CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 4, 1994
Bill C-280. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6475
Bill C-281. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6475
Motion for concurrence 6475
Bill C-277. Motion to change title agreed to 6476
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6476
Bill C-51. Motion for second reading. 6477
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6480
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6491
Bill C-47. Motion for second reading 6500
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 6505
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 6505
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6505
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6508
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6511
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6511
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6512
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6513
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6513
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6513
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6513
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6513
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6513
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6514
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6514
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6514
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6514
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6514
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6514
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6514
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6514
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6515
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6515
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6516
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6516
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6516
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6516
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6517
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6517
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 6518
Bill C-42. Motion for second reading 6520
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous consent, the House went into
committeethereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.) 6525
(Clauses 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to.) 6525
(Amendment negatived.) 6528
On clauses 21 to 106 inclusive 6529
(Clauses 21 to 106 inclusive agreed to.) 6529
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 6529
(Schedule agreed to.) 6529
(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time andpassed. 6529
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion andamendment 6529
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6544
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6545
6475
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 4, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-49, an
act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table the thirty-eighth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to the
list of associate committee members.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
this report later this day.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-280, an act to prevent the interruption
by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm
gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the
Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek leave to introduce a
private members' bill entitled an act to prevent the interruption
by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm
gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the
Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.
The purpose of the bill is to prevent work stoppages affecting
the transportation of grain from the producer to the point of
export by establishing a system of arbitration of disputes by
final offer selection, a mechanism that is very consistent with
the collective bargaining process.
I am very pleased that several of my colleagues have formally
indicated to me their support of this bill. They are the members
for Lisgar-Marquette, Vegreville, Okanagan-Shuswap,
Prince George-Peace River, Yorkton-Melville and
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Theirs and other members' support is greatly appreciated and
will be duly and officially recognized through the proceedings
of the House as it deals with the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, inmates in federal institutions have
sometimes deceived innocent people by contacting them
through the mail.
Recently a British woman began a relationship by mail with
an inmate in my riding. She moved to Canada thinking that
circumstances were normal and that she had a normal contact
through the mail. However, she was murdered during a conjugal
visit at the prison.
Today I have the honour to table a bill that would require
officials to clearly mark all mail sent by inmates with the words:
``sent from a correctional facility''. I believe that this bill will
protect innocent people.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent to dispense with theread-
6476
ing of the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
If that is the case I move, also with unanimous consent, that
the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table two petitions from
residents in my constituency of Surrey North.
The first petition, signed by 40 residents, asks that the
Parliament of Canada prohibit and continue to prohibit assisted
suicide and to support the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting
such activities which exist at the present time.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition, also signed by 40 residents, requests that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
(1010)
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, excuse me, I do not
have a petition to present, but I have a motion. Should I have
presented it earlier?
The Speaker: With the consent of the House, we could come
back to it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege to present two petitions today.
The first is on the subject of abortion which is very important
and is in the news these last few days. I feel privileged to present
a petition signed by 88 of my constituents who call on
Parliament to pass legislation which protects the unborn child.
I and the petitioners are concerned that currently there is no
abortion law in Canada. Together we call on the government to
protect the weakest people in our society.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present my second petition on behalf of members of
my constituency, most of whom belong to the Netherlands
Reform Congregation, regarding the subject of sexual
orientation.
The petitioners state that same sex couples should not be
accorded special status by including the undefined phrase
sexual orientation in human rights legislation. They do not want
the government to include it in legislation which they believe
would encourage this type of lifestyle. I agree with their
conclusions.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a series of petitions on five separate
subjects which I have received from individuals of my
constituency of North Island-Powell River.
I present two petitions that call for no amendment to the
Criminal Code concerning physician assisted suicide, one
petition calling for a ban of the serial killer board game, one
petition calling for respect of the unborn, two petitions
requesting Parliament to resist pressure to include sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the final
petition calling for greater protection of children from sexual
assault in the memory of Dawn Shaw.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I inadvertently missed one of
our colleagues on motions. I wonder if we could have
unanimous consent to revert to motions.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
House for unanimous consent to propose an amendment to the
title of my Bill, C-277, an Act to amend the Criminal Code
(circumcision of female persons), by removing the word
``circumcision'' and replacing it with the words ``genital
mutilation''.
I would also like the English version of the title to be amended
accordingly.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6477
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under
Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Kamloops.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to
Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on what can
only be described as an emergency today but as a crisis on the
west coast of Canada.
When I first raised this matter two weeks ago it had been
found that 1.3 million salmon had mysteriously gone missing.
No one could account for them. We were concerned at that point
and asked for an emergency debate. Now 1.9 million more have
gone missing.
I know that the minister said there would be an investigation
and he will report some time next year. Not only do members
from the west coast want to debate this in the House but
members from all sides do, knowing full well what happened on
the east coast when the government was reluctant to take action
and to provide strong leadership.
It is a disaster. It is a crisis situation.
(1015 )
The public confidence in terms of the ability to manage those
resources has, for all intents and purposes, evaporated
completely in British Columbia. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I
ask you to consider calling for an emergency debate on this issue
later today.
The Speaker: This indeed is an important issue. The hon.
member has seen fit to bring it before the House on two previous
occasions. However, I would rule that his request does not meet
all of the conditions for emergency debate at this time.
_____________________________________________
6477
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada
Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to
that act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second
reading today this legislation to amend the Canada Grain Act.
These amendments will contribute substantially to the
competitiveness of our grain industry and the well-being of the
many communities, families and individual Canadians who earn
their livelihoods in this very important sector of the Canadian
economy.
As members of this House will be aware, the Canada Grain
Act is administered by the Canadian Grain Commission. Under
the act the commission is responsible for regulating the
handling of grain in Canada and for establishing and
maintaining standards of grain quality. The commission plays
an essential role in maintaining the international reputation
which Canada enjoys for high quality grain products.
I therefore wish to take a moment as we begin this debate to
acknowledge the hard creative work performed by commission
employees from Prince Rupert, British Columbia to Baie
Comeau. I would also like to thank commission staff for its
contributions to the preparation of the amendments that I am
bringing before the House today. In expressing these sentiments
I am sure I am speaking for all members who appreciate and
understand the challenges which we as legislators place before
the men and women who work in Canada's public service.
I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the weighty
contribution to this bill that has been made by Canada's grain
industry. These amendments are the product of lengthy, detailed
consultations throughout the Canadian grain industry with
producers, grain industry executives and farm organizations
which represent the full spectrum of that important industry.
I want to outline the consultation process so members of this
House can share the confidence that I have that the legislation
we have before us today does represent the needs, the
expectations and the views of the overwhelming majority of
stakeholders from all sectors of our grain industry.
In February, 1991 the Canadian Grain Commission initiated a
review of licensing and security issues arising under the act. The
commission circulated a discussion paper and held face to face
consultations with the representatives of 45 organizations.
These organizations represented grain producers, elevator
companies, grain dealers and so on.
Then in August, 1991 the commission circulated a policy
proposal which was the subject of wide discussion throughout
the grain industry. The grain commission met with the
representatives of 57 organizations. This second round of
consultations produced much useful feedback and resulted in a
revised proposal being circulated in November of 1991. Each
group that had participated in those earlier consultations
received a copy and was asked for additional written comments
and recommendations.
(1020)
Based on the responses to this round of consultations the grain
commission produced a revised proposal and circulated it again
in February 1992. Additional suggestions were made in
discussions with stakeholders that occurred during the 1992
federal regulatory review process.
6478
The legislative amendments that I bring before the House
today are rooted in this consultation process and form an
essential part of government's general commitment to
strengthening Canada's competitive position in world markets.
For purposes of our discussion today I would group the
amendments that we have before us in three broad categories.
The first deals with enhanced competitiveness. The second deals
with more protection for grain producers. The third is focused
on new safeguards for Canadian taxpayers.
I would like to deal with the issue of enhanced
competitiveness. The grains industry in this country is changing
and the pace of change is accelerating. To remain competitive in
global markets, markets in which Canada sells most of its grain,
we need a regulatory and legislative framework which protects
the shared interests of all of the stakeholders.
At the same time it must assist individuals and groups within
the industry to compete successfully, adding value where
possible to their efforts. Our proposed amendments to the
Canada Grain Act are designed with these concerns in mind.
The Canada Grain Act will be amended to strengthen the role
that quality plays in Canada's grains industry. This will help
reinforce the many things we do in Canada which ensure that
only the best grain varieties are developed, marketed and
transported through our bulk handling system. This amendment
affirms that as Canada's grain sector evolves quality will
continue to be a cornerstone of the Canadian grain marketing
strategy.
Canada's commitment to grain quality will be strengthened in
other ways as well. The definition of contaminated grain will be
clarified and the responsibility of elevator operators for the safe
handling of hazardous compounds and the safe disposal of
contaminated grain will be clearly spelled out.
As well, an amendment will confirm the commission's
authority to set standards for the drying of grain. This is perhaps
more important than first might appear. Because improperly
dried grain often cannot be detected until it is actually processed
the first sign of a problem in this area could be a dissatisfied
customer, and that is obviously too late.
This amendment provides the commission with another
means by which to maintain Canada's reputation for grain
quality. This translates into enhanced competitiveness for
Canada's grains industry.
In the spirit of removing unnecessary laws, process elevators
will not be required to undergo weigh-overs. A weigh-over is a
procedure in which an audit is conducted to verify tonnage in
store by grade. Weigh-overs obviously serve a useful purpose
when conducted at terminal and transfer elevators because in
those instances the elevators are often handling grain they do not
own. By contrast, process elevators own the grain they have in
stock and therefore weigh-overs serve no useful purpose.
A central objective of this government is to remove laws and
regulations which have outlived their usefulness and this
amendment supports that objective.
As I announced in July 1994, the grain commission will no
longer be required to set maximum tariffs for elevators. Elevator
tariffs are the fees that grain elevator companies charge for their
services. Government regulation of tariffs dates back to a time
when producers were much less able to protect themselves from
the setting of unfair prices. However, because producer owned
or controlled companies now control the majority of elevator
capacity in Canada, there is no need for government to continue
to regulate tariffs on behalf of producers.
(1025 )
This deregulation of maximum tariffs will proceed in two
stages. First, during a two-year transition period, the
commission will retain the authority to set tariff ceilings by
order. I would not anticipate any significant problem with this
process.
In the current crop year terminal elevator operators were
given the power by commission order to set their own elevation
tariffs. For the most part, their increases were relatively minor
and on the whole fair. This bodes well for the future and I am
confident that allowing the market to function more freely will
provide benefits to everyone concerned.
At the same time, even after the two-year transition period
the commission will continue to have the authority to deal with
maximum tariffs if that should become necessary. During and
after the transition period the grain commission will perform an
ombudsman role, responding to complaints and seeking
remedies.
I wish to stress that this amendment arises from our
commitment to regulatory reform, removing regulations that
hinder the competitiveness of Canadian industry, and
developing a regulatory regime which adds value to the efforts
of Canadian enterprises to compete in international markets.
Bill C-51 will remove the requirement that only public
carriers transport grain interprovincially. This will benefit
producers, providing them with transportation options that may
help them to reduce some of their marketing costs. Other
amendments will allow the grain commission to stipulate that
electronic transmission of transactions may replace paper
documents. This will save money and time for the grain
commission and for the industry as a whole.
I would now like to turn to the issue of protection for grain
producers. The Canada Grain Act of 1912 established the
Canadian Grain Commission in large measure to protect the
interests of Canadian grain producers. This remains a central
feature of the act, and several of the proposed amendments
6479
before us today are designed to maintain this protection
function.
They include granting authority to the grain commission to
act against companies that illegally use Canada Grain Act grade
names. The bill also includes provisions that require licensed
grain dealers to use Canada Grain Act grade names in all of their
transactions with producers, provisions to specify the way in
which grade, dockage and moisture content are determined and
recorded at the country elevator, and provisions to allow the
suspension of licences of primary elevators where overages
exceed allowable limits.
Overages are discrepancies between the amount of grain an
elevator has in store and the amount that it should have
according to records of shipments and receipts. The
amendments will also include provisions that confirm the
authority of the grain commission to require operators to fully
ensure the grain in their elevators.
The current reporting requirements are not as effective as they
should be under the law for determining the financial health of a
prospective licensee. Therefore, this bill contains provisions
that require prospective licensees to provide specified financial
data which demonstrate their financial viability.
I would now like to turn to the issue of enhanced protection
for taxpayers under this proposed legislation. The amendments
will provide such protection for the taxpayers of this country.
Members will recall that in 1991 the Federal Court of Appeal
ruled that the grain commission was liable for losses sustained
by producers in the early 1980s when two licensees went
bankrupt and their security posted with the commission did not
cover their liabilities.
As a result of this, Canadian taxpayers were required to pay
more than $3.9 million, an amount equal to the difference
between the security posted by the companies and their actual
liabilities to grain producers.
While the Federal Court of Appeal has obviously disagreed, it
is the view of many in the industry that the Canada Grain Act
was not intended to provide unlimited protection for grain
producers in all circumstances.
(1030 )
Unlimited business protection of the kind apparently
envisaged by the Federal Court of Appeal judgment is unknown
in virtually any other sector of our economy. Most producer
organizations understand how it can lead some producers into
making unwise business decisions.
Therefore, while protection by security posted by licensees is
one of the rights producers have under the act I believe, and the
majority of producer organizations with which the commission
consulted agree, that grain producers need to assume somewhat
more responsibility for their own business dealings.
While certain of our amendments give the commission more
authority to deal with licensees whose security may be
insufficient, other amendments place an onus on the farmer to
help minimize his or her own risk. These provisions include,
first, an amendment that will provide by regulation protection
for producers for a prescribed period from the date of delivering
their grain to a licensee.
If producers decline to accept payment for their grain within
that specified period, they will not be eligible to be paid out of
the licensee's posted security should that company ultimately
fail. Based on consultations which the grain commission has
conducted with producers and the industry the prescribed period
will be 90 days. There will be a requirement that the farmer must
notify the grain commission within 30 days of a failure to pay or
default by a grain company.
The amendments will also place a responsibility on the farmer
to determine if he or she is in fact dealing with a duly licensed
company. As only licensed companies must post security with
the grain commission, claims will not be valid if the farmer is
dealing with an unlicensed company.
A provision will require the producer to obtain grain
commission authorized documents from grain dealers and other
grain commission licensees. The amendments will permit the
commission to set percentage limits on security coverage. The
commission would not however be able to use that particular
regulatory power without governor in council approval.
Currently coverage is 100 per cent. I expect this will remain the
case for the foreseeable future.
Finally, the amendments explicitly limit the ability of the
Canadian Grain Commission to have the amount of security
posted by licensed companies through the commission. This
provision is designed to bring the protection enjoyed by
producers more in line with security provisions common in
many other areas. It is a bit analogous to the limits placed on
what the government will guarantee depositors in a financial
institution that fails.
These provisions are not a cure-all. No legislation can ensure
that grain companies will not make bad decisions. No law will
prevent bankruptcies. Nonetheless, these amendments will
place more responsibility with the producers for dealing with
licensed, viable companies. As well these provisions will
encourage producers to refrain from taking unnecessary risks
when dealing with any company, licensed or otherwise.
These amendments will reduce the risk which has been borne
in the past by the taxpayer. As I said in my first introductory
remarks this package of amendments was preceded by a series of
6480
in depth industry consultations across the grains industry in this
country.
These consultations demonstrate conclusively that the
industry has changed, strengthening our conviction that
Canada's legislation has to respond to those changes. I believe
the amendments before the House today have the support of the
majority of participants in our grains industry. These
organizations share my belief that these amendments will
produce substantial benefits for producers, taxpayers and the
grains industry as a whole. I recommend the amendments
contained in Bill C-51 to the House for approval.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to participate this morning in this
debate on Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
(1035)
Bill C-51, this bill to amend the Canada Grain Act we are
debating this morning will not cause much of a stir. The
proposed amendments are rather technical and are aimed at
increasing efficiency in the administration and operation of the
Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry.
The Canadian Grain Commission is responsible for the
implementation of the Canada Grain Act. It is required to
establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain
and to regulate the handling of grain in Canada.
The bill before us has a triple objective: first, to improve the
competitiveness of the grain industry; second, to ensure better
protection for producers when they do business with grain
dealers and big companies; and third, to protect taxpayers more
adequately.
Last Saturday, I had the chance to meet with greenhouse
tomato producers in my riding, and one of them told me this
story that I would like to share with you this morning. Here is
how the story goes: tomatoes he sells 70 cents per pound to the
supermarket and delivers himself because he handles the
marketing are sold minutes later at the same location not for 79
cents per pound, not for $1.39 per pound, but-listen to this-
$2.39 per pound.
So, this greenhouse producer said: ``You know, I have to work
four months to grow my tomatoes before I can sell them at 70
cents per pound, but all the owner of this supermarket has to do
is to keep them in his refrigerator or display for 24 or 48 hours to
make a net profit of $1.70 per pound''.
Producers are sometimes believed to pocket the biggest share,
but they are not the ones. In this case, there was no intermediary;
this producer handles marketing himself, yet the tomatoes he
gets paid 70 cents a pound for, the very same tomatoes sell for
$2.39 per pound, just 24 to 36 hours later.
Coming back to Bill C-51, in order to increase competition,
the commission will no longer have to set maximum elevator
charges. Such deregulation will come about gradually however,
and the commission will retain the discretion to set a ceiling
through regulation. It will also have the power to investigate
complaints and, of course, settle them. We are told that this will
give elevator operators more flexibility in setting their prices
based on market conditions.
If there is a problem, the board reserves the right to set a
ceiling. Producers must enjoy sufficient protection so that the
time needed to handle their complaints does not push them into
bankruptcy.
Some of the amendments have aroused concern, however,
since the regulations that go with the bill will have a very big
impact on the bill itself. We hope that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food will table the regulations in
committee so that we can assess the impact of the bill before us
this morning.
(1040)
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the deregulation provided for
in this bill will lead to a rise in consumer prices. Let me explain.
The Canadian Wheat Board pays producers based on the price it
gets on the international market. The government for its part,
after assessing the market outlook, sets a base price it is
committed to paying to producers.
In the last several years, the base price has been set at a very
low level, which minimizes the government's obligation to
reimburse producers in case sales collapse on the international
market. When the international price is higher than the initial
price, the board pays producers the difference. If the reverse is
true, the difference is paid by the government. It should be
pointed out that production or transport costs have no impact on
the initial price level.
In the event of a significant decline in the market price,
producers will rely on the income support program that includes
the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan and the Net Income
Stabilization Account. If the market price remains stable but
production costs rise, producers will dip into their Net Income
Stabilization Accounts. This account is financed by producers'
premiums. Up to 2 per cent of his gross revenue is matched by
the federal and provincial governments and a further 20 per cent
that is not matched can be added.
The producer receives interest on the invested funds at 3 per
cent above the market rate. He draws on his account if his profit
margin is less than the moving average of previous years. As a
result, the operators would have to overcharge considerably to
lower the producer's profit margin; the producer could then
draw on his stabilization account.
6481
It is therefore unlikely, but nevertheless, should it occur,
taxpayers would have to supplement a drop in the producer's net
income with matching payments. Deregulation also allows
producers to use private rather than public transportation to take
grain from one province to another. That is something new.
Madam Speaker, let me now show you and this House how
this everyday bill is a perfect example of the gulf between
Quebec and the rest of Canada. Since most grain growers are in
Western Canada, logically the associations representing them
should be consulted about the impact of the bill before us, C-51.
(1045)
Out of curiosity, I went to find out what Quebecers are
thinking. The producers who should be concerned, Quebec's
grain growers, are not. The reason is very simple: they are
mainly under provincial legislation. So Quebec producers again
have to deal with two levels of government. For example, the
primary elevators are in provincial jurisdiction, while the
transfer and process elevators are in federal jurisdiction.
The Government of Quebec has authority for everything
concerning the domestic market, including the shipment of
grain. Outside Quebec borders, federal jurisdiction takes over.
There is a long list of such waste of time and money in every
sector and department.
In terms of the grain required to feed its cattle, Quebec is 70 to
80 per cent self-sufficient. Here, I must pay tribute to the former
Quebec Minister of Agriculture, my friend Jean Garon, with
whom I had the pleasure of working on several occasions. By the
time he left the agriculture department, in 1985, he had
increased the province's self-sufficiency to over 80 per cent.
The other 20 to 30 per cent comes from Ontario or the United
States. These percentages clearly show why Quebec producers
have concerns other than those addressed by this legislation.
Their situation is completely and totally different. Since the
federal government gives us so many opportunities to make
suggestions, I will make one this morning: Why does the
Minister of Agriculture not look at the problem experienced by
maple producers, considering that 86 per cent of all the maple
syrup on this planet comes from Quebec?
The monies invested in that sector by his department are
absolutely insufficient. In my riding of Frontenac, where
exceptionally good quality maple syrup is produced in great
quantities, producers are lamenting over the fact that their syrup
is still being sold at the same price as ten years ago. Because
there is a major surplus, they have no choice but to accept the
price offered to them. Their latest idea to dispose of their stock
is to sell maple syrup to be used in ice cream, in the form of
maple sugar bits. This product is extremely popular right now in
the U.S., in Canada and of course in Quebec. There is also maple
syrup yogurt. I do hope, however, that nobody finds a way to
replace maple sugar or syrup by a substitute which will taste the
same but will not be the real thing and may well not be much
cheaper.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, as well as hon. members in this
House, to sample the cakes made with maple syrup by the bakery
in Saint-Méthode. You have? Good. These are made with real
maple syrup and not a substitute. Last spring, when I visited that
bakery, they were proud to tell me that they had already used 500
barrels of maple syrup.
(1050)
Now, if the federal government would only look beyond what
it is doing in Western Canada for farmers and realize there is a
case for investing in research and development in Quebec. This
morning I mentioned the maple syrup industry. There are other
examples of areas where Quebec is well ahead of the other
provinces or other countries. Milk production is case in point,
since Quebec is responsible for 48 per cent of Canada's milk
production.
So why not invest more to develop the potential of a sector
that already has an excellent record? We in the Bloc Quebecois
have no objection to the measures being sought by Western
farmers, and we have no objection to their excellent association
supporting such measures. We have conducted consultations
and checked our facts, and Bill C-51 appears to have the
approval of Western farmers. Farmers in Western Canada are in
the best position to know what is good for them. It is only fair to
give them the tools they need to develop their potential.
In turn, we would like to see the same respect shown for the
choices Quebecers will make in this coming year. Let the people
who know what is best for them decide what kind of future they
want.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and I can
assure the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that all Bloc
Quebecois members in this House will support Bill C-51.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of both members this
morning. I will address this bill on the basis that I agree with
some points and feel very negative about others.
The Canada Grain Act is administered by the Canadian Grain
Commission which is the agency mandated to establish and
maintain grain quality and regulate the Canadian grain handling
system.
I can support the main intentions of this bill as it aims at
making our grain industry more competitive. We all want to see
Canada build on its reputation as a producer and supplier of
quality grain to the world.
6482
It is important to remember that there are many important
components that make up the grain industry and we should be
sure that they are all working in top form to ensure the health and
viability of this sector.
For example, last year we had problems caused by disruptions
in the grain transportation system. This year it looks like we are
going to experience some of the same problems which are
disastrous and detrimental to our industry. Clearly we have to
learn to start taking problems for what they are and try to solve
them from past experiences without jeopardizing the future or
the well-being of the industry.
Turning to the bill, I will outline some of its provisions. The
Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be required to set
maximum tariffs charged by grain elevators. Over time it is
hoped that this will allow elevator operators to be more flexible
and competitive in pricing their services while encouraging
capital investment. This will also give grain buyers more
authority to penalize people who put grain into terminals but do
not move it quickly enough.
(1055 )
This amendment may solve a problem that was evident last
year when the Canadian Wheat Board plugged elevators with
grain for which there was not immediate buyers.
With the current legislation, terminals do not have to wait for
boards to sell. They can legislate increased premiums or tariffs.
This will probably have a positive effect on the system. Cabinet
through governor in council will have the power to reverse these
amendments. It remains to be seen whether this amendment will
give terminals any real power or whether the Canadian Wheat
Board will continue to be protected by the government through
the undemocratic governor in council process.
I also wonder if the government in the future will invoke
governor in council provisions to give more power to the
Canadian Wheat Board and further regulate the industry.
The legislation states that after the maximum tariffs are
eliminated the role of the Canadian Grain Commission will be
that of a conciliator in resolving tariff disputes. This raises the
question that if there is a need to further define this role, how
will this be accomplished? Will it be through legislation or
through governor in council?
The legislation allows for free movement within the western
jurisdiction and within the eastern jurisdiction but not between
the two jurisdictions. I wonder why there are these restrictions
on interprovincial trade within Canada. As hard as it may be to
believe, there are more barriers to trade between provinces in
Canada than there are between countries in the European
community. I really question the rationale that says there should
be restrictions for grain movement within Canada.
This summer we saw the first ministers sign an
interprovincial trade agreement that actually did very little to
promote free trade. It surprised me that when they had an
opportunity to solve a problem that has to be resolved, they
accomplished little, especially in the area of agriculture. This is
all the more surprising when one considers that these
restrictions are not imposed by us, by foreign governments or
international regulations. These are pitfalls that we have set up
for ourselves and which we have to be more determined to
remove.
By eliminating internal trade barriers we can remove the
distortions in our markets and ensure that producers in this
country have more control in setting prices instead of having a
system where internal trade barriers ensure that trade prices are
artificially inflated.
This bill will also remove the requirement that only public
carriers can transport grain interprovincially. This is a good idea
that will hopefully allow producers to reduce their marketing
costs by giving them more transportation options.
The amendments in Bill C-51 also attempt to provide
increased protection for grain producers. These include giving
the Canadian Grain Commission authority to act against
companies which illegally use Canada Grain Act grade names;
requiring licensed grain dealers to use Canada Grain Act grade
names in all their transactions with producers; specifying the
way in which grade, dockage and moisture content are
determined and recorded at the county elevator; authorizing the
Canadian Grain Commission to suspend the licences of primary
elevators where overages exceed allowable limits, which is very
preferable; confirming the authority of the Canadian Grain
Commission to require operators to fully insure the grain in their
elevators; and, requiring prospective licensees to provide
specific financial data which demonstrates their financial
viability.
Certainly increased protection for producers is something that
should be pursued but there is always a danger that by adding
more regulation the system is being weighed down more and
more. We have to find ways to get protection for producers
without getting into the way of how they conduct their
businesses.
(1100)
There are also aspects of these amendments that will
hopefully result in increased protection for taxpayers. Under the
bill producers will have 90 days to seek payment for their grain
after delivery to a licensee. If producers do not seek payment
within that time period they will not be eligible to be paid out of
the licensee's posted security. Then the companies go bankrupt.
The farmer would also be required to inform the Canadian
Grain Commission within 30 days of a failure to be paid by grain
companies. The onus will be on farmers to determine if the
companies they are dealing with are licensed by the Canadian
Grain Commission.
6483
Since licensed companies must post security with the
Canadian Grain Commission, claims will not be valid if farmers
are dealing with unlicensed companies. The Canadian Grain
Commission will be limited on its liability to the amount of the
security posted by the licensee. It is intended to be similar to the
limits placed on what the government will guarantee depositors
if a financial institution fails.
These are some of the bylaws I can support. As the House
knows, I am no great friend of the Canadian Transportation
Agency or the Canadian Grain Commission. Why is that so? I
would like to remind the House that as a farmer and as a
politician today I like to deal fairly with every individual.
In May of this year the Manitoba Co-Operator published an
article that read: ``Double standard claimed. The Canadian
Grain Commission, guardian of the quality control system that
makes Canadian grain exports the best in the world, tells
farmers to do one thing but one of its assistant commissioners
has been practising another. This commissioner has grown
unregistered wheat for a whole year before it was internally
licensed''. If that is not a double standard, if that is protecting
the Canadian farmer, I cannot agree with the bill.
When questioned one Domain area farmer said: ``How
political was the decision not to register Grandin grain or how
political was the decision to bring it in?'' When the wheat board
commissioner, Mr. Murta, replied to it, he said: ``It is an
indication of a system that almost got ahead of itself and you can
see the result''.
We were to have a grain commission to protect the quality of
our grain and what did it do? It illegally allowed one of its
assistant commissioners to bring in grain.
When another farmer was asked how he felt about it, he
replied: ``Although the first Grandin wheat came into the
prairies illegally, one of the first farmers to import it says
Agri-Canada officials told us how to do the paperwork. They
told us we didn't have to use variety name. We could use lot
number''.
Is this the type of grain commission we want? Not I, not as a
farmer. It bothers me when I see there will be no limits on
storage costs. Will it really increase competition or will it allow
big grain companies to fill their terminals and then charge
farmers through the wheat board for these costs? There is no
incentive for the wheat board to move that grain because I pay
the costs, not the wheat board.
One prime example is the situation at Churchill to date. As of
Monday there were two ships sitting and waiting for grain.
There is no grain available. Elevators in southern parts of the
provinces are plugged. Boxcars are sitting idle. We do not need
hopper cars to go to Churchill. Boxcars are sitting idle.
Transportation costs to Churchill are from $10 to $20 per tonne
cheaper than either to the west coast or to the east coast. There is
no incentive for the grain companies to move grain to Churchill
because the terminal is owned by the government.
D (1105)
Last July I went to investigate the port, to have a look at it. A
ship was due for arrival that took on 40,000 tonnes. That
terminal with the capacity to store five million bushels had
4,000 tonnes in it. Are those the regulations we are debating? Is
that the type of system that is protecting farmers? I feel we are
getting shafted.
Why should we be worried? I received a letter last week from
a seed cleaning plant which does not come under the rules of the
Canadian Grain Commission. Through its expertise and
incentive it developed a market for special crops. The seed plant
was notified that it would have to become a grain dealer or an
elevator with a licence. It would have to put up bonds. It would
have to put on insurance. There will be extra costs for the small
seed cleaning plant, of which there are hundreds in rural parts of
the prairies. The operator told me point blank: ``If that is
enforced upon me I will be shut down. There is no way I can
compete with a UGG or a pool cleaning system. No way will I
survive''.
Is that increasing competition? I think it is decreasing it. Why
are we doing it? Why are we continually allowing bureaucrats
and government to enforce regulations or stipulations that hurt
the small person?
I would like to go a little further. I noticed in his opening
remarks the hon. minister indicated that they wanted to save
taxpayers' money. That is one thing Reform is always pushing
for. We could very easily do so by removing some wheat board
commissioners who were politicians, are drawing a gold plated
pension plan and are still drawing a wage more than that of an
MP in the House. If that is looking after the small guy, I do not
want to be looked after. These grain board commissioners are
lifetime appointments.
I read in the new bill that the age limit will be removed. Why?
Is 65 not old enough? Why would we want to increase the age
until these grain commissioners finally die? That is the only way
we will ever remove them and get people to represent farmers.
It is not only that. Further in the bill I read that we are going
now to give the commissioners the authority to set their own
wage scale. They will not have to go to the cabinet or use an
order in council. If that is saving taxpayers' money, I do not
think I want to support the bill.
How do I feel about the bill? It reminds me very much of a
chicken farmer who is trying to protect his flock in the hen
house. He is looking for a guard dog and finally somebody
camouflages a fox and says: ``Here is a good guard dog. Set him
in front of your door''. Not only are we being brainwashed or
whitewashed with the guard dog; we are throwing him into the
chicken coop and closing the door. The guard dog will have his
meals any time; he will have any one of the chickens he desires.
I cannot support legislation like this.
6484
(1110)
When I look at section 84 that deals with transportation of
grain I see that it is to be deregulated. It will now require not
only an export permit from the wheat board to move grain from
province to province. It will also require documentation from
the Canadian Grain Commission allowing farmers to transport
their own grain. Does it make sense? To me it is more regulation,
not deregulation.
As a farmer and a new politician I did not think I would see
democracy at the point I see it this morning. When I am told as a
member of the House that I must accept what the government
wants to do and I had better like it or else I will have nothing to
say, I get very upset.
I remind hon. members on the other side that come the next
election this farmer-politician will not forget those kinds of
actions. He will continually remind western farmers that this
was how we were treated by hon. members across the way.
We are going to go to our graves physically healthy. We can
spend millions and millions in building pools and supporting
hockey rinks, but we cannot support a grain transportation
system; we do not have the funds.
The other day I saw a news release stating that $4 million was
to be spent in the city of Winnipeg for recreation by the
government, but we cannot afford to upgrade the line to
Churchill. We are going to starve healthy.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River.
I wish to add my voice to those supporting Bill C-51, an act to
amend the Canada Grain Act. I do so for many reasons. As
colleagues have noted, these amendments offer a multitude of
benefits in terms of enhanced competitiveness for Canadian
grain in world markets, better service to the industry, and
protection for grain producers and taxpayers.
I congratulate all involved for putting together such a
comprehensive and useful package of legislation. I am
impressed with the ways in which the bill reinforces and fulfils
the original intent of the Canada Grain Act, 1912, while at the
same time it adapts to many challenges posed by the
international grain markets of the 1990s.
Its original intent was and remains, to act in the interests of
producers. It is on behalf of grain producers I wish to address my
remarks today. To act on behalf of the grain producers it is first
necessary to understand what they are. The process that led up to
the drafting of the legislative amendments was one of lengthy,
in-depth consultations with representatives of all facets of the
grain industry.
Prominent among those were grains producer organizations.
These organizations through their representatives told the
Canadian Grain Commission to continue to protect the integrity
of the Canadian grain handling system, to strengthen and to
maintain the system that has given Canada the enviable
reputation enjoyed worldwide for top quality grain.
At the same time they said they needed flexibility to meet the
new markets and challenges, to pursue new opportunities, and to
adapt to rapidly changing conditions. While on the one hand we
are maintaining and strengthening Canada's grain quality
system, on the other hand we are removing restrictions which
have become burdensome and counterproductive. With the
foregoing in mind I will now outline the features of this bill
which I feel most effectively accomplish these objectives from a
producer's point of view.
(1115)
To protect the integrity of Canada's grading system which
producers understand enhances the marketability of their grain,
the act will amend to strengthen the concept that quality meeting
the needs of the end users is central to Canada's grain handling
system.
This will help to reinforce the many unique things we do in
Canada which ensure that only the best grain varieties are
developed, marketed and transported through our bulk handling
system.
As Canada's grain system evolves over time this amendment
will affirm that quality will continue to be the foundation of
Canada's grain marketing strategy.
Canada's commitment to grain quality will be strengthened in
other ways. For example, the definition of contaminated grain
will be clarified and the responsibility of elevator operators for
safe handling of hazardous compounds and safe disposal of
contaminated grain will be clearly spelled out. This works to the
obvious benefit of the producers who will understand the ethical
concerns and the marketing advantages of delivering a safe,
wholesome product.
As well, an amendment will confirm the authority of the
commission to set standards for the drying of grain. This is more
important because improperly dried grain often cannot be
detected until it is processed. The first indication of concern
would be a dissatisfied customer.
This very point was brought up on September 22 at an annual
meeting of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board in my
riding of Lambton-Middlesex. When its primary customers,
American producers along the south shore of Lake Erie, are
demanding wheat with 13.5 per cent moisture content, there had
better be a means of ensuring this standard.
6485
This amendment provides the commission with another
means by which to maintain Canada's reputation for grain
quality. It therefore contributes to enhancing the
competitiveness of Canada's grain producers.
This bill will remove the requirement that only public carriers
transport grain interprovincially. This will benefit producers,
providing them with transportation options that may help them
to reduce costs. This provision coupled with the June 8
announcement by the ministers of agriculture and transport to
expedite changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act will
ensure the foundation of a fair and effective delivery system for
crops in all regions of Canada.
Several other proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act
speak directly to the opinions expressed by grain producers that
the CGC continue to maintain the integrity of grain transactions.
These include granting authority to the commission to act
against companies which illegally use Canada Grain Act grade
names; requiring licensed grain deals to use Canada Grain Act
grade names in all of the transactions with the producers;
provisions to specify the way grade, dockage and moisture
content are determined and recorded at the county elevator;
provisions to allow the suspension of licences of primary
elevators where over usages exceed allowable limits.
Over usages are discrepancies between the amount of grain an
elevator has compared with what it should have based on records
of shipment and receipts.
Also included are provisions which clarify the authority of the
commission to refuse licences to companies which it deems to
be unreliable.
These provisions fit well with others contained in the bill
which require that grain producers take more responsibility for
grain transactions. I believe this balanced approach reflects the
basic value that is held by producers, the industry and this
government, one that says we are all obligated to share in the
risk and responsibilities. In doing so producers, the industry and
all Canadians share in the benefits.
Taken together, these amendments to the Canada Grain Act
offer producers a comprehensive package of measures that
support their efforts to work and to prosper in an increasingly
competitive global grain market. For this reason I most heartily
encourage members of this House to support this bill.
(1120 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in favour of Bill C-51,
which contains amendments to the Canada Grain Act. This is a
government of action. I am very proud of this government,
particularly the actions and successes of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food for his important role in the successful completion of
the Uruguay round of the GATT talks. For years the
international community has been engaged in a grain subsidies
war that has had a very negative effect on grain prices and
therefore a very negative effect on Canadian farmers and the
economy, particularly western Canada which is so dependent on
grain.
Canada had a much more limited treasury than our friends in
Europe or the United States. As such we could not compete with
the subsidy levels offered by those countries. Therefore, our
minister had to fight hard at the GATT talks to reduce these
levels of subsidies around the world and was successful in the
pursuit of that endeavour.
Over time we are going to see grain prices rise as these
subsidies fall. We can all be very grateful for that. This is going
to be good for farmers in my riding of Prince Albert-Churchill
River and for all the farmers of Canada. That is something we
can all be very happy about.
In addition, our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has
shown negotiating skill and leadership in striking a good deal
for Canadian farmers in the recent wheat export dispute with the
United States. Limits on exports were obtained that are far
above any levels of wheat export that we have seen in history.
Second, we obtained an agreement that repressive trade
sanctions contained in American trade law would not be
implemented for a year. This will allow the GATT to become
effective, thereby blocking the use of these heavy handed trade
tactics in the future.
These actions by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
typify the way this government deals with issues. The
government identifies the problem. The government consults
with all of the stakeholders who are affected by the issue and the
government works hard with these stakeholders to fix the
problem.
In spite of this heavy agenda, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food has not stopped there. Through the mechanism of
actively seeking public input and the input of farmers and farm
organizations, grain companies, all of the people involved in
grain transportation and the grain industry, the minister has
proposed effective amendments to the Canada Grain Act
intended to improve the operating and administrative
efficiencies of the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain
industry.
The world is changing. Technology is improving. The
international marketplace is increasingly competitive and the
deficit of the federal government and the protection of our
taxpayers are things we all need to be concerned with. These are
problems we must deal with. Our taxpayers, our farmers, all of
us must be protected and looked after.
6486
Generally speaking the proposed amendments are quite
varied but not insubstantial in consequence. Some of the
changes are of a bookkeeping or tidying up nature, which change
definitions contained in the act or change some of the
translations to increasingly make the act more internally and
externally consistent.
Other changes give the Canadian Grain Commission the
authority to establish by regulation, subject to cabinet approval,
what constitutes a hazardous substance, which financial
documents licensees must submit, the types of insurance an
elevator must hold and how elevators must dispose of
contaminated grain.
New authority also has been given to the Canadian Grain
Commission rather than the cabinet to establish allowances to
be paid to members of grain appeals tribunals and grain
standards committees. There is no doubt that Canada produces
the best quality grain in the world. The international community
recognizes this fact and when a choice is given it will pick our
grains every time, provided we continue to be competitive and
reliable suppliers.
Amendments to the Canada Grain Act reiterate and recognize
Canada's longstanding commitment to grain quality. Quality is a
very important factor in the marketability of our grain. We must
continue to do all we can to maintain that.
(1125)
The amendment also gives the Canadian Grain Commission
the authority to establish by regulation, subject to cabinet
approval, the time limit for realizing on security posted by
licensees with the Canadian Grain Commission and provides a
limit of 30 days to the time following the default on payments
that a producer has to claim on CGC held security.
Also the amendments provide the authority to establish by the
Canadian Grain Commission, subject to cabinet approval, a
percentage limit on the value of the claim against the grain
commission held security. The amendments make clear that the
Canadian Grain Commission is only liable to producers who
deal with Canadian Grain Commission licensees and who obtain
the prescribed documents upon delivery of their grain only up to
the amount of security posted.
These provisions among other things provide certainty and
security for the taxpayers of Canada as well as the farmers of
Canada. During the recent consultation held with all the
stakeholders who have an interest in grain transportation it
became apparent that in order to achieve reliability of supply
and to keep intact Canada's well-deserved reputation as a
reliable supplier of grain products, the Canadian Grain
Commission requires the flexibility to eliminate the
requirement of establishing maximum elevator tariffs.
In all probability these amendments will ensure that grain will
keep moving through our ports and on to our ships and will save
the payment of demurrage fees that have been paid in the past
when we have seen a lot of ships sitting in harbour empty and not
moving our grain.
We all want to have payments made to keep the grain moving.
This is a very progressive action. In addition to this we have the
safety valve that the commission still maintains the authority to
impose maximum tariffs if necessary.
Other amendments to ensure balanced enhanced
competitiveness, better financial security, more protection for
taxpayers and greater operational flexibility for the Canadian
Grain Commission are contained within the legislation.
I wish to commend our minister of agriculture for bringing
forward these amendments to ensure the continued success of
the Canadian agricultural industry. I think the hallmark of this
government and our minister of agriculture is that when there is
a problem we move to fix it and our government will continue to
support our farmers and our taxpayers by sensible regulation, of
which this is a fine example.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed that speech very much. It sure makes me feel
better to know how good things are on the farm.
I would ask the hon. member whether he is aware that under
the free trade agreement article 705(5) clearly stipulates that
there cannot be a cap put on imports unless there is excessive
production by new farm programs. This was very well known by
the Liberal government in the free trade agreement it signed.
About a week before this wheat deal was signed I heard
someone on that side say, I think it was the hon. minister of
agriculture, that no deal is badder than a bad deal. I wonder if he
would comment on those statements.
Also, could he give us an indication on the action taken on the
transportation problems, such as back-tracking, if that is the
rate of movement we will see from this government, whether it
is going to resolve problems as fast as it has up to now because it
is sure encouraging?
Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon.
member for his questions.
The deal reached by the minister of agriculture concerning the
wheat dispute with the Americans is an excellent deal for
Canada. If we look back at the historic relationship and the
historic levels of wheat exports to the United States Canada
came out of this negotiation very successfully.
(1130 )
First, the minister ensured this very high level of continued
export, well above the historic levels. However, in addition to
this, and most significantly, the minister of agriculture achieved
a moratorium from both countries in future trade action which
could have very detrimental effects on the grains industry in
western Canada. This delay allows the GATT provisions to come
into force and prevents the American government from
implementing these very draconian, heavy-handed trade
provisions in the future. As an interim step this was an excellent
result
6487
obtained by the minister of agriculture and he should be
commended.
With respect to the hon. member, the minister of agriculture is
doing a lot of things to ensure that the grain transportation
system is improved. Some of the examples of this are in this bill.
The government is going to continue to support the farmers of
western Canada. When we hear statements from the leader of the
hon. member's party saying there are too many farmers in
western Canada, let me say that the Liberal Party does not agree
with that. We ask that hon. member to retract the statement he
made about two years ago in Halifax. That is the kind of support
they get from across the House.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to hear that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River still believes that his government is acting on behalf of
farmers.
It seems to me that this bill and its two companions which
were introduced this fall have made a fairly sizeable shift
toward dealing with the agri-food and the agri-business side of
agriculture in providing protections and provisions for their
needs sometimes at the expense of the farmer.
Just as a brief illustration of that, I wonder if he would explain
to us, since he raised it in his speech, how open-ended fees being
set by elevators in terminals are a help to farmers. How is it a
help to a farmer to deliver grain to an elevator for use at the
terminal and find out that the fees have been changed after he
gets the product into the system?
Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, with respect to the fees that
will be charged, first, open competition at the ports for different
shippers is going to ensure that the rates charged are reasonable.
However the grain commission retains the ability to regulate
this issue.
Does the hon. member believe that it is wise for farmers to pay
for ships to sit empty and have grain not move or does he believe
it is wise to pay and have the grain move so that we continue to
be a reliable supplier of grain to all our world markets?
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-51 because this bill
impacts directly on an industry that is very dear to myself and
my family, having been part of this industry all of my life.
After studying this legislation, generally, with only a few
exceptions, there is little about it that I would not support. This
is not because it is outstanding or comprehensive legislation.
Far from it. My first impression from reading the bill would be
that the minister instructed his bureaucrats to introduce some
kind of legislation that would demonstrate the government's
commitment to agriculture, but certainly not to introduce
anything that might be controversial or innovative or new, but
something that could be demonstrated to Canadians as their
commitment to our industry.
(1135 )
This bill ratifies for the most part what already exists and
makes a few minor procedural changes, in spite of the fact that
the grain producing sector of this industry has been in crisis and
has been struggling to undergo a very basic restructuring for the
last number of years because of extremely depressed prices
caused by an American-European trade war and a severe world
recession.
This fundamental restructuring has taken a terrible toll on
countless families that were involved in the production of grains
and oilseeds, particularly those producing for the export market.
Many of my neighbours have lost their homes, their families and
lifetimes or even in some cases, several lifetimes of work.
Those who have managed to stay in the industry by
consolidation, refinancing or off-farm income have been asking
government for some time to provide the same kind of basic,
fundamental restructuring of the regulations and services
governments provide to the industry.
Regulations are needed governing the transport and
marketing of their crops to provide more flexibility and choices
to meet the needs of this new high volume, low margin market
environment of today. What does the government offer this new
generation of farmers? Nothing but do-nothing status quo
tinkering with the obsolete ideas of yesterday.
Bill C-51 moves to remove the onus of responsibility from
the government to the seller to investigate the integrity of those
buying and selling grain. That in itself could be the proper
direction to move but only if those regulations are followed and
adhered to strictly and not as was done by the former agriculture
minister when a number of producers with close connections to
him got in trouble and the minister quickly moved to bail them
out at great cost to taxpayers.
If that is how these regulations and procedures count then it
really makes little difference whether they are there or not. It
also deregulates the elevator industry to operate in an open
market environment.
These initiatives would be acceptable also if at the same time,
farmers were free to sell their crops where and how they chose
to. Twenty years ago there would have been substantive benefit
in the deregulation of elevator tariffs when almost all of the
crops moved through the primary elevator system to market.
This certainly is no longer the case now.
6488
Another disturbing trend we see in legislation coming from
the government dealing with agriculture, as dealing with all
other sectors in our economy, is the movement to consolidate
decision making authority in the cabinet. This trend is obvious
in the bill in clauses 2, 4, 9, 15, 33 and 35 and is an affront to this
House which was elected to represent the interests of all
Canadians.
This trend should be of concern to all Canadians in all sectors
but it should especially be troubling in this particular sector, the
grain industry. I remember well an earlier Liberal Prime
Minister referred to just yesterday by a member of the
government as the greatest prime minister in Canadian history.
Many of those sitting in the benches opposite were also
members of this earlier government. This Prime Minister in my
opinion did more to destroy Canadian unity than anyone has
before or since. As I said, I well remember the arrogant disdain
that this Prime Minister had for Canadian grain farmers. We all
remember the infamous Trudeau salute to western grain
farmers.
The present Liberal government shows more and more of the
same arrogant disdain toward those who are asking for real
change and an open response of government. While there was
little reference to the concerns of agriculture in the red book,
there was a commitment to open, effective government.
If there really is a commitment to Canadians, why do we
continually have to deal with these do-nothing, go-nowhere
bureaucratic tinkering pieces of legislation? Why are we not
dealing with these minor adjustments as part of a comprehensive
plan to restructure regulations dealing with the licensing of new
crop varieties, the bottlenecks in the grain transportation sector,
the restrictive marketing policies of the Canadian Wheat Board
and the free flow of agricultural products anywhere in Canada?
(1140 )
To demonstrate briefly some of the things that I have tried to
talk about and tried to demonstrate, earlier this year, back in
April, a group of producers in my area were attempting to
receive an experimental licence to grow a variety of hemp used
to produce industrial fibre. These varieties have been long
grown in France and Britain and to some degree in the United
States because the hallucinogenic quality of this particular
product no longer exists and has been removed from the product.
I believe we have an opportunity to get in on the ground floor
of the development of a new crop with terrific potential for the
production of industrial fibre. One acre of hemp is capable of
producing as much fibre as four acres of trees and this one acre
can do it on a yearly basis where it takes some 70 or 80 years to
produce the kind of growth in our forests to produce that kind of
fibre.
In an attempt to assist this group I approached the minister
and he responded to me in a letter received some two and a half
months after my initial approach on the subject. In his letter he
says: ``The information you provided presents a strong case for
the exploration of the commercial production of hemp as a
source of industrial fibre''. Further on he says: ``The legislation
currently before Parliament would have enabled the minister of
health to license growers of hemp for industrial purposes''.
Further on he says: ``Bill C-7 would provide the foundation for
the legal framework that would allow for the exploration of
hemp as a source of industrial fibre''.
Not having realized there was this huge potential in Bill C-7 I
went to the bill and examined it very carefully to see where this
provision could be. I failed to find any implication that would
show me where this might happen. Being confused I contacted
the offices of the Minister of Health who was sponsoring the
bill. I contacted the Solicitor General's department and the
justice department. All three departments assured me there was
absolutely no provision in Bill C-7 that would deal at any level
with the production of industrial fibre from hemp.
We are at a stalemate and seem to be at a dead end in our
efforts to get Canadian agriculture involved in the development
of a crop with huge potential for income and a crop that could
displace some of the lower income producing crops that have
traditionally been grown on the prairies.
Not only was the minister not prepared to help this group he
did not understand the issue or in fact western Canadian farmers
at all in their mission here. This is so typical of what we get time
and time again. If the government, as we heard a few minutes
ago, is going to be the protector of Canadian agriculture and to
try and bring back some of the strength and financial equity to
our industry which is so important to Canadians, we certainly
have not seen any demonstration of that, at least to this point
with the legislation we have been dealing with.
I encourage the government, as a new government in the first
year of its mandate to bring forward some new initiatives, some
real changes, and to listen to the industry that has been asking
for these changes instead of this tinkering and do-nothing stuff
we have seen to this point.
Mr. Boudria: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to
Standing Order 43(2) I wish to indicate to the House that
members of the government party will from here to the end of
the debate on this particular item be dividing their time.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Madam Speaker, first of all to the
members of the Bloc Quebecois and Reform I would like on
6489
behalf of the minister to extend apologies that he could not
remain for the debate on this bill because of cabinet duties. He
assured me he will be reading your comments.
(1145 )
I would like to clarify a couple of things for the Reform Party
today. The member for Lisgar-Marquette made some
comments. Since we could not comment at that time I would like
to do so now. The member made reference to Grandin wheat. I
would point out to the member that soon after taking office this
government consulted with the industry. It felt that Grandin
wheat was not going to improve the quality of the great
Canadian product we sell. It did not grant a licence to that
variety of wheat.
There was reference to an assistant commissioner who had
some dealings with that. I would clarify for the member that that
person is no longer an assistant commissioner of the Canadian
Grain Commission.
I find this passing strange and I would like to have some
comments from the member for Athabasca at this time. As the
great free enterpriser that the Reform Party sees itself, I find it
interesting that it has some concern that we as a government
want anyone who is dealing with it, people who are buying
grains from Canadian farmers to have licences and the support
or the bonding or whatever term should be applied to it in order
to protect Canadian farmers.
That is one of the duties we have. If it was a producer in one of
their ridings who was found to be dealing with someone who was
not bonded, I wonder what their feeling would be on that.
In closing, I would make one further clarification for the
Reform Party members. The member for Lisgar-Marquette
said that commissioners are appointed for life. That is not the
case. They are seven year appointments. Assistant
commissioners are five year appointments. I just wanted to put
that clarification on the record.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I will respond briefly to the
point about the requirement for licensing and bonding through
the Canadian Grain Commission. Certainly I support those
initiatives. They are more important now than ever before in our
industry. Some years back when most of the grain produced in
the industry went to the primary elevator system and most of
that primary elevator system was owned and operated by
producer managed or controlled elevator companies, those
regulations were less important.
Today with a proliferation of grain dealers popping up around
the world every day that protection is more important now than
ever before.
I do have some concerns as to why now when it is so much
more important than ever before the government moves to put
the onus on the farmer rather than on the Canadian Grain
Commission to identify those who are licensed and bonded
properly. Certainly I support that particular initiative and I think
most producers would.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Madam
Speaker, I wish to speak in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend
the Canada Grain Act.
Bill C-51 contains a variety of necessary changes to the
Canada Grain Act. I believe that producers, the grain industry
and Canadians in general will find measures to address their
specific concerns.
The aspects of Bill C-51 that I wish to comment on are those
which enhance the international competitiveness of Canada's
grain industry. Canada is a trading nation and competitiveness is
essential.
In the world of free trade that we see before us, our ability to
compete will directly affect our capacity to sustain and improve
the living standards of Canadians. Few Canadian industries
depend on international trade more than our grain industry.
Every year we export 25 million to 30 million tonnes of grain,
more than half our annual production. In wheat and barley we
rank second among the world's top exporters. In other grains,
canola and flaxseed for example, we are world leaders. There is
no question that we depend on our trade for continued help to our
grain industry. Our grain industry's success is central to the
health and well-being of rural communities throughout western
Canada especially.
(1150)
Part of the role of government in this regard is to create a
regulatory environment that adds value to the efforts of
Canadians to create, to produce and to compete. This includes
developing new laws that support our shared interest and also
includes removing laws which no longer are useful or
purposeful.
An important initiative contained in Bill C-51 concerns the
deregulation of maximum elevator tariffs. Elevator tariffs are
the fees that grain elevator companies charge for their services.
They cover the cost of handling, storage, cleaning and the drying
of grain. Under the current Canada Grain Act, the Canadian
Grain Commission is required to regulate elevator tariffs by
establishing maximum allowable levels. As well, companies are
required to provide 14 days notice of any change they wish to
make to these tariffs.
Bill C-51 will remove the requirement that the CGC place a
ceiling on tariffs. Companies will be allowed to adjust their
tariffs without giving prior notice to the CGC.
Critics of this legislation may charge that the government is
abandoning producers, exposing them to excessive charges by
elevator companies. However, a close examination will
demonstrate that regulation of tariff maximums is no longer
needed and that ample safeguards exist to protect producers
from
6490
excessive charges. Government regulation of tariffs dates back
in time to when producers were less able to protect themselves
from the setting of unfair prices. However, because producer
owned or controlled companies now control the majority of
elevator capacity in Canada, we believe that there is less need
for government to regulate tariffs on behalf of producers.
On the west coast, producer owned or controlled companies
own 54 per cent of terminal capacity. At Thunder Bay the figure
is 75 per cent. It stands to reason that these companies will act in
the interests of producer owners by offering competitive prices.
With no competition there will be no need for government to set
prices.
Even though we are confident that elevator companies will
behave responsibly, Bill C-51 contains numerous safeguards for
producers. Deregulation of maximum tariffs will proceed in
stages. Initially, the commission will retain the authority to set
tariff ceilings by order of a two-year transition period. After this
transition period, the commission will continue to have
authority to set maximum tariffs by regulation if needed. During
and after the transition period the CGC will perform a mediation
role responding to complaints and seeking remedies.
Based on the responsible behaviour of the companies
involved, we have reason to be optimistic in the current crop
year as terminal elevator operators receive power by
commission order to set their own elevator tariffs. For the most
part their increases were minor and on the whole, very fair. This
augurs well for the future. I am confident that allowing the
market to function more freely will provide more benefits for
all. These benefits will include more capital investment by
elevator companies and a more flexible, competitive elevator
industry.
I should note that regulation has not prevented a high tariff
system. For example, for a variety of reasons, U.S. rates which
are less regulated are lower than Canada's.
This amendment arises from our commitment to removing
regulations which restrict the competitiveness of Canadian
industry. Bill C-51 contains other similar initiatives. For
example, process elevators will no longer be required to undergo
weighovers. A weighover is an audit conducted to verify that the
weight and grade of grain stored by an elevator corresponds with
what is recorded. Weighovers help maintain the integrity of
grain transactions when conducted at a terminal and transfer
elevators because in those instances the elevators are often
handling grain they do not own. However, process elevators own
the grain they have in stock. Therefore weighovers saddle them
with an unnecessary cost and thus hamper their
competitiveness.
(1155)
Earlier I spoke of the need for laws which add value to the
efforts of Canadians. I said that this involves removing
unnecessary obstacles such as maximum tariffs and weighovers
at process elevators. It also means that new laws are required
from time to time.
In the context of Bill C-51, there are provisions which
strengthen the role equality plays in Canada's grain industry. As
well, Bill C-51 sets out the responsibility of elevator operators
for the safe handling of hazardous compounds and the safe
disposal of contaminated grain. It confirms the CGC's authority
to set standards for the drying of grain. All of these measures
add value to Canadian grain and serve to enhance our
competitiveness in the world.
In conclusion, Bill C-51 is the product of lengthy, detailed
discussion with stakeholders throughout the grain industry.
Producer organizations played a major role in these
consultations as did elevator companies, processors and
marketers. Because Bill C-51 reflects a broad industry
consensus I believe it deserves the support of all members of
this House.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to express my support for Bill C-51, an act to amend
the Canada Grain Act.
Bill C-51 has much to commend it. It addresses the need for
regulatory reform. It introduces necessary protections for
producers and taxpayers and it gives the Canadian Grain
Commission more of the tools it needs to do the job on behalf of
producers, the grain industry and Canadians in general.
There are many aspects of Bill C-51 worth commenting on.
The one I wish to speak on however is the strengthened emphasis
on grain quality.
We depend very heavily on international trade. As my
colleague has mentioned, we export from 25 million to 30
million tonnes of grain per year, more than half of our annual
grain production. It is difficult to overstate how crucial grain
quality is to our success in international markets. No other
factor is as central to Canada's impressive international
marketing record.
When we consider some of the disadvantages Canadian
producers face it is easy to see why quality has emerged as our
marketing edge. Our producers must move grain farther to
export locations than any of our competitors in other countries.
Our harsh climate works against high yields. Our tax base is
smaller than those of competing countries and we cannot play
the export subsidy game and win. We are left with the quality of
our product, a card that Canada plays with great effectiveness.
With approximately 20 per cent of the global market, we are
on average the world's second largest wheat exporter, ahead of
the European Community, Australia, Argentina and everyone
6491
else. We are surpassed only by the United States. We are second
in barley, accounting for over 30 per cent of the world market.
We command over 40 per cent of the world's canola markets,
almost as much as is exported by all the countries of western
Europe combined. We are unique in that we are the only major
exporter of that product.
We lead the world in flaxseed exports that account for over 70
per cent of the market. Canada's refusal to compromise on
delivering cargoes of uniform consistent quality has served us
well. As the CGC plays a pivotal role in Canada's grain hauling
system, I am pleased to see provisions in Bill C-51 that
reinforce this marketing strategy.
For example, there is a provision allowing the CGC to set out
methods, visual or otherwise, for determining the
characteristics of the grain for purposes of meeting the quality
requirements of purchasers of grain. The significance of this
amendment is that it gives the commission the authority to
specify procedures for determining the quality of grain so that
the industry can deliver the quality desired by the end users.
(1200 )
With the commission's considerable expertise in grain quality
assessment this amendment positions the CGC to ensure that
emerging procedures and technologies meet end user needs and
increase returns to producers.
Another provision of Bill C-51 confirms the CGC's authority
to specify the correct handling and treatment of grain and
hazardous substances in grain elevators. This provision
strengthens Canada's commitment for safe, wholesome food
and to environmentally sustainable practices.
Finally, Bill C-51 confirms CGC's authority to set grain
drying standards. The commission has paid careful attention to
this issue over the years because improper drying seriously
harms grain quality. Often the damage is not visually apparent
and problems are only detected when the grain is processed. The
commission has worked hard to educate producers and others on
the proper techniques. This provision will give the CGC more
authority to move in this area.
There are some who believe that Canada over emphasizes
grain quality. In a hungry world they argue Canada need not
place as much emphasis or effort as it does on ensuring that
Canadian grain meets the high standards it is known for.
I believe quality will become more important than ever
before. With the ratification of the GATT tariff walls will soon
be falling around the world and subsidies will melt away. To
maintain their position our wealthier competitors in Europe and
the United States will have to become more quality conscious,
more like Canada if they want to compete. Already we are seeing
signs they are beginning to understand this.
I will conclude with the words of one of Canada's grain
customers spoken at Grain Vision'93, an international
symposium that the Canadian Grain Commission held last year:
``The current Canadian system of utilizing quality to link all
aspects of business to achieve the marketing strategy of
exporting at a premium 80 to 90 per cent of total wheat crop is
now unique in the world. If you begin to implement changes for
short term volume goals the end result will all too quickly be a
situation where you become just another `me too' supplier of
which the world has all too many at present''.
This sentiment was echoed by speaker after speaker at this
conference. More tellingly, their appreciation of Canada's
quality system is illustrated by their continued purchases of
Canadian grain.
Bill C-51 strengthens Canada's grain quality system. For this
reason alone it deserves our support.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, it certainly
gives me pleasure to enter into the debate on the Canada Grain
Act, Bill C-51.
It is the second opportunity I have had in this assembly to
speak on one of the agricultural bills, the former being Bill C-50
which we debated last week.
In Bill C-50 we took in this House steps that would increase
producer control over agricultural research. When we look at
Bill C-51 in comparison it is a bill that grants the Canada Grain
Commission greater operational flexibility and promotes
enhanced competitiveness in the grain industry. Those are
certainly both worthy objectives to support for an entity that is
responsible for a very important aspect of our grain industry in
this country. It is important to give it those kinds of
responsibilities.
We in the Reform Party will be supporting this bill today as
we did with Bill C-50. We will also take the opportunity in these
debates to outline some of our broader concerns about where
agriculture is headed in Canada. In particular, we would like to
emphasize that government created boards and agencies like the
Canadian Wheat Board, which were originally designed to assist
and help the Canadian farmer, are becoming an entity,
increasingly becoming an impediment to the free market
system. They should come under scrutiny and review at this
time.
(1205)
Since the details of Bill C-51 have already been discussed and
thoroughly enumerated in this House, I will make one or two
quick points about one feature of the legislation before taking
this opportunity to broaden my focus on other subjects relative
to agriculture in Canada.
The aspect of Bill C-51 that I wanted to comment on was the
provision which removes some of the interprovincial trade
restrictions faced by farmers. Clause 25 repeals the restriction
6492
of transporting grain from one province to another and repeals
the restrictions on transport of grain by public carriers.
The measure is a step in the right direction, but one has to ask
a very important question at this time: Why should there be any
restrictions on trade within Canada at all at this point? Why can
we not have open boundaries and free movement in this country
where all Canadians should share and have equal opportunity?
That is an important issue that must be addressed not only by
this federal government but by each of the provinces as we work
together to enhance the agricultural industry.
There are more barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada
than there are barriers to trade between the nations of the
European Community. That has already been mentioned by one
of my colleagues. What is the rationale for the Canada Grains
Commission to have any restrictions for grain movement to and
from Canada enshrined in this legislation?
For that matter, why are Canadian farmers being prevented by
the Canadian Wheat Board from taking full advantage of the
international trade opportunities created by the signing of GATT
or NAFTA? Should the Canadian Wheat Board not also be
forced to eliminate some of the restrictions that it is placing now
on farmers?
I said in the House the other day that we should raise some of
those restrictions for the farmers so they can enter into a freer
trade market or determine their own markets. There should be
certain restrictions or a certain framework placed on the farmers
if and when they wish to deal through the Canadian Wheat Board
on some certain aspects at a future time.
As farmers we cannot have our cake and eat it both with a
board that is created by government and also by utilizing the free
market. There must be a trade off when we have that kind of
opportunity.
Reformers have already made it clear that there is a need to
reform the Canadian Wheat Board. However, this is just one
example of the agricultural issues that need to be addressed in
this assembly.
When considering the agricultural sector, it is important to
note that on the major questions of the day, it is the farmers who
are leading. We heard that very clearly from the minister in his
presentation earlier to this assembly. The legislation before us
has been farmer directed, farm organization directed and I
certainly appreciate that.
We often find in this circumstance that we as government
scramble to keep up with some of the farm attitudes. This is
certainly very typical in the discussion regarding the Canadian
Wheat Board at the present time.
I looked at an article in the Financial Post that talked about
the direct sales of grain to American markets that are classed as
illegal under the Canadian Wheat Board at the present time.
Those sales to the American markets now represent about 20 per
cent of the total volume of Canada's grain exports to the U.S.
We can only hope that this massive display of somewhat civil
disobedience on the part of Canadian wheat farmers will
convince the government that changes must be made to the
practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. Again, it is a situation in
which farmers are leading, finding markets, maintaining their
economic stability as farmer but we as government have not
looked at the circumstances and reacted in a positive way.
(1210 )
The trend is similar with the restrictions on the movement of
grain from east to west and on the government's reluctance to
create a continental barley market. In both instances, fed up
farmers have decided not to wait around for the government to
make changes. They are going ahead and doing it themselves.
Then, as a government, we are reacting. As an assembly here we
must get ahead of the circumstances and be able to respond to
the farmers when they see that there is a need.
In this latest example, I read with interest that the minister of
agriculture has now promised the Canadian grain farmers a
chance to debate the future of the Canadian Wheat Board at a
special forum to be held this fall. I commend him for that.
I also encourage him to go one step further and hold a
referendum on the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board's selling
monopoly. It is clear that Canadian agriculture has changed a
great deal since 1912 when the Canadian Grain Commission was
established.
This next decade will be a crucial time for the agricultural
sector. As farmers prepare to make the adjustments required by
GATT and free trade, they need a government prepared to assist
them and help them gain the competitive edge to compete in an
increasingly global marketplace. That is the environment in
which we must prepare ourselves, the global marketplace. It is
not just Canada. It is not just the United States. It is the global
marketplace in which we work as farmers today.
Reform has worked hard to create a comprehensive and
balanced agricultural strategy capable of supporting the needs
and challenges of the 21st century. We intend to elaborate on
those in this assembly.
The Liberal government on the other hand-I look at this with
some disappointment-seems to be moving from one crisis to
another and legislation that comes before this House seems to be
motivated through the public service, albeit a point of view by
the farmers or farm organizations rather, than from the
legislators of this assembly.
I look at Bill C-50 and Bill C-51 and they are good pieces of
legislation in their own right but not in the broader context of
what we have to do as leaders in the agricultural field. They are
6493
modest pieces of legislation which only seek to fine tune and
present some of the parts of an agricultural regime.
When will the government respond to growing pressures
originating both within and outside Canada and bring forth the
major broader legislative initiatives that are necessary for the
farmers of this country?
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite. I
commend him for having the wisdom to support Bill C-50 and in
supporting Bill C-51.
As he went through his presentation we came to a summary. In
the summary on one hand he wants to allow the farming industry
and farmers in general to have some input into the direction that
we are to go and we are committed within the red book to
maintain the process that we support the Canadian Wheat Board.
We have here an opportunity on behalf of the member to say
why does the government not just go through and hold a
referendum. What I would like to know from the hon. member
opposite is would he not sooner have that total input from the
farming community and say: ``In our opinion there should be a
referendum and we would like you to move in that direction''?
As it is now, he is saying government, back off. I support that.
We have to. Some of our comments in Bill C-51 are directed in
that response. I would like to know how we can as a government
move through and hold a referendum when we are at this point
allowing the opportunity for the farming community through the
minister of agriculture to have it place its input before us before
we would start with the legislation.
(1215)
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, in short, the
minister of agriculture has not made it clear to farmers,
particularly western farmers and those under the Canadian
Wheat Board, that a referendum is a possibility and an option. It
is not clear that it is there.
It would be good if the government made a statement that
there would be a referendum, that in the preamble or in
preparation for the referendum there would be major hearings
and major submissions to the standing committee on agriculture
of the House to determine what the question would be, the
content of the question, and what the implications of the answers
would be following the referendum.
At the present time we are unsure of the sequence and the
pattern of commitment of the government. If it would make the
commitment we could move ahead.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak in support of Bill C-51, a bill to amend the Canada Grain
Act. The bill has many positive measures that will contribute to
the prosperity and competitive advantage of farmers and indeed
all Canadians.
The aspects of the bill I intend to address are the amendments
that will remove the obligation of government to establish
maximum tariffs for services performed by primary transfer and
terminal elevator operators.
For the benefit of members who are unfamiliar with the grain
industry, a tariff is a charge assessed by an elevator company for
services such as handling, cleaning of grain, storage and drying
of grain. As the Canada Grain Act is now written, the Canadian
Grain Commission is required to establish by regulation the
maximum allowable tariff for each elevator service. If an
elevator company wishes to change its tariff, it must give the
commission 14 days of notice. If it wishes to offer a new service
it cannot provide it until the commission has established a
maximum tariff for the new service.
These laws date from an era when farmers had few marketing
choices and farmer organizations were relatively weak. In the
early decades of this century these provisions made sense
because elevator companies were not always as scrupulous as
they should have been. Farmers were vulnerable so these
changes were brought in at an appropriate time for protection. I
know all members of the House continue to support them.
In the grain industry of the nineties however this kind of
government intervention, as I know the Reform Party would
agree, provides no measurable benefit for producers as it places
unnecessary obstacles in the path of grain companies.
These are not merely my opinions. They reflect the advice the
commission received from the grain industry and producer
groups during the 1992 grains and oilseeds regulatory review.
As the minister said this morning 57 groups were consulted. In
addition we received written responses. The government shares
the perspective of those representative groups.
If the key participants want this change who are we to deny
them? We will go along with it. We have concluded that
regulating elevator tariff maximums is not in the best interest of
the grain industry. We believe that removing maximums will
encourage increased urgently needed capital investment by
elevator companies. We are therefore confident the measures we
are proposing today would result in a flexible, more competitive
elevator industry.
What are the changes we are proposing? First, the obligation
that the Canadian Grain Commission set maximum elevator
tariffs will be eliminated. Elevator operators will be able to
decide for themselves how much they will charge for their
services. As well, while we will still require elevator companies
to file their tariffs with the commission, the requirement to give
14 days notice of the change they wish to make in their tariffs
will be removed. This will allow elevator companies the same
freedom enjoyed by other businesses, other farm groups and
6494
agri-groups, namely the freedom to adjust their prices quickly
to respond to local market conditions.
We have discussed these notions with respect to the wheat
board and other kinds of institutions in place for the Canadian
grain farmers. This is the way to respond to those niche market
needs. We have that in the particular bill. As well, operators will
no longer be required to charge the same tariff at all of their
elevators. This will allow them more flexibility in rate setting.
(1220)
We will not be making these changes overnight. Again, on the
advice of producers and acting with due prudence with the grain
companies, we recognized the need for a transition period. For a
two-year period, the Canadian Grain Commission will retain
the power to set maximum tariffs by order, if situations arise
where the tariff charged is excessive. Those checks and balances
are there. Those protections are there for members of the House
representing grain farmers in their areas who are concerned
about drastic changes that may not have the policy outcomes we
intend.
When the two-year transition period has concluded, the
commission will still exercise its power to investigate
complaints. It is hoped that problems which may arise after the
two-year transition period has ended will be resolved through
discussion and moral suasion. We want to bring the people back
to the table again to discuss any concerns and glitches that may
still be evident in the policy.
Nevertheless government will retain the power to intervene if
intervention is required. The commission will continue to have
the authority to reimpose maximum tariffs subject to the
approval of the governor in council if circumstances so warrant.
Inevitably in a situation like this one the first question to be
asked will be: How will the measure affect the producer? All of
us in the House today engaging in this debate have those
interests firsthand.
Protection of the interests of grain producers remains one of
the most primary purposes of the act. The government has
introduced numerous amendments to the act which will benefit
producers. This particular amendment is no different.
How are producers protected in a deregulated tariff
environment? First an important point I want to stress
particularly for the members of the Reform Party, and I speak in
terms of Manitoba. They have their own producer owned or
controlled elevator companies to protect their own interests. I
am referring to such companies as the United Grain Growers.
Manitoba Pool Elevators with 18,000 members in that province
own the elevators. The interests of elevator owners and the
interests of farmers are one and the same. We are not going to
have the kind of subjugations and conflicts of interest leading to
taking advantage of producers bringing their products to the
elevators if we have that kind of producer involvement at the
elevator door.
It is the same for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the
Alberta Wheat Pool. We do not believe for one moment that
farmers will allow-and I have full confidence they will
not-their own companies to take advantage of them. Producer
owned co-operatives are formidable players in the grain
industry. At Thunder Bay, for example, 75 per cent of the
terminal capacity is operated by producer owned or controlled
companies.
As my hon. colleague from Saskatchewan had mentioned
earlier, on the west coast producers own 54 per cent of that
capacity, the majority holders. In the interests of their producer
owners these companies will maintain downward pressure on
tariffs, forcing privately owned companies to compete.
Moreover most producers will have choices they did not have in
1912 when the Canada Grain Act was passed. If they did not like
what one company was charging they would take their grain to
another. Allowing opportunities is the secret to that competitive
advantage and open market competition. Competition will keep
the rates in line and in some cases, I am convinced, will reduce
them.
If the grain producers' own companies in the competitive
marketplace are not able to set fair prices, the Canadian Grain
Commission is still there to investigate. The commission will be
able to limit tariffs and will retain the right to set maximum
tariffs by regulation. This right will only be exercised, however,
in extreme situations.
Members can rest assured that even in a deregulated tariff
environment the Canadian Grain Commission will have the
legal tools to defend the interest of grain producers whether in
Lisgar-Marquette, Provencher or Brandon-Souris, important
Manitoba ridings with grain producers.
In conclusion, I encourage members to support the legislation
and I thank those who support it. It offers significant
opportunities for grain farmers to become more competitive. At
the same time it retains appropriate means to protect the fair
interests of grain producers should these interests be threatened.
(1225 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the remarks of the hon. member. I have two questions
on the many arguments he made.
He said that the problem of the grain companies having
difficulty setting tariffs for new services was now to be resolved
by simply not having them report these services to the grain
commission and that it would be completely deregulated. I
wonder if he would give the House some idea of what the new
services might be that would require charges that are not being
made now.
6495
The second matter that got my attention was his argument that
unlike at the turn of the century grain companies are now quite
scrupulous in their dealings with their customers and their farm
deliverers. I remind him that a number of grain companies
operate internationally. Those operating in both Canada and the
United States, as an example, each year have been found to be
shorting customers on weight, delivering the wrong grades,
shorting farmers on payments and so on.
His faith in the modern day elevator company is really one of
having faith in a very good policeman, namely the Canadian
Grain Commission which will be backing off and not be
patrolling the neighbourhood so fully. Many grain companies
may find it much easier to revert to the practices they engage in
outside Canada as soon as the grain commission backs off.
Would the member comment on those two items?
Mr. Iftody: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those
helpful comments.
I would like to respond as quickly as I can to the second one
first. On his question of companies shortchanging producers, I
do not have any facts to that effect. I have never seen any
documents or heard any representations from farmers in
Provencher in support of those rather surprising statements.
I refer the hon. member to a phone call I made this morning to
the Manitoba Pool Elevator. I asked: ``How many members do
you have? What kind of support do you have in Manitoba?''
They have 18,000 members. I assure the hon. member that I have
faith in the good judgment of those members to make decisions
and to keep an eye on those institutions which respect their best
interests.
In terms of the service charges I would say the same. In terms
of new service charges and outcomes from these policy changes
which will be reviewed in two years, I believe the members will
have that input. I assure the hon. member we will not allow grain
companies to run away unchecked, at a complete arm's length
from their producers.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Provencher
would comment on the pools going toward public companies or
corporations. UGG is finished with them. They are public
corporations now. The shareholders do the voting and the
directing.
It is of interest to me that one director of the Manitoba pool
was very upset that the Canadian Grain Commission lacked the
support of an independent inquiry into the Winnipeg Grain
Exchange, the commodity markets. The Canadian Grain
Commission is supposed to regulate the commodity exchange.
Why has the government not supported an independent inquiry
into the operation of the commodity exchange?
(1230 )
Mr. Iftody: Madam Speaker, again, if there was a question of
impropriety with respect to those responsible in either the
handling of grain or trading in this commodity, I find these
suggestions a bit surprising.
I just want to say to the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette
that I am sure the crown and the minister represent the interests
of farmers. If there is any impropriety or any evidence of it, if
this member has received any facts or actual information to
support that from this particular gentleman, I would be pleased
to pass it on to the minister of agriculture and conduct an
investigation.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of Bill C-51. The purpose of Bill C-51 is to update and
modernize the Canada Grain Act as outlined by the hon. minister
of agriculture.
These amendments will put more responsibility on the
shoulders of the users of the grain system, the producers, the
grain dealers and the elevator operators.
We in the government know that we must learn where to
regulate and where not to regulate. It is shown that in this bill we
will regulate to improve the quality and protection of the
producers, but we do not wish to regulate the exact pricing of
services or in any way restrict the marketing of grain.
Part of this legislation is designed to renew and enhance our
commitment to a quality product. Canada has built a reputation
as a supplier of consistent and uniform quality grains. This
reputation has served us well in our marketing of grain around
the world. Buyers expect top quality when dealing with
Canadian grains. We should give them no less.
The bill clearly defines the commission's role in setting
grades and grade names as well as methods of determining such
grades. This gives the commission the solid ground to actively
improve the consistency of Canada's grain grades.
The legislation also removes the requirement for the
Canadian Grain Commission to set maximum elevator tariffs.
This will allow market pricing of those services that the
commission feels will benefit from market pressure. Also
removed from legislation is the requirement that an elevator
operator give the commission 14 days' notice of a change of
tariffs. This will allow operators more flexibility in dealing with
the changing pressures of the market.
To address concerns about excessive charges, the Canadian
Grain Commission will have the right to establish maximum
tariffs by order for the next two years. If an investigation of a
complaint from an elevator user finds that a particular tariff is
not justified, the commission may set maximums. The Canadian
Grain Commission also has the ability to set tariff maximums
6496
through regulation if elevator operators set tariffs at excessive
levels.
The government notes as well that the majority of primary and
terminal elevators are owned by the producers themselves
through the various wheat pools. The government does not think
it necessary to protect western grain farmers from themselves.
The legislation improves protection to grain producers by
authorizing the commission to require additional security from
dealers and elevators as is determined by the commission. This
ability improves the protection to the growers to help ensure that
they will be paid for their produce.
The legislation protects Canadian taxpayers from footing the
bill when a grain dealer or elevator goes bankrupt and does not
have enough security placed with the commission to cover
amounts owed to producers. When the posted security is not
enough to cover its debts, the creditors will be paid on a pro rata
system, which is the fairest way of dealing with such a problem.
The taxpayers of Canada should not be paying for the bad
business practices of an operation.
The legislation improves the Canada Grain Act provisions to
facilitate the movement of grain interprovincially and for
export. The amendments simplify the regulations governing the
transport of grains. It removes regulations controlling transport
of grains wholly within the western or eastern divisions. Public
carriers are required when shipping grain between divisions and
in or out of the country.
I encourage our members to support this legislation. We wish
to support our grain growers and facilitate the sale and
disposition of their product. I think this legislation achieves that
end.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, it is good to again be able to talk about
agriculture here in the House. We are dealing with Bill C-51. It
is a bill to deal with the Canadian Grain Commission and its
powers.
On the whole, Bill C-51 is a good starting point for improving
the agriculture industry in Canada.
(1235 )
Parts of the bill give me cause for concern. I will outline those
areas in more detail later. There are some positive aspects to this
legislation and I would like to briefly touch on them.
First and perhaps more important, the bill places the onus on
farmers to ensure that they are dealing with a duly licensed grain
company. This bill makes it clear that the Canadian Grain
Commission and therefore the Canadian taxpayer is only liable
to cover claims from duly licensed companies.
This protection lets farmers know exactly where they stand as
well as protecting taxpayers from unreasonable expenses.
Canadians have paid up in the past for claims coming from
unlicensed companies and I am glad to see that this protection
will be included in the act.
There are those who would argue that the language in clause
13 of this bill may still leave some doubt as to which claims are
to be paid. Therefore I would encourage and support any
strengthening of the wording during the committee stage that
would ensure taxpayer protection from unlicensed claims.
I had a case in my constituency prior to the election where a
seed cleaning company ceased to do business and left many
farmers out on a limb. It was a very messy situation. There were
accusations of political involvement and patronage. Certainly
we do not want to hear those horror stories repeated in the
future.
Clause 12 of the bill allows the Canadian Grain Commission
some latitude when deciding whether or not to close an elevator
having financial or cash flow difficulties. This is a positive step
for farmers. Many have been caught by an insolvent elevator
company or seed cleaning company in the past.
The bill also provides for better financial protection for
farmers by making them responsible for obtaining adequate
security for grain shipped to an elevator and for ensuring that the
grain name and amounts shipped is on the ticket.
The bill brings the protection offered to farmers more in line
with security provisions common in other financial areas.
Farmers have long been saying that they do not want special
treatment, they only want a fair shake the same as other small
businessmen. This bill moves, however slightly, in that
direction.
Farmers will be pleased to see that there is some movement on
the issue of interprovincial trade flexibility. Of course in good
Liberal style, this is done as a half measure. The bill only allows
for flexibility within the western wheat block and within the
eastern wheat block. It does not go nearly far enough in
removing interprovincial barriers to trade. Perhaps more
important, the bill does not address the issue of trade with the
United States at all, a bone of contention which the current
Liberal government has not been prepared to deal with in a
positive manner.
The bill would solidify and enforce the use of common grade
names. This too is welcome news for producers. There will be
much less confusion about the quality of grain shipped to an
elevator.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, the bill does have
some positive aspects. However, there are some very serious
problems with certain parts and clauses of the bill on some very
important issues that are entirely ignored by this legislation.
6497
In the bill an increasing amount of decision making is being
placed in the hands of the governor in council. We are aware that
this is a formalized constitutional body through which the
cabinet exercises executive power.
If members would study the bill they would see that clauses 2,
4, 9, 15, 33 and 35 all move powers into the hands of the
executive, into the hands of the cabinet. This extensive power
grab on the part of the government directly contradicts the
commitment to a more open and democratic government
promised in the now infamous red ink book.
In taking so much power away from the legislators and
producers and giving it to cabinet to exercise in the form of
orders in council, the government is doing the opposite of what
farmers want. Agricultural producers have been consistent in
saying that farming boards and institutions should be
democratized and accountable. Moving more power and
decision making behind closed doors and off the public record is
continuing to be counter to the will of Canadian farmers.
A good example of this power grab can be found in clause 34.
This clause allows cabinet to approve and define all regulations
not specifically contained in the act. This is tantamount to
Parliament passing blank cheque legislation allowing the
minister to fill in the blanks later.
This seems to be a mindset of the Liberal government. Do not
deal with the issues, allow the bureaucrats and the cabinet to
make up the rules as they go. History teaches us that we get into
trouble when we follow this procedure. We should learn lessons
from the previous Tory government that authorized the
establishment of a continental barley market through an order in
council rather than bringing it to Parliament as it should have for
a decision in the House that is elected by the people. Had
Parliament been able to deal with that issue the matter would
have been resolved one way or the other and producers would
not be struggling and demanding a plebiscite and action on the
part of the government at this date.
(1240)
The bill demonstrates once again that this minister of
agriculture is a bureaucrats' minister, not a farmers' minister.
Not only does cabinet take powers from Parliament but the
bureaucracy also gets a whole raft of new authority.
For example, the Canadian Grain Commission would now
have the power to set the salaries of the western and eastern
standards committees and the grain appeal tribunal. I would
suggest it is not a common practice for bureaucrats to set their
own salaries, at least it should not be. Not only do these people
have the power to set their own pay but they also are often
patronage appointments as well.
The standards boards, while expensive and patronage filled,
are only advisory. This means that the minister may ignore their
recommendations in any case.
It will be interesting to see how the salaries of these advisory
patronage committees change as a result of this bill. Of course, I
suppose they are watching what happens in this House where
MPs set their own pay and pensions. Perhaps they are saying that
if parliamentarians are going to play that game we want to play it
and we demand to be able to play it as well.
My concern is that one of these days Canadian taxpayers are
going to start fighting back by saying that if MPs set their own
salaries, if bureaucrats set their own pay, then perhaps we will
decide how much we are going to pay in taxes whether the
government demands it or not.
It would seem in many ways the bill is designed to protect the
bureaucratic empire from the changes that are coming to the
industry. I want to refer for a few moments to the special crops
or pulse crop initiative that is changing the way the industry
operates, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan.
As the minister knows many farmers have been diversifying
crops over the past few years as a way of remaining viable and
competitive. This diversification has been a boon to the
agriculture industry. Many farmers have remained in a viable
position because they have diversified and tried some
non-traditional crops such as peas, lentils, canary seed, mustard
seed, and many others. This industry has flourished and
prospered without massive government intrusion, regulation
and control. Perhaps it has prospered because of little
government involvement. I know many farmers believe so.
An example of a crop being developed and becoming a major
staple in the prairies is canola which was an experiment a few
decades ago. This year canola is one of the main cash crops in
the prairie region and we believe-I know I believe and I am
sure my Reform colleagues believe-that these other crops can
be expanded and provide much income to producers if again
government does not interfere and place too many regulations
and restrictions in the way of development of these new
commodities.
Groups of farmers, in consultation with all the players in the
industry from the pools, the wheat board, and everyone else
have spent years developing pulse crop initiatives.
The minister has had a copy of that initiative for quite some
time and even so he has chosen not to include the speciality of
pulse crops in this legislation. It is expected, and rumour has it,
that some legislation dealing with these crops will be introduced
a year or year and a half from now.
In light of the enforcement provisions of Bill C-51, what does
the minister expect will happen to this vital industry in the
interim? A lack of legislation for special crops, combined with
the witch hunt under way by the Canadian Grain Commission to
licence and control the special seed cleaning and distribution
6498
sector will potentially have a devastating effect on agriculture
as a whole.
With the provisions of Bill C-51 only to pay claims from duly
licensed companies, the current push on the part of the Canadian
Grain Commission to licence and audit pulse crop companies
can only be interpreted as a move to push many of the small
companies out of business. This would lead to a monopolized
industry with the bureaucrats comfortably in control.
The farmers want the pulse crop sector left the way it is. The
customers want the sector left the way it is. Everyone wants a
free market pulse crop sector, apparently that is everyone except
senior agriculture mandarins.
Because pulse crops are not grown in quantities comparable to
grains such as wheat, barley or canola, the cleaners and handlers
of these commodities are much smaller operations. The cost of
Canadian Grain Commission licences, bonds, and audits can run
anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000 every year. This would
unnecessarily force most of the operators out of the specialty
crops sector at a time when the sector should be expanding and
should be strengthening.
(1245 )
I am very concerned that this legislation does not adequately
protect those operators and the producers who deal with them. It
is a serious flaw in this bill. I am concerned that a wait of 12 to
18 months or however long it takes the minister to bring in
legislation to deal with that sector may be too late and drive
many of them out of the industry.
The absence of this pulse crop legislation makes Bill C-51 a
farmers versus the bureaucrats bill with regard to pulse crops.
I challenge the minister to show it ain't so. If he can do so, I
would be one of the most pleased people in this House. I call on
him to bring in the kind of legislation that works for farmers, not
just measures that protect and enhance the jobs of his senior
bureaucrats.
Although this bill contains some very positive aspects it is
legitimate to ask why the minister would introduce legislation
that makes the government mandarins more comfortable and
secure while making the farmers wait at least another year
before moving on issues that they really care about.
This bill is a good place to start but there is a lot of work that
needs to be done at the committee level to make it good
legislation.
I would hope that the minister can solve his in house power
struggle soon so that farmers can get some movement and
government action on the issues they care about.
It is quite interesting to note that in the life of this Parliament,
now almost one year old, that not many steps or perhaps no steps
have been taken by the minister or his government to put
producers in the driver's seat in their own industry.
If there is one thing I know from being a producer it is that
they are not afraid to take responsibility and they are not afraid
to make decisions and by and large they make very good
decisions. Often it is government through order in council
decisions, through legislation that is incomplete such as Bill
C-51 that has been a hindrance to the industry rather than an
asset.
I encourage the minister to review his legislation with a view
to seeing what he can do to put producers in charge of their own
industry so that they can be adequately able to make decisions,
to take steps to strengthen their industry without being hindered
by the government that is supposed to represent and serve them.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to speak on Bill C-51, amendments to the
Canada Grain Act.
It is important at the beginning to put into perspective the role
that the Canadian Grain Commission has played in terms of
Canada being seen as the reliable supplier of high quality grains
in the world.
The combination of the Canadian Wheat Board as the single
desk selling agency for export wheat and barley and the quality
control and inspection system and watchdog capacity of the
Canadian Grain Commission has worked extremely well in
Canada's interests and in the interests of Canada's primary grain
producers.
The key selling point for grains out of Canada in the
international marketplace has been certainly our quality control
system. Millers around the world know that when they buy
Canadian wheat they are going to get high quality grains that
they can blend in with other countries' products and still have a
reasonable quality of bread.
The Americans, on the other hand, the system that some of our
colleagues in this House on the other side want to emulate, are
looked upon by the world as a residual supplier of grain. They
are used in terms of setting the price worldwide but they are a
residual supplier, a supplier of last resort because they do not
have the quality control system that we have in this country that
is made possible because of some of the regulations of the
Canadian Grain Commission that we have in this country.
This bill's objective is to maintain that support for quality
grades and inspection. However, we have to be constantly aware
6499
of the danger in terms of our legislative processes of knuckling
under to those who believe that cost cutting should be all that
matters.
The principal concern of the federal government on this issue
of inspection and quality control are two elements key to the
security of our export markets, quality and inspection.
(1250 )
When appearing before the agricultural committee, Dennis
Wallace, executive director of the commission made the
following comment: ``We are looking at streamlining, weighing
and inspection that will move at the pace the industry sets and
our comfort that we can sustain the standard of quality in the
process. In our view quality has not been affected by the steps
we have taken to this point''. That is an important point.
We must ensure on this side of the House and as the
government that we maintain those standards that have been so
true and beneficial to the Canadian grain industry.
I had hoped that I would have time to indicate to the House
some of the dangers within the system because several of the
groups that have come before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, the Public Service Alliance of Canada for one,
outlined some of the problems that have happened at Thunder
Bay. They provide a good example of the dangers that can
happen to quality control in the grain system if we do not have a
strong, dedicated agency like the Canadian Grain Commission
with strong regulations behind it to protect the interests of
producers and the interests of the grain industry.
I do not have time to quote that evidence but I would refer
members of the House to the April 26, 1994 submission of the
Public Service Alliance outlining some of the dangers of quality
control.
We must ensure as a government that the security of a
regulatory and inspection system is maintained, that the future
of either downsizing or efforts to promote competitiveness do
not result in a loss of our competitive position which is based
upon production and exports of the highest quality standards of
grain in the world.
There has been a lot of talk by members on both sides of this
House on the questions regarding clause 14. Under clause 14 the
Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be required to set
maximum tariffs charged by grain elevators.
This is a point that, to be honest, is open to question for me.
We will certainly have an interesting debate at the agricultural
committee on this point. There are a number of questions that
need to be raised.
I do not believe for a moment that we can depend on the
co-operative movement or the pools to protect producers'
interests. I have been involved in that industry out west for a
number of years and the co-operative movement, the pools,
when they are making decisions in the kind of international
arena we now face have to weigh in their own minds whether
they are making a decision in terms of their corporate business
interests and the bottom line as a corporation or making a
decision in their membership's interests as a co-operative.
Therefore, I believe there need to be some government
safeguards in terms of protecting primary producers' interests,
and certainly we will debate that at committee level.
Other questions need to be raised. Some clarification is
needed of the ombudsman like role the commission will
perform. Under what circumstances will it be able to intervene,
what powers will the commission have to act upon complaints,
and under what authority? Under what circumstances will the
commission be able to set maximum tariffs by regulation if
needed?
An important point in the bill and one I strongly support is
that if there is a danger there the Canadian Grain Commission
can step in and impose maximum tariffs if the grain industries,
the companies or the trade is abusing the system set in place.
(1255 )
I raise those points because I think this is the place, the House
of Commons, in this arena and at the committee level, for good,
strong, informed debate on the facts so that we can come up with
better decisions in the end.
I recognize that my time is getting short. I have heard from
members opposite talking about competition. We have to look at
that infrastructure in western Canada where the Canadian Grain
Commission operates and recognize that more and more in those
small community towns with elevators that there is less and less
competition between grain companies.
Grain companies are now consolidating their system. Because
you are going to gain a lower tariff rate at one elevator does not
necessarily mean that you are going to haul to that elevator
because it may be 50 or 100 miles away and you would lose all
you had saved or more by hauling that distance.
We have to be very careful in making these decisions to ensure
the kind of international arena we are entering into, the kind of
consolidation that is happening, especially in western Canada,
and the impact that may have on primary producers if there is
not a very strong Canadian Grain Commission in place to protect
the interests of primary producers and the interests of the
country in terms of the grains we sell.
Let me conclude by saying that the Canadian Wheat Board
and the Canadian Grain Commission have served this country
well in the past. I believe they can in the future. I look forward to
maintaining those kinds of standards and see that Canada
remains the kind of reliable supplier of grains that we have been
in the past.
6500
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for that speech. I do
agree with him once in a while on certain areas.
I know he is a very good and efficient operator and does
probably employ people and pay their wages. Does he not think
that when I as a farmer pay 92 per cent of the grain commission's
wages I should have some input into who these people are? I
would feel a lot more comfortable if I as a farmer had some input
into who these people were and how they were working. The
people employed on an operation are really the backbone of the
operation because management depends on them. I wonder
whether the hon. member would respond to that.
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, I did have some figures. I
believe you are correct, Mr. Hoeppner, in the figure you indicate
in terms of how much-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I remind the hon.
member that we do not address members as mister, we use the
riding, which is Lisgar-Marquette.
Mr. Easter: My apologies, Madam Speaker. I believe the
figures by the hon. member are correct. Members opposite often
talk about user pay on that side of the House. Canadian society
as a whole gains from many of these institutions, the Canadian
Grain Commission, some of our inspection standards in the meat
and horticultural industries as well. I do not believe producers
should pay the full shot.
To the member opposite, in terms of farmers having a say in
the Canadian Grain Commission, they do through their primary
producers as well as through the Canadian Wheat Board
Advisory Committee which is an elected body in 11 districts in
western Canada. They advise the wheat board, they should
advise and I am certain they do, at least the ones I talk to, advise
the minister in all matters related to grain including this issue in
terms of grades, standards and regulatory controls.
There is input at the moment through the Canadian Wheat
Board Advisory Committee and through members elected in this
House directly to the minister who is responsible for the
Canadian Grain Commission.
(1300 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I see no one rising on
debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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.)
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved that Bill C-47, an act to amend the Department of
External Affairs Act and to make related amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise today in support of Bill C-47, an act to amend the
Department of External Affairs Act.
Our government made a commitment when we were sworn
into office to change the name of the Department of External
Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade. This change in title is a recognition of the changes of the
department's mandate that have occurred over the 85 years since
its inception.
The Department of External Affairs was created in 1909 by
Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier to conduct Canada's foreign
policy. Since then the mission of the department has adapted to
reflect Canada's growing role on the international stage.
During World War I for example, Canada played an important
role internationally as part of the allied forces and a member of
the imperial war cabinet. By the end of the war, Canada was
emerging as a fully independent nation. This maturation was
reflected in changes to the fledgling department.
In the 1920s under the leadership of Dr. O. D. Skelton, the
Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Counsellor
Loring Christie, the department began to evolve into its current
structure and the Canadian diplomatic corps was formed.
The second world war contributed further to the growth of the
department. Canada became an active world player. We were a
founding member of the United Nations and a full participant in
such other international organizations as the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, NATO; the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, GATT; the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank and, of course, the Commonwealth.
In more recent years, Canada has steadily increased its role in
world affairs and joined additional organizations such as the
G-7, the group of seven major industrialized nations, La
Francophonie, and the Organization of American States, the
OAS.
The department contributes significantly to this role,
fulfilling its mission to portray, promote and defend the
interests of Canada, to improve Canadians' awareness and
understanding of the world and to serve Canadians at home and
abroad.
Bill C-47 will amend the External Affairs Act to change the
legal name of the department and the titles of its ministers and
senior officials. Under this act, the Secretary of State for
External Affairs becomes the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
title of the Minister for International Trade remains unchanged.
The title of the junior minister, the Minister for External
6501
Relations, will change to become the Minister for International
Co-operation.
(1305 )
Senior official titles currently including the term
under-secretary will reflect ministerial changes, thus the
Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs will become the
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, referred to as the DM for
foreign affairs.
Bill C-47 makes no substantive changes to the structure of the
department. Rather the change in name affected by this
legislation reflects the current mandate of the department.
I would like to add a few words about the roles of the two new
positions not written into the act but important to the
development of Canadian foreign policy. These are the positions
of Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, and I see the
secretary of state listening very attentively to what I am saying,
and of course the Secretary of State for Asia Pacific.
The secretaries of state have proven to be invaluable
contributors to Canada's foreign policy. They travel and meet
widely with leaders in many countries where Canadian foreign
policy interests are being pursued. I know how active they are in
liaising with the diplomatic corps here in Canada. They
complement the work of the minister very effectively.
Let us not forget the role of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, a position also not incorporated in
this act but a very important role to represent the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in his absence when he is out representing
Canada in his many, many duties. I know personally what a
heavy role that minister plays. Therefore the roles of secretaries
of state and parliamentary secretary are very helpful to the
minister and to the department.
[Translation]
To conclude, I say that the object of the bill is very clear. It is
simply to make sure that our presence abroad and in
international organizations reflects today's reality.
In our history, we went from colony to dominion and finally
independent nation. The new title of Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade makes this evolution official.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak on Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Department
of External Affairs Act and to make related amendments to other
Acts.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my
colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, for his excellent remarks. As he pointed out, the
purpose of Bill C-47 is to change the name of the department
from the Department of External Affairs and International Trade
to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In
fact, the purpose of the Bill is to update the name of the
department and of some of its officers with respect to the
existing administrative structure.
With your permission, I would like to recall a number of
historic reasons for making what we feel is an appropriate
change of name.
From 1867 to 1909, Great Britain retained overall
responsibility for Canada's external relations, and it was Great
Britain, as it were, that declared war on behalf of Canada in
1914, as Canada did not have its own ambassadors at that time.
In 1909, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, Canada's
own Department of External Affairs was created. It was headed
by a secretary of state for external affairs, a position that had
already been created in 1868. But actually, the prime minister
continued to be largely responsible for this department. It is
interesting to note, incidentally, that when it was created the
department had five employees and, in 1911, no more than 15.
On April 1, 1912, the Department of External Affairs was
placed under the direct jurisdiction of the prime minister; it
concerned itself essentially with the Canadian government's
relations with other dominions of the British Crown, whence the
use of the term ``external'' to describe something that was not
completely foreign. And this is the term that has remained.
(1310)
Just before the outbreak of World War I, Canada was
represented abroad, outside British dominions, by one office in
Washington, with a staff of nine, one high commission in
London, with a staff of eleven, and one general commission in
Paris, with a staff of eight.
After the war, Canada's international status gained
recognition through battle exploits of Canadian troops at Vimy
for example. In 1923, Canada signed its first treaty as an
independent state, the Halibut Treaty, and sent diplomatic
representatives abroad. In 1931, as we know, Canada officially
became an independent state under the Treaty of Westminster,
which conferred complete independence to Canada.
The 1935-39 period is considered as a period of growth for
the Canadian foreign service and one during which several
countries established diplomatic representation here in Ottawa.
In 1939, it is as an independent state that Canada declared war
upon Germany and other Axis powers.
The foreign policy of Canada, one of the founding members of
the United Nations, enjoyed new growth after the Second World
War, particularly in 1946, with the appointment of the first truly
independent secretary of State, and the passage of the Canadian
Department of External Affairs Act. The same legislation is still
6502
in effect today, except for minor amendments made from time to
time since then.
During the 1960s, efforts started to be made to bring the
various programs relating to trade and commerce under the
purview of External Affairs. In 1983, the position of Minister
for International Trade was created as well as that of Minister
for External Relations. Over the years, various programs such as
that of the export market development board came under the
jurisdiction of the Department of External Affairs, while others,
like that of the Grain Marketing Office, were transferred to other
departments.
Today, we have before us in this House Bill C-47, a bill
which, as I mentioned earlier, changes the name of the
Department of External Affairs for that of Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
As we speak, the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade employs over 4,000 Canadians and nearly
5,000 locally-engaged staff around the world. Thinking back to
the rather modest beginnings of the department that I described
earlier, we can see that it has come a long way.
Naturally, we intend to support this bill because, as the hon.
parliamentary indicated, we believe the time has come to update
the name of this department because, in its present form, it
evokes the dominion status Canada had for so many years. The
wish could also be expressed to see the government go ahead and
eliminate the last traces of this colonial era by abolishing
plainly and simply the other place, an institution which is a
glaring anachronism and does not suit the Canadian reality at
all. The government of Canada could also have used this
opportunity to make progress on the political and constitutional
status of Canada.
I think that this bill is also appropriate, given the foreign
policy review aimed at updating Canada's present one. We,
however, have three reservations about this bill which are far
from trivial, to say the least.
First of all, we deplore the fact that the minister did not take
this opportunity to put some order into all the positions that have
not been filled since the Liberals came to office. I am referring
specifically to clauses 4, 8(2) and 9 of the bill, under which the
government may appoint-again, since the Liberals came to
office, and even before in some cases-a Minister for
International Co-operation, Associate Deputy Ministers as well
as a Co-ordinator, International Economic Relations when these
positions are vacant.
In fact, the positions that remain unfilled would allow the
government to distribute them as it sees fit. If these positions are
useless, they should simply be abolished. Such is the case with
the position of Minister for International Co-operation,
formerly the Minister for External Relations, which is now
vacant. If the government does not find any use for it, it should
simply abolish it instead of putting it aside for highly partisan
appointments.
(1315)
We also think that CIDA, whose mandate is rather vague,
should have its own constituent act governing its activities as an
independent body. Such an act would give the minister
responsible for CIDA a clear and unequivocal mandate. It
would, of course, also prevent financial and human resources
from being wasted.
My third reservation concerns clause 7, subsection (3). If I
may, Mr. Speaker, I will now read this clause: ``The Minister
may develop and carry out programs related to his powers,
duties and functions for the promotion of Canada's interests
abroad, including the fostering of the expansion of Canada's
international trade and commerce and the provision of
assistance for developing countries''. We think it is
inappropriate for the minister to link Canada's commercial
interests with development assistance so explicitly and so
directly in the same clause.
We recognize, of course, that development assistance
provided by Canada works in favour of Canada's political
interests at the international level. But keeping development
assistance together with international trade in the same clause
can be confusing and suggest that the government again intends
to continue to favour tied aid. In this regard, I think that we
cannot allow these two items to be together in the same clause of
the bill.
In conclusion, of course we will support this bill, bearing in
mind that we have these three very serious reservations which
we would like the government to take into consideration in the
process leading to the adoption of this bill. As I just said, this
bill is part of a historical process which unfortunately has taken
too many years.
I think it was high time for the Canadian government to
update the name of the Department of External Affairs and the
Department of International Trade to make it a real Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately, as I
just said when I was talking about our reservations, we regret
that the minister did not take this opportunity to make some
adjustments that would have made the department even more up
to date.
I think that the goal which the government is pursuing with
this bill is bringing this department up to date. So it is rather
disturbing and surprising to see that the government wants to
keep in this bill some positions of questionable usefulness,
given that they are still vacant even as we speak.
I end my remarks here. We will certainly have the opportunity
to talk about them again in subsequent debates.
6503
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as the
Reform Party's international trade critic it is a pleasure for me to
speak today on Bill C-47 and its implications for a modernized
and revitalized Department of Foreign Affairs.
This bill does not make any huge changes. It changes the name
of the Department of External Affairs to the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade and it changes the titles
of ministers and the deputy ministers to reflect the new name of
the department.
I suppose the name change is intended to ensure that the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade reflects
the needs and values of Canadians in the 1990s. However I
wonder whether changing the name of the department is
necessary and whether the cost of doing so can be justified. I
know that printing 4,000 new sets of business cards and redoing
all the stationery does not amount to a monumental cost in the
larger scheme of things, but the taxpayer expects a new standard
of efficiency in government and this does seem to be frivolous.
(1320 )
The Department of External Affairs has operated for some 10
years with international trade as one of its components. It is
suddenly necessary to add the long phrase of international trade
to the name of the department. Why is this?
Why after so many years of operating just fine as external
affairs do we now need the title of foreign affairs and
international trade? What if in its wisdom some future
government decides to move the international trade component
back to the industry department? What if one day a crown
corporation is formed to take over the trade promotion? What if
that function is privatized altogether? Do we then have to go
through this exercise all over again?
Changing the way trade promotion is handled is not
inconceivable. Just this morning the Globe and Mail carried an
article stating that a group of business people says Ottawa could
save nearly $117 million a year by concentrating its trade
promotion efforts on smaller companies ending duplication and
tying trade to aid. The article goes on to quote the chairman of
the International Business Development Review to say that it
would require courageous decisions to wean business off trade
support initiatives but the federal government would be
surprised by the positive response from an overtaxed
population. I encourage the minister to look at these options and
explore this further.
Let us talk a bit about what Canadians do want from their
department of foreign affairs as it is now going to be known. The
foreign policy joint review committee heard many
representations from Canadians. The resulting report will guide
the department to restructure as necessary and to address those
concerns and set Canada's future foreign policy.
Specifically Canadians told us of the need to restructure
CIDA and to make it more accountable and more focused in its
approach to development assistance. They told us of the need to
more clearly define the criteria for Canada's participation in
future peacekeeping operations. They told us that
non-government agencies, NGOs, can play a larger role in
Canada's foreign aid delivery and development. They told us
that the need for Canada is to aggressively seek to develop the
fast growing Asia-Pacific area for trade. There were many other
suggestions and recommendations but we will have to wait for
the report to hear them all.
We know for certain however that Canadians want economic
security and that over two million Canadians depend on
international trade for their jobs. For every $1 billion in new
exports 11,000 new jobs will be created. Therefore the
Department of Foreign Affairs must do its utmost to make sure
that Canadian business succeeds in the international
marketplace.
In 1993 Canada exported $181 billion worth of goods and
services totalling 30 per cent of our GDP. To see this number
increase Reform would like to see Canada be a strong advocate
for free trade or freer trade worldwide. We have made some
important steps in this direction and I give this government
credit for that.
One of the most important vehicles for this will be the world
trade organization which will soon be in place as a result of the
GATT negotiations. It is vital that Canada help this organization
to be successful. Canada must take a leadership role in the new
WTO in making this rules based organization work. We must
continue to strive for further trade liberalization in the second
round of negotiations in agriculture at the GATT or WTO in six
years time. Canada must actively pursue new free trade
agreements which could enhance our international trade
position.
Of special interest to Canada would be the rapid and
successful expansion of NAFTA. When reviewing potential new
members Canada should encourage our current partners, the
U.S. and Mexico, not to drag their feet in these negotiations. In
the long term the expansion of NAFTA will help us all. Canada
is a trading nation. We need to develop this further.
Of principal interest to Canada however will always be our
trading relationship with the United States which currently
accounts for about 75 to 80 per cent of Canada's two way trade.
This strong relationship with the United States has allowed
Canada to become the seventh largest trading nation in the
world, even though we are only 31st in terms of population size.
While Canada must always strive to diversify in the area of
trade so that we do not remain dependent on our neighbour to the
south for our prosperity, we must recognize that the Canada--
6504
U.S. trade relationship is something which needs to be
encouraged and promoted to the fullest.
(1325 )
Beyond nurturing our trade relationship with the United
States, the Department of Foreign Affairs must always strive to
carve out new markets for Canadian international trade. Its job
is to tap into emerging growth markets throughout the world and
make sure Canadian business can get its foot in the door and go
on to develop a comparative advantage over our competitors.
One of the most exciting new growth markets for Canadian
trade, as I have said, is the Pacific rim which within five years
could represent 40 per cent of total global consumption of
exports. Obviously the Department of Foreign Affairs should do
its utmost to make sure that Canada remains an active and
successful player in the region.
To date we have had some success. Japan is already our
second biggest trading partner and purchases more Canadian
exports than the U.K., Germany and France combined. In
addition, China has the fastest growing economy in the world.
With its huge population it is predicted that by early in the next
century China could be the second largest economy in the world.
As has already been mentioned, Canada has a significant
stake in expanding trade within our hemisphere, preferably
through the NAFTA. It has already given Canada unprecedented
and preferential access to Mexico's growing market of over 85
million consumers. Other countries such as Chile have
demonstrated a very real desire to join this agreement. Canada
must ensure that we are a leader in the area of NAFTA accession
otherwise the Americans will take this leadership role and will
dominate the agenda and look after their own trade interests.
The Department of Foreign Affairs should make sure
Canadians remain well represented by acting as a leading force
in defending Canadian interests and values. In order to
successfully fulfil this task, foreign affairs should seriously
consider reallocating its resources in order to optimize this
important trade promotion task. This will require some tough
decisions, including the withdrawal of resources from regions
that do not represent growth markets for Canadian trade. Also in
these countries where we have primary diplomatic and consular
missions we should investigate cost cutting measures.
Our dealings with other countries of course must be on many
levels and not just on those involving trade. Canada has a very
special role to play in the area of international affairs because of
our proud tradition of acting as an honest broker for dispute
resolution and effective multinationalism. Canada must build
upon this tradition and promote our position as a respected and
effective middle power. With our capabilities, record of
innovation and energetic use of diplomacy, many countries
expect a special contribution from Canada in the area of
international affairs. We should be proud to provide this service.
While Canadians will always want us to promote this positive
middle power image, they also want us to live within our means.
Therefore, Canada must aim for a foreign policy which is
proactive, effective and fiscally responsible. This means that we
must get our own fiscal house in order. We must concentrate on
reducing internal trade barriers and generally reduce the cost of
doing business here at home so that our companies can be more
competitive in the world marketplace.
Whether acting as a catalyst for positive international change,
a facilitator working to bring parties to an agreement, or
mediators to defuse international conflict, the Department of
Foreign Affairs must also strive to be a world leader in
everything it does.
One area where Canada is already a leader is in our dealings
with the United Nations which turns 50 years old this year.
Improving the success of the UN is an important task for
Canada. There are many ways to improve and overhaul it in the
21st century. I suggest there are several areas Canada should be
looking at which would improve the efficiency, accountability
and effectiveness of the United Nations.
First, rules that force countries to pay their UN dues must be
enforced. Otherwise the UN will always be ineffective and all
other reform will go for naught.
Second, the newly appointed UN inspector general must be
given a wide mandate to rein in overspending, duplication and
waste.
Third, an early warning system should be set up to pre-empt
disastrous international conflicts and environmental
degradation.
Fourth, an international court should be established through
the UN to punish international criminals who currently use
national borders and weak international co-ordination to avoid
being punished.
(1330)
Fifth, the structure of the UN Security Council and the veto
powers of its permanent membership should be reviewed.
During the review Canada should be considered for permanent
membership because of its longstanding service and dedication
to the United Nations and peacekeeping.
For any of these reforms to work it is necessary that the
Department of Foreign Affairs play an effective role both behind
the scenes and by publicly setting the agenda for change.
In conclusion, while the Reform Party was elected on a
domestic agenda we realize we must be able to present a credible
foreign policy and develop a good working relationship with the
Department of Foreign Affairs. I would therefore like to express
my support for the bill, not as a housekeeping measure to be
dealt with quickly but as a sign of a new dynamic and efficient
6505
Department of Foreign Affairs. There will be support for
Canadian interests and values into the next century.
While the Reform will have plenty more to say in the area of
foreign policy in the coming session, I hope I have illustrated
some of the points we think are important for the department.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. 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 resumed from September 30 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on
Bill C-52, known as the Department of Public Works and
Government Services Act. It serves the purpose of bringing
together or consolidating four former common service agencies
of the federal government.
[Translation]
These are the former departments of Public Works and Supply
and Services, as well as the Government Telecommunications
Agency.
The new department will play an essential role in that it will
allow the federal government to effectively increase the
efficiency of its operations. This grouping of important services
under a single authority with consistent policies and a
co-ordinated long-term approach will allow us to provide better
service to the federal administration as a whole and,
consequently, to Canadian taxpayers.
The government is firmly committed to offer all Canadians a
fair, efficient, innovative and accessible administration.
[English]
Canadians are aware that overlap, duplication and poor
co-ordination have contributed to the tax burden they must all
bear. Canadians expect and demand that we take every measure
possible to streamline our operations, reduce administrative
costs, cut out red tape and improve our service delivery in
implementing government programs.
The creation of a new Department of Public Works and
Government Services responds directly to that challenge. It will
provide more effectively than ever before a central focus for the
provision of a wide range of services that contribute in a vital
way to the efficient operation of some 150 government
departments and agencies.
[Translation]
The purpose of this bill is not to table new policies but to set
up a structure which, thanks to the synergy and dynamics
generated by the new organization, will help us streamline
government services to Canadians and improve their
effectiveness.
[English]
The new department is a major service element of the federal
government. At the time of amalgamation it was comprised of
18,000 employees based in 200 locations across Canada and
with an annual budget of approximately $4 billion. The range of
services is extensive, including providing telecommunications
and professional and technical informatic services to
departments and agencies; acting as the chief contracting agent
of the federal government; ensuring value for money through a
procurement process that is open, fair and competitive; issuing
some 200 million payments annually by cheque and direct
deposit as part of the receiver general's responsibility; giving
the government a full range of communication services,
including publication of thousands of titles annually; providing
consulting and auditing services on a fee for service basis;
handling most of the architectural and engineering services
needed by the government as well as providing a wide variety of
realty services; and, my personal favourite, providing
translation services for the Parliament and the public service for
which we in the House are grateful. It also provides for the
disposal and sale of crown assets. These are just the highlights
of the many and varied services offered and provided by the
department.
(1335)
To fulfil its mandate effectively, Public Works and
Government Services has to establish close and productive
working relationships with a number of varied interests, most
notably those who do business with the Government of Canada,
the many departments and agencies of government that depend
on
6506
Public Works and Government Services for its services, and the
Canadian public that wants and expects fast efficient delivery of
government services.
We must remember the federal government is by far the
largest purchaser of goods and services in the country. Annual
federal procurement, exclusive of crown corporations, is in the
order of $16 billion. Public Works and Government Services is
responsible for the orderly processing of about 65 per cent of the
total or $10 billion.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that this more global approach regarding
government procurement will benefit all Canadians concerned.
Indeed, it will allow us to implement better co-ordinated and
standardized methods and policies, to use state-of-the-art
technologies enabling us to streamline existing procedures, and
to give eventual suppliers a more precise idea of who they are
dealing with.
Initial reaction to this amalgamation process has been
positive. It will be even more so once legislation is passed and
the new department's structure is farther advanced.
[English]
Our government has stressed again and again that the
operations of government must be responsive and geared to
action and results rather than to the bureaucratic process to
which some members on the opposite side often refer.
This is very true of the central services provided by the new
department. I believe it will be better equipped to develop
stronger, more responsive relationships with its client
departments in its new formation.
[Translation]
Direct benefits of this amalgamation, for the government but
particularly taxpayers, are quite remarkable. Already,
overlapping, which the Bloc Quebecois constantly talks about,
and duplication have been significantly reduced everywhere in
the department, and the streamlining of operations is well
underway.
Taking into account operational reviews and related
recommendations, as well as the new systems to be
implemented and the amalgamation itself, the estimated savings
over five years should total approximately $180 million.
[English]
The overall staff requirement will be reduced by more than 20
per cent, from 18,000 at the time of amalgamation to about
14,000 at century's end. Specifically the administrative services
of the component groups in the new departments have already
been consolidated and this will result in savings of some 500 full
time positions.
[Translation]
I want to point out that all these savings will be made by
eliminating duplication, streamlining systems and making
increased use of state-of-the-art technologies such as
infometrics.
I can assure you that these savings will in no way diminish the
quality of service currently provided to the department's clients
and to Canadians in general.
(1340)
Regardless of the structure of joint services, efficiency will
always be the key to success. In that regard, we must reduce
overlapping and duplication everywhere in government
operations and we must become a centre of excellence striving
to develop new methods and technologies to deliver services.
The net result will be savings to taxpayers, a one-stop service
centre for existing departments, a special expertise accessible
from anywhere within the government, a single-window service
for suppliers and entrepreneurs dealing with the
government-this single-window concept is important, because
that is all the opposition talks about these days-and, more
importantly, an improved ability on the government's part to
serve Canadians.
[English]
In the current climate of fiscal restraint the pursuit of
efficiency and economy in government operations is clearly not
a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Bill C-52 which will
integrate the majority of all common services into one
department will help us operate more efficiently and deliver the
best we can to our clients.
I hope all members will join me and this side of the House in
supporting this innovative legislation. Much has already been
achieved, and with the passage of the bill we could move
forward with confidence in further streamlining and improving
the operations of the federal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérald Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity today to speak on Bill C-52. Perhaps I
may mention that during my 14 years as a municipal councillor
in Baie-Comeau, I was Chairman of the Public Works
Commission.
The responsibilities of a municipal councillor are similar to
those of a member in this House. A councillor is expected to
administer taxpayers' money, and the same applies in the
federal government. Members of this House have to make sure
that government revenues raised through taxes are properly
administered, in the name of openness.
6507
Increasingly, politicians are losing their credibility, and they
are finding it harder to field questions from their constituents
about contracting out, privatization, transparency and a host of
similar questions.
In my speech I intend to discuss Bill C-52, but mainly as it
concerns contracting out, privatization and how the government
should take advantage of this opportunity. Bill C-52 is an Act to
establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services, which will also include communications and
translation.
In fact, this legislation goes back to the 1870s, and it does not
give the government or the minister any additional powers.
However, we in the Bloc Quebecois would have expected this
bill to give the minister additional monitoring and
administrative powers, and that the Liberal government, as it
promised in the red book, should at least have tried to provide
some transparency in this bill by legislating structured
parameters for administration and control, thus enabling it to
make future decisions based on the principle of openness and a
clear knowledge of the facts.
(1345)
As the old saying goes, if you want something done, you are
better off doing it yourself. I wish the government would tell us
how much it saves by contracting out, and by privatizing federal
services. If the past is any indication, I think there is some cause
for concern about the future, when we consider the disgusting
case of Pearson Airport, the only profitable federal airport in
Canada.
Of course, the federal government wants to get rid of some of
its facilities that no longer make a profit, mainly in Quebec.
However, if the federal government cannot turn a profit with
them, it is doubtful whether municipalities, regional
municipalities or regional economic partners would be more
successful.
There are plenty of federal facilities in my riding. We have
airports in Baie-Comeau, Forestville and Charlevoix. There are
about 20 federal wharfs in my riding. Some wharfs are still
operational, but many have been declared redundant by
Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada and Public Works.
I am also concerned about contracting out, and by the
Department of Transport's plans for privatizing railway and
marine transportation, as well as airport facilities. In my riding,
there is a company called Sopor, that carries goods for Reynolds
and Quno to the South Shore. Sopor plays an important role in
the region's economic development and is particularly useful as
a carrier, shipping Reynolds aluminum products and Quno
newsprint throughout the world.
Also, in the transportation industry, contracting out or
privatization means we are not in a position to develop the
railway line between Quebec and Pointe-au-Pic, because the
line will be transferred very shortly to the private sector. It is
taking forever to settle this matter. Furthermore, we are still
waiting for the tourist train from the central station in Quebec
City to the Casino in Charlevoix to come through.
Contracting out should mean better quality and better services
at a better price. I am not saying I am against contracting out, but
what I want from the government, the department and the
committee is some proof that contracting out or privatization is
cost-effective for the government.
As you know, the government is obliged to call public tenders
for all contracts exceeding $25,000. In the case of contracts
between $2,500 and $25,000, the department can award
contracts, even by invitation. Of course, within the departments
there is some flexibility for contracts up to $2,500.
In this House, the Bloc Quebecois has been blasted regularly
by various ministers, who have claimed that it often criticizes
but never proposes solutions. I can tell you that, in the context of
Bill C-52, the Bloc does offer very substantial alternatives, so
that greater control can be exercised and the government can
demonstrate more transparency.
(1350)
To ignore the solutions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is
to prevent reductions in program expenditures and the deficit as
well as prevent finding ways of providing services to the
Canadian public in an cost-effective and efficient fashion.
At a recent meeting of the government operations committee,
I asked the minister responsible: ``Do you undertake, before this
committee, to identify clearly the needs for a department,
develop solid specifications and estimates, launch a fair public
tendering process, call for public tenders and have a bidders
report produced, evaluate tenders openly, receive a
recommendation through the deputy minister and, following
this process, accept the lowest bid that complies with the
specifications established by the department?'' And the answer I
got was ``no''.
How can a department or a minister claim to be transparent
while refusing to accept the lowest bid, that meets all
requirements? The minister is setting himself up to be
criticized, sometime down the road, for favouring a friend of the
government or a person who attended at some point in time a
dinner at $1,000 a setting.
The issue of transparency was raised in the government's red
book and during the election campaign. Transparency must be
more than just part of a campaign platform. It must last
throughout the government's mandate. Every department is very
interested in good management. Our job, as politicians, as
members of this House, is to demonstrate our willingness to earn
as much credibility as possible from our constituents in each of
our ridings.
Does the current contracting-out policy save us money? If so,
how much do we save and how are these savings achieved? What
are the major pros and cons of contracting out? Some
drawbacks, such as poor quality, have been revealed.
Increasingly, there are concerns about the protection of the
confidentiality of certain documents.
Other questions come to mind. What constitutes acceptable
justification for contracting out? How many civil servants have
6508
been put on a shelf? Will their numbers keep growing? In short,
many questions remain unanswered.
It seems to us that contracting out is expensive. More and
more contracts are let, while no one has been laid off in the
Public Service. Job safety in the Public Service, the case of this
Communications Canada Group that used up funds left over at
the end of the year so that its budget would no be cut the
following year, the privatization of Pearson International
Airport, these are cases that should convince the government to
support the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and
to vote against the bill, if that amendment were not adopted.
In the National Capital Region, 79 per cent of federal
government services are provided by temporary personnel. It is
reported that, in the NCR alone, $64.4 million were devoted to
temporary assistance in 1993, while thousands of full-time
employees were declared surplus. This is a ridiculous approach
as well as an exercise in squandering public funds.
(1355)
In 1992-93, a full-time government secretary made $24,000
plus benefits, while a temporary personnel agency charges the
government $36,000 per year or $20 an hour for secretarial
services.
I wish to give a few examples of what the federal government
used to pay versus today's contracting-out costs.
A government mechanic made $16 an hour, while the agency
charges the government $26 an hour. A plumber working in
maintenance for the federal government earned $18 an hour,
while an agency charges $26 an hour. A carpenter working in
maintenance for the federal government made $17 an hour,
while an agency charges $25 an hour for the same services.
It is not true that contracting out saves on space and
equipment. In the national capital, hundreds of contractors work
in federal government offices and use the equipment and
facilities paid for by Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
It is time to stop this waste. In 1991, contracting out in the
public service cost $5 billion. Between 1984 and 1985 and from
1992 to 1993, these costs rose by 7.5 per cent on average
compared with 5.3 per cent for other government operating
expenditures.
According to a recent report, contracting-out costs
amounting to $2.9 billion in 1984-85 rose to $5 billion in
1992-93, about twice as much. I will resume my speech after
Question Period.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to
the comments made by the hon. member and his colleagues.
They always talk about duplication, waste and transparency.
In this respect, I think that the federal government has made a
considerable effort to open up the process. In fact, we have an
Open Bidding Service or OBS whereby even opposition
members, small entrepreneurs and big businesses are invited to
bid on federal government contracts, in order to provide
services to businesses in your ridings.
I can even give some examples. In my riding of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, fishermen often submit
tenders to provide various services to the federal government.
For instance, bids have been solicited for providing CIDA with
cases of herring. So I can tell you this: Because of the quality of
their products and their competitive prices, Magdalen Islands
fishermen got-
The Speaker: Order. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6508
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, Terry Fox
runs have now spread around the world but I am delighted that
the runs are still thriving in parts of Canada like Peterborough
that Terry visited on his own run.
This year more than $17,000 was raised by the city of
Peterborough run organized by Doug Boden and his committee.
Peterborough schools raised over $90,000. My thanks to
everyone involved.
In the tiny village of Havelock, which had close personal ties
with Terry during his run, more than $10,000 was raised through
the amazing efforts of Ernie Hamilton. Our thanks to the village
of Havelock, the townships of Belmont and Methuen, the
Havelock Legion and all those involved in this remarkable
effort.
Special thanks to the students of Havelock, Belmont and
Methuen Public School for their $246.
Terry Fox is still raising money for cancer research.
6509
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, leaks of the
working discussion paper to be used by the Minister of Human
Resources Development confirm for us that the ghosts of
centralizing federalism are on the move again. These ghosts
which we had hoped to see disappear forever are supposedly
preparing to cut $2.3 billion in transfer payments to the
provinces for post-secondary education so that the federal
government can meddle further in this field of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
Why does this government want greater visibility for what it
does in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Does the
federal government want to give the impression that it is in a
better position to solve the existing problems?
In both cases, the federal government is showing complete
disregard for the provinces' ability to act and members of the
Bloc Quebecois do not want to support that idea.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, on October 2 the Ottawa
Sun reported that a man
convicted of a savage murder in 1976 will be given a second
chance at early parole because the Supreme Court ruled that the
crown consistently and improperly appealed to the jury's
passions during his first hearing.
The court has decided that this killer who stabbed his victim
132 times and used five different knives in the process deserves
a second chance. What about his victim? What about her
chances? What about her chances to live a full and happy life?
She got no second chance.
It is time to give law abiding Canadians a second chance, a
second chance to regain faith in our criminal justice system. It is
time to close the loopholes and throw out the bleeding heart
liberals who so frequently allow such dangerous offenders back
into society.
For crimes as savage as this, Canadians demand that a life
sentence must indeed mean life with no second chance.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, it is a
particular honour for me to rise today in recognition of our
parliamentary pages. Parliamentary pages have served
parliamentarians since Confederation in 1867. Prime Ministers
Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Lester B. Pearson,
Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent were served by
distinguished young Canadians.
Their many duties include carrying messages, Order Papers
and Hansard to members' desks, even the occasional glass of
water.
At one time the opportunity of participating in this program
was a privilege only extended to young men. In 1974 this
practice was changed to include young women who also serve us
today.
There are 42 pages in the House of Commons program today.
Each and every province of Canada is represented. These young
students set an example for all young Canadians. One of them is
Roger Label who comes from my riding of Huron-Bruce, more
particularly Port Elgin.
The pages are hardworking and dedicated individuals. I would
like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of
Parliament to thank them for their work and their support.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, September 30 I had the honour of attending
the 20th Annual General Assembly of the Native Council of
Nova Scotia. This three day conference offered an ideal
opportunity for Nova Scotia's off reserve Mi'kmaq population
to participate in discussions on how best to achieve aboriginal
self-government.
In conjunction with this conference the province of Nova
Scotia announced it has initiated a tripartite forum in order to
examine major native issues. This is the first of its kind in
Canada. I am proud of the role all parties are playing in order to
find positive, proactive solutions.
I applaud the work being accomplished by this council in
promoting positive change. We must now lend our support to the
Mi'kmaq nation as it moves toward a more traditional role of
governing itself.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to
bring to the attention of the House a disease that is not at all
exciting or high profile but which is tragic all the same. The
week of October 2 to 8 has been designated as Celiac Awareness
Week by the Canadian Celiac Association.
Celiac disease is a medical condition in which the absorptive
surface of the small intestine is damaged by gluten, a common
substance found in all bread, wheat, rye and oat products. The
result is an inability to absorb nutrients, proteins, vitamins and
minerals vital to growth and normal health.
6510
Celiac disease affects 20,000 Canadians. It is a lifelong
condition whose treatment involves a gluten free diet. That
means these people cannot eat pastas, breads, or any other baked
goods containing any source of gluten whatsoever.
(1405)
The Canadian Celiac Association promotes awareness of
celiac disease. It offers services to alleviate problems faced by
persons with celiac disease in obtaining expedient diagnosis and
accurate information and support.
I wish to take this opportunity to salute the Canadian Celiac
Association for its efforts on behalf of a disease which is not a
high profile one.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, a headline in
La Presse today suggests that the Bloc Quebecois is refusing to
release its financial statements and the names of its
contributors.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to clear up these inaccurate
allegations. We are now barely halfway through its first fiscal
year as a recognized political party; next spring, the Bloc will
submit its first financial report containing the list of donors for
the period from the 1993 election to the end of 1994.
The list of donors who have given over $100 to the Bloc
Quebecois is now available on request from the party's Montreal
office. The Bloc accepts donations only from individuals and
limits their contributions to $5,000 a year. It respects the spirit
of the Quebec law, which was the basis of a motion that the
Liberals refused to pass last week.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, this
month a news release from the Western Economic
Diversification Fund crossed my desk announcing a grant of $39
million. The final line of the release said: ``This announcement
is an example of how this government is prioritizing its
spending so that it can better serve Canadians by making
efficient use of their tax dollars''.
I inquired about that statement. I discovered that the Privy
Council Office has ordered this sentence to be placed at the end
of every government news release having to do with funding.
Since when is this kind of partisan statement news? This is
nothing more than political advertising. Decrees of this type
insult the civil service, forcing it to ignore impartiality.
For the sake of the morale in the public service, I ask the
government to rescind this order immediately, leave the
political rhetoric where it belongs: in the dusty unread portions
of its own little red book and not foisted upon our independent
civil service.
Spending of this kind has brought our national debt now to
$532,956,930,422.47.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, after 40 years,
five months and one week on the air, CJMS 1280, long known as
Montreal's news leader, ceased operations. Along with it, six
other stations of the Radio Mutuel network in Quebec City, Hull,
Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi and Sherbrooke went out of
existence.
This loss deals a heavy blow to the regions, which thus lose
some power and where it is increasingly important to strengthen
and diversify the news available to the public instead of
reducing it. This merger of Radio Mutuel and Télémédia seems
to concentrate the news media too much, and the very security of
democracy in the regions is at stake.
I therefore ask the CRTC to pay close attention to this issue
before agreeing to this merger.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, a
new report by the Canadian Institute of Child Health details the
unacceptable levels of child poverty in this country.
Poor children are more likely to die at birth and more likely to
suffer from low birth weight, chronic health problems and
psychiatric disorders.
I urge the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
government to put Canadian children first when undertaking the
upcoming social security reforms. Canadian children have been
neglected. It is time to show real leadership and humanity. It is
time to improve the lives of Canadian children and their
families.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, currently the
environment committee is reviewing the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. One aspect of the review which
has great potential is the consideration of the introduction of
economic instruments.
Economic instruments can provide the incentive required for
industry to adopt the philosophy of pollution prevention. They
do offer the potential of changing behaviour and preserving the
6511
environment for future generations. By providing the incentive
to improve technology we not only prevent pollution in Canada
but develop technologies that may be exported throughout the
world.
(1410 )
Pollution knows no boundaries or jurisdictions. I call upon all
levels of government to work together to address our
environmental concerns and implement pollution prevention
legislation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
compared the repayment of Quebec for the referendum costs to a
fixed wrestling match. Defending Quebec taxpayers' interests is
not a game. If there is a wrestling match, as claimed by the
minister, it is because he himself tried to act like a bully.
It is not the first time that the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs makes a blunder. After the disgraceful episode related to
the telephone conversation between Mr. Chrétien and Mr.
Parizeau, and the referendum episode, during which he
arrogantly claimed that the federal owed nothing to Quebec, he
now persists in demanding that Mr. Parizeau, and no one else, be
Quebec's representative on the so-called Team Canada going to
Asia.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, the film
``Octobre'' is an example of extreme tolerance to protect the
free expression of opinions in Canada. Tolerance in this country
is being stretched to the limit with daily threats of separation.
``Octobre'' is a separatist film, funded once again on the
backs of Canadian taxpayers. The federal government spent
$1.4 million to propagate a lie. The National Film Board gave
$400,000 and Telefilm Canada gave a million dollars to fund
this flimsy stab at accuracy.
The facts are simple: Pierre Laporte was murdered by
separatist terrorists and now federal tax dollars are being used to
glorify and distort this senseless murder by a separatist gang of
murderers and thieves.
To reduce the cold-blooded murder of Pierre Laporte to
something as intellectually fraudulent as ``Octobre'' is
appalling and to provide Canadian tax dollars to accomplish it is
scandalous. The pathos and emotions of his murderers are
irrelevant.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, the world is in
constant evolution. Changes occur everywhere and people
easily adapt.
However, we do not see that evolution with the government.
Why insist on maintaining an uncompromising, static, hermetic
and rigid, if not obsolete, federalism? The time has come to be
more open and flexible. What is the government waiting for to
end the status quo in its relations with the provinces? For
goodness sake, try to be more modern in your federalist
approach! The government should take heed of the legitimate
claims made by provinces, including Quebec, because they
reflect modernism and common sense.
The word ``evolution'' is not part of the vocabulary of
mandarins and some elected representatives display a lack of
thoughtfulness. Everywhere in this country there is a consensus
in favour of decentralization. The time has come for the
government to give back to Quebec and other provinces the
powers which are theirs under the Constitution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, last week
at a press conference in Toronto the leader of the Reform Party
said that Liberal backbencher MPs from Ontario are not going to
bat for their province because they do not want to do anything
that could put them at odds with party policy.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest and indeed all
members of the Reform Party should realize that Ontario Liberal
MPs are simply following the will of over 69 per cent of
Ontarians who support the government in its policies.
The next time the leader of the Reform Party says that people
in Ontario do not think the Liberals are working for them, he
should take into consideration the opinion of over 69 per cent of
Ontario residents who disagree with him.
Is the leader of the Reform Party really suggesting that
Ontario Liberal MPs should solely represent the 7 per cent of
Ontarians who support Reform Party ideology?
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers,
participants and sponsors of the fifth annual Word on the Street
book and magazine fair which was held on Sunday, September
6512
24 in my riding. It is a celebration of our culture and excellence
in Canadian writing. More important, it draws to our attention
the importance of literacy.
This year a crowd of over 100,000 filled Queen Street West to
browse the many exhibits by merchants, publishing houses and
the numerous groups promoting literacy and learning.
As we all know, if Canada is to grow and prosper all
Canadians must have the tools to reach their potential. The
ability to read and write is fundamental to allow us as a nation to
succeed and compete internationally.
Next year, thanks to funding from the federal government and
our commitment to the national literacy program, Word on the
Street will expand nationally to Vancouver and Halifax where
parallel festivals will make this a truly national event.
* * *
(1415 )
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate the new MLA-elect to the New Brunswick riding
of Tracadie on his truly decisive victory during the by-election
on September 27.
The provincial riding of Tracadie resides in the federal riding
of Acadie-Bathurst. This seat has traditionally been a Liberal
stronghold for 82 years. The provincial Liberals have called the
seat their rock of Gibraltar.
The margin of victory, 1,364 votes, is clearly an incredible
win for the Conservative Party. The people defeated the
provincial Liberals because they have not improved the
economy, their policies are hurting our job creation and they are
just not listening. The people have spoken and have said enough
is enough.
The Conservative Party is alive and well in New Brunswick
and the rock of Gibraltar has fallen.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the
government's review of social policy should be accompanied by
a review of the policies which really caused the deficit. Social
spending in Canada is not out of line with what is spent in other
developed countries. It is how we finance that spending that
needs a hard look.
On the revenue side, successive Canadian governments have
given up billions of dollars in the form of tax breaks of one kind
or another, starting with John Turner's budgets in the
mid-1970s. On the monetary policy side, a policy of high
interest rates combined with a diminishing of the role of the
Bank of Canada in the financing of Canada's debt has led to a
deplorable dependence on foreign lenders and bond holders.
Of course on the economic side, the so-called free trade and
free market fetish has destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs
and stressed the social system designed for less stupid economic
policies.
The government would do well to look at these things rather
than blaming social programs and/or their recipients for our
fiscal problems.
_____________________________________________
6512
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government's refusal to compromise, in the
case of the Team Canada trade mission to China, is leading
straight to a useless confrontation between Ottawa and the new
government in Quebec. Yesterday, the Prime Minister again
stubbornly refused to let Mr. Parizeau send one of his ministers
instead.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that Mr. Parizeau, who
has just been elected with a mandate to put Quebec back on
track, has more pressing priorities than spending 15 days with
him in China?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when we discussed these plans in December among first
ministers, it was decided we would work together, and the
Premiers said it was a very good idea for those who were able to
do so to accompany me on this trip.
At the time, we thought about three or four would be coming
along. Since then, there has been a lot of interest from the
business community, and there will be a large number of people
on this trip, including quite a few from Quebec.
During the summer, some Premiers who thought they would
not be able to come had asked to be replaced. They were told that
those who could would come along and as for the others, it was
just too bad. In any case, this is a Canadian delegation that will
include a large number of business people. There will be twice
as many as we had planned. Canada, Quebec and the other
provinces will be represented by the business people on the trip
and by the Prime Minister of Canada, who also happens to be a
Quebecer.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at this logically and ignore the politics, it is
hard to explain the Prime Minister's stubborn attitude. Could it
be that after being forced to pay the bill for Charlottetown,
which he had refused to do, for no good reason, he is now trying
to turn around and show English Canada that he can hold his own
against Quebec's demands, even if they are legitimate?
6513
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition should explain that the trip will
involve only five or six days in China, not two weeks. After that,
I am going to Hong Kong, then to the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council conference in Indonesia and, finally, to
Vietnam. The business part of the trip is the visit to China, which
will take three or four days. This is to create jobs. I am prepared
to co-operate with all governments. As for the money we paid
last week, we made sure that the promise made to Quebec was a
genuine promise. I made that decision very carefully.
(1420)
The Leader of the Opposition should have the courtesy to rise
in the House and thank me for reversing the decision of the
previous government, which did not want to pay. This was a case
of Mr. Mulroney having said something in private but never
having mentioned it, nor did Ms. Campbell, to the Conservative
government at the time. I dealt with the problem. I am not afraid
of how English Canada will react, on the contrary. All Canadian
editorial writers approved what we did, with very few
exceptions. The rest felt that we made the right decision. If
people want to criticize me for being careful to avoid turning
this into a controversy, I accept that criticism, but I can never be
too careful with taxpayers money.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister better not think he can silence the
Bloc just because he paid Quebec the money it was due, and very
reluctantly at that.
[English]
Can the Prime Minister not see that his obstinacy will
seriously undermine the credibility of Canada's commercial
delegation to China by excluding the two governments of
Ontario and Quebec which represent more than 60 per cent of the
Canadian population?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are not excluding anybody. It is a federal initiative. I am
leading the delegation. I have offered provincial premiers to
come with me.
At the beginning there were very few who thought they could
come along, but enthusiasm has developed over the months with
a growing number of business people coming from all over
Canada. There is a large delegation of Quebec business people
coming who have confidence. They want to be with me to work
and create jobs for the people of Quebec. I am sorry the premier
of Quebec and the premier of Ontario cannot come. They are not
obliged to be there because I am going there representing all
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I would be delighted to
represent the interests of the Bloc Quebecois as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's natural talent for generating conflict between the
federal government and the government of Quebec has been in
evidence for some time now. When he is not sticking his nose in
someone else's jurisdiction, he is putting his foot in it.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada not realize that by
choosing who must represent the governments of Quebec or
Ontario, he is interfering directly in an area of responsibility
exclusive to the heads of these governments, and that it is none
of his business?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
last December the provincial premiers and myself reached an
amicable agreement to work together. I invited them to come
with me. Several of them said: ``We would like to, but we
cannot''. Some of them called me to ask if they could send a
representative and I told them they could not, because it had
been agreed that the heads of each of these governments would
be attending. So, I was not seeking confrontation. It is a
Canadian delegation; the premiers have been invited and those
who can are coming, and those who cannot are not.
I have been accused of provoking the provincial government,
and yet the Minister of Finance, for example, is looking for ways
to replace the GST and is seeking the co-operation of the
provinces. But the government of Quebec has already said that it
will not take part. When the Minister of Natural Resources, at
the request of members of the Bloc Quebecois, attempts to do
something for Canada's forestry development program, the
Quebec Minister of Forestry refuses to attend the forestry
ministers' conference in New Brunswick. Yet some very nice
people show a willingness to work with the federal government.
Last week, the premier of Quebec said that his sole objective in
the months to come was to derail the federal machine.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, what we are
talking about right now is the conduct of the Prime Minister of
Canada.
My question is as follows: In requiring the premier of Quebec
to bow to his diktat, does the Prime Minister not realize that he is
heading towards an inevitable and pointless confrontation with
the government of Quebec, given that the real objective, the
unspoken objective is to isolate the sovereign government of
Quebec and exclude it from his federal mission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
frankly, this is an exaggeration. The decision not to allow
substitutes was taken last December. There was a Liberal
government in power at the time, and I wish this had not
changed. I did not pick the election date, and if the premier of
Quebec is unable to leave Quebec for a few days to come to
China with us, then Quebecers should tell themselves that we
will be ably represented by Quebec businessmen and by a
6514
member from Quebec who also happens to be the Prime Minister
of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
in this House that the government and the Bloc fight over who is
going on a trip when the finances of this country are in grave
difficulty.
The finance minister has indicated in this House that the
savings from the social policy review would go toward reducing
the deficit. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the savings
from the social policy review would not go toward reducing the
deficit.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to this House whether the
savings from the social policy review will go to reducing the
deficit, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the member will have his answer in reading the document.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, just last
Thursday in this assembly the Minister of Finance said the
savings from the social policy review would go to cut spending
and indicated that to this assembly.
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether that is the policy
of the government? If it is not it should be made clear to
Canadians here today.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the avid
interest of the hon. member in the matter of social reform.
I would say it comes about nine months too late because the
fact of the matter is we set out very clearly the fiscal parameters
as applied to the social reform program in the February budget.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the
government does not want to tell the Canadian people where it
stands on this issue and whether it is ready to face its
responsibilities.
Will the Minister of Finance indicate whether his economic
statement which I understand is to be released in mid-October
will advise the Canadian people that the government has enough
courage to reduce spending in social policy areas to deal with
the deficit of this nation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of statements
from the government. They have been very consistent on the fact
that we regard social security reform as a means of making this a
more cost effective and efficient country and of delivering
services to Canadians in by far the most efficient way possible.
We also understand the pressures that are on us. I would
quote, for instance, from the minister of human resources when
he referred the other day to the massive debts that must be
reduced.
(1430 )
Then he said that if we do not accept that reality we are going
to have the bond dealers in New York dictating our social policy.
The one difference between that side of the House and this is that
we understand that our economic and social sovereignty is in
doubt and we are not going to let anybody dictate to us the
direction that this country ought to take.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister is preparing to table nothing more than a
discussion paper tomorrow, while he had promised to come up
by last April with a plan of action setting the course for
government social program reform. In addition, because of
objections raised by several provinces, this reform project is
already far behind schedule.
Will the minister not recognize that tabling a mere discussion
paper only confirms his failure to develop a real plan of action
setting the course for government social program reform?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): No, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand from this ``no'' that under the
cover of broad consultation hides the minister's real objective,
namely to cut $4 billion in transfer payments to the provinces
and benefits paid to individuals?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it appears that the hon. member
is suffering from a case of premature agitation.
I would suggest that the best solution to that ailment is to wait
until tomorrow to see what the paper really says and what we
really propose.
6515
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, the
immigration minister's so-called public consultation process is
now over.
I trust that in addition to special interest groups the minister
has consulted with Dr. Don Devoretz, a leading immigration
expert, who says that the family reunification policy has
lowered the success of today's immigrants.
Is this minister committed to acting upon the will of
Canadians as expressed in poll after poll as well as the findings
of experts? Will he substantially reduce the level of immigration
in Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, not only was Don Devoretz an
invited guest at our two-day conference, he was also a member
of a working group. We looked very seriously at the work that he
has been able to generate in British Columbia. He is certainly a
leading advocate in terms of some of the economic ties with
immigration.
It should also be noted that he said very clearly that
immigration helps this country and that when one looks at the
tax system, and these are his words, immigrants have paid more
into the tax system than they have taken in social benefits.
When we reflect on some of the things that he has said, we can
adjust this to everything he has said.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, if we look
specifically at the report perhaps part of this was taken out of
context.
The minister's own employees have called for lowering the
numbers in two separate reports. So have his government
backbenchers. Ontario's NDP government has sent a very strong
message to either cut the numbers or double the integration
grants.
Will this minister admit that he perhaps is not listening to
anybody, not the experts, his backbenchers nor the civil servants
or even other governments and certainly not to Canadians in
general. His million dollar immigration consultations have been
a farce.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should wait
until the government announces the levels on or before
November 1 and then perhaps accuse the government of not
listening or not acting.
I would tell the hon. member that the consultation process has
never ever been as open as the one that we have been engaged in
for the last eight months. Never before have thousands of people
been involved rather than 120. Never before have 30,000
information kits been distributed.
The process that we embarked upon was taken seriously and
has yielded a lot of good results that will help this government
and not hinder when we present those levels in this Chamber.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government has not tried to stop speculation that RRSPs
may be taxed starting with the next federal budget. The Minister
of Finance himself fuels the uncertainty about this possibility
that some observers call reactionary, outrageous and odious.
(1435)
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that by fuelling the
uncertainty about the future of RRSPs, he makes it much harder
for thousands of middle-class taxpayers to make the extremely
important retirement-planning decisions required at this time of
year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I said many times that I
would not make specific comments or suggestions about the
budget before tabling it. I think it is the fifth time the hon.
member has asked the same question. I do not understand how
he can accuse me of wanting to fuel the uncertainty.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Finance not realize that by thinking of taxing
RRSPs, he gives a clear signal that he has chosen the option of
raising taxes instead of doing what everyone expected of him,
that is, cutting government expenditures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly that
government spending must be cut and I can hardly wait for the
hon. member, who is on the finance committee, to make very
specific suggestions as to where we should cut.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, in 1985
the Supreme Court ruled that section 7 of the charter applies to
everyone that is on Canadian soil. The Reform Party has argued
that refugee claimants must be heard in a manner that is
humanitarian and fair but which does not tie up the judicial
system with endless legal wrangling.
6516
Will the minister of immigration agree that it could be
necessary to amend the Constitution in order to limit the ability
of non-residents to endlessly tie up our refugee determination
and legal systems with appeals?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): I have a
supplemental, Mr. Speaker.
Taxpayers are tired of paying for endless legal aid appeals to
support those ordered out of the country. The minister's
negative reaction is especially ironic since in 1986 he went on
record saying that in order to gain control of our refugee system
refugee camps might have to be built in Canada to restrict the
movement of refugee claimants.
An hon. member: What?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hanger: What section of the charter can the minister cite
to defend that idea?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question
stands.
They talk about judicial wrangling. His colleague from
Vancouver regularly asks about the Mendoza file. The federal
government appealed to the Federal Court. Yesterday the
Federal Court overturned the decision and ordered a new
hearing.
The judicial system is working. He cannot have it both ways.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
extending the forestry sub-agreement has nothing to do with
whether Quebec is present at a negotiating table; this
government made a formal commitment to renew the
sub-agreement and should respect it. If the Prime Minister has
forgotten, he should ask his minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec, to whom I address my question.
Following the closure of military bases, the Maritimes
received $20 million in compensation, Ontario $8 million, the
western provinces $5 million and Quebec only received a
meagre $200,000 for the loss of 1,000 jobs.
How can the minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec justify the fact that Quebec got only crumbs as
compensation for the closure of its military bases? Are we to
understand that the minister has simply not done his job to
defend Quebec's interests?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the figures show that
Quebec has certainly received its fair share.
(1440)
As for the meeting on forestry, the Minister of Natural
Resources has already indicated in this House that she and I are
ready and intend to hold these meetings in the near future. It is
simply a matter of proper scheduling.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, if
Quebec got its fair share, how can the minister responsible for
regional development in Quebec justify the fact that the
financial compensation for the closure of military bases in
Canada is accompanied by economic diversification assistance,
while that is not the case for Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is the case.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The recent offer of CP to purchase the CN Rail network in
eastern Canada has raised some major concerns. This is
primarily because CP has already abandoned much of its routes
in eastern Canada and indeed is competing with Canadian
National Rail with its own D and H line which runs from New
York City to Montreal.
Given this track record, what assurances can the minister give
that this or any other offer will not lead to the abandonment of
this main rail line which is so crucial to economic development
in places like Moncton, the port of Halifax and indeed all of
eastern Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague would know that if the unsolicited offer from
CP Rail was accepted by the government it would have the effect
of privatizing all rail activity east of Winnipeg. That is why the
government recognizes that we have to look at the unsolicited
bid from CP Rail on a businesslike basis. It also involves a very
serious policy question. That is one of the reasons why we have
asked members on the government side of the House to look into
other options including the commercialization of CN with
employee participation.
As a fundamental part of government policy we recognize that
it is absolutely essential to have a rail line from Halifax to
Vancouver. That is the policy the government will pursue.
6517
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, for the
Minister of Immigration to come into this House and brag about
getting involved with Salinas Mendoza is despicable.
Salinas Mendoza has had 12 criminal convictions in Canada
since 1989. A young woman in my riding agreed to a stay of
sexual assault charges against Mendoza on the condition that he
be deported to El Salvador and he was. Now he is back claiming
refugee status.
I have been involved in numerous hearings and trials on this
fellow costing over $250,000 since he has come back.
My question to the minister is whose interests come first in a
refugee hearing in this country, Mr. Minister, those of the
taxpaying-
The Speaker: I would remind and ask all members to please
direct their question through the Chair.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I
would like to ask the minister of immigration whose interests
come first in a refugee hearing in this country, those of the
taxpaying, law abiding citizen or those of the refugee criminal
applicant?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I will give the member the
definition of despicable. Despicable means exploiting personal
tragedies to simply score some political marks in this Chamber.
The answer to that question clearly is justice. In Bill C-44 we
are trying to make that balance even more identifiable. Bill
C-44 gives us the opportunity for the first time that when we
know an individual has a criminal background to stop that
refugee process and put them to immigration inquiry. Thus far,
given the current legislation, that has not been possible.
We are putting into practice in Bill C-44 the things this
member talks about but is not prepared to support.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, this is
truly unbelievable. After all the bragging this minister has done
here, I find out that Mr. Mendoza skipped his bail hearing this
morning and has now walked after all of this.
Where does the minister fit in on all of the changes he is
working on refugee hearings? I cannot believe this fellow-
(1445 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this is a side show to the circus and
the member is the clown.
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues, of course all questions
should be addressed to the responsible minister.
I would ask hon. members to please be considerate of one
another and not let these questions or answers degenerate into
simply name calling. I will permit the hon. minister to continue
his answer but I would like him to consider perhaps lowering the
tone just a little bit as we go along.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the member is interested in facts,
the facts are these. This individual came to this country
illegally. In April of this year we started an immigration inquiry.
The adjudicator agreed with deportation but disagreed with
detention. We appealed that decision on detention to the Federal
Court.
Yesterday the Federal Court quashed the decision of the
immigration adjudicator and set another immigration
adjudication hearing today so that we can seek that detention.
The government has acted and acted properly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Last
August, Expro, located in Valleyfield, laid off about 150
employees. That company, which specializes in explosives, lost
a big contract in the U.S., as military markets were collapsing all
over the world.
What is the government doing to keep Expro from closing and
save the 300 jobs at stake?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has asked several questions about the defence
industry and the changes it is undergoing. On Sunday evening,
the member even made a short speech in English on that issue
and I congratulate him for doing so.
I explained on several occasions that the government is not in
the business of finding solutions for every company
experiencing problems. We are prepared to work with each of
them to find new markets, ways of adjusting, strategies, as well
as information. The idea is not to simply give money, as
suggested several times by the hon. member.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry to see that the minister did not listen to my
speech until the end. Will he recognize that, because of a lack of
true conversion strategy, more than 10,000 jobs are in jeopardy
in the Montreal region? What is he waiting for to take action, as
his government promised to do in the red book? We need a real
industry conversion strategy and this is what my speech was all
about.
6518
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, it
would seem that this member has a great deal of difficulty in
understanding my answers.
The approach we are endeavouring to take is one that builds
on the appropriate role of government, not only to create an
environment in which entrepreneurialism can succeed but also
in the defence sector to ensure that using the tools at our disposal
we provide information, advice and strategy together with DIPP
to try to enable firms to create dual use technologies and to move
defence technologies to civilian use.
(1450 )
In the DIPP context-the member knows this very well-of
41 applications approved by the government, 39 have been for
civilian or dual use purposes. That is a defence conversion
strategy.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
during his imaginative, if not wholly accurate, oration on the
Pearson development contract delivered during the recent
debate on amendments to Bill C-22, the Minister of Transport
stated that the contract on terminals 1 and 2 was not a good deal;
then he went on to misquote my position during question period
yesterday.
If the minister thinks the current contract, which would have
seen $750 million of private sector money that the government
does not have spent on development of terminals 1 and 2 was not
a good deal, would he please tell the House and all the Pearson
airport users operating in unacceptable facilities what
alternative plan he has that will quickly get them into acceptable
facilities?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
in time truth will out. Obviously what we have here, as we deal
with Bill C-22, are not Tories in sheeps'clothing, but in wolves'
clothing. The hon. member knows we quoted from his press
conference where he said there is nothing wrong with the
Pearson deal.
The Reform Party and the transportation critic for the Reform
Party are in the minority of about 35 people in the entire nation
who think the Pearson deal was a good deal.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
we do not know one way or the other because the Liberals are
covering the whole thing up.
The minister's national airport program will take until 1997 to
establish, at which time the process of funding and constructing
the now overdue rebuild of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson will
start.
Can the minister honestly tell the House and the users of
terminals 1 and 2 that it is okay to wait until the next century for
facilities needed now, or alternatively tell the House where the
high spending Liberal government is going to get another
three-quarter to one billion taxpayers' dollars to spend on an
airport it ultimately wants to privatize?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it is unbelievable that in the same question the hon. member
talks about the free spending or high spending Liberal
government and asks where we are going to find the money.
The transportation critic has just said that he does not know
whether it is a good deal or not. As a matter of fact he said, ``do
not know one way or the other''. That, Mr. Speaker, I believe.
One thing we will make sure of is that while the members of
the Reform Party do not know one way or another whether
paying $445 million to the consortium is a good deal or not, we
know it is not and we are going to make sure that the bill goes
through in the other place one way or another.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
Canada, through its peacekeepers, is currently participating
with distinction in numerous UN peacekeeping missions,
including in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Haiti.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. According
to various reliable sources, Burundi will be the next theatre of a
very serious ethnic conflict. What is Canada doing to prevent
new conflicts?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, my colleague has reason to be
concerned about the situation in Burundi as our eyes are riveted
on the crisis in Rwanda. The government is committed to trying
to take note of early warnings and prevent conflicts from
arising.
To that end, in July we appointed a special envoy to central
Africa. Since July, this envoy, Mr. Dusseault, has been twice in
Burundi, met with authorities there and encouraged them in
their negotiations and dialogue.
(1455 )
Earlier last month I was in Ethiopia and visited with Secretary
General Salim Salim of the Organization of African Unity and
said that Canada was willing to help them in their new
committee that is focusing on conflict resolution.
I am also planning a trip into Rwanda and Burundi this fall to
make sure that Canada is on top of this important issue.
6519
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
The chairman of the review committee overlooking CSIS, Mr.
Jacques Courtois, recently said that infiltration activities related
to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers dated back to 1984,
before CSIS was set up. However, according to CBC, the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service relied on informant
Grant Bristow to infiltrate that union in 1989.
Will the Solicitor General confirm that CSIS tried to infiltrate
CUPW in 1989?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
CSIS denies categorically attempting to infiltrate the postal
workers union.
However, I am informed that the Security Intelligence Review
Committee will be reviewing the most recent allegations made
on television last night on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Solicitor General rely on the Security Intelligence Review
Committee to shed light on this issue, when its own chairman is
being contradicted by CBC's findings?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
think the allegations of the hon. member relate to earlier
statements by the chairman. What we are talking about are
reports of stories on CBC television last night, which I am
informed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee will
be looked into by them.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, according to
the immigration minister, a quarter million immigrants into
Canada is no problem. But the Minister of National Revenue
knows that there are a group of people who have come into
Canada, the so-called astronaut families, who establish
residences of convenience here and then avoid paying taxes.
Because these people are giving a bad name to the honest,
upright, upstanding immigrants who make the majority of
immigrants, what is the minister going to do to resolve this
situation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly do not attempt to target any particular
group, be they from any particular part of the world or living in
any part of Vancouver.
I would suggest to the hon. member that we are, as he knows
from press reports, continuing to follow up any leads or
information we may have of any individual, whether from that
particular group or any other to make sure they pay their fair
share of taxes.
I have made it perfectly clear in the House on many occasions
that we intend to make sure that taxes are paid and we have a
level playing field in Canada.
With respect to the question of people who live in Canada and
work overseas, I believe a provincial court judge in Vancouver
on Monday of this week gave a decision which found a person
guilty and I believe charged him some $140,000 in fines and
evasion of taxes.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, that is the
wonderful world according to the Liberal front bench. The
reality is that with a quarter of a million people coming into
Canada this minister's resources are being flooded.
The Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe on September 29
said:
Interestingly, most of the calls I have had in recent days about this issue have
come from the Chinese Canadian community who express some knowledge of
the tax evasion and they say they are outraged.
I ask the minister again, can he tell us, considering that he has
obviously limited resources, what is the real agenda of the
Liberal government by flooding Canada with too many
immigrants?
(1500)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that
Canada has too many immigrants. We could equally take his
question as being that the Minister of National Revenue has too
few inspectors and auditors.
We carry out as best as we can efforts to make sure that all
Canadians, regardless of where they come from, obey the law
with respect to paying their taxes. It is vital to do this to make
sure that people generally throughout Canada recognize that it is
a fair system and that there are not free loaders getting away
with taking services and not paying their share. We do this
regardless of whether people happen to be immigrants, recent
immigrants, or whether they happen to be Canadians of
longstanding.
6520
6520
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
other acts (miscellaneous matters), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to be able to debate the second reading motion of Bill C-42. Bill
C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts
(miscellaneous matters), is not to be confused with Bill C-40,
the 1994 miscellaneous statute law amendment bill passed by
the House on June 20. It was concerned with a variety of minor
technical amendments to correct anomalies, inconsistencies and
errors in federal statutes and to repeal provisions that have
expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
That bill also made amendments of a minor,
non-controversial and uncomplicated nature to a number of
statutes. The bill we are concerned with today, which if passed
this year will be known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1994, focuses mainly on the Criminal Code but also contains
some amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the
Contraventions Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance and Criminal
Matters Act and the Supreme Court Act.
While some of the proposed amendments might be considered
technical, many are more significant and will result in
improvements to our criminal justice system. A bill such as this
one is long overdue.
Historically this bill and ones like it were introduced on a
regular basis. However the last such bill was introduced in 1985.
The Minister of Justice intends to return to the previous pattern.
He anticipates bringing forward a second bill of this nature once
Parliament has dealt with this one.
The primary source for most of these amendments is the
criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.
The section is composed of delegates from each province,
territory and the federal government and includes crown and
defence lawyers. At annual meetings of the Uniform Law
Conference, the section considers resolutions calling for
amendments to the Criminal Code and other relevant statutes.
The other amendments in the bill originated from suggestions
of the former Law Reform Commission of Canada, various
judges, members of the bar, and federal and provincial
departments and officials. These amendments, taken as a whole,
represent significant changes to the criminal law aimed at
increasing the efficiency of the justice system to the benefit of
every Canadian.
(1505)
When the Minister of Justice recently wrote provincial and
territorial colleagues about the bill, he noted that each proposal
fell within one or more of the categories said to be generally
encompassed by the Uniform Law Conference resolutions.
In short, these seven categories cover proposals directed at,
first, enhancing public confidence in our criminal justice
system; second, making the Criminal Code provisions more
efficient and more effective; third, implementing or achieving
compliance with court decisions; fourth, filling perceived gaps
in the Criminal Code; fifth, taking advantage of the advances in
computer, communications and video technology; sixth,
improving court procedures; and, seventh, ensuring greater
fairness to the participants in the procedural process.
These categories illustrate laudable criminal law policy
objectives and encompass the major themes of the bill. To date,
the response we have received from the provinces to these
proposals has been very positive.
I emphasize that the overall effect of these proposals will
result in a more cost effective system of criminal justice while at
the same time maintain or even improve the fundamental
fairness of our justice.
The amendments to the Criminal Code are mostly procedural.
Their cumulative effect will be to modernize procedure to make
the Criminal Code more effective and more efficient. Procedural
proposals range from permitting the Attorney General of
Canada to take over private prosecutions for offences under
federal legislation other than those under the Criminal Code, to
proposals permitting the greater use of telephone, video
technology and fax for certain procedural matters.
Under these amendments, authority would be given to permit
judges to finish trials in progress on appointment to another
court. When a judge has to be replaced during the trial for other
reasons it would be possible for a new judge to carry on without
having to start over again in appropriate cases of course.
These particular proposals should help in maintaining public
confidence in our criminal justice system. They will also ensure
greater fairness to participants, particularly the victims and the
witnesses.
Other changes are aimed at making it easier for trial and
appeal courts to establish rules of court. It will be easier to
adjourn certain procedures when a judge is not available and it
will be possible to arrange for a trial date upon committal after a
preliminary hearing.
Changes to the Supreme Court Act would make it easier for
the court to manage its workload and to remand cases to lower
courts for further proceedings when that would be just in the
circumstances.
6521
Some proposals are directed at making improvements in the
way in which some evidence issues are handled. For instance,
several amendments would permit evidentiary proof by way of a
certificate, thereby avoiding the need to require individuals to
appear in person to testify. Other changes are directed at the
manner in which evidence is to be obtained abroad and at
ensuring that any such evidence is more readily admissible in
Canadian proceedings.
Some amendments are aimed at increasing the use of
technology, for instance permitting the use of a fax machine in
limited circumstances. Another section would allow a person to
appear by closed circuit television in some portions of a
preliminary hearing.
A number of the proposals relate to arrest, pretrial release and
other matters involving police practices and procedures. For
instance, a significant improvement in the use of policing and
court resources will be achieved by permitting police to release
an arrested person on certain conditions restricting their liberty
rather than as is now the case, having only the choice of
releasing unconditionally or detaining an accused in custody
until a hearing before the justice of the peace could be arranged.
Greater fairness to accused persons will be achieved through
reducing unnecessary pretrial custody. Police will be able to
spend more time on the beat preventing crime or detecting
offenders rather than waiting in the corridors of courtrooms.
Perhaps the most significant changes which will contribute to
a more effective and efficient criminal justice system are
directed at trial procedures applicable to certain offences. The
choice of trial procedure, summary conviction or indictable,
would be given to the crown for the present indictable offences
of assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm
and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm.
The summary conviction maximum term of imprisonment for
these offences as well as for the basic sexual assault offences
would be 18 months instead of the normal six months for
Criminal Code summary conviction offences.
(1510)
This will relieve court congestion in the superior courts,
reduce the strain on witnesses, particularly victims, and help
contain the time needed to deal with many court cases to time
periods required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. The changes will also send a strong signal to judges
that significant punishment might be in order even for the minor
instances of violent offences.
Similar benefits will be achieved by raising the monetary
limit for theft and other property offences to $5,000 from
$1,000. This is being done so that many more common offences
related to property will be kept in the provincial court system,
eliminating the need for preliminary hearings and jury trials for
cases which rarely attract imprisonment.
There are proposals aimed at removing obsolete provisions or
filling gaps created by changing circumstances. Gaps which
presently exist with respect to publicity for certain pretrial
proceedings would be closed.
It is important that the rights of accused persons to a fair trial
before an impartial jury not be compromised by premature
publicity of information which may or may not be relevant in
admissible evidence.
The rights of witnesses and victims also require protection
from the needless public disclosure of personal information. A
prohibition would be created to ensure that sensitive material
disclosed to the accused for the purposes of making a full answer
in defence is not made public except for that purpose. This will
serve to maintain the balance of interest between the right of the
accused to a full answer in defence and the confidence that the
public needs to encourage co-operation in criminal
investigations and prosecutions.
The bill also seeks to enhance preventive measures already
found in our law by proposing several changes aimed at making
the peace bond process more effective. These changes will also
ensure greater fairness to those participants in the criminal
justice process who are in fear of threatened violence.
A peace bond is an undertaking given by a person on the order
of a justice to be of good behaviour for a period of up to 12
months. It is a way of preventing a crime or, more important, the
acts of violence constituting the crime from happening.
Their effectiveness will be improved by making violation of
peace bonds punishable on indictment as well as on summary
conviction, and by obliging justices to consider imposing
specified conditions such as staying away from or prohibiting
contact with the complainant. Police and others will also be able
to apply for peace bonds on behalf of persons who are at risk of
harm.
According to Statistics Canada's national survey on violence
against women in 1993 three in ten women currently or
previously married in Canada have experienced at least one
incident of physical and sexual violence at the hands of a marital
partner. Almost one-half or 45 per cent of wife assault cases
resulted in physical injury to the woman. The survey also
showed that one-third of women who were assaulted by a
partner feared for their lives at some point during the abusive
relationship.
It is also important to indicate that children witnessed
violence against their mothers in almost 40 per cent of the
marriages with violence. According to the same survey, the
police were only informed of about 26 per cent of wife assault
cases.
6522
These figures show there is a large number of women who are
victims of various forms of assault. These provisions are
important tools in trying to cope with domestic violence and will
help implement one of the red book commitments to work
effectively in keeping abusers away from women and children.
We have to start thinking of using our criminal justice system
to prevent crime from happening rather than, as is more often
the case now, picking up the pieces which are all too often the
shattered remnants of human tragedy.
It is clear that the bill covers a wide range of matters and I
have only touched on a small number of the matters dealt with in
the over 100 clauses the bill contains. Many of the provisions
are quite technical and may not attract attention in the course of
debate, but together with those already outlined they are all
aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice in
Canada and at enhancing the confidence the public must have in
our criminal law.
Efficiency of operation combined with effectiveness of
operation must be enhanced in our administration of justice. It is
our job as legislators to seek ways to improve our administration
so that even better service is given to the Canadian public.
(1515 )
I am confident all the members of this House will be satisfied
with the common sense benefits this bill provides. This bill is
long overdue. It contains provisions which should be put in
place as soon as possible. I very much hope it can be treated in a
non-partisan manner and that it will be considered by the
committee carefully but quickly.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-42. This bill contains
over 100 amendments to the Criminal Code.
Certainly we know that crime is a national issue in the press
these days. During the election constituents told me they wanted
to see the Canadian government toughen up our criminal justice
system and make it work for them rather than just seemingly for
the criminal.
Canadians refer to the justice system as their criminal justice
system because they own it. However many times in this House I
have heard members of Parliament speak as if they were the only
ones who had the expertise and they were the ones who were
going to make the changes to it without wide consultation,
without having broad political support or without really being
accountable to the community.
I do ask: Does the application of the Criminal Code in present
day represent mainstream Canadian values?
The spirit of this bill must be tied into Bill C-41 which is still
at second reading stage. Canadians say they want to feel safe on
their streets. Last week for example over 3,000 people turned
out in Coquitlam, British Columbia to voice their concerns and
frustrations over the Young Offenders Act.
Canadians are serious about protection. They are serious
about appropriately denouncing crime. Newspapers are filled
with reports of criminal activity. The public wants to know what
can be done to curb what they see as an unacceptable level of
crime.
We cannot wait around for crime to get out of control before
we make changes. We must do what the public wants now. The
Reform Party wants changes. We must remember that change
begins with the recognition that a problem exists.
When I went through the bill I came across several interesting
things I could not pass without making some comment. Bill
C-42 is an acceptable bill but is far from being a perfect or great
one. Some amendments will indeed strengthen the Criminal
Code. However, Bill C-42 does frustrate me in parts.
For example, clause 28(3) of the bill states ``everyone who
commits a theft in relation to property, the value of which
exceeds $5,000''. This amendment would replace the word
``one'' with the word ``five''. If we were to look back to previous
Parliaments with respect to this Criminal Code section we
would find some very interesting things.
In 1954 the dollar indicated for theft over and theft under was
$50. If someone were to be convicted of theft over $50 the
punishment was an indictable offence. Consequently for the
theft under $50 the punishment was a summary conviction. The
next time this section was changed was in 1975 when any theft
over $200 was an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
for up to 10 years.
The law as we know it today was amended in 1985 to $1,000.
The punishment is an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for up to 10 years for any theft over $1,000. For
anything under $1,000 the punishment is a summary conviction.
The increase since 1954 certainly is amazing. From $50 to
$200 is an increase of 400 per cent; $200 then to $1,000 is a 500
per cent increase; and $1,000 to $5,000 is again a 500 per cent
increase. However in the 40 years that have passed it has totalled
an increase of 10,000 per cent.
This is a softening of the law. If we were to use history as a
benchmark I suppose the next amendment would make it
$25,000. Incredulous. Someone could then steal all the furniture
in my house and only get away with a summary conviction. This
is not acceptable.
Property crimes in Canada have historically accounted for
most Criminal Code offences. In fact in 1990 thefts over and
under $1,000 comprised over two-thirds of all property crimes
reported to the police. A StatsCanada report in 1990 indicates
that all property offence categories recorded increased in 1990
over the previous year, including a 13 per cent rise in thefts of
motor vehicles, a 9 per cent rise in break and enters, 8 per cent
in possession of stolen goods, 8 per cent in theft over and under
6523
$1,000 and 7 per cent in frauds. Interestingly enough this was
the seventh consecutive year that an increase was recorded for
theft of motor vehicles. In 1992 there were 823,748 theft under
incidents reported in Canada. That made up almost one-half of
all property crime for that year.
(1520)
If the government now raises the dollar limit for theft under
the numbers will increase and theft over will decrease, one
would expect. What we will hear from the Liberals then is that
serious thefts of crime are on the decrease, but are they really? I
would not think so. If the same logic of thinking is to be
followed, why not raise the limit to $100,000 if you really want
to lower one area of the published crime rate? Instead of trying
to create a deterrent for the crime the government is making this
into a game of shuffling statistics.
The area of concern is the theft over category. From 1986, one
year following the dollar cut off being raised to $1,000 until
1992, theft over had increased by 9 per cent. I am sure the
government of the time felt that by raising the rate from $200 to
$1,000 would help curb published property crime rates. Today
with Bill C-42 the government hopes that by raising the limit
from $1,000 to $5,000 this increase will help curb property
crime rates in 1995 and beyond. The government should take a
careful look back at history to see how things failed before
charging ahead with only a hope that it is going to work.
The government should keep the dollar amount at $1,000 and
continue with the same consequences therein. Strangely enough
if a person were to go out today and steal a 28-inch television
and a hi-fi VCR from an electronics store, they would be
charged with an indictable offence and subject to a maximum of
10 years in prison. Consequently, if that person were to steal the
same merchandise following the passage of this bill, their
sentence might only be a summary conviction with a possible
maximum of 18 months in prison. I would call that a reduction in
the sentence and a softening of the law.
The government is telling criminals everywhere and the
message is clear: ``Here is your grand opportunity. Go and steal
some big ticket items and we will barely slap you on the wrist''.
Getting softer with criminals is not going to reduce the crime
rate. It sends the wrong message out to the community.
Capacity creates its own demand. In other words a legal
vacuum is all too soon filled with the negative potential of
human nature. The government wants the public to think it is
getting tough with crime. However, when you look closely at
this legislation you can see where the Liberal agenda is off the
rails.
Bill C-42 proposes dual procedure offences that would allow
the crown prosecutor to have the option to deal with a case
either as an indictable offence or as a summary conviction. For
example, assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing
bodily harm, and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm
are all currently indictable offences, but if the crown so wishes it
may change them to summary convictions under this bill.
I want to point out something I caught in the news release by
the Minister of Justice when this bill was first tabled in the
House. He was referring to the reasoning behind the dual
procedure clause and the option. He stated that typically, a
summary conviction procedure is quicker, more straight
forward and involves less stress and inconvenience to victims
and witnesses. If someone is assaulted and bodily harm is
involved, am I to understand the minister believes the victim
would rather see the offender get a light summary conviction
and be out of jail in no time or perhaps no jail sentence at all
rather than see real justice take place and make sure that the
offender stays behind bars for a good long time?
Currently a summary conviction in the Criminal Code has a
maximum penalty of six months in prison. Bill C-42 raises that
maximum sentence to 18 months and for this I applaud the
government. This harsher sentence will surely help to stop some
of the crime that is plaguing our cities and towns. It provides the
court with greater latitude for severity. Therefore the bill does
have some valid amendments. As Her Majesty's loyal
constructive opposition and alternative it is our duty to analyze
the entire bill and to point out areas of concern as well as areas of
support.
On a different note, we see technology changing before our
eyes each and every day. I used to think the fax machine was an
amazing tool until personal computers came along. Now I
cannot believe how compact they have become. Sending a letter
through the mail system was certainly the fastest and most
efficient way to get a document from one place to another until
E-mail and the information superhighway entered the
workplace. We have to adapt to keep up with technology in order
to remain effective.
(1525)
Bill C-42 proposes that fax machines and closed circuit
televisions be allowed at certain portions in hearings. This will
surely help to lessen the cost of flying in witnesses from all parts
of the country in order that they can attend a hearing. With
closed circuit television, a witness can attend a hearing, be part
of it even if they are a thousand miles away. This will cut costs
and for that the government has done something correct. Now if
it would only cut costs across the board, we would all be in better
shape, would we not?
6524
As a justice professional I have spent a great amount of time
in the courtroom. A person giving evidence usually has had a
choice of going to the witness stand either on oath or
affirmation. However in seeing it firsthand so many times it was
apparent that many were confused as to how to give evidence on
this affirmation option. With this bill the affirmation is now
clarified in the Criminal Code.
In another section there is a clause in this bill that would allow
the police to obtain a warrant for a blood sample up to four hours
following an accident. The current time period is two hours and
this by no means is long enough. In speaking with police officers
it is apparent they are inundated with logistics following an
accident. If the person involved in an accident is unconscious
but suspected of a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, the
officer with the increase in time to four hours will have
sufficient time to obtain a warrant in order to have a blood
sample taken.
Drunk driving is a serious problem in Canada. Groups such as
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, better known as MADD, will
certainly be happy with this provision amending the code. I see
this as a good amendment to the Criminal Code one which
reflects the current community mood.
There is one amendment that I would have especially liked to
have seen in Bill C-42 but I did not find it. That is the
development of a national registry of DNA samples taken from
persons convicted of a serious crime. That serious crime could
be first degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, child abuse,
sexual offences, and so on, indictable offences.
The idea of banking information is not new. Under the
Identification of Criminals Act and the Canada Evidence Act
police have been banking fingerprint information and have used
it extensively to track down possible suspects. Fingerprints are
fundamental to the operation of the justice system and similarly
then so should be DNA typing.
DNA typing has been used in the United States and is gaining
notoriety in such cases as the one involving O.J. Simpson. With
the exception of red blood cells, all cellular material in the
human body can be typed for example, white blood cells, root
hair, saliva, semen, skin and even bone. Since DNA is
essentially the same from cell to cell, any part of the body can be
compared to another part of the same body. With only minute
samplings needed a police investigator is able to identify a
victim much easier and therefore have a much more certain tool
pointing to a suspect. Such hard evidence can defend as well as
convict.
We want to create laws that will also save money as the justice
system is overburdened and this could be one of them. Police
investigations are extremely costly to the public purse and are
very time consuming. With over 100 amendments in this bill the
government passed over something that would have really aided
the law enforcement officials to do a better job and to help
protect the public.
In the United States, 21 states have enacted legislation to
permit DNA banking in various degrees. In addition, seven other
states have introduced bills dealing with this very issue. The
American National Academy of Science stated that if DNA
profiles of samples from a population were stored in computer
databases, DNA typing could be applied in crimes without
suspects. Investigators could compare DNA profiles of
biological evidence samples with a database to search for
suspects.
A British royal commission pointed out that a data bank
would also enable unsolved earlier offences where DNA
evidence had been found but not linked with the offender to be
cleared up if DNA samples taken from a suspect in connection
with a later offence matched the evidence found at the scene of
an earlier crime.
If this government is serious about solving crime and bringing
forth justice it will not sit idle and wait for the world to leave
Canada behind in the dark ages of technology. We can demand a
blood sample for impaired driving but we cannot do that for rape
and murder. This does not make sense.
Another tough penalty I am encouraged to see in this bill is the
increase in punishment for those who fail to remain at the scene
of an accident. Currently the maximum is two years and this is
quite unacceptable. An amendment in Bill C-42 will make it a
possible five years.
(1530 )
In conclusion, this bill missed the mark in several areas. The
over and under dollar value is way too high and is out of sync
with what Canadians expect of the justice system. This is clearly
a scheme by which the government wished to perhaps lower the
crime rate in its published statistics. For example, dual
procedures will only cause more criminals to walk the streets
sooner and lawyers to get more of their clients through the
courts. This is a clear softening of the law.
The biggest miss of this entire bill is its failure to include the
national registry of DNA samples. The Minister of Justice has
previously stated many of these changes, referring to
amendments in Bill C-42, will lead to significant costs and time
savings for the administration of justice and will assist the law
enforcement officials to do their jobs effectively.
That is what he is claiming. My only remark to this would be
does the minister really understand what law enforcement
officials could use to save time and money? If he did then he
certainly would have included DNA as a registry in Bill C-42 or
Bill C-41.
We will support this bill at this stage. As a Reform member of
Parliament I am committed to being the constructive alternative
to the government. This bill has some amendments that will
strengthen the Criminal Code. Again, the government has to
6525
understand that victims of crime want to feel protected by the
code because right now it seems that the only person who is
protected is the offender.
For example, this week we have heard more cases going the
wrong way in the community's eyes because of technical
problems with the law. I encourage the government to bring
forward more amendments, to give some of the many private
members' bills a chance and give them an appropriate assent if it
is unable to bring forward bills of its own.
During committee of the whole I will be moving an
amendment to hold the line of the current standard in the
Criminal Code. I hope our constructive help will be recognized
by this government.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to make a speech. I want to clarify a few
of the points that were brought up in the speech by the hon.
member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
First, with respect to the hybrid offences where it can be
summary or indictable, in some cases the reason we want to have
hybrid offences and proceed in a summary conviction is that the
courts will not convict certain offenders on indictable offences.
It is quite true that in many cases charges are not even brought
where there are indictable offences, whereas if there were
summary offences we would at least get the cases to court to get
a conviction.
It remains with the judge as to the penalty. The fact of the
matter is it may be a reduced penalty but in many cases a reduced
penalty is better than no penalty at all. We want to have that
flexibility.
With respect to the increase in the maximum on property
offences from $1,000 to $5,000 that could be heard in provincial
courts, it is the opinion of the Minister of Justice and myself that
we want to have more of these cases heard in provincial court.
They can be done more quickly. We have the expertise and the
provincial court judges to hear them.
Because we are increasing from $1,000 to $5,000 does not
mean there is going to be five times more work for the provincial
court judges. There is going to be an increase, but there is going
to be a corresponding decrease in the higher courts in the
country. We feel it is going to be more efficient. We are going to
have the same high level of justice. It is going to be less costly.
The other point concerns the national registry on the DNA.
The hon. member makes a very good point. However, the reason
it was not included is that there is a discussion paper now
circulating on DNA. The Minister of Justice promised to give
until November 20 for submissions on this discussion paper.
He is undertaking that new legislation will be brought
forward, if not by the end of the year then early in the new year.
This whole question of a registry is being reviewed along with
other questions on DNA.
(1535 )
At this point I would like to move that we now move into
committee of the whole. I think we will have unanimous
agreement among all parties to proceed that way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilger in the chair.)
On clause 2:
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think you
would find consent to call clauses 2 to 19 as a block. I think they
could all be carried at once. If you could call clause 20 we might
deal with that.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Is there consent to include
clauses 2 to 19 and ask that they be carried?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to.)
On clause 20:
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Chairman, I am going to be making a motion. I will move the
motion first and then speak to it. I move:
That clause 20 be amended by striking out the word ``five'' and substituting
the word ``one'' and in paragraph (2) by striking out the word ``five'' and
substituting the word ``one''.
(1540 )
He said: Mr. Chairman, the division between what is
commonly known as theft under and theft over has been a
demarcation in the courts which really sends a message to the
community. It was not that long ago when theft under and theft
over was $50. We then moved it to $200. Now in the percentage
increase we are operating with the division of $1,000. I can just
imagine the message that is going to send to my community
when theft under procedures are going to be dealt with by theft
under $5,000.
I can understand from the criminal justice administrative
point of view the desirability of perhaps doing this to alleviate
the procedures of proceeding by indictment, but it is not just the
experts who own the criminal justice system. There is the
educative role of the symbol of the message that the law sends to
the community as to what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable. This amendment seems to be out of sync with the
community mood and what is appropriate at this time.
6526
I do not hear anything in the community that is suggesting that
we have a real problem in the courts at this point that we must
make this significant move from theft under $1,000 to theft
under $5,000.
I question the basis as to what problem it is trying to solve.
However, I also point out the serious message that it sends in a
softening of the law to the community. I hope to hear from other
members on this point.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Chairman, I understand what the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby is saying. There is a concern among the
public about crime, all types of crime at the present time. The
public wants justice. It wants the justice system to react and deal
with crime.
I do not want to say that property crime is not significant
because it is extremely significant. Right now, however, the
main concern is violent crime with a great many people in our
cities. They want to make sure that our system can deal swiftly
with violent crime.
If we move theft under $5,000 to the provincial courts as
opposed to theft under $1,000, as is the situation now, that is not
going to diminish justice in any way. All it is going to do is take
some cases which are now tried by the superior courts and have
them heard in the provincial courts.
The provincial court judges right now are of an excellent
calibre. The cases can be brought forward more quickly. Justice
is dealt with more expediently. As a result, there is less cost to
the system and the decisions and results are equally good.
I honestly feel that we are not diminishing the calibre or
quality of justice by this provision.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make sure I understand the
government's amendment which increases the amount from
$1,000 to $5,000 and, consequently, the Reform Party's
amendment. Does the amendment mean that all theft under
$5,000 can be dealt with summary conviction?
(1545 )
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, theft under $5,000 can be
dealt with by indictment but under the jurisdiction of the
provincial court judge.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: But that is after the amendment. Today,
theft of $4,500 is not dealt with by summary conviction.
What is the impact of this amendment, in the context of this
bill? We may not have the same understanding of the
amendment, since one member says yes and the other member
says no. We are on clause 20.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the purpose is to move more
of the cases of theft into the provincial court system and away
from the superior court system. That is not to say that because
we are going from $1,000 to $5,000 we are going to increase the
theft cases in the provincial court system five times. Nor are we
going to say that we are reducing the penalties because it is
going to a provincial court. This discretion remains with the
pertinent judge sitting at that particular time.
What we are saying is that these cases can be tried very
competently under the provincial court system and that it is
really more efficient to do so without any reduction in the
quality of the justice dispensed.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr.
Chairman, if we move cases from the superior court to the
provincial court, would we not just be increasing the workload
of the provincial court and what would happen to the cases
already in provincial court? Would we decide then that we are
not going to prosecute even more cases? Does it not just move
the bell curve that far over that we are not going to bother
prosecuting these cases?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, these changes have been
dialogued with the provinces for their approval and their
consideration.
The fact is that in the provincial court system, the preliminary
documentation, the waiting periods are not as long as they are in
the superior court system. This will free up some time in the
superior court system. It will in some cases add to the provincial
court system, but in the opinion of the Department of Justice and
the provincial authorities of the attorneys general departments
and ministers of justice provincially it is not going to be a
problem and add that much that the provincial court systems
will be overloaded.
It will allow more time for the superior courts to hear cases of
theft involving larger amounts and violent crimes.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Chairman, there is no
doubt that this is going to reduce the offence. It is going to
reduce the offence for what now amounts to theft over $1,000.
The summary conviction provides for a maximum sentence of
18 months. If we move up to $5,000, offences that today are
punishable by indictment with as I understand it a maximum 10
years imprisonment are now going to be subject to an 18 month
prison term if they get the maximum under the provincial court
system.
There is no question that this is softening the law. I would
object to a softening of the law. We are now moving into an area
where we are going to be subjecting people convicted of theft to
a lesser penalty potentially. It is simply there. It is in the writing.
What alarms me is what I heard my hon. colleague say before we
entered committee of the whole, that one of the reasons we are
6527
moving to this situation is because the courts were not
convicting because it was an indictable offence.
(1550)
Now, if that is wrong-
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: I wonder if the hon.
member for Crowfoot would finish his remarks and then I will
see that the parliamentary secretary responds.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice to comment on that. If my
understanding is incorrect, and I hope it is, the reason the courts
are not convicting is because they do not want to convict a
person charged with theft for an indictable offence.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to another
point that the hon. member for New Westminister-Burnaby
made in his speech. He talked about the hybrid offences, the dual
offences of summary or indictable, that the charges could be
either summary or indictable which did not relate to this
particular provision at all. This was a general comment as I
understood it that in some cases in certain areas where there is
not a conviction, the judge will not convict somebody on an
indictable offence for an offence they feel is not serious enough
to warrant a conviction as an indictable offence whereas if we
give the choice of summary or indictable and proceed
summarily, the judge will be more predisposed to giving a
conviction on that.
The other point the hon. member for Crowfoot made related to
the change from the superior courts to provincial courts in
certain cases of theft. Granted the situation now is 10 years
maximum, but they are not awarding 10 years for theft under
$5,000. Now under the Criminal Code they would get a
maximum of two years and two years is penitentiary time. I
cannot imagine any judge giving two years for theft under
$5,000 because it means that person goes to penitentiary. I just
do not think any judge is going to do that.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that
what the member has said is that judges are not going to
determine guilt based upon the evidence? They are going to
determine guilt based upon whether it is a summary conviction
or proceeding by way of indictment. I need to have that clarified.
If I heard him right that is exactly what he said.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, when I am speaking of
summary and indictable, I am talking generally. There are
sections in the Criminal Code where the charge is proceeded
with summarily or as an indictable offence. In some cases the
spectrum of the case can range but not to what one would
consider a serious crime. If there is just a way of proceeding as
an indictable offence the judge is going to say: ``If I proceed as
an indictable offence, the penalty I have to give is going to be far
too serious for the crime''. Therefore in certain sections of the
Criminal Code there is the choice of proceeding summarily or
on an indictable offence.
It is not left to the judge. It is how the case is laid, either as a
summary conviction or as an indictable charge. The judge does
not have the discretion. That is decided before it goes to court. It
is just a means of asking how best to get a conviction. It is left
with the crown prosecutor's office to determine the best way to
proceed. Do we try for the higher sentence and end up with
nothing or should we go summarily and at least be sure we are
going to get a conviction?
(1555 )
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, certainly the conviction ought to
be based upon the evidence. In every courtroom that I have ever
appeared in the guilt was determined by the evidence, not by
way of proceedings, whether it was summary conviction or
indictable. This is the point I am making. I do not want to hang
the proceedings up on this point, but the hon. member is saying
this clearly. He said three times that it is going to matter to the
judge in terms of determining guilt whether it is by way in which
the court is proceeding, by summary or by indictment.
What I am pointing out is that the courts in this land have
always determined guilt based upon the evidence, not based
upon procedure.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, we always determine guilt
upon the facts of the case. They have always determined
sentence based on the facts of the case too. If the facts of the case
are such that a stiff sentence is not merited, they are going to
have a problem. If there is a choice, you can go summarily and
the judge can see a fitting sentence in the summary conviction
that meets the process of the justice system and the interests of
society because one gets a conviction and a sentence that is
going to be fair.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Chairman, this is getting very complicated. I simply want to
know whether raising the amount from $1,000 to $5,000 would
entail any changes in the procedure before the courts. Is it a case
of evidence or evaluating whether we have a theft of $1,000 or
$5,000?
My second point is, when you talk about provincial court and
superior court, one of the consequences-and that is what my
question was about earlier-one of the consequences is that a
person accused of theft under $5,000 could not ask to be tried by
judge and jury or by a judge alone in Superior Court. He will
immediately be processed by provincial court; in Quebec, that is
the Court of Quebec. Is that correct? Yes, thank you.
6528
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Chairman, currently under the summary convictions provisions,
the maximum is six months in jail. You have told the
government that you are going to proceed to make it 18.
In the provincial courts they always can proceed on the
indictment and handle the more serious charges but I see that the
principle here is to take away the options of the accused to elect
to go to a superior court.
In these situations as practice has it, these theft offences are
usually cumulative. Generally the information is multi charges
against an offender. To limit this dollar amount related to
summarial procedure is going to really hamstring a judge in
being able to give the latitude of sentence required.
We feel that there is really no current problem in the justice
system that is reflected in this change, that it sends the wrong
message to the community and that we are looking for
substantive justification of why this clause is here.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, in cases of a series of small
offences, the sentences can be imposed consecutively so that
there could be higher penalties for more than one offence, so that
is still there.
The hon. member is right that the choice is not there but we
have no intention of changing the penalties. We are going to as
agreed keep the situation the way it is. There is still the
possibility of higher sentences in a series of small offences if the
judge chooses to sentence the person for each offence
consecutively.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would also like the
parliamentary secretary to address the issue of the symbolism of
the law as to its educative role in the community for general
deterrence to operate.
The potential sentence that can arise or if it be a consequence
of an offence is directly related to how serious the community
should look at that offence.
(1600 )
For example, for breaking and entering a dwelling house, the
maximum is life in jail. We know that life in jail is not very often
given for breaking and entering a dwelling house. However it is
a symbol of how serious that charge is to be taken.
Regular theft, which is so pervasive in the justice system, is
one of the most common offences before the courts. We think
that to change the boundary sends the wrong message and
undermines the operation of general deterrence.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to address that larger
issue rather than the technical issues of looking at the offender
and whether they will be able to elect or not to go to the higher
court, but to first of all justify what is the problem that he is
trying to solve with this provision and how is that going to
undermine the operation of general deterrence.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we feel just the
opposite. This is going to aid the general deterrence because it is
going to need a more speedy process of justice and we are going
to be able to bring the accused before the courts more quickly.
Also, at the present time a lot of cases where there is more
than $1,000 stolen are still brought before the provincial court
judges, because it may be a question of proof. How do you know
he or she stole goods in the amount of, say, $3,500? We know he
or she stole something so we will proceed with the theft under
$1,000, or the theft of this particular item, when in fact more
was taken. However no one really wants to bother adding to that
because they feel that getting it through the provincial court
system will be faster, that there will be competency and that
justice will be served.
Also, right now with theft, it is the violation of theft. Break
and enter is a violation of an individual, not only materially but
also a violation psychologically. Anyone who has had their
home robbed or any of their possessions stolen feels they have
been violated. It does not matter what was taken because that
violation is there. The fact is that the feeling of the public
against theft is very strong and they want these people brought
to justice and punished. In the opinion of the Department of
Justice this process can be achieved through these changes, and
in fact will be enhanced through these changes.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the amendment
moved by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby
carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived.)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, we would like to
know whether we are voting on the amendment to the
amendment or on the amendment, because we have an
amendment moved by members of the Liberal Party and an
amendment to the amendment moved by the Reform Party, if I
am not mistaken. I would like to know which one we are voting
on now.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: There was one
amendment, the one moved by the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby. Clause 20 is part of the bill. So the
question was simply on the amendment standing in the name of
the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, which was
negatived on division.
6529
[English]
Shall clause 20 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: In Bill C-42 there are a
grand total of 106 clauses. I wonder if I might be able to lump
clauses 21 to 106 inclusive, or are there other clauses that
members may want to address specifically?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
On clauses 21 to 106 inclusive:
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: The question is therefore
on clauses 21 to 106 inclusive.
(1605 )
Shall clauses 21 to 106 inclusive carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clauses 21 to 106 inclusive agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Schedule agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for allowing me to finish my speech on Bill C-52.
As I was saying before question period, it has cost the
government $5 billion to contract out in 1992-93. This money
that the government of Canada spent on contracting-out could
have been used to improve the services provided to the Canadian
public instead of maintaining a patronage relationship with the
friends of the regime.
Let me tell you that between 1984-85 and 1992-93, costs
have gone up with contracting-out. Costs have increased by 56
per cent at Public Works Canada during the same nine-year
period. They increased by 114.2 per cent at DND and by 207 per
cent at Health and Welfare Canada. Costs also increased at
Supply and Services Canada-by 247 per cent. And, to really
cap it, they increased by 628 per cent at Customs and Excise.
(1610)
In ten years, while under pressure by the Auditor General and
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts
to do so, the federal government never managed to demonstrate
that contracting-out was cost-effective. The Department of
Public Works and Government Services is a major department.
It handles a great deal of money. Let me give you a few
examples.
Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible
for the inflow and outflow of all public funds and keeps an
average daily cash balance of $2.3 million. It is also responsible
for the accounting system and makes financial transactions
totalling $163 million. It makes payments to the tune of $200
million annually for the Canada Pension Plan, the old age
security system, taxes on goods and services, Public Service
employees' pay, and so on.
It is also responsible for federal purchases. Last year, $13
billion-worth of goods and services falling into 17,000 different
classes were purchased. It negotiates 175,000 contracts every
year. It is the custodian of federal real property. It owns property
valued at $6.5 billion. It provides office space to approximately
170,000 employees, in 4,000 different locations. It spends $2
billion a year.
How can we ensure that the government will not use
contracting-out or privatization contracts to reward its friends?
In other words, how can we avoid any kind of patronage in the
awarding of privatization or other contracts by the federal
government?
Bill C-52 should have more teeth. This is the Bloc
Quebecois's proposal: We ask that a public review board be
created under the bill to scrutinize contracts awarded by the
Department of Public Works and Government Services and to
ensure openness.
Second, we ask that a contracting-out code be clearly defined
in this bill.
Third, we demand that members of Parliament of all political
stripes be consulted about and kept informed of the government
contract awarding process involving the ridings they represent.
Fourth and last proposal: We ask that the Department of
Public Works and Government Services produce regular
statements-monthly reports-to open up the federal
government contracting process. The problem with this bill is
that members of Parliament cannot find out which government
contracts directly affect their ridings. There is no way to make
federal officials accountable for contract-generated or in-house
expenditures-to make them denounce any waste of public
funds.
6530
This bill should also provide for elimination of advance
payments such as those we discovered recently at
Communications Canada.
(1615)
This bill must also protect the government because it left the
door wide open to lobbyists. It does not allow a sufficient degree
of openness. Not too long ago in this House, the hon. member for
Richelieu moved a motion to prevent companies, stakeholders
and lobbyists from contributing to the government's election
fund. Unfortunately, this motion was rejected by the Liberal
government and by many Reform members.
I think that lobbyists who occasionally attend $1,000-a-head
dinners given by the Prime Minister have a right to expect the
government to pay them back.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois proposes setting up
a three-party public review board whose elected members
would come from all political parties represented in and
officially recognized by the House of Commons, from public
administration experts and from Auditor General officials. The
government should use this bill to give itself additional audit
authority.
These are certainly the most important openness criteria the
government should set for itself.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague talked about sub-contracting and
reported on some abuses that he saw in the last government. That
is exactly one of the reasons why Canadians throughout the
country decided to throw the former government out.
It is also because of the concerns we have that we-my
colleague and I and other hon. members-are reviewing the
issue of contracting out, to ensure that it is fair, equitable and
open.
I have a very important question to ask the hon. member. He
talks about openness, fairness, balance, etc. I wonder if he
knows that the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services invited all members of this House to subscribe to the
open bidding service and to the publication on government
procurement? The reason I ask this question is that he could find
the answers to many if not all the questions he raised if he
subscribed to those services which are provided by the minister.
Now, if I am right, and I just checked, so I think that I am
probably right, no member of the Bloc has subscribed to this
service. I did not check for yesterday and today, but as of last
Friday. When my colleague talks about honesty, openness and
fairness, why did he not subscribe to these services offered by
the minister so that he can see for himself whether or not we
have been fair? Why did he not do it or why did some of his
colleagues not accept this service? Openness, fairness and
honesty are there.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, yes, I went through the process
with the department in question to be able to subscribe to the
service which the member, Mr. Duhamel, mentioned. They told
me that it would cost $500 a year to have access to that
information. Also, something which the member did not say is
that-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is probably simply an
oversight but I just want us to remember that we cannot name
one another in this House; we must refer to other members by
their titles or the constituencies they represent.
(1620)
Mr. Asselin: The member for St. Boniface mentioned that we
can always go to the library or the public information service,
but it is a real maze, even for members of Parliament. My
colleague, the member for Québec-Est, and I will soon
subscribe.
But on the subject of openness, the member should understand
that if the minister cannot promise to accept the lowest bidder
who meets the conditions, it is a little less open; it becomes
rather vague.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the English translation of my colleague's remarks in
which he was saying that MPs should be consulted and informed
on the awarding of government contracts in their ridings. I trust
that was a correct translation.
I have no difficulty with the idea of being informed. However,
if it is a matter of consultation, does the member opposite not
see a danger that it will be perceived that politicians, MPs, are
interfering with what should be an open process and putting
political weight on what should be a completely non-partisan
question?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, very recently at a meeting of the
government operations committee, a government member told
the committee about an experience he just had in his riding.
He had not been warned by the minister or any official, but
fortunately, since he cares about his riding, he read a public
notice from the department saying that the government was
looking for a place to relocate the post office in his riding. The
member intervened with the department and helped save a
million dollars in this transaction.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
I draw to the attention of the hon. member, to continue with the
question of my colleague opposite, that the very thought of
members of Parliament being advised of or being part of a
6531
bidding process is exactly the wrong direction. It is everything
that could possibly be wrong with politics in my view.
We have no business being part of what is going on in the
bidding process or anything of that nature concerning the
spending of public money in our ridings. If we were in different
ridings it might be a different situation, but in our own ridings it
is something we should not be touching with a 10-foot pole, in
my estimation.
Another point I raise with my colleagues is that of always
going to the lowest bidder. It is normal business practice to be
very careful to make the best purchase, which is not always the
lowest bidder. I suspect there has to be some flexibility, because
in business practice and experience I am familiar with price is an
important factor but not the only factor in awarding a contract.
Could I be favoured with a response from the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the question is twofold. First, I said
that it should be standard procedure for a member to be informed
of the goods or services which may be provided under a
government contract or by contracting out, in his or her riding.
Members of this House are consulted; they have to vote and
participate in the proceedings. When we are working in our
ridings it is our duty to make representations. It is not a question
of sticking our noses in the government's affairs, but we should
at least be made aware of what is going on in our ridings.
Secondly, we discussed the issue of the lowest valid bid. What
needed to be included should have been clearly mentioned in the
specifications. If that was done in the first place and a bid is
found to be valid, it is valid based on those specifications. Then,
to accept the lowest valid bid is, in my opinion, to properly
manage public money.
(1625)
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, given the government's strong commitment to
improving the efficiency of government operations and to
deficit control and reduction, the amalgamation of common
services embodied in Bill C-52 makes eminent sense to me.
It has been clearly demonstrated that one of the primary
causes of waste and confusion is the unnecessary duplication of
services and functions both within the government and between
levels of government.
In these times we simply cannot afford to have human and
financial resources diverted to performing tasks throughout
many departments and agencies of government when such tasks
can be more effectively and much more cost effectively handled
through a central agency.
This is the primary rationale behind the creation of the new
Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Although it is just about a year since the amalgamation began, a
number of efficiencies and savings have already become
apparent. There will undoubtedly be many more such savings in
the years ahead as the benefits of this integrated approach take
full force.
Public Works and Government Services Canada provide
common services to more than 150 federal departments,
agencies and crown corporations. It provides them with a wide
range of services to meet their needs, including property
management, communications, printing and publishing,
translation, architectural and engineering services.
It also looks after the issuing of all Government of Canada
payments and undertakes billions of dollars worth of
procurement on behalf of its clients each and every year. In
short, Public Works and Government Services Canada is there to
look after thousands of administrative transactions daily on
behalf of its clients so that individual departments can focus all
their time and energies on their own programs and priorities. To
me this is a very good thing.
The amalgamation of the four founding elements of the new
department, that is the former departments of Public Works
Canada and Supply and Services Canada, as well as the
government telecommunications agency and the translation
bureau, has already paved the way for efficiencies of operation.
For example, the corporate services areas of the individual
components are being integrated. Corporate services encompass
such central functions as finance, administration, corporate
planning, contract claims resolutions and security, among other
areas.
When taking into consideration the operational reviews that
have been carried out and the recommendations, as well as the
new systems to be implemented and the amalgamation, these
initiatives will result in the savings of expenditures totalling
$180 million over five years from the date of amalgamation.
This sounds good to me.
Regional operations have also been integrated and the total
number of regional offices reduced from 10 to 6, again another
cost cutting service. This has been achieved with no less service
to client departments or, most important, to the general public.
Clearly the new integrated Department of Public Works and
Government Services has already demonstrated that it can
provide a more comprehensive service to the government and,
more important, at a considerable cost saving to the taxpayer.
While the efficiencies that Public Works and Government
Services can effect within its own organization are substantial,
they represent only a small part of the story. By bringing
together the experience and expertise of the component
organizations we are creating within the department a centre of
expertise more extensive and more skilled than we have ever had
in the past.
6532
This in turn will help create savings and efficiencies not only
in the Department of Public Works and Government Services
but through all government departments and all agencies.
(1630 )
The department will facilitate government-wide savings by
providing re-engineered systems for use by all departments.
Such sophisticated systems as electronic procurement and
settlement, automated biowork station, a travel escort system
and so forth will provide throughout the government
streamlined processes, better ways of delivering services,
rational resource allocation and more savings.
In its central position with close links to all departments and
agencies, Public Works and Government Services can and will
play a leading role in many government initiatives aimed at cost
cutting and the reduction of duplication.
For example, the department is very actively involved in the
government initiative known as locally shared support services.
The basic idea of this initiative is to consolidate service and
reduce costs by having departments and agencies located in the
same building or complexes share certain physical support
services. Again this is a very good idea, one-stop shopping for
all.
These might include such functions as security, mail room or
facility management. Individually, these arrangements may be
quite small, but taken collectively over hundreds of federal
installations all across Canada, they can add up to many millions
of dollars in savings to Canadian taxpayers. Again, I would hope
the House would see this is a very good thing and a very good
idea, one worth our full support.
Public Works and Government Services has organized to
support and encourage this initiative through its regional
delivery network. It has identified two phases to implementing
this scheme. In the first phase large departments, including
Public Works and Government Services itself, will make use of
their size, their regional representation and economies of scale.
They will offer their services to smaller departments.
In the second phase re-engineering and integration of
electronic services will be added. This phase will provide
telecommunication and informatics infrastructure, office
automation and video conferencing as well as total office
support facilities similar to those in the private sector.
A number of these innovative initiatives are already being
pilot tested during this current fiscal year. Certain economies
have already been put into place across the country such as
sharing of reception services and joint management of
storerooms and warehouse facilities.
The point is that the creation of the Department of Public
Works and Government Services through the amalgamation of
most of the government common service agencies will not only
help Public Works and Government Services to make substantial
cost efficiencies within its own organization, it will also create
a consolidated centre of expertise and leadership that can help
scores of departments and agencies throughout the government
introduce similar economies to their own operations.
This will add up to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings
to Canadian taxpayers in the years ahead. This is reason enough
for all of us in the House to support this legislation and to give
speedy passage to Bill C-52.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke.
As regards this bill, we are not opposed to the idea of trying to do
more with less money. We do not oppose to that principle; on the
contrary, the Bloc Quebecois favours such an approach by the
government. However, this legislation is nothing more than a
bunch of old sections from various acts which are put together to
amalgamate old departments into a single one, under a new
name. Can the hon. member tell us just what is new in this bill?
Can she tell us if there is anything new to give more
transparency to that department which, in the old days, was
known as the patronage department? Is there anything new in
this bill to promote that transparency which we have heard so
much about since the beginning of the 35th Parliament?
(1635)
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, there is no question the
government is committed to open, fair and transparent access to
the procurement process. That is why the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services offered to all members an
invitation to join in the open bidding process in the government
business opportunities publication.
With this system subscribers get instant access to contract
opportunities, notices of planned sole source contracts and
notices of contract awards. It also offers contract histories
which are information on contracts that have been awarded in
the past, to whom and for what amount.
I would respectfully say that you cannot get much more open
than this.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the member that $180 million after five years is certainly the
direction the government should be going. However I happen to
note that is against a $2.3 billion per year budget.
6533
I did some quick mathematics. I believe we are talking about
an 8 per cent reduction after a full five-year period. Does the
member not think there is a little bit more in the system that can
be squeezed out than taking five years to get only an 8 per cent
reduction in the budget?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite
right. If that was all we were going to save, then perhaps he
would be right about 8 per cent. But I would totally disagree that
it is all that is going to be saved.
Quite realistically we are talking about a number of things
here. We are talking about an integrated approach. We are
talking about a one-stop shopping centre, so to speak, that will
make it easier for our constituents, yours and mine. We are
talking about same housing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to remind all
members, although it may not be critical in this debate today, but
the best practice has been established and we try to remind one
another to direct all remarks through the Speaker.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, one major thing is the
expertise that is going to be housed together and able to do
things quite uniquely. Those are all benefits.
I remind the hon. member across the way that by the year 2005
we will save $1 billion. This is truly going to be a real cost
saving initiative. It is also more than that. It is going to be a truly
new initiative. It will plunge us into the next century.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
want to direct one remark to the member for
Guelph-Wellington. The good news I heard in her remarks was
that these changes will eliminate much of the duplication of
services between the federal government and the provinces.
Would the member agree that this will eliminate one of the
primary sources of friction between the federal government and
the provinces, and that provinces like Alberta and Quebec, for
example, should be very happy?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I definitely think this is
going to go a long way to address many of the concerns that
provincial governments have raised with the federal
government. I appreciate my colleague bringing that up.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want
to make a suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker. When the Bloc
member spoke earlier, he said that the system set up by the
minister cost $500 to each member of Parliament. Since that
figure seemed very high, I went to check on it and I was told that
the figure is only $37. Consequently, I-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I am sorry
but this is really not a point of order. It may be an issue to discuss
and I am sure we can look at it later. Questions and comments.
Debate. The hon. member for Kootenay East.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, it is always
nice to be able to say something positive about the direction in
which the government is going. In this instance I believe that it
is going in the right direction in terms of consolidation,
efficiency and savings.
In fairness to Canadians who have suffered loss of real income
over the last five years and who may have been displaced or have
had members in their families displaced-many Canadians have
had to scramble to survive-there must be an understandable
lack of sympathy. I can understand the lack of sympathy on the
part of Canadians for systems within the government which are
bloated and not efficient. However the government is going in
the right direction.
I also believe that within any workforce, whether it is the civil
service or any industry, that when people are not efficiently
producing they know it. When people are working at jobs that
are dead end jobs and can see that they should be redeployed that
they have this, I will call it, a antsyness, a feeling of discomfort
in their place of work.
In that place of work there is typically a lack of job
satisfaction. Certainly there is a lack of a sense of security. I
know I have been in situations from time to time in employment
where it was obvious that the enterprise that I was in was going
nowhere and that gives no sense of security. When we have a
lack of direction from the top, a lack of statement of purpose and
a lack of plan coming from the top, it exacerbates the situation.
Yesterday in the House I raised the example of Parks Canada.
We have a situation in my constituency where members of the
Yoho National Park-only 90 people work there-are in a real
dilemma. They do not have any idea of what is going on. The top
people in the parks department do not have any idea what is
going on either.
All sorts of things are being proposed. For example, in
clearing the highway which is the major project for the park in
the winter, it is now proposed that the whole operation be moved
to Lake Louise. What does that do to the businesses in Golden?
What does it do in terms of the efficiency? It is also proposed
that the head office be moved to Jasper. What does that mean?
The picture I am trying to paint is the situation all over the map.
6534
When we have a downsizing challenge, whether it has to do
with the issues covered specifically by Bill C-52 or all of
government, I submit that the government must be prepared to
take one step. That one step must be specific, it must be incisive
like a razor, but above all it must be part of a total plan.
With great respect to the Liberal frontbench, to this point I get
no idea of an incisive, total plan. As a consequence the civil
service right from the bottom to the top is saying: ``When is the
shoe going to drop? Is it going to be me? What is going to
happen?''
I suspect that members from British Columbia are aware of
the fact that they will be getting letters, that they will be getting
petitions from people within the civil service. I cannot speak for
the rest of Canada but I can say as far as British Columbia is
concerned, many of us are receiving representations from the
federal civil service saying: ``What is going on? What is going
to happen next?''
There is a tremendous feeling of insecurity. If I could do
anything I would encourage the frontbench to get on with a total
plan and more important, to communicate what that plan is once
they have actually got it together. The current fear and anxiety
within the federal civil service is leading naturally to a loss of
productivity.
(1645)
A couple of minutes ago, I raised the issue that there will be
$180 million saved on a $2.3 billion budget after five years. I
repeat that the government is going in the right direction but the
problem is it is taking rather mincing steps.
I would like to read an excerpt from a speech given by the
chairman of the board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce on February 15 in Halifax. Considering that this
person is responsible for countless billions of dollars in assets
and has tens of thousands of employees in one of the major
banks in Canada, he has a tremendous sense of the direction
Canada is going. I suggest we listen rather carefully to this
excerpt from his speech.
It is all too easy to think that debt is a government problem, but it is not. The
debt does not cost governments; it costs Canadian taxpayers. Canadians pay for
the debt directly every day in interest paid from taxes.
Before I carry on I want to underline the point that this is not
the Reform Party speaking, although it sounds like it. This is the
chairman of the board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce. He said:
The per capita annual interest charge is about $2,200 from tax revenues;
$2,200 per Canadian goes to pay interest on accumulated debt. Before a single
dollar of income is redistributed, before a dime goes to social programs, before
a penny is spent on any other government program $2,200 must be paid yearly
in interest for each and every person in Canada.
Are you listening? Remember, this amount-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, order. If I want to
take every occasion you present me with I will try to react. In
terms of speaking to one another, the word you or in French the
word vous totally excludes the Speaker. I really love my work
and I like to be included and wish I could sometimes be even
more involved.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. All
of us are on a learning curve. I certainly am as one of the new
people here and I appreciate your comment.
Remember the amount of $2,200 is needed from each one of us just to pay the
interest on the debt. We are not even touching the principal. As a result, the
cumulative debt of the federal and provincial levels of government is growing at
a rate of $60 billion a year and the compounding continues. The pattern has
persisted for years. Is calling this situation a fiscal cancer an overstatement? What
would you call it?
And let us remember: Politicians did not do this. Governments did not do this.
Civil servants did not do this. We prosperous, peaceful, common sense Canadians
did this to ourselves.
Whatever the party or prime minister or finance minister, the Government of
Canada has not had a single balanced budget in 20 years. During the same period
there have been scores of budgets in the provinces. Relatively few provincial
treasuries have forecast a balanced budget and only rarely have they achieved
their targets.
Of course, we have had elections; 83 different occasions on which the people
could exercise their democratic right to choose national and provincial
governments. We had all those opportunities to change policy directions. We
have elected Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democrat, Social Credit
and Parti Quebecois governments. We have given them variously majority or
minority mandates. We have even had from time to time intense national debates
about debt and deficits, but our total debt has continued to soar even higher.
(1650 )
He talks about Canadians and says:
We have only ourselves to blame. Most experienced politicians, I would
guess a solid majority in every cabinet in the country, will confess privately that
there is no constituency for cutting spending. Canadians may be in favour of
cutting somebody else's special interest spending but not their own. The result
has been an endless procession of impossibly conflicting instructions to our
political leadership: Cut spending, but not on this; save money, but not on that.
I like this guy. He goes on to say:
Pity our politicians. It would have taken the wisdom of Solomon and the
patience of Job to respond to such a conflicting cry and neither of them had to
get elected.
Government spending problems are too often oversimplified as being a
question of inefficiency. Some say that the problem can be resolved by reducing
spending in all current categories. That would help but it is only the beginning.
The real problem is that many government programs are outdated and it is not
just that we are spending too much, it is that we are spending on the wrong
things.
The real problem in my judgment is that we as politicians
have a responsibility to talk straight to our constituents. During
the last election it perplexed me whenever the Reform Party
would talk straight and say we must drive the deficit to zero in as
quick a period of time as possible that we were attacked by the
6535
Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives as being the slash
and spend and hack and cut party.
The reality is that we in Canada are at the wall. We have
managed to get away with this infrastructure spending, or
should I say borrowing, this transfer of intergenerational debt to
my grandchildren who I have never seen and are not even born
and their descendants, all for the sake of some election
sloganeering.
It is the responsibility of all politicians no matter what their
stripe to generate a culture of acceptance to the fact that it is
going to hurt. It is going to hurt me, it is going to hurt you, Mr.
Speaker, and it is going to hurt the people who are listening to
this debate or reading it in Hansard. It is going to hurt. We
fundamentally have a choice of doing it to ourselves under our
control, or letting some external force do it to us.
Today the finance minister stood in this place and very
forcefully and very eloquently said: ``We will maintain
control''. How can you maintain control when you continue to
spend $110 million a day more than you have coming in? It is
impossible. You cannot maintain control in a world where there
is such a thing as compound interest and in this instance
compound debt. When we are spending $110 million a day that
we do not have, we are simply transferring what we are doing in
1994 to somebody way out there somewhere else.
I conclude my comments with a quick review. Bill C-52 is
going in the right direction for all of the right reasons. If you will
pardon me for nit-picking, I happened to notice in our review
that a part of the purpose was that the deputy minister be
appointed by cabinet.
It strikes me that the deputy ministers of all departments are
people of great importance and strength. They give direction to
their departments and strong counsel to their ministers. I
suggest that the deputy minister not just in Bill C-52 but in other
bills should appear before the standing committee. There should
be more public scrutiny because more and more power is falling
into the hands of the top civil servants. That would be a healthy
thing to do.
(1655)
In summary we are going in the right direction with Bill C-52.
I do support that direction. I do see all of the things the last
member was talking about, but it is not good enough by a long
shot. We as politicians must generate a culture of acceptance of
the fact that we are living beyond our means. We must be
straight up with our voters. We must convince Canadians that we
will be able to go in the right direction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before questions and
comments 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
Rosedale-Gun control; the hon. member for
Verchères-Customs tariffs.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, in his
comments at the conclusion of his speech the hon. member said
that we should be straight up with Canadians and I agree.
If his party formed the government today, would that
member's government also be spending more than it took in?
The question clearly relates to the fact that no matter which
party was forming the government the government expenditures
and the deficit clearly were going to take more than one year to
be dealt with. Yet the member continues to harp as if the Reform
Party somehow would magically eliminate this if it were the
government. Could the member answer this simple question:
Would the Reform Party also be spending more than it took in?
Mr. Abbott: That is a valid question. Of course we would.
One cannot just simply go hack, slash, bump and that is the end
of it.
However a plan that after three years this government will
owe an additional $100 billion in debt is absolutely the wrong
direction. What we would have at the end of three years is we
would not be going further into debt. Canada cannot afford it.
The Canadian public intuitively in the back of their minds know
it. They are just waiting for some politicians to be open, up
front, honest, candid and frank with them and get on with the job
that will have to be done.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the
member for Kootenay East wants to be open and frank.
Our government has constantly talked about bringing the
deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. That is a plan,
that is a direction and that is something the Minister of Finance
is committed to. As we talk about social program review which
is coming up tomorrow, we are going to have a plan on the table
with different directions of where we are going to go with our
social spending.
We want to talk about being honest. Why does the member not
come across here and say: ``What are we going to do without
employment insurance? Are we going to do away with it? Are
we going to do away with all our social programs? Are we going
to reduce old age pensions?'' That is the kind of honesty he is
talking about. Let us hear him say those things.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the government currently has a
plan to go another $100 billion into debt over the next three
years with this 3 per cent figure it is talking about. It has no
commitment to reduce the deficit to zero. It has a commitment
only to reduce it to 3 per cent.
I heard it said by the late Kim Campbell, that is late in a
political sense, during the last election that there was not any
problem. If she managed to get the overspending down to
whatever the number was it was fine, it was going to be balanced
books because we did not have to go out and borrow money.
Then after actually analyzing what she was talking about, she
6536
was going to be using Canada pension plan contributions. She
was going to be using the actual cash flow, the input that was
coming into the government. That same kind of fuzzy thinking
has managed to spill over. Maybe there is something unusual
about that side of the House. When people move from this side,
which is where most cabinet ministers were in the last House, to
the other side and get cabinet positions somehow a fuzziness
seems to set in.
(1700)
The reality is that there is no commitment on the part of the
government to control overspending. I will not call it the deficit
because that is confusing. The deficit is simply how much more
is spent than is taken in.
With respect to the question of targets let us talk about UI.
Right now the minister of human resources is going around
trying to fly all sorts of trial balloons. The Reform Party
principle is very simple and very straightforward. It is called
unemployment insurance.
Unfortunately all politicians in the House over the last 20
years have forgotten the word insurance. Insurance works on an
actuarial basis that it is not going to be used as some kind of low
grade social program. Therein lies the problem. Even today the
minister and the government are working through a UI revision
as though they are revising a low grade social program. They are
not putting it into the arena where it should be, which is
unemployment insurance.
I have a lot of other comments but the bottom line to the
exercise is that there is no simple answer to the problem. I am
prepared to say to the people of Canada that it is going to hurt.
We can either do it ourselves or we can have it done to us. As
long as we continue to add $100 billion to the debt of the nation
and as long as we continue to spend $110 million every day, we
are not solving the problem. We are just digging the hole deeper.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I would have a question for my hon. colleague from the
Reform Party who made a remarkable speech. Our colleague
tells us that real politicians would tell us that it is going to hurt. I
agree up to a certain point. Now, who will this hurt?
At present, some people avoid paying tax on billions of
dollars by using family trusts and tax havens. Here is my
question: Is my hon. colleague prepared to hurt these people too,
so that all members of our society pay their share?
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of moving
to the finance committee which has been very instructive. There
is a myth, an absolutely gigantic myth, that somehow billions of
dollars are squirrelled away and that if we could get our hands on
them we would solve the whole deficit and debt problem. The
myth that was originated by the NDP unfortunately is being
perpetuated by the Bloc Quebecois.
The plain fact of the matter is that family trusts have to do
with capital gains. Family trusts pay taxes on earnings. Family
trusts pay current taxes on interest. Family trusts do not pay tax
on accrued capital gains until they are disposed of by the family
trust. The myth continuously put forward by the Bloc is that they
never pay or they are going to roll forward. The fact of the
matter is that they will be paid in exactly the same way as any
other individual pays them.
It is instructive to be sitting on that committee as they
continue to try to put forward the myth that there is some kind of
simple, magical equation, some kind of a simple answer,
because there is not.
(1705 )
I come back to the same thing. It is going to hurt all
Canadians. In further response to the member's question, the
reality is that if we do not control this the people who will be
hurt the most are those who can afford it the least. We have to
target the meagre resources we presently have to make sure
those people who have the least get the most in terms of help.
I do not think major industrialists and people who would have
these countless millions of dollars in family trusts to which the
Bloc keeps referring need the help of the social program. It is the
intention and the direction of the Reform Party to protect those
who need protection the most.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52
combines previously dispersed functions in government into the
new Department of Public Works and Government Services. At
first sight it is a technical bill, a necessary but technical piece of
legislation to make the combinations. It is becoming apparent
from the debate that there is more to the legislation than that.
The bill is part of the government's effort to streamline the
system of government in Canada, to make government a better
servant of the public. It is for that reason I am very pleased to
have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-52.
Part of the platform that saw the election of the government
was a firm commitment to government renewal, reforming away
government works to restore confidence among Canadians in
their leaders and institutions. At the same time there was an
equal commitment to reducing the cost and increasing the
effectiveness of government to lower the deficit and relieve
Canadian taxpayers.
The bill, along with several others introduced in the House in
recent weeks, is tailored to meet both those commitments.
Merging the former departments of public works and supply and
services, the telecommunications agency and the translation
bureau through Bill C-52 permits a more streamlined,
responsive service by government while reducing the costs of
doing the taxpayer's business. The amalgamation will assist
deficit reduc-
6537
tion by cost savings in the order of $180 million by the year
1998.
The legislation also lives up to the government's commitment
to restore confidence in the administration. Other members
referred to the tremendous task the new department must
perform. An annual cash flow of $1.4 trillion, purchasing $10
billion worth of products and services in a year, 175,000
contracts per year, and managing $6.5 billion worth of real
estate are now under one government department. What is
remarkable about the legislation is that it creates a single
organization under one minister to perform all this work.
Thus not only client government departments and agencies
but the vast community of Canadian firms doing business with
government can deal with a single agency. One minister and one
management team will provide the focus and direction as well as
the forum to see that both client and supplier interests are
served. This is truly one-stop government shopping for
Canadian business.
Rest assured that the new department is dedicated to serving
both the interests of its client departments and the interests of
the business community. The business community embraces all
sizes and types of Canadian firms. Their competitiveness is vital
to a strong, innovative Canadian economy.
That is why in carrying out the many large and small
purchases on behalf of government the new department attempts
at all times to remain innovative and up to date, maintaining best
practices in dealing with suppliers and managing its affairs to
encourage innovation and competitiveness among Canadian
businesses.
That is why the bill rewrites previous legislation to provide
flexibility which permits the use of purchasing to assist in
achieving the strategic objectives of government, for example
penetration of foreign markets by small and medium sized
Canadian businesses.
(1710)
While the new department strives to meet its primary
objectives of efficient and effective services to government, it is
guided in its purchasing practices by the principles of
competition, equality of treatment and openness.
Where possible, contracts are awarded through competitive,
open bidding. Uniform conditions and evaluation criteria are
applied to all bidders. To remain competitive suppliers and
potential suppliers must be informed and up to date on
government requirements. They must know not only what is
coming up by way of demand but also the rules and regulations
they must comply with.
The new department uses various means to provide such
information and assistance. One of the newest and most
innovative is the open bidding service which was referred to and
explained briefly by the member for Guelph-Wellington when
she spoke earlier. The open bidding service provides around the
clock electronic information and assistance to suppliers
anywhere in Canada, any suppliers that have access to telephone
lines. It provides subscribers with all the information they need
to make an informed bidding decision in government
procurement opportunities. They no longer need to be included
on a government source list or await an invitation to bid.
This sort of a process is very welcomed by small businesses in
small communities outside the Ottawa circuit such as my riding
of Peterborough. Subscribers can review opportunities in their
product or service areas and order bid documents for those they
are interested in. Documents are forwarded as quickly as
possible by the chosen delivery method, be it fax, mail or
courier. Current contract award information as well as
information on past contract awards are available to subscribers
of the service.
Other departments and crown corporations, as well as the
governments of Alberta and Ontario, have decided to use this
open bidding service to advertise their contract needs. This
significantly broadens the market available to suppliers through
a single information source. Open bidding is the aim of the
publication entitled ``Government Business Opportunities''
which is issued three times a week.
I was somewhat bemused by the earlier criticism of the
minister and the bill through suggestions that government
purchasing practices were not open enough and more
information should be provided. I really do not understand the
distorted view of reality that could trigger such a complaint.
Federal government purchasing is already scrutinized by
Parliament, the Treasury Board, the Auditor General, the
Canadian Internal Trade Tribunal, the Contract Claims
Resolution Board, all the mass media, the suppliers themselves
and the taxpaying public. On top of all that, all purchasing
requirements valued at $25,000 or more are posted on the open
bidding service I just described. As well, construction,
maintenance, architecture and engineering opportunities valued
at $60,000 or more are so posted. When sole source contracts are
necessary, information is carried both on the open bidding
service and through the ``Government Business Opportunities''
publication.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has
gone to even greater lengths to ensure open and easy access to
contracting information. He has written to all members of
Parliament, as every member of Parliament who checks the mail
knows, urging them to subscribe to the open bidding service.
The parliamentary secretary just gave some information on the
cost of this service. Following that suggestion would certainly
better equip members of Parliament to serve their constituents
6538
than contributing to the paper burden by tabling tons of material
on 175,000 government contracts.
We live in an electronic age. Canadian citizens and businesses
are rapidly adapting to the evolving information highway.
Members who complain about lack of information might well be
advised to catch up. Subscribing to the open bidding services
would be one step.
The Bloc also expressed some concern over the fact that
riding by riding stats were not available for contracting activity
in the new department.
(1715 )
The simple fact is that Public Works and Government
Services does not keep information based on riding. Since the
amalgamation of these various government services the
department systems are not integrated. Further, several searches
of both the manual and electronic data bases showed that all the
systems are out of date or in need of upgrading. As a result, the
department at this time simply cannot produce such reports, that
is reports based on riding, in its routine operations.
Further, we must all realize that riding-based activity is not
always accurate and at times it is downright misleading.
For example, consider the case of the two large oil companies,
Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada. These companies bill all
government purchases, close to $300 million per year, through
their Ottawa offices regardless of where those purchases occur,
whether they occur elsewhere in Canada or abroad. Rather than
compile and publish misleading riding-based statistics, the
Department of Public Works and Government Services actually
does something real about an even distribution of regional
benefits from government purchasing. Wherever feasible within
the confines of agreements such as the North American Free
Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, regional benefits are given a high priority when
evaluating bids for major government projects.
Examples of regional benefits are not hard to find: $1.2
billion of the Canadian patrol frigate contract to Saint John
Shipbuilding in New Brunswick, $40 million of the Canadian
Forces supply system upgrade contract to SHL Systemhouse in
Ottawa, $16 million of the North Warning System contract to a
Richmond, B.C. firm, and so on with other regional benefits
wherever they are possible.
Further evidence of this minister's desire to keep purchasing
practices open and fair was his decision that contingency fees
have no legitimate place in government procurement and the
introduction of a new contract clause is aimed at eliminating
them. Bidders are now required to certify that they have not
hired a lobbyist to solicit award of the contract where any part of
the payment to the lobbyist depends on the client obtaining the
contract.
Another example: The minister has introduced major
improvements in contracting methods for advertising and public
opinion research. There were no effective guidelines to
purchase such sensitive services in the past. The media and the
public have long perceived the practice to be open to abuse and
political patronage. For the first time new guidelines have been
approved by cabinet bringing the procurement of advertising
and public opinion research under similar rules of fairness and
openness to those governing all government procurement.
These new guidelines, the new open bidding service and the
new lobbyist clause, are all evidence of the determination of this
government to reintroduce integrity and restore the faith of the
public in our political and administrative systems.
I think the evidence is clear. This government and this new
department which is created through this bill support both the
spirit and practice of good business in Canada to the benefit of
government operations, the business community and Canadian
taxpayers alike.
I conclude by saying that Bill C-52 is far more than an
effective highly technical piece of legislation combining under
one roof previous government services. It is a fine example of
this government's commitment to openness and fairness to
Canadian business.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member was in the House earlier when
we were told, in response to a question, that the bill the hon.
member just commented on prevented some overlapping with
other provinces. Basically, that is the spirit of non-overlapping
that we advocate in the Bloc Quebecois.
Here is my first question. What is there exactly in this bill to
specifically preclude this kind of overlapping?
(1720)
I have another question for the hon. member. The Bloc
Quebecois tabled a reasoned amendment on this subject. It reads
as follows:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52, an act to establish
the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and
repeal certain acts, because the principle of the bill does not provide for a
specific code of ethics to be put in place aimed at making transparent the
contracting process and the acquisition of all goods and services by the
Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada''.
6539
Does the hon. member agree with the idea of improving
transparency through this bill? If he does, where exactly in the
bill is this spirit of transparency fostered?
[English]
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments.
The answer is the same to both of his questions. As far as
greater efficiency between the levels of government is
concerned, I described the open bidding service. I mentioned
that already the governments of Alberta and Ontario have joined
in this electronic open bidding service which is available to
every part of the country reached by telephone, which is
virtually every part of the country. That is an example. That is a
step toward greater efficiency between levels of government.
It is my hope that the governments of other provinces will
take advantage of this wonderful opportunity and will therefore
make it even more efficient between federal and provincial
levels.
With regard to the matter of openness, I described as well as I
could the open bidding procedure. This is a procedure which is
available even to the smallest business. People have a telephone.
The cost is not large. It lists forthcoming opportunities. It lists
the results of previous contracts, in other words who obtained
contracts for the previous weeks or months.
This is something which is available in offices across the
country. That is in addition to the thrice weekly publication of
similar information which is also available, although I think I
sense where the member is coming from, which is less easily
available to many of our smaller firms.
To answer his question about transparency, it does seem to me
that one answer to his question is that the open bidding service is
as transparent as it could be.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, our
government took office a year ago with a very clear platform and
very specific commitments to Canadians. We said that we
wished to develop a country where efficient and innovative
governments cooperate not only with one another but also with
businesses, unions, educational institutions and others.
We said that we wished to emphasize the concept of
partnership in all our dealings. We are committed to making job
creation and economic growth our top priorities. We promised to
trim the deficit and to use iron discipline in bringing federal
expenditures under control. We also said that we would restore
public trust in the government's integrity.
All our commitments and promises are reflected in the public
works and government services minister's priorities and
performance in the last 12 months.
This department, which is responsible for most common
services provided by the federal government, worked hard to
increase government efficiency, create partnerships and
convince Canadians that the government is conducting its
operations fairly, openly and in the public interest.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is
in a good position to take up the challenge of providing effective
services, establishing strong links and eliminating duplication
in the provision of government services.
[English]
In the area of efficiency and reduction of duplication of services,
the amalgamation has already begun to pay dividends. During
the past year there has been substantial progress in realizing the
central corporate services of the department such as finance and
administration and amalgamating these into a single operation
which can serve the needs of the component sections of the
department, but with significant savings in financial and human
resources as well.
(1725)
A similar rationalization of resources has taken place at the
regional level, again with substantial cost savings and reduction
of duplication. Much work still remains in order to realize the
full potential for savings through this process of amalgamation.
[Translation]
The minister remains confident that he will be able to cut
common services staff by more than 20 per cent in the next four
years without reducing service levels for Public Works and
Government Services Canada's client departments and
agencies.
The full process will generate overall savings of some $180
million. This streamlining process is in line with the
government's promise to cut waste and duplication and is a big
help in meeting the government's commitment to fight the
deficit through major cuts in public administration
expenditures.
Public Works and Government Services Canada has made
steady progress toward the government's goal of reaching sound
agreements with other levels of government, the private sector,
its public service clients and the general population. Significant
headway was made in intergovernmental co-operation last
summer when the federal government and most provinces
signed agreements to work together to reduce government costs.
Public Works and Government Services Canada already
works with the provinces to identify the areas where the two
levels of government can work together to reduce duplication or,
better yet, share services in the interest of our taxpayers.
Some provisions of Bill C-52 will pave the way to closer
intergovernmental co-operation.
6540
[English]
For example, it will allow Public Works and Government
Services when requested by other levels of government to offer
realty, architectural and engineering services to provinces as
well as municipalities, something that was not possible before
this legislation. It will simplify the process in following up on
opportunities for intergovernmental co-operative initiatives.
Over the next few years I am confident we will see a real
increase in all levels of government working to eliminate
duplication, to share in procurement where this is beneficial and
to better co-ordinate services directed at the Canadian public.
Another area in which the department has been working hard
and making progress is in building stronger, more satisfactory
partnerships with the Canadian business community. As the
prime procurement agency of the government which spends
some $10 billion each year for goods and services, Public Works
and Government Services is one of the prime points of interface
between the government and Canadian business and industry.
In the past the two major points of friction and frustration in
the government's dealings with the business community have
been first, the sense by business that dealings with governments
were slow, cumbersome and costly and, second, that there was
too much political interference and cynicism, in other words
that the system was not as fair and open as it should be.
Under this government real progress has been made by Public
Works and Government Services toward addressing both of
these problems.
[Translation]
By promoting high-tech communications with businesses,
the department has managed to simplify the process and reduce
costs. The electronic procurement and settlement system is a
good example. This central control and settlement system
linking client departments with suppliers allows users to do
business electronically, to place orders and issue vouchers
without paperwork and to pay suppliers without bills being sent.
The system was tested successfully and should be fully
implemented during the year. It is as popular with the
government as it is with suppliers.
[English]
The open bidding system that I just described has been
introduced and provides an electronic bulletin board that allows
all potential suppliers an equal chance to be aware of the
government's requirements and to respond accordingly.
On many occasions the minister has given a personal
invitation to all MPs, including MPs from the Bloc and the
Reform Party, to get on the open bidding service. We should take
him up on this offer, as I have done.
The minister has also introduced a clause to all contracts
effectively eliminating the practice of contingency fees in
securing government contracts, thus curbing the influence of
lobbyists in this area. He has introduced-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The member will
have the opportunity to conclude his remarks when the bill
comes before the House at the next opportunity.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6540
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should change the name of
the ``Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' to the ``Canadian Charter of
Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the meat of my
presentation today, I would like to spend a couple of minutes
describing to the television audience the difference between a
private member's motion and a government motion and what is
most assuredly going to be happening to this motion in exactly
one hour.
A private member's motion receives one hour of debate in the
House. Then it is dropped from the Order Paper, never to be seen
again, unless there is a spark of interest somewhere and it
resurfaces.
This is one of the checks and balances in our parliamentary
system. It allows backbenchers and opposition members a
chance to get a point of view across. It gives opposition and
government members a chance to debate ideas.
If this were a votable bill rather than a motion, it would
receive a grand total of, I believe, three or four hours of debate.
It would come back two or three times and would be voted on.
On a very rare occasion of unanimity in the House on an
opposition member's bill, it could become law.
6541
The chances of a bill becoming law promulgated by an
opposition member are fairly remote. Hopefully it is something
that we in this Parliament could consider, because it is really the
essence and the spirit of parliamentary democracy. No one in the
House has a lock on good ideas. If we are to use our
opportunities as parliamentarians effectively, we would learn
from each other and modify each other's bills to meet a common
objective.
In any event, my motion was inspired because I felt we were
becoming a nation of entitlement. This was very much to our
detriment and to the detriment particularly of the younger
generation of Canadians.
During the election campaign my fellow candidates and I
were doing an all-candidates meeting at a high school in
Edmonton. In the question and answer period one of the students
got up and said: ``What are you going to do to get me a job?''
Through the luck of the draw I was the last person to respond
and I got a chance to listen to the other candidates. I listened to
them telling this young person in an auditorium full of students
that we were going to create a nirvana-poor choice of
words-motherhood and apple pie. We were going to spend
money here and spend money there and create jobs.
I could just see all their eyes glazing over because they had
heard it all before and had no reason to believe it. My turn came
along and I thought, I am going to tell these people the truth.
(1735 )
I said to that young man: ``Look, if you want to know who is
going to get you a job when you graduate from high school, have
a look in the mirror because that is the only person in the world
who is responsible for you. Your success in life is going to be
directly attributable to what you put into it. If you expect me,
your parents, your school or anybody else to do for you what you
need to do for yourself you are going to be sadly mistaken and
very disappointed in life''.
I am telling you I was Mr. Dinosaur from the Reform Party. He
must have been thinking: ``Here is this old-timer who does not
have a clue about what is going on. How could he possibly be
standing here and telling me I am responsible for myself, like I
don't have to show up at school every day. If I come in late
nobody seems to care''. That is not fair because that is not the
way it is in life.
That is the germ of the idea of how we got into this situation. It
is not just individuals who feel that there is a sense of
entitlement, it is all of us. Our whole society has become one of
entitlement. If somebody wants to start a business what does he
do? He does not get every nickel he has together and get his
friends and relatives together and start a business. The first
thing to do is trot down to the bank and see if the government
will guarantee a loan. Is there not a grant for doing this? Cannot
somebody else risk their capital so I can progress in my life?
That is just not the way it works in this world.
We have become a nation of rights, a nation of entitlements.
We did not become this way just with the introduction of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has been happening slowly
but surely. It probably happened perhaps in the 1950s and then
accelerated in the 1960s. Here we are today with the single thing
that has really codified this whole notion of rights, the
introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
As I progress in my speech this afternoon, I am going to be
referring to some information that I got from a book entitled:
Protecting Rights and Freedoms: Essays on the Charter's Place
in Canada's Political, Legal and Intellectual Life. I recommend
this book to anyone who has any particular interest in going
further into the investigation of the effect of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in our country.
I want to acknowledge that I will be quoting from the essays
of three individuals, all of whom will be familiar to colleagues
in this House and to you, Mr. Speaker. The first is the Right Hon.
Kim Campbell when she was Solicitor General. She delivered a
presentation at a 10th anniversary conference on the charter of
rights. The second person is Lysiane Gagnon, a well-known
member of the media from Quebec and Jeffrey Simpson who
needs no introduction from me.
As a matter of fact it was interesting that in another part of
Kim Campbell's writings she said that Canadians, as compared
with Americans, really have a different sense of what
government means. We look at government as protector of our
rights and freedoms. Government is not something feared by the
average Canadian. She compared that with the situation in the
United States where the government is seen as more obtrusive
by the individual citizen.
Ms. Campbell was comparing the case of our bill of rights and
the American experience. The two do not exactly relate, but let
me give you the gist of what she was saying as she was talking
about the tension that exists in Canada between Parliament and
the judiciary. With the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, the
Supreme Court has taken on great powers that were not
previously in our common law tradition to be vested with
appointed judges. It was the role of Parliament to reflect the
mores of the time and to interpret what was going on in society.
We have evolved into more of an American system where the
judiciary has far more to say about what is going on.
(1740)
As a matter of fact Kim Campbell said: ``Courts are now
required to choose from among competing approaches and
values. The real question therefore is not whether the courts are
making policy but rather the appropriate limits of the courts'
policy making role''. She said that when she was the Attorney
General of the country. That is a profound statement.
6542
She further said: ``By giving Canadians constitutionally
entrenched rights and freedoms and by making these
enforceable by the courts, the charter has given the courts a
much more powerful and visible role in our governmental
system. This has led to some tensions and to questions about the
proper scope of judicial review in a parliamentary system''.
Her concern was that unless Parliament and the courts
understand and respect each other's role we will evolve toward a
system in which the courts, rather than democratically elected
legislatures, are seen as the primary protectors and promoters of
rights and freedoms.
That has happened. The courts have taken on an increasing
role in our society and the role and the responsibility of
Parliament has as a result been diminished.
Then the question comes up: Why do we have a Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in the first place? The Charter of Rights
and Freedoms does not have one word in the whole thing about
responsibilities. The thought of responsibility does not enter
into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How can that be?
It was because it was never intended to be anything other, at
least according to many people. The introduction of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms in Canada was done because Pierre
Trudeau wanted it. He believed if we had a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that guaranteed individual rights and freedoms we
would be able to make a place for French speaking Quebecers in
the whole of the country and for English speaking Canadians in
Quebec by law, the notion of individual rights. As I understand it
the problem was not that we should have these individual rights
across the whole country. It was the people in Quebec wanted to
feel at home in Quebec. It was maîtres chez nous, not maîtres
chez all of Canada, it was maîtres chez Québec, at home.
Quebec was not part of the patriation of the Constitution. It
did not sign on and so instead of this becoming something we
could all cherish and bind us together, it became yet one more
irritant.
These are the words of Lysiane Gagnon: ``This was another
episode in the long antagonism between two schools of thought.
One embodied by Trudeau focused on the rights of French
Canadian individuals. Given equal chances and a decent degree
of protection for their language they should be able to affirm
themselves throughout the country. The second school of
thought focused on the collective rights of Quebecers to develop
the institutions and increase the powers of the province that was
their only true homeland, the place where they formed a
majority''.
We now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms without
responsibilities covering the whole nation. The intent was to
make Quebec feel more comfortable as part of the nation. It did
not work. What are we left with? A situation where the courts are
now making decisions that should be made in Parliament. They
are making decisions that fly in the face of common sense.
I have examples of that. I do not need to bring it out in this
case right now. There are many examples. The hon. member
opposite wants an example. Let me give an example.
The top court said just the other day that too drunk is a defence
in a rape case. A guy gets too drunk, rapes someone and as a
defence cannot form intent and there it is.
(1745 )
This is a decision that is made by our courts but it does not
reflect the common sense of the common people. What
happens? People see something like this and they say Parliament
could not possibly understand what is going on. The courts do
not understand what is going on and people feel disconnected
from the very institutions that they should be connected to and
feel comfortable with.
Now we have a situation in which we have rights through the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and
Freedoms I submit is with us whether we like it or not because it
has incredible symbolism in the country. The Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in a survey done in 1991 had more symbolic
significance to Canadians than anything else, including the flag.
I submit that it is going to be part of us for a long time but in
the chapter that Jeffrey Simpson wrote, he wrote about Harvard
professor Mary Anne Glendon in her book of the same name in
its simplest American form, the language of rights is the
language of no compromise: ``By indulging in excessively
simple forms of rights talk in our pluralistic society we
needlessly multiply occasions for civil discord.
We make it difficult for persons and groups with conflicting
interests and views to build coalitions and achieve compromise
or even to acquire that minimal degree of mutual forbearance
and understanding that promotes peaceful coexistence and
keeps the door open to further communications''.
We have seen this in our very Parliament, as last week two
members who have very different opinions about things were
starting to fight because one has a right and the other feels
denied that right. Yet all of life is a compromise of one form or
another. It is a means of getting along with each other. Under the
guise of rights we are getting ourselves back into corners where
compromise is not part of the equation.
I will quote again from Jeffrey Simpson: ``A distinguishing
characteristic of this rights talk is the degree to which
discretionary decisions of government and the normal and
sometimes healthy tensions in a pluralistic, democratic society
are elevated to those of apparently fundamental human rights.
These rights by virtue of being rights cannot easily be
compromised. They
6543
can only be defended to the maximum. These rights also seldom
have obligations or responsibilities attached to them''.
What can we do? Where do we go from here? We are very
likely going to have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with us
forever. How do we go about making the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms more like that which was originally intended,
something to draw us closer together, to bind us, to protect
individuals from excesses of the states, to protect minorities
from majorities and to have rules that we could live by?
I would submit that we could achieve that if somehow we
were able to induce the courts to interpret the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in a fashion and in a manner that gave some sense
to society as a whole so that when decisions were made
involving the Charter the justices would not always take the
most liberal interpretation as per individual rights and the
narrowest interpretation toward the rights of society as a whole.
I do not know how this delicate balancing act could be
achieved but it is certainly worthy of the attempt because we
have evolved to a situation today in which people think of
ourselves as rights and entitlements. We have a situation in
which regardless of the colour of the book that the government is
quoting from, whether it is the Reform's blue book or the
Liberal's red book or the Bloc's book, there are certain things
that we have to do as a nation.
(1750 )
We have to start to live within our means. As the money dries
up people are going to be backed into more and more corners
connected with rights and we are going to have to start thinking
more and more in terms of our responsibilities to our nation.
We recall those 17 words that President Kennedy used years
ago to discuss exactly this: ``Think not what your country can do
for you, but what you can do for your country''.
If we could inculcate somehow that simple phrase into our
lexicon, if we Canadians could think what can we do for our
country rather than what our country can do for us, I think we
could go a long way in bridging some of the conflicts that are
evident here in this House, the conflicts between those of us on
this side of the House and back and forth, and individuals who
are concerned with their rights. We should probably show far
more concern for our responsibilities to each other and to our
nation and far less for our rights to ourselves.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest proposes the
name of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be
changed to include a reference to Canadian charter of rights,
freedoms and responsibilities.
It is an interesting proposal but I do not think it is one with
which I could agree for various reasons. In 1982 Canada's
Constitution was amended to include the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Although the charter came into force in
1982 the rights and freedoms it contains are not new. The charter
is part of a human rights tradition which Canada shares with
other countries like France, England and the United States.
In England the Magna Carta in 1215 was an early written
attempt to formulate individual rights. The revolutions in
France and the former British colonies also ended with attempts
to set out in writing the rights which individuals possess
vis-à-vis the power of the state. Individuals, it was decided,
could not be deprived of these rights by the ruler or in a
democracy or by an elected body representing the will of the
majority. The government was not to circumvent the rights of
the individual.
The French called their document le déclaration des droits,
des langues et des citoyens. The Americans named theirs The
Bill of Rights. We would later call ours, of course, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These constitutional documents represent attempts to draft
statements of rights at a national level. At the international
level, the League of Nations and the United Nations began to
grapple with human rights prior to, during and after World War
II. The international movement to develop universal human
rights standards gained momentum following World War II as a
result of the atrocities committed during that terrible war.
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
universal declaration of human rights while the European
convention for the protection of human rights and the
fundamental freedoms was adopted in 1950.
In Canada, following World War II, provinces began to enact
legislation to prohibit various forms of discrimination such as
the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights, eventually leading to the
present day forms of human rights legislation. At the same time
and throughout the 1950s as Canada's self-image as a country
began to develop, proposals were made for a Canadian bill of
rights.
A joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons
considered the proposal in 1947 and again in 1950. Ten years
later the Canadian Bill of Rights received royal assent. A federal
statute, the Bill of Rights applied in areas of federal jurisdiction
but it was not considered a constitutional document.
In the 1960s and 1970s the law making process at the United
Nations similarly resulted in the signing and ratification of the
6544
international covenant on civil and political rights and the
international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
(1755 )
In Canada another period of constitutional negotiation was
beginning with the adoption of the enriched charter of human
rights as one focus of discussion.
I am not going to review the history of the charter's adoption.
There are many who are familiar with it. Suffice it to say that
amending the Constitution is not an easy process. Every
provision, including its topic, was carefully scrutinized by the
government, by the special joint committee of the House of
Commons and the Senate on the Constitution and later by
provincial first ministers.
In the end, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
became part of the Constitution by virtue of the Constitution Act
of 1982. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is and
aspires to be a statement by Canadians about the rights and
freedoms which we as Canadians deeply value in our democratic
society.
Toward this end the charter protects a broad range of rights
including, for example, equality rights and the right of freedom
of expression.
Many charter rights derive from or have their equivalent in
those universal standards of human rights which I have
mentioned earlier. There is a broad tradition of rights and
striving for rights and the documentation of rights.
Rights do not, however, come without responsibilities, nor are
they absolute. All human rights amendments recognize this fact.
Section 1 of the charter states that an individual's rights and
freedoms are subject to certain reasonable limits. In
determining what constitutes reasonable limits in a free and
democratic society, governments and the courts balance the
rights of individuals with the interests of society. This very
process ensures that responsibilities along with rights are
recognized by our courts. It is not necessary to change the title
of this charter to emphasize the integral relationship between
the individual's rights and his or her responsibility to the rest of
society.
Perhaps more important, as I stated earlier, changing the title
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would require a
constitutional amendment. This is because part I of the
Constitution Act of 1982 sets out the provisions of the charter
and section 34 of part I establishes the charter's title. The
charter's title is thus part of the Constitution and can only be
amended using the amendment procedures in part V of the
Constitution Act of 1982.
The procedures in part V include the general amending
formula in section 38 of the 1982 act. Section 38 permits
amendment of the Constitution on the consent of the Senate, the
House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of at least
two-thirds of the provinces having at least 50 per cent of the
population of all the provinces. As we have seen in the past,
obtaining such consent or agreement is difficult. The Prime
Minister has indicated that the government has no plans to
reopen discussion on amending the Constitution in the
foreseeable future. I think this also extends to changing the title
of the charter.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as
the member for Richmond-Wolfe and a member of the Official
Opposition, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to
explain our position on the motion of our colleague from
Edmonton Southwest, to explain this position in relation to the
new political environment both in Quebec and in Canada.
The private member's motion on the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms is very interesting in itself. Our colleague
from Edmonton Southwest is suggesting that we add the word
``responsibilities'' to the title of the Charter, so that it would be
called the ``Canadian Charter of Rights, Freedoms and
Responsibilities''.
This motion reminds us of a fairly recent past when the late
President John F. Kennedy asked the American people, and
every individual in particular, not to ask what the government
could do for them but what they could do for their government.
(1800)
Remember the context of that time. It was the early 1960s and
new frontiers to cross were appearing on the horizon of the
American empire. Remember the invasion of Viet Nam, the
conquest of space and the imminence of a new social contract.
I repeat, the idea of individual responsibility is not bad as
such. However, the situation of Canada today is quite different
from that of the United States in the 1960s. We may be on the eve
of major social changes in this part of the North American
continent and these changes will certainly not lead to a stronger
Canadian state. President Kennedy's message was addressed to
a nation. The Quebec people are not part of the Canadian nation
and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply
to them.
First, Quebec has its own charter, as we recall. It will soon
have its own constitution. The debate on the responsibilities of a
citizen in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms do not concern us. Why? For Quebecers, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms symbolizes domination, not to
say betrayal. Let me explain. The adoption and coming into
6545
force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the
Constitution Act of 1982 marked the high point of the federal
Liberal Party's policy of Canadian nationalism. The new
Constitution of 1982, by entrenching a declaration of rights and
liberties, took from the Quebec National Assembly legislative
powers over language and education, rights which the people of
Quebec had fought for since the Conquest.
The entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the
Constitution Act of 1982 and the unilateral patriation by Trudeau's Liberal government
mark a very sharp decline, indeed the abandonment of the most important British
traditions in law and Canadian institutions.
British law and institutions base all of the state's sovereignty
on Parliament alone, as a result of the long struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Contrary to British tradition,
the 1982 Canadian charter reinforces individual sovereignty at
the expense of state sovereignty. In other words, individual
rights prevail over collective ones.
With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is the
judicial authority of the Supreme Court of Canada which
replaces the sovereignty of Quebec's National Assembly. The
1982 charter officializes, from a constitutional point of view,
Canada's integration to the American continent, as Pierre
Mackay wrote in a publication entitled L'ère des libéraux: Une
réforme constitutionnelle qui s'impose, published in 1988 by
Les Presses de l'Université du Québec. Indeed, the ultimate
sovereignty in a state such as the United States does not rest with
the Parliament but with the people, and the constitution is both
the guardian and legal representation.
Thus, the precedence of the principle of distinct society for
Quebec, in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms entrenched in the Constitution, does not exist. That
principle is violated by the power of the Supreme Court of
Canada, which imposes the charter principles to all Quebecers.
Needless to say that the Canadian charter does not recognize
the right of people to self-determination. Consequently, under
the Canadian constitutional law, the only way that an aboriginal
nation, or Quebec, could become independent would be through
an amendment to the Canadian constitution, something which is
absolutely impossible-as the hon. member said-given the
amending formula provided in the 1982 Constitution Act.
The Canadian constitution says very little on the right of
communities. As I said, the distinct or particular character of
Quebec is not recognized in any way. The 1982 Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives individuals certain rights
and freedoms versus the state. The charter allows an individual
to go before the courts to have his rights uphold, a process which
can even result in the invalidation of laws passed by Quebec's
National Assembly.
(1805)
The Bloc Quebecois opposes any Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and does not feel in any way concerned by the
motion of the Reform member for Edmonton Southwest.
In Quebec, community life deserves as great a protection as
that granted to individual rights by the Canadian charter.
Collective rights in Quebec are essential to the survival of
Quebecers and the principle of responsible citizens is part of the
solidarity which reflects so well economic and human activity in
various fields of Quebec society.
Following the election of the Bloc Quebecois at the federal
level and then the Parti Quebecois at the provincial level, our
province is about to undertake a major social project to ensure
recognition of the unique character of its people. This is a
project in which individual responsibility versus state
responsibility will primarily be defined in the context of the new
solidarity surrounding the consolidation and independence of
that state.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise this evening to address this motion that my
colleague has put forth. I feel it is a key motion. If we would take
it seriously and listen to what he has to say, it could be one of the
things that could turn this nation around in many respects.
I have listened carefully to what my colleagues across the way
and over here have said. I hope that they will listen more closely.
I think they have missed the point of what my colleague is trying
to say as he has made this motion.
Many Reformers have been long interested in developing a
charter of responsibilities to provide a counterbalance to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone knows that we
cannot enjoy our rights and freedoms unless we first of all
discharge our responsibilities as citizens.
A number of countries have defined an individual's duties to
their family, other citizens and their country. Some of these
countries are Switzerland, Germany, Ecuador, Israel, Morocco,
Japan, Pakistan, Thailand among others. If we look at what they
are doing in these countries, as I will in a moment, we will see
some interesting things that they have developed that we could
also adopt.
This is not some idea that I have dreamed up. This is not
something that I have come up with. My constituents as they
have observed what is happening in Canada in our courts, in our
social programs and in our families have told me: ``You should
stand up in the House and you should say we have too much of an
emphasis on rights in this country and not on our
responsibilities''. That is what I am doing today. I am making
this point that
6546
we need to emphasize responsibilities, not just rights in this
nation.
I want to quickly go through a list of responsibilities that I feel
should be included in the charter of rights, freedoms and
responsibilities. After I have done that I will give some
examples.
First, every Canadian has the duty and responsibility to
contribute to the defence of the nation from attack by a foreign
power and/or from insurrection from within. I am sure we all
would agree with that.
Second, everyone has the duty and responsibility to abide by
the Constitution of Canada, to respect, comply with and uphold
the laws of this country and to obey and assist the authorities to
enforce those laws.
Third, everyone has the duty and responsibility to render
assistance in cases of emergency or calamity or in
circumstances likely to endanger the existence or well-being of
all or part of the population. We have taken that for granted. We
should spell that out.
Fourth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to
responsibly exercise their rights and freedoms as an individual
having due regard for and without restricting the rights and
freedoms of others. We often forget this. I think we need to hear
this being said more often.
(1810)
Fifth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to vote in
elections and referendums and to participate in civic affairs
within the limits and conditions established by the law.
Sixth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to pay their
fair share of taxes within the limits and conditions established
by the law.
Seventh, everyone has the duty and responsibility to receive
education and training under the conditions and in a manner
provided by law in order to meet his or her personal obligations
to their family, their community and society as a whole. People
have an obligation to do their best, to train themselves so they
can serve their fellow man in the best way possible.
Eighth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to provide
the necessities of life, educate and protect his or her children
until they are adults. If we were to take that one point and
explore the meaning of it, it would radically change our attitude
to our social programs.
Ninth, everyone has the duty and responsibility for the crimes
committed by their children if it can be proven that they failed to
provide proper control and supervision. We need to give parents
the responsibility for the actions of their children.
Tenth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to support and
protect his or her parents in case of need and to the extent of his
or her means, particularly when they are old and unable to work.
I will give an example of this in another country where it works
very well.
Eleventh, everyone has the duty and responsibility to assist
and support other members of their immediate family in case of
need to the extent of his or her means.
Twelfth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to do their
fair share for society and to not take advantage of others or take
advantage of the state. Think of the implications that has.
Thirteenth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to meet
their own needs before taking advantage of any program, grant
or loan from the government.
Fourteenth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to work
in accordance with his or her capacity and not make claims for
welfare benefits from the state until and unless they are destitute
and unable to work because of disability, age or ill health and no
other means of support is available from other family members,
private charities and non-governmental organizations. That
point would radically change the mindset of many people in this
country.
Fifteenth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to a
personal code of conduct, behaviour and lifestyle that would not
cause them to be a burden to their family, their community or
society as a whole.
Sixteenth, everyone has the duty and responsibility to
co-operate with the government with respect to law
enforcement and report any illegal activities.
The seventeenth and last point-this is not an exhaustive list,
but it is just an example of the things we could put in
here-everyone has the duty and responsibility to conduct
oneself in an honest and fair manner relative to others so as to
contribute to the well-being of their family, their community,
their province and society as a whole.
I said I would give some examples as well of what these points
imply. If we look at the Young Offenders Act, here is one
example of where we should be putting more responsibility on
people for their actions. Very often our young offenders are let
go with little or no call on them to compensate their victims for
damage they may have caused.
For example in my constituency a couple of years ago a group
of teenagers took and trashed a car, a beautiful automobile that
belonged to another young person. They completely smashed it
up so that it was totally worthless. The police came and took
these young people before the court. The court said: ``That
really was not a very wise thing that you did''.
It virtually let them off. It asked them to pay a $500
deductible. The rest of us have to pay for the damage they
caused. Six of those youths were completely let go. They should
have been held accountable. They should have been held
responsible. The parents should also have been responsible for
the actions of
6547
these young people. That needs to be addressed. That is why we
need to include responsibilities in the charter.
(1815)
Another example is that the family needs to be the first line of
defence, not the government, in providing care for members of
society. I am referring to some of our social programs. Also
parents should be responsible for child care. That primary
responsibility should lie with them.
I would like to read something from the Swiss civil code. The
Swiss have very low unemployment at around 2 per cent or 2.5
per cent. Much of it is due to the fact that they have a charter of
responsibilities. I do not have time to explain all its
ramifications but I will give an example of what they have.
Since 1978, Swiss law has compelled families to look after
their needy before the government is asked to do so. Fathers,
mothers, grandparents and others must support children.
Governments sue grandparents on behalf of needy children and
the elderly can sue their offspring for support. The Swiss courts
collect the money.
Let me quote: ``All persons are bound to contribute toward the
maintenance of their ascendants and descendants in direct line
as well as their brothers and sisters if without such assistance
they were impoverished''.
Let us think how different that is from the situation in Canada
today where virtually no responsibility is placed on parents,
grandparents or children for other members of their family. We
need to emphasize the role families need to play in our society.
We must once again generate the feeling of the importance of
this basic unit in society, this basic economic unit, this basic
cultural unit.
Parents should not only have the right to discipline but they
should have the responsibility. The government would like to
remove the right for parents to spank their children. Should we
not be going in another direction and putting an emphasis on the
responsibility of parents to do this kind of thing?
My colleague over there is unaware of what the government is
doing. It would like the justice minister to remove the section in
the Criminal Code that would allow parents to spank their
children. If we did that, those parents who would choose that as a
tool to discipline their children would no longer be able to do so.
We are moving in the wrong direction with regard to a lot of
legislation in the House.
We should be teaching our children in our schools what it
means to be a good citizen of Canada. I noticed the Bloc
objected very strongly to that and I can understand why. If that
had happened we may not have had a group of people in the
House today bent on breaking up the country. We need to
emphasize that in our schools.
It has huge implications for immigration, for bringing in
families and all of a sudden dumping those families on to the
state. We should place more value on the family and the role it
can play in society. Governments have been undermining the
role of families.
In conclusion, we should make clear when people come to this
great country that they have rights but they also have
responsibilities. We need to send a signal to the people of
Canada that government is not the primary caregiver. One of the
best ways to do this is to change the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to include responsibilities.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot support the motion, although I see where it is coming
from and I certainly agree that the charter as it exists has created
a great amount of work for the courts, which has taken away
from Parliament to some degree.
The motion as it stands confuses the principle of rights and
freedoms with that of behaviour. When we say ``responsibility''
we are talking about how people should deport themselves as
citizens. I submit that the motion would have made much more
sense if it had suggested a charter of responsibilities for perhaps
the Citizenship Act which is currently under review.
(1820)
However even then I would find myself in difficulty
supporting such a motion. One of the basic freedoms we have as
Canadians is the freedom to do nothing. We have the freedom
not to be strong, to be individuals who may be seen as weak. We
are nevertheless individuals who deserve not to be penalized
because we are less strong than others. That is the reason we
need a charter that deals with the rights of individuals.
I had a great deal of difficulty during the recent hearings on
the renewal of the Citizenship Act. I have to go back in time also
to the Canada clause of the Charlottetown accord. In that
particular latter instance a document purported to tell me as a
Canadian whom and what I should respect. It said that I had to
respect minorities, people because of gender, and people for
various other reasons.
I submit that as a Canadian I do not have to be told things like
that. As a Canadian and someone who would automatically
know because of the way I have lived I would know that
everyone in the country should be treated equally. I would think
this is a fundamental matter.
When we talk about responsibilities we are beginning to
impose our own rules of behaviour on other people. The hon.
member opposite during his remarks cited, for example, that it
should be the responsibility of every Canadian to report
lawbreakers, to inform the authorities whenever someone is
deemed
6548
to be doing something that is against some law or regulation. We
had an instance of that about 60 years ago and that was the type
of rule that existed in Nazi Germany. I believe Stalin resorted to
that as well.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bryden: Hold on a second. This is precisely the situation
that exists. When we require citizens to do something we need to
have choice. Previous speakers did not deal with the question of
how we are going to enforce responsibilities. Is it going to be
something that is mandatory or is it going to be something that is
voluntary?
If it is going to be something voluntary then it is the rules of
conduct or what we would expect in a good citizen and that
really belongs in a citizenship act, not in a charter of rights and
freedoms.
On the other hand, as one member suggested earlier there is
the idea that we should actually require citizens to do it. Then
again we come back to the problem of where the state is actually
requiring and enforcing behaviour.
There may be instances where a Canadian citizen for whatever
reasons, perhaps fear, does not want to report on a crime that he
or she has observed. Do we punish that person? I go back to the
historic past to see that certainly in countries with dictatorships
it was very common to punish people who did not properly
report misdemeanours against the state. This is very serious.
I do not think that is what was intended by members opposite
when they demand a charter of responsibilities. I think they are
basically talking about the Citizenship Act.
I would like to make another point, if I may. We go on to very
dangerous and difficult ground when we discuss issues like this
one but we should discuss them, certainly. We heard another
member talk about the difference between individual rights and
freedoms and collective rights and freedoms. Here we have
another problem. As the charter exists it looks at individuals. I
submit this is the way it has to be because each one of us is our
own self. We are true to ourselves. We may not be as strong as
other people but we need protection as individuals.
When we talk about collective rights, however, we get into the
same type of situation that occurred during the early part of the
20th century when nationalism flourished in Europe and led to
the rise of Nazi Germany and Franco Spain and so on and so
forth.
(1825 )
When we approach collective rights, I submit we have a
situation in our country where I think it was suggested that some
people in the province of Quebec would like to have collective
rights for self-determination. If we subscribe to that dictum
then the Cree in northern Quebec ought also to have collective
rights for self-determination. Therein lies the contradiction.
When we talk about such collective rights, then the country is
broken up. I suggest if separatists were true to that principle then
it would break up Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just so everyone
understands perfectly clearly, I am proposing the agreement of
the House under what is called the right of reply. If I give the
closing remarks to the mover of this motion, we have to all
understand that no one else wants to speak. Once the hon.
member for Edmonton Southwest is given the floor those will be
the closing remarks and that will end this debate.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank my colleagues for their thoughtful, genuine and
heartfelt comments about this. When we talk about the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, when we talk about our Constitution
and when we talk about how we relate to one another, these are
really serious deliberations.
The debate in this Chamber in the last hour is probably the
reason many of us are here. We want to talk about ideas and why
our country works the way it does. Just because something
might be difficult to achieve does not mean it would not be
worthwhile achieving. If a worthwhile goal cannot be achieved
in one fashion then perhaps as my hon. colleague just mentioned
another approach might be more appropriate and might work.
That is the nature of this debate.
For instance, if we feel that some of the comments from an
hon. colleague are going too far, then it is incumbent on us to
make a suggestion that would improve it. We should not just
automatically throw the baby out with the bath water. That is the
beauty and the magic of our democracy.
We walk into this great Chamber daily and from time to time
we feel as though we are not really accomplishing anything, and
perhaps some days we are not. But if we can move public
discourse and discussion just one centimetre forward on
something that will make our country better for our
grandchildren, then we have done a wonderful thing.
I would like to conclude with a little story about my three year
old grandson who is the light of my life. He was visiting his
maternal grandparents in Oshawa. He came back after being
away for a month or so. My wife picked him up at the airport. He
got into the car and he looked around for papa and asked in his
little three year old voice: ``Where is papa?'' My wife said:
``Papa is in Ottawa''. He thought for a minute and said: ``Oh,
yes. Papa is in Ottawa. Papa is saving the country''. It is little
things like that which bring a touch of warmth to your heart.
6549
All members here and those who will come forward are saving
the country. It is through this interchange of ideas that we will
do that and I thank all my colleagues for their attention and
contribution to this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for
Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6549
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
(1830 )
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
having the opportunity of returning to a question which I asked
the Minister of Justice some time ago with respect to the matter
of gun control.
By way of introduction to this question which I will be asking
again of the minister and pursuing this matter I want to remind
all members of this House of some particularly important
realities we have to bear in mind on this delicate and difficult
issue. That is there is quite a difference in the perceptions of
those who come from rural areas in our country who have
specific interests and specific problems to address with respect
to this debate and those of us who come from urban areas.
I come from an urban area where I want to bring to the
attention of the minister the serious concerns that our fellow
citizens have about this issue.
My riding of Rosedale I know is often associated in the minds
of members of this House and others with the idea of a
residential area of some wealth and some luxury, where we have
many tree-lined streets and gardens. All of my riding is not like
that. Much of my riding is an extremely densely populated urban
area like many other complex dense urban areas in this country.
In that part of the riding we have apartment buildings where
we have a serious problem with violence. We have places where
the violence is related often to drug use. It is often related to
young people and disaffected youth who are easily coming into
contact and possession of firearms.
In Regent Park which is in my riding during the course of the
last election two young men were shot. Recently bullets have
been fired in that complex area around apartment buildings.
Bullets went right through the window of some perfectly
innocent people.
I am not describing a phenomenon that does not exist
elsewhere in this country. I know from talking to other members
and from talking to various people interested in this issue that
this is a problem which exists elsewhere in this country as well.
The question is what is to be done and what is the minister
going to do. That is the purpose of my question tonight. In
asking that question I want to preface it by saying that when we
look at it from an urban perspective clearly nobody needs long
guns in an urban riding. Nobody needs a rifle or a shotgun living
on Sherbourne Street where I live. The only people who have
such guns are basically those who are are using them for
sporting or for club purposes. There is no reason to have a
handgun unless you are a police officer or a law enforcement
officer.
The question then is how do we stop the cycle of violence we
are looking at in these types of areas. How do we prevent our
communities and ensure that our communities do not become
like the United States where in fact a culture of violence is
inculcated by television and by the media?
I want to address these questions to the minister. Where are
we now on the question of registration of ownership? Where are
we on controls of ammunition sales? Where are we on tougher
restrictions on handguns and the prevention of cheaper guns
coming in from the United States and border controls? Where
are we on a complete ban on assault weapons of any kind? Where
are we in our recognition that perhaps this problem calls out for
a different solution in rural areas than in urban areas? Nobody in
an urban area wants to prevent aboriginal people from carrying
on their traditional way of life. Nobody in an urban area wants to
prevent rural people who live on farms from having the firearms
necessary either to hunt for recreation purposes or even just for
pest control on their farms.
What we are looking for is protection in our urban areas. We
also recognize that this may call for different solutions for
different problems. I would ask the minister if there is any way
in which the department is capable of drafting regulations which
would recognize that fundamental difference between the way
of life of those of us who live in cities and those of us who have
different needs in the rural areas of our vast country.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the government has said it will be bringing before this
House further changes to Canada's gun control legislation some
time before Christmas. This is a difficult challenge for all of us.
I am sure that members on all sides of the House will agree with
me that we must work together to find ways to make this
legislation clear and effective but also fair.
6550
(1835)
The Minister of Justice recently said that the first and most
important obligation of the government must be to protect the
lives and safety of all Canadians. I agree with him. Safe homes
and safe streets are at the very centre of a stable, peaceful and
prosperous society.
It has been said that this is an issue which divides urban and
rural Canadians. I do not agree. There is no question that
attitudes differ but the reality does not. If firearms are used to
commit a crime does it matter whether the crime takes place in
the city or in the country? A crime is a crime. It is a problem for
all Canadians, not just those who live in our large cities.
I am convinced however that we can find ways to effectively
control firearms without jeopardizing the enjoyment of those for
whom the shooting sports are an important source of recreation.
Recently hundreds of firearm owners rallied here in Ottawa.
They were saying to the government: "Do not blame us". They
feel that the government is making them pay for firearms crimes
they did not commit.
My colleagues and I do not blame the many Canadians who
own and use firearms responsibly and safely. The government
does not blame responsible shooters, nor is it punishing them for
the crimes of others. What it is doing and what it must continue
to do is to develop legislation that responds to the needs of all
Canadians.
We need to find ways to control access to firearms without
imposing excessive or unproductive regulatory burdens on their
owners. We need to find ways to punish and deter those who
might otherwise be tempted to misuse a firearm and to endanger
others. Deterrence does not always work but we must make
absolutely sure that we get as much effective deterrence from
the law and its administration as we can.
There are people in this country who believe that everyone
should have the right to bear arms. I am not one of them. I
believe that principle is foreign to Canada and it is something
which most Canadians would not support. Ownership of a gun is
a privilege which must be earned and carefully maintained by
training, education and responsible use.
I also believe that it is a privilege that should not be infringed
without justification. In restricting access to firearms we might
inconvenience law abiding Canadians. If we do we must be sure
that we act in the interests of the safety of all Canadians and that
measures adopted by this House will not forget that privilege
and those who have earned the enjoyment of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, on May 5,
in a question directed to the Minister for International Trade, I
asked him, substantially, whether he intended to resist U.S.
pressure on Canada to refrain from imposing tariffs on farm
products subject to quotas, including poultry, eggs and milk. I
wanted to know whether the government was prepared to strike a
deal with the United States by taking a conciliatory stand on the
issue of customs tariffs on farm products subject to quota, thus
facilitating the entry of Canadian durham wheat and barley on
the U.S. market.
The minister categorically denied that he would engage in any
bargaining of this nature in negotiations between Canada and the
United States on the issue of grain imports.
The agreement reached on August 2 regarding Canadian
wheat exports to the United States was proof that a deal had been
struck, but at another level altogether. Canada did not sacrifice
the interests of Canadian and Quebec dairy, egg and poultry
producers for the benefit of wheat producers; it simply caved in
to U.S. demands and sacrificed the interests of wheat producers
by agreeing to a ceiling on our wheat exports to the United
States. Ironically, a year from now, we will have to start all over
again.
I also wanted to know whether according to the minister,
GATT rules would take precedence over NAFTA in the event of
trade disputes, and his answer was yes. I also asked whether he
could table the legal opinions on which his answers were based.
Immediately after Question Period, the Minister of Agriculture
approached me to confirm verbally the information I had been
given very briefly by the Minister for International Trade and to
give me the assurance that he would do what he could to send me
a copy of the legal opinions in question.
(1840)
I never saw these opinions, not even a summary or a
condensed version. A few days later, an official at the
Department of Agriculture called to let me know it was not
customary to release such opinions. After a rather laborious
conversation, in the course of which I reminded him of the
minister's commitment, I was finally promised a short version
of the legal opinions. Later, I was told this version was being
drafted and that I would receive a copy as soon as it was
available, in about two weeks.
Three weeks later, still no news. After contacting a new
resource-person this summer, I was told that the delay was due
to a misunderstanding between the Department of International
Trade and the Department of Agriculture, but the letter was now
on the Minister of Agriculture's desk, waiting for his signature.
The minister does not seem to sign his mail very often, because I
have been waiting for that letter for two months and I am still
waiting.
My colleague François Beaulne, MNA for
Marguerite-D'Youville, was luckier. He managed to get a
reply, which some people would call vague, in only a few weeks.
6551
On May 13, Mr. Beaulne sent a letter to the Minister for
International Trade, asking him for those legal opinions.
Incredible though this may seem, he received an answer dated
June 22, in which the minister replied to his questions, although
in a rather summary form, I must admit.
It would seem that the ministers responsible for Agriculture
and International Trade are not exactly chatty or keen on public
disclosure, to say the least, when we are talking about releasing
the information used to make decisions on behalf of the
Canadian and Quebec public.
According to the principle of responsible government,
ministers are accountable for their actions to Parliament.
Therefore, the off-hand manner in which the ministers
responsible for Agriculture and International Trade treated my
request is astonishing and unacceptable. When ministers release
outside the House information that was denied a member who
asked for it in the House, we must conclude that these ministers
misuse their power, undermine the dignity of this House and ride
roughshod over our institutions and democratic values.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware,
Canada and the United States started negotiations in December
1993 in an attempt to deal with a number of problems connected
with bilateral trade in farm products. Although these questions
were examined in their entirety, negotiations were conducted on
each product. There was no compromise and there will be no
compromise in this respect.
The latest memorandum of agreement on grain bears this out.
The memorandum deals only with our grain exports to the
United States and has absolutely no connection with questions
still outstanding.
The memorandum of agreement benefits Canadian grain
farmers by giving them stable and secure access to a U.S. market
where the returns are high. In this memorandum, Canada obtains
guaranteed access to the U.S. market for wheat at a level that is
higher than average historical levels for Canadian exports.
Furthermore, conventional wheat exports for which the CWB is
not responsible are not subject to the U.S. restrictions. The level
of access provided in the memorandum of agreement is far more
attractive than the inevitable alternative, a highly restrictive
measure that would have reduced our exports to about half the
level provided in the agreement.
The memorandum of agreement also establishes a joint grain
commission that will be asked to examine U.S. and Canadian
grain marketing practices and their impact on the international
grain market. The commission will do a critical study of the
export incentives program, a U.S. export subsidy program that
has caused imbalances in the market situation.
The memorandum of agreement also obliges the United States
to withdraw the measure on wheat and barley taken under the
provisions of GATT article XXVIII and prohibits them from
imposing any other restrictive measures on grain that do not
comply with NAFTA or GATT, during the twelve months the
memorandum is in effect.
I can guarantee the House that a satisfactory settlement of the
agriculture-related problems that still exist between Canada and
the United States remains one of the government's absolute
priorities. I would also like to emphasize that each question will
be examined on its merits and that no deals will be struck.
Bilateral trade in farm and agri-food products is evaluated at
$13.7 billion. Canada and the United States both have an interest
in developing that trade in such a way that it benefits their
respective countries.
Regarding the hon. member's allegation concerning the
discussion he had with the Minister of Agriculture and the
Minister for International Trade, I was not aware of that. The
hon. member should write to both ministers to let them know
that he intends to raise the matter in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)