals killed it''. I do not care. The committee did not care. In
the end they were asked and then a subpoena was requested. The
subpoena process is there. However, as we know and what
Canadians might find of interest, in the rules of the House
people can still turn down a subpoena request. Then the whole
committee decides to take the subpoena request to the House and
the House has to make the request. If the individual does not
come then we send the Sergeant-at-Arms and off will go Gus to
drag this individual in. The last time that full process was done
was in 1913. The person still did not come and went to jail. That
is the story behind that. It is a great story.
(1245)
Canadians asked us and we, the Bloc and the Reform did our
jobs. We asked the people to come. However, at some point you
have to say enough is enough. We have asked three times and
they have said: ``Sorry, I can't make it, I'm out of the country, et
cetera''. The committee, in its wisdom, said: ``We know what
the bottom line is and we have to get to it. We are not going to
stretch this thing out until the fall and dig up some dirty laundry
from some sleazy Tory deals of the past. We are doing the job
that has to be done''. I congratulate the committee members for
having done that job. I just hope that we get speedy passage of
this bill.
5289
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, if we were to
go looking for the truth, we would not find it in the mouths of the
members across the way who last spoke.
Along with my whip, I sat on the committee responsible-
[English]
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I do not believe
we on this side of the House attacked the truthfulness of any of
the statements. If you want to review what the member just said,
he is questioning the truth of our statements. I think that is
unparliamentary. I seek your guidance whether it is a point of
privilege and if the member should be required to withdraw
those sad comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary raises the
question. I was listening to the hon. member.
[Translation]
I did not hear any unparliamentary words. I will look at the
blues, but for the moment, I cannot say that I heard any words
that are not acceptable in this House.
In my opinion, what we have is a point of debate between the
two speakers. I will review the blues and if there is a problem, I
will get back to the House.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Lebel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Scratch my back and I will scratch yours. That is about the
extent of what is currently happening between the Liberals and
the Conservatives who once occupied these very same seats.
Along with my whip, I attended the committee meeting at
which time the question of potential witnesses was discussed.
When the Pearson Airport bill was debated on second reading,
the Liberals opposite told us: ``A royal commission of inquiry is
unnecessary. You will have every opportunity to hear all the
witnesses you want in committee''.
When we got to committee stage, quite a squabble broke out.
It was worse than selecting jurors for a trial. As soon as we
mentioned the name of someone with ties, however remote, to
the Liberal Party of Canada, our choice was rejected. At most,
they agreed to let us hear from a few witnesses who were
particularly well connected with the Conservatives. Even then,
they could not provide us with a great deal of evidence.
Therefore, when the members across the way claim that they
agreed to all the witnesses we suggested, that is false.
Now they are saying that we will have the opportunity to
discuss the deal next year when the Auditor General of Canada
releases his report.
This calls to mind an infamous statement which the Prime
Minister made during the Oka crisis. He said: ``So let the
Indians escape. We will catch them later''. The Liberals appear
to be using somewhat the same tactics in this case. They seem
intent on playing the role of the blushing, innocent bride.
(1250)
And yet, in this morning's Globe and Mail, not the Journal de
Montréal, Terence Corcoran reports the following: ``Not a shred
of evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the Pearson
contracts are anything but honest, legal, sound and desirable
agreements to redevelop the airport''. This is not me talking, or
the separatist Journal de Montréal, but a Toronto newspaper.
This reporter also mentions that Torontonians are beginning
to get fed up with the attitude of the Liberals. Furthermore, he
states clearly that during the election campaign, the Liberals
lied to the public. And they act like prima donnas. How sad, a
contract that should not have been signed in the first place is
going to be cancelled! Did they include a compensation clause
when they cancelled the helicopter contract in Montreal? Did
they include a little clause to make sure their friends were taken
care of? No, there was none. These people are acting in bad
faith.
I call the people of Canada to witness and I tell them this:
``See, people of Canada-and of Toronto in particular-how
easily you are done out of $250 million, with a stroke of the pen
in a transaction that will make the national deficit grow. You are
being taken for a ride''. These people have been taking us for a
ride for over 25 years, and now on the pretence of remedying,
resolving a problem, they cancel a small contract which may not
have been desirable, a contract we probably would not have
signed. Now that their friends have been caught red-handed,
they are trying to backtrack, they are putting on the brakes, so to
speak. They are trying to spare as much as possible those of their
buddies who meddled in this business. That is a disgrace!
It is too bad that certain people, in Toronto in particular, may
decide not to listen to what is being said on this side because it is
coming from Bloc members, those mean separatists.
Torontonians might then realize that we would rather get out of
this confederation before the members opposite sink us and, by
favouring their buddies, leave this country in such a sorry state
that it will never be able to recover and that dismantling Canada
will make sense after all, financially speaking. The bottom line
is these people are not acting in good faith.
When I first spoke on this bill, I asked what had led the
government to introduce such a bill when we are dealing with a
valid contract-I did not say legitimate, but valid as in legally
5290
signed- one which normally, based on rulings regularly made
by the Supreme Court of Canada, was binding on the
government that was in office at the time and had the power to
enter into contracts.
In this morning's paper, Terence Corcoran also tells us: ``Any
reading of Bill C-22 makes it amply clear the special law was
crafted to avoid a legal expropriation process-and to avoid
embarrassing the Liberals rather than Mr. Matthews''. He is one
of the Tories involved. ``If there are any smoking guns at
Pearson, they're in Liberal hands''.
That is how highly the Liberal Party is regarded by the people
in Toronto. I always knew when the leader of the party currently
in power spoke of a chair, that the chair he had in mind was not
of the kind that generally comes to mind. In the Prime Minister's
mind, a chair can have two horizontal legs, a tilted seat, a
horizontal back- That is the Prime Minister's idea of a chair.
His perception must be contagious because I think the members
of his Cabinet and his ministers' parliamentary secretaries,
some of whom are sitting across from us, have had their minds
warped by all kinds of inconsistencies or by the tendency to
mislead everyone.
(1255)
The Pearson contract is a disgusting scheme-I hope the term
is strong enough-and they are taking at least $250 million out
of the pockets of Canadians who have trouble making ends meet,
in an effort to put out the fire.
The smoking guns referred to in this morning's press review
are what they are attempting to hide. Try to make our friends
happy? Always. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours, and
the Liberals are the best at this kind of scheme.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, it is not
with joy in our hearts that we speak to a bill like this one, except
that this afternoon's amendment would make it more
reasonable.
My colleagues talked about various provisions earlier, about
the state of mind that prevailed at the transport committee. I
would like to add a few things myself. Earlier I heard Liberal
members refer to their commitment, to the fact that the people
asked them to cancel the Pearson Airport contract signed by
their Conservative predecessors on whom they put all the blame
in this.
The deeper we dig into this issue, the clearer things become.
People are starting to dig deeper and that is why the government
is in a hurry to get rid of this case once and for all to avoid
getting to the bottom of things.
Reference was made to witnesses who found it difficult to
come before the transport committee. Obviously, it was not in
their interest to shed light on this issue and the government did
not want to do it either. Why? Because it is not true that only the
Tories or those very close to them were to blame in this.
On top of all this, the government found a way to compensate
its friends and I do not think that was what the people asked for. The member for Hamilton West just said: ``The people asked us to destroy this agreement, to cancel it''. Except that the people never asked them to compensate their friends. They never as
Yes, we were told that next year the Auditor General could
look into it. As in all the other cases, it will be on a page in his
report, denouncing some other anomalies buried among all the
other scandals involving the management of public funds. It will
make the news for a day, a few hours, and it will be drowned in
other bad news, so the government will be able to get away with
it and never have to face the people and be accountable.
That is why the Reform Party's amendment at least suggests
that these things should be more transparent, that this
compensation should be submitted to the House and debated
more publicly and openly.
In this regard, this amendment is a second option. We would
prefer not to have any compensation at all, especially with all
the scheming-that is really the word for it-surrounding this
whole contract and its cancellation. If we had gotten to the
bottom of it or if someone some day is able to get to the bottom
of this story, there would be a big political scandal that would
greatly affect the credibility of the government and of all
politicians who were here in the 1980s doing business that way.
It is traditional in those parties. Whether it is the Liberals or
the Conservatives, they act the same way and there are other
agreements made in all sorts of other ways that the people
mistrust, perhaps rightly, because when something is rotten in a
deal, they refuse to clear it up.
(1300)
For once we would have had an opportunity to start over on a
sound footing, to find the causes and sources of these problems,
why politicians are subject to all sorts of-how should I say
this?-temptations that make them do deals which are far from
beneficial for everyone.
The original idea behind all this of turning airport
management over to the community was not necessarily bad.
Except that when we see how it is done in practice, we realize
that there are many problems. It now casts great doubt on the
whole process of privatizing airports or conceding them to
community corporations. Now everyone is on the defensive
about the process. This is what I had to say regarding comments
made a little earlier in the debate.
5291
As for the amendment tabled by the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency, it has the effect of abolishing clause
10 of the bill. In order to put things in perspective, I will read
clauses 9 and 10, and then explain why we propose that the latter
be deleted. Clause 9 reads: ``No one is entitled to any
compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming
into force of this Act''. Good! That clause is just fine; the
problem is clause 10, which says: ``If the Minister considers it
appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with the approval of the
Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her
Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the
Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming
into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the
Minister considers appropriate''.
That clause includes the expressions ``If the Minister
considers it appropriate'' and ``the approval of the Governor in
Council''. In other words, the cabinet could and will grant
compensation, because the hon. member for Hamilton West said
earlier that we must compensate those who incurred costs
related to this project. Is it normal in the private sector to
compensate people who, for all sorts of reasons, try to get a
contract or work on a project, when their efforts are fruitless?
Some hard thinking is in order because if we did that with
every public contract, regardless of the outcome, we would open
the door to an endless process. That clause is terrible and it sets a
rather serious precedent. After all, no compensation was
provided in other cases. In the case of the helicopter contract,
for example, any compensation must be approved by cabinet and
the Governor in Council. All this is very worrisome.
Who does the government want to protect with this clause?
You can be sure that some evidence will have to be produced, or
that requests will have to be made by those who participated in
the project. Two groups were involved: Claridge and Paxport.
One is closely identified with friends of the Liberals, while the
other has closer ties with the Conservatives. I am prepared to say
that the requests made will not be reviewed in the same way, and
this is why it would be appropriate to have a much more open
and transparent process. I understand that some information is
of a private nature. In reference to the public domain and
compensation paid by taxpayers-these same taxpayers, whom
the government must represent by cancelling the Pearson
Airport contract, will have to pay compensation at the discretion
of Cabinet. This is scandalous.
We have seen some of these enemies with Claridge,
specifically all of those people who are closely identified with
the Liberal Party, such as Senator Kolber, Peter Coughlin, Herb
Metcalfe and others. Those people are not identified with the
Conservative Party, and a way will be found to compensate them
in a bill. So I think the thrust of our amendment-in fact, I am
convinced of this-is that there will be no question of
compensation in a completely crooked process. Particularly
since, in the light of the work of the Committee-as my
colleague mentioned earlier-it was never clearly demonstrated
that compensation should be paid. The whole story is very
nebulous, and there has been a refusal to get to the bottom of it.
Behind the scenes, it is said in secret said that it will be
possible to shed more light on all this and get the clarification
necessary to provide appropriate compensation, although we
know full well that lobbying fees are tax deductible anyway.
This is the kind of thing that the public finds extremely
irritating. It makes people mad to see this type of process, to see
the government caught red-handed in the act of compensating
its friends. We cannot subscribe to such a policy.
(1305)
Why should Canadians and Quebecers pay compensation for a
project that was poorly managed, a project that has now been
cancelled and that some day will be back on the agenda. The
public will have to pay, but it is not unlikely the same parties
will resurface in some other form. They will be the big winners.
Do not believe for one minute that these people will just
disappear. They are still around. Do not be surprised if they
become players in the same project, in some other
configuration. They will find a way. No one in this group is
going to be on the bread line tomorrow morning.
I think it is important to tell the public that the government
tried to sneak this bill through. At every stage, in committee,
and at second and third reading, we had to go to the very limit of
the time available for debate to show there were a number of
discrepancies and give people with a more than casual interest
more time to take a close look at what was happening. The
government is trying to get this bill through the House in record
time, and that alone is sufficient cause for concern, both for the
public and the opposition parties. I hope the government will
wake up and support the amendment that would delete clause 10
of the bill.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
5292
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded
division on motion No. 1 stands deferred.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an act
to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chan moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1310 )
On the Order: Government Orders:
June 7, 1994-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-38, an act to provide for the
security of marine transportation.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)) Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-38, an act to provide for the security of marine transportation, be
referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of introducing
into this House a bill to provide for the security of marine
transportation known as the Marine Transportation Security
Act.
The introduction of this bill marks the first occasion on which
the government is proposing to use the streamlined process
agreed to by Parliament on February 7 of this year in order to
expedite the consideration of bills while at the same time
improving the parliamentary ability to scrutinize legislative
proposals.
Let me take this opportunity to thank all members of this
House and all parties for allowing this bill to be the first under
the new parliamentary reform package.
The motion before us will send this bill directly to the
Standing Committee on Transport before second reading. I trust
members of all parties will support this proposal, as they have,
and I am looking forward to the process as a good test of the new
approach and the resolve of House members to make it work
well.
I would now like to turn to the rationale for the proposals
before this House today. The Marine Transportation Security
Act is intended to address a long standing omission in federal
regulatory powers and in so doing better equip the government
and the marine transportation industry to respond to any threat
to the security of people, goods, vessels, ports and facilities in
the Canadian maritime marine environment.
The Minister of Transport has had the legal power to address
security issues in civil aviation and rail transportation for some
time. Conspicuous by its absence, however, is a similar power
for the minister with respect to marine transportation in Canada.
We must not be seduced into thinking that Canada or
Canadian marine transportation is immune from terrorist
threats. As members of the House know, the evidence available
with respect to an Air India disaster, while not conclusive,
indicates that the most likely cause of the tragedy was a bomb
aboard the aircraft. While we have not had any similar incidents
in the marine field, the experiences of other countries such as
Greece have not been so fortunate.
Apart from the tragic loss of life that occurred in two separate
and totally unanticipated incidents, the effect on the Greek
cruise shipping trade and tourism in general was to cause losses
measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
(1315 )
As a result of these incidents, the International Maritime
Organization, IMO, the United Nations agency that deals with
maritime matters, passed a recommendation that cruise ships on
international voyages carry out security screening of
passengers, analogous to that at airports, together with a variety
of other complementary measures.
Canada was a strong supporter of that recommendation but
has lacked the legislative authority to require the considerable
cruise ship trade in Canada to comply. Attempts to achieve
broad compliance with these measures on a voluntary basis have
also been unsuccessful. These same IMO recommendations
called on governments to review their national legislation to
determine its adequacy.
Having raised the issue of economic advantage, I would like
at this point to turn briefly to the concerns that might arise with
respect to how this initiative could affect our relationship with
our trading partners and competitors, in particular the United
States, with whom we have so much maritime exchange.
5293
Members of the House should be aware that the U.S.
government already possesses the legislative authority that this
bill seeks for our government. Furthermore, the United States
has signalled its intention to bring in a regulatory regime for
cruise vessels and ports based on existing voluntary IMO
standards.
The U.S. is not the only western nation which has decided to
respond in a vigorous manner. Greece has had a security regime
for cruise vessels and ports in place for a number of years. The
United Kingdom has enacted broad based legislation and many
western European nations are actively pursuing a variety of
initiatives to improve the security of their maritime
transportation systems.
The international standards are intended to be the basis for the
major element of a Canadian regulatory regime. Even apart from
the primary concern of protecting the travelling public, if we
were to fail to provide for a level of security equivalent to that
offered by the American industry, Canada could find itself in
danger of losing traffic to American ports. That is big tourist
business for Canada.
More than 80 per cent of passengers in Canadian cruise trade
are U.S. citizens. The value of this trade, which is expected to
grow by more than 11 per cent on the west coast alone, already
exceeds $500 million each and every year. The government has
good reason to believe therefore that this legislation will in its
long term effects be a positive enhancement to trade rather than
an inhibitor.
I am not suggesting that there is currently a threat against
Canadian marine transportation. There is not, but this could
change at any time. I am suggesting that it would be imprudent,
even derelict, to fail to take basic, simple precautions on the
grounds that we have no evidence of a direct threat today. If and
when that threat does change, it is too late to start the long,
deliberate process of developing legislation.
In the immediate past one only has to recall the bombing of
New York's World Trade Centre and the mortar attacks on
Heathrow airport to understand how the dynamics of terrorist
action can shift without warning.
As I have pointed out, the ability to respond effectively to any
possible acts of unlawful interference with marine
transportation must start with the capability of the government
to organize a response. It is thus the view of the government that
the creation of a legal framework to provide for effective marine
security is the initial priority in ensuring that Canada is well
equipped to deal with security in the marine environment.
I would like to remind the House that this bill, the Marine
Transportation Security Act, provides the government only with
enabling authority to create an appropriate regulatory regime,
together with a compliance monitoring and enforcement
scheme backed by suitable sanctions.
As such the bill, if and when enacted into law, will of itself
impose no obligations on industry. Those will await the
subsequent regulatory regimes. The bill is designed to apply to
vessels, ports and marine facilities in Canada and to Canadian
registered vessels anywhere, as well as to marine installations
and structures, primarily drilling rigs and platforms on the
continental shelf.
As in the case of aviation, vessels and facilities under the
authority of the Minister of National Defence are exempt from
the legislation.
(1320 )
Within this structure the government will have the authority
to implement the necessary features of a security regime, many
of which will be familiar to members of the House from air
travel.
These include the ability to screen passengers, their
possessions and goods going aboard a ship, the ability to
segregate passengers and goods which have been screened from
those that have not, the capability to control entry to a ship, the
authority to require identified staff to be trained with respect to
security matters, and the ability to require contingency plans for
such matters as the response to bomb threats to be developed and
exercised.
It is not the intent, however, that these powers be applied to
their fullest extent under normal conditions. The situation does
not warrant such action and the industry, understandably, given
the current threat conditions, would oppose such action. The
premium will be put on bringing in a framework which responds
to Canadian requirements as they currently exist but with the
flexibility to enhance them in the future should the threat
change.
These requirements are simply put and I anticipate that they
will find strong support within the industry affected. They are
three in number: first, making mandatory the existing
international standards for passenger vessels and associated
port facilities; second, ensuring that major cargo vessels and
associated ports have in place basic security consistent with
industry's best practices; and third, the implementation of a
system of measures capable of being used by all regulated
segments of the industry in the event of an increased threat
situation.
My colleagues and I are well aware that these are difficult
financial times for the maritime industry in this country. We are
confident that, except for some particular segments of the cruise
vessel industry that fall significantly short of the existing
international standards, the above objectives can be realized
with little or no additional financial burden on the industry.
The result will be a more secure marine transportation system
that is appropriately protected from potential security incidents
and with the ability to adjust to changing scenarios in an
unstable global environment.
5294
On the requirement for such legislation, industry has
endorsed the principle that the Minister of Transport requires
adequate legal authority to address legitimate security concerns.
That being said, it is recognized that industry remains
concerned given the current absence of an identifiable threat in
Canadian waters about the requirement for regulations at this
time and about the financial and operational implications of any
regulatory framework.
For this reason, any regulatory scheme which is developed
must take into account three important factors. There must be
full and active industry involvement in the development of these
regulations to ensure that both government and industry are in
agreement and that the resulting approach represents the least
cost approach to achieving what is absolutely necessary.
Second, the requirements must be based to the extent practical
on performance standards as opposed to detailed technical
specifications to provide the maximum flexibility to industry in
meeting them, thus keeping costs again at a minimum.
Third, requirements with respect to basic security must be
predicated on the existing best practices of the industry, thereby
ensuring that the degree of adjustment necessary to achieve
compliance is again minimal.
With these three precepts as the basis for regulatory
development I am confident that we can arrive at a framework
that stands the test of security while not inhibiting
competitiveness or operational efficiency.
In closing, I would like to summarize for members the
proposals contained in Bill C-38, the Marine Transportation
Security Act. The act is designed to provide enabling authority
to the government, consistent with that already available for
aviation and rail transportation, governing security in the
marine transportation sector.
This enabling authority would be used to create a regulatory
regime providing for the security of cruise ship industry
commensurate with that of the international community at large,
and the United States in particular, thus ensuring the continual
economic viability of the Canadian market.
Regulatory requirements with respect to cargo vessels and
ports would focus on codifying existing security practices and
ensuring that planning is done to respond to possible changes in
threat. In implementing this regime the Department of Transport
will carry out detailed consultation with maritime interests in
Canada on the need and the approach that should be taken
hopefully during the summer.
(1325)
I urge members to consider the additional security that this act
will provide in Canadian marine transportation, security that is
necessary for the protection of Canadians and those who travel
on the Canadian system as well as for the long term economic
advantage of our industry.
I ask members of all parties to consider this legislation
carefully, both in the committee and in the House, with a view to
offering any improvements they deem necessary to this
important initiative and to support the final package which
emerges from the parliamentary process.
Finally, I return to my point of departure, to ask the members
to join with me in making this an historic occasion in employing
the new procedures which the House laboured long and hard to
produce and supporting the motion to refer this bill to the
Standing Committee on Transport before second reading.
I look forward to working with all parties to ensure that this
bill becomes reality some time in the fall.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that with the consent of
the Official Opposition, we shall proceed immediately with the
Reform Party. But first, a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you
would find unanimous consent of the House to revert
momentarily to Bill C-22 so that the question can be put.
The Deputy Speaker: The members will I am sure be aware
that we are-
[Translation]
We were going so fast that the Chair forgot a minor detail, and I
am referring to the vote.
[English]
Is there unanimous consent to revert back to the calling of the
vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an act
respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment
and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
5295
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Please sound the bells.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the deputy government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5), the division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until6.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification. We
have now decided to have the division later on the first
amendment. Has the issue of the second amendment in the name
of the member from the Bloc been disposed of? Could I ask how
we will proceed with Motion No. 2 so we can be sure that at6.30 p.m. we will dispose of all amendments on Bill C-22? I
think that was the intention of the House a little earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. deputy whip was not I think in
the House when the matter was raised much earlier.
[Translation]
If Motion No. 1 is concurred in, it will be unnecessary to
proceed with the vote on motion No. 2. However, we cannot
determine this until the vote is held this evening, at 6.30 p.m.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
(1330)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
at the beginning of this session I stated to the House that the
Reform Party, I in particular but my colleagues also, would not
oppose the government for opposition's sake. We indicated we
would be the first to recognize good legislation when it was
brought forward and we would support it.
I see no difficulty with Bill C-38 at this stage. I look forward
to dealing with it in the Standing Committee on Transport. It is
something which is overdue and is largely housekeeping in
nature. There are many items to be confirmed in it but we will do
that at committee stage. Consequently, the Reform Party is
prepared to go along with moving as quickly as possible to the
committee level in order to get on with other pressing business
of this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on June
7, the government tabled in the House of Commons a bill to
provide for the security of marine transportation, further to the
security measures for cruise ships and ports prepared by the
International Maritime Organization.
Although the implementation of such measures was not
compulsory, in 1993, the previous government ratified the IMO
Convention and Protocol, following the drafting of an
international convention and protocol on unlawful threats to
marine transportation.
Such action had become necessary as a result of acts of
terrorism that occurred in the mid-eighties. Hon. members will
recall what happened to the Achille Lauro and the City of Porros
in the Mediterranean.
This bill provides for a number of positive measures. First of
all, it confers powers similar to those that apply to air and rail
transportation; it reinforces the security of passengers and the
marine transportation industry; and it gives the minister the
authority to call for stricter security measures when
circumstances warrant.
Better security will above all help to keep the industry
competitive with other countries that have taken similar
measures. That is the strong point of this bill. As you know, we
must make sure we remain competitive. Today, the United States
has full authority over marine transportation security, and this
year, it will implement IMO measures for cruise ships.
We all know that the United States has the authority to issue
advisories indicating that foreign ports are dangerous. It has
very active inspection program abroad. Since 85 per cent of
cruise ship passengers are U.S. citizens, we must ensure that
these tourists are treated according to the same standards in
Canada as they are in the United States. The Port of Vancouver,
for instance, has an interest in developing its tourist industry as
does the Port of Quebec City, which receives increasing
numbers of foreign tourists.
We cannot run the risk of losing money in an industry that is
worth $500 million today. An interesting point is that this
legislation will cover ships, ports and marine facilities in
Canada and ships registered in Canada anywhere else in the
world.
Perhaps this would be a good time to urge Canadian
shipowners to register their ships in Canada and to fly the
Canadian flag. Above all, the Government of Canada which
owns Marine Atlantic, among other things, must be called to
order and it must display its pride by flying the Canadian flag
and hiring Canadian
5296
sailors. This would mean work for many sailors and would help
us to ease the tax burden of our citizens.
It is interesting to note that the scope of Bill C-38 extends to
drilling facilities and platforms.
Several provisions in this bill give the government the
authority to develop measures respecting the security of
maritime transportation. The enactment also provides, when the
regulations are contravened, for large fines and imprisonment in
the case of an individual and for hefty fines in the case of a
corporation.
It should be noted that the cost to the industry of
implementing these provisions is acceptable. Vessels and ports
which already comply with IMO measures will incur no costs in
respect of this enactment, while those not already in compliance
with these measures will incur costs of roughly $150,000. The
cost to the government of implementing security and inspection
measures and of enforcing the regulations will also be negligible
since inspection resources currently handling transportation
security will be reassigned.
(1335)
While I did say that the costs involved were acceptable to the
industry, I would like to temper my remarks somewhat. Pursuant
to the new rules, this bill will be referred to a committee and I
hope that my colleague and chairman of the transport
committee, the hon. member for Hamilton West, will have the
presence of mind to invite representatives of the industry to
appear so that they can reassure us that this bill poses no major
inconveniences or does not impede the development of ports in
Quebec or in Canada as far as the cruise ship industry is
concerned. Therefore, when I say that the costs involved are
acceptable, I mean they are, subject to review by the parties
concerned.
If the legislation passes, as I hope it will, the government will
first have to ensure that the regulations provided for in the bill
are drafted as soon as possible, taking care to duly consult with
the industry and government departments. Many have already
voiced their support for this bill and want to participate in the
drafting of the regulations to ensure that they are consistent with
the high standards of their members.
Second, it is important that the government move to have the
legislation take effect as soon as possible. Failure to do so could
result in the following problems: a lack of appropriate
regulatory authority, a vulnerable transportation system and
adverse effects on competition.
For this reason, our party supports the fast-track approach
and agrees with the spirit of the bill.
In conclusion, as I mentioned, the official opposition supports
the bill, on condition that regulations are adopted after the
interested parties have been consulted and that the legislation
and regulations take effect as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, an
Act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act,
as reported from committee (without amendment).
Hon. Christine Stewart (on behalf of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Stewart moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, in an
ever-changing world where money is tight, we must make it our
duty to expend boundless imagination in discharging our
responsibilities towards Canadians.
The loan guarantee program put forward by our government
flows from a lengthy analysis of the requirements of the film and
video industry and is a clear indication of our commitment to
dole Canadian taxpayers money out sparingly to maximize their
return on investment.
(1340)
A fledgling industry 20 years ago, the Canadian independent
film and video industry has grown into a major employer which
produces high quality entertainment programs.
5297
The economic significance of the film and video industry is
beyond doubt. Since 1980, 700 per cent growth was recorded in
this industry, with a similar growth in employment, as shown by
1993 figures from Statistics Canada according to which the
industry provided over 51,600 direct and indirect jobs, which
translated in terms of direct and indirect benefits, into a
contribution to the gross domestic product in excess of $1.8
billion.
The growth of the film and video industry is linked mostly to
the federal government's support policies and programs in this
area. The federal government has a dual responsibility. First, not
to endanger 20 years of constant efforts to develop an industry
whose growth prospects are not in doubt and second, to continue
to act in an efficient manner by taking budget constraints into
account.
The Loan Guarantee Program proposed by the government
meets these criteria for it is fiscally neutral for the government
while providing easier access to interim financing for television
programs and films produced by Canadian companies.
Historically, Canadian financial institutions did not help
finance the film and video industry mainly because of their
unfamiliarity with the industry and its commercial practices. We
think a $25 million Loan Guarantee Program could generate, if
used to its full potential, up to $143 million in film and video
production activity and up to $300 in the Canadian economy as a
whole.
The Loan Guarantee Program proposed today demonstrates
the government's commitment to protecting Canadian cultural
sovereignty while promoting optimum use of Telefilm Canada
resources and expertise. It also meets specific needs by
optimizing the performance of available resources and fostering
a promising business partnership.
It also shows our confidence in the Canadian film and video
industry and its entrepreneurs who, as we know, support our
initiative. It is through this type of measure that the government
intends to promote the development of a growing industry in the
best interests of Canadian culture and unity. We think this
program will be successful and are even considering extending
the concept to other cultural industries.
The Deputy Speaker: I think it has been agreed that in the
absence of the Official Opposition spokesperson, Reform
members would have the floor.
(1345 )
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to oppose Bill C-31. In my judgment Bill C-31 simply
perpetuates the myth that without massive government
interference there would be no culture in Canada. That is
something my party does not believe.
When we look at all the agencies that the Canadian
government subsidizes, from CBC to the National Film Board,
to Telefilm, to the Canada Council, it amounts to well over two
billion in taxpayer dollars a year. This money is spent on those
things bureaucrats in this country identify as culture.
I have to wonder what would happen if we removed this
massive subsidization and allowed that $2 billion plus to stay in
the hands of taxpayers and allow them to use that money to
spend on the things they identified as culture.
Initially we would have a smaller cultural industry but it
would be based on quality and not quantity. It would reward and
recognize merit. When we walked into a bookstore and went to
the Canadiana section we would be assured that whoever
published any of the Canadian books had put their money into it
feeling they were probably going to get money back out of it
because it is a good book and not because they were being
subsidized by the government to make sure it got on the shelves.
Consumers would like to know when they go into a bookstore
that the books they are going to buy are there because they are
good books and not because some government bureaucrat
somewhere decreed this is a good way to spend taxpayers'
money.
By subsidizing Canadian culture in all the different areas we
send a message that our government does not feel our artists in
all the different aspects of the art community can compete with
artists from around the world. Why else would we be
subsidizing them if the government is not sending that implicit
message?
I have a great deal of concern about allowing bureaucrats to
decide what pieces of culture are worthy of subsidization. In a
free country and a free market generally speaking consumers are
allowed to make those judgments and I think they make very
good ones. They can decide what constitutes good art. They can
decide what they want to purchase based on what interests them.
In Canada we let bureaucrats make those decisions many
times. We let them hand out grants to all kinds of groups, like
Buddies in Bad Times. This is a group that has been in the news
recently. It is a homosexual theatre group and a very radically
intolerant one. Recently when a Toronto Sun columnist,
Christina Blizzard, questioned whether $377,000 in Canada
Council grants should go toward this group, not only did this
group get very upset and take her to the media board in the
province of Ontario, to the newspaper board, not only did it
abuse her in the media, it also produced a play called ``Dinner
with Christina'' in which it advocated raping her.
5298
That is complete garbage. To me it speaks volumes about the
wisdom of some of the bureaucrats in this country who make
those decisions. We do not have to stop there. There is a list as
long as your arm of grants that go to groups like this.
(1350 )
An hon. member: Give us a federal example.
Mr. Solberg: I will give a federal example. Canada Council
recently spent money handing out a grant to a project called ``A
Linguistic History of Swahili''. Another grant went out to
something called ``Anatomy of a Seance''. Another grant went
out to translate a book called I Lost it All in Montreal. Another
went out to publish Poems Released on a Nuclear Wind. Of
course the big one, there was $3.3 million that went into that
famous museum in Montreal, the Montreal Museum of Humour.
I would argue that if any taxpayer walked through the
National Gallery through some of the huge rooms, some as big
as a high school gymnasium, and looked around and in one
corner saw a box of Brillo pads stacked up to the roof they would
question whether that was a good use of their public money.
Frankly, I did. I think it is ridiculous. Taxpayers would make a
lot better choices if that money were left in their pockets to make
decisions about what is art.
If they walked into another room a saw a bunch of bricks
laying on the floor and somebody from the National Gallery told
them that was art, they would say that is crazy. If they walked
into another room and saw 256 pieces of felt laying on the floor
they would probably conclude that they were renovating,
putting in a new carpet. In fact, that is what they call art. That is
ridiculous.
Any time we start handing out more and more money to the
government so that it can then decide who should get that money
based on its determination of what constitutes art, it is
absolutely ridiculous.
We have to look at the situation with the CBC. Here we are
again rewarding failure. Not only are its ratings dropping, not
only is it programming all kinds of American programs
throughout the day, in light of the fact it is undergoing a review
of its programming right now, here we are suggesting it should
be granted the right to borrow money.
That is exactly what we are considering doing with Telefilm
as well. That is a crazy idea. I do not think we need to get into
that. We should let the taxpayers decide. Does the government
not have faith in the ability of taxpayers to decide what
constitutes art? Why not leave the money in their pockets?
Let me conclude by suggesting a great hoax is being
perpetrated by bureaucrats in this country, by the government
and by so-called artists. They are telling people: ``If you give us
money, we will give you art''. They produce things they indeed
call art. In the judgment of most Canadians I would argue this is
not art. In fact in many cases it is garbage, absolute garbage.
Let us leave that $2 billion plus in the hands of the taxpayers.
Let us not support those kinds of things any more. Let us allow
the people of Canada to make those decisions themselves.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no debate. The first three
speakers have a free shot at the hon. parliamentary secretary. No
questions or comments.
Because of a reversal-
[Translation]
-in the order of speakers, it is now the Official Opposition's
turn. The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would say
to the hon. member that we will be pleased to hear him right
after Question Period, even though we know that his objectivity
is sometimes questionable; however, that does not stop me from
being on very good terms with him, as I have been for a long
time.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. As I said on second
reading, it is the result of three years of negotiations. It began
under the Conservative government and continued under the
present government between the Department of
Communications, Treasury Board, the Department of Finance
and Telefilm Canada. It finally meets the expectations of the
creative community. It is pretty much what the stakeholders
concerned wanted.
(1355)
I will be very brief in explaining the support that we want to
give because I think this is not the time for speeches. The parties
gave their positions very clearly on second reading. We are at
last finalizing this issue and ensuring that Telefilm Canada will
have the wherewithal to support the creative artists but not to
stray from the goals for which it was created.
Remember that its purpose is to help not only more
commercial productions but also more specialized creative
work with narrower appeal that still falls within the principles
which the House of Commons defended when Telefilm Canada
was founded.
5299
At this point, I have only one question about this bill, namely
that this very important aspect of more limited and specialized
creative work is overlooked and too much emphasis is put on
subsidizing big commercial projects and that with the funds
made available by this borrowing authority, the part that is too
commercial could be favoured.
I would point out that Quebec's SOGIC worked in the same
way, trying to promote equity between commercial and
documentary productions. I hope that Telefilm Canada will take
the same course as Quebec's SOGIC. Bill C-31 will be a healing
balm for producers in Quebec and Canada who are waiting for
the government to bring forth another essential measure for the
survival of this industry.
As I said last time in my speech, this measure is a tax credit to
replace the current tax shelter for depreciation. A tax credit
would directly and totally benefit Canadian production of films
and videos, unlike the present tax shelter.
It is estimated that only 7 per cent of the cost of this tax
measure is reinvested in actual Canadian production and the tax
credit requires no investment of additional funds. So, I urge the
government to take heed of this request concerning the tax
credit. It would not cost anything, it would not require any
additional funds nor any guarantee, and it would ensure that this
change concerning support to Telefilm Canada will provide a lot
of funds to a corporation which represents us so well and which
produces a lot of quality work. As I said earlier, we hope that it
will not neglect the type of documentaries which it has produced
so far; indeed, it might be tempted to get away from such
production, given the measures announced today.
The tax credit, which was created in 1990, is a real success
story and it truly serves the interests of the Quebec film
industry. Once again, I want to congratulate the minister
responsible and the government for dealing promptly with an
issue which had been pending for three years. Instead of creating
a new committee, as is so often the case, the government started
with the solid base already in place and added the last element to
provide a concrete solution which meets the expectations of
Telefilm Canada.
We should have proceeded like this with several other issues.
We could, of course, find other possible amendments. However,
I will conclude by reiterating our support and by hoping that this
bill will be passed as quickly as possible. For this reason, I think
that once the three speakers representing the government, the
Reform Party and the Bloc are finished, there will be no point in
discussing this legislation any longer.
The people at Telefilm Canada expect a concrete measure
before we adjourn for the summer, since this will have an impact
on their activities in September. Consequently, we should deal
with this bill right away.
I will be the last speaker for the Bloc Quebecois regarding this
issue. I think that the Reform Party will also conclude, and we
expect the government to do the same, so that we can proceed
with the vote as quickly as possible.
Once again, I wish luck to Telefilm Canada and I hope that the
government will take into consideration this aspect of the tax
credit which is really a success with the Quebec corporation
SOGIC.
(1400)
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
5299
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton) Mr. Speaker, this morning
the Minister of Natural Resources announced the tabling of the
report on the state of Canada's forests, 1993.
The theme of this year's report, ``Forests, A Global
Resource'', reflects Canada's recognition that the management
of our forests has implications far beyond our national borders.
Canada has assumed a leading role in global dialogue on the
sustainable development of forests.
This year's report on the state of Canada's forests highlights a
number of Canada's initiatives in pursuit of this goal, including
the development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management and the establishment of a national and
international network of model forests.
[Translation]
I want to take this opportunity to urge every member to read
this report and get ready for the public debate on the future of
our most precious natural resource.
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, this week is
National Public Service Week, and I want to salute the tens of
thousands of people who serve the public.
These days, being a public servant is no easy task. The
pressure and the expectations are unrelenting, and yet this
government rarely, if ever, shows its appreciation.
In a society which has undeniably become more complex and
more difficult to understand in all its aspects, the role of public
servants is essential to our economic and social development.
5300
Often, it is public servants who remind the government of the
citizens' real concerns.
I take the opportunity of this week dedicated to public
servants to acknowledge the professionalism and skills of all
those who work behind the scene to serve the public.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, fairness is
integral to Reform Party policy. This principle must apply to the
family in Canada. In particular single parent families are hard
pressed to make ends meet. According to yesterday's CTV
Angus Reid poll only a third receive the support payments
ordered by the courts.
To ensure that single parents receive adequate provision for
their needs we recommend two courses of action. First, we
recommend a study to determine the real cost of raising a child.
This study could be used by the courts to more accurately
determine the level of support required.
Second, we advocate that stronger action be taken against
parents who are delinquent on their support payments.
Government ought to provide more effective legal tools to
single parents that would help them recover missing support
payments anywhere in Canada, not just provincially.
Reformers are sensitive to the needs of single parent families
across our nation and call upon the government to respond to
their needs fairly and consistently.
* * *
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, On Saturday, April
30, I had the honour to announce on behalf of the Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of the Environment that Environment
Canada would contribute $600,000 to support a valuable
community project in Oshawa to rehabilitate and showcase the
Oshawa Second Marsh.
This is the second year the federal Great Lakes cleanup fund
will contribute to this co-operative community project. It
demonstrates a partnership commitment to the Great Lakes
cleanup and to innovative techniques for the rehabilitation of
fish and wildlife habitats.
The Oshawa Second Marsh Project, a 117-hectare wetland
jewel along the Lake Ontario shoreline, is a community
initiative successfully demonstrating this approach. In total the
federal government will contribute $1.3 million through the
Great Lakes cleanup fund. This is a valuable component of Great
Lakes 2000 which provides resources to help develop and
restore the Great Lakes ecosystem through innovative
technologies and remedial programs.
(1405 )
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, a
few weeks ago I was asked by one of the parliamentary pages if I
would sponsor a reception for them. Of all the members of
Parliament they chose me. I was quite surprised and honoured.
Today I stand before the House to pay tribute to the pages
because without them we would not be able to function as
efficiently and as effectively as we do. These young women and
young men are extremely bright, highly motivated and possess a
particular charm which I hope each one of us has had the
opportunity to experience.
I have on occasion had the opportunity to talk with many if not
all the pages. I truly admire their commitment to their duties as
well as their ability to thoroughly enjoy what they are doing.
They have at times made my job a lot easier. I only hope I did not
make their job more difficult.
As we will soon be saying goodbye to this particular group of
pages, I wish them all continued success in their future
endeavours. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in an
ovation to show our sincere appreciation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
The lands of the Inuvialuit in the Western Arctic and those of
the Blood Tribe in Alberta are a long way from any south sea
island, but last week in both regions major aboriginal
achievements were celebrated.
On June 5 the Inuvialuit celebrated the 10th anniversary of its
land claim settlement. This historic agreement achieved a
sharing of lands, resources and decision making that continues
to benefit the Inuvialuit, the Northwest Territories and Canada.
On June 9 the Blood Tribe celebrated the first delivery of
water under its irrigation project, an impressive project of tribal
and government partnership which expands economic and
employment opportunities for all.
I salute these positive examples of mutual respect, sharing,
accommodation and co-operation. I congratulate the Inuvialuit
and the Blood Tribe for their vision, drive and generosity, and I
wish them continued success in their endeavours.
5301
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, some
collective gestures are welcomed with enthusiasm and
admiration. Students in the town of Thetford, in my riding, have
raised $5,500 in support of people in Rwanda and Burundi,
showing their generosity and compassion.
This initiative sponsored by a youth group called Jeunes du
Monde was such a success that these young people, mostly high
school students, are challenging other Quebec areas and the rest
of Canada to match their efforts. If the 600 high schools in
Quebec were to meet this challenge, they would raise over$3.5 million on behalf of these two civil war-torn countries.
The Thetford experience may only be a drop in the ocean, but
it is small gestures like this one which change the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, Julian
Waites was a boy who found himself in trouble with the law. He
faced over 40 charges in youth court, mostly theft related. He
played the Young Offenders Act like a harp knowing precisely
which strings he could pull and when.
His mother, Mary, desperately wanted the courts to punish her
son so he would be deterred from repeat offending. She wanted
the courts to give him a jail sentence, send him to work camps,
anything that would make the young boy think twice about
repeat offending.
Julian was incorrigible. He resisted help from his family and
the law allowed him to continue his life of crime. Today Julian
Waites faces charges of sexual assault, assault with a weapon,
and uttering threats.
Mrs. Waites largely blames the inadequacies of the Young
Offenders Act for her son's current troubles. He was not
punished for the crimes he committed as a youth and his mother
says the Young Offenders Act actually encouraged him to repeat
offend. Mrs. Waites is convinced that a tougher Young
Offenders Act might have given her son a chance at a normal
life.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, recent polls have confirmed that Canadians are
demanding action on crime and violence.
I applaud the Minister of Justice for his commitment to
ensuring that Canadians will live without fear for their personal
safety.
(1410 )
The red book has outlined many measures which will ensure
our safety and security. A tough line on violence, stricter
penalties, the reform of the Young Offenders Act and further
control of violent pornography were all included in our
campaign promises.
The government must continue to take the lead on addressing
root causes of crime. Unemployment, hopelessness, the
breakdown of families and the use of illegal drugs all contribute
to a more violent and unsafe society.
Canadians are a non-violent and peace loving people. We
must continue to respond with comprehensive, effective
approaches to the issues of crime and punishment.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
have had the pleasure of receiving packages of comments from
visiting students from St. Patrick's School in Schomberg and
Morning Glory Public School in Pefferlaw. Both are located in
my riding of York-Simcoe.
Overwhelmingly these young people have indicated that the
environment is their number one concern. Here is a sample of
some of their comments: ``Our environment is precious''.
``People should be aware of the pollution they cause''. ``The
environment is important to look at first because we may not
have much time left''.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, our office has
received numerous letters, petitions and phone calls from
concerned constituents in New Brunswick about speculation
regarding further regulations for rifles and guns. There is a great
deal of misinformation being circulated with regard to the
government's intention.
The government is considering options that will address the
issue in a fair and responsible matter. These include tough jail
sentences for gun related crimes, increased border controls to
combat smuggling, a universal firearms registration system to
track gun ownership, additional restrictions on handguns, a
possible ban on military assault weapons and tighter controls on
the sale of ammunition.
I understand the government does not want to ban ordinary
rifles and shotguns owned by law-abiding citizens. In fact the
Minister of Justice stated in the House last week that he had no
desire to unnecessarily inconvenience responsible gun owners
5302
such as farmers and hunters who use firearms for lawful
purposes.
I urge the Minister of Justice to maintain this rational and
sensible approach on measures he will introduce to combat gun
related crimes.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker,
tonight Quebecers and Canadians who are hockey fans will be
able to watch the seventh and final match of the Stanley Cup
playoffs between the Vancouver Canucks and the New York
Rangers.
Having seen many similar events in Quebec since the
Montréal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup some 24 times, and in
spite of all political differences that oppose us periodically, we
of the Bloc Quebecois wish to share with the people of
Vancouver and of British Columbia their enthusiasm in the quest
for their first Stanley Cup since 1915.
How remarkable that hockey once again is fostering good
relations between peoples of different origins and cultures. In
the name of all Quebecers for whom hockey is the object of great
national pride, we want to express to all our friends in British
Columbia the very best of chances tonight.
Go Canucks, go.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, on a
different topic and graver note, a homosexual group funded by
the federal government is guilty of gross intolerance toward a
Toronto
Sun columnist.
Last December Christina Blizzard of the Sun wrote a story
questioning whether public funding should be going to Buddies
in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto, a group which advertises live
sex acts and violent sado-masochistic seminars.
The actors reacted by encouraging members to spit on Ms.
Blizzard. They tried to storm the Sun Building to present her
with a mock award depicting a bloody mallet. In her own
neighbourhood they erected wanted posters of her filled with
lies and allegations.
(1415 )
They directed a violent play against Ms. Blizzard entitled
``Dinner with Christina'' which suggested that what she and
other people like her they really needed was to be raped late at
night in an alley. This disgusting behaviour by Buddies in Bad
Times was made possible by $60,000 a year in Canada Council
grants.
I urge the minister not to hide behind the arms length principle
and immediately initiate an evaluation of the organizations
currently funded by the Canada Council.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, we as parliamentarians must do
everything possible to ban the sale and distribution in Canada of
serial killer cards and board games intended for children. I rise
to say that I am greatly encouraged by steps that the Minister of
Justice has taken in this regard. By his actions, the minister has
shown that this government is committed to taking measures
that will protect our children from exposure to material that
glorifies violence, cruelty and horror.
On behalf of the constituents of
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, I call on the
members of the justice committee to amend the customs and
tariffs legislation to prohibit the importation of serial killer
cards into Canada.
Let us try to put an end to these kinds of perverted, profit
motivated, marketing gimmicks aimed at corrupting the minds
of our children.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, as a
Vancouverite let me thank the Bloc Quebecois for my
constituents in Vancouver East for supporting the Canucks. Go
Canucks go.
On Friday, I had the privilege of attending a convocation
ceremony in Kamloops, B.C. Fifteen aboriginal people,
members of the Shuswap band, earned Bachelor of Arts degrees
from Simon Fraser University. They were the first graduates of a
joint program established between the Secwepemc Cultural
Education Society and Simon Fraser University, which allows
them to do their studies in Kamloops.
It was an emotional but very proud event. I am glad to inform
the House that there are now 300 students enrolled in the
program and that at the ceremony the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development reaffirmed support for such
programs by the federal government. This is just one of the ways
in which the First Nations are continuing to make their members
independent. Let me congratulate the Shuswap band, the
Secwepemc Cultural Education Society and Simon Fraser
University for such an endeavour.
5303
5303
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has asked Canadian nationals
to leave Haiti by June 25, in other words, before air
communications between Canada and Haiti are suspended.
However, we still do not know Ottawa's position on the use of
military intervention to drive out the junta and allow the return
of president Aristide.
I want to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to indicate
whether Canada is among the countries that are putting pressure
on the United States to send a force for military intervention in
Haiti.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked a similar question
some time ago, when he spoke out in favour of military
intervention. We prefer a peaceful solution. We want to avoid
killing people, if at all possible. There has already been too
much of that in Haiti. We hope that we will be able to make the
military listen to reason and persuade them to leave and let
president Aristide come back to his country, but without
endangering the lives of the Haitian people who are now very
vulnerable, in a situation that could degenerate into armed
conflict.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government's efforts to bring about a peaceful
solution in Haiti are not without merit, but we must remember
that what is happening there today is not very peaceful and that
in some situations, we must know how to act effectively with the
means at our disposal.
I want to ask the minister why he still believes that reinforcing
trade sanctions could bring about a peaceful solution to the
Haitian question, since so far, strengthening trading sanctions
has had no effect at all on the military junta.
(1420)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for
supporting the government's action which is aimed at
convincing the military that it is in the interests of the Haitian
people and in their own interests to yield to president Aristide
and to do so as soon as possible.
I am encouraged by the energetic action taken by the
Organization for American States which unanimously embraced
the position proposed by the personal representative of the
Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Caputo. Second, I am also
encouraged by the decision of the authorities of the Dominican
Republic to establish a more secure and effective system to
control the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
On that basis, I believe that the total embargo will be effective
and will convince the military to yield.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, one can decide on a strategy and hope it will succeed,
but one must also realize the strategy may fail and plan
accordingly.
In this case, the military junta has not budged so far. In fact, it
has hardened its position and become out and out arrogant,
witness the recent inauguration of a puppet president to head a
puppet government.
I want to ask the minister whether all this hesitation on his
part merely means that he will probably wait until the Haitian
president's term is up and then realize that nothing more can be
done and that all these measures were strictly dilatory measures.
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has supported unequivocally President
Aristide. We are working with other countries, particularly the
four friends of Haiti, in order to bring about as quickly as
possible the return of President Aristide. I think the Leader of
the Opposition knows this very well. Whatever the implications
are, they are unfounded.
It is quite clear that in co-operation with others, particularly
France, the United States and Venezuela, we are hoping to
achieve total sanctions, a policy that will bring about the
departure of the military forces and the return of President
Aristide.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport is proclaiming the end of the
great Canadian national dream. His intent is clear. Rather than
make our national rail system more efficient, the Minister has
decided to pull out of the rail transportation sector, arguing that
it is more important for Canadians and Quebecers to keep their
social programs.
Can the Minister of Transport confirm if the planned
abandonment of rail lines is part of his own department's
expenditure reduction plan and will he concede that his desire to
rationalize the rail system is fundamentally tied to his goal of
eliminating nearly 15,000 jobs at Transport Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the future of Canada's rail system depends primarily on the
public's use of this mode of transportation.
My hon. colleague knows full well how important it is to
maintain an adequate level of service for all modes of
transportation, including passenger rail service. However, the
cost of these operations cannot be ignored and we are currently
con-
5304
ducting a review of Canada's entire transportation system,
including VIA Rail.
I want to assure my colleague that any decisions that will be
taken will be in the best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, the frequency and quality of services obviously
influences passenger traffic.
Are we to understand that the government is preparing to
abandon major railway lines in several regions without directly
consulting the people affected or involving them in the
decision-making process and without consulting the Standing
Committee on Transport?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
there is a very well established process for the abandonment of
rail lines or passenger services. On the question of CN and CP, it
is through the National Transportation Agency. With respect to
VIA rail there is a system in place where abandonment can only
be achieved through order in council.
(1425)
There is no imminent decision with respect to the closure of
any services that are currently being offered by VIA Rail
because as VIA Rail officials are waiting for the results of their
negotiations with their employees, so is the Government of
Canada. Any rationalization of services with respect to VIA in
Canada will only be decided upon after we have seen what the
result of these current labour negotiations are.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by welcoming the Prime Minister back home
and thanking him for his moving representation of Canada at the
D-Day ceremonies.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: And now down to business. On his trip the
Prime Minister visited Bosnia. He expressed dissatisfaction
with the situation there and threatened to remove Canadian
troops. This comes at a time when American proposals to lift
sanctions against Bosnian Muslims have caused the Russian
foreign minister to threaten that such action might bring the
world back to the cold war.
My question to the Prime Minister is what criteria will
determine whether or not Canadian peacekeeping troops remain
in Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Leader of the Reform Party for his kind words.
I was in Bosnia and found the situation there terrible. I think
that everybody there wants peace. I had occasion to meet with
the soldiers, who are doing a fantastic job. By the way, they are a
regiment from Calgary. I talked with them. In talking with the
citizens there, I found that everybody wants peace.
If we were at this time to lift the arms embargo, the war would
start again. We believe that we have to be there to maintain
peace. I said to the Prime Minister that they have to sit down and
negotiate an honourable peace for everybody. Lifting the arms
embargo would be conducive to more war.
We have troops there, as do the French and the English. It is
easy for the United States Congress to lift the embargo. They do
not have soldiers in the field. We do.
I want to make it very clear that we are there to maintain
peace, but if the war starts again, we will have to review the
decision. We have had two votes on this issue here in this House
of Commons and I am grateful that the members sustained the
position of the government.
After consultation with my colleagues the President of
France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and others during
my visit to England and France, I came to the conclusion that
lifting the embargo was the wrong decision. We want peace. The
best way to keep peace is not to arm the people but to foster a
situation where there will be real disarmament and to have a
negotiated settlement between the people who live there and
who want to live peacefully.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
Many Canadians are concerned that Canadian foreign policy
in regard to UN peacekeeping operations is either adrift or is
being made up on a peace by peace basis. They would like the
government to be more precise on the criteria and guiding
principles which determine whether Canada supports UN
sanctions or peacekeeping operations in particular situations.
The next hot spot in which Canada could find itself enmeshed
is Korea. Northern Korea has said it would consider any
imposition of UN sanctions as a declaration of war.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what criteria the government
is applying to determine what role Canada should be playing to
ensure a peaceful and positive outcome on the Korean
peninsula?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the criteria are very simple. We come to the House and ask the
5305
views of members of Parliament. The basic approach is common
sense. We look at the situation and we decide if it makes sense to
carry on.
(1430 )
We are there as peacekeepers. We have to make sure we are
there under the umbrella of the United Nations. When the United
Nations proposes rules that should apply against some nations
we respect them. These are the criteria we respect. It is very
simple. The basic criteria is what makes sense. I do not think to
carry on with the war in Bosnia makes any sense.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure it is important for the government to know it has public
support for whatever criteria it uses to determine Canada's role
in supporting UN sanctions or peacekeeping operations.
Recently Switzerland in its democratic decision making
tradition conducted a national referendum on whether or not to
play a more active role in United Nations sponsored
peacekeeping.
What plans does the government have for securing public
understanding and public endorsation of its criteria for
determining how Canada will respond to future United Nations
peacekeeping requests?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the best way is to consult members of Parliament who have been
duly elected by the people of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
According to an analysis by the MIL Davie survival
committee, this Quebec shipyard received only 8 per cent of
shipbuilding contracts awarded by Ottawa in Eastern Canada
since 1986. After submitting a business plan to the government,
MIL Davie is still waiting for an answer regarding the project to
build a new ferry for the Magdalen Islands.
Given the underrepresentation of MIL Davie in federal
contracts since 1986, does the Prime Minister admit that the
federal government itself put the shipyard in a difficult position
and that one way to correct the situation would be to award the
ferry construction contract to this company immediately?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member refers to the recovery plan, the business plan
for the MIL Davie shipyard.
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with the company's
president and I then explained to him the Canadian
government's position, namely that the business plan, the
recovery plan proposed by the company's management has not
yet been approved by the employees because we know the
results and what happened with the vote taken by the employees
at management's request.
We are still at that stage and are waiting to see if we can really
help maintain jobs at MIL Davie, either by having a ship built to
replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery or by other means. We are
still waiting for a final plan that has been approved not only by
the company's management but also by its employees.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is again
for the Prime Minister as the MIL Davie workers have been
waiting to hear from him since his election campaign visit.
Does the Prime Minister not admit that, while Quebec was
rationalizing its shipyards, the federal government itself
compounded the Lévis shipyard's difficulties by continuing to
support Eastern shipyards and by building from scratch, at a cost
of tens of millions of dollars, the new Bull Arm shipyard in
Newfoundland, as part of the Hibernia project?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
essentially the member is asking about the application of the
rationalization of shipbuilding policy which was effected by the
previous government and supported of course by the current
leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
This policy has seen the rationalization of shipyards not only
in Quebec-and I see he is agreeing with that-but also in
British Columbia, and in the recent announcement of a closing
in Pictou. We are seeing that the rationalization policy has its
impact throughout Canada. There is a continuing need for it. It is
unfair of the member to suggest that the effect of that policy has
fallen on only one province.
It is difficult for Canadian shipbuilders to compete in a very
competitive international environment where they face
significant subsidy challenges from other countries. It is in
dealing with those challenges that we are trying to arrive at the
best possible solution for MIL Davie as well as for the Canadian
shipbuilding industry.
* * *
(1435)
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the government admitted to considering
alternative definitions for family within government programs.
The implications of broadening that definition of family are
enormous. Redefinitions such as relationship would cause
profound change reaching into every corner of our society.
5306
Can the minister of immigration tell the House how a broader
definition of family would affect immigration issues such as
family reunification or refugee determination?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member shares the critic
portfolio with her colleague from Calgary. She therefore knows
that one of the working groups on the consultations is looking at
the definition of family.
There are definitions of the nuclear family. Other peoples, and
other cultures of the world have the extended family. Some
people are suggesting the dependency age should be changed
from where it is at 19. This valuable discussion is ongoing. We
await the results of the consultation process to look at how
Canadians have dealt with that issue across the country.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Liberals may be slightly confused
with the nature of family because it is really not part of the red
book concept.
Although historic and current legal definitions world-wide
agree on what a family is, the government seems to be waffling
on this vital issue. Given that many statutes and regulations
refer to the family, can the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees
that the family should be open to redefinition.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, if there is any confusion, it is
clearly in the minds of members of the hon. member's party.
Obviously the member, who is a member of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, is very confused
because she does not understand the consultative process. She
does not understand there is a working group. She does not
understand there are public hearings. She does not understand or
will not accept that Canadians have been invited to talk to us
about the major issues. This is from a member of a party that
always suggests we should listen to the people and that is
exactly what we are doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. The extension of the
tainted blood inquiry will result in additional costs to the
government. The inquiry presided by Judge Krever will cost $11
million, or four times the initial budget of $2.5 million.
My question is as follows: Will the Minister of Health
confirm that the government has granted a further $8.5 million
to the Krever commission to enable it to carry out its mandate
adequately?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
take our responsibilities very seriously. This inquiry is a very
serious one. Judge Krever has requested both additional funds
and additional time. We have already stated that we were
granting him additional time and we did provide him with the
money he requested because he deemed it necessary.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): I have a supplemental,
Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us whether part of the additional funds
provided to the Krever commission are earmarked for the
Canadian Hemophilia Society so that it can participate fully in
the inquiry and protect the interests of its members who are the
principal victims of this situation?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
representatives from the Canadian Hemophilia Society are
scheduled to appear before Judge Krever and it will be up to him
to determine how much the organization will receive.
* * *
(1440 )
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Last week the minister confirmed that section 43 of the
Criminal Code, which allows parents to use reasonable physical
discipline, was being reviewed. The former Minister of Justice
stated in May 1993 that the general direction of the departmental
review was to investigate the possibility of children receiving
the same protection against assault as adults have under the
Criminal Code.
Would the minister tell us if the department is still following
this direction? Would such protection effectively make it illegal
for parents to use reasonable discipline with their children?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the review that is now under
way in the Department of Justice was undertaken following this
country's signing of the UN accord with respect to the rights of
children. This international convention committed Canada
along with other civilized countries of the world to prohibitions
against the use of excessive force toward children in any
context.
As a signatory to that UN convention, Canada became
obligated to review its own domestic laws to ensure they reflect
that international principle of basic decency. That is the reason
for the review. That is its purpose and that is its scope.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, last week the minister stated that the review of section
43 was merely part of a general review. In June 1991 the former
Minister of Justice stated that $7.1 million would be devoted to
5307
a three-year study. The three years is now up. In March the
Toronto Star reported that 70 per cent of Canadian parents felt
that physical discipline was sometimes needed for effective
parenting.
What are the reasons for the government to interfere with the
freedom of parents to effectively raise their children by
spending significant amounts of taxpayers' money on reviewing
legislation which a majority of parents feel should remain the
same?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of
elaborating upon objectives that may have been in the mind of
the last government or a previous minister.
Instead, I will concentrate on the purpose of the study at the
justice department. As I have said, it is linked directly to our
international obligations to ensure that our domestic laws
reflect the accord among all civilized nations of the world that
we prohibit the use of excessive force against children. That is
exactly what we are looking at in this study.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. On April 20, the Federal
Court rendered a decision on Ms. Pitawanakwat's case. She was
dismissed by the former Department of the Secretary of State in
March 1986. The court concluded that her dismissal was illegal
and due only to racial discrimination against this native woman.
Despite this victory and eight years of legal proceedings, the
government still refuses to reach a negotiated settlement on the
amount of compensation, among other things.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us if he intends to settle with
Mary Pitawanakwat before the deadline of June 17 set by the
parties for reaching an agreement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member
that we are very much aware of the need to reach a resolution of
this case at the earliest possible time.
I met with Mary Pitawanakwat last Thursday in Regina and
yesterday here in Ottawa when she was present for the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women meeting. I assured
her that through counsel at the Department of Justice and her
own lawyer we are committed to the negotiation of the
resolution of all outstanding claims as soon as possible. I have
satisfied myself that those negotiations are continuing.
Following the court judgment in April we received
instructions from the client department, the department of
heritage, to enter into negotiations which have resulted already
in some measure of agreement. There are still issues outstanding
and we are working toward their resolution at the earliest
possible time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Minister of Justice explain that a seriously ill woman who
has two children and was dismissed illegally must use all her
resources and all her energy in court for eight years to obtain
justice?
(1445 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, my familiarity is
particularly with respect to those months since this government
has been in office and I can tell the hon. member that, as I
already have mentioned, we are committed to the earliest
possible resolution of his case, particularly in light of all the
circumstances of which we are very much aware.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the minister of agriculture. The standing committee on
agriculture has a report with recommendations on the BST
which must now be addressed.
Specifically the report addresses the one-year moratorium on
the sale and distribution of this hormone product that was
requested by the committee.
When will the minister respond as required by the rules of this
House and provide Canadian dairy farmers with some certainty
on this important matter?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to
acknowledge the very hard work on the BST issue that was done
earlier this spring by the standing committee of agriculture of
this House.
On the precise issue of licensing or the matter of whether to
issue a notice of compliance, I would advise the House that issue
is fully and entirely within the jurisdiction of the Minister of
Health. I know the Minister of Health will be making her
decision in accordance with all the applicable laws and
regulations in due course and that matter is entirely within her
purview.
With respect to the government's specific response to the
recommendations of the standing committee, I have not had the
opportunity yet to consider those recommendations with my
Cabinet colleagues but I do expect to have that opportunity
5308
soon. While I cannot absolutely guarantee it, I would hope to be
able to provide the House with the necessary response under the
rules of the House hopefully before the House adjourns on June
23.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. The present tax
system is unfair in its treatment of families. A victim of the
current tax system is single income families. The difference in
taxation between the single income family in which one parent
stays at home to care for their children and the family in which
both parents work is substantial and can range from $3,000 to
$6,000 per year when the family income is $60,000.
When will the government start to treat all families fairly?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the tax system in our
country has been based on an individual tax system. It is not a
family tax system. We do not have joint returns in this family
and we do treat all taxpayers as fairly as possible.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, a
recent Angus Reid CTV poll indicated that whenever possible
caring for children in their homes was the preferred method of
child care by Canadians. However, by interfering with family
choices and penalizing families with stay at home parents, the
current tax system prevents Canadians from achieving their
preferred care for children at home.
Will the government introduce a bill to rectify this inequity?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the matter that is
referred to by the hon. member is a question that has come up
previously.
I do not think we are going to introduce bills on that particular
basis. We have a number of family systems in this country. A
large number of people operate from single families, single
person families, families in which both parents are working, and
the child support part of our tax system is an important aspect to
them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, last
week, we asked the Minister of Transport to tell us if some
federal government ships were flying a Bahamian flag of
convenience. On June 11, the director of public affairs with
Marine Atlantic, Mr. Ted Bartlett, confirmed that three of his
ships were registered abroad and were flying a foreign flag.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Since we now
have confirmation that three ships from Marine Atlantic, which
is wholly-owned by the federal government, are flying a foreign
flag, will the minister explain why this is the case?
(1450)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue again,
since I just had the opportunity to review it.
It is true that three ships from Marine Atlantic are registered
in the Bahamas, but I should point out to the hon. member that
this has been the case for several years. I was not aware of that
when the issue was first raised in the House. The hon. member
could certainly have discussed it with the Leader of the
Opposition, since the situation already existed when he was a
cabinet member.
We will review the issue, but it is easy to see how it came
about. The measure was taken precisely to avoid costs for the
Government of Canada.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, could
you remind the Minister of Transport that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition left the Conservative Party in May 1990, while I will
inform the minister that the Bluenose was bought in 1982 and
the Marine Evangeline in 1978, under Liberal governments.
Since that dubious practice dates from the Liberal
governments of the time, will the minister pledge to this House
that such practices will no longer be used?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
to make sure we are clear, there is no question this matter has
been ongoing. The ships in question have been flying the
Bahamian flag. It is true that it has been going on for a long time.
I am aware of when the Leader of the Opposition resigned his
position and changed his allegiance.
What I do want to make very clear is that the three ships in
question were under Bahamian flag throughout the period when
the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member of the
government. We have been here for seven months. I am glad it
has been brought to our attention. We will see if we can do
something about it.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last Wednesday the minister said that he is profoundly
against discrimination as a principle. As a result of this principle
the minister withdrew funding for the ``Writing Thru Race''
conference because it discriminated on the basis of race. I
applaud the minister for this decision and for standing firm on
his principles.
5309
Is the minister also prepared to withhold public funding from
organizations or events which discriminate on the basis of
gender?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I believe this a hypothetical question because I have
not been faced with an issue of this nature.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the Minister of Canadian Heritage that this supplemental
is not a hypothetical question.
Reformers believe that all Canadians ought to be treated
equally before the law. We oppose discrimination for any
reason.
The president of the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women has said that men are refused membership in its
organization on the basis of gender.
On this basis will the minister withdraw all federal funding
for the National Action Committee on the Status of Women?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure my hon. colleague, the Minister of Heritage, and all
members of this House will agree that the question of women is
not a special interest group.
(1455 )
I would also suggest to my hon. colleague that there are
special interests that are the interests of society contained in
presentations made by many women's groups. I have met with
many different women's groups over the period of many years.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member that trying to play
games of this nature in the interest of the women and children of
this country is far from an acceptable manner of procedure.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the
proposed Red Cross blood fractionation plant.
As the minister is aware, after Halifax was chosen as the sight
of this plant, several provinces that lost out on the project
demanded and got a review on the economics and the need for
such a facility.
The committee now reports that there is a need and now some
of those same provinces that lost the bid to Halifax want the site
selection process reopened.
Is the minister satisfied that there is indeed a need for such a
plant? If so, will she encourage those provincial counterparts to
stop playing politics and support the construction of this plant at
the chosen site in the province of Nova Scotia?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
I understand the concerns of Nova Scotia on this issue.
However, my role and the role of Health Canada is that of a
regulator. We licence and inspect such a facility wherever it is
built in Canada and we approve its products.
Now that the concerns of the Canadian blood agency have
been addressed by the blue ribbon panel which was selected and
put in place by the ministers of health across the country, I hope
and expect this dossier will move forward expeditiously.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
stated recently that the government hoped to maintain its
financial commitment towards Quebec's private forests.
The Minister of Natural Resources, on the other hand, stated
that her department did not have sufficient funds to do so and
that any additional financing would have to come from the
Federal Office of Regional Development.
Will the minister confirm her intention to ask her colleague,
the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, to dip into his budget to extend federal
financial commitments for private forests in Quebec? If so, has
she obtained a commitment from her colleague to that effect?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.
I can assure him that my colleague, the Minister responsible
for Regional Development in Quebec, and I plan to meet with
the private woodlot owners of eastern Quebec very soon. Those
negotiations will proceed and I will keep him informed as they
proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us when the federal government intends to make
public its decision, upon which the livelihood of thousands of
private woodlot owners depends? There are more than 6,000
under the Eastern Plan.
5310
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that I and my
colleague responsible for regional development in Quebec fully
appreciate the importance of forestry and the management of
private woodlots in eastern Quebec.
That is why my colleague and I are going to meet with
representatives of the private woodlot owners as soon as
possible. As I have already indicated, I would be happy to keep
the hon. member informed as those negotiations proceed.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
On Friday, June 10 the Minister of Justice advised that the
Solicitor General would be likely inquiring into the accusations
of Kim Werbecky. Ms. Werbecky has stated that after being
raped and beaten by serial killer Clifford Olson she reported the
incident to the RCMP and Olson was arrested, but charges did
not proceed. Last week an RCMP officer who investigated the
complaint confirmed the story, stating that the crown refused to
proceed with charges because the victim was not believable, a
liar and a tramp.
(1500)
I would like to know if the minister would confirm that the
statement is correct and whether a full inquiry is going to be
held.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the inquiry
made by the hon. member and I will assure myself that she is
answered promptly.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, may I first
thank the minister responsible for the status of women for her
eloquent defence of equality for women. I would like to thank
her for that.
Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice
whom I hope will be equally strong in his defence of women.
Today in the Supreme Court, once again the federal government
has taken the unusual and extraordinary measure in having
important court cases related to taxation of child support,
particularly as it applies to women and children living in
poverty, quashed. First the government appealed the
Thibaudeau case and now it is seeking to quash other similar
cases.
Why is the minister's department wasting money on lawyers
appealing these cases instead of addressing the real issue,
women and children living in poverty?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the steps we took today in
asking the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend the operation of
the Court of Appeals' judgment in Thibaudeau until the changes
have been introduced in the law will save money that would
otherwise be spent on lawyers. The Thibaudeau judgment in the
Federal Court of Appeal created an abrupt and incomplete
change in the tax treatment of child support payments.
Today we asked the Supreme Court of Canada, until it hears
the appeal on the merits of the case, to suspend the operation of
that judgment. Otherwise, all across the country people trying to
negotiate or abide by agreements or court orders for the payment
of child support will be left in uncertainty as to their rights and
would be obliged to seek legal advice, paying money to lawyers
to help them solve the uncertainty.
By seeking the stay today, we avoided that result. At the same
time, through my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women, we have a task force touring the country soliciting
the views of Canadians on the most appropriate changes to
achieve fair and equitable tax treatment for child support
payments.
* * *
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find unanimous consent to take the votes we
deferred for this afternoon at 6.30 immediately, ringing the bells
for five minutes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5310
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First
Nations in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 9, 1994,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
at the second reading stage of Bill C-34, an act respecting
self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory.
Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
5311
(Division No. 55)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-185
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-44
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caccia
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Godin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Rompkey
Verran
(1525)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I believe that you
will obtain unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the
second reading of Bill C-34 to the second reading of Bill C-33
and to the third reading of Bill C-16.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5312
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-33, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare
valid land claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty
the Queen in right of Canada, the Government of the Yukon
Territory and certain First Nations in the Yukon Territory, to
provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other
land claims agreements entered into after this Act comes into
force, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 55.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-16, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare
valid an agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of
Canada and the Dene of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope
and Fort Norman and the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman
and Norman Wells, as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council,
and to make related amendments to another Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 55.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the deferred
division on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-22, an Act
respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment
and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport.
[English]
The first question is on Motion No. 1. An affirmative vote on
No. 1 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion
No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 56)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-95
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
5313
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caccia
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Godin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Rompkey
Verran
(1535 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
unanimous consent that the vote that we just took on Motion No.
1 will apply to Motion No. 2 and in reverse to the concurrence
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 56.]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 57)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
5314
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-135
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-95
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caccia
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Godin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Rompkey
Verran
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-31, an act to amend the Canadian Film Development
Corporation Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I did not want the remarks of the
Reform Party member for Medicine Hat to go by without some
mention.
As I mentioned, the hon. member for Medicine Hat talked
about the fact that we subsidize the film industry in this country.
The member has to be very careful about using the word subsidy
because the energy sector in this country probably receives more
subsidy than any other sector in the economy.
We do this through tax preferences buried in the tax act. The
member stood in the House of Commons and talked about close
to $2 billion in subsidies that go into culture related industry. He
basically condemned that. He should know that the energy
sector receives a lot more than that. The difference is it receives
those subsidies buried in tax preferences and the tax act.
(1540)
I feel very defensive when members stand in this House and
take on the cultural industries because in my riding there are
close to 5,800 people who work in the motion picture industry.
In the motion picture industry we do not just have actors and
actresses. We have cameramen and women, craftsmen and
women who do set designs, lens grinders and costume makers.
In the last 10 years we have managed to build a world class
motion picture industry.
We now have products that we are exporting all over the
world. I think of ``Degrassi Junior High'' which was developed
and produced here and is now being exported to over50 countries. It has been cancelled on the Canadian networks but
this product is still being exported.
When we go to the 500 channel universe we will have an
opportunity to manufacture all kinds of Canadian products. In
addition, there are several motion picture producers that come to
Canada now and have their motion pictures made in Canada.
The member gave the example of Buddies in Bad Times, a city
of Toronto arts grant which I do not want to debate with him
today. I do not think he should take one example like that and
brandish the whole cultural industry in this country. It is not
really fair. It is like taking the CBC and only looking at it for the
work it does as a unit. You have to look at the CBC in the sense
that it has been a training ground. Many people have left the
CBC and gone on to work in the private sector. It has been an
5315
apprenticeship centre which has created the tremendous
inventory of talent that supports the motion picture industry.
I could also say to the member for Medicine Hat the CBC is
one of the few galvanizing agents in this country. It is very
sensitive to bringing together not only information and culture
from every region of this country but providing service to
remote regions which sometimes may not be seen as profitable
for the private sector.
I am not putting down the private sector for not getting
involved in unprofitable ventures in this country, but the
responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to
make sure that every region of this country is covered. We do not
run the CBC like a business. It is not like a business. Whether it
be the post office, the CBC, or Petro-Canada, if we dealt with
them strictly on an earnings per share per quarter basis we would
not have the type of service that these agencies of government
have provided over the years. They really have been able to
bring this country together.
(1545 )
With the 500-channel universe just around the corner from us,
we have invested so much in training, in the motion picture
industry, we now have a talent pool that is recognized as world
class. More than ever as we come close to that period where we
have the opportunity to fill that 500-channel universe with
Canadian product, we should make sure we do not pull away
from supporting the motion picture industry. If anything, I
would encourage members of the House to urge the government
to not only continue to support it, but to increase its support.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of
what the hon. member said. However, I would really like to
challenge his thinking and the thinking of other members on the
other side of the House with respect to the necessity of having to
pluck money from the pockets of supporters of these programs
in the form of taxation. If a program is really good, if it is really
quality, it will win. If it is not, then it should not be subsidized.
I believe that too for businesses and other industries, some of
which he mentioned. If we were to have a level playing field tax
wise, we could compete very easily right around the world and
that is the missing link.
Specifically with respect to the CBC, I have on numerous
occasions had people ask me why we support it. They then use
words which I am sure are unparliamentary-they are not in my
personal vocabulary in any case-about the things they have
heard.
I was tremendously offended one Sunday evening when, as we
were finishing our day, I switched on my radio as I often do and
chose the CBC. Sometimes it has some nice classical music
which I enjoy at the end of the day. I cannot relate to you in the
House what I heard because it was so offensive. It was
tremendously offensive to women and to men, and the
explicitness of what was being broadcast at midnight on a
Sunday got me so upset that I immediately ran downstairs,
turned on my tape recorder in order to have it on record even
though I could hardly stand to hear it.
My response was why should I as a taxpayer be forced to fund
this without any choice at all. If it were another station I can turn
away, it's ratings go down and, as happened to one of the radio
stations in Edmonton, it would go out of business.
The CBC should be subject to that same kind of continual
scrutiny on a personal basis by all taxpayers, by all the people
who are listening. I really think we ought to very quickly phase
out the funding of the CBC and many of these other cultural
organizations which, very frankly, appeal to a very narrow group
of people and are far away from and, in many cases, opposed to
what the majority of Canadians want to hear and want to see.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member and I really do not know where to begin
because I think we basically have an ideological difference.
Nothing personal intended to the member, but I see it in just the
opposite light. I see the CBC as an instrument of national unity. I
know you do not. I know the member does not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I appreciate that members
always feel very strongly about their views, but I think it is in the
best interests of all of us if we direct our comments through the
Chair.
(1550 )
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the
member talks about job creation. The CBC has been a training
ground for thousands of Canadian men and women who have
gone on to work in the private sector, whether it is radio or
television or the motion picture industry. I happen to think there
is a lot of the quality in CBC productions, for example, in a
production like ``The Journal''. I am not talking about ``Prime
Time'' but ``The Journal''.
The man behind ``The Journal'', Mark Starowicz, is probably
respected as one of the geniuses in television public affairs
programming right now in the world. This is a man who came
through the system and that format is being copied by various
units all over the world.
I guess my point is that we should not just measure the
contribution of the CBC in terms of its ratings. We have to look
at the CBC's macroeconomic contribution, the contribution of
its training, the contribution of it holding the country together as
an agent. I am not saying it is the only thing.
5316
I have to speak about my riding for just a second. I have 5,700
people in my riding that are employed in the motion picture
industry. We are exporting motion pictures right now. We are
manufacturing American written productions. We are producing
these major motion pictures because our cameramen, our set
designers, our sound men and women are outstanding. All of
these people are Canadians who have worked with the CBC film
production operation.
This has expanded into the Toronto film festival which is
respected now as one of the best in the world. I am appealing to
the members of the Reform Party to not look at the CBC in
narrow terms but to look at the contribution the motion picture
industry makes in the macroeconomic sense.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
am very interested in the hon. member's comments. Many
people appreciate the CBC and the cultural programs that are
provided.
The difficulty right now is that we are in a financial crunch in
which Canadians are feeling overburdened by the taxes they
have to pay. As we line up priorities they are simply not prepared
to pay more taxes for items such as those being argued for by the
hon. member, particularly when they do not represent their
views, their culture and are seen as an added expense.
There is a great impatience by Canadians. When I was a boy
on the ranch one of my chores was to milk cows. I did not ask the
cow if she wanted to be milked. I just put her in her stall and sat
down and milked her. Canadians are feeling as though they are
being lined up in the stall like milk cows, being milked for all
they are worth.
We have a tax system and an economy that has been ordered
by the government. It now makes it necessary for most families
to have both partners in the workforce, even though one may like
to stay home and look after the home and care for the children in
the traditional way. The economy is such, the tax system is such,
that it is not advantageous for them to do that. The opportunity is
not there for them to do that.
There is a huge reaction to the cost of government. The
government must look seriously at the expenses, at what it is
spending. This is what Canadians are demanding. This is why
there is such a large objection to the cultural programs on CBC.
It is seen as one more expenditure that we cannot afford.
(1555 )
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to get into an agricultural analogy with him, but I do want
to challenge the member. I do not want to challenge you, Mr.
Speaker, I want to challenge the member on his commitment to
tax reform.
I happen to agree with the member. I believe all members in
the House agree that the current tax act is unfair, inefficient,
complex and no longer globally competitive.
The Reform Party should have stuck to its campaign promise
during the last election, which was basically to promote the
notion of tax reform that would go a long way in generating the
kind of entrepreneurial activity which would generate enough
tax revenue for this country. This would not only reduce the
deficit and ultimately pay down the debt but it would also
provide enough money to make sure that galvanizing
instruments like the CBC or the motion picture industry did not
have to be touched.
I would say this, with great respect to the Reform Party, when
are we going to start hearing about its commitment to tax reform
that we heard about all during the last election?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Charlesbourg-Official languages; the hon.
member for Saint John-VIA Rail; the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Aboriginal veterans; the hon.
member for Chicoutimi-CRTC.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak during the third reading of Bill
C-31. It was quite interesting to see how we moved through the
previous discussion regarding the CBC.
I am going to make the comment at the start of my remarks
that the CBC is indeed a billion dollar boondoggle. It is really
unfortunate that we do not have a longer period of time to
discuss the CBC, that we have not had the opportunity in this
session of Parliament to have the full discussion that is required.
This opportunity permits me also to set the record straight
with respect to the Reform Party's interest in advancing
Canadian cultural industries and encouraging artistic freedom.
Many people in the House have a definitive opinion, but there
definitely is a clear lack of understanding. I am not sure if it is
intentional or otherwise, but there seems to be this perception
that we are disinterested in Canadian culture. That really is a
rather simplistic criticism because we have been suggesting and
encouraging less government involvement. Since we stood in
the House in the early days of this Parliament, we have been
consistent in that message; we want to see less government
involvement. That is particularly elemental to this discussion.
We advance the idea that the cultural community be given the
tools necessary to flourish in an open, competitive and changing
marketplace. That includes less government intervention, less
taxation and regulatory controls that permit competition, not
strangle it.
5317
The hon. member across the floor talked about the CBC and
the CRTC. The CRTC is an excellent example of how the
television and radio production sectors are impeded by an
inconsistent regulatory environment.
Quite frankly the CRTC was quite arbitrary and paternalistic
in its selection process and granting of licences only last week.
Imagine 500 channels. We are moving toward that environment
like a sputtering Model T. It is a ridiculous licensing process that
does not do anything to promote the richness of our industries as
indeed it could.
(1600)
Our approach recognizes that Canadian cultural policy must
be sustainable in a world of rapid technological change and is
fostered in an environment in which individuals are free to
choose.
The intent of the bill is to foster better relationships between
Canadian producers and Canadian financial institutions. On this
side of the House in the Reform Party we have to question
whether there is a poor relationship between these groups. My
colleagues spoke of their concern about that issue during second
reading of the bill.
A bit later I will provide information to the House that will
demonstrate why this question is worthy of an answer. The
evidence I have would suggest that the industry has been
thriving and is in no need of government guaranteed loans. We
do not have the money to go forward with proposals like this
one. We need to ensure the industry can make it on its own by
less regulation and less taxation.
In the face of the overwhelming evidence that supports this
conclusion we must question the motivation of the government
and all the supporters of the bill, one of which is the Royal Bank
of Canada interestingly enough.
I should like to go through the process of taking the bill into
committee and the discussion that took place there. It was my
very first experience in this kind of an environment. What
happened there was of particular interest to me. At committee
after second reading representatives of the Royal Bank of
Canada appeared as impartial witnesses to give testimony on
their appreciation of Bill C-31. The Royal Bank is the bank with
which the Department of Canadian Heritage has been
negotiating to establish the parameters of the bill.
I suggest they had a vested interest in speaking at committee
in favour of the legislation. When other financial players were
asked if they would like to address the committee on the bill they
declined the opportunity, not because they were in favour of the
bill but because they did not want to be seen as opposing it for
fear that it would be perceived to be anti-culture. Now what a
sorry comment.
We have come to a point in time where individuals and
corporations do not speak their minds on an issue because they
are concerned about possible recrimination. The powerful
cultural lobbies and special interest groups in Canada have had
such a profound impact that witnesses now feel uncomfortable
to appear at committee to speak frankly. This is an issue that
directly affects the operations of their businesses.
That kind of special interest pressure has little or no effect on
members of my party or members of my caucus. We were
elected with a mandate from our constituents to bring to this
public forum their comments and their concerns, and we will not
be intimidated by special interest groups. We do not support the
bill in principle. Nor do we support it as it was presented.
Members of the government and people from the Department
of Canadian Heritage continually reassure us that the bill will
not result in financial losses for the government and that its
effectiveness will be reviewed after two years.
Despite the fact that we do not agree with the principle of the
bill we proposed a reasonable amendment to it. The bill states
that loans will be for a maximum of 18 months. In order to
provide an accurate evaluation of the performance of the
program we proposed an amendment which, although defeated,
I still believe to be a necessary legislative tool to evaluate the
bill at some future time.
I moved that after 36 months the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage should review the progress of the guaranteed
loan program introduced by the bill and report on that progress
to the House. This amendment was simply a review and report
amendment, which is quite similar to a sunset clause. If included
as an amendment within the bill it would have legislatively
assured the program of loan guarantees would receive a formal
review.
The 36-month review I proposed provided a longer review
period than even the government was requesting. It would allow
for two full sets of loans to be completed before review, a review
the government states it will conduct. How could a review be
completed after only 24 months as the government suggests?
There will have been only a handful of loans, the success of
which we are to use to judge and evaluate the program. Why not
make the trial period a little longer to give the program a solid
evaluation based on historical trends? I fail to understand how
the government could not support such a common sense focus
within the amendment. I would like to read it for the record:
Three years after the coming into force of this act, a comprehensive review of
the application and operation of the amendments to the Canadian Film
Development Corporation Act as enacted by this act shall be undertaken by such
committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the
House for that purpose.
5318
(1605)
That was to be subclause 3(1). Subclause 3(2) read:
The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within three months after the
review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may
authorize, submit a report on the review to the House including a statement of any
changes the committee recommends.
Further, if there will be a review, why not require the review to
be in the statutes? Is the government sincere about its intention
to conduct such a review? Why not open the process to the
committee to evaluate the performance of the program? Such a
review would provide the standing committee with the
opportunity to be involved at a more effective level, something
the Prime Minister continues to talk about. Despite the Prime
Minister's commitments to greater committee involvement, his
caucus continues to keep standing committees from being
involved.
As it now stands this legislative review and report stage will
not take place. The amendment was lost. We have only the
verbal assurances that this evaluation is inherent within the bill.
We know from experience in the House what kind of trouble
occurs on the basis of verbal assurances. Who can say if the bill
will ever be addressed again?
Let me return to the question of the intent of the bill. We have
heard the government, the producers and the banks that seem to
be speaking in favour of the bill. If I had someone who would
assume 85 per cent liability for a loan for me I would be very
pleased. I would be running to the first bank that would support
it.
The reality is that in the private sector and for individual
taxpayers like you and me, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the
government to intervene and assume liability for our business
endeavours. The point is that the government should not be in
the business of guaranteeing loans, period, be they for small
business, big business or for cultural agencies.
The bill presupposes an ineffective working relationship
between Canadian producers and Canadian financial
institutions. This assumption is quite simply a false one. There
is sufficient evidence to suggest that the production industry has
been booming in recent years. This increase in the production
industry has transpired despite the difficult economic times we
face.
How can the government dispute the following facts that
clearly demonstrate how well the industry is doing? We
certainly heard our colleague across the floor talk about how
much help the CBC needs. It has a billion dollars out there every
year and it still needs more help. Its offices still need to expand
more.
Let me remind the House that the increased performance of
the industry has come without any federally guaranteed loans.
Here are some statistics I would like to present which
demonstrate its healthy performance. Since 1987-88 the film
industry has experienced an overall growth of 34 per cent in the
number of production companies. A 39 per cent increase in full
and part time employment accompanied the rise in the number
of production companies since 1987-88. This growth was
largely due to the creation of part time jobs, jobs which more
than doubled over this period to 2,500 in 1991-92.
Interestingly the number of producers specializing in
television production increased substantially from 119 in
1990-91 to 137 in 1991-92. The number of television
productions measured separately for the first time in 1991-92
accounted for 38 per cent of all films produced in Canada.
Corporate videos and television commercials each represented a
further 20 per cent of the total volume of production. Overall
between 1990-91 and 1991-92 the level of film, video and
audio-visual production jumped from 17,634 to 19,891. It was
an increase of 13 per cent. Feature film production remained
steady in 1992 with 20 companies producing 56 theatrical
productions.
(1610)
The overall profitability of Canadian film producers
improved dramatically in 1991-92. The profit margin of
production companies jumped to 11.1 per cent from a 10-year
low of 1.5 per cent the previous year. The industry is booming
and it is booming on its own. It is making it on its own in the
private sector without government intervention.
After accounting for inflation in the motion picture laboratory
operations area, operating revenues in this sector increased by
$11.9 million despite the drop in the number of films from170 to 162. Its revenues reach $286.7 million. The level of full
and part time employment has increased steadily in the film
laboratory and post-production services industry since
1987-88. In 1991-92 it was up by 33 per cent. These statistics
cannot be denied. This industry is thriving and is indeed a
vibrant one.
On the share of film distribution revenues it is interesting that
the overall foreign controlled market share remained fairly
stable between 1991 and 1992 levels at 57 per cent. Right now
we have a great deal of involvement from outside our country.
Bill C-31 will entrench the strongest players in the market. It
will allow the strong companies access to more loans in order
that they may even get stronger. This is a concern certainly for
those smaller production companies. This will choke off new
players in the market.
What is the rationale here? How will it create jobs? I
challenge the government to come up with a program without
grants,
5319
without subsidies and without loan guarantees that will treat all
players equally. We cannot be passing legislation that will help
companies that do not need help.
In closing, I am going to comment on an experience I had in
Calgary. I guess it is in response to the Bloc member who
suggested earlier that we have put too much importance on the
subsidization of overprivileged commercial enterprises and not
on the artistic community.
In Calgary this spring there was an arts award luncheon that
was fully and totally funded between the private sector and the
arts community. The city of Calgary, through its mayor and
council working with the arts community, the business sector,
the private sector and the patrons of Calgary, developed bridge
funding for the arts community to continue to thrive through the
Banff School of Management. That model is an excellent one. It
is an outstanding one that others in the country could use and not
have to come rushing to the government for a handout.
The industry does not need that kind of financial support. It is
thriving quite well on its own. Once again I can only say that we
cannot pass legislation to help companies that do not need help.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour will find
unanimous consent of the House to deal with Bill S-5 on the
Order Paper under Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1615 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the floor to move Bill
S-5 on behalf of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In the absence of the hon
member for Calgary Northeast, I must seek unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5319
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (for Mr. Hanger) moved that Bill S-5,
an act to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran
Congregations, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak
on behalf of my colleague from Calgary Northeast regarding the
Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations.
Lutheranism in Canada has been a long and honourable
tradition. The first Lutheran service was conducted in 1619 by
Chaplain Rasmus Jensen at Port Churchill, Manitoba as part of
Jens Munk Expedition.
The first Lutheran congregation was organized at Halifax in
1752. Lutherans have made a valuable contribution to the
cultural heritage of Canadians and currently Lutherans in
Canada form the fourth largest Christian church.
It is as a part of this proud tradition in Canada that the
Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations seeks
incorporation. This association was organized in October of
1992 and currently has functioned as an unincorporated
non-profit association of congregations and individuals.
Currently there are over 1,000 persons throughout the three
western provinces and six congregations in the association and
its organization.
The organization is intended to have two functions. First, it
will act as a denomination for congregations wishing to join it.
As well, there may be associate members, either persons or
congregations, agreeing with the goals, aims and theology of the
association. This association seeks a return to Lutheran roots
with its emphasis on Scripture, missions and Lutheran theology.
I raise that point and know that we can dispose of this as
quickly as possible so it may be incorporated as quickly as the
House can deal with it.
I suspect there is unanimous consent for the following:
That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices of the
House, Bill S-5, an act to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran
Congregations, be now called for second reading and that the House proceed to
dispose of the said bill at all stages, including committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5320
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that we support Bill
S-5, which was presented in the other place.
The purpose of this bill is to incorporate the Canadian
Association of Lutheran Congregations, thereby enabling this
organization to better achieve the religious objectives of its
members.
Canada has always respected freedom of religious choice, and
it has a long tradition of doing so. The Canadian Association of
Lutheran Congregations, in my opinion, fully meets the criteria
for serious religious organizations. Giving this association the
corporate status necessary for its development would benefit its
members. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in avour of
adopting this bill.
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the national Liberal
caucus I too want to indicate that we intend to support this bill.
[Translation]
I am pleased today to support this bill. I need not point out that
we do not intend to take up a great deal of the House's time to
discuss this initiative. The bill now under debate was initially
tabled in the Senate and is now duly before this House.
(1620)
I would like to take a few moments to point out the
contribution made to Canada by the Lutheran Church and to
state that we intend to support this bill and pass it as quickly as
possible.
Some other members of this House will be bringing forward
another bill in a few moments. We will therefore be brief in our
remarks concerning this important parliamentary initiative.
As I was saying, the bill was presented in the Senate, but many
members of this House had not been told about it. I know that the
member for Calgary Northeast wanted to sponsor the bill, and I
am certain that it is very important to him. He agreed to let
another member present it, and I congratulate him on doing so in
order that this bill might pass today and become law.
[English]
That being said, I want to indicate our agreement to pass this
bill not only at second reading but at committee of the whole and
third reading as well in order to have this bill disposed of
forthwith.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in and, by unanimous consent,
read the third time and passed.)
(1625 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe you
will find unanimous consent to proceed now with Private
Members' Hour.
I would also want to inquire if you could determine whether
there is unanimous consent to proceed with the adjournment
debate one hour after the commencement of Private Members'
Hour which we are about to commence; in other words, perhaps
we could immediately call it 5.30 p.m. in order for members to
prepare and to arrive in the House at that time.
The purpose of that would be to ensure that the late show
would not be held at 10.30 p.m., which would otherwise be the
case, creating, needless to say, a costly and not very useful
delay.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-210 which we are looking at
now is my bill and we are certainly prepared to go on that. We
appreciate the spirit of harmony that we have just experienced
on Bill S-5 which I sponsored. Perhaps we can look forward to
Bill C-210 going through at all stages just as quickly and
harmoniously as that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent to the proposal of the deputy whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1630 )
The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of members of
the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure to speak to Bill C-210 which is not just
another private member's bill. This bill put forward by my
colleague from Beaver River speaks to a fundamental
philosophy of the Reform Party and, I hope, all other parties of
this House. It what all of us as members of Parliament really are
all about: listening to the will of the people. This bill represents
a chance for members of all parties to make a real difference in
the way this country is run.
Today voters are naturally angry and cynical because they
often feel helpless about the process of government in Canada.
When the government says we have an opportunity to have our
voices heard at the next election it is really missing the point
because the next election is not soon enough. In case the
government has not noticed, the world is a smaller place than it
ever was before. Everything moves faster than it did the year
before. People nowadays expect action and action means now.
5321
If it becomes evident after an election that a vast majority of
constituents in any constituency want their MP out, or at least
want another election for valid reasons, then they should have
that right.
What difference will recall make? Many people ask that and
we talk about it for year after year it seems. Let us look at the
comments and results of a conference held at the University of
Lethbridge on February 25 and 26 of this year. It was entitled, if
you can imagine: Re-inventing Parliament. After 125 years, we
are going to re-invent Parliament.
Over 100 Canadians from across Canada met to discuss issues
such as recall. Quoting from a report resulting from that
conference, this is what was said: ``Every workshop
recommended to the conference that governments in Canada
allow for the recall of elected members. On no item of direct
democracy did a more clear consensus emerge''.
What was the rationale for that significant consensus? The
conference participants felt that recall would go a long way in
addressing some of the current ailments of the parliamentary
system.
The most important reason cited by over half of the
workshops is that recall provides for more accountable MPs, and
MLAs in the provincial sense. It ensures elected members act on
and listen to constituents' concerns. Recall provides a direct
link between citizens and politicians that exists on a continual
basis, not just during the 30 or 40-day campaign period, once
every four or five years.
It is quite likely that a relaxation of party discipline will
accompany recall. Governments will see the need to allow their
members more freedom of action in light of the threat that recall
presents to MPs.
Recall also serves as an early warning system for
governments. If recall petitions become a common occurrence
in government members' ridings, it signals to the government
that a change in direction should be seriously considered.
It was also mentioned by some in this report from the
conference that the threat of recall alone is just as important, if
not more important than the actual process itself. There is
nothing better than holding a little threat over politicians' heads
once in awhile.
At this conference the majority of attendees from across this
nation supported the right of Canadians to recall their elected
members. Why is it that so many people want recall and this
government, like the last arrogant government, chooses to
ignore the will of the people? What is it that Liberal and Bloc
politicians are afraid of? Why are we hearing such feeble
excuses from our government colleagues? Let me give you a few
quotes from Hansard when we debated this matter previously.
I will start with a quote from the Liberal member for
Vancouver Quadra: ``This can be a House that will literally
reform itself''. You have to talk with the hon. member who made
such a statement. If this House would reform itself, we would
not have 52 Reformers trying to reform it today. If the hon.
member thinks like so many others on this and other issues, why
not stand up and be counted?
(1635 )
Another quote comes from the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe of the Bloc party: ``This bill would be
impossible to enforce'' but nowhere in his speech does he
explain why. It is just a statement that this bill would be
impossible to enforce.
The final quote is from the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who in
his brilliance said: ``But we still do not have any proof that it
would work''. Of course we do not; we have not adopted the bill
yet.
We know Reformers stand apart from the other parties when it
comes to participative democracy. The concepts of free votes
and recall for instance are interconnected. We need them both.
What would the results be if we had free votes and recall? That is
simple: Elected officials who vote according to their
constituents' wishes and according to the merits of the
particular bill. Is that so strange? Is that so difficult to
understand?
We should have no fear about this. If a party performs poorly
it will be rejected at the next election. However, when a sitting
member significantly breaches the trust of his or her
constituents we need a mechanism in place in the House to get
him or her out of that position.
The government's use of fear to attack the idea of recall is
really an expression of its own fear. The government keeps
throwing out the bogeyman about the dangers of unscrupulous
factions trying to oust an MP. Government members are pushing
the panic button and this tactic is based more on fear for their
own jobs than anything else.
The process of petition and recall election gives the MP ample
opportunity to present his or her case to the electorate. This is
direct democracy, a concept I understand but perhaps some
members do not. Whether the government likes it or not, it is an
idea whose time has come.
Recall forces MPs to be more accountable to their
constituents. That is what my colleague wants to achieve with
this bill. That is what the Reform Party wants. Most important,
and what this government ignores at its own peril, it is what the
people want.
A famous former Prime Minister once said that opposition
MPs were nobodies as soon as they walked 100 yards away from
Parliament Hill. I wonder what party that individual was from. I
agree with Peter McCormick who said that the former Prime
Minister could not have been more wrong. Given the way the
Canadian parliamentary system operates, our MPs are people of
some significance in their communities and may become nobo-
5322
dies when they arrive on Parliament Hill. That is what I believe
if they do not stand up for what they believe in and vote the
wishes of their constituents instead of being a minor mouthpiece
of their party.
The last Parliament was called one of the best by the media
and why is that? Because it was good theatre with lots of bad
actors. If you look at the acrimony, the accusations, the asinine
behaviour, if that is what the media wanted, that is what it got.
What you did not hear so much about is the cold hard facts that
Canadian public opinion of the institution of Parliament reached
an all-time low during the 34th session.
I call upon those members who are sitting in the back rows to
join us in this cause. Show the Canadian people that you are here
to make a real difference. If you are looking for the opportunity
to be truly different, truly representative of your constituents
and truly a person of principle, then you should speak up now by
supporting this bill.
Here is your chance to do more for those who really count and
they are the people who put us all here. Do something a little
different: Make a stand and choose to play the real role of
reforming the way this country is run. This recall bill could be
the first step.
In closing, all Canadians and government backbenchers know
we need their vote to carry this issue. I would like to see what
they are really made of. I would like to see that vote carry. Recall
represents strong MPs, not weak ones. Therefore, please
consider this reform necessary, a reform that Canadian people
want. Do not turn it down just because the party is afraid of a
little recall.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-210 providing for the recall of members of the House of
Commons can be summed up as follows: ``Any elector
ordinarily resident in an electoral district who wishes to seek the
recall of the member for that district may file with the Clerk an
application for the recall of the member in the prescribed form''.
This recall procedure exists in 15 American states and makes
it possible to dismiss a member of Parliament or a public
official. A similar system is in effect in four Swiss cantons. It is
important to note that this procedure is allowed only in a very
narrow socio-political context. Even then, its actual use is
extremely restricted. In the United States, the system only
works at the municipal level. At a higher level, only one case is
mentioned: that of an Oregon governor who was recalled in
1921.
To better define the Bloc Quebecois's position on this issue
and explain to the House the political origin of the recall
concept, I think it is important to return to the late 18th century.
On the European continent, it is the age of enlightenment, this
philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas
and gave birth to the great democratic principles that have
governed Western societies to this day. In Europe, it is the time
when sovereignty was transferred from an all-powerful
monarch to the people. The movement had actually started two
centuries earlier in England, France and Germany but it was
gathering momentum and taking on a more universal dimension.
For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, sovereignty is
embodied in the ``general will'' which is always fair and
equitable and therefore most effective at the human level. Thus
emerged the very idea of democracy whereby decisions are
made by the people as a whole. But is democracy as people
power the best form of government? In this regard, is the right of
recall resulting from the notion of people power a good way to
offset politicians' actions? If people had the right to recall their
members, would politicians become more accountable to their
constituents for their actions?
As the basis for the legitimacy of state power, once royal
power was abolished in the late 18th century, in Rousseau's
mind, the ultimate power to make decisions would rest with the
people. That is why he refuted the idea of representative
democracy whereby the people can only exert their influence at
regular intervals. About the English people, he said this: ``The
people think they are free, they are sorely mistaken; they are
only free during elections. As soon as the members of
Parliament are elected, the people revert to being slaves, to
being nothing''. That is why Rousseau wanted to give people the
right to recall their representatives on a daily basis.
As we can see, recalling elected representatives is not a new
idea. I think the main flaws of representative democracy, in
particular the principle that citizens can only exercise their right
to vote once every four or five years, deeply troubles all
democrats since the beginning of universal suffrage. So, the
question raised at the dawn of representative democracy can still
be raised today: ``How can the sovereign power exercised by a
few parliamentary dignitaries result from sovereignty of the
people?'' The democratic ideal expressed through the
sovereignty of the people, through the notion that every citizen
of a sovereign state can influence the decision-making process,
that everyone wields political power, will quickly take the form
of state sovereignty with the application of democracy.
Throughout the 18th century, and especially since the advent
of universal suffrage, we see that the will of the people
expressed through the election process does not coincide with
the general will. As we move away from the great revolutionary
movements that swept Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, the
5323
notion of sovereignty of the people gradually gives way to the
more absolutist concept of sovereignty of Parliament.
Given what I just said, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill
to be fully justified; it is symptomatic both of people's
misgivings about their representatives and of the massive
failure of the Canadian political system.
(1645)
Actually, this bill would be impossible to enforce, but it
shows a democratic conscience deeply disillusioned by over100 years of a system that simply does not work.
Parliamentary sovereignty has lost all credibility and just
making members of Parliament subject to recall will not restore
its credibility. Clause 4.(d) of Bill C-210 says that a statement
of 200 words or less would be sufficient to trigger the recall
process. This provision would necessarily lead to anarchy in
many ridings.
That statement of 200 words or less must set out the reasons
why the recall of the member is warranted. Reasons? But who
will determine the value of those reasons? Which reasons will be
good ones and which will be bad ones? I believe this clause sets
a dangerous precedent in terms of judging situations and
deciding who will make such judgments.
If, for example, the promoters of a recall manage to get the
majority of electors to sign their petition and argue that, based
on solid economic indicators, the member is incapable of
supporting economic recovery in his or her riding, will that be a
valid reason or not?
Who will decide? Are MPs responsible for the situation? Do
they have real power regarding the economy? If a majority of
electors have signed the petition, will they be told that they are
right or wrong? This is a very serious issue which leads me to
believe that it would not be possible to implement this
legislation and, more importantly, that such legislation would
not achieve its goal.
I am convinced that such an act would make elected
representatives vulnerable to conspiracies, to blackmail and to
all kinds of secret dealings. I think that the whole process
suggested by the Reform Party member would put undesirable
additional pressure which would considerably affect the work of
elected representatives, as well as the services they are meant to
provide. I do not think that a member who would have to
campaign against a recall in his or her riding would, at the same
time, be able to adequately serve those who want to kick him
out. This would be quite the paradox!
Our whole electoral and democratic process is not structured
to serve in a positive way the intent of Bill C-210. Such a
procedure would make the democratic process too perilous and
costly, as well as totally uncontrollable.
This bill is not practical throughout a country whose
population numbers in the millions. It results from a nostalgic
feeling about the democratic idealism which arose in the
18th-century Europe. The Bloc Quebecois is totally opposed to
this bill.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am a little reluctant to take part in the debate today because this
matter of recall is being studied as we speak by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which I have the
honour to chair.
In spite of that, I have views on the subject which I will be
making known in the committee I suspect on Thursday when the
committee discusses this matter. I wanted to state those views
for the record today since there was an opportunity to debate this
bill which is very important. I acknowledge that it is an
important one.
I know when the hon. member for Fraser Valley West was
speaking he referred to the fact that there had been a conference
in Lethbridge and there was considerable opinion at that
conference that recall was a good thing. I had the honour to
attend that conference. I must say that the workshop that I
attended did have a straw vote and supported the notion of recall
but it was not one that I supported at the time. I expressed my
views on the matter at the conference.
I invite members of the House in reflecting on whether the bill
should be adopted by the House or not to consider two or three
points. The first one of great importance is the fact that this
institution, the House of Commons of Canada, has one of the
highest rates of turnover of any similar legislative body in the
western world.
The average in electoral turnover for this House certainly
since the war and for a longer period-I do not have the figures
here for the longer period-has been at least a third of the House
on average that has changed hands in every election. I am sure
that number has increased as a result of the very significant
turnover in the election in October last year when two-thirds of
the members of the House were replaced. That kind of rate of
turnover is one that is frankly intimidating to anyone seeking to
enter a career in politics because it indicates that the nature of
the position is so transient that members once elected can hardly
be allowed to stay on for any reasonable period of time. Most
members obviously serve less than two terms. They usually only
serve one.
(1650)
That rate of turnover in my view not only renders the House
somewhat less effective than it might otherwise be because it
lacks a stable number of members who have experience and are
able to transmit that experience to others so that the House
functions better as a legislature which is the case in some other
legislatures in the world, but it also makes it more difficult for
parties to operate as national organs of the state and major
5324
players in the political process because they are unable to
depend on having a reasonable number of members in the House
of Commons.
One can only look today at the Progressive Conservative
Party which, while some members opposite may wish that it
were not a national party, still is in some sense a national party.
However, it has no representation effectively in this House. Of
course I would not want to detract from the abilities of the two
members who are here but the fact is that it is lacking national
representation in this House.
Bear in mind that we have in Canada a Parliament with a
massive rate of turnover. I turn to other foreign legislatures like
the House of Commons and ask is there a power of recall in any
of them? The answer is no, there is not.
I invite the hon. member for Beaver River to tell me of another
national legislature, not a state one and not some municipality,
that has recall. I do not know of any. I do not think there is a
single one.
Why should Canada be a leader in this field and change its
electoral process when nobody else thinks this is smart?
Everyone else thinks it is not a good idea and I suspect that
Canadians probably on reflection ought to think very long and
hard before they make this kind of change.
The third factor I think is important is the length of the term to
which members are elected to this House. It is a maximum term
of five years. In the scheme of things that is not very long.
Human civilization has been around for a few thousand years.
Parliaments have been elected in the United Kingdom for
something over 900 years. Five years in the scheme of things is
not a long term and most terms are less than that. Five is the
maximum and very few parliaments run to the maximum term.
We know that Mr. Mulroney ran to a full term because he was
afraid of a trouncing that he deservedly got at the polls. But most
governments can approach elections with a little more
confidence than old Mr. Mulroney could do. Of course he was so
nervous he got out and got a successor who was less competent
than he was in terms of electoral success. The fact that she is not
here and that he is not here bear testimony to the fact that their
success rate was poor.
Again, we do not have lengthy terms in Canada. Most
members of the House serve for a four year term and sometimes
it is less than that. In minority parliaments it is frequently less
than that.
Again, why should we have recall added as an extra burden to
members of Parliament? Imagine the situation. I invite the hon.
member for Beaver River to consider this. In fact the hon.
member for Edmonton North in a brilliant Standing Order 31
yesterday pointed out that since the election in October last year
the polls in the province of Alberta indicated that the Liberals
have moved from 25 per cent in the actual vote to 52 per cent of
the electorate in Alberta. She should be quaking in her boots
with news like that because if her bill was law now everybody
would be running around her riding signing up people to get her
out. I do not think that is reasonable.
I like the hon. member for Beaver River. I would feel badly if
she were not here. The fact is she has been elected for a term and
I am delighted that she is here to serve her term. I look forward
to the next election. Maybe one or both of us will not be here to
serve in the House after that. Why should she be put in the
position of having to run to Beaver River and work in her riding
day and night to get petitions signed to stop people from getting
her out on a recall? I do not think that is a reasonable
expenditure of time on her part. I would rather see her here
having her ideas exposed in the House so the voters of Beaver
River and the voters of Canada can understand Reform policy.
The longer she is here, frankly the better it is for us.
I think she knows that. She would not want to face recall.
Maybe that is why it is being proposed. I do not know. But that is
being mischievous.
(1655 )
The other argument that I think is important in this is that the
notion of recall is founded on the idea that members of
Parliament are delegates for their communities. In other words
the member of Parliament is not to think an independent thought
ever. The member of Parliament is to voice the concerns of the
majority of his or her community only and never think an
original thought.
I do not agree that that is the case. I think many members of
the public vote for a member of Parliament not because they
think the person is a great delegate or will do exactly as they say.
They choose a member of Parliament because they expect the
MP to exercise some judgment on issues that cannot be foretold
at an election but are not expected to come up and expect the MP
to exercise his or her best judgment and make a decision that is
in the interests not just of their own community, which of course
is important, but in the interests of Canada as a whole.
I realize that with two opposition parties that are very
regionalized in their approach this is a tough argument to make
in this House, but it is a very important argument because
members of Parliament are elected to represent not just their
own communities but to represent all of Canada.
Each one of us assumes some national responsibility. We
exemplify it in our travels across this country when we speak to
Canadians in every part of our land.
5325
I am proud as an MP for Kingston and the Islands to go to
British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island or Beaver River and speak to electors in those
areas and learn about their concerns and appreciate them so that
when I exercise my judgment in voting for government
estimates and for bills in this House I can give some expression
to what I think is in the national interest.
It may not always be fully in accord with everything my
constituents tell me but it normally is something that is in the
best interests of Canadians as a whole.
Hon. members laugh but I tell them we have had more
members on this side of the House vote different ways on issues
than we have had from that party. Every vote in this House has
been unanimous as far as the Reform Party is concerned and it is
the party of the free vote.
Is that really free? I do not want to get into free votes but I am
telling hon. members that if they listen to the concerns of other
Canadians, if they go around the country as I have done and as I
know some of them do, they will hear about these concerns.
They will realize that if they are going to express the national
will sometimes they are going to have to change their views.
We see these views changing now. We see the views of the
Reform Party change from day to day and week to week. Frankly
some of us are delighted to see that.
An hon. member: Several times a day.
Mr. Milliken: I think my hon. friend is being unkind to say
several times a day.
The other thing we have to stress is the need for members of
Parliament when elected to withstand the ups and downs of
popularity. I know that the hon. member for Beaver River must
be suffering a little now because if the Liberals are 52 per cent
the Reform must be at something else in Alberta and it has to be
something considerably less than 52. I do not know what it is.
Maybe she knows the figures and would like to tell us about that
in a subsequent speech.
The fact is our popularity will go up and down. I know that our
popularity stayed very high for a long time. My suspicion is it
will stay high for a while yet but there will be a day, I am sure,
when our popularity will go down. However, I do not think that
parties and members of Parliament should be put in a position
where they can be recalled, particularly at the nadir, when things
are in real trouble for the party because things have gone wrong.
In a cycle of four or five years there are ups and down. I
believe that members should be free to serve their term to the
end and express the views of their constituents and of the
country and vote in accordance with that combination of wishes
that are known to them by Canadians across this land.
I hope that would be the case and that we would not seek to
regionalize our party structure, our representation, by
instituting recall on members so that at times of difficulty they
face recall.
I urge members on all sides of the House to consider that very
carefully in their votes on this bill.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning
of my address to the assembly I would like to remind the Bloc
member who spoke a while back of the incident of the recall that
occurred in Arizona approximately eight years ago.
We do not have to go back to 1920 to see the power of recall in
the state of Arizona where the governor of that state was recalled
when the people would no longer accept his leadership.
(1700 )
I believe that the collective wisdom of the people is always
greater and superior to that of a handful of politicians,
regardless of how wise or intelligent they may appear to be.
Therefore, whenever it is practical and possible we ought to be
doing the business of the people by the voice of the people.
I know of a country with a population of less than seven
million people with very few natural resources, a harsh climate
and 25 per cent of its land area covered by mountains. It has four
official language groups, many ethnic sub-groups and large
regional economic disparities. You would think that this country
would be riddled with economic and social strife but nothing
could be further from the truth. This country has had the highest
standard of living in the world for the past 50 years, never more
than 1.5 per cent unemployment. Inflation is never higher than4 per cent and interest rates are always about 6 per cent.
It has the extensive high quality health and educational
services, generous social services, which I might add are for the
truly needy, especially the handicapped, and world class public
transportation.
In proportion to population this country has a smallest civil
service in Europe, the lowest tax rates and the smallest national
budget.
Why does this country enjoy such economic and social
success which is currently such a contrast to the Canadian
situation? Switzerland, has a recipe for success. It is called the
devolution of power. The Swiss have government of the people,
by the people and for the people. What a novel idea this country,
Switzerland. It is a democracy. The power is literally in the
hands of the people. I rise today in support of private member's
Bill C-210 which seeks to move the power to where it belongs
by providing the electorate with a higher degree of involvement
and responsibility within the political process. I support what
may be considered the first step toward the devolution of power
5326
in a country where for too long we have had government of the
politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians.
What have we in Canada? We have top down rule. If the
system worked, we would support it but this system has
produced a debt of half a trillion dollars. We are promised
another hundred billion in debt over the next three years. We
have a criminal justice system that does not protect society and a
parole system that turns murderers and rapists back on to the
streets to conduct their criminal activities over and over again.
The system is simply not working and it has to be reformed.
The tendency of previous governments has been to increase
their own power by employing closed door policies. Only an
exclusive few, the cabinet of the federal government, influenced
by special interest and lobby groups, have formed the policy
making functions. Canadian citizens have been excluded from
participating in the forum which decides how their daily lives
will be affected.
The effective communication between citizens and their
representatives has been cut off. Politicians are not accountable
to their electorate on a day to day basis and rather than seeking
to gain public confidence through listening and accommodating
public concerns, elected officials have spent their time selling
the government's programs and legislation to the people.
Ottawa spends millions of dollars on advertising to convince
Canadians that the policies are good. The media blitz on the
GST, the Charlottetown referendum and the little known Canada
buy into it scheme never amounted to anything but another
waste of taxpayers' money. This would never happen in
Switzerland.
I am committed to changing this autocratic means of decision
making by restoring power to its rightful owners, the people.
Recall, a procedure that allows the voters to call their
representatives to account before the end of their normal term, is
but one step in many to putting the power back in the hands of
the electorate. I do not know of any other job in Canada where a
person cannot be removed from their position for improper
conduct or for not doing their job, except for the positions
occupied by politicians. The people of Canada must have the
right to fire their hired hands.
Elected officials cannot be fired by the very people who hired
them to do the job except every four or five years at election
time. This leaves the impression that politicians are above the
rules and regulations that govern the average Canadian worker.
Allowing an elected official immunity from misconduct or
incompetence is an absurdity which has added to the current
level of political apathy.
(1705 )
Recall offers voters the chance to compel their
representatives to do their jobs and to account for their actions.
It offers them the opportunity to remove elected officials from
their positions if they fail to measure up. We believe in the
people's right to govern themselves through truly representative
and responsible institutions and that the duty of elected
representatives to their constituents should supersede their
obligation to their political parties.
When MPs vanish into the disciplinary maw of the
parliamentary hierarchies, becoming indifferent to
constituents' beliefs and preferences, the electorate becomes
disillusioned about the prospect for democracy.
Author William Mishler says: ``Political attitudes and
behaviour are learned. The political apathy and inactivity
characteristic of large segments of the Canadian public are not
intrinsic to man's basic nature. They are neither inevitable or
immutable. The decision to participate in or abstain from
politics is to a substantial degree a conditioned response to the
political environment''.
Our political system has bred the attitude that the government
does not care what people think and that those elected to
Parliament have lost touch with the people. The political
environment has produced a nation of cynics who hold
politicians in contempt. The Tories learned this lesson all too
well during the last election.
Recall will force elected representatives to open the doors of
communication with their constituents, thereby enhancing the
dialogue between them, a dialogue which lies at the core of the
representative process. It will also help restore mutual respect
between the electorate and the politicians.
Recall would put in place the checks and balances to remove
the monopoly of power held by Parliament today. Recall will be
the beginning of increased citizen participation whereby
representatives become responsible and accountable to those
who work for them on a day to day basis rather than every four of
five years at election time.
The Swiss know that if democracy is to be meaningful, it has
to be a bottom up system of popular government. They are not
content with mere parliamentary sovereignty like ours in which
all the power is delegated to their representatives. The Swiss can
force a vote on all legislation and have the power to initiate
legislation.
You would never have a situation in Switzerland where, as
here, 80 per cent of the people want less government spending
but Parliament increases it or the people do not want to dish out
money to interest groups but the government does it anyway.
The Swiss have had a system of initiative, referendum and
recall since 1874 and the value of this process is seen in the
results. The federal debt in Switzerland is 16.3 per cent of the
GDP. Compare that to our federal debt and GDP ratio of 67.6 per
cent. We have a debt of over half a trillion dollars, growing
every minute of the day.
5327
It appalls me even to mention what the overall GDP debt ratio
is in this country. Our combined federal-provincial-territorial
debt is 97.7 per cent of GDP. The overall Swiss debt is 36.6 per
cent. Switzerland has very low taxes and an unemployment rate
that never goes much above 1.5 per cent while we have one of
the highest taxation rates in the world, and an unemployment
rate of 10.6 per cent. If we want the same results, perhaps it is
time we started giving the power back to the people.
Recall is but one step, the first step toward government of the
people, by the people and for the people.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, it had not initially been my intention to speak on Bill
C-210-
Mr. Milliken: But you are provoked.
Mr. Boudria: -but as the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands has just said so eloquently, I feel provoked into saying
something about what the members have said. The last speaker
made our country sound as though crime was rampant
everywhere, that we have so much debt that this is the worst
place that anyone would want to go to and has described such our
great country of Canada.
Where he has said that apathy is rampant among voters, 80 per
cent of Canadians vote compared to roughly half of that amount
in the United States, that great bastion of recall in the few places
where it exists. The member makes no apologies for making
those kinds of statements to the House days after the United
Nations has said that this is the best place in the world to live,
not the worst. We are talking about this business of recall and
how recall would, in the opinion of the member who has just
spoken, increase the sense of belonging of Canadians. What I
see is one party on the government side with representatives
from all parts of the country. I say to hon. members that the party
that is in government now represents all parts of the country and
therefore represents the views of at least the majority, and
hopefully even more than that, of Canadians. At least recent
public opinion polls seem to suggest that.
(1710)
On the other hand the members who have made disparaging
remarks about everything from this parliamentary institution to
the country as a whole are now saying: ``Give us recall and
Canadians will want to belong''. There is something wrong with
the argument. We have two opposition parties, each one of them
being regional in nature, each one of them, may I respectfully
suggest, not having what I consider-and I know this is a
question of debate-the best interests of the country at heart.
They may argue that they have. As I say, it is a question of
debate. Certainly in the case of one party they want to destroy
the country as we know it. In the other case it is a little less clear.
Needless to say, both opposition parties, and in particular the
one which is pushing for the recall, acknowledge or at least they
should acknowledge that their view is a minority one at best.
They claim that recall is the view of the majority but they are
suggesting it from a minority standpoint where they are
themselves situated. I have some difficulty in trying to follow
the logic in their thinking.
Mr. O'Brien: It is illogical.
Mr. Boudria: Maybe it is illogical.
They are saying in this bill that if one-half of the voters in the
last election who cast their votes asked for a recall, then there
should be one.
Let us see what is wrong with that argument, if we can get into
the technical merits of the bill. We have a country where we had
14 political parties at the last election. In most constituencies
across the way, may I suggest, members were elected with less
than 50 per cent of the votes.
This means that anyone who did not vote for them in the last
election could immediately initiate a recall afterward for every
single member that was elected with less than 50 per cent of the
vote.
We have five political parties represented in the House. How
many members, particularly on the opposition side, were
elected with more than 50 per cent of the votes in their ridings?
Some were and some were not. For everyone who was not
elected with 50 per cent or more of the votes, is that in itself
grounds for recall? It would be under this bill.
Mr. Epp: Read the bill.
Mr. Boudria: I have read the bill. I could give the Table a
copy of the red book. It has more than 200 words in it. Say that a
copy of the red book is tabled along with a covering letter. I have
provided the 200 words necessary to initiate recall in a riding of
an hon. member that got less than 50 per cent of the votes. I am
indicating a way in which members who are democratically
elected could be turfed out.
How would we measure the performance of a member of
Parliament? Perhaps a member of Parliament said something
really dumb either here or elsewhere. As a hypothetical
situation, say someone said, not that anyone ever would, that
this country is too Frenchified or that people have certain south
seas tendencies or that people have some other behavioural
deficiencies as measured by such an hon. member, were such a
member to exist.
5328
(1715 )
What then? Are those grounds to initiate a recall? Let us say a
party took a nosedive in the public opinion poll in western
Canada. It is a hypothetical proposition, but would it be grounds
for initiating a recall?
It certainly could be grounds for recall. After all, they have
taken a nosedive in public opinion in western Canada, just as a
hypothetical proposition of course. It seems that many people do
not want them now and if they do not want them maybe they
should be removed from office.
What kind of sense does that make? None. That is why the bill
makes no sense.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever of endorsing,
voting for or otherwise expressing support for such an initiative.
This idea which we can liken to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's belief
that there is an omnipresent common will is false. It is
especially false in a country as vast as ours. The party opposite
compares Canada with Switzerland, a country only slightly
larger that the Island of Montreal. This is the kind of comparison
it wants to make. If it flies in Switzerland, surely it will fly in
Canada, they say. Well, in many respects, this argument does not
wash.
Hon. members, in particular those from more remote regions,
know full well that what is good for one riding is not necessarily
good for another and that what is good for one town in a riding is
not necessarily so for another community in the same riding.
There is a flaw in the argument that one should always vote as a
delegate, instead of exercising some leadership. This approach
would not work in a country with many political parties, even if
the other criteria were to apply.
Many people are of this opinion. Speaking before a
parliamentary committee the other day, Dr. Robert Jackson, a
professor at Carleton University, had this to say, and I quote:
[English]
``Would introducing recall of MPs, more referenda and
decreasing party discipline increase the prestige, especially the
functioning of the House of Commons?''. The answer is no.
[Translation]
So said Dr. Robert Jackson while testifying before a
parliamentary committee.
If members want to gain more esteem in the public's eye, they
will accomplish this goal by doing their job, by being vigilant,
by assuming leadership, moral or otherwise, when leadership is
called for. Heaven knows that in this day and age, what we need
is leadership, not people who change their minds every day, or
even three or four times a day, on the same issue. That is not the
way for this House to gain the respect of Canadians.
I have had the honour of being elected several times to this
House, of serving at the provincial and municipal levels and of
working in other capacities. I do not know if I will be re-elected,
since that is for the people to decide, but I am sure about one
thing. We cannot gauge public opinion each morning by sticking
our finger out the window to see which way the wind is blowing.
That is not the way to provide leadership in Canada. We are
providing leadership by setting out a program and by coming to
Ottawa to do what is best for the people of Canada, the most
beautiful and one of the largest countries in the world, and,
according to the UN, the best country in the world in which to
live.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate
with the hon. member for Laval East, I want to express my
thanks to the member for Beaver River and her colleagues for
their co-operation.
Due to an oversight I failed to recognize the hon. member for
Laval East in a previous round and I extend my thanks again to
the hon. member for Beaver River and her colleagues.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to thank the member for Beaver River for initiating this
debate on the recall of members of the House of Commons. We
feel it is important, in the present political context, to question
whether the behaviour and actions of elected officials are in line
with the concerns and expectations of citizens.
(1720)
It is essential that we consider this issue, because Canadians
and Quebecers are losing faith in the ability of politicians to
solve current problems. The disillusionment and cynicism of the
electorate may be related to the behaviour of some elected
officials.
Bill C-210 obliges all parliamentarians to ask themselves
what are the great democratic principles to which Quebecers and
Canadians subscribe. As the member for Beaver River noted on
April 29, citizens ``are demanding that political institutions and
politicians listen to them, consult with them, and ultimately be
accountable to them''.
The Bloc Quebecois, itself born of the will of a people
marching towards sovereignty, shares this ideal. I want to
remind members of this House that we are very attentive to and
concerned about the shortcomings in the Canadian
representation process. The will of the people is sometimes not
reflected in this process. Yet, we are elected by our constituents.
They pay for our decisions and consequently we should
represent them during our term in office.
5329
I feel that these same observations and legitimate concerns
led the Reform Party to adopt what they have termed the
``recall'' principle and to bring this bill to the attention of the
House today. Despite the good intentions behind the Reform
Party's demands, I must ask members of this House to oppose
Bill C-210.
Once adopted, this kind of legislation might not produce the
desired results. The result might be the political instability so
dreaded by some federalists. When we realize that many
members were elected without obtaining an absolute majority,
that is, 50 per cent of the votes, this is indeed a concern.
The political rivals of elected representatives might get
together and have a petition signed to recall embers elected with
less than 50 per cent of the popular vote. How can we ensure that
member recall does not become a partisan tool to get rid of
political opponents?
This bill raises more questions than it answers. For instance,
in section 10, it says, and I quote: ``The Clerk shall not accept an
application for the recall of any one member more than once
during the duration of a Parliament''. Does this mean that a
member who wants to make sure he is not recalled by his
constituents can set up a bogus petition that would immediately
be considered inadmissible?
Another point which the Reform Party did not raise but which
we think is essential is the funding of the activities involved in a
petition for recall. The serious issue of political party financing
and the financing of groups that organize petitions does not
appear to interest the federalist parties, but to us it is crucial.
We must not try to usurp the powers of elected representatives
and hand them over to interest groups that are prepared to invest
enough money and are able to threaten or actually organize
petitions for recall.
I would urge hon. members who are concerned about respect
for democratic principles to read carefully and support
vigorously motion No. 155 tabled in this House by the hon.
member for Richelieu.
In any event, I would also urge hon. members to consider what
happened to the only bill similar to the one presented today by
the Reform Party, which was ever passed in Canada.
(1725)
In 1936, the Legislative Assembly (Recall) Act was brought
in by the Social Credit Premier of Alberta, William Aberhart.
The very next year, citizens of Alberta tried to exercise this
power of recall against their Premier. Feeling trapped, the
Socred government eventually repealed the act and declared
void all ongoing recall procedures. This Canadian experience
alone clearly shows the vulnerability of such a bill.
This procedure is said to exist in many American States but is
so seldom used that one can wonder about its reliability. As for
recall being a sword of Damocles dangling over the heads of
members of Parliament, I am of the opinion that the respect I
owe my constituents should not be a matter of the carrot and the
stick. Instead, a relationship based on trust and respect must be
established between the voters and their elected representatives.
I will repeat that the reason the Bloc opposes Bill C-210 is
because it considers the proposed recall procedure both
impractical and impracticable. Other ways must be sought to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the democratic
process. And I would say that the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs is doing just that; it is examining a
number of ways to do so.
Our opposition to recall through petition must not be
construed as support for the current system. We are fully aware
of the failure of politicians in terms of representativeness at the
federal level. We are the first to disparage this failed system.
Until the Bloc Quebecois arrived in this House, Quebecers
sent members to defend their interests in the House of Commons
year after year. Quebec politicians of great merit and with lofty
ideals came to Ottawa to ensure that Quebec finally got its share
within this federation. One after the other, they got caught up in
a system that made them forget why Quebecers elected them.
Our members changed. They came here as Quebecers'
representatives to the federal government. After a while, they
became the federal government's representatives to the Quebec
people. They sometimes reluctantly neglected Quebec's
interests in order to please their leaders, their officials, their
colleagues from the nine other provinces or their caucus.
Quebecers in the four major national parties could only count
on one member out of four to defend their interests. Politicians
were destroyed by the vicious circle of the federal system
putting Quebec at a disadvantage. However, since the Canadian
federal steamroller was stronger, they resigned themselves or
went home completely disillusioned.
It took time but Quebecers managed to end this vicious circle.
Without having to use petitions for recall, Quebecers in a
democratic vote last October 25 decided to send to Ottawa54 elected members fundamentally dedicated to the defence of
Quebec's interests. We intend to continue to defend their
interests and to be vigilant.
Nevertheless, we do not want a partisan debate on whether or
not members should be recalled on the basis of citizens'
petitions. I would simply remind my friends in the Reform Party
that we share their fears about certain elected members not
meeting their basic commitments. However, recalling such
members is not a solution; on the contrary, it is likely to make
the problems of Canada's political system worse.
5330
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5330
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1730)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, I want
to discuss the status of official languages, particularly in the
Department of National Defence and in the Canadian Armed
Forces. In recent months, and especially since the closure of the
military college in Saint-Jean, a lot has been said on the current
language situation in the armed forces, as well as on the
somewhat idealistic intentions and promises of the defence
minister concerning the future of French in the armed forces.
In 1963, through the royal commission on bilingualism,
Prime Minister Pearson made substantial changes to the drafting
of the Official Languages Act. As early as 1966, General Allard,
who was the first French-Canadian to become Chief of Staff,
published directives recognizing the equal status of the French
and English languages in the armed forces, as well as the right of
every person to serve his country in his own language.
At the time, the Canadian forces were spearheading the
linguistic efforts which were to follow in federal institutions. In
1972, these efforts resulted in the first official languages plan
for the armed forces. This was a 15-year plan. Unfortunately, in
1987, it was discovered that several objectives had not been
reached, in spite of all the good intentions and valiant efforts.
That same year, a new 15-year plan, to 2002, was drafted.
In November 1992, a report commissioned by the
then-Minister of Defence again found flagrant and
near-unresolvable shortcomings. Here again, with a great deal
of good will, the armed forces had prepared incentive standards
and changes in their official languages plan and its
implementation. Unfortunately, we must now face the following
facts: 40 out of68 military-career-related courses are given in both
languages-4 out of 4 military training courses, 9 out of 14 for
the navy, 8 out of 14 for the air force, and 19 out of the 36
courses applicable to all three branches of the armed forces. It
goes without saying that all 68 courses are available in English.
There is also a shortage of French-language military training
manuals, and bilingual instructors are in short supply; the
majority of bilingual instructors are Francophones. The number
of bilingual Anglophones even declined from 1972 to the end of
1993. The number of bilingual Anglophones has now slipped to
4,200 from 5,000 in 1972. In the officers' ranks, 18 per cent of
senior officers are Francophones-all of them functionally
bilingual. Only 12 per cent of anglophone officers are bilingual,
and most learned French at the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean.
It is impossible for me to list, in so little time, all of the
shortcomings that exist, but I observed first-hand, during
meetings and visits with the joint defence committee, that the
army operates in English, and in both languages in Quebec. At
the base in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, all of the briefings given to
the defence committee were in one language only: English. So
let us, once and for all, be realistic. Fine principles are laid out
and dreams that, despite little success in the past-although
commendable efforts were made, I must admit-this time,
according to the minister, it will be allright.
Unfortunately, the decision to close the military college in
Saint-Jean will only exacerbate the problems which have been
noted in the application of the department's fine principles. For
us, it is just one more piece of evidence that the gulf between the
two founding peoples continues to widen and that the present
government seems to take perverse pleasure in widening that
gulf through its harebrained decision to close the military
college in Saint-Jean, which represented hope for the official
languages in the Canadian armed forces.
(1735)
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Intergovernmental Relations and President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, the concept of a bilingual officers corps
was adopted by the Armed Forces Council on June 28, 1988, to
meet the needs of senior officials who had to be able to lead their
subordinates in both official languages.
The ``working language'' remains the main pillar of the
official languages program, set up to allow French speaking
soldiers to work in French and English speaking soldiers to work
in English.
Job and operational requirements of all units must be
respected. There are three distinct types of units: the French
language units, the English language units and the bilingual
units.
[English]
A departmental committee studied the matter of language of
work in 1992 and concluded that in the case of bilingual units,
civilian and military personnel must be able to communicate
with their subordinates in whichever official language those
subordinates prefer.
5331
The most recent report of the Commissioner of Official
Languages acknowledges that progress has been made over the
past year in the three pillars of the official languages program,
even though according to Commissioner Goldbloom this
progress has sometimes been slow, no doubt because of the
complexity of the organization involved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue
a question I asked the Minister of Transport last month about
passenger rail service.
In answering my question the Minister of Transport assured
me that the government would expedite whatever measures were
necessary to accommodate good railway service, both passenger
and freight, in New Brunswick and in the rest of Atlantic
Canada.
In previous years members of this government protested
loudly whenever the previous government announced any and
all cuts to VIA. Now they seem to have no compunction about
carrying out cuts of their own. What no one in this government
has ever said is that it was a Liberal government which first took
VIA service away from the people of Saint John and it was the
Tory government which gave it back. Now our train is once
again under the axe.
Back in 1989 when he was a member of the opposition, the
current minister of government services said that VIA cuts will
separate Canadians geographically, economically and socially.
He is absolutely right.
In the same year the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
called the previous government's cuts to VIA a short-sighted
policy that not only will deny in the short term the people of
Canada a rail passenger service which in itself is important and
devastating for the communities to be affected, but more
fundamentally, it is denying Canadians as we move into the
nineties and in the year 2000, the future.
In 1991 the current government House leader called the
previous government's cuts to VIA and other institutions a
blueprint for de-Confederation.
After making statements such as these I fail to understand
why this government believes it can credibly defend its
miraculous change of heart. This is also the reason I take small
comfort in the Minister of Transport's assurances when he says
he and his government will do what is necessary to preserve
good railway service.
In his speech on June 3 in Thunder Bay, Ontario, the Minister
of Transport said that the rail industry is gripped by problems of
overregulation, of mismanagement, of overcapacity, of
financial losses, of archaic work practices, of out of date
legislation. Later on the same day the minister said: Canadians
over the decades have constructed one of the most sophisticated
and successful transportation systems in the world.
If one is not left unsure about what the minister actually
thinks about our rail industry, one is at least forced to ask: If the
minister believes his first statement, why does he not help
reorganize the railway instead of walking away from the
problem? Instead of cutting back on services and allowing the
abandonment of lines, why does he not make the industry put its
house in order?
I do not feel that all the blame about the problems facing the
railway industry should be put on the shoulders of the unions.
In the same speech the minister said Canada needs a
transportation system that contributes constructively to
Canada's economic well-being. He also said that within Canada
itself the cost of transporting goods is equally important. Forty
per cent of provincial exports are sold in regions of Canada other
than where they are produced. Transportation is an integral part
of the everyday lives of millions of Canadians.
(1740)
I would argue that maintaining the entire line from Saint John
to Sherbrooke is vital if we want manufacturers in the region and
users of our port to have adequate access to central Canada and
northeastern American markets, the bread and butter of our
exports.
Although there is expectation that a shortline operator will
purchase and operate part or perhaps all of the line from Saint
John to Sherbrooke, the people of Saint John feel that the status
quo should be maintained. Abandonment is wrong. For the
economic well-being of our entire region a direct line is vital.
I repeat now what I said when I originally asked the minister
the question a month ago. VIA's Atlantic train between Halifax
and Montreal is well used and important to the people of Saint
John. With this in mind, I ask the minister to further clarify how
his government plans to ensure good railway service in our
region.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, on the question of VIA nothing could
be further from the truth than what the member has just said.
This government has not announced any service cutbacks to VIA
nor will it until the negotiations are finalized.
I want to deal with the specific question of May 12, 1994
regarding the possible requirement for an amendment to the
National Transportation Act to allow for the continuation of
VIA passenger operations over the lines of a provincial shortline
railway.
CP has narrowed down its list of potential new operators for
its Canadian Atlantic railway lines to two: Cantrak and
Guilford. Although I am not privy to CP's plans, we have all
heard that CP may be announcing the successful finalist
sometime in June.
Details about a conveyance agreement between CP and the
new operator are unknown to this government at this time. If an
agreement is reached and filed with the National Transportation
Agency before the end of 1994 when the abandonment order
5332
takes effect, then the agreement information becomes public
and will shed light on the issue of federal-provincial
jurisdiction.
With an agreement being filed, the agency as required under
the National Transportation Act would have up to six months to
approve the conveyance agreement, if it is in the public interest
and if the purchaser is authorized to operate a railway.
If no agreement is filed before January 1995, then the
Canadian rail line segments which have been approved for
abandonment would no longer come under federal jurisdiction.
In this case the contents of the conveyance agreement would
become known if CP Limited chose to reveal any of this
information. Hence we may not know until then whether or not
the new operator will come under the legislative authority of
Parliament or under provincial jurisdiction.
At the present time VIA operates over CP lines under a train
service agreement. The NTA provides protection of existing
VIA passenger service in the event that the conveyance by
vesting any obligations related to VIA services with the new
owner of the conveyed line. Under these circumstances
accommodation for VIA would have to be built into an
agreement between CP and the rail company to which the lines
are conveyed.
The National Transportation Act would not prevent VIA from
operating over the lines of a rail company that is not within the
legislative authority of Parliament. After all, VIA currently
operates over trackage through Maine which is under U.S.
federal jurisdiction.
In closing, owing to the speculative nature of the question and
lack of a clear demonstration that legislative amendments or
other changes will be required at this time, I can only reiterate
the minister's assurance to the hon. member for Saint John. The
government will expedite legislative changes or other
regulatory modifications if and when they are required to
accommodate good passenger and freight railway service in
New Brunswick and the rest of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, on June 3 I rose in the House during Question Period to
ask the federal government to address the grievances of Indian
veterans.
At this time when Canadians from coast to coast are beginning
to celebrate the 50th anniversary of various events that led up to
the end of the second world war in 1944, it seems unreasonable
to leave the grievances of aboriginal veterans unresolved. These
grievances concern the benefits aboriginal veterans received for
their services in the first world war, the second world war, and
the Korean war and these grievances are long standing.
The National Indian Veterans Association and the
Saskatchewan Indian Veterans Association have worked hard to
bring these issues to the attention of the public. Aboriginal
veterans have told their stories many times before. They have
told about Canada's demand that a person of aboriginal descent
had to give up their Indian status to contribute to the war efforts.
They have told about the bureaucratic nightmare that resulted
from the clash of Canadian laws and policies derived from the
Indian Act, the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans Act.
(1745)
Aboriginal leaders have told about the uneven distribution of
veterans benefits to First Nation and aboriginal veterans. They
have told about the educational and vocational assistance that
was not provided to them and they have told about the unequal
granting of hospital and medical benefits because they were
Indians under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act.
These grievances are not easily dismissed. We have even been
told about the surrender of First Nations land that was later used
for soldiers settlements after the war, the surrender of land that
was Indian land to begin with.
A number of proposals have been put forward to help resolve
these issues and I would like to ask the government to respond to
these requests immediately. The first short term
recommendation is that Canada make available resources in
order for the aboriginal war veterans associations, the Legions
and other organizations in the regions of Canada to be annually
represented at ceremonies in the nation's capital on
Remembrance Day.
In the longer term Canada must continue to address the
benefits issues and make available to all aboriginal veterans the
same benefits that were available to all returning Canadian war
veterans. This must be researched and reimbursement of those
lost benefits must be paid to these people if they are living and if
not, to their descendants.
I think there are other remedies that must be considered, not
the least of which are the payment of compensation for
expropriated land and the reinstatement of offspring of First
Nations aboriginal war veterans who were affected by the
involuntary loss of status associated with their joining up with
the forces.
First Nations people willingly volunteered their services in
the belief that they were helping Canada. Now Canada must take
the opportunity to right the wrongs and the injustices.
When I first raised this question in the House of Commons
earlier this month the minister responsible for veterans said that
he was not aware of any such injustices. As we speak, Mr.
Speaker, you and most members of this House are aware that the
members of the Senate are conducting public hearings on this
very important subject and in just a few days the Indian veterans
5333
are meeting in conference in Saskatoon to further add to the
growing evidence in support of their arguments.
In this regard I call upon the government, not just the minister
responsible for veterans, but the entire government, the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of National
Defence, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, any minister in the government across the way to
recognize the seriousness of this question and take steps
immediately to begin the process of resolving these important
matters.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to respond in greater detail to the concerns
raised by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake
that aboriginal veterans have not been treated the same as other
war veterans.
When the National Aboriginal Veterans Association first
raised allegations of unfair treatment in the early 1980s Veterans
Affairs Canada asked it to bring forward any case in which a
veteran believed that unfair discriminatory treatment had been
received.
Several hundred cases have been put forward since that time.
All were thoroughly reviewed and not one provided any
evidence to suggest that there had been any unfair or
discriminatory treatment.
In addition to these file reviews the National Aboriginal
Veterans Association was provided office space and
administrative help by Veterans Affairs to assist it with the
development of its report to the royal commission on aboriginal
peoples.
Notwithstanding the association's extensive research and file
reviews, no evidence of maladministration was cited by the
National Aboriginal Veterans Association in its report to the
royal commission.
Turning to the legislation itself, if hon. members review any
of the veterans legislation they will find that the definition of
veteran makes no distinction between aboriginal and
non-aboriginal veterans. Simply put, a veteran is anyone who
has served in the armed forces or the merchant navy during
wartime.
The one instance in which it was necessary to make special
reference to aboriginal veterans was in the Veterans Land Act.
The purpose of that reference was to ensure that Indian veterans
living on Indian reserves were able to obtain benefits under that
act.
The fact is that no allegation of discrimination has any basis
in veterans legislation. There is no discrimination in the law and
again the report submitted by the National Aboriginal Veterans
Association to the royal commission confirmed the conclusion
that veterans legislation does not discriminate against
aboriginal veterans.
In view of this background and in view of the comments of the
hon. member, the position taken by the Secretary of State for
Veterans in response to the hon. member's question earlier and
today is the best possible approach.
(1750)
If the hon. member is aware of any veteran's case as he
suggested that he is today, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, any
case in which discrimination or unfair treatment is alleged,
bring that case to the secretary's attention and it will be, I assure
members, thoroughly reviewed and any appropriate action taken
without delay.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to address again the subject of
pay-per-view television.
Two proposals were submitted to the CRTC: one by Astral and
one by Chapiteau, a consortium formed by the CBC's French
network, TVA, TQS, Radio-Québec and Cogeco. Neither
proposal was accepted. The commissioners, who could not agree
among themselves, refused to issue a licence for one of the two
tv proposals aimed at francophones.
Three commissioners, two francophones and chairman Keith
Spicer, agreed with Chapiteau, but they were the minority.
However, we are talking about a vital instrument for the
development of French culture, which would have competed
with English language specialized channels and new U.S. tv
content.
Pay-per-view television is a relative newcomer to Canadian
tv. In March 1991, Viewer's Choice Canada, a joint venture,
obtained a network licence to offer a pay-per-view television
service.
In Montreal, Vidéotron subscribers, the majority of whom are
francophones, already have access to English-language
pay-per-view television via the Viewer's Choice channel, in
which Astral has a majority interest.
The Quebec Minister of Culture has asked the federal
government to review the CRTC's decision. It is unacceptable
that francophones should be deprived of this service. We are
being deprived of an optional cultural channel that is an
indispensable adjunct to developing the creative potential of
Quebecers and francophones in Canada.
This decision totally ignores Quebec's position on the
development of new tv services. This comes in addition to the
judgment by the Supreme Court on telephone services and the
federal government's failure to allow Quebec to control its own
instruments for economic and cultural development.
5334
We cannot tolerate this situation. The minister must
intervene, first in cabinet, and then demand that the CRTC, as
provided under section 28(1) of the Broadcasting Act, amend its
recent decision.
We cannot tolerate that the CRTC, as a result of this decision,
should treat francophones differently. We are simply asking for
fair treatment.
At the same time, the CRTC issued eight out of ten licences to
English-language channels, which means francophones have to
pay for channels whose programming does not necessarily
reflect their concerns or cultural interests.
Not surprisingly, we are not satisfied with this outcome, and
our conclusion is that our interests are not well served. I would
therefore ask the minister to refer the issue to cabinet and have
the CRTC review its recent decision.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Intergovernmental Relations and President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, concerning the request by the hon.
member for Chicoutimi that the minister personally call upon
Cabinet to enforce section 28(1) of the Broadcast Act and to
change the CRTC's decision, I would like to inform the hon.
member that when the CRTC refuses to grant a broadcasting
license, the government cannot invoke the provisions of the
legislation.
[English]
However, I would like to indicate that the refusal of the two
pay-per-view television proposals does not mean that the CRTC
has no intention of encouraging French language television
services. On the contrary, I am pleased to note that the
francophone market will have the benefit of two new French
language services.
In addition, the CRTC has clearly let it be known that it is
ready to receive and consider new applications to offer French
language television services and specifically French language
pay-per-view services.
[Translation]
However, when an application has been refused, as was the
case with the applications submitted by Canal Première and
Chapiteau, the government has no authority to cancel or
overturn the CRTC's decision.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.55 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.)