CONTENTS
Thursday, June 8, 1995
(Motion agreed to.) 13443
Motion for concurrence in 81st report 13443
(Motion agreed to.) 13443
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 42. 13446
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 40 13448
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 40 13449
Bill C-92. Motion for second reading 13450
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 13452
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 13470
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13472
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13472
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13473
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13473
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13473
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13473
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13473
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13475
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13475
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13475
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13477
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13477
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13479
Bill C-85. Report stage (without amendment) 13481
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 13481
Motions Nos. 1 to 7 13482
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13498
Bill C-301. Motion for second reading 13500
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13500
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13501
Bill C-301. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 13501
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 13501
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13507
Bill C-301. Consideration resumed of second reading 13509
13443
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 8, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
four petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the report of the Railway Safety Act
review committee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade concerning Bill C-87, an act to implement the Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling
and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.
[English]
The committee has considered this bill and presents it without
amendment.
(1005 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), I move:
That the Subcommittee on HIV-AIDS be authorized to send a member of its
research staff to the annual Conference on HIV-AIDS Research to be held in
Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 8 to 11, 1995.
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion
please rise in their places?
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.(3), the
motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I tabled the 81st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Private
Members' Business. I know all hon. members will have had an
opportunity to read the report.
Accordingly, at this time I wonder if there would be
unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence in that
report without debate. If so, I move that the 81st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
to the House on Wednesday, June 7, 1995 be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Saskatoon who
request that Parliament desist from passing legislation
legalizing the use of BST.
13444
They further request that legislation be passed requiring
mandatory disclosure on all imports produced from BST treated
cows.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of 30 individuals from the riding of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding areas.
The petitioners pray and call on the House to enact legislation
to reform the justice system for a more just and safe society,
increasing recognition and protection for the rights of victims.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of
Barrière, British Columbia. This brings the total to almost
80,000 signatures.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada, and
particularly the Minister of Justice, to take whatever steps are
necessary to amend the Criminal Code and parole system to
ensure safety and peace in Canadian neighbourhoods.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
concerning small and medium size businesses, these petitioners
point out the following:
[English]
They point out that while there has been more access to capital
for small and medium sized businesses and while there has been
a reduction in red tape in dealing with government that still a
great deal more needs to be done.
They also emphasize that the GST is still a problem in terms
of overhead. They want the government to address these
problems because they point out that they contribute to 85 per
cent of the new jobs to the Canadian economy.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada. This petition comes from
my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society.
(1010 )
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the
aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families that decide to provide care in the home preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two separate petitions.
The first petition is signed by 675 individuals who call on
Parliament to halt native land claim negotiations in British
Columbia and turn Indian reserves over to the bands, fee simple,
and that the land and the natives fall under the same laws as the
rest of Canada.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 individuals who call
on Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the
official opposition.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present several
petitions signed by residents of my riding of Edmonton East.
The first petition calls on Parliament to maintain and enhance
social programs for every Canadian.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a second petition from a group of Canadians who believe
that Parliament should protect all individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation by including the
term, sexual orientation, in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition deals with euthanasia. The petitioners ask
Parliament to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in
Canada and to expand palliative care that would be accessible to
all dying Canadians.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Langham area in the
Kindersley-Lloydminister constituency.
The petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, states
that the existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms'
owners are more than enough to ensure public safety.
13445
It goes on to say that the target of all gun control laws in the
Criminal Code of Canada must be criminals who are either a
danger to the safety of the public or those who have criminal
intent, not law-abiding citizens.
No amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing
criminals from acquiring guns. Therefore, the petitioners
request three things of Parliament. First, that we support laws
which would severely punish all violent criminals who use
weapons in the commission of crimes. Second, that we support
new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize
and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms. Third, the petitioners support legislation
which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which
have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost
effective.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from residents of the city and county of Peterborough.
Whereas the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the Lord's
Prayer has been included in the historic parliamentary prayer of
the House of Commons since 1867, and whereas Canada was
founded and built on the principles of Christianity and the large
majority of Canadians profess the Christian faith, therefore the
petitioners call on the House of Commons to close the
parliamentary prayer with the words: ``Through Jesus Christ our
Lord, Amen'', and reinstate the Lord's Prayer at the conclusion
of the opening prayer.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition.
The petitioners call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to
eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to
provide care in the home for preschool children as well as for the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by constituents
of Victoria-Haliburton from such places as Bobcaygeon,
Lindsay, Woodville, Dunsford and Downeyville.
The petitioners call on Parliament to request the CBC to
withdraw its coverage of the Paul Bernardo trail.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions.
The first is from petitioners in the Yukon territory who find it
unacceptable that individuals die while in the custody of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Each incident of death while in
custody undermines public confidence.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to review RCMP
procedures for dealing with individuals in custody who are
known to have medical conditions.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from residents of the Yukon territory, from
Dawson City, Yukon, who draw to the attention of the House that
the use of firearms by criminals cannot be affected by a
computerized firearms control system.
(1015 )
The petitioners request that Parliament support only that
legislation which severely punishes any violent criminal who
uses a weapon and protects the rights and freedoms of the
law-abiding recreational firearms community.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions from people in my riding objecting to the
generic manipulation of dairy cows through the injection of
BST. Their argument seems to be that if Canada is not short of
milk why would we unnecessarily risk health hazards that may
go with this drug and if we need more milk, why not get more
cows.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise again today to ask the government House leader
when I can expect to receive an answer to Question No. 137,
which has been on the Order Paper since February 6, 1995.
I requested an answer from the government within 45 days
and as of today 122 days have passed.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader said I could expect to have an answer to my
question soon. I find it hard to believe the Department of Justice
does not have this information already. The minister said it is
currently renegotiating financial agreements with the provinces
to reimburse them for these costs.
It is vital that we have this information on the current costs of
implementing the federal gun control laws before the final vote
on Bill C-68.
13446
Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what he means by
soon? Will we have the answer before third reading of Bill
C-68?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any further
undertaking to the hon. member than what I already have. I told
him yesterday the answer will be provided soon. My answer is
the same today.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13446
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that there has been an agreement pursuant to the provisions of
Standing Order 78(2) with respect to allocation of time for the
report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. I therefore move,
seconded by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs:
That, in relation to C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons, not
more than 6 hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the
said bill and not more than six hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the
third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for
each stage, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required
for the purposes of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the
disposal of the report stage or the third reading stage, as the case may be, of the
bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
[
English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 248)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Whelan-152
13447
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-42
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Anawak
Assad
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guay
Jackson
Landry
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Minna
Ménard
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Richardson
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tobin
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1100 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not get here on
time for the vote, but I want you to know that if I were here I
would have voted with my party on this issue.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring a procedural matter to your
attention.
Bill C-68 was tabled on February 14 with a royal
recommendation. The Standing Committee on Justice did not
rule a government amendment calling for the appropriation of
funds from consolidated revenues out of order. However, on
June 5, 1995, the chairman, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, ruled a series of amendments moved
by the member for Hamilton Mountain on behalf of the member
for Fredericton-York-Sunbury out of order as an expenditure
of funds that would be necessary to affect the provisions.
On June 1, 1995, the vice-chairperson, the member for
London West, with what appears to be without advice from the
clerk of the committee, permitted clauses 98, 99, 100, 101, and
101.1 to be amended to replace certain duties of police officers
in making the duties of firearms inspectors.
The parliamentary secretary stated that while police officers
will also in some cases carry out the function of inspectors, in
some areas the police are fully employed at present. These
officers do not have the luxury to assume additional demands on
their time. In those circumstances, inspectors will be hired and
trained to enforce the Firearms Act.
I quote from the transcript of the committee proceedings:
Inspectors wouldn't be police officers. They may be in some smaller
communities where the police officer could do this role, but in most communities
the police officers' time is so taken up right now that to give the police officers
these additional tasks would not be reasonable. In most cases they would be
separate. New inspectors would be hired and trained to fulfil the role.
(1105 )
Obviously this new provision in the bill will result in an
expenditure of funds. The Governor General has not provided
the House with the required recommendation in this regard. I
would quote from citation 598 of Beauchesne's:
No cases can be found of any private member receiving the authority of the
Crown to propose a bill or motion involving either the expenditure of public
money or an increase in taxation.
The royal recommendation included in Bill C-68 did not
contemplate the appropriation of public revenue for the
expenditure outlined in the government amendments G-41,
G-42, G-43, G-44, and G-46.
Furthermore, the Constitution Act of 1867, section 54, states:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote,
Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public
Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first
recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in Session in
which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
I will not take the time of the House, but I could also quote
from citations 595 and 596 of Beauchesne's, which also verify
this requirement.
13448
The first government amendment was not ruled out of order
by the vice-chair of the committee. Whether that was due to lack
of experience or the lack of procedural advice from the clerk is
no longer at issue here. With respect, what is at issue is Bill
C-68, as reported to this House on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, is
not lawful.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to review the minutes of the committee
to verify that what I have presented to you is absolutely correct
and accurate.
I have one short additional comment. This bill was reported
yesterday. The government has not even seen all of the
amendments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I bring two points to your
attention. Drafters have not had time to draft amendments, so
they have not all been tabled. In spite of this, the government has
moved time allocation and closure on this bill. If this is not
illegal, it is certainly immoral.
Second, I believe that it is not only imperative but it is your
duty, Mr. Speaker, to not permit debate on Bill C-68 until you
have ruled on this matter.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Chair will recognize, this bill is not called
today. Therefore, any royal recommendation that would be
required, if such were required, would not be required today in
any instance.
You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, because of the government's
tremendous respect for the rules of the House, that the royal
recommendation that is required will be provided when it is
required.
The Speaker: There has been a request that I make a review
of what has gone on. I will make that review and come back to
the House today with my decision on this particular matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that there has been an agreement pursuant to the provisions of
Standing Order 78(2) with respect to allocation of time for the
report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-41, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof. I therefore move, seconded by the
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs:
That, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and
other Acts in consequence thereof, not more than six hours shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than six hours shall be
allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage, of the said bill and, at the expiry
of the time provided for each stage, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purposes of this Order, and, in turn, every question
necessary for the disposal of the report stage or the third reading stage, as the case may
be, of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
(1110 )
[English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 249)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
13449
MacAulay
MacLaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Whelan-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-40
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Anawak
Assad
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guay
Jackson
Landry
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Minna
Ménard
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Richardson
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tobin
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
(1120 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that there has been an agreement pursuant to Standing Order
78(2) with respect to allocation of time for the report stage and
the third reading stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide
for the continuation of a certain provision.
I therefore move:
That, in relation to Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, not more
than four hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill
and not more than four hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading
stage of the said bill, and at the expiry of the time provided for each stage, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purposes of this
order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage or the
third reading stage, as the case may be, of the bill shall be put forthwith andsuccessively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 250)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
13450
Barnes
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélanger
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Whelan-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-40
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Anawak
Assad
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guay
Jackson
Landry
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Minna
Ménard
Payne
Picard (Drummond)
Richardson
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tobin
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Young
de Savoye
(1130)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-92, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my
remarks today I should advise the House that in a few minutes I
have to attend a meeting of the cabinet and I regret that I will not
be able to remain for the entire debate this morning. I extend my
apologies particularly to the official spokespersons for the
opposition parties. They may rest assured I will from the record
in Hansard read very carefully what they have to say about this
important legislation.
As I open debate on Bill C-92, certain amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, I begin with a sincere request to all
hon. members to help facilitate in the House the timely passage
13451
of various pieces of agricultural legislation now before
Parliament.
In addition to Bill C-92 I think of the amendments to the Farm
Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act,
FIMCLA, which will double to $3 billion the volume of
agricultural loans from the private sector financial institutions
which can qualify for government guarantees, thus enhancing
the availability of loan capital for farmers across the country.
By the end of July we will have bumped up against the
existing $1.5 billion ceiling for FIMCLA loans across the
country. To avoid a hiatus in this very useful program
Parliament needs to enact the proposed amendments to raise the
ceiling before we adjourn for the summer and I certainly trust
that can be done.
I think of the amendments to our dairy legislation which will
provide the legal framework to allow the Canadian dairy
industry to implement certain price pooling techniques
beginning this fall.
(1135 )
This initiative is essential to enable our dairy industry to
position itself to comply with new international trade rules
coming into effect this year under the new GATT. Again, time is
very much of the essence. Parliamentary approval before the
summer recess is vitally important.
With respect to both the FIMCLA amendments and the dairy
amendments there is virtually unanimous support among all the
various stakeholders in our agriculture and agri-food sector and
there is obviously clear urgency.
I ask all hon. members and also our colleagues in the other
place to ensure these amendments are fully completed before we
rise for the summer break.
The same arguments apply to Bill C-92. These amendments
to the Canadian Wheat Board Act are urgent. They need to be in
place before August 1, 1995, the beginning of the new crop year
in western Canada. They enjoy broad support among the
majority of farm organizations.
In effect we are moving ahead with these amendments at this
time in direct response to the requests of those western farm
organizations. I trust my parliamentary colleagues will
co-operate in facilitating timely passage.
Bill C-92 deals with the long standing system by which
freight costs are pooled among prairie farmers under the
Canadian Wheat Board marking system. Under this system
western Canadian grain producers share common costs of
shipping their wheat and barley from Canadian export ports to
market destinations around the world.
The ports traditionally used as the points of departure for our
overseas sales have been Vancouver and Thunder Bay because
the world market value of grain in store at each of these two
locations, one going east and the other going west, have been
effectively the same.
Over the past decade or so changes in international marketing
patterns have altered that historic equilibrium between
Vancouver and Thunder Bay. In relative terms the effective
world market value of grain in store at Thunder Bay has declined
while the comparable value at Vancouver has increased.
To restore the balance in export values between grain moving
west and grain moving east the eastern point of departure needs
to be located in the lower St. Lawrence region, not at Thunder
Bay. This change carries several different implications for
prairie farmers in the returns they will receive on their wheat
board sales.
Overall it will increase the amount all wheat and barley
producers receive because the wheat board's total freight costs
will be reduced. This will happen because the board's pooled
costs will no longer include the seaway charges. The board's
costs will be calculated from the lower St. Lawrence instead of
Thunder Bay. The net result will be a general price improvement
across the prairies of between $5 and $7 a tonne.
At the same time it needs to be noted that for producers in
Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan who ship their grain east,
their domestic shipping costs to get their grain into final export
position will increase because they will absorb their own costs
to the lower St. Lawrence and not just to Thunder Bay.
Going in the other direction producers in Alberta and western
Saskatchewan who ship their grain west will no longer cross
subsidize a portion of the domestic freight bill for more easterly
located producers. They will pay only their own costs going to
the west coast.
For many years farmers in the western part of the prairies
have complained that the use of Thunder Bay as the wheat
board's eastern point of departure for export sales was both
unrealistic and unfair in that it added costs to those western
producers and they were bearing those costs unfairly.
Farmers in the eastern part of the prairies have acknowledge
this anomaly in the freight pooling system but they have
worried, understandably so, about the higher domestic costs
they would face if the eastern point of departure were shifted
from Thunder Bay to the lower St. Lawrence.
Many discussions on how to fix the problem fairly have been
held over the years dating back at least to 1985.
(1140 )
In our February 1995 federal budget we served notice that the
time had come to implement a solution. We proposed to provide
a final period of time for final consultations with all of the
stakeholders with the necessary changes to be made as ofAugust 1, 1996.
13452
Since the budget over the past three months intensive
discussions with prairie farm organizations, the grain
companies and co-operatives, the wheat board and provincial
governments have led to a strong consensus that this issue can
and should be resolved more quickly.
The industry has told me we should begin implementing the
change in the freight pooling system on August 1 of this year,
not next year, with the full impact to be phased in over three
years.
As we said at the time of our February budget, a portion of the
federal government's multiyear, $300 million transportation
adjustment fund will be utilized to ease the impact of the freight
cost pooling change on those most affected, namely farmers in
Manitoba and in the eastern part of Saskatchewan.
For the 1995-96 crop year, since this change is being
announced at a relatively late date and farmers have already
made their production decisions for 1995, the available federal
assistance will be designed as compensation to offset a very
significant portion of the affected farmers' increased costs in
the eastern prairies. For two additional years the federal
assistance may be more flexible and more in the nature of
adaptation encouragement in the affected area. This was the
consensus of the western grains industry.
I have undertaken to try before the end of June to be very
precise about the portion of the $300 million fund which will be
available over the next three years to help address the impact of
the pooling change.
While we are still working on all of the necessary
calculations, I have informed the western grains industry I
would estimate the available funding for this purpose to be in the
order of some $100 million in total spread over a three year
period. Depending on how we are able to apportion that very
substantial sum year by year this level of transitional funding
has a high level of industry support.
While the proposed freight pooling changes are now
scheduled subject to parliamentary approval to begin to come
into effect on August 1, 1995, the same date on which railway
subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act will come
to an end, it should be clear the cost changes which result from
the pooling issue are separate and apart from the WGTA
changes; the two should not be confused.
The WGTA subsidy is being eliminated for four very strong
reasons: to comply with new world trading rules, to increase
grain transportation efficiencies, to end freight rate
discrimination against greater diversification and value added
economic growth, and because the WGTA subsidy in excess of
$560 million each year is no longer sustainable in the face of a
$500 billion government debt.
By contrast, the freight pooling system has never involved a
government subsidy. It has constituted instead a hidden form of
cross subsidization among different groups of farmers, with
those in Alberta and western Saskatchewan absorbing some
freight costs on behalf of those in Manitoba and in the eastern
part of Saskatchewan. Bill C-92 will end this anomaly. The
cross subsidization will be phased out and significant
transitional funding will ease the impact on those most affected.
Like the other agricultural bills I mentioned at the beginning
of my remarks, Bill C-92 enjoys good support among the
stakeholders in our agricultural sector. It is very time sensitive
and must be enacted before Parliament adjourns later this
month.
I invite all hon. members to ensure its passage in a prompt and
timely manner.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
you will agree it is quite an honour for the official opposition
critic for agriculture and agri-food to speak to a bill introduced
by the Minister of Agriculture himself.
The purpose of Bill C-92 is to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board-often referred to as the CWB-Act. It proposes to
change the way transportation costs are shared by Prairie wheat
and barley producers. As a result, prices paid by the CWB to
farmers will more closely reflect actual transportation costs.
Currently, the calculation is based on the distance between the
farm and so-called pooling points. In other words, from the
farm to the port of delivery. The two pooling points are now
Vancouver and Thunder Bay. The cost of shipping grain through
the St. Lawrence Seaway from Thunder Bay is paid by the Wheat
Board. This means the cost is shared by all Prairie producers,
irrespective of the port they happen to use or their geographical
location.
Of course the port of Thunder Bay does not have the facilities
to handle large ocean-going vessels. Wheat and barley will be
loaded onto ships that can negotiate the locks and the Great
Lakes, and the wheat will be transhipped in one of the ports on
the St. Lawrence. The bill does not say which ports. It just says
``in the lower St. Lawrence region''. The lower St. Lawrence is
pretty big. The hon. member for Beauséjour will appreciate that
these ports could include Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau,
Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, and Montreal. And there are other
ports along the St. Lawrence.
13453
For instance, it could be Baie-Comeau. The grain will then be
transferred to huge ships with up to three times the capacity of
those coming from Thunder Bay.
The cost of shipping grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway
from Thunder Bay is paid, as I said earlier, by the Canadian
Wheat Board. This means the costs are shared by all Prairie
producers. Producers from the western Prairies who send their
grain west to the port of Vancouver are paying part of the cost for
farmers from the eastern Prairies whose grain is shipped through
the St. Lawrence Seaway. In other words, western Prairie
farmers are subsidizing eastern Prairie farmers.
Bill C-92 will shift the pooling point from Thunder Bay to the
St. Lawrence Seaway. You will remember, Madam Speaker, if
you were listening carefully, but I will repeat, nevertheless, that
it is not spelled out which ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway
will be part of this new pooling point, but I am told it might be
Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Trois-Rivières, or Quebec City, and
possibly other ports along the St. Lawrence.
In this way, eastern Prairie farmers who send their grain
through the St. Lawrence Seaway will pay the real cost instead
of being subsidized by western Prairie producers. This change
will have an impact on the price Prairie farmers will get for their
grain.
(1150)
The amount the CWB pays all wheat and barley producers in
general will increase. It will increase because the CWB will no
longer pay the cost of transportation from Thunder Bay to the St.
Lawrence Seaway, since transportation costs are combined and
deducted proportionately from market revenues distributed
among all producers. This will affect prices.
In the future, they will be calculated from St. Lawrence ports,
rather than from Thunder Bay. Producers in Manitoba and
eastern Saskatchewan shipping their grain east will pay
increased domestic shipping costs, because they will now have
to assume the real costs of shipping via ports on the lower St.
Lawrence and not just via the port of Thunder Bay.
However, producers in western Saskatchewan and Alberta
will no longer have to subsidize a part of the domestic
transportation costs of producers living further east. Farmers in
the western prairies have been saying for years that the Canadian
Wheat Board's choice of Thunder Bay as the point of departure
for exports to the east was unrealistic and meant additional and
unfair costs for them. I agree with them. Farmers in the eastern
prairies have always been aware of this anomaly, but are,
understandably, somewhat anxious about the way it is being
changed, because it will certainly lower their returns.
This change could take effect this August 1-in two months
and three weeks, approximately-if Bill C-92, which we are
discussing this morning, is adopted. The bill would indeed
affect the returns of producers in various regions. A producer in
the eastern prairies living in Brandon, Manitoba, for example,
will have a $5.81 a tonne decrease in returns. He was previously
dealing with the port of Thunder Bay, but will now have to use a
port on the Lower St. Lawrence, which will decrease his returns
by $5.81 a tonne.
When there is talk of a decrease of $5.81 per tonne, you must
admit, Madam Speaker, that things are getting lean.
Producers'net returns are being pared to the bone. The initial
freight deduction would increase from $20.34 per tonne to
$31.14 per tonne. However, due to a $4.99-almost $5-per
tonne higher return from the CWB because of the elimination of
the pooled shipping costs, the net effect would be a $5.81 per
tonne decrease in returns. If you subtract $20.34 from $31.14,
you get $10 and some loose change, minus the $4.99 per tonne
producers will not have to pay, hence a decrease in returns of
$5.81 per tonne, as I said before.
Obviously, when you look at it on a per tonne basis, it does not
amount to much, but for a big grain producer, it adds up to a very
substantial amount. The first example was located in the eastern
portion of western Canada, in Manitoba. However, if we go
further west, and take the example of a producer located near
Calgary, Alberta, his return would not decrease but increase by
$4.99, let us say $5 per tonne.
(1155)
And yet, in Calgary, the initial freight deduction would
remain the same at $22.19, because freight is still deducted to
Vancouver only. However, with the increase in the CWB pool
return because of the elimination of the pooled shipping costs
from Thunder Bay, since all producers were contributing an
additional amount, the net effect for producers in the Calgary
area would be a $4.99 per tonne increase in returns.
I realize that all this talk about increasing and decreasing
returns might be very technical for my colleagues in the House.
But the many western grain producers who are listening to us
this afternoon understand perfectly well what I am talking
about. They know what it means to gain or lose $5 a ton; it is not
an inconsequential amount. If they sell a ton of wheat for $135, a
difference of $5 represents an additional income, or a loss, of 3.5
to 4 per cent, and a difference of 3.5 or 4 per cent is very
important. Unions are fighting these days for new collective
agreements with a 2 or 3 per cent wage increase, and they often
have to go through several months of strike to get that.
Since we of the Bloc Quebecois came to Ottawa, 18 months
ago already, our position on the transport subsidies has always
been very clear. We strongly support deregulating. A system
which conceals true prices with subsidies given left and right
only brings the type of results we see today, that is a major
distortion of markets. And that is exactly what we experienced.
13454
The rail system, as it now operates, is proof enough of that.
The criteria used to determine if a railway line should stay open
are not the same in the west and in the east. In Western Canada,
surprisingly enough, and I want to point this out to my Quebec
colleagues in particular, a railway line is supposed to operate in
the best interests of the public; in the east however, and
especially in Quebec, it must be cost effective.
Let me mention the case of the Quebec Central Railway line
which goes from Sherbrooke, through Lévis, to Vallée-Jonction
and then from Vallée-Jonction to Lac-Frontière and St-Georges
de Beauce, a total distance of 382 kilometres. Quebec Central
always neglected its clients and gave poor service on that line;
so it lost its clients one after the other. In my opinion, this was
planned, to prove to the National Transportation Agency that the
Chaudière-Vallée line was not viable. Finally, last year at about
this time, Quebec Central, through its parent company Canadian
Pacific, requested and obtained permission from the National
Transportation Agency to abandon this line.
Of course, politicians, economic stakeholders and the
regional county municipalities protested against this
abandonment because, once more, we in this great and beautiful
country of ours were up against distortions and double
standards.
A secondary line similar to the one I mentioned which goes
through Thetford and East Broughton, in my riding, would not
have been abandoned in the west even if it had not been viable,
because it would have been in the public interest. There is a
double standard.
(1200)
The result is that some railway lines, in Quebec especially,
which served small and medium size municipalities were
abandoned to offset the financial losses of other secondary lines
in the west. Needless to say, we will be supporting Bill C-92,
because we are in favour of people paying the real cost of
transportation, and because we want to put an end to the market
distortions that we presently have.
This morning I was at a sitting of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture where we heard witnesses representing dairy
farmers. I knew that a litre of milk cost about $1.06 but this
morning I learned that there was a threshold price of 98 cents,
below which the retailer cannot sell his milk, and a ceiling of
$1.09, above which the same retailer cannot sell. Most
consumers believe that the dairy producers get about 70 cents or
75 cents on this amount of $1.09.
Could you tell me, madam Speaker, what portion of the $1.05
or $1.09 that you probably paid for your litre of milk yesterday
goes directly to the producer? This is not a trick question,
Madam Speaker. You do not have the slightest idea, and this is
not surprising. If I were to ask the same question to the vast
majority of my hon. colleagues in the House, most of them
would not be able to tell me what portion goes directly to the
dairy producers.
Personally, I thought that the producer was getting 50 cents,
but it is not even that much. This morning, we were told that the
producer was getting 56 cents. You might say that it is more than
50 cents, but on that amount, the producer must pay the
transportation costs from his farm to the dairy, or 18 cents. So, if
you deduct 18 cents from the 56 cents, you end up with 38 cents.
So the producer gets 38 cents for each litre of milk he
produces. Did you know that big dairies have to pay some fees to
the retailer to be able to place their product on the display racks?
You did not know that. It is very costly.
So a producer gets 38 cents per litre and the dairy will pay up
to 20.5 cents to the store owner. The farm producer must feed,
milk, and tend the cows, and keep them in a clean environment,
which is costly and brings him only 38 cents per litre, whereas
the retailer gets 20.5 cents per litre. This is totally unfair.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers are not aware of
these facts.
(1205)
I see my colleague from Charlesbourg, who is a veterinarian,
and who treated several dairy herds in his practice. He was
probably not aware of the fact that dairies have to give 20.5
cents to be able to sell their milk.
I would also like to point out that, in Canada, almost 80 per
cent of the markets are shared between four main distributors,
four main grocery chains. So they can decide, for example,
whether they want to have the products of a particular dairy in
their store or not.
In the end, who foots the bill? The consumers. Every year, I
see dairy producers asking for an increase. I suppose that in
August, the Canadian Dairy Commission will be hearing from
the dairy producers that they want to get an increase. They will
explain, in great detail, the effects of the 30 per cent cut in
subsidies, which will come into effect in a few weeks or a few
months, as well as the increase in production costs. I can assure
you that the increase will be much more than only a few cents
and a small fraction. The increase will have to be justified, when
in fact there is no need to justify it to anyone.
I want to get back to Bill C-92. Furthermore, the amendment
made to the bill does not involve taxpayers' pockets in any way.
In fact, what it involves is a change in the system that affects
only the grain growers. So, it is only a matter of setting
transportation costs more fairly to reflect reality.
Though we can easily see that this amendment is more suited
to the wishes of producers in the western part of the prairies than
of those further to the east, we would be severely judged if we
interfered in the internal business of grain producers.
13455
However I have doubts about some clauses. By lowering
returns of eastern prairie producers, Bill C-92 could well cause
a reduction in quantities of grain shipped through the St.
Lawrence Seaway. It would be very useful to know the extent of
this possible reduction in order to be able to prevent the loss of
too many jobs in the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I would appreciate very much if somebody on the other side,
and I am thinking in particular of my colleague and friend for
Beauséjour, could respond to this legitimate concern of
stakeholders.
The other curious aspect of this bill is that it allows for the use
of the grain transportation adjustment fund which, worth $300
million. Around $100 million could be allocated to ensure a
smooth transition. At the outset, a $300 million fund over a
five-year period was put aside for western grain producers. But
in the next three years $100 million will be spread between
Thunder Bay and the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway and there
is talk of spending some $40 million for the 1995-96 crop year
starting at the end of summer.
This fund was meant to help producers adjust to the new
situation, not to maintain the illusion, I repeat, the illusion that
freight subsidies are still in place. Fortunately the agriculture
minister said a few words about that earlier.
(1210)
You know, in Quebec, we thought that this government was
much more generous towards western grain producers than
towards farmers in the east.
Western farm owners or tenants will receive $1.6 billion in
direct subsidies. Considering that, in the west, 35 per cent of
farms are leased, will this money be given to the owner or the
tenant? No decision has been made yet. This $1.6 billion equals
$18 an acre, and it is tax-free. Quite a gift.
If you find a $100 bill in the street, you put it in your pocket
and do not declare it on your tax return. This is about the same
thing. It is a gift, a present from the Liberal government.
Personally, I think it is too much, but grain producers think it
is not enough. Liberals saw that in the Manitoba elections. They
were almost sure to win, but only managed to get a few of their
candidates elected. A real slap in the face. I have more fingers
than I need on this hand to count the Manitoba Liberal members.
My colleague for Chicoutimi reminds me that there are three of
them.
According to opinion polls, the Liberal Party of Canada seems
to be very healthy. We could try to find reasons for that. But once
in the booth, it seems that Canadians often change their mind.
We will see tonight, at 8 o'clock, if the policies and openness of
this government really reflect reality when we know the results
of the Ontario election.
A few weeks ago, in Ontario, Ms. Lyn McLeod was on cloud
nine survey after survey; some of them gave more than 55 per
cent of the votes to her Liberal Party. I remember that many of
my colleagues in this House were bragging during statements by
members. They were saying that Ontarians are intelligent, nice,
that they know what they are doing, so they will vote for Lyn
McLeod and the Liberal Party in Ontario.
Today, Ontario Liberals have changed their tune. Now, they
say that Ontarians are being exploited, that they are naive and do
not get the message. That is funny, they are not nice Ontarians
any more. Six weeks ago, they were beautiful, nice, smart and
today, they are not as much.
There are 99 federal ridings in Ontario. Only one is
represented by one of my Reform colleagues, 98 out of 99 are
Liberal. Does that really reflect reality? I do not think so. I had
the opportunity on several occasions to go to Toronto in the last
months. I was able to see that the Liberal Party was not enjoying
the fine reputation that some here seemed to be bragging about.
(1215)
I am inviting the hon. member for Beauséjour to my
apartment tonight to watch the election results on the French
information network in a friendly atmosphere.
To complete my remarks on Bill C-92, the $100 million to be
allocated for adjustment purposes should be available only over
the next three years. Farmers should not become dependent on
this fund-it should not become a kind of antibiotic-since we
might as well go back to the WGTA we have lived with for 98
years, which everyone wanted to revoke but did not dare do so
for fear of creating uncertainty.
In three years, this $100 million will be gone, but it would be a
shame if producers were left high and dry. This approach may
simply delay the problem for three years. Why is this fund not
used to really help people adapt or take early retirement?
We in the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-92, to
compensate a little for market distortion, but this does not mean
in any way that Bill C-92 does not have flaws that could perhaps
be corrected.
Since I still have a few minutes left, allow me to get back to
the problem facing most farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the
maritimes. I referred earlier to the amounts the federal
government is going to give western grain producers. There is a
tax-free $1.6 billion, the $300 million adjustment fund to be
spent over five years, and another $1 billion to promote
agricultural exports.
The Minister of Agriculture is being very honest. He said
earlier that the main purpose of reducing, of revoking the WGTA
13456
is to diversify western agriculture and create value-added
industries. Nothing could be better than creating value-added
industries for our agricultural products. This is not a Canadian
invention. All the countries in the world want added value, not
for Canada but for themselves.
The proof is that Japan does not buy canola oil; it buys canola
and makes its own oil, fats and margarine. That is quite normal.
The Japanese are not crazy. I understand perfectly what they are
doing. They come here and buy our wheat, but do their own
milling and make their own flour. They do not buy wheat flour in
bags. They do the value adding in their own country. They do not
come here and buy loaves of bread just to please us. They buy
wheat from us and bake their own bread at home.
We will have to play our cards right and, more importantly, be
innovative in creating new products and carefully protecting the
manufacturing processes, so that no one can come and copy
them. So, every one is in favour of value adding, but the concern
Quebecers and Ontarians in particular have is that federal
subsidies could be used to diversify western agriculture, which
would then compete with us on our own markets. I discussed this
matter with two colleagues from the Reform Party; one is from
Western Canada and the other from Ontario.
(1220)
Of course, that is more or less what they are up to, but as long
as I sit in this house, rest assured, Madam Speaker, that I will
look after the interests of the people of Quebec, particularly
those of the riding of Frontenac whom I represent. At the risk of
ruffling the feathers of our western colleagues, I will say out
loud what we, Quebecers, know how to use our brains.
I should point out that there is a new phenomenon at work in
this House, and I hope that the people of Quebec will not repeat
the mistake they made in 1970, 1972, 1976 and 1978, when they
elected to this place 74 Liberal members-you are right, Madam
Speaker, to whisper the figure to me-out of a maximum of 75,
the exception being my pal Roch LaSalle, who had to run a
one-man opposition from Quebec in this place.
We have seen what good it did Quebec to be represented by so
many good Liberals, who were supposed to stand up for us. Just
think of the War Measures Act. My hon. colleague will no doubt
remember that, while there were only a handful of FLQ
members, 498 people were arrested without any warrant, and
detained for weeks. Tactics used in Russia and others
totalitarian states were applied in Canada in the days of the good
old Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Léopold Corriveau, the member who represented my riding at
the time, voted for the War Measures Act, a bludgeon law only
fit for totalitarian states. Yet, any time a totalitarian state
implements such measures, the Canadian government, the world
leader of democratic governments, is the first to protest and
make representations against them.
Last week, in the region where I live, young people from my
village were collecting money to buy postage stamps to send
letters to Latin-American countries, on behalf of Amnesty
International, asking that prisoners of conscience, not to say
political prisoners, be released.
I still admire Pauline Julien, but I admired her even more
when I was a teenager, for her wonderful songs. Her husband,
the late lamented Gérald Godin, was jailed under the War
Measures Act. That very feeling man told himself: ``In the next
election, I will run against the man who contributed to having
me unfairly imprisoned, and I will win''. That man was one of
your friends, Robert Bourassa, in 1976. He was soundly
defeated in a French-speaking riding of Montreal's east end by
Gérald Godin, who had been illegally jailed under the War
Measures Act. That legislation had been supported by 74 Liberal
members, with only one opposing it. This is a real shame.
Quebecers' motto is ``Je me souviens'', I remember. We do
remember, but we are very ashamed.
I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill, but it
makes me relive all these episodes, and all the injustices done to
Quebec in the past.
(1225)
I do hope that the day is soon coming when Quebecers will
have a country of their own, collect their own taxes, draft their
own legislation, and manage their own affairs as they see fit, and
I also hope that there will be nothing untoward that we would
live to regret for the rest of our lives. Liberal members opposite
will have to live with the War Measures Act of 1970 for the rest
of theirs.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
here today to debate Bill C-92, which is a bill to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. I find I have today less energy and
less enthusiasm for debate and participation in the House than I
should have and would normally have.
We witnessed in the House less than an hour ago an action that
makes me sad and angry at the same time. What we have seen is
the Liberal government, a government that campaigned on a
more open and honest type of government, a government that
campaigned on improving the democratic system in the House,
invoke closure on three bills that are very important to
Canadians and that Canadians want to be debated fully in the
House.
One of these bills is Bill C-41, the bill that will allow the
courts to impose greater sentences on those convicted of crimes
motivated by hate. Hate can be based on many-
13457
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would
like to question the relevancy of what the member is speaking on
in connection with Bill C-92.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I request the member for
Vegreville relate his remarks to the bill before the House.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, as members will see as I go
along, one of the aspects I deal with in regard to this legislation
is the lack of democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board. That is
related to this bill. I make these comments and they will be tied
in to my presentation later.
I can understand the member's not wanting me to bring up the
issue of closure. He should be ashamed. It is important that I do,
and it will strengthen my argument later when I talk about the
lack of democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Three bills now have had closure invoked by the Liberal
government. They are bills that are very important to Canadians
and they should have full debate in the House.
This follows on the heels of the corruption we have seen in the
government on the part of the heritage minister, which has not
been dealt with by the Prime Minister, who would have called
for the resignation of the heritage minister had he been willing
to deal with this issue the way he should. It really makes it
difficult for me to gather any kind of enthusiasm to debate any
bill, including this bill, Bill C-92, having to follow that kind of
performance on the part of this government.
I will discuss Bill C-92 today under three basic categories.
First I will talk about what the bill is, what is in the bill and what
should be in the bill. Second, I will talk about the impact on
grain farmers and on the grain industry of this legislation if it is
passed as it has been presented. Third, I will talk about how this
bill fails to deal with the broader changes that are needed in the
Canadian Wheat Board, including the democratic changes I
alluded to.
(1230)
The bill is another attempt to tinker with a system that needs
major change. I am talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, an
organization which I think Reformers support. I believe there is
widespread support in the Reform Party for the Canadian Wheat
Board and our policy demonstrates this. There is also
widespread support for reform of the Canadian Wheat Board
particularly to make it more responsive to farmers who after all
pay for the full cost of operating the board and whom the board
exists to serve.
The bill is a move in the right direction and will providea move toward a more market driven and more transparent
system, at least in this one very narrow area of freightpooling. However, this bill is tinkering with the system when we
should have broad legislation which would completely change
the Canadian Wheat Board as it exists today.
The tinkering is because of other changes that have been
implemented in the transportation system with the trade
agreements in the grain handling system. I believe even these
changes are not wanted by the minister and certainly not by the
Canadian Wheat Board, but they are needed to keep up with the
times.
Bill C-92 if passed will make changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board Act which will allow changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board's freight pooling system. Farmers from eastern
Saskatchewan and all of Manitoba will pay higher freight costs,
while farmers from western Saskatchewan and Alberta and the
Peace River block of British Columbia which is in the Canadian
Wheat Board area will pay lower freight costs. This change in
freight costs will reflect more accurately the actual cost of
moving the grain from these locations. In this regard the bill
does provide a move in the right direction.
I have many concerns about the bill. It includes very little in
terms of detail. The bill will allow for the changes which will
make the freight costs that farmers are paying much closer to
what the market would indicate they should be but there is very
little in the bill that will ensure these changes will take place.
There is nothing in the bill that says it must happen. There are
only changes that will allow it to happen. This is of great
concern to me. Any changes that are made will be made by order
in council, by the minister and cabinet.
While there is some background information on the numbers
and the specifics of the changes, there is very little detail of this
in the legislation. We will push for amendments that will add
some certainty to the legislation as to just what kinds of dollar
changes will be made in the freight costs for farmers across
western Canada with regard to wheat board grain.
The bill only applies to board grains which are wheat and
barley for export. It does not apply to all the other grains and
special crops that farmers produce.
(1235 )
I will go over in a bit more detail what is included in Bill
C-92. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act to change pooling points on which initial
payments are based from Thunder Bay and Vancouver to points
in Canada designated by the governor in council and to establish
13458
a deduction from the initial payments that reflect the relative
transportation cost advantage of each producer.
Through the bill, which will be effective August 1 if it is
passed by the House before the session ends, the federal
government will change how eastward grain transportation costs
are paid. That means eastern prairie farmers who ship through
the St. Lawrence seaway will have to pay the full cost of
movement, or at least close to the full cost, within three years.
In the past, all prairie farmers have shared the costs of
shipping Canadian Wheat Board grain through pooling. The
extra cost of shipping Canadian Wheat Board grain through the
seaway system, which is on average $22 a tonne, has been
pooled. Not only are the farmers who are shipping their grain
through Thunder Bay and on down the St. Lawrence paying the
extra costs, but all farmers within the wheat board designated
area who ship grain to the board are sharing the costs through the
pool.
That means all farmers, in particular the farmers from western
Saskatchewan and Alberta, have been receiving less for their
wheat and barley than they should have been. Farmers from
eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been receiving more
than they should have been. This has been done by pooling the
freight costs so that all farmers take an equal deduction from
their price for the cost of freight. I have many concerns about
this being done and I will discuss some of them later.
Originally the government planned to change the eastern
pooling points next year. However, at least according to the
minister, several Manitoba farm groups have called on him to
make the change effective at the start of this crop year which
begins on August 1.
The minister claimed that the farm groups which have been
encouraging him to make the change have said they need the
change in order to bring more certainty to the system. In other
words, they say they want to know what will happen and they
want to know now. They want to know how much more it is
going to cost them. That is coming from the farmers in Manitoba
who are going to pay more. That is the way the minister of
agriculture explained the need for making the change this crop
year on August 1 rather than next year.
It is commendable that the minister would want to allow this
kind of certainty to at least creep into the Canadian Wheat Board
freight pooling system. It is unfortunate that the same kind of
certainty will not be in place when the changes are made to the
WGTA, in terms of moving grain by the rail system. That
uncertainty will be there until 1999, the year before the
maximum freight rates may be lifted. The decision will not be
made until the year before the rates can be lifted and that leaves
a lot of uncertainty in place. I encourage the minister to be as
concerned about the uncertainty caused by that change which
was implemented by the budget as he is about the change to the
pooling of freight through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Consistency is needed. We need the minister to make some
decisions which will add certainty to the agriculture industry. I
commend him for doing it in this one narrow area.
(1240 )
In terms of transitional assistance, a fund which came about
as a result of this budget, $300 million was put in place for a
transition fund. It is meant to be used to help different sectors of
agriculture deal with the change in the freight rate.
Nothing in the bill states this but through discussions the
department has said that about $100 million of this $300 million
in transition funds will be paid to farmers in Manitoba and
eastern Saskatchewan over a three year period to help them deal
with the added freight costs they will find themselves covering
out of their own pockets. This is reasonable because it is an
additional burden put on the Manitoba farmers even above the
burden of paying full costs which, as a result of this budget, have
been put in place for all western farmers.
All western farmers will be paying the full freight costs as of
August 1. With this change, Manitoba farmers will be paying an
additional cost of approximately $6 a tonne. It would be
extremely difficult for the farmers to deal with this starting on
August 1 of this year. The transition money being paid to these
farmers is reasonable. I know some of my colleagues will talk
about a concern they have about there being enough money left
in this fund to help alfalfa and timothy shippers deal with the
radical changes they face in their industry.
I have talked about what is in this legislation. Now I will talk
about what is not in this legislation as it applies to the
government achieving the goals it has laid out through this
legislation.
As long as there is a Canadian Wheat Board where there is a
price pooling system in place, it will be necessary to have a
pooling schedule for freight. It is necessary for that system to
work.
There are very few specifics in this bill regarding the exact
nature of the new freight pooling system. For instance, there us
very little information about the decision on the actual
catchment areas, which will be smaller areas of pooling within
these catchment areas, and what they might look like. There
have been some proposals put forth but there is no certainty in
these. We do not know for sure what the catchment areas will
look like.
If the government decides to put in place the national grains
bureau recommendation for catchment areas, then there will be
four catchment areas for wheat: the west coast, the east coast,
Churchill and the U.S. There will still be freight pooling within
these areas. Why are we not moving toward a system that fully
13459
reflects the marketplace and the cost to farmers? Why are we
just tinkering and going part way? However, it is definitely a
move in the right direction.
If the government goes with the national grains bureau
proposal on malting barley there would be two catchment areas,
the west coast and the United States. Again, it is a move in the
right direction even though it does not go far enough.
It is appropriate at this time to explain clearly what this
freight pooling does and how it relates to the price pooling
which operates under the Canadian Wheat Board. The freight
pooling as I explained before causes all farmers who sell grain
through the Canadian Wheat Board to pay an equal amount of
the freight bill, even if after looking at the market signals they
should be paying less, or perhaps more.
This has lowered the price in the price pool which gives all
farmers an equal price for their wheat. It has lowered the price
by the same amount no matter what the freight costs are. Clearly
to have this price pooling system work there must be some kind
of a freight pooling system in place. Otherwise it would be
extremely difficult though not impossible for the wheat board to
calculate the payments which go to all farmers.
(1245 )
To explain a bit more about the pooling system I will give a
brief summary from a background document which, while not
part of the legislation, is said by the department to be what the
legislation is based on. It is a summary of two proposals put
forward by the National Grains Bureau and the Canadian Wheat
Board.
The first proposal comes from the National Grains Bureau.
Under its proposal all producers would be deducted a decreasing
freight amount moving east or west of the west coast catchment
area.
The proposal was widely discussed in the payment producer
panel report. The payment producer panel was established by
the Conservative government and was continued by the Liberal
government. Unfortunately its proposals really were not
considered when the changes were made to the Western Grain
Transportation Act which is what this panel was discussing.
The National Grains Bureau proposal was later modified to
include shipments through Churchill and directly to the U.S.
market. The relative proximity of a producer to these markets
would determine the basis for the deduction. That is the National
Grains Bureau proposal.
The second is the CWB '85 proposal, as it is called. This
proposal recognizes the general equivalence of west coast and
St. Lawrence ports in terms of sales returns. It recommended
that the eastern pooling point be changed from Thunder Bay to
the St. Lawrence. That is what will happen if the legislation is
passed as the department says it will.
However this proposal will not work under the current
circumstances because of the higher demand for grain from
customers in the Japan and Saudi Arabian markets. The proposal
will not work until a balance can once again be achieved
between the east coast and the west coast shipments.
The Canadian Wheat Board proposes to devise a system of
pooling based primarily on the National Grains Bureau model.
The Canadian Wheat Board is hoping that because of the
increased transportation costs inherent in the National Grains
Bureau proposal, producers will compare returns from pool
accounts for wheat, durum, feed barley, malt barley and
non-Canadian Wheat Board crops and eventually diversify,
based on anticipated future rates of return.
The Canadian Wheat Board wants to move toward the
CWB'85 proposal as constraints on the west coast catchment
area are reduced. It believes in the long term this will be a viable
option.
In a nutshell those are the two proposals which were outlined
in the background paper given to the committee and to MPs who
were interested in Bill C-92.
I will now comment on how the Liberals are trying to rig the
entire system in order to keep the Canadian Wheat Board as a
monopoly seller even though it is really no longer practical or
viable.
The bill seeks to make a new pooling system with the same
type of structure, except using smaller catchment areas, so there
is an advantage, but using the same type of system. Instead of
making major changes to the whole wheat board system and to
the freight costs to farmers, the government has chosen to try to
modify the old system. Too often this is the type of thinking that
creeps into a bureaucracy. It is certainly here in this bill. It is
unfortunate because it really does fulfil all of the changes that
are needed.
One of my concerns about this legislation is that we really do
not know the details. The background paper is there, but it is not
part of the legislation.
That summarizes what is in the bill and what is missing at
least as it relates to what the stated purpose of this bill is. I
would now like to discuss the impact of this legislation on
farmers and on the grain industry if it goes forward as it is
proposed.
(1250 )
This change reflects at least partially the actual cost to
farmers of shipping from different points on the prairies, again
limited because they are still pooling within each of the four
catchment areas.
At least it moves in the right direction. I will demonstrate
using some numbers from the background paper for wheat and
for barley. First for wheat. Wheat being shipped from Winnipeg,
Portage la Prairie, Brandon under this new proposal will cost
13460
farmers about $5.80 more per tonne than it does under the
present system.
On the other hand, farmers from Medicine Hat, Lethbridge,
Calgary would pay about $5 a tonne less than they do under the
present system. Therefore it will cost about $6 more for farmers
in western Saskatchewan and Manitoba, depending on which
catchment area they are in, and farmers in southern Alberta will
receive $5 more for their grain. The amount in other areas
depends on which catchment area farmers are in.
The change for feed barley is even more dramatic. Feed barley
is a lower priced commodity. Under this proposal, farmers in the
Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Brandon area will pay anywhere
from $16 to $18.50 a tonne more to ship their grain than they
have in the past, whereas farmers from Medicine Hat,
Lethbridge and Calgary will pay $7 to $8 per tonne less than they
do under the present system.
The change will cause the freight cost paid by farmers to
reflect more closely the actual cost of moving the grain.
Therefore this is a move in the right direction.
The third area I will discuss is what this bill fails to do in
reforming the Canadian Wheat Board. I certainly cannot talk
about everything it fails to do but I want to talk about the points
that are most relevant to this bill.
I begin by reading an open letter to grain farmers that I sent to
papers across western Canada. This letter was picked up by most
of the weekly papers across western Canada and some of the
larger papers.
I want to read the letter. It certainly ties in with the importance
of making the wheat board more democratic:
Over the past year, the Canadian Wheat Board has been greatly debated by
both farmers and national media. The publicity and discussion surrounding this
issue has resulted in a polarization of public opinion. Farmers who support
changing the Canadian Wheat Board are immediately branded as board
destroyers. Farmers who do not support changes to the Canadian Wheat Board
also find themselves under attack by those who strongly favour change.
During meetings with farmers and farm groups, I have been promoting a
mechanism for building a bridge across the gap that separates those who favour
changes to the board and those who are opposed. It is a mechanism which all
farmers could support. I believe the first real step toward meaningful change to
the Canadian Wheat Board is through a farmer elected board of directors which
would replace the current system of government appointed commissioners and
an advisory board that has no real power.
Farmers should be given the authority, which is rightfully theirs because they
pay the bills, to decide what type of wheat board they want. An elected board of
directors would replace the current system of government appointed
commissioners and shift control away from the federal government to farmers.
Within 6 to 18 months of electing a board of directors, farmers should be
given a chance to democratically examine their organizational and
jurisdictional options. This will allow grain farmers to carefully consider and
vote on a variety of market opportunities.
These options could include introducing greater domestic and international
market competition, allowing the purchase of wheat and barley on either a cash
basis or a pool basis and allowing the board to operate as a seller from export
terminal positions only, which would take the board completely out of the car
allocation and grain handling process. These and other issues would be decided
directly by farmers through referendum.
An elected board of directors would submit their proposals for initial crop
payments to Parliament as the commissioners do now. Elected representatives
would then vote to determine if these payments were reasonable. The purpose
behind the measure is to provide a government check on the otherwise
independent board by having Parliament approve initial payments and loan
guarantees because taxpayers' dollars are involved.
Farmers themselves will have their own ideas regarding the Canadian Wheat
Board and how to make it work better for farmers. All of these proposals must be
considered.
Several people have asked what my personal position is regarding possible
changes to the board. I support the concept of opening the board up to
competition. However, it is not up to me or the federal government to decide on
the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. This decision must be made solely by
western Canadian grain farmers.
The Canadian Wheat Board will be a subject of continued discussion until the
democratic rights of Canadian grain farmers are restored and they are given a
real choice in how their organization will run in the future.
An elected board of directors is the only real option for the federal
government. After all, who can argue with democracy?
(1255)
It has become apparent from what we have seen in the House
today that the government can argue with democracy. We do not
have a functioning democracy in Parliament and we must get a
functioning democracy in the House. The Liberals must uphold
their promise in that regard.
They must also make the changes necessary to allow farmers
to democratically control the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board and to decide what the wheat board should be. Why
should government make these decisions? Why should the
farmers marketing board be answerable to the minister and be
directed by the minister rather than by farmers? It makes no
sense.
This issue has been a very emotional one for several reasons.
Farmers who remember when the Canadian Wheat Board came
into place know that it served a very useful function.
At the time the Canadian Wheat Board was established there
was a lack of competition in the grain buying business in
Canada. Farmers never had a properly functioning marketplace.
There was no competition at a lot of delivery points. Farmers
were at the mercy of the grain buyers because the information
system in place today was not there. Today's transportation
system was not in place and farmers were largely hauling grain
13461
by wagon. It would be too difficult to take a load of grain home
again after they had delivered it to the elevator. Therefore, they
really were at the mercy of the grain buyers.
When the wheat board came into being it served a very useful
purpose. It still does but it is a different purpose now.
The people who remember what the wheat board gave them
when it came into place in 1935 tend to forget the changes that
have been made since. They also forget the reality of the
marketplace we live in now, with good information sources and
relatively good transportation to get the grain from the farm to
the elevators.
People also forget that when the wheat board was developed
in 1935 it was a voluntary board. Farmers had a choice. They
could choose to deliver to the Canadian Wheat Board and share
in the pool price or they could choose to ship to a buyer to any
market and completely bypass the board. That is the way it was
when the Canadian Wheat Board was established.
(1300 )
In 1943 under the War Measures Act the wheat board was
given a monopoly. Why was it given a monopoly? I found it very
interesting to read the newspaper articles and to read the
discussion in the House that surrounded this change in 1943 that
gave the wheat board its monopoly. This change was made by
order in council; it never passed through Parliament.
The change was made to the Canadian Wheat Board to make it
a monopoly so that the war effort in Canada and in Europe would
be helped. Grain prices at the time were increasing rapidly and
the government was finding it too expensive to ship grain to
Europe to help with the war effort and to feed the troops in
Canada. The choices it had were to borrow more money to pay
more for the grain or to make the wheat board a monopoly buyer
in the Canadian market. Through order in council it chose to
make the wheat board a monopoly buyer in the Canadian market,
which it has remained until today, even though the
circumstances are much different today.
When people discuss the Canadian Wheat Board there is a lot
of talk about the monopoly selling aspect of the board. The
wheat board does not have a monopoly on sales. It sells into a
market with a lot of competition. Grain companies from around
the world compete on the sell side. There is no selling
monopoly. The only monopoly the Canadian Wheat Board has is
on the buy side. Farmers have been forced to sell grain through
the board since that order in council passed in 1943 for any
grain, any wheat or barley being sold for export and for wheat
being used for domestic purposes in Canada.
This has been an emotional issue for some time. A second
reason this has been an emotional issue is that people are
generally afraid of change. I will give a few quotes from a paper
given by Dr. Larry Martin to the B.C. egg producers in March. I
sincerely hope the quotes I use allow the content of his paper to
be brought forward. It is a commendable paper. He is talking
about change in agriculture generally, not just this change that is
being proposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. Dr. Martin says
the biggest obstacle to Canadian agriculture competing over the
next decade is farmers themselves. The change in thinking that
is needed is that the agriculture industry in place today nowhere
nearly reflects the agriculture industry that will be in place 10
years down the road.
Here are some of the quotes I thought were particularly good:
``Look forward 20 years'', Martin challenged, ``and you won't
recognize the Canadian agri-food industry. We are lucky to be
living during the most exciting period for the industry. This is
why we have to think seriously about how that change can be
managed, because we have only that one chance to get it right''.
This is from the Canada Poultry Man magazine.
The other quote compares the American system in the supply
managed industries, with very large operators, to the Canadian
system, which has smaller operators. He says the smaller
operators can still compete very well: ``Small operations allow
for industry flexibility, whereas larger U.S. companies may be
low cost but can't switch quickly and have to market using the
`here it is, buy it cheap and eat it' philosophy''. This philosophy
applies as well to the grains industry. Farmers need the ability,
even though they are small operations, either directly or through
the grain companies to sell to whomever they want, without the
regulations and the unnecessary interference from government.
(1305)
At second reading Reform will be supporting Bill C-92.
However, we will be looking for amendments. We will be
looking for changes and we will be proposing amendments in
committee or in the House at the appropriate time.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak in support of Bill
C-92, which is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The bill will result in a fairer method of allocating freight costs
among prairie producers of wheat and barley sold through the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The change in freight cost pooling has been requested by the
western grains industry and by those farmers who make their
living doing what they do best, growing wheat and barley on the
Canadian prairies. This change, once approved, will allow the
13462
returns received by farmers from the Canadian Wheat Board to
more accurately reflect actual market conditions and costs.
My hon. friends may be asking themselves just what wheat
board pooling is, how it works and why it is being changed. At
this juncture some background explanation may be instructive.
Currently producers within the Canadian Wheat Board who
deliver grains to the board have deducted from their initial
payment the freight costs incurred in moving their product to
export position. That has traditionally been either Thunder Bay
or Vancouver, whichever happens to result in the lower freight
rate. For example, under the current pooling system producers
in my home area, which is Brandon, who live closer to Thunder
Bay, would have an estimated $20.34 a tonne in freight charges
deducted from their initial payments as of August 1, 1995. A
similar grain producer in the Calgary area would naturally be
closer to the port of Vancouver and would have a freight
deduction estimated at about $22.19. Grain being shipped to
Thunder Bay faces an additional cost of about $20 a tonne to
move from Thunder Bay east through the St. Lawrence seaway
to final export position.
The additional costs are currently shared equally by all
producers through the Canadian Wheat Board's pool accounts.
For wheat, around $7 per tonne is paid by all producers out of the
pool account to cover the additional expense.
The current pooling system means that income from the
western part of the prairies is being transferred to the eastern
part of the prairies. Even if the grain producer ships all their
wheat to Vancouver, they are paying through the pool accounts
to have eastern prairie grain transported from Thunder Bay
farther down the St. Lawrence to ports that handle more export
business.
Farmers in the western prairies are subsidizing part of those
shipping costs for farmers in the eastern prairies. Clearly, the
situation calls for change. A need for change has long been
recognized by many throughout the industry. As some of the
previous commentators on the bill have indicated, many
producers have been afraid of embarking on a route that would
enable such changes to occur. The driving force behind the
change has come from industry and farm groups themselves.
Parliament is merely carrying out the strongly conveyed wishes
of those who work in and earn their living from the western
grains industry. In addition, the four western provincial
governments also support the necessary changes.
At this juncture some may be asking themselves why the
government is carrying out its comprehensive reform to
Canada's grain transportation system. More specifically, why is
the grain freight cost pooling system being changed now?
There are at least four reasons why it makes sense to take
action to reform the grain transport system. First, the new GATT
agreement contains a number of rules against trade distorting
export subsidies, including the WGTA, which all parties have
recognized has been a distorting mechanism. If we do not make
fundamental changes to our grain transport system, Canada
could see itself being shut out of vital export markets.
(1310)
Second, it is in our interest to develop a grain transport system
that is more efficient, faster, and less expensive to operate. The
savings that will come from such a system must be shared fairly
and equally among all the participants, most especially by the
farmers.
Third, Canada's prairie economy has been stifled for decades
by a freight rate structure that promotes exporting of primary
products and actively discourages diversification and value
added processing. Until we end that discrimination, the west
will be prevented from achieving its full potential.
Finally, this government and the people of Canada can no
longer afford the luxury of annual rail subsidies of more than
half a billion dollars, not when the government is facing a debt
load of more than $500 billion and interest charges amounting to
$120 million each and every day of the year.
For years now farmers in the western regions of the prairies
have complained that maintaining Thunder Bay as the eastern
pooling point was just not realistic and that it unfairly added to
the cost borne by the producers in the western part of the
prairies. For their part, the farmers in the eastern parts of the
prairies have acknowledged this anomaly but have voiced
concern about higher freight costs they would face if the eastern
pooling point were changed from Thunder Bay to the lower St.
Lawrence.
It is my belief that this bill strikes a careful balance between
the interests of western and eastern prairie producers. It is a
product of a long debate, going back as far as 1985, and more
recent intensive analysis and close consultation involving the
prairie farm organizations, industry, the provinces, and the grain
cooperatives. This consultation has resulted in the proposed
changes we are debating here today.
The grain farmers of western Canada have spoken. They have
told us with a strong and united voice that there is a problem
with the current grain pooling system, that the problem needs to
be addressed, and that it must be addressed now.
We must act now. The freight pooling system has never
involved a subsidy. It has involved a form of
cross-subsidization of one group of farmers subsidizing those in
another. These same producers are now telling us that they want
this current arrangement brought to an end. The people have
spoken. Change will be happening.
13463
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I ask
the hon. member, who I think is from rural Manitoba, if grain
farmers in his constituency support this change, which will add a
cost to their shipping of grain of between $5 and $17 a tonne,
depending on the grain and which catchment area they fall
within.
Although I did not hear it in the member's speech, I would like
to comment on his support for invoking closure on C-68 as well.
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I have no comment to make
on any closure at any time on any bill. However, I was most
pleasantly surprised by his first question asking my opinion,
because he is the recognized economist in the grains business in
Alberta. I appreciate the point he is raising.
There has been a strong recognition that Brandon, Manitoba,
is one of the highest cost shipping points throughout the grain
transportation industry. In order to allow the current farmers to
maintain their position as farmers, they are recognizing that
some transitions are going to have to be made over a period of
time. There will be some shifts, some changes, some
partnerships that will have to be struck.
(1315 )
My region probably leads western Canada already in
diversification thrusts in terms of crop production. If members
look into some of the data they will find Brandon-Souris is a
strong agricultural area. I am hopeful it will continue to be so in
the future.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
sure the hon. member is concerned about the welfare of farmers
in his constituency. He said they will have to make some
adjustments. They will be paying substantially more freight
costs than they are now. That means a lower net price for grain
relative to other grain farmers in western Canada, which really
puts into place some of the market mechanisms, the natural
comparative advantage that should be there.
One of the possible ways farmers in his area could deal with
this extra cost is by shipping south into the United States.
Unfortunately right now the Canadian Wheat Board restricts
movement into the United States. Farmers in his area even more
than now will be pushing this minister to allow competition with
the wheat board into the United States or to allow farmers to sell
directly to markets in the United States.
Does the member believe farmers in his area will be lobbying
in every way they can to get these changes made to the wheat
board so they can make up for some of the losses they have
incurred, from the loss of the WGTA and the extra costs through
Bill C-92?
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question.
My comment is a little historical and futuristic in perspective.
The closer one lives to the U.S. border the greater the desire to
access that market by producers. As one moves further north
from the border there is less and less thrust by the producers to
access the market because of the geographical distance produce
has to be hauled and depending on what product they are trying
to ship.
I concur that new processes and regulations need to be
examined. Realistically there is a market. American industries
using Canadian grain still want our product for let us say the
protein content in our product and not available in their own.
I agree with my colleague that it needs to be examined. It also
needs to be accessed by Canadian producers in the long term.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was rather anxious to speak on this subject today when my
colleague from Vegreville asked me if I would be willing to
address a bill on the Wheat Board. I certainly am willing. It
gives me an opportunity to express the views of what I hear
when I am in my riding talking to the farmers on which these
bills have such a direct effect.
It must be funny to some people in the gallery who come to
listen to what we call a debate and they see all the empty chairs.
They sometimes must wonder if we are debating with the
security guards.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos): I do not think the
hon. member should make mention of the absence of members
in the House.
(1320)
Mr. Thompson: I guess I am not used to hearing myself so
much in here; there is an echo.
It is neat to come into a debate on this subject. I hope some
day we truly can get into some good honest hard debates about
issues rather than some of the examples of what I am seeing this
morning where we are bringing in closure on certain things. I
like to have debates like we are attempting to do with this bill.
The ideas the agricultural minister is bringing forward in this
bill certainly have merit. They are things we have been looking
for in the Reform Party. They are things some farmers have been
looking for but they are only little tinkerings, a start.
I am sure we will not have any difficulty in supporting this but
I draw to the attention of members of the House that we need to
really get into a serious debate about these issues regarding the
Wheat Board, especially when we go across the country.
13464
I am talking about not just my riding, but Vegreville and other
ridings in other provinces. When we hear people saying scrap
the wheat board, farmers are saying this and others are on the
other extreme, that is why it deserves such a good debate. It is
time viewpoints were brought forward and discussed so that we
can come up with some ideas which will genuinely answer the
causes of all the farmers across the country.
I echo once again what I had hoped to see in a bill when it
came down regarding the wheat board. It would be more than
just the pooling points and the minor change regarding the
shipping calculations.
I would like to see some changes indicating the House was
interested in having an elected, democratic board in the wheat
board. It would be elected by farmers who then would have more
input into what happens at the wheat board level. The board
should be more relevant to the problems facing producers,
changes the producers so much need that they would be able to
seek help in getting those changes. The wheat board should be a
producer oriented operation rather than another patronage
appointment haven for the friends of the Liberal Party.
Upsetting farmers is that their input is so small. Then we see
bills brought before the House, not too long ago something to do
with access of information, which would require the wheat
board and other organizations of that nature to open the books
for examination, to see how they are operating and what they are
doing. We would get a little more information that people who
are paying the bill are entitled to.
Unfortunately it seems we are getting further away from that
instead of being more accountable to the people who pay the
bills, in this case the farmers who support all the funding for our
wheat board.
It is only sensible that we should pick up a bill and hopefully
see some positive changes that would give farmers more input,
more say and certainly some knowledge about where their
money is spent. No, when we suggested that, when we put it in
the form of a motion, it was soundly defeated by our colleagues
across the way.
It makes me sometimes wonder what is so secretive that they
cannot open the books of a government body to the people
paying the bills. I have a hard time understanding that.
An hon. member: Ask the auditor general.
Mr. Thompson: I hear members across the way hollering
about the auditor general. I am surprised they even know who he
is. They never pay attention to what he says. We can name lots of
things there, but I will not get on that topic.
(1325 )
I get a little concerned when I hear my colleague talking about
things that have happened in the wheat board regarding changes
from orders in council. Once again there are a selected few,
usually the ones on the front row here, who decide for all of
Canadian farmers what is best for them.
It does not matter if it is best for them but if they think it is
best for them, that is what counts. We have a history of 30 or 40
years of this happening; we know what is best for the people, we
will make the decisions and you just never mind. That is the
attitude people are beginning to think we have.
The ability to have an open debate and throw things out on the
floor the farmers would like us to do regarding the wheat board
only makes sense. The trouble is we spend a lot of time and
many of these things could be resolved. I hope a lot of these
things are talked about in the agriculture standing committee. I
know from serving on the justice committee there are hours
talking with witnesses.
I assume the same thing happens in the agriculture committee
where its members get the feelings of people, giving them an
opportunity to reflect those feelings in the form of a bill and
bring it before the House for a good debate; unless they decide
there is no reason to debate and they should put closure on it,
shut it down to six hours or in the case of pensions four hours and
forget the whole thing. They may feel the information fed to
them by 60 or 70 witnesses is not important enough to bring in
here, after all they are only the taxpayers.
It is the attitude that bothers me and I think it needs to change.
We have been asking, hoping and watching for that possibility
but instead we get more of the same, an example of which we
saw this morning.
Regarding changing the shipping point calculations, when
Wild Rose business tells us it cannot ship its product, there are
some things we need to talk about with regard to bills.
Compressed timothy producers tell me they cannot get
containers to ship their product. Why is the government not
addressing shipping problems to help Canada's balance of
trade? Why is it not assisting a cash crop market instead of
maintaining a narrow view of one issue?
It is willing to help grain producers adjust to the new reality of
shipping costs when the Crow is repealed. Farmers who have
practised sound crop rotation principles and at the same time
have developed a new cash crop market for Canadian produce
are being abandoned. Compressed timothy and forage crop
producers are far more sensitive to shipping costs than grain
producers but the government has punished them for growing a
crop that is not marketed through the wheat board. Then it
wonders why some farmers get upset at the way the board
operates.
Not too long ago this body of people declared an open barley
market, the continental barley market. Suddenly there were
many farmers doing a good job of moving their produce, getting
good prices. They were quite pleased they had an opportunity as
producers to market their goods without having to go through a
13465
monopoly. That was quickly shut down. We sometimes wonder
why.
Maybe it was because they were so successful, maybe they
were proving they had the ability to do these things without the
assistance of some great government appointed body. Maybe it
was not the bureaucrats who had the ability to so these things;
maybe the farmers could do this. At least they proved it for a
while but the Liberal government cannot let that go on. So it was
shut down. It simply tells people out there that if they grow
certain crops they will go through this body by way of the arm's
length setup of the wheat board to sell produce. That is the way it
has to be done.
(1330)
Some farmers agree with it and I give them credit for it.
However a pile of them say that the wheat board should be
scrapped. We need to talk to all of them and start asking exactly
what we can do to make the situation a lot better than it is.
The bill is another example of half measures by government
trying to convince Canadian farm producers that it is doing
something when I am not so sure it might be making things
worse. The Liberal government seems intent on abandoning
farmers who have already adjusted to the global marketplace. I
am talking particularly about forage and timothy hay growers
who are doing very well.
It is certainly strange when we meet with farmers in our
communities. We tell cattlemen in a joking way what is coming
down the tube, that we are setting up a cattle marketing board.
Talk about shock and fear, the whole idea another system of that
nature would interfere with their ability to access free markets
such as they have now really frightens them.
Why did the government arbitrarily decide that 1994 would be
the cutoff year for support when producers were adjusting to the
new global trading reality and when they went into forage and
timothy to enhance their individual viability in the world trading
market? Does the government have a problem with farmer
initiative? Is it because the government wants to keep the
Canadian Wheat Board as a closed shop, a patronage haven? It
also wants to dictate to western producers what crops will be
acceptable for them to grow. Exactly what is behind that?
Why cannot the government assist western producers?
Showing this initiative would not only help them to maintain
their farms. It would also help Canada's balance of trade and
make Canada a stronger trading nation.
The European community and the United States realize that
their treasuries cannot continue their farm subsidies and they
will be cutting back. In the meantime, Canadian timothy and
forage producers will face the full rate expenditure while
European and American producers will have support.
We do not have any problem with this half hearted attempt at
modifying the Canadian Wheat Board. The shipping cost
adjustment is a step that recognizes the reality of modern times
and the global marketplace. However, merely readjusting who
pays for the cost of shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway
does nothing to tackle the real and dangerous problems facing
Canadian producers and the inadequacies of the wheat board. It
is a minor thing when there are so many major things we need to
look at.
Changing cost pooling so that western Saskatchewan and
Alberta producers will no longer share the cost of shipping
eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba grain from Thunder Bay
through the St. Lawrence seaway is acceptable. Why not
continue and address the real issue of the needed fundamental
changes to the wheat board?
Members will say all the farmers want it. They must have a
short memory. It was not too long ago that there were two rallies
going on in Regina at the same time: one pro and one con, the
one the agriculture minister would not attend.
Why is the government so afraid to face the reality of the
nineties and beyond? Why is its policies still stuck in the
sixties? Why did the government not use the bill to give
producers an opportunity to elect the board of directors? What is
wrong with an elected board of directors? Is that too
democratic? Is that the problem?
It could be. I base that on things I have seen, such as what
happened this morning. Why was the government so fearful of
allowing those who know the business to run it? Why does it not
allow producers who know the business the best to be in charge?
Why does the government always feel it has to get involved in
everything? Why does it feel that it will not be done right if it is
not done from this place?
(1335)
The whole thing will change. People will insist that it change
rather quickly. If the government believes that will not be the
case then it has a very short memory.
I wonder if it would stop to think for a moment, when it looks
at operations such as the wheat board and others, why the
Reform Party is here. It should stop to analyse why the Reform
Party needs to exist if for the last 30 years so-called Liberals and
so-called Conservatives had done their jobs. We would not need
to be here. Why did all western provinces, particularly rural
farmers, decide enough was enough and to send Reformers who
had presented to them an idea that made a lot more sense than the
status quo?
Once again we have a government bill that pretends to address
issues of concern for western producers but in reality is an
attempt to hide the failures. This half measure deals with an
important issue but it is only a half measure.
13466
When will the government finally face reality and deal with
the real problems that exist with the wheat board and the board's
inability to accept that producers know what is best, not
appointed bureaucrats? The producers, believe it or not, know
what is best. Why do we not give them an opportunity to express
what they know?
I doubt very seriously whether the bureaucrats making the
decisions have half the real experience or knowledge facing
most western producers, particularly those in the riding of Wild
Rose.
I support Bill C-92. It is a little step in the right direction to
which we are getting accustomed. With all their bills we are
getting a little tinker here and a little tinker there. The Liberals
think they will be the next government, which I doubt seriously.
However we will support the bill.
I ask the government and the agriculture minister to go
beyond Tinker Bell stuff. There are serious problems out there.
For a change the government should try listening to the people
instead of dictating to them what will take place.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about matters such as
the federal government abandoning farmers. In his second
breath he talked about the federal involvement being too great in
the farm community, that we should get out of wheat boards and
let farmers decide everything on their own in those matters
instead of the representatives of farmers who have been sent to
the House.
The Reform talks about abandonment and how the Liberals
and Conservatives have not done their jobs and that is why the
Reform are here now.
I have a question for the hon. member. Last year we had a rail
strike and farmers were suffering greatly because they could not
get their products to market. The whole Canadian economy was
losing $200 million per day.
Could the hon. member indicate to us why only six
representatives of his party showed up in the House to vote?
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, we had a private member's
bill that would have prevented all that. It was soundly defeated
by our Liberal friends across the way. My hon. colleague from
Lethbridge brought forward a bill that would have taken care of
the problem, and Liberals know that very well.
In terms of the strike they have a short memory. I do not think
he was here to see that the first person to rise in the House
seeking an emergency debate regarding the strike was the
member standing right now. I stood in the Chamber and
demanded an emergency debate on the strike and the Liberals
did not want it. To them it was a big joke that a Reformer rose to
his feet and dared to ask for an emergency debate on the strike in
Vancouver.
(1340)
The next morning our wonderful new labour minister came up
with the good idea to have an emergency debate on the strike in
Vancouver. Wham, overnight a miracle happened. The Liberals
discovered they had an answer for a problem. They had a chance
to do it 48 hours before that but they do not want to listen to
anybody but themselves. One day they will pay for that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I remind hon. members
that we do not refer to the absence or the presence of any
member of the Chamber.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
find it interesting that a Liberal member would have the nerve to
suggest Reformers never did their part in ending the strike. Our
legislation would have prevented it from ever happening and
should have been passed. It was legislation that would allow the
collective bargaining process to go ahead. It is good legislation
that has to be put in place somewhere along the way.
Does the member believe farmers in his constituency would
support an elected board of directors replacing the present
commissioners appointed by the minister to the wheat board?
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. Recently I included a questionnaire in a householder
that asked farmers to respond to what they wanted to do with the
wheat board. Fifty-four per cent came back saying that the
wheat board should be scrapped. Another high percentage said
to change it drastically to a democratic process. A few others
wanted to keep the status quo.
We need to take a look at the whole situation. If only we did
not have a government that says it can do it behind closed doors,
that it does not need good, open, solid debate about what should
be done with some of these bodies, and that it knows best. We
remember good old Trudeauism when the metric system was
brought in. The government gave us the metric system and said
we did not know what was good for us. There were a few more
items like it. The Conservatives said gave us the GST and said
we did not know what was good for us.
Canadians know what is best for them and will start
expressing it.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, obviously a discussion has arisen in debate in
the House about some problems we have seen with regard to
labour tie-ups, strikes and backups that have occurred in Canada
over the past many years.
I can speak quite simply and quite plainly as a farmer. I have
been involved in the farm business for some 15 to 18 years in
Saskatchewan. I know firsthand the problems when there is a
13467
labour disruption. The innocent third party always gets hurt. In
this case it is the farmers, the shippers or the dehy plant people.
My colleague from Wild Rose hit the nail on the head when he
said that we had a plan to prevent labour disruptions. The
government across the way saw fit in its wisdom, if I may call it
that, not to support the legislation.
Mr. Thompson: You use the term loosely.
Mr. Kerpan: I use the term loosely. That is absolutely right.
My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn has indicated on
numerous occasions that Reformers were not in the House on
that particular Sunday to vote. Whether or not that is the truth is
irrelevant. Less than a week before that, we had put before this
House private members' legislation that would have prevented
this. There would have been no need for anyone to be here on
that Sunday. It is ludicrous. It is a ridiculous argument and I am
ashamed that someone would bring that up before this House.
(1345)
I want to get to the business before the House today, Bill
C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It aims to
change the pooling system of the Canadian Wheat Board in
order to respond to new market conditions.
Rapidly changing market conditions is the greatest factor
affecting the agricultural sector today. There is no question
about that. The reality is we live in a modern knowledge based,
technologically equipped and economically linked world. This
presents many new opportunities for farmers and
agri-businesses. It presents opportunities for policy makers and
legislators. It presents opportunities for grain companies, farm
groups and transportation companies as well. Coupled with the
rapidly changing new world of markets, there are two other
factors.
The agriculture industry is unique in that we produce a basic
and unchanging product for which there will always be a
demand, that is food. With a growing world population that is
expected to reach 10 billion people by the year 2050, the demand
for our products will expand tremendously. This commodity of
food that we produce is essential to the life and health of all of
us. Our daily bread is the most basic need we have. We have a
product for which there will always be a market.
The agriculture industry therefore is a primary resource
industry in full transition attempting to keep up with an
expanding market and hoping to take full advantage of the
opportunities that it presents. We have a good product and we
have a market. We must adjust to and take full advantage of
these new opportunities. We must be prepared to do this quickly.
We must learn to anticipate what the future holds for us and seek
to prepare ourselves for it.
All of the stakeholders, the farmers, the processors, the
transporters, the marketers, the policy makers, must work in a
co-operative way to ensure that we make the transition from the
old realities to the new realities in as an effective and efficient
way as is humanly possible.
I am pleased this bill is before us today. It is essentially tabled
as a response to an expanding and changing market. We will no
doubt get into the details of this bill but basically the bill is in
response to the fact that our grain products are moving to new
markets. When this happens, we need to change our system and
our policies in order to respond to those new markets.
More specifically, this bill responds to the fact that in recent
times our grain has become more in demand in the Pacific rim
countries; more is therefore having to be transported across the
Pacific instead of the Atlantic. This change in international
market patterns has a direct effect upon our internal shipping
ports and our internal transportation system.
Historically western Canadian grain producers have shared
some of the costs of shipping grain to our ports. We call this a
pooling system. It was established as a simple attempt to
distribute the benefits and the costs of our grain industry as
equally as possible among all the producers. I want to comment
on this principle of benefit and cost sharing in a moment but
first, let me speak briefly about the changes in our current
pooling system that the new world of markets is causing.
The ports western grain farmers have traditionally used for
overseas shipments are Vancouver and Thunder Bay. This is
because the world market value of grain in store at these two
locations, one going east and the other going west, was
effectively the very same. The market demand on the other side
of both oceans was about equal, but with larger markets
emerging on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, the world
market value of grain in Vancouver has increased beyond that
which is in Thunder Bay.
To adjust to this new market reality and to keep our grain
pooling system intact and fair, it is necessary to move the
eastern point of departure from Thunder Bay to ports further
east, those along the lower St. Lawrence River. In practical
terms, this means that the farmers in Manitoba and eastern
Saskatchewan who ship their grain east to an export position at
Thunder Bay will now have to absorb the cost of getting their
grain to the further eastern ports along the lower St. Lawrence.
(1350)
For years now farmers in the western prairies have seen the
use of Thunder Bay as the Canadian Wheat Board's eastern point
13468
of departure for export sales as adding unfairly to their share of
the cost of pooling. Farmers in the eastern part of the prairies
have recognized this. In other words, it has been apparent that
there was some anomaly and some unfairness in the pooling
system.
Eastern prairie farmers under Bill C-92 will now have to pay
the higher costs of the movement of their grain to the further
eastern ports. They have asked for transition assistance to offset
these higher costs. The government announced that partial
compensation will be provided to these farmers from the $300
million WGTA adjustment fund. It is meant to facilitate the
transition to a deregulated system after August 1, 1995.
There are many specifics to be worked out regarding the
changes in the pooling points proposed by the bill. My
colleagues and I will be commenting on the specifics of those
throughout committee debate, report stage and third reading
debate.
How do we as farmers best respond to the changing
marketplace? This has to be the basic question. Our markets are
changing. Our systems that we set up to deal with old markets
must be examined to see if they are adequate to take full
advantage of the new markets. Are they helping or are they
hindering farmers?
My colleagues and I maintain that when there are such
dramatic and far reaching changes at the middle and end points
of the industry process, we must go right back to the beginning
of the process and examine the principles upon which we are
building. This is the area of discussion that presents the most
difficulty for large and old organizations such as government
and government agencies. The Canadian Wheat Board definitely
falls into that category.
Old governments, old parties, old agencies and institutions
have difficulty with change. Large and old enterprises can
become very inflexible. They take a long time to change, if they
can ever change at all. Sometimes it is easier for an old
institution to die rather than to change and to be reformed.
In the process of governing a country or managing a grain
marketing process, that is why new parties and new institutions
arise. If the older parties and institutions cannot change or are
unwilling to change, if they are unwilling to re-examine
themselves to see if they are doing things the best way, then they
will be replaced by new enterprises and new ways of doing
things. This has happened throughout the history of government
in this country and in other institutions, as surely as day follows
night and a new century follows an old one.
Reformers are saying that in order to meet the market
challenges of a new world and a 21st century, we must talk about
the underlying principles. There are two principles we believe
should be the foundation for any changes that we make in our
marketing and transportation systems.
Reformers believe that producer organizations, including
marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives, should
receive their direction from producers who should structure
their organizations in any manner which they believe will best
serve their interests. In consultation with producers, Reformers
will seek to provide for a viable, self-reliant and market driven
industry to create an environment in which producers make their
own decisions as to how products are marketed.
Specifically this principle means there needs to be some
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we are to take full
advantage of the new markets, if we are to adjust quickly to
them, then we need to, we have to, it is imperative to allow for
the democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The present government appointment of Canadian Wheat
Board commissioners must be changed to an elected board of
directors chosen by producers in a fair and open election
process. It is simply the only way we will move from these old
dying institutions I talked about a few minutes ago to a new
reformed system that is responsive to farmers, to transportation,
to the markets and to the new way of doing things. At that point
in time, grain producers will be asked to examine their
organizational and jurisdictional options, including but not
limited to introducing domestic market competition, permitting
the Canadian Wheat Board to trade in grains and oilseeds
currently excluded from its jurisdiction.
(1355)
I can think of examples in my own riding. There is a small
private flour mill. I was in to see the gentleman at Viscount
about three months ago and asked him how his business was. He
said it was terrible. He said he had to pay a buy back fee to the
Canadian Wheat Board to buy wheat so he can make flour and
sell it locally. He is not allowed to go to a neighbour or a friend
to contract wheat on an individual basis. It is simply not
allowed.
Mr. Penson: It is the same with organic grain.
Mr. Kerpan: It is the very same with organic grain.
I think about these examples and wonder where the common
sense is in this organization. I see none. Those are the things that
have to change if we are going to move into the next century.
Farmers must be allowed to decide on the purchase of wheat
and other grains on either a cash basis or a pooled initial final
price basis, implementing special opting out provisions for
entrepreneurs interested in developing niche export markets.
Again, I relate to what I said before about the small town flour
mills and also extending fixed price and guaranteed delivery
producer contracts.
The second principle on which we must build our new
marketing system is transportation reform. Canadian
agricultural products should move to market by any expeditious
mode, on any route and in any form or state of processing based
exclusive-
13469
ly on the principle of cost effectiveness and with the best
interests of the customer in mind.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, there has been
some debate in this Chamber today about labour problems,
labour tie-ups and transportation problems of all types for
agricultural products certainly from my province of
Saskatchewan. I think back to alternate methods of
transportation and routes. If there are the types of labour
disputes and tie-ups we have seen over the past number of years
and if it is feasible in a cost effective way, what is wrong with
hauling our products somewhere else, perhaps through the
United States?
We believe major reforms are still needed in the Canadian
Wheat Board system of marketing our very most valuable
product, food. Bill C-92 does not go anywhere near far enough.
Comparative advantage must be the primary principle behind
decisions about what farmers produce, how they market and how
they transport.
I assure members we on this side of the House will keep
working toward this end.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
13469
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the theme for
Environment Week this year is the automobile's impact on air
quality. Car emissions are a major cause of smog and climate
change. Smog and air pollution not only threaten a healthy
environment but also the health of all Canadians.
Maintaining vehicles in good working order will reduce the
impact of emissions. Therefore, Environment Canada is holding
emission clinics across the country. The national capital region
clinic is on June 7, 8 and 9 at Carlingwood mall.
[Translation]
This week gives Canadians an opportunity to find better ways
to keep their environment healthy for present and future
generations. According to this year's theme, instead of driving
we should opt for walking, cycling, car pooling, and using
public transportation.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bloc
members wish to draw the attention of the House to the excellent
dialogue that took place during the summit on private forests
chaired by Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources, François
Gendron.
The conference provided an opportunity for exchange and
consensus on future policy directions. Indeed, representatives
showed an exemplary sense of responsibility.
They agreed on the way funds to be contributed by the Quebec
government and other stakeholders would be distributed under
Quebec's private forest development plan.
The parties also agreed that the federal government must
compensate the Quebec workers who are hard hit by its
withdrawal from the sector. Here again, through their dynamism
and their solidarity, Quebecers in the various regions must make
up for the failure of the federal government to honour its
commitments.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, information meetings
at Tara, Ontario, on May 31 and at Shelburne on June 3 drew
2,740 Ontarians eager to learn more about Bill C-68.
Herculean efforts by the organizers failed to produce any
speakers favouring gun control, so statements by the justice
minister and other opponents of civil liberty were read to the
crowd.
Anti-control speeches were so logical and convincing that
formal, independently audited balloting yielded 2,716 votes
against more bureaucracy, 19 in favour, and five spoiled ballots.
I have the ballots and will deliver them to the justice minister.
I hope that he will at least acknowledge the dedicated efforts of
the organizers.
The MPs for Bruce-Grey and
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe did not bother to attend
these major gatherings. If they like their present line of work,
they should take note of the results when voting on Bill C-68.
Closure will not stop the people from remembering.
Vive la democratie!
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Transport Canada is now in the process of watering down the
13470
regulations governing the number of flight attendants required
on commercial flights. The plan is to go from the current
Canadian ratio of one for every 40 passengers to the American
ratio of one for every 50.
Even before bringing forward new regulations in the House,
the government has acted unilaterally by using ministerial
exemptions to reduce the number of attendants required on
certain aircraft.
I ask the Minister of Transport to listen to the advice of
Canadian flight attendants, who have been telling him that the
weakening of regulations will have a serious impact on the
safety of the travelling public. The American standards are
based on tests that are highly artificial and underestimate the
need to have safety personnel on board in real life accidents.
The only benefits of harmonizing our standards downward to
the American standards will appear on the bottom line of the
airline industry, whose costs will be cut at the expense of safety.
I hope the minister will let the airline attendants' reasoned
advice penetrate his remarkable fetish for American stylederegulation and reconsider the direction of this policy.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week is national transportation week
and an excellent opportunity for me to remark on the importance
of marine transportation in my riding.
The Strait of Canso is one of the largest deep water ports in
eastern North America. It is ice free and allows year round
access to Canadian and international markets. It is an important
gateway for the shipping of many products. This natural asset
has already proven its economic importance. Several successful
businesses operate on its shores, serving the petroleum, forestry,
gypsum, and energy sectors, to name only a few.
The Minister of Transport is currently developing a new
marine strategy. I would urge him to keep in mind the
importance of the Strait of Canso to our transportation network
and the bright economic potential it holds for this region.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the objective of Ocean Day, which is today, is to raise the
public's awareness of the danger in which the negligence of the
world's governments has put the planet.
There is no direct link between the ocean and the people in a
riding like mine, Gatineau-La Lièvre. However, oceans are
necessary for our survival, for they produce more oxygen than
rain forests and are the planet's biggest water supply. They
provide us with an incredible quantity of protein and remedies
for certain illnesses.
We can all help clean up our oceans. If we do not, we will be
destroying our planet. On this day, it would be a good start for
each of us to identify one habit that we could change in order to
contribute to saving our oceans and Canada. Limiting fishing
activities is a good start.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
efforts of two Winnipeg St. James constituents, Gordon
Davidson and his wife Diane. They recently travelled as
volunteer advisers to the Czech Republic to assist the Sternberk
town council with a long term tourist development plan. Mr.
Davidson worked with a community committee to draft a plan to
crate tourist trade opportunities in the town and set up
advertising and promotional programs.
(1405)
The Davidsons were able to embark on this adventure and
share their expertise as volunteer advisers with the Canadian
Executive Search Organization, which provides advisers to
business and organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities,
developing nations, and emerging market economies in central
and eastern Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men
and women who willingly share their lifetime of practical
experience with those who need it.
Again I congratulate all CESO volunteers, and especially my
constituents, Gordon and Diane Davidson, on a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Industry revealed a
new facet of federalism: courtroom federalism. According to
him, the federal government is prepared to take legal action
against the CRTC, an organization established by an act of
Parliament.
By threatening to embark upon a legal battle with the CRTC,
the government is only confirming that it will stop at nothing in
its quest to justify the unjustifiable: its decision to give Power
DirecTv the edge in satellite broadcasting.
13471
The Minister of Industry says he is confident that he will be
able to settle out of court with the CRTC. Just imagine the
pressure that Mr. Spicer will be under to do so, especially
because the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is responsible
for the CRTC, will not lift a finger to help him. This minister has
shown in the past that he cannot stand up to anybody.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the government arrogantly invoked closure on
Bill C-41, flaunting the wishes of thousands and thousands of
grassroots Canadians.
Yesterday I and some of my colleagues tried in vain to present
to the justice minister over 10,000 letters in opposition to the
sentencing bill collected from our own offices in recent weeks.
These letters are from mainstream and small town Canadians
from across Canada. Their concern centres on the contents of
section 718.2. Over 600 petitions have been tabled in the House,
represented by over 70,000 signatures. In addition, reports from
within the justice department indicate that the justice minister
himself has received over 70,000 letters in opposition to this
bill.
The minister is fond of trotting out polls and statistics, but in
the case of C-41 he has simply ignored the clear expression of
Canadians. Arrogance in governing can prove fatal. Even at this
late date, I call on the justice minister to respond positively to
the clear expression of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, June
5 marked the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Wye Marsh
Wildlife Centre in Midland, Ontario, in my riding of Simcoe
North. The centre was opened by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien,
then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[Translation]
Over the 25 years it has existed, Wye Marsh has overcome
many obstacles and has established itself as a world leader in the
area of heightening awareness of the importance of ecology,
wetlands and wildlife.
In 1984, when the government of the time cut its funding, the
Friends of Wye Marsh took over the operation of the centre. This
organization was able to rally an entire community and to
encourage that community to sacrifice time and money for the
purpose of conserving this national treasure.
[English]
In the past few years the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre has been
instrumental in the fight to implement a ban on lead shot and
sinkers and more importantly to preserve the trumpeter swan.
Congratulations to the friends of Wye Marsh for continuing
these important environmental programs. Canadians
everywhere benefit from your conservation and education work.
We wish you every success in the future.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to report, although some of my
colleagues wanted to keep this matter quiet, that on Tuesday
evening at the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa the MPs and pages
clashed in their annual basketball game.
The Dhaliwal Dunkers, a multi-party team, were looking to
extend the MP winning streak against the lowly pages. However,
the pages, fighting like warrior poets of old, jumped out to an
early lead and never looked back. Despite a comeback effort led
by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain and his seven
points, the pages hung on for a 40 to 35 victory.
Congratulations to the pages, who not only displayed superior
skills and solid grasp of the fundamentals of the game, but also
adhered to the principle of gender equality, as half of the team
was made up of female pages.
(1410 )
The pages have once again proven that age and experience are
no match for youth and robust health.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
the Bloc Quebecois announced its latest change of heart on gun
control, there has been a storm of protest and criticism in
Quebec. Some more recent instances include what was said by
the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, and I quote: ``We
wish to express our profound disagreement with the position of
the Bloc on decriminalization. We hope that the Bloc's position
will be adjusted to give serious consideration to the views of
chiefs of police, police officers, the Canadian and Quebec Bar
associations, public health experts, municipalities, the CEQ and
the FCE''.
The Bloc Quebecois, which has changed its mind before,
should give its unqualified support to the passage of Bill C-68,
as requested by the CEQ and other organizations in Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as the Minister of Canadian Heritage continues his blunders and
unethical behaviour on an impressive scale, another government
minister has been doing some political maneuvering with
taxpayers' money. It seems the Minister of Public Works
redirected $26 million earmarked for repairs to a dangerous
13472
highway to developing a nature trail in Cape Breton-East
Richmond, his riding in Nova Scotia.
The Minister of Defence also chided him for arbitrarily
cutting $10 million from the budget envelope to be used to help
Maritime communities affected by the closing of military bases.
The same Minister of Public Works also appointed his official
agent as head of the Cape Breton Development Corporation in
his riding and wants to redirect funds from the budget of the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to the corporation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Federal Office of Regional Development covers all bases. For
example, taxpayers can enjoy a beer courtesy of their $46,000
grant to a beer manufacturer. After they quaff a couple of cool
ones, they can go to the Quebec City horse show and watch
20,000 of their hard earned tax dollars spent on horse jumping.
Before taxpayers take in the subsidized grand finale, I suggest
they go back for more libations. They will need it before they
travel to Jean's World, the ultimate in taxpayer abuse.
Yes, Canada's Prime Minister has a nice little theme park
going up in his riding, with $3.5 million coming right from
FORD-Q. The only problem is, experts say this little pork barrel
gem will cost taxpayers millions annually. I could almost swear
the members across the way are a bunch of Tory hacks in Liberal
clothing.
To top it all off, Liberal and Bloc members join hands and
invoke closure to ensure their gold plated pension plans. Shame,
shame.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 10, at the Petawawa civic
centre grounds, a very important ceremony called the
``Celebration of Peace'' will take place. A memorial will be
dedicated to all UN peacekeepers who participated in United
Nations duties during the last 50 years.
This memorial, which honours all Canadian and international
peacekeepers, has been totally paid for by donations. The flag
poles and the United Nations flags are already in place. The
celebration of peace memorial is not only being dedicated to
those who have served as peacekeepers but will also honour
those who are now serving and who will serve in the future.
It is time that the more than 90,000 Canadians who served in
peacekeeping roles around the world receive their recognition in
Canadian history. It is time that all of us in this great country of
ours say thank you to the men and women in the Canadian
Forces who have served Canada so well over the years.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark safe boating week in
Canada, which runs June 4 to 10.
The week marks the kick off to a summer long public
awareness campaign designed to encourage responsible boating.
Boating safety is an issue of particular concern to the
constituents of my riding, especially now with the summer
tourist season upon us. There have been far too many boating
accidents and fatalities in our waterways in the past. These
tragedies affect us all and we must do all we can to prevent them.
(1415 )
Last year the Minister of Justice assured my constituents that
boating regulations would be enforced on our waterways this
summer. Last week in the House the minister re-emphasized his
commitment to the implementation of a system to improve the
safety of boaters on our waters in Ontario.
I urge Canadians everywhere to enjoy their time on the lakes
this summer and to make safe boating practices standard with
their families.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to address a concern being expressed by many Canadians
regarding the Prime Minister's national priorities.
Until he invoked closure three times today the Prime Minister
thought he enjoyed considerable popularity. Soon that will only
be among canoe makers. After all, there has never been a Prime
Minister in Canadian history who ever reached deep enough into
the pork barrel to fund a canoe museum. This action occurs at
the same time the Prime Minister cuts spending grants to the
museum assistance program, the main support for the country's
public museums and galleries.
We have a Prime Minister who yanks money from museums
and galleries across the country and dumps that money into
Shawinigan to build a canoe factory virtually guaranteed to
draw nothing but dust and flies and perhaps the odd Liberal
seeking employment as a canoe museum curator.
We wonder after today's election if it is the Prime Minister's
intention to fund a museum for extinct Liberals in Ontario.
13473
13473
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister continued to defend his Minister
of Canadian Heritage and insisted the opposition provide new
facts on the minister's $2,000 supper. The official opposition
has learned that Richard Gervais is not only the Minister of
Canadian Heritage's political organizer and fundraiser and the
recipient of untendered contracts from him, but Mr. Gervais also
lobbies for various associations and businesses.
It seems to me that my preamble speaks for itself. I therefore
ask my question. Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell
us whether he informed the Prime Minister that Mr. Gervais was
not only his fundraiser and friend and the recipient of his
contracts, but that he also lobbied the minister on behalf of a
number of associations including the Canadian Tennis
Association and Planetary Sports Television?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already had occasion to say in this
House, if there is one well-known firm in Quebec, it is
Gervais-Gagnon, which has worked for many governments. Its
activities are very well known. It does not keep its clientele a
secret. There is therefore absolutely nothing mysterious or
secretive in this situation. Everybody knows the facts.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
understand the minister's familiarity with Gervais-Gagnon,
because this is the firm that does his fundraising, does him
favours and lobbies him.
Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether he
took the precaution-the question is a simple one-of informing
the Prime Minister that this gentleman was not only his friend
and his fundraiser, but that he was also a lobbyist representing
associations such as the Canadian Tennis Association, which
last year received $500,000 in funding from the Minister of
Canadian Heritage?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when a fundraising event is organized in
compliance with the rules, the first to be involved are the party
financial officials.
I have said in this House that we followed the rules and
procedures. I certainly have done nothing that the party was not
aware of.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light
of the fact that one of the functions of Mr. Gervais's firm is to
organize meetings between the minister or senior officials of his
department and the people it lobbies for, does the Minister of
Canadian Heritage realize the situation he puts his senior
officials in when they are questioned by a lobbyist who is a
friend of the minister, his fundraiser and the recipient of
untendered contracts from him? Does he realize that he thus
makes it impossible for his officials to say no to anything?
(1420)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, never, to my knowledge, have any of the
sports or cultural associations wishing to speak to me or to my
officials used the services of Gervais-Gagnon. I can therefore
say that the allegation by the hon. member has fallen flat-as a
pancake.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Clearly, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has put himself in
a totally unacceptable situation by becoming indebted to a
lobbyist whose firm represents a number of groups dealing with
his department.
In light of the new developments, can the Minister of
Canadian Heritage tell us whether he discussed his case with the
government's ethics counsellor?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the Prime Minister
himself rose in this House to say that he had raised the issue with
his ethics counsellor. That is all I know. But, if there are other
statements to be made, they will be made by those responsible.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): I
have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Given the incredible situation in which the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has unfortunately put himself and the
delicate situation in which his carelessness has put his officials,
does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not think that the best
way to rehabilitate his department is, unfortunately for him, to
resign immediately?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when one obeys the rules, does what
everyone in this House does, that is, attend fundraisers, and
observes the rules established by Elections Canada, one does not
harm one's department.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I thank the leaders of the Liberal-Bloc
coalition for excluding question period from their deal to
muzzle Parliament today. This is truly appreciated by members
on this side of the House.
13474
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that all the facts
are known about the names and money contributed by guests at
the heritage minister's last supper. Now we learn the amount of
money raised will not be made public by Elections Canada until
July. We learned the official tally could well exceed the $12,000
disclosed thus far and we learned that the identity of many of the
guests and the exact number in attendance at the dinner remain a
mystery.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the
contradiction between these facts and what the House was told
yesterday?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member would be
very happy to provide the complete list of the people who
participated in the dinner. Last year the Reform Party, which
took a public position before the royal commission on electoral
financing that it did not support public donations and tax credits
for political parties, saw no problem in accepting donations of
$10,000 from Rogers Communication, $15,000 from John
Labatt, $6,000 from Pulp and Timber LTD., $10,000 from
Imperial Oil, and $4,000 from PanCanadian Petroleum.
(1425 )
I could go on but obviously the Reform Party sees absolutely
no problem in fundraising when for itself. Obviously it should
not see a problem for any political party that has an open and
transparent process of fundraising, which is what we have done
in this case.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, not only are there contradictions between what the
Prime Minister told the House and the facts, but the Minister of
Canadian Heritage cannot keep his story straight on this subject
either.
The minister said most of the department contracts were doled
out before his dinner for dollars. The fact is only two came
before the dinner; the rest were awarded after the contractors
coughed up $2,000 each. The minister also said his private
dinner was a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada when in
fact the money went to pay off his campaign debts.
How does the heritage minister explain the contradiction
between these facts and the things he has told the House?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the interest of our
colleagues in knowing what is happening when I give a
fundraising event or when I participate. Next time I will invite
them so they will be there if they want to have more knowledge
of it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister neglected to say what contract I might get
if I attended the dinner.
We have here a real double standard. The chair of the justice
committee sticks to his principles and his reward is to be
removed from his position. Three Liberal MPs stick to the
principle of representing their constituents' interests and their
reward is to be removed from their positions.
The heritage minister on the other hand repeatedly violates
the principles of ethical behaviour and he not only keeps his seat
at the cabinet table, he is staunchly supported and defended by
the Prime Minister. It appears the only principle the Prime
Minister is prepared to defend in the House is loyalty to party.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister abandon this double standard,
place ethics before loyalty and urge the Prime Minister to
demand the resignation of the heritage minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member raised the
issue of double standards. I ask the member how he can stand
there attacking the government for having-
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members want to hear the
answer.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party accepted $75,000
in donations from Sabre Energy Limited, $25,000 from Burns
Fry Limited, $25,000 from Canadian Pacific Limited, and
$15,000 from Company 135482.
When the Reform Party asked the Parliament of Canada to
revise the standing orders to remove the justice critic of the
Reform Party, I did not hear a lot of talk about double standard
then.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This week, a leaked communiqué revealed that the topics on
the G-7 summit agenda included obstacles to employment,
social programs, education reform, occupational training,
flexibility on the job market, and elimination of redundant
regulations.
(1430)
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain that the
government did not invite the provinces, when the topics it is
about to discuss with its G-7 counterparts come under their
jurisdiction and concern them directly?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would love to
invite them. In fact, provincial environment ministers were
invited to participate in a meeting last month in the Yukon.
13475
Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec chose not to be
represented.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say that, on the whole issue of manpower, the HRD
minister, who is directly responsible for such issues, has never
convened the provinces since he took office.
What credibility will the Prime Minister of Canada have with
his G-7 colleagues when discussing and making commitments
in areas over which he has no jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon.
member stated, last Friday I had a meeting with all the ministers
of the provincial governments of the Atlantic region to talk
about a wide variety of issues relating to unemployment
insurance and modernization.
We talked about how we could combine efforts to deal with
youth employment issues and how we could begin to work
together to provide some joint initiatives to deal with problems
of poverty.
Some 48 hours ago we were meeting with provincial ministers
as we have been doing over the past year. I tried to tell the hon.
member this but it does not seem to quite sink in. I have written
to my counterpart in Quebec. I have offered to have meetings. I
have yet to have a response.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the previous response of the Deputy Prime Minister illustrates
exactly what the government's problem is. It is the inability to
discern between legitimate political fundraising and influence
peddling or at least the appearance of it.
Every contributor to this event who has been made known to
us has received a contribution from the minister, these being
taxpayers' dollars through grants and contracts. That is a fact.
The minister and the Prime Minister have stated that all
information is public, yet the minister's office refuses to make
public the names of those who attended.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage table in the House
today a list of who was invited to the dinner, who actually
attended the dinner, who contributed to the dinner and all the
contracts they received from the minister and the department?
Yes or no?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations and the questions our
colleague has been putting for several days raises an important
issue.
The Canadian political system calls for each party and each
parliamentarian to take part in fundraising. That is how our
democracy works. It is done to avoid an undue burden to the
taxpayers.
I would like to know whether the Reform Party is suggesting
that there should be no fundraisers and whether the whole bill
should be borne by the taxpayers.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us be clear about what the issue is. It is not about contributions
made to political parties. It is about the misuse of a cabinet
minister's position to reward those who contribute to his
election debts and to the Liberal Party.
It has been reported that this is not the only dinner that Mr.
Gervais has organized involving client interest of the
department.
Will the minister confirm that other dinners were organized
for similar purposes, one prior to September 18, 1994 and one
recently this year?
(1435 )
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, there was no other dinner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On Saturday, June 10,
an election will be held in Kanesatake. The Indian Act provides
a procedure for the election process.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if her government
received the necessary guarantees to ensure compliance with
that procedure during Saturday's election?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying
that all Canadians, including those who live in Kanesatake, must
comply with the laws that govern them.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Indian Act includes a process which specifically applies to
elections held by aboriginal people. These rules are not
necessarily the same as the ones which apply to all Canadians.
Considering that she is responsible for aboriginal rights, how
can the Deputy Prime Minister claim to protect those rights
when, two days before the election, she cannot even guarantee
the legality of the election process? There is not much time left.
13476
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said quite clearly
that the laws that govern the people of Canada are applicable in
every part of Canada including Kanesatake.
The member says it is not the same law. Just as Jacques Rose
has the capacity to elect his membership according to the rules
that he establishes, so there are different mechanisms in place in
different parts of the country.
[Translation]
We are complying with the request for distinct status
regarding this election.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
failure of the government lawyer in a high profile drug case in
Nanaimo, B. C. is a classic example of the government putting
the appointment of friends before competence.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary unbelievably said that
we should allow a representative of the attorney general to
prosecute even though he or she might not have had previous
case experience under that particular section of the Criminal
Code.
Will the justice minister stop supporting these patronage
appointments or is he to continue his policy of amateur hour?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I ask the hon.
member to bear in mind that he is dealing with the professional
reputation of a lawyer who took a case into court in good faith on
behalf of the Government of Canada. We ought to be careful, in
my respectful submission, how we deal with that professional
reputation.
The case to which the hon. member refers is one that may be
appealed and I will not speak to that case. In this instance, as in
every other, we send lawyers into courtrooms because we are
satisfied with their competence to do the job.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister's comment certainly is reflective of his
comment also on June 5 at which time he said that these agents
were appointed because they are competent to do the work they
are asked to do.
The failure of the appointed agent in Nanaimo and the
comments by law enforcement officials clearly indicate that
simply is not the case.
This patronage issue relates specifically to public safety. Will
the minister undertake a complete review of all appointments of
justice legal agents?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a very real sense I
already have. I have already agreed to provide my hon. friend
with a list of the agents we appointed as a result of that review
which took place since we came to office.
That review also resulted in the imposition of new terms and
conditions for all agents: the imposition of a conflict code for
the very first time, express terms saying that if they do not
practise to the high standards we expect they can be relieved of
their responsibility, new training and supervision requirements,
and a reduction in the overall number of agents throughout
Canada so we can get better value for the dollar for taxpayers.
I will furnish all of that information to the hon. member.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Tuesday, the Minister of Labour claimed that her actions in the
labour conflict at Ogilvie were consistent with all of the
workers' demands. But, at the same time, the workers were
demonstrating in Montreal to have the government pass a law
against strikebreakers. Remember, this conflict has dragged on
for one year and that calling in strikebreakers interferes with
negotiations.
How can the minister continue to claim that what is happening
with the negotiations is normal, as she claimed Tuesday, while
the unionized workers at the Ogilvie mill blame the length of the
conflict on the absence of a law against strikebreakers in
Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said, and will repeat today, is that the two
parties, including the union, decided to resume mediation in the
month of May. There was mutual consent to hold a mediation
session on June 20 and 21, this month, therefore. I drew the
conclusion that both parties are willing to sort things out at the
negotiating table, which is my true wish.
As I have already said, we are dealing with the issue of
replacement workers in our overall review of part I of the
Canada Labour Code.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
at every opportunity lately, the minister has been trying to water
down her original commitment to bring in a law against
strikebreakers in Canada.
13477
How can the Minister of Labour go back on her word and
refuse to officially commit to tabling a law against
strikebreakers when she knows quite well the positive effects
that such a law would have in Quebec?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always said that this issue is being reviewed,
which is true. This issue, as well as everything else covered in
part I of the Canada Labour Code, is under review.
The Canada Labour Code had not been thoroughly reviewed
for at least 20 years, so it is high time we update it. I guarantee
the members of this House that the issue of replacement workers
is included in the ongoing review.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment.
On Tuesday, June 6, I took part in the kick off event of the
Niagara River remedial action plan, stage two, the cleanup of
the Niagara River.
Can the minister tell us what support the federal government
is providing to the remedial action plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative
that the member participated in the stage one response to the
remedial action plan in Niagara Falls on my behalf only a couple
of days ago. I know the mayor would have liked to have had me
there, and I am sorry I could not attend. I know the work that has
been done by the member on the Niagara River is key to moving
the remedial action plan forward. I would like to pass along my
apologies to the mayor as I was unable to be there.
We have a targeted phase for stage two. We intend to begin the
implementation of stage two by the end of this year. We are
looking for strong support from our American friends and
neighbours because, as members know, most of the pollution in
the Niagara River comes from the American side. We want to
work with them to make sure that this gets off the list as one of
North America's hot spots and returns to its original state which
was the heart of the Niagara peninsula.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this highway 104 scandal reminds me of the old chicken jokes
like: ``Why did the chicken cross highway 104?'' The answer is:
``To avoid the toll booth''.
Now I find the Liberal member for Cumberland-Colchester
is publicly proposing that a toll booth be put on the New
Brunswick border of highway 104, a move that will surely start a
toll booth war on the Trans-Canada highway between two
provinces. This is very strange behaviour from a government, in
fact a Prime Minister, who said this week it was a provincial
jurisdictional matter.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister make an attempt to restore
faith in the ethics of the Liberal cabinet by asking the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services to at least step down
until we hear from the auditor general about the minister's
inappropriate activities regarding highway 104?
(1445 )
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, tolls and highways are in the provincial jurisdiction.
While the member has been going across Atlantic Canada
suggesting the Reform Party is against tolls, perhaps he should
check with his boss, who in New York City on May 25 indicated
he is in favour of tolls and user fees for public infrastructure.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at least we have somebody answering for that fellow over there.
What we have across the room today is a government that has
a lack of ethics, a lack of honesty and a lack of accountability,
but there is no shortage of arrogance across there at all.
I have an anniversary present for the minister of public works.
I will share a significant quote from our current illustrious
minister of public works from Hansard exactly six years ago
today, which proves just how adaptable these Liberals are. The
quote reads:
I am opposed to pork barreling schemes which only benefit friends of Tories.
That is what I am against.
He said that when he was in opposition.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the minister of public
works opposes pork barreling in principle, or just for Tories.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me also give the hon.
member a quote: ``Instead of tax based financing, he suggested
privatizing current public infrastructure tolls, public and private
joint ventures''. That was said by Preston Manning on May 26,
1995.
The Speaker: I will permit the parliamentary secretary to
finish his answer, but we refer to each other by our
constituencies rather than our names.
13478
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using the name of
the leader of the Reform Party, but it was the leader of the
Reform Party who said that. It was on the CP news wire that he
was in favour of tolls.
Highways are in the provincial jurisdiction and tolls are in the
provincial jurisdiction. The Government of Nova Scotia decided
that was where it wanted to spend the money to ensure safety and
good transportation in Nova Scotia. That is where the decision
lies, in Nova Scotia, not in the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Immigration officers at the Canadian embassy in Paris have
once again refused to issue a visitor's visa to Algerians, in this
case two grandmothers, Mrs. Ouartzi and Mrs. Sebbar. The
House will recall the case of Mrs. Koudil, a filmmaker, and three
Algerian actors who were denied visas at the embassy in Paris,
although they had tickets for their return flight.
Would the minister agree that his officials at the embassy in
Paris behaved deplorably, considering the way they handled
legitimate requests for visas from people of Algerian origin, and
why is nothing being done to correct procedures that obviously
led to this unfair treatment?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the two cases
involving the two grandmothers' applications for visitor visas. I
hope the hon. member understands that I cannot be on top of
every one of the one million applications that are made
worldwide to visit Canada. I will certainly look into the cases.
However, I think the hon. member should check his language
when he attributes motives to our visa officers. He comes from
the province of Quebec, which essentially controls independent
migration. The province of Quebec also has visa officers around
the world. Is he suggesting for one moment that those officers
are approving every single applicant, and if they do not, for
legitimate reasons, that somehow those Quebec officers are
doing the right thing?
What I believe we should be doing with respect to Algeria is
not solving some of the problems those people are facing
through our visitor visa program. That is precisely why my
officials have been discussing with the officials of the Quebec
ministry of immigration with respect to independent migration
to see if we can help some of those Algerians legitimately, rather
than trying to utilize the visitor visa program for things it was
not intended for.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the visa
officers I referred to work for your department.
The Speaker: I may remind the hon. member that he should
always speak to the Chair.
Mr. Nunez: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
Since these two Algerian grandmothers, both over 65, have
already been to Canada several times, when does the minister
intend to admit his officials made a mistake and when are they
going to issue visas to these women who want to come here to
visit their children and their grandchildren?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I informed the member I
would look into the two cases.
I know that officers who are looking at the visitor visa
program are federal. What I was trying to draw to the attention
of the member is that I do not hear him very often criticizing
officials of the Quebec government when they refuse
individuals.
I hope the member is not turning this into a political issue. He
could also have stood in the House today and thanked the federal
government for allowing the Garda family to go to New York
City to make an application and not deport it to Romania, which
allowed it to be accepted as independents, with the co-operation
of the Government of Quebec.
I do not need any grandstanding from this member.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whether it is the heritage minister's cash for contracts dinner in
Montreal, the pork for pavement highway deal in Cape Breton,
or the revenue minister's legal cases for cronies on the west
coast, the ethics counsellor always seems to be the last one to
know. Mr. Wilson is becoming more a political scapegoat than
an ethics watchdog.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. When was the
ethics counsellor contacted about any of these violations of
ethics, and why was he not consulted beforehand rather than
after?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is
assuming that there was a violation of ethics.
We have made it quite clear that the Liberal Party and the
Prime Minister support public participation in the fundraising
process. We have no problem with the fact that MacMillan
Bloedel gave the Reform Party $10,000 last year. We would
never suggest that a donation from MacMillan Bloedel or
13479
Canadian Pacific or Imperial Oil had an influence on their
policies.
It is a very open and transparent process. We support it. We
think the public across the country believes that there should be
public participation in fundraising. We do not accept that as a
violation of any ethical standard.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
ironic then that the Prime Minister said yesterday on page 13370
of Hansard, ``I discussed this with the ethics counsellor
yesterday morning''. Why would that be necessary then?
It clearly states on page 95 of the Liberal red book that the
government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor who
will report directly to Parliament. Instead what we have is an
ethics counsellor who rules on ethical issues after the fact and
who reports only to the Prime Minister. It is yet another red book
broken promise.
Given the ethics watchdog's obvious lack of teeth, will the
Prime Minister honour the red book commitment and make the
ethics counsellor responsible directly to Parliament, not to
himself?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ultimate person
responsible for the ethics of the government is the Prime
Minister of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
Canada adjusts to the new knowledge based economy, those
organizations who are the major producers of knowledge are
struggling to find the resources to meet these new challenges.
The second largest commitment in the red book was the $1
billion commitment to research and development.
(1455 )
My question is for the finance minister. Why has there been a
delay in implementing this promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, science and
technology remains a very important priority for this
government. It is the reason why very quickly after we were
elected we did implement a number of our obligations: the
technology partnerships program, the Canadian technology
network.
This is why we look forward to receiving from the secretary of
state and the Minister of Industry the science and technology
review, which I understand we will be receiving within a matter
of weeks.
There were in the budget a number of cuts. If we were to deal
with our fiscal problem we had to deal with it frugally.
Nonetheless, if we take a look at fisheries, agriculture, NRCan
and industry, we will see that to the greatest extent possible we
did preserve the research and development capacity of the
government. There is a question-
Mr. Silye: Speech.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Wait a minute. If the
Reform Party is interested in the future of the country instead of
in gutter tactics, it may well want to ask this kind of question.
There are some very important questions we should be asking.
Should the government be funding those things that the private
sector should do? Should the government in its R and D policy
be operating fundamentally or at the margins? Should the
private sector be counting constantly on the government? These
are the future questions this country has to answer. Why is it that
the Reform Party cannot deal with the real future of the country?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Next year, the federal government will make more than $20
million in cuts affecting private forestry in Quebec, thus
penalizing thousands of forestry workers in the Lower St.
Lawrence, Gaspé and North Shore regions. Participants in the
private forestry summit held in Quebec last month demand that
the federal government compensate producers.
I would like the Minister of Natural Resources to tell us what
kind of compensation this government intends to give forestry
workers?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it only slightly strange that the hon.
member and his party, who argue so strenuously for exclusive
provincial jurisdiction in the area of forestry, should now
suggest that the federal government pick up the tab for forestry.
Having said that, let me reassure the hon. member that my
department and this government continue to wish to work
co-operatively with my colleague, the minister of natural
resources in the province of Quebec. I have written to the
gentleman three times. I have offered to meet with him on a
number of occasions. The door is always open to further
co-operative ventures between our two governments. I await his
call.
13480
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for a
second there I thought the finance minister was running for the
leadership again.
The Liberal red book is beginning to read like Mulroney, the
next generation. Patronage, pork barrelling, pensions, and
punishment are the same buzzwords that live on with this
Liberal government.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how she and her
government can claim to have any integrity when cabinet
ministers are untouchables and backbenchers are treated like
kindergarten kids when they step out of line?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 20,
1994, a decision was made by the Reform Party to remove as
their justice critic the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
At that time, the hon. whip who has just posed the question came
to the government and asked us if we would sign the appropriate
papers. We did so because we felt that was a decision of his party
and we respect democracy.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I listened with interest to her comments about ethics when she
related to the House all these contributions the Reform Party
received. I have some figures for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Liberals received substantial contributions from major oil
companies: $14,000 from Husky Oil; $27,000 from Amoco; and
$47,000 from Imperial Oil.
After repeated unjustified gas price increases, the Liberal
government refuses to act to conduct a gas price inquiry.
Canadians want to know: Is the government's refusal to conduct
an inquiry based on these huge contributions by the oil
companies, or is it because it wants more from the oil
companies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is
asking whether or not we have the courage to move on issues
based on what is best for the country, he should ask why as
Minister of the Environment I am moving to ban MMT,
something that governments for 15 years have not had the guts
to do.
We are moving to ban MMT despite concerted lobbies by
people in the petrochemical industry. If the member thinks a
single contribution by a single party will move this government,
he is dead wrong.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to call your attention
to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Oscar Arias-Sanchez,
former president of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990. This same
person is a Nobel peace prize winner, which he earned for his
peace efforts in Central America.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: Earlier today the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster rose on a point of order concerning
the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster contended
that amendments made in committee to clauses 98, 99, 100, 101
and 101.1 require a royal recommendation and that they should
have been ruled out of order in committee.
The argument made by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster was based on a comment made in
committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice that new inspectors would have to be hired and trained to
fulfil the role instead of adding additional tasks to the duties of
police officers.
I have now had an opportunity to review the committee report
and Bill C-68 as read a first time and as reprinted by the
committee. I am now ready to rule on this matter.
Bill C-68 received first reading on February 14, 1995 with the
proper royal recommendation attached thereto.
Clause 98 is the key clause as it relates to this point of order. It
was amended by the committee and now reads as follows:
In section 99 to 101.1 ``inspector'' means a firearm officer and includes in
respect of a province a member of a class of individuals designated by the
provincial minister.
(1505)
In the opinion of the Chair, while clause 98 was amended in
committee, the amendment brought to it does not fundamentally
alter the financial responsibility of either the federal or the
provincial ministers involved.
Clause 98 as introduced in the House had the concept of
``police officer'' for which the concept of ``inspector'' has been
substituted by the committee. It still remains a provincial
ministerial responsibility as to which class of individuals shall
13481
be so designated. It may well be that a provincial minister
decides to recruit an entirely new class of individuals for the
purpose of clause 98, but it clearly remains the decision of the
provincial authority to do so. Whether the class of individuals
are called inspectors or police officers has no direct impact on
the royal recommendation attached to the bill.
The other amendments brought to clauses 99, 100, 101 and
101.1 deal with the powers and duties of the inspectors. The
Chair has come to the same conclusion in respect to those
amendments.
Therefore I rule that the amendments do not alter the objects,
purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal
recommendation and that the report of the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled in the House on June 7, 1995
is in order. Bill C-68 can consequently proceed to report stage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the government what is on the legislative
agenda for the next few days?
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will
proceed with the report stage of Bill C-85, the retiring
allowances legislation and we will continue with it tomorrow
morning.
During routine proceedings tomorrow the government will
propose a motion as it does every year at this time to provide for
additional sitting hours during the last two weeks before the
scheduled summer adjournment. If there is time left after this
motion is disposed of, we will return to Bill C-85.
On Monday we will proceed with Bill C-68, the firearms
legislation, followed by Bill C-41, the sentencing legislation,
followed by Bill C-85. Each day next week we will deal as far as
we can with these bills in order. We will go on to the next one in
order when the stage at which we are considering the first one
has been completed.
If at some point during the week we find ourselves finished
with all these bills or unable for the time being to proceed with
any of them, we would call Bill C-89, the CNR legislation; Bill
C-92, regarding the wheat board; Bill C-70, concerning income
tax; Motion No. 24, concerning a committee examination of
conflict of interest; Bill C-87, the chemical weapons
legislation; Bill C-88, regarding international trade; and Bill
C-94, the MMT legislation.
If any priority items such as Bill C-22, Bill C-69, Bill C-82,
Bill C-86, Bill C-91 are reported from committee or sent back
from the Senate for further consideration, we will insert them
into the list.
As additional backup items we would like put before the
House are Bill C-54, Bill C-65, Bill C-52, Bill C-62, Bill C-88
and Bill C-85.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): I rise on a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
During oral question period, I referred to Jacques Rose, but I
meant and I should have said Gérald Larose. There is a major
difference.
(1510 )
[English]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to have unanimous consent to table
the list of people who attended the fundraising dinner to which
many of the questions during question period were addressed.
The Speaker: Members have heard the request. Is there
unanimous consent to table this list?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13481
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-85, an act
to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will share with the
House the ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-85.
There are 40 motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide
for the continuation of a certain provision.
13482
Motions Nos. 1 to 7 will be grouped for debate but voted on as
follows: Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately. A vote on
Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 3. Motions Nos. 4 to 7 will
be voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 36, 37 and 38 will be grouped for
debate but voted on as follows:
a) A vote on motion No. 8 applies to motion No. 36.
b) An affirmative vote on motion No. 8 obviates the necessity
of the question being put on motions Nos. 9 and 37.
(1515)
c) On the other hand, a negative vote on motion No. 8
necessitates the question being put on motion No. 9.
d) A vote on motion No. 9 applies to motion No. 37.
e) A vote on motion No. 10 applies to motion No. 38.
[English]
Motions Nos. 11 to 35 will be grouped for debate but voted on
as follows. (a) A vote on Motion No. 11 applies to Motions Nos.
12 to 34. (b) Motion No. 35 will be voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 39 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 40 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
I shall now propose motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the
House.
Mr. Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Could you clarify the procedure for me? You grouped motions
numbered 1 to 7 if I am not mistaken. Then, you said something
about separate votes. Can you confirm to me that motion No. 1
will be voted on separately, and more importantly motion No. 4?
It is really important to us that motion No. 4 be voted on
separately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Dear colleagues, I wish to
make it clear that motion No. 1 will be voted on separately.
Also, motions numbered 4 to 7 will be voted on separately.
Mr. Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6, on page 2,
with the following:
``the House of Commons may, within sixty days after the''.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 2, with
the following:
``before doing so is deemed not to have elected''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 2, with
the following:
``before doing so is deemed to have not elected''.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 2, with
following:
``tion 2.1 for as long as that person is a Canadian citizen.''
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 17, on page 3.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 34, on page
3, with the following:
``2.4 A member referred to in subsection 2.3(1) who ceases to be a member
and subsequently becomes a member in the thirty-sixth or any subsequent
Parliament may not elect under subsection 10(1) or 32(1) to contribute in
respect of any session''.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 45, on page 3
and lines 1 to 5, on page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the MP pension
bill of the government. I cannot believe how fast government
members want to get it through. No wonder people in the
country are calling them pot lickers and accusing them of being
at the trough and pork barrelling. All these phrases arise from
the fact that they will not come clean with citizens and tell them
exactly what they are receiving in terms of the gold plated
pension plan.
(1520 )
We have made a number of motions in amendment to try to
improve it. Our overall objective-and it is the reason we object
to it-is to bring the pension plan for MPs and senators into line
with those in the private sector. We would like to see MPs in this
Parliament and all future parliaments fully opt out. We would
also like to see a Canadian citizenship requirement for all
members of the plan and to see members pensions subjected to
the same clawback conditions as the old age security.
I will address Motions Nos. 1 to 7, the first grouping. The
effect of Motions Nos. 1 and 6 is to change the opting out
provisions so that members of future parliaments can make a
one-time decision to opt in or opt out of the plan during the first
60 days the House sits after they are elected.
Clearly the Liberals are trying to prevent it from being an
election issue in the next election by only allowing members of
this Parliament to opt out of the trough light plan. However, as
we can see from the Ontario election, it is and will be an issue in
the next election. I predict members of Parliament who do not
13483
opt out in this session will be voted out in the next, should they
choose to run again.
We would have liked to participate in a fair pension plan but in
good conscience could not and cannot participate in a plan such
as the one offered in Bill C-85. All 52 members of the Reform
Party, along with a few Liberals, have already indicated they
will not accept the pension because it is too generous. How
many members have to opt out before the government gets the
message that its trough light plan needs some work?
By opting out Reform Party members save $38 million to the
taxpayers. It would not take long to figure how much the Liberal
government could save. Over 450 members of Parliament
belong to the plan already. If current members opted out, the
minister of immigration alone could save taxpayers $3 million
and the Deputy Prime Minister could save the country a lot of
money as well.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 would have the effect of changing the
bill so that a member who dies before the expiry of the 60-day
decision period is assumed to have done the right thing and not
opted in. The bill does exactly the opposite. It automatically
opts these people in. How dare the government try to taint the
reputation of a deceased member this way. It is ridiculous.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 would change the bill to allow all
members to opt out completely. Under Bill C-85 MPs who as of
October 1993 already had six years of service could only opt out
of benefits earned from October 1993 onward, thus creating the
trough regular and the trough light scenario.
All members, even Liberal cabinet ministers and the Prime
Minister, should be given the opportunity to do the right thing.
The inability for longer serving MPs to completely opt out under
Bill C-85 creates a two tier system among MPs. The biggest
issue is that the bill through its generosity creates a two-tier
system for MPs and the public.
Mr. Brian Corbishley, a CA and former assistant to the
Auditor General of Canada, is head of KPMG management
consulting and author of reports on legislature compensation for
the Alberta government. He testified before the committee as
one of the few witnesses allowed to appear in one day so the
Liberals could fast track the bill. He said that the proposed
pension under Bill C-85 was seven times more generous than
the typical public sector plan and was four times more generous
than the typical private sector plan.
Paraphrasing Mr. Corbishley again, to compare pension plans
we combine all the elements into a single measure: the value of
the pension earned in one year of service from the employer's
contributions; in other words the amount that would have to be
set aside to invest each year to pay for the pension. The value of
the pension earned from the employer's contribution in one year
of service for this member is about $43,000 under the current
plan. Under the proposed plan it falls to about $34,000. In the
private sector for a person of the same age and same income it
would only be $9,000.
The maximum pension for MPs under this plan is 75 per cent
of earnings in the best years. For others it is 70 per cent but it
takes 35 years to earn it compared to this plan which allows MPs
to earn their full pension, 5 per cent higher than the private
sector, in only 19 years.
(1525)
Another witness, actuary and former MP Paul McCrossan,
said that the bill entrenched the benefits at a level higher than
those available to general taxpayers. I believe the compensation
for MPs should be brought into line with modern private sector
practice.
Motion No. 4 imposes a Canadian citizenship requirement on
all members of the plan so that if a province separated, MPs
from the province would not draw a pension from the Canadian
government. I have heard comments from members of the
separatist party in the House that they do not care what is going
on in the House because they will not be here next fall anyway. I
think they are wrong. They will still be here and Quebec will
still be part of Canada.
If any Bloc members opt into the plan it will be a clear sign
that they realize they will still be in the House and in the country
long past the fall.
I ask all members of Parliament whether it makes more sense
to give us a readily definable salary rather than keep a
convoluted pay scheme and a pension plan that is no better than
those in the private sector, a transparent and taxable
remuneration package. Under the current format Canadians do
not even know or have a precise picture of an MP's total
compensation package. The scale has tipped so far toward big
pensions at the end of the rainbow that for many politicians
re-election becomes a top priority because to qualify they have
to get elected for a second term.
Are members running a second term to qualify for a million
dollar pension, or are they running a second term to serve the
country for the salary they will be receiving? It generates more
survival mode thinking and less commitment to tackle the tough
issues facing Canada and Canadians. Canadians should be able
to have a say through an arm's length agency what politicians
should be paid.
Let us make compensation upfront. Let us make pension plans
upfront, straightforward and out in the open. How difficult is
that? Why is it that MPs are setting their own standards? Why is
it that MPs set their own pensions? Why can they not hire an
arm's length independent body to set a pension plan equal to and
no better than the private sector? I will tell the House why. It is
13484
self-serving. They feel they deserve it and cannot justify it
outside the House, and the paying public is now aware of it.
As the witness from KPMG management consulting told the
committee reviewing the legislation, if the objective is to
achieve fair and equitable compensation for MPs, the pension
component should be considered in conjunction with other
components.
After eliminating the gold plated pension plan, which the bill
clearly does not do, the House could agree to a proper balanced
package that would be more palatable and compatible with
Canadian taxpayers. The proposed Liberal pension plan should
be no better than that in the private sector but it is. Politicians
must realize that they are no better than those who voted for
them. For some reason they think they are.
When I was a businessman two years ago in the private sector
I had benefits given to me by my company. They were taxable
benefits. What I received in terms of pension was nowhere near
what it is here. The double standard in the House is pathetic and I
am here to say that it is pathetic. I am now a politician. I am paid
as one and I am paid to be one. We have a double standard. We
have tax free benefits the public does not even know about. It
should not be that way but the government will not do anything
about it and I think the Canadian public wants something done.
Politicians should never forget who pays their salaries.
Unfortunately it appears that by supporting Bill C-85 the
Liberals, the Bloc, the Tories and the NDP have forgotten. In the
name of justice and fairness we urge the government with our
amendments to go further than it has with Bill C-85.
A lot of MPs have served in the House. A lot of MPs have had
the opportunity to fix the situation. In the House today there are
205 rookies and I cannot believe they have allowed the veterans
to scoop them. These veterans are finished. Some of them will
not even run again but they will retire with the old pension plan
that gave six to one in contributions, not this one that gives 3.5
to one.
If the government ran on a platform in its red book based on
integrity and restoring integrity to politicians, it would not be
forcing time allocation on a pension bill. The Liberals would not
be bringing in closure on the gun control bill. The things they are
doing to speed things through so the Canadian public is unaware
of what is being thrust on it will come back to haunt them at
election time two years from now. It will be the Reform Party
that the Canadian public will have to vote for in order to correct
the wrongs and put right what the government is failing to do.
(1530)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind
those in the House and Canadians who are listening that the
government promised to ensure there was an age of eligibility,
which has been done. Before this legislation came forward
members could collect a pension at any age after six years of
service. Now there is an age of eligibility. The government also
promised to eliminate double dipping. This has been done.
The government honoured its promises and went further. It
ensured the contributions of taxpayers to the MP pension plan
would be reduced by over 33 per cent. It ensured the accrual rate,
the rate by which credits are accumulated for pensions, would be
reduced by 5 per cent to 4 per cent, a reduction of 20 per cent. At
the request of the Reform Party it granted this legislation which
will permit members to opt out of the MP pension plan. The
government has honoured its first two promises and has gone
beyond with three other initiatives.
I am amazed at the boldness of my Reform colleague who has
just spoken. He used the terms trough regular and trough light,
which his leader so effectively used to try to denigrate what was
happening. He ought to be referred to as the MP who introduced
trough heavy duty. On May 4 he suggested MPs should be paid
$150,000 a year and get regular pensions. If that were to happen
it would cost the Canadian taxpayer a lot more. Trough heavy
duty has been suggested by the member who had the gall to stand
up in the House and try to pretend he would fix things. I am
really amazed.
The hon. member quoted testimony. I am surprised he did not
quote testimony from C.E.S. Franks, a witness when we
examined the bill:
If MPs pensions are looked at solely in comparison with the pensions and
pension schemes of other professionals, then the pensions of parliamentarians
seem excessive. And that is the comparison normally made.
When these proposals for reform of the pensions of members of Parliament
were first made public the media was filled with reports comparing the pension
an MP would make after fifteen or twenty years of service with what a school
teacher or civil servant would receive after the same period.
Not surprisingly, by comparison the MPs' pensions looked very
advantageous. What these reports and experts failed to note is that less than ten
per cent of MPs serve in the House for fifteen years or more, and that, after most
elections (1993 was an exception) the majority of ex-MPs have served too short
a time, less than the required six years, to receive any parliamentary pension
whatsoever. In fact, a great many ex-members not only do not have a pension
but have a difficult time in finding employment and in re-establishing
themselves after serving as a member.
If my colleague is to be selective, I assure the House I will
bring some balance into the debate.
I agree the MP pension plan is generous. I will not deny that.
However, we must look at it in the total context. If we look at the
international scene, France, England, Germany and any number
of others, and if we look at the major components such as
eligibility, the amount contributed by government, the age a
person can collect a pension, number of years of service, et
cetera, some countries have provisions equal to or better than
13485
the provisions we have in this plan as it stood and even more so
today because of the changes the government has brought about.
(1535 )
If we look at provincial and territorial standards we find the
same thing. In other words, in certain provinces one works less
than six years. In certain provinces one can collect a pension
before age 55. I could go on but I will not. The point is we have
to look at it within the total context, which my colleague and his
colleagues will obviously refuse to do.
These motions are unacceptable to us for any number of
reasons, some which I have mentioned, some which I find
extremely misleading, some which do not deal with the topic
whatsoever. I am shocked and disappointed it was done so early
in the debate.
There is a commitment to allow optional participation for this
Parliament only. That was at the request of the Reform Party.
The bill extends optional coverage to persons not vested six
years so that small amounts of money from the previous
Parliament would not remain in the account until a member
retires.
Members with more than six years on October 25, 1993 are
able to opt out for this Parliament and return their pension as a
gift for the crown if they do not want to receive it when they
leave office. The deeming provision protects survivor benefits if
necessary for members who die before opting in. The
requirement to be a Canadian citizen ignores the fact that a
pension is deferred compensation for which members have
contributed.
For all of the above reasons obviously we cannot be
supportive.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also
wish to participate in this debate, and especially in the debate on
the amendments put forward by the Reform Party in Motions
Nos. 1 through 7. I must say that we agree with Motion No. 1,
which provides that members of the next Parliament should be
free to opt out of the plan.
We disagree with Motion No. 2, according to which a member
who has not chosen one of the two plans is deemed to have opted
out. We feel that all workers hope to receive a pension some day
and want to deserve it.
Motion No. 4 is a big trap. We are a little taken aback to see
that a democratically elected political party can dismiss the
relevance of another existing political party and seek to punish
the democratically elected members of a recognized political
party for defending ideas.
Motion No. 4 would deny pensions to members who renounce
their Canadian citizenship. This is obviously a direct attack
against the Bloc Quebecois. The Reform Party must have
reasoned that if Quebec ever achieves sovereignty, Bloc
members will no longer be Canadian citizens and will therefore
no longer qualify for the MPs' pension plan.
I strongly denounce this kind of amendment to a bill. The
Reform Party must be seriously misinformed to issue such a
statement. May I remind you that, in Canadian history, we are
what is called a sovereignist party, a party that hopes to make
Quebec a distinct country enjoying a very friendly relation with
the rest of Canada as well as economic ties that are as close as
they are today.
Let us keep in mind that Quebec is Canada's second trading
partner after the U.S. As for Ontario, trade between the two
provinces exceeds $68 billion, and more than 100,000 Ontario
jobs depend on trade with Quebec.
(1540)
We are very pleased with the services and economic
agreements that we have with the rest of Canada. These
arrangements reflect our concept of sovereignty, which is the
recognition of the two founding nations, based on the existence
of two strong governments which have economic ties.
I want to remind the Reform Party that, when it tables an
amendment challenging the legitimacy of the Bloc's presence in
this House, it is completely out of line with the history of this
country, the Charter of rights and freedoms, and the
Constitution. Let us not forget that, when the first Canadian
government was elected, out of the 17 members representing
Nova Scotia, 16 or 17-I believe it was 17-were sovereignists
who wanted their province out of Confederation.
After four or eight years in Parliament, were these members
subjected to punitive measures, on the grounds that they had a
vision of Nova Scotia's future which differed from that of the
rest of the country? Of course not. If the Western Party-I
believe it is the correct name-, which was in favour of pulling
the west out to annex it to the U.S. or create a new country, had
managed to get 30 or so democratically elected members here,
would we have tabled motions saying that these people, even
though they were democratically elected, have no right to sit
here and should be punished by not getting any pension once
they leave? That would be totally absurd.
Some communist members also sat in this House. Were they
told that, because they were communists, they would not be
eligible for a pension later on? Would an extreme right wing
government, which could be a Reform government, tell NDP
members that, since they represent the extreme left, they will be
punished by not getting their pensions? Are we here to discuss
ideas or make arbitrary and dictatorial judgments?
13486
In that sense, clause 4 is in total contradiction with the
democratic process which Quebec and Canada are proud to
share. That process provides that the people can choose its
representatives among the various political parties and decide to
elect Bloc members if it wishes to do so. However, will these
Bloc members later be punished by being deprived of their
rights because of the ideas that they defend? This is
unacceptable. The left would not do that to the right, nor would
the right do it to the left.
I also want to make it clear to Reform members that the fact
that we are sovereignists does not mean that we want to break up
Canada. That was never our intention. Sovereignists want to
build a new relationship with Canada based on the two founding
peoples. This would entail a very strong, central government in
Quebec, a very strong, central government in Ottawa, and
economic links between the two. However, Quebecers would
pay their taxes to Quebec only and Quebec and Canada would
only jointly buy the services that are deemed necessary to have
in common.
For example, you may want to have a Senate, but we
Quebecers may not, so you can have it and pay for it yourselves.
If we both decide we want to maintain the St. Lawrence Seaway,
we can do so together. If we decided to share an army, we could
work out arrangements. The expression ``based on the two
founding peoples'' simply means that. Currently, approximately
50 per cent of all people in Quebec-we had 49 per cent of the
vote-share the Bloc's vision and the other 50 per cent have a
different vision. Some people are still undecided, but a good 40
per cent of all people still share the vision that Quebecers can
have everything they ever wanted within the federal system.
Therefore, we have two options. There is nothing wrong with
being a sovereignist, it is not a punishable offence, it is not a
terrorist movement or a movement bent on ruining things; it is a
movement, a political party with a philosophy and a vision for
the future of Quebec and if its vision prevails, even better.
However, there is still another vision in Quebec, the vision of
federalism. It is therefore a debate on the issues based on mutual
respect which people must choose. It must be up to the people to
decide.
(1545)
And if the people choose sovereignty in the referendum, Bloc
members, who worked here in Ottawa to bring sovereignty to
pass, should under no circumstances be denied certain services
or compensation for the years in which they democratically held
seats and defended their vision against others. And if their
vision prevails, they should not be penalized for having served
Quebec, and indirectly Canada because I think that Canada
would be in much better shape if we were two separate
countries. They should in no way be penalized regarding their
pension plans or other plans for having had this vision.
It is quite regrettable that a recently elected party which calls
itself democratic, the Reform Party, would dare to table a
motion of the kind. It is unworthy of a democratic party. It is an
attack on the very act of democracy and the faith in it that all
Canadians and Quebecers have. It is an insult to our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. It is an insult to our Constitution.
It is also an insult to western democracy to have to say in a
motion that people are judged by their ideas and that their rights
will be adjusted accordingly. No democracy can tolerate this.
That is the kind of thing we would expect from dictatorships
from the extreme right or extreme left and it has no place, it
seems to me, in this noble assembly, the House of Commons,
which has always been preoccupied with respecting democracy
and above all respecting the hon. members who were mandated
by their own electorate to sit in the House.
I think that clause 4 should be voted down or even dropped
before the vote.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I engage in debate on Bill C-85
and the motions to amend certain clauses of that bill.
The time has come for everyone to recognize that the current
pension plan, which is the privilege of MPs of the House, is
obscenely generous. Even if the changes proposed in Bill C-85
were implemented, they would still be obscenely generous.
I want to make reference to the Prime Minister's statement
suggesting that perhaps MPs do not think they should be paid
that much. An MP does not take a vow of poverty. Canadian
citizens want their MPs to earn decent incomes. They want them
to have decent pensions. They want to reward them for the work
that they do. However, it should not be disproportionate to the
benefits and salaries they receive.
Therefore, some fairness and equity has to be placed into this
whole business. As MPs we recognize our worth. Canadians
recognize our worth, but we do not believe that we should
become some kind of elite component of society that receives
benefits that are over and above those given to other members of
society.
The right balance must be struck between a reasonable,
personal income and a public rip off. The current plan is a public
rip off as is the way it is conceived to be in Bill C-85.
This spring a number of changes were proposed. However,
one change that I want to draw particular attention to is the
chance to opt out of the pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you and all the rest of the members
of the House to know that I have chosen to opt out of the plan. I
take very strong exception to the statement that the President of
the Treasury Board made when he said: ``Reform members are
all being forced to opt out''.
Mr. Strahl: Nonsense.
An hon. member: Nonsense in spades.
13487
Mr. Schmidt: That is absolutely a misstatement of the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I want you and everybody else to know it was a
very conscious and deliberate decision on my part. If any
forcing took place it was the minister who would not change the
present pension plan so that we could opt into it with reasonable
assurance that it was fair and equitable with regard to the
taxpayers of Canada.
(1550)
If any forcing took place it was the lack of decision making on
the part of government members. It did not introduce the kind of
amendments that ought to have been introduced into the pension
plan so it would be fair and so it would be generous in the same
way that other pension plans are generous for all other citizens.
If any forcing is taking place that is where it is taking place.
With respect to my decision I do not feel any compulsion
whatsoever from my party or anyone else, but simply my
allegiance to my constituents. My constituents have told me
loudly and clearly that I do not deserve a pension any larger than
the one that is normal and acceptable for all Canadians, and they
are prepared to pay for that.
The other aspect is that the proposed changes are not
retroactive.
An hon. member: Excuse me, I have to make a phone call.
Mr. Schmidt: Good, make the call. I hope you do. The other
point we need to recognize is-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I might have
missed something. Try to keep that to a bare minimum. I would
ask the co-operation of all colleagues to make their
interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, phone calls should be
done that way as well.
The present proposal introduced a two tiered pension system,
those who were elected before 1993 and those who were elected
in the 1993 election. Two kinds of pension plans are operating.
That is an unfairness in itself. Why should one group of MPs be
treated differently from those who are coming up?
I want to illustrate exactly how obscene the benefits of this
plan are. Here is a list of the top 10 takers under the new plan as
proposed by Bill C-85 so everyone recognizes what we are
talking about here. The figures are estimated on nine years as
ministers and living to age 75. These are the people who qualify
under those categories, assuming also a 5 per cent inflation rate
per year.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke will collect $4.5 million. It
so happens that this individual is also the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party. The member for Humber-St.
Barbe-Baie Verte will get $3.9 million. He happens also to be
the minister of fisheries. The member for Cape Breton-East
Richmond will get $3.6 million. The member for
Burnaby-Kingsway will get $3.5 million. The member for
Winnipeg Transcona will get $3.3 million. The member for York
West, who happens to be the minister of immigration, will get
$3.1 million. The member for York South-Weston will get $2.7
million. The member for Hamilton East, the Deputy Prime
Minister, will get $2.5 million. The member for
Papineau-Saint Michel will get $2.6 million and the member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will get $2.1 million.
Where is any other Canadian with a normal income and the
usual kinds of productivity going to get that kind of pension? I
submit to the House that the witnesses who appeared before the
committee stated that it is not going to happen.
The President of the Treasury Board said that this is a
significant change and reduction, which is a lot of bafflegab and
clever but very misleading words. It is hypocrisy under the guise
of an election promise.
I could not help, as I was preparing some of my notes, to think
about a nursery rhyme that I learned. It goes something like this.
It fits this hypocrisy beautifully. It says: ``Little Jack Horner sat
in the corner, eating his pudding and pie, he stuck in his thumb,
pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I''. I could not
help but think about the Liberals sitting in their places, looking
and revising their pension plan. They stick in their hand and they
pull out a gold plum and say what a good Liberal am I.
That is not all. In the final analysis it is the victory of greed
and self-interest over common sense and responsible
leadership. That is the saddest part of it all. Where is the
leadership? Where is the example for our young people? Where
is the example of responsible expenditure of public funds?
(1555)
We are supposed to be the guardians and to treat taxpayers'
money as funds kept in trust on their behalf and to expend them
in their best interest. However, what do some MPs do? They say:
``Please cut back and be responsible, but not us as MPs. We are
just fine and should be given a little more. Our pensions should
be cut a little but not too much. We have to make a lot of money
after all we gave up''.
I do not think there is a single MP in the House who did not
calculate very carefully what the cost to come here would be.
Some looked at the pension plan and said: ``Wait a minute. That
is a freebie. That would be great for me to have''. That has
13488
become the issue and is not a measure of productivity. It happens
after years of productivity here.
There is a serious lack of leadership. We need to get our
leadership back into focus. We must become examples to young
people and to other citizens.
Let us examine some of the great and wonderful benefits. I
return to the point I made earlier about the President of the
Treasury Board saying that we have been forced into it. He said
that we should look after the interests of our families for the
future.
If anybody in the House is looking after family members, it is
some of our people. I look at one of my colleagues who has a
young family at home. If there is anyone here whom I know
personally who cares about his family, it is this man. He is
saying: ``I am opting out of the pension plan''. The issue is that
we have calculated the cost. We know the cost and have said that
we want to pay the cost as all other Canadian citizens have to pay
a cost to retire.
I commend my colleagues who have decided to opt out of this
overly generous plan and who are prepared to put their
reputations, their leadership and their imagination on the line.
There is another vision for Canada, a vision of responsibility, a
vision of leading the country into a moral position that says we
will treat taxpayers' money as a public trust with the same
jealously and with the same concern as we have for our own.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to what the hon. member for Richelieu had to say.
He expressed his surprise at the wording of Motion No. 4 which
says that members who want to make an election concerning
their pension will be able to receive the pension or make that
election only if they are Canadian citizens.
I am astonished, surprised and disappointed to see this kind of
proposal because, like the hon. member for Richelieu, I see this
as an attack on the members Quebec sent to Ottawa, an attack on
Bloc members. The message is that Bloc members are
sovereignists who are trying to get Quebec to separate and
should be punished by being deprived of their pensions.
When they were elected in October 1993, the Bloc members
were well aware that their term in Ottawa would not be long
enough to entitle them to a pension. However, I would like to
point out two things about Motion No. 4. First, I think it is unfair
to sovereignist members who work in Ottawa and represent their
constituents. Sovereignist members from Quebec received a
mandate from the people. They are proud to sit in the House of
Commons and do the job they promised to do, which is to defend
the interests of Quebec and promote Quebec's sovereignty.
(1600)
Incidentally, this motion attacks not just Quebec
sovereignists but any Quebecer sitting in the House of
Commons who, after Quebec becomes sovereign, decides to
give up his Canadian citizenship, because the motion says: ``As
long as that person is a Canadian citizen''.
So are the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the President of the
Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
members for Sherbrooke, Pierrefonds-Dollard,
Verdun-Saint-Paul, Outremont, Gatineau-Labelle, and the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who has been in this House
for 30 years, are they all going to be forced to choose between
their pension and their citizenship after Quebec becomes
sovereign?
Are you going to tell the Prime Minister who, if I am not
mistaken, has been a member of the House of Commons for 30
or 33 years and who has represented the people of Quebec to the
best of his ability: ``Mr. Prime Minister, if you do not give up
your Canadian citizenship, you will be entitled to your pension,
but otherwise, if you take out Quebec citizenship, you will give
up the pension entitlements you had under Canadian law''?
I consider this motion unfair for the membership of the Bloc
Quebecois because it smells like punishment. It is also unfair for
federalist members of Parliament from Quebec, who will be
asked to choose between their pension and their citizenship.
It also makes a mockery of the whole Quebec sovereignty
debate in which it has been made clear that Quebec would
assume its responsibilities in the event of sovereignty. Quebec
will not ask people living there to give up their citizenship or
anything else in order to obtain Quebec citizenship. Quebec will
not, for example, ask federal public servants entitled to a
pension to give up their Canadian citizenship in order to receive
a pension paid by Quebec, because Quebec has announced it will
assume the responsibilities it inherits from the Government of
Canada in the area of federal public service pensions.
I think that a motion like this one complicates matters ahead
of time for the Quebec and Canadian negotiators who will be
trying to reach an amicable agreement after Quebec achieves
sovereignty.
I think it is a very bad thing and does not augur well for the
future to have Parliament adopt this sort of motion. It is a
disgraceful way to behave and it will hinder future negotiations.
I think we will need all our democratic and justice wits about
us to ensure that the negotiations following sovereignty are
conducted in the best possible manner. It is not acceptable for
the Government of Canada to adopt a motion like this one, which
13489
will prejudice discussions and make it harder for Canada and
Quebec to reach an agreement before they even start.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to think it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today
and if I begin to speak rather quickly during my presentation it is
because the government has invoked closure; I must hurry as
usual to get through before something else happens on the other
side.
This is not the first time I have spoken on the bill. It is a very
important bill. The three most substantial bills for my office as
far as public interest especially in this spring sitting of
Parliament are the MP pension plan, Bill C-41, the sentencing
bill, and Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Those three have
invoked more interest in Canadian papers and in my riding than
any other legislation the government has talked about or has
brought in.
(1605 )
The Canadian public should know that today closure was
invoked on those three bills to stifle debate in the House. Those
three bills the Canadian people think are most important have
now been allocated only a few hours of debate before they have
been passed and rammed through Parliament.
Before I get to the substance of the bill, people may think
these bills could be dealt with in committee. Maybe that would
be a good place to air them and put forward amendments.
On first reading of Bill C-64, the employment equity bill, I
was not allowed to bring amendments because they were in
English only and could not be accepted. Then only five minutes
of debate was allowed per amendment, which meant often I was
not allowed to speak. When it was brought to the House, closure
was invoked like it was done with the three bills. When the
committee has a bill as controversial as the pension bill, it does
not have to invoke closure, it just will not let any witnesses
appear. That will take care of the debate.
Perhaps a private members' bill would be a good way to get
democracy to the forefront and on to the front burner. People
should have been in committee the other day to see the look on
the face of the member for Hamilton-Wentworth when Bill
C-224 was deep sixed by the Liberal majority on the committee,
never again to see the light of day because it did not want to see
it there.
It is very difficult to get a point of view across and it is
disappointing to see the government, which campaigned on
open government, more access for the Canadian people,
invoking different types of closure in different ways to stifle
meaningful debate. It is very discouraging.
In speaking to this block of motions before us on the bill, I
want to reiterate concerns of my constituents. I could read from
endless supplies of letters I have received from people
concerned about the bill, about the previous pension plan and so
on. They are very angry.
Of the three bills I mentioned earlier this bill is the one that
really peaks their interest. Because we cannot have meaningful
debate in here the government will not allow it to go on as it
should.
The last time I was on my feet speaking to this bill on previous
reading I offered to debate any member of the House anywhere
in Canada at any time in a public forum on pension plans. We
cannot seem to get Liberal members to debate it here. They are
not very proud of it. There are not many speakers from the
government side. No one accepted the challenge because they
realize the amount of gas to keep their cars running out behind
the theatre to make their quick getaway would cause some kind
of global warming.
No one will debate. No one wants to debate in a public forum.
No one on the Liberal side is proud of this legislation. They will
hang their heads and pass it later on. It is really too bad. I believe
the government is running scared on Bill C-41, Bill C-68, the
pension bill, Bill C-64, the employment equity bill. It does not
want to debate any of those. It does not want to debate anything
like that because it realizes those are the things Canadians will
get upset about. It hopes to slide these through and somehow
keep people from knowing the truth about this pension plan.
I want to make perfectly clear for my constituents that I will
have to opt out of the pension plan. It is a shame really. I sent out
40,000 questionnaires earlier this year and 85 per cent of the
people who responded on this issue said they think members of
Parliament should have a pension plan. There is nothing wrong
with a pension plan, only make it the same as the pension plan in
the private sector. They supported me. A pension plan for MPs is
not a bad deal, but they said I should not dare support the
pension plan proposed by the government.
That is too bad. Most members on both sides of the House
have families. I have a wife and four kids. I like to support them
and do my part in family finances. However, when the Liberals
deliberately put together a package they know no fair minded
person can support, it is a shame. They will force people out of
the pension plan to make sure there is nothing available. This
shows their motive, especially when speaking to Motions Nos. 1
and 6, the idea of opting in or opting out of this plan for future
parliamentarians.
(1610)
In a sense the Liberals are hoping to invoke closure on this
issue even into the next election. They do not want to talk about
this. It is a fait accompli. One must be part of this pension plan to
run for Parliament next time. They are even trying to stifle the
debate on the next round of parliamentarians, which is really
disgusting.
13490
The next time around Canadians do not need to worry because
if they vote for a Reform government this pension plan,
regardless of what the bill says, will be gone, deep sixed as it
should be. We will have a fair pension plan in which we match
funds one for one, not this ridiculous four to one, gold plated
plan we see have today.
Let me read one or two letters. It is almost sad to have to read a
letter like this, but I will read a little to show what constituents
think about MP pension plans. This letter came to my
Chilliwack office:
In 1950 as a young nineteen year old man I was working as an apprentice
making one dollar an hour. When Canada asked for volunteers to go to Korea I
volunteered. I spent two years in the trenches and many times did not know if I
would see the sunrise the next morning. Many of my comrades did not.
I continued to serve my country for another 15 years until I became a diabetic
and was forced to retire from the armed forces. For all my dedicated service I
received $142 a month.
Three years ago I lost my leg and could not work any more. Now my pension is
indexed and I receive $580 a month.
A member of Parliament serves six years in office, receiving a good salary
and many fringe benefits. If he is not re-elected after this time he receives a
pension-
-this is under the old plan which many people on the front
benches will qualify for-
-of $40,000 a year which is already indexed. How can they justify this? My
wife and I have worked hard all of our lives to raise six children and help build a
way of life for ourselves and our fellow Canadians.
Why are my 16 years of service worth only $142 a month and an MP's six
years of service worth over $3,000 a month?
If I were to be challenged on this idea of debating in public
and I brought forward this letter what would be the response
from the Liberal members? That is why they will not debate it
outside of this place. It is a sad thing. How can one look in the
eye of a veteran like this, a guy who has now lost his leg and is
unable to work, and tell him: ``Survive on $500 a month and then
pay my pension with your taxes?'' I have said enough.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply
troubled as I rise today to speak to the issue of MP pensions. My
opposition to the pension plan and that of my colleagues is well
known and our refusal to accept it is well known.
What especially troubles me today is the way the government
is using time allocation to ram this and other bills through the
House without proper debate. This is an abuse of our
parliamentary system.
In speaking to the pension scheme, as I often do when I am
speaking on bills in the House, I always refer back to the auditor
general's observations about what government spending should
be about. There should always be accountability. There should
always be a designated goal and a measurement for whether
those goals are being achieved by the expenditure. What is the
purpose of this pension plan? What is it meant to do? Is it
achieving that?
When the American government was instituted some two
centuries ago there was actually a spirited public debate as to
whether legislators should be paid at all. Some said they had to
be because otherwise only the wealthy could engage in politics.
Others said they should not because politics should not attract
people who thought they could make a comfortable living if they
were good at it.
(1615 )
The decision that they should be paid seems obvious, but back
then politics was not a full time occupation. Legislatures sat less
often for less time and they did a whole lot less legislating.
Maybe that is something we could enjoy as Canadians. By the
way, back in 1867 Canadian MPs were paid $6 a day. Things are
a little different today. Now we have professional politicians.
That is the consequence of the decision to pay them well.
That has both good and bad aspects. On the bad side, too many
people in the House have never had real jobs. I do not say that
political expertise is always bad. We do need people who
understand how to get things done and how to work within the
parliamentary system. I suppose it is good that some people can
do politics full time as a career, but we can have too much of a
good thing.
In any case, the decision was made to pay politicians so that
financial barriers to holding public office would not exist. That
is defensible, and it produced predictable results. MPs are also
paid fairly well today. We are not paid as well as some people
may think, although as my colleague from Calgary Centre
recently pointed out, we are paid more than is apparent. We are
paid reasonably so that we can afford to devote ourselves full
time to the job and, to be quite honest, so we will be harder to
corrupt. Frankly, that is money well spent. MPs who are
struggling to survive and to keep the wolf away from the door
are obviously more susceptible to improper approaches. So we
have good reason for paying politicians and for paying them
reasonably well.
What about the pension scheme? What is the reason for
having this pension plan in the first place, and why is it so
generous? It is obvious that the purpose of the pension is to
enable people to stay with a career, knowing that when it is over
they will be provided for. Private sector companies have
pensions for that reason, and it is quite reasonable.
No one doubts the desirability of having pensions for MPs, as
my colleague just pointed out. The real question before us today
is do we have a good reason for having an outrageously generous
pension system for MPs compared to their salaries and
compared to the private sector and compared to other
Canadians? Put another way, is there a good reason for
structuring the rewards for politics so that MPs get less now and
more later, that is, if they survive six years or longer? Is there a
good reason for
13491
creating a system where the reward for being an MP depends
very heavily on getting re-elected again and again? Do we have
a system that rewards MPs for making the right choice here and
now, or one that encourages them to promise and promise to
deficit spend, to go along with their leadership even when they
know it is wrong, all in the desperate hope of being re-elected
and becoming a 20-year man or woman and walking off with a
huge pension? That is what the pension plan is doing right now.
Mr. Speaker, the other day you found it necessary to remind
my colleagues on the opposite bench that this is a debating
chamber and not a barnyard. The problem that time was chicken
sounds from the other side, but it is also inappropriate to hear
snorts and grunts.
I do not expect my colleagues opposite to agree that we are, all
things considered, overpaid. Perhaps they will agree that the
current system is dishonest because it conceals the real
compensation MPs receive. Perhaps they will also agree that it
is poorly designed, in that instead of rewarding courage and
sound decisions in the present it rewards survival at any cost.
I think my colleagues opposite would be wise to go home and
speak to their constituents before they make decisions on how
they will vote on the pension bill, decisions that may haunt them
in the next election. I also think they would be wise to take some
time during the recess, if we wait to pass the bill, and before the
recess if we do not, to consider the following questions.
If we are going to reward MPs at a certain level, does it make
sense to put the money primarily into salaries or primarily into
pensions? If we are going to reward MPs at a certain level, does
it make sense to pay all of them more or less equally or to give
far greater rewards to those who have been here the longest?
I want to repeat that I thoroughly understand the importance
of having expertise available. I am no career politician, and I
understand that this is not, in proper numbers, a bad thing.
However, I also believe that a system that rewards survival in
politics above all else will attract to politics precisely those
people most adept at surviving election after election. Too often
these are also people skilled at sacrificing the future to the
present in their public policy decisions. Our national debt has
essentially accumulated in the last 20 years.
(1620)
Last night the member for Durham said: ``I have often
wondered coming to the House how it is possible that Canada
created the debt it has today. I have often wondered who was
controlling the cheque books.''. Perhaps he should ask the Prime
Minister, a consummate political survivor, a former finance
minister, and a master of promise now and pay later. Such
politicians have proven very skilful at convincing Canadians
they can have their cake and eat it too, which has been ruinous
for the country. It has been very lucrative for them, however.
Our national debt has accumulated under politicians who
made promises and presented bills later and were re-elected for
doing so. Our national debt has accumulated under politicians
with very generous pensions. I am afraid our national debt is so
huge that the only people who can shoulder the burden in the
future will be MPs on their pensions. Frankly, I do not believe
the hon. member for York Centre will wind up in a cardboard
box collecting pogey if we reform MP pensions. I do believe the
current system rewards wrong behaviour, which is very bad and
ill considered.
Let us by all means adopt an honest system of paying MPs.
And whatever we decide to pay them, let us put most of it into
salaries, with a pension system no more generous than the
private sector. Let us not reward the political survivor above the
one who does what is right, who tells the truth, and who
sometimes must pay the price for doing so.
Proposed changes to the MP pension plan are totally
inappropriate. The members opposite imposed closure. They
have heard countless complaints about the generosity of the
plan. They have excluded witnesses critical of the pension plan
from committee hearings, but they cannot exclude the Canadian
public.
I look forward to going to all of their ridings in the next
election to remind their constituents of how they behaved today.
Because of their votes today, they are going to need their
pensions after the next election, because I am convinced they are
not going to be here.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had not intended to speak on the bill, but I think members have
raised a number of issues that bear commenting on and require
me to remind the members of what is being proposed in the bill.
I would like to address the general feeling of many of the
speakers that the pensions of members of Parliament should
have the same provisions as those applicable to the private
sector.
One of the aspects of private sector pension plans the
members have not given any consideration to whatsoever is the
vesting differential. Vesting is the point at which the
contributions of the employer become the property of the
employee. Consider a corporation with a pension plan that
contributes x dollars to a plan, which is matched by the
employee. Let us say they contributed $1,000 each. There would
be $2,000 in that plan. That accumulated amount starts to
accumulate to the benefit of the employee following a two-year
tenure of employment. After two years of employment an
employee who is a
13492
member of a normal private sector pension plan automatically
starts to accrue and accumulate benefits.
If the members really wanted to provide all of the details they
would have to take into account the differential in the vesting
being imposed upon members of Parliament and the vesting
benefit that is available in the private sector.
(1625 )
If we were to go to a system where vesting in the private sector
was applicable to members of Parliament, that means each and
every member of Parliament would automatically at the end of
two years of service start to accrue and be entitled to a pension.
That means that the vast majority of members of Parliament who
never did reach six years of service would automatically be
included. In fact the cost of the pension plan would more than
double. In a quick calculation I did here on my laptop computer,
I find that it would almost triple the cost of pensions to the
House of Commons simply by changing the vesting benefits.
I honestly believe that the government has come forward with
certain provisions that are absolutely necessary. The
government, in its election platform, said that members'
pensions should be reformed. There were two specific
commitments, as the hon. parliamentary secretary outlined to
the House. First, there was the eligibility. Under the current
plan, members of Parliament would be eligible to be entitled to a
pension if they served six years in aggregate in this House.
Under our Constitution a House must turn over at least every
five years, so the six years is actually a very critical period. It
means that a member of Parliament has to be elected at least
twice, and in some cases in our history it has been more than
twice. It could be three and sometimes four times that members
have had to run simply to accumulate six years simply because
of Houses collapsing before their five-year mandate might be
available.
The six years really is a critical period, and it does, as all
members know, eliminate a vast majority of members of
Parliament from ever qualifying for pension benefits. Those are
the differences that I think would have to be rationalized if the
hon. members of the Reform Party would like to somehow move
this to a system compatible with the private sector.
The second item the government committed to in its red book
was to end double dipping. I am very proud to say that the Prime
Minister did not wait until this legislation came forward to bring
in effectively the end of double dipping. The first example was
with regard to the newly appointed governor general, who was a
member of the Senate and entitled to receive a pension. The
governor general was asked and accepted to reduce his salary
otherwise payable as the governor general by the amount of
pension. The double dipping is eliminate.
There are other examples in which the double dipping has
effectively been eliminated even before this legislation has
come forward. Those are the kinds of things the government has
committed to and is doing, even in the absence of the legislation.
That is important to point out.
Finally, as was pointed out earlier, in response to the need to
demonstrate to the public that there was a goodwill effort to deal
with this issue, the Prime Minister went further than his
commitment in the election. He went further by proposing that
the rate of accumulation of pension was going to be reduced. It is
called the accrual rate and it has been reduced from 5 per cent to
4 per cent.
With the changes that have been made in addition to the
commitments in the red book, the cost of the pension plan is
going to be reduced by some one-third. Changes that have been
made have been very significant changes.
For some hon. members and I know for many of my own
constituents and Canadians across the land, there is a
compensation question here they would like to have resolved.
The Reform Party whip has suggested we eliminate perks,
pensions, and everything and simply pay members $150,000 a
year. The member has determined, based on the work and
research his party has done, that $150,000 a year is the salary we
should be paid to compensate us for the contribution we make in
this place.
(1630 )
I do not want to debate with any hon. members what the value
of my work is to the House. Certainly under any criteria I would
never suggest that $150,000 a year would be appropriate for this
job. It is an absolute ludicrous suggestion. I do not think that the
Canadian people, if they really knew what the Reform Party had
in mind, would consider any of this rhetoric as being in any way
credible.
Very often in debate members have raised certain examples
where a person is going to get a pension which by the time he or
she reaches age 75 will have accumulated in value to $3 million,
$4 million, $6 million and so on. Let us get the facts right. They
are working with numbers and people have to be cautious about
numbers. Let me give an example of what this pension plan
would mean to me, the member for Mississauga South.
If I should serve six years I will be entitled to a pension which
will accrue at 4 per cent a year or 24 per cent of my salary. My
salary is $64,400 a year. That means I will get approximately
13493
$15,000 a year in pension but it will not be payable to me until I
reach age 55, some seven or eight years from now.
I think members have been using age 75 as a period to which
we would be getting the pension on average. Therefore, between
the ages of 55 and 75 getting paid that $15,000, the net present
value of those payments is $460,000. That is also a big number
but it is a number which is made up of a $15,000 annual payment
over 20 years with an assumed rate of interest of some 4 per cent
which is the rate we get if we should not make our six years and
we get our funds back.
The most important point I wanted to raise is the point I raised
initially with regard to the vesting. Members really must
consider the differential in the vesting provisions available to
private sector pension plans and those that are imposed on the
members of Parliament. It does have a significant impact on the
calculations and it also has a significant impact on the rationale
as to eligibility.
If those members believe that every member of Parliament,
and I stress every member of Parliament who serves two years,
should get a pension when they reach age 55, my figures show
that the cost to the House of Commons would triple.
Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the member for Mississauga South. Was he
challenging me to a debate in his own riding? Is that what he was
doing?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That might be a matter of
debate the members may want to further look into at some other
time and some other place. Respectfully, the member does not
have a point of order.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, most
of the time when I get an opportunity to rise and speak regarding
a bill, I usually say it is a privilege and an honour to speak to it.
However today I am going to have to get up and say I cannot
believe I would have to rise in this place to speak on such a bill
and that such a bill even exists.
Surely there are enough people here who realize that such a
lucrative plan is not acceptable to Canadians. They should take
the time to find out, Even the Liberal whip might just check with
his constituents and see what they have to say. I would be
interested in the results.
(1635)
I quote a former parliamentarian and an actuary. This is what
he said about why this pension plan is wrong:
I believe that compensation for MPs should be brought into line with modern
private sector practice. My conclusion is that this bill is bad for you as members,
bad for Parliament as an institution and bad for Canada. It entrenches your
benefits at a level higher than those available to general taxpayers. It is my
opinion that as long as your pension benefits exceed the levels available to
taxpayers, there will be a strong public opinion to the effect that MPs are
overpaid. More and more, the public's attitude to politicians is that they are all
crooks. Some of this has to do with actual scandals, but in my view, the
underlying cause is a view that politicians set one set of rules for themselves and
set another for the general public.
I put it to you that if one of the last acts of Parliament before the summer
recess is to pass legislation entrenching pension benefits for MPs at levels well
beyond those possible to the citizenry-I believe that Parliament will have lost
the moral authority to proceed as the country needs.
You may be faced with immense public outrage for protecting your privileged
position just before you skewer Canadians. In that case, you deserve the public's
contempt.
He did not even know about closure at the time he made that
statement. I could not agree with him more.
I picked up some other quotes that were mentioned at various
times around the Hill. I am not even sure when they were said,
but apparently a member from Mississauga said: ``We have no
option because the salaries are not generous enough to enrich
our pensions ourselves. Therefore, the government has to
provide for us''. What a bunch of hogwash.
I know full well and if they do not they should stay close to
their phones once in a while. I doubt very seriously that we could
find a member who has not received a phone call from some
senior citizen or some other individual who is having a really
tough time making it.
I received one from a pensioner this week who said: ``Mr.
Thompson, I make $714 a month. My husband is not well. We
are having an extremely difficult time even paying rent. We had
to give up our home not too long ago and we are asked to make it
on that kind of money. What can you do for us?'' I work at trying
to do something for those people but then I think how can I with
any conscience at all tell her I will do all I can for her, that I will
work so hard for her but I will accept a pension that will pay four
to one.
Mrs. Brushett: Give her some of your pension.
Mr. Thompson: I would be more than pleased to. In fact, I
probably have. I do not know how anybody with any conscience
at all could listen to situations like that and then accept
something like this pension.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand there are
some very strongly held views on this subject matter, but I
certainly would like to have the benefit of hearing each and
every intervention.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about it.
When I go to my grave I will never say I ever took anything that
was not deserving from anyone. I will not accept the pension. I
will opt out or I will not opt in, whichever it is.
13494
(1640 )
I could not go to my grave with a good conscience knowing I
had done that, especially when we have people in this House
who have brought the government practically to its knees. If
they have not done that yet, they soon will with a $600 billion
deficit. People are crying because they cannot get
unemployment insurance. Seniors cannot make it because of
their pensions. I cannot believe what I am hearing. They would
not give an inch. Not an inch.
During the 1993 campaign, boy were things going to be
different. Were they ever going to be different. I stood on the
same platform with people who agreed with me that things had
to change with the pension. If the Liberals could agree with the
Reformers on one thing, it was to fix the pension plan. This is
not even a band-aid.
We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for even considering
such a thing when we are asking everybody in the country to
tighten their belts. There will be no more UI money. There will
not be any more old age security money. No more CPP. We have
to cut our health care. We have to cut education. But boy, we are
going to keep those fat pensions coming. What a bunch of
hypocritical nonsense.
I hope in the next election, on this issue alone, if they do not
pay the price for what they have done today that they will wish
they had.
Mr. Duhamel: What is your pension?
Mr. Thompson: My pension, just in case hon. members want
to know, is about $914 a month as a school teacher. I paid into it
for nearly 40 years and it was not matched dollar for dollar until
about the last five years of my work. It took a long, long time.
That is called a private sector pension.
Mrs. Brushett: Double dipping.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, they can call it anything they
want but it is not double dipping.
I also issue the challenge to my friend from Fraser Valley in
British Columbia. If any one of you suckers wants to take me to
your ridings, let us go.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I want to
take a moment to remind all members that interventions must be
directed through the Chair. I think it becomes apparent on a day
like today with subject matter on which there are strongly held
views, that if the debate is not maintained in the traditional
parliamentary fashion with interventions being made through
the Chair that some rather unexpected and possibly
unparliamentary statements might be made. I urge members on
both sides of the House to be judicious and respectful in the
normal practice of the Chamber.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, no doubt a person is going to
get a little riled up over this kind of an issue. I apologize for not
speaking through the Chair. I lost it, but I will repeat what I said.
Any one of my hon. colleagues across the way who would like
to take me into their ridings to debate the pension and my
personal pension which I earned after many hard years of work
at less than a dollar for a dollar, then I would be more than
pleased to accept the invitation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you because I am sure you are the only
one who really listened at heart.
(1645 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do want to take a
moment to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Wild
Rose for the manner in which he completed his remarks and
particularly in reference to an earlier statement made which I
think bordered on the questionable side of debate. I certainly
compliment and thank him for the manner in which he handled
that issue.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting to follow my hon. colleague.
Much of what he said and much of what he feels is what I feel.
I do want to speak today at report stage on Bill C-85, an act to
amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. I
spoke on this bill last month at which time I expressed my
concerns and reasons for vehemently opposing this piece of
government legislation.
My opposition to this bill is based on certain principles that I
as a member of Parliament for the Reform Party hold and
advocate. I would like to state these two principles from our blue
book:
We believe in public service-that governments, civil servants, politicians
and political parties exist to serve the people, and that they should demonstrate
this service commitment at all times.
We believe that public money should be regarded by governments as ``funds
held in trust'', and that governments should practise fiscal responsibility to
balance expenditures and revenues.
I mention those principles to the House today because they
show us a government that has distorted this process and has
flaunted the trust of the Canadian people. Reformers want a fair
hearing on this issue.
Today, as we come to this place in which the government has
invoked closure on this bill we come with the same outrage that
Canadians must feel.
I put to the House as did a witness in the committee the other
day the intervention that this bill is bad for the members who sit
in this House, it is bad for Parliament and it is bad for the
Canadian people.
13495
I will say why I think it is bad for the members who sit in the
House. As with many of my colleagues I see around me, we
came to the House to help set a new course in government. We
came here with the best interests of our fellow Canadians in
mind. We came here to bring integrity to the House.
I know many of us work very hard and diligently in this place,
but I must say that today that I am ashamed of the pretence of my
colleagues on the other side. I see arrogant initiatives that
presumably are done in the name of change yet they change very
little.
For instance, we see a program with three levels. We have a
level of participation in this pension program which is virtually
unchanged for those who sat in the House before the last
election. I want to remind people particularly in my riding of
some of the numbers that would be applied to these members of
Parliament. The figures I have are based on nine year terms as
ministers, assuming that these people live to age 75.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party may gain from this legislation a
pension of $4.5 million. The neighbour to my constituency, the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway, would gain from this
legislation a pension of $3.5 million. The Deputy Prime
Minister, the member for Hamilton East, would have a pension
at age 75 of $2.5 million. This is done by this government in the
name of change. Shame on the government.
Then there are the newer members. If they become retreads in
the next election, there is still a very wide gulf between them and
the Canadians they purport to represent.
According to one of the witnesses in the committee, even as
this plan now stands, it is seven times greater than what would
be expected in a public sector plan and four times greater than
what would be expected in a private sector plan. The
government calls this change.
This is bad for members as well who came here with the real
belief in change, who wanted to make a difference and to raise
the public attitude for this place. Those who decided to reject
what has been given to us here are treated purposely with
contempt in the sense that we are given the option that all
pension benefits are lost to those who choose to reject this
proposal.
(1650 )
Once again I am amazed at the arrogance of the members
sitting on the other side of the House. I am amazed even in this
discussion at their self-righteous indignation when we point out
the duplicity of what they are saying.
This bill is also bad for Parliament. As we look at this bill and
other bills that have come to this place, we see procedural
nightmares and shoddy treatment of the democratic process. It is
true that when the original bill which brought in parliamentary
allowances came in years ago, all stages of that bill were
brought through the House in one day, including committee of
the whole. At that time there was no written bill for
consideration by the members. It simply was brought in and
shoved through. We have not changed much. Is this a place of
change? Is this the change promised by the red book?
What do we have with Bill C-85? Last week in committee, a
committee that was dominated by government members, we had
witnesses who represented real Canadians. We had witnesses
who represented professionals in this field who were refused
entrance to that committee. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation
gained entry to the committee only by presenting itself to the
committee and insisting on a hearing.
In that committee there was a lack of notice of the
government's intent to proceed to clause by clause after a full
day of witnesses. Even after the witnesses said there were many
flaws in the bill, it took the government 12 minutes to complete
its consideration of that piece of legislation. Over 28 detailed
and complex clauses were covered in 12 minutes by the
government.
It reminds me of what we experienced in the human rights and
status of the disabled persons committee when we were
considering Bill C-64 recently. In that circumstance,
government once again invoked closure on the clause by clause
portion with a five minute limit on each clause. Only four out of
the 50 witnesses brought before that committee were from the
Reform list of recommendations.
Then the government comes to the House and says there was
an overwhelming support for employment equity of all things.
Employment equity is the bane of the Canadian people. They do
not accept it but this government tries to claim otherwise
because the witnesses brought before the committee supported
it. I call that a flouting disrespect for this place as Parliament.
Then when this bill came to the House earlier today, what do
we get? Government invoked closure along with other bills so
that we have a four hour maximum to discuss each of the two
stages, report stage and third reading. In that time, we have 40
motions to be considered. Is that not bad for Parliament?
Finally, this bill is bad for Canadians. Underlying this whole
debate is a moral imperative. All members, including the
members on the other side have received phone calls and letters
about this. I have received many. I am sure I have heard from the
cousin of the constituent the member for Wild Rose mentioned.
Pensioners in distress look at this legislation and say it is
morally wrong for government to do this.
How can MP pensions continue to be gold plated under this
bill when it is far above and beyond what ordinary Canadians
can expect from their private or public sector pension plans?
How can this government justify tinkering with the MP pension
13496
plan when the future of the CPP and old age security are at very
real risk?
The Canada pension plan is actuarially unsound. The pay as
you go system now in place is completely unsustainable. The
security of Canadian pensioners is threatened at this moment,
yet the politicians in the House have endowed upon themselves
security and golden retirement years.
(1655 )
The approach of government security programs for ordinary
Canadians has not worked. They are no longer consistent with
demographics, expectations, fiscal realities. Canadians know
this. They seek to secure their own security.
Reformers have confidence and faith in Canadians. We want
to empower them with the resources and tools to plan for their
retirement. We reject government bureaucracy, waste and
arrogance, especially as we see it in this kind of legislation
today.
Government insists that it knows best. Yet it continues to
pretend that the debt and deficit have to be shouldered by
ordinary Canadians but not the leadership of this country. It
continues to let the debt grow by $100 billion in its mandate
which will indeed put greater stress on social programs, pension
plans, every part of Canadians' lives.
It is true the interest on our debt is probably the biggest threat
to the security of Canadians. This government in the meantime
continues to outdo the Mulroney legacy with its patronage, with
its arrogant closure and with its arrogant pension plan. The
arrogance of the government is the biggest threat to Canadians.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that
the Liberal Party, having decided that Parliament is irrelevant
and that parliamentary debate is of no particular value to our
society, is also working on a project to redesign the Canadian
coat of arms. It will remove the lion and the unicorn and replace
them with two fat pigs which will illustrate the triumph of greed
over rationality in this country.
This country did not have an aristocracy. People came to
Canada to get away from the aristocracies in the old world.
However, we have willy-nilly created our own right here in
Canada, the political elite, the professional politicians. This is
the aristocracy we have voluntarily burdened ourselves with. It
is a shame and a scandal.
The hon. Marie Antoinette, the president of the treasury
board, tells us that this is the normal thing. This is Canada. This
is the future for Canada. There will be this little group of very
special people, many of whom have never had a real job in their
lives, who somehow or other got elected to Parliament. When
they leave this place, through their own machinations they will
be allowed to carry away a suitcase full of money. This is wrong.
Several hon. members opposite have engaged in the most
convoluted rationalizations I have ever heard to justify this
massive dip into the public trough.
Mr. Hermanson: And it is not a skinny dip.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, do I have to provide my own
hecklers? I know there are not many people on the other side.
The rules of the House do not permit me to name the
individuals who will be the top troughers in the new scheme as it
is being developed. However, I can read the names of their
ridings and the total sums to which each of them will be entitled,
and I use the word entitled very loosely.
If the hon. member for Sherbrooke lives to the age of 75, he
will receive $4.25 million courtesy of the taxpayer. The hon.
member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte will receive $3.86
million. The hon. member for Hamilton East will receive $2.8
million. The hon. member for York South-Weston will receive
$2.75 million. The list goes on and on.
(1700 )
No other class of Canadians has a deal like that; no corporate
employee, no self-employed person, no farmer. Who on earth
aside from our new aristocracy could ever hope to take home a
paycheque like that?
One of the major sources of my case work is disabled
veterans, pensioners in this, the 50th anniversary of the end of
the war. I am dealing with one constituent now who participated
in poison gas experiments at the Suffield, Alberta base. He is
now paying the price of that in ruined health. He has a lot of
problems. His doctor says there is no question that can be traced
to the poison gas experiments. He and his wife draw the
magnificent sum of $102 a month for his partial
disability-shame, shame, shame.
Hon. members opposite say that for their little bits of service
here they are entitled to millions of dollars at the expense of the
Canadian taxpayer. I am disgusted to the point of regurgitation.
Surely people who pretend they are competent to run a
country should be competent to arrange for their own
retirement. They make a reasonable salary, as do we. Some of
that could be invested to their own benefit. They do not have to
take $4 from the public purse for every $1 they put in.
Reformers have put our money where our mouth is, so to
speak. We are opting out of this plan. It will cost the hon.
member for Beaver River, a school teacher and by no means a
wealthy woman, $1.8 million which she would have received if
she had agreed to stay in the trough with the hogs.
13497
I opted out of the pension plan the day I signed up with pay and services. I gave a written statement to the effect that I did not want and would not accept it because I felt the old plan was unconscionable. The new plan, the new i
Why are we here? Did we come here to benefit ourselves? I
used to live in the Philippines. I remember a famous remark by
one of the senators there when he was tweaked for having his
hand a little too deep in the cookie jar. He said what are we in
power for if not to enrich ourselves. He must have been a
Liberal.
Old line politicians maintain perks are necessary to attract
good members. What it has attracted is a bunch of professional
politicians, people who have systematically over the last 30
years bankrupt the country and now are expecting a massive
payout for their services-some reward.
I hope when the bill goes to the other place there will be some
sober second thought, although I do not expect it. Some sober
second thought could even have helped here; it could have been
killed in committee. Committee was not even allowed to handle
it properly. It was whisked through committee with indecent
haste. No one had a chance to make serious amendments or to
work on it at the time. We will make some amendments in the
House, to what purpose I do not know. We know what will
happen here, the cabinet has decided. The whip will be lashed
and everything will happen according to plan and all the
Liberals will go home happy and fat with their suitcases full of
money.
(1705)
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am truly sad to have to speak to legislation as
deplorable as Bill C-85, the pension bill.
It could be described with many words. I could use the words
ignorant, arrogant, indefensible. I think those words probably
describe the authors of this legislation as well but they do not
even adequately describe how terrible it is. The words it takes to
describe the legislation are unparliamentary; I cannot use them.
What really troubles me is the government is embarrassed about
the legislation and will not even allow a proper debate.
I sat across the table from the Solicitor General of Canada, the
government House leader, and he looked me in the eye and said
the government will very rarely use closure. He gave me his
word we would see the government use time allocation and
closure far less than its predecessor, the arrogant Mulroney
regime.
Being a new and maybe idealistic member of Parliament, I
took the solicitor general's statement to heart that perhaps we
were to see a new era in Canadian politics. Perhaps we were to
see some progress in this place where we could work together
and build a country worthy of the people we are supposed to
represent. I was wrong, terribly disappointed.
The government has introduced time allocation and closure
far more than the Mulroney government which it vigorously
criticized for that undemocratic procedure. The government has
introduced in only 19 months a far greater percentage of closure
motions regarding bills than the Mulroney administration. That
is deplorable and disappointing.
It is particularly disappointing that the government would use
such a draconian measure on a bill that gives us personal gain. It
is unconscionable, it is wrong. I cannot think of words I can use
in the House to adequately describe how troubled I am by the
measures the government is taking and the lengths it will go to
impose its will on me as a member of Parliament vigorously
opposed to the legislation and on Canadians who in no uncertain
terms told every member of the House, Liberals as well as Block
and Reform members, the pension plan needed to be reformed to
that of the private sector on a one to one basis or a self-funded
pension plan.
The government has introduced a bill in which it will not
allow future MPs to opt out and which is illegal under the
income tax act. It will have to put special legislation in place to
allow the plan to be legal. The draconian measures it is
implementing to get the bill through are truly disappointing. I
feel bad for Canadians who will receive such bad representation
and bad legislation from the Liberal government.
I am not sure if NDP members will accept this plan. I
challenge them to go back to their roots. They came of an
agrarian movement, the CCF movement in Saskatchewan. I
challenge them to go back to those roots of simple, hard working
people who believed a dollar gained was a dollar that should
have been earned, and they would not stoop to the levels this bill
would impose on them if they agreed to opt into the pension
plan.
To the hon. members for Mackenzie and
Regina-Qu'Appelle, Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
Regina-Lumsden and The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, I
challenge them to opt out of the pension plan as the Reform MPs
from Saskatchewan are to do.
I will focus my few remaining minutes on the Liberal
members from Saskatchewan. At the top of the list is the cabinet
representative from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for
Regina-Wascana. He was here years ago and has come back.
He was put into cabinet. He is a lawyer. I do not think he
understands agriculture very well but he certainly knows how to
make money on a pension plan because by the age of 75 he will
qualify for $1.64 million. He does not even apologize for that
outrageous amount.
13498
(1710 )
Then there is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It
is rather embarrassing this member was even nominated in her
constituency. She had to be anointed by the leader of the Liberal
Party. She did not even have support in her own constituency.
They had to cancel the nomination meeting and bypass the
democratic process so she would be the candidate who would
run in Saskatoon-Humboldt. She will receive almost $1
million from the pension plan should she live to the age of 75.
That is assuming, and I think it is a fairly safe assumption, she
will never become a Cabinet minister. It would certainly be
higher if she did.
Then there is the hon. member for Souris-Moose
Mountain-
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite
disturbed that the member would make a personal attack on a
member who is not here and impugn somehow that she has done
something wrong.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of
respect, that is not a point of order. I certainly listened to the
remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and
there was no reference to the presence or absence of any
member. He was referring to the riding, which is the appropriate
way to refer to members in the Chamber.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very
personal matter because the pension affects us. I am trying to
abide by the rules of the House and I appreciate your
consideration of that.
Should Bill C-85 be passed by the House, the hon. member
for Souris-Moose Mountain, a somewhat older member, would
receive about a quarter of a million dollars.
Then there is the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River who is a much younger member. Should he live to be age
75 he will receive $.83 million should he remain a backbencher
for the rest of his career.
The NDP and the Liberal MPs from Saskatchewan, there are
about ten, would have benefits approximating $1 million each.
They would siphon out of the taxpayers' pockets approximately
$10 million.
In Saskatchewan we are hard working, industrious and honest
people. We work hard for our money and we are quite proud of
what we have received as a result of our labours. I know beyond
a shadow of a doubt that the people of Saskatchewan do not
approve of the pension plan. I heard it wherever I went. I had
calls and letters from people in my province thanking me for
agreeing to opt out of the plan. They said I am doing the right
thing. They have been very encouraging. It encourages me to
plan the next election campaign not only for Saskatchewan but
for the entire country, whenever the government has the nerve to
call an election. We will go out there and bring more Reformers
into the House who will reject these types of unreasonable
personal gains at the taxpayers' expense.
I challenge Liberals from Saskatchewan to do the right thing
and get out of the plan. They can, they have the option, they do
not have to stay in the plan, not one of them. If they want to
really please their constituents I know beyond a shadow of a
doubt they have no choice but to get out of the pension plan. I
commit to the House today to do everything in my power to keep
them from being re-elected if they do not do the right thing and
opt out of the plan.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for a few hours to the
remarks and sometimes even the flights of fancy of Reform
members, and I would like to remind this House that the Reform
Party is against employment equity, against the fact that this
Parliament includes women and treats its members equitably.
[English]
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like to make a comment about the hon. member's remarks that
we are against women and looking after retirement-
(1715)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again respectfully I say
to the member for Beaver River that it is not a point of order.
Certainly it could be a point of clarification or it could be a
matter of debate but it is not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
members of this House who have been here for more than a year
should be quite familiar with parliamentary procedure. If the
hon. member wishes to respond to my comments, she is
welcome to do so, but not by rising on a question of privilege, as
she just did.
In the old days, members of Parliament belonged to the
financial elite of Canadian society. The Canadian people
eventually rebelled and decided that those showing leadership in
each of their communities-regardless of social and financial
status, age and gender-were entitled to adequate compensation
for their work so that they could represent the people properly.
In 1987, I was elected to the New Brunswick legislature for
the first time at the age of 31. As in all the other legislatures,
there is a pension plan for the people's representatives in the
legislative assembly. In 1993, one year before having
accumulated all the accrued credits for the Government of New
Brunswick pension plan, I chose to run in the election to
represent the people of Madawaska-Victoria in this
Parliament.
13499
Unlike some Reform members, I do not have an already
established provincial pension fund and cheques coming in
every month. Neither do I have millions of dollars in the bank or
an armed forces pension like certain Reform members. Judging
by the hubbub coming from that direction, it sounds as if I hit a
very raw nerve in some of my hon. colleagues.
I would also like to remind this House that a Reform member
who is a millionaire is rumoured to have said that members of
Parliament, in Canada, are not paid what they are worth, and that
they should be paid at least $150,000 per year. Again, whatever
the topic of discussion, be it members's pensions, official
languages or what not, there is this great flip flop. Name the
topic, listen to the speeches, and you will notice this flip flop.
I would like to come back to a very sensitive issue that I am
committed to, and that is to ensure that, in any election, the
people of Canada, from coast to coast, can vote freely, without
social, financial or fiscal status considerations coming into play,
for the person who can best represent them proudly and honestly
in this place. It is the least we can do, as Canadian
parliamentarians, for the people of Canada.
(1720)
I must say in all honesty that, as the member for
Madawaska-Victoria, when I look at the work I am doing for
the people I represent, I have no qualms of conscience
whatsoever about the salary, pension or what not I get from the
Parliament of Canada to serve the people of
Madawaska-Victoria.
I hope that, even though they are against employment equity,
my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party, will be honest and
recognize that. I would call upon the hon. member for
Lethbridge in particular to rise in this House today and say:
``Now that I am no longer a provincial member of Parliament, I
relinquish the pension I earned as a MPP. I relinquish this money
I am putting in my pocket every month right now''. I also call
upon him to be true to what he believes in and honest with the
people he represents.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
do not have much time left. I am not sure how much time it will
take to try to talk some sense into this false debate.
We have looked at the pension program that has gone on for
years in this place. People stand and say: ``I have no problem
with the pay that I get or with the pension that I am going to
get''. May they realize that when they say they are worth it that
is fine in their estimation; maybe they think they are worth it.
We will see what the voters think they are worth at the polls the
next time around.
When we look at a pension plan which is simply seven times
more generous than any public sector plan and four times more
generous than any private sector plan, how in the world can
anyone stand in their place and not be ashamed of it? Why are we
any more special?
Are we in favour of special status for some? No. That is why
the Reform Party came to this place. We do not think groups of
people should have special status. Yet we hear people inside this
hall saying: ``We deserve it. We are worth it because we work
hard''. It just does not add up.
I see my friend from Edmonton East here. I want to make a
comment about that. Is this person going to opt out? The
government has allowed members of Parliament elected in 1988
and forward to opt out. Why only some of us get the option to opt
out I do not know, unless it is politically motivated. I am
challenging her to opt out of the pension plan because she cannot
sell it in downtown Edmonton. Our ridings abut. I challenge her
to a debate in my riding or in hers. We will take on toe to toe. We
will talk about this pension plan. I will bet my pension plan that
she will not be able to sell it there.
Not only that. I challenge my friend from Edmonton North as
well who thinks that he is able to collect a plan. I am challenging
him today, and I have some respect for him, to opt out of the plan
because he will never sell it in Edmonton North.
I am challenging my friend from Edmonton Northwest to opt
out of the plan too because she has the option to opt out. She
does not exactly have a huge healthy majority with which she
slipped into this place. I think the last count officially was that it
was by 11 votes that she came into this place. I challenge my
friend from Edmonton Northwest to a debate, as I do my friends
from Edmonton North and Edmonton East, in my riding or
theirs. I will be happy to do it. I land in Edmonton every week at
the Edmonton airport before I drive three hours home. I
challenge her to a debate. I also challenge her to opt out of the
plan willy-nilly, just do it. If ever she has a hope of getting
re-elected, even with her cabinet money that she is able to throw
into it, just do it. She should not just think about it but just do it. I
ask her to come to Beaver River and have a debate, or I will go
there and have a debate. I guarantee I will get off at the
municipal airport. It is right handy there. Let us have a debate
toe to toe.
(1725)
The longest serving MP in the House from Alberta is my
friend from Edmonton Southeast for whom I have an incredible
amount of respect. I am challenging him as well to opt out of the
plan. There is no technical way he can do it because of the way
the legislation is written. Only members elected in 1988 or
beyond are able to do it. Edmonton Southeast, I will be there for
a debate on the pension plan, or he can come to my riding, any
13500
place any time. I will get off the aeroplane in Edmonton. Let us
have a debate and see how it goes.
The member who just spoke before me tried somehow to drag
in employment equity or the fact that as a woman I am hard done
by in this place. There are many women in this place and there is
no way they are able to justify the pension plan regardless of
gender, race or ethnic background. Absolutely not.
I am being heckled by two rookie female MPs. The third one is
not making any comments at this point. However, as I stand here
as a women I tell not only these members but every Canadian
woman that I will make it on my own and that as a woman I do
not need special treatment-
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to say first that I am not a rookie. Second, I
have been challenged to-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of
respect to all my colleagues, again this is not a point of order. All
these matters might be taken up at another time and another
place.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, try as they might through points of
order, through heckling or whatever, let me rephrase my last
statement. I am a woman in Canada and I am proud of that fact,
but I do not need to claim any extra treatment or special status
for the fact that I deserve somehow an MP pension. I do not.
If we talk about employment equity, let me be equal with
every other woman in the country who will receive a pension
plan that is fair, just the way every other Canadian does it. I do
not need that special treatment because I am a woman. Neither
do they. It is as simple as that.
Let me just finish by saying that I was disappointed in what I
have seen in this debate. When I was listening to the debate as it
was going on and when I heard time allocation being invoked
today it made me sad. I sat and had coffee in the last Parliament.
It was not with these rookies or first term members. You were
there too, Mr. Speaker. We visited and said that if the Liberals
got into power or if they became government next time we
would not see the same arrogance we saw in the Mulroney years.
I see someone standing to get my attention. I appreciate that
so much but she is not being recognized. She should sit down
and relax. I know this hurts.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I did not hear anyone
asking to rise on a point of order. Unless the member for Beaver
River has completed her remarks, I would not recognize anyone
else on debate. 5:30 is coming up.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, 5:30 is coming up and so is the next
election. I challenge all these people. I have watched the debate
today and saw people trying to defend something which is
simply indefensible. The Canadian public is watching today and
I bet it is scandalized. Who pays for these pensions anyway? It is
the people who are sending in tax money.
They talk about: ``the government looking after me because
don't you know I have given service, years, time and energy to
this place''. Nobody forced me to do it. I chose to be here as did
all of us, which was the best thing we could do. When we think
about the people who are sending in every dollar of their tax
money and financing this thing it is unbelievable.
After question period this afternoon some farmer from the
area-I do not even know who he was-brought a little
truckload of piglets up here and there they were, Liberal MPs
right in at the trough. It is terrible to have to denigrate a little
piglet that way but that is the way it is.
As I saw those little piglets I said to the interviewer: ``How do
you feel about this?'' When I see Liberal members, because that
is who is bringing this bill in and ramming it through, forcing
this through, saying they deserve better, they think they are
wonderful and it is unanimous; it is a pity to see them squealing
and trying to justify this. With that the little piglet let out a
squeal. It made me think I was sitting in the House of Commons.
It is shameful and a price will be paid in the next election,
believe me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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.
_____________________________________________
13500
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent
crimes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-301 is the culmination of a
commitment I made to my constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca in 1993. I made a commitment to bring the bill forward in
the interest of public safety for them and for all Canadians from
coast to coast.
I am disappointed the bill was not made votable considering
the fact it has a precedent in the United States where it has been
passed and enacted in over 26 states. It is commonly called the
three strikes, you are out bill to deal with violent offenders,
repeat violent offenders.
The hallmarks of justice are the protection of society,
restitution to the victim, rehabilitation and protection of the
individual. The bill comes as the culmination of the public
outrage I hear not only in my riding but from police officers
across the land from coast to coast. It is an area where they feel
the justice department does not protect them. It does not protect
them from individuals who continually fly in the face of the
norms of
13501
human behaviour, instead exhibiting extreme human behaviours
that show a total disregard for innocent people.
Bill C-301 deals with those individuals who on three separate
occasions commit a violent offence that will put them in jail for
25 years without parole. Again, the purpose is to protect
innocent civilians. Too often innocent civilians are not protected
in society today.
Mr. Speaker, we seem to have two debate going on here which
is very intriguing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if I might
seek the co-operation of members to take other business behind
the curtains or outside the Chamber.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to read some statistics from the United States.
According to the FBI index, this is very interesting-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have a point of order
from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an apology from a
certain member who just came over here, tried to bully me
around and actually physically pushed me. That is not the kind
of respect we should receive in the House.
(1735 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am aware a conversation
was going on. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. member
for Madawaska-Victoria, who raised the point of order, I do not
see it as a point of order. I am trying to think of another way that
we may be able to deal with this point.
I wonder if the Chair could be given some time to give some
thought to the matter. I would encourage the member also to
seek the guidance of the Speaker's office. We can return to this
matter some other time. At this time, to the best of my
knowledge and ability, I say respectfully, that I do not see a point
of privilege.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I think that-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let us just take this very
slowly. While I am standing you can speak all you want, but it is
not being recorded. If there is something new to be added to the
point of order I will listen but I hope we can be somewhat
succinct and concise and the matter can be dealt with at the
appropriate time in the appropriate fashion. I firmly believe at
this time there is not a point of order.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, the member in
question was the member for Beaver River and it was an assault
on me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again, I do not rule that
there is a point of privilege at this time. I will give an
undertaking to the House that I will seek the guidance of the
Speaker's office concerning the matter being raised. I encourage
the parties involved to do likewise because I do not feel at this
point, as far as I can judge, there is a point of order.
The House will return now to private members' hour.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope I will have the full 20 minutes due to me.
The purpose of my bill is to protect innocent civilians. Too
often in our justice system, as we have seen over the last few
years, the rights of innocent civilians have often been
subjugated to the rights of the criminal. The bill will give firmer
sentencing guidelines to the courts because they are not being
acted on as they should be.
The definitions of the crimes involved in the bill are such that
rape, attempted murder, sexual assault, manslaughter are all to
be considered as serious offences committed if they are
committed on three separate occasions in order to get a
conviction and to have the three strikes and your are out bill
applied.
I will state a few facts from the United States and why I
thought the bill should be votable and show how effective it has
been down there.
According to the FBI index high rate offenders commit almost
18 times as many crimes per year, including two violent
offences per year. The typical low rate offender commits one
serious crime very two and a half years as compared to seven per
year for high rate offenders. Thus, it is easy to see how an
enhanced repeat offender law would actually work to the benefit
of all citizens in our country. I hope this will be enacted in the
future. I will give the House the opportunity to do that.
Again, the benefits are for the protection of society, to deter
repeat offenders and yes, to save money. The argument can be
put forward in Canada that this is going to cost us more. I will
show the House the bill will save the Canadian public a lot of
money.
13502
(1740)
In the United States this bill was passed in over 26 states in
various forms. The people have overwhelmingly voted for it, as
they requested in my riding. They have shown an extreme cost
benefit ratio in the order of $5 to $1. In other words, the cost of
the bill and the management of it, has a cost saving of $5 to
every $1 of implementation.
The benefits come from decreasing repeat offences, the lack
of victims, the decrease in costs of prosecutions, the decrease in
costs of appeals, not to mention the overwhelming humanitarian
aspects of saving innocent people from being subjected to
violent offences.
To this effect the preliminary reports from California and
other states show that there has been a dramatic decrease in
violent cases so far. I will give some examples.
Governor Pete Wilson in California signed its bill in early
1994. California has roughly the same number of people as we
do in Canada. In the first nine months of its bill, California has
shown a dramatic decrease in the number of violent offences.
The argument that it will cost us a lot of money I do not think
fares well. These statistics come from the states. It would be a
benefit to the justice committee to actually look at this, do an
analysis in Canada and determine once and for all whether we
are going to derive a cost benefit from enacting this bill.
The three strikes and you are out bill is not the only thing we
can do because crime prevent is a multi-factorial endeavour. I
will put forward some hard points, one after another. I hope the
justice committee and the minister at least take heed of them.
Integral to crime is crime prevention. In my experience
working in jails both as a correctional officer and as a physician
and those who have worked in jails and who have been in them
say that crime prevention does not work.
We have poured a lot of money into crime prevention but it
has been ineffective. We have had a few cases when we have
been effective in doing this but by and large, we do not get the
best bang for our buck through this.
In order for us to build a healthy society in wich individuals
will not commit crime, our best prevention is building the pillars
of a normal psyche to ensure people will not commit crimes in
the future. It is not a guarantee, I admit, but it certainly is an
insurance.
We have to go back to early childhood education to ensure that
children are being informed of what we consider to be normal
understanding, what is normal conflict resolution. These things
are very important.
They must also learn what drug abuse, sexual abuse and all
these things are. It is very important to train these children early
because once they get into the teenage years, it is virtually
impossible to teach them self-respect, respect for other people
and appropriate conflict resolution techniques. These must
occur early. We take this for granted but I would submit that
many children are not learning this. They are not getting it in the
home because many times the parents themselves do not know
it.
I hark back to an earlier speech that I made on an experiment
performed at Columbia University where the parents were
brought in with the children to teach them the building blocks of
a normal psyche.
Second, it is work for incarceration. There is no reason why
individuals who are incarcerated cannot work for their upkeep.
Use this in conjunction with skills training and it would also
help decrease the recidivism rate, which is extremely high in our
penal institutions.
Third, we have worked in our party for putting capital
punishment to a binding national referendum. Give people the
choice whether they want capital punishment as a part of our
society.
Fourth, I ask every member in the House to support the private
members' bill of the member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley. That bill would enable lawmakers to actually keep
individuals incarcerated who are deemed a danger to society on
release.
(1745 )
Right now I can tell the House from personal experience that
there are individuals who are dangerous to society and they are
let go because the current laws do not enable the jails to keep
them incarcerated if they are mentally competent. They can be
deemed a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, but not
subsequent to that. That is what the private member's bill of the
hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley will
correct. In the interest of public safety, every member of the
House should vote for it.
I will mention some of the frustrations the police forces in the
country have. I was speaking to a police officer not long ago and
he said they should be telling every police officer who enters the
force they have handcuffs and those handcuffs are the charter of
rights and freedoms. The charter of rights and freedoms
handcuffs our police officers from doing their job. I would ask
that the House look at revoking the charter of rights and
freedoms. We have a code of human rights, which protects the
human rights of every individual, and that is adequate. It worked
before the charter, it works now, and it will work in the future.
13503
The charter of rights and freedoms merely lets criminals and
lawyers look for loopholes so that criminals can be released.
Justice is somehow lost in the equation. Right and wrong are
lost. They are lost and subjugated to legal points of order.
For example, let us look at the Paul Bernardo case, which is
now being heard. It never ceases to amaze me that in this case,
where we have an individual who on videotape has been shown
committing the most heinous of acts, we have to go through a
four-month to six-month court case. Why are we doing it?
Because the defence is looking for procedural irregularities that
will let this individual off. Is that right? If it happens in this case
it will happen in other cases.
This murder case is very interesting, because it brings a
number of other issues to the fore. I again ask the minister to
look at the aspects of the videotapes that have been presented in
this case. Was it fair to the families? Was it fair for them to have
to fight with their own money to prevent those videotapes from
being shown publicly? It is not a right of the public or of the
media to have access to those videotapes. They can only be used
to hurt and harm the families, who have already been
victimized. There is no law to protect them right now.
I ask the minister to look at this case and to enact legislation
that would protect the victimized families in the future. We do
not want a repeat of the situation being faced by the families of
Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
I would look at revising procedures in the courtroom.
Currently justice in our courtrooms grinds to a halt. Part of that
has to do with adjournments. Defence and prosecution alike
continually put forth adjournments that make court cases so
long they are eventually dropped and the accused persons go
free because too much time has passed. I ask the minister to look
at this and determine how many adjournments are allowed for a
person to have a fair case. We could look at limiting
adjournments.
Another aspect is disclosure. We need fair and honest
disclosure by both the defence and prosecution.
Another aspect is the use of preliminary hearings. They are
much abused. Preliminary hearings in cases such as murder
trials are not required. All that happens is that the same evidence
is repeated. There would be a significant cost saving if
preliminary hearings were eliminated in certain cases.
With respect to the Young Offenders Act, we should publish
the names of young offenders. I know from working in a young
offender penal institution that many of them think it is a joke.
There is little or no deterrence to prevent young offenders from
continuing to commit acts against innocent victims. There is
very little punishment and there is very little deterrence. One
simple thing that can be done is to publish the names of those
young offenders who are committing these acts.
(1750)
Another aspect I would like to bring out is that in my
experience in working with young offenders the recidivism rate
is extremely high. It costs us almost $100,000 per young
offender per year to keep them incarcerated. Yet the recidivism
rate is over one-third. That patently speaks for itself. It does not
work. We need to look at a different model.
We need to pull young offenders out of these closed custody
cases of putting them in for three months or six months. After
that they go back to the same environment they were in before.
We cannot undo 12, 14, 15 years of being in a situation that is
patently self-destructive where they have witnessed sexual
abuse or have been a victim of sexual abuse, violence, drugs,
alcohol abuse, and expect them to be changed in three months or
six months of closed custody. No matter how much counselling
you put forth, it simply is not going to work.
Why do we not look at putting them in closed custody camps
away from cities? There are some examples in northern British
Columbia. We should put them away not for a few months but
for a year or two years and focus on them working for their
incarceration, focus on education, focus on skills, focus on
discipline, focus on them learning the skills necessary for them
to work as productive members of society. They are certainly
not learning it now in the youth areas we have.
Legal aid is the fastest growing aspect of our justice system
now. There are many abuses in it. I ask the justice committee to
look at the legal aid situation we have now, look at the abuse that
is taking place, and look of ways of changing that. If we are
pouring money into this we are taking money away from the
other functional aspects of justice.
Gun registration does not work. It has never worked
anywhere. It is not going to work in the future. It will take
money away from the functional aspects of justice and put it into
an area that simply is proven not to work. This will be counter to
what the minister intends; it will make our streets less safe than
they are. That was not the intent. I plead with the hon. minister
to not enact this legislation and please listen to what we have
been saying in the Reform Party. Enact the good laws that are to
be in that bill against those who are committing criminal acts
with firearms, but please do not make our streets less safe by
enacting gun registration. It will not work.
In summary, the three strikes and you are out bill is but one
arm of what we can do to make our streets safer. The purpose of
the bill is to get violent offenders, those individuals who have
proven to show a flagrant disregard for innocent civilians, off
the streets and protect society.
13504
We in Parliament have to stand up for the innocent civilians.
We have to stand up for their rights. We have to ensure their
rights will not be subjugated to the rights of the criminal. That
has been going on for too long. It cannot continue to go on. We
must ensure innocent people will be protected. That is the
purpose of justice now. It is the purpose of justice in the future.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of
the House to make my bill, Bill C-301, votable.
(1755 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to
take up much of the House's time. Earlier I was named by the
member for Madawaska-Victoria.
After the pension debate I did go over. I had challenged
members to a debate, so I went over and we did have a rather
heated discussion, I must confess to that. The member told me
that I was not worth what I thought I was worth and that we could
have a debate any time. That was fine. Then when we got rather
heated she turned around to go back to her seat after she had
called me a name and I just grabbed her and said ``Come on, be
real''. I thought she was tripping off the step.
As I was named, I thought I should get up and say that this is
ridiculous. Let us move on with the country's business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I say respectfully to both
parties I ruled at the time and continue to rule it is not a point of
order.
Let us go back to the matter of the private members' hour and
the motion from the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who
at the end of his intervention was asking the House for
unanimous consent to make his motion votable.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Halifax West.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree
with some but certainly not all of the comments of the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
We should look at what Bill C-301 does. First, it would apply
when an accused has two previous convictions for any of the 15
offences listed in the bill. Bill C-301 eliminates discretion of
the court in sentencing the offender for the commission of a
serious indictable offence.
I understand that violence in our society is an important
problem, and I do not disagree with the intent here, but let us
look at this for a moment. This response has some
attractiveness; it is certainly simple and seems to be a very clear
response. Is it the right answer to this problem?
It is true that all human institutions have human failings, so
our courts are not perfect. However, by and large, if I read
through decisions and look into the depth of the cases, I and
most people also would find the same things, that we agree with
the sentences if we actually have all the facts before us. One
problem is that very often we only have a few very simple and
limited facts about the case and the decision. Sometimes it
seems the simplest answer is sometimes also the wrong answer.
It is noteworthy that all the offences listed in this bill already
carry the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In other
words, the judge already has the power to impose life sentences
for any one of these offences, let alone for three. Although he
does not have to, he has the authority to do so, and to take into
account various factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence.
This reflects the basic principle of let the punishment fit the
crime. And it should. It means the key decision maker in
matching the penalty to the crime is the individual who was
there to see the case and all the facts of the case, the judge.
I know we will hear the argument that a pattern of three
serious offences is enough to prove that an automatic life
sentence does fit the crime, or at least the pattern of crime. To
make a life sentence mandatory for offences other than murder
or treason is a significant and I think ill-advised departure from
our criminal law.
The Criminal Code currently provides for a mandatory life
sentence for first or second degree murder or for high treason.
There are other mandatory minimum sentences, but they are the
exception in our criminal law. Mandatory life sentences are
extremely rare.
I refer my colleagues to the report of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, ``Sentencing Reform in Canada: The Canadian
Approach'', chapter eight, in which the commission opposed
mandatory minimum sentences on the grounds that they
diminish the role of the judge and can therefore result in
arbitrary punishment and other inequities.
As an alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the
commission set out a number of sentencing principles, including
this statement at page 154 of its report:
The paramount principle governing the determination of a sentence is that
the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the offender for the offence.
(1800 )
It seems to me that is as it should be. From Bill C-41, the
sentencing bill now before the House, I refer to section 718(1):
``A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence
and the degree of responsibility of the offender''. The
government is already adding that provision to the law with Bill
C-41.
13505
The reason for not removing the court's discretion to
determine the sentence length is both sound and
straightforward. The court should have the ability to consider
both aggravating and mitigating factors that will help the
criminal justice process impose the punishment that fits the
crime.
The sentencing commission report sets out a long list of such
aggravating factors at page 320, including the use of violence in
the crime, existence of previous convictions, a manifestation of
excessive cruelty toward the victim and other factors. Bill C-41
similarly acknowledges the importance of aggravating and
mitigating factors in sentencing.
It is apparent with respect to the offences listed in the bill the
court already has the authority to consider past offences as
aggravating factors and to impose a life sentence for any of the
offences listed in this bill.
The hon. member has tried to confine his three strikes model
to a limited number of indictable offences and thereby avoid
some of the excesses of the American statutes. He has succeeded
only in narrowing the focus of Criminal Code offences that
already carry a maximum life sentence.
Supporters of the bill will argue it is the pattern of offending
that makes the difference, that requires this drastic change in our
approach to sentencing. Let us examine the objectives of
sentencing. One of the purposes of criminal law is denunciation
through punishment. Nothing is achieved from the point of view
of punishment by making a life sentence mandatory for three
offences as opposed to allowing the court to consider all
relevant factors in imposing sentence which can be life for any
of the 15 listed offences. It seems likely such a pattern of repeat
offending would lead the court to consider a very long sentence
for any of these serious crimes.
The other purposes of sentencing include deterrence and the
long term protection of society against criminals likely to
reoffend. From this perspective, Bill C-301 casts too wide a net
in its indiscriminate approach to patterns of offending. Would it
not be better to tailor a law to the actual conduct that shows a
likelihood of reoffending violently? Can we not focus on the
circumstances of the offence, on the offender's mental state, on
the brutality of his actions, all factors that evidence a continuing
threat to the community?
We have such a law found in part 24 of the Criminal Code,
dangers offender sections. This part specifically allows the
court to impose an indeterminate sentence for a pattern of
serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 as
follows:
An indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or
second degree murder, involving, (i) the use or attempted use of violence against
another person, or
(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person
or inflicting or likely to inflict psychological damage upon another person, and
for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.
A number of particular sexual offences are also included in
the definition. This approach to patterns of offending allows the
court to link past offences and violent conduct to a prediction
that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or
physical or mental well-being of other persons.
The court is also required to hear psychiatric evidence and
dangerous offender hearings allow both the prosecution and the
defence to introduce evidence about the potential threat posed
by the offender to the community. Those are good opportunities
to hear what threat there is and the reasons for a long sentence.
This structured approach contrasts with the automatic life
sentence this bill would impose.
I recommend we let the courts do their job. The Criminal
Code already provides for life sentences for these 15 crimes and
additionally sets out a dangerous offender procedure which
targets patterns of violence and links such patterns to
predictions of violent reoffending.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are back in the jurassic era. The Reform Party, particularly the
hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, has outdone itself.
Did his riding's proximity to California have such a major
impact on the hon. member? Bill C-301 is nothing but a
substitute for California's ``three strikes and you are out'' law.
I understand that the professional baseball strike lasted a long
time and that fans missed the action. But to introduce
professional sports rules into criminal law is something else.
This is the figment of a wild, even dangerous imagination.
I asked myself what could possibly have inspired the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Certainly not inmate
rehabilitation, crime prevention or community integration
programs. What then? The answer is simple. There was no need
for me to rack my brains. It is repression. One of the inquisition
party's favourite phrases is, ``Let us lock up criminals and throw
away the key''.
If they are to be believed, we have been in a full-blown crisis
for a long time. The true crisis is the disinformation crisis which
has been in effect since the Reform Party was elected. Its
members make questionable comments on crime in this country,
manipulate statistics, and engage in scaremongering. Their
13506
anecdotes are isolated cases that do not reflect the reality
around us. They try to make cheap political capital out of tragic
situations.
I remember that, just recently, the hon. member for Crowfoot
exploited the tragedy that took place here in Ottawa, in which
two young children were shot and killed by their father, who
used a hunting rifle, as their seven-year old brother looked on
helplessly. Imagine that, while talking about gun control, the
hon. member from the Reform Party had the gall to say that gun
registration could not have prevented that tragedy.
It could certainly be said that the Reform member is a whiz at
recycling news, but has no regard for the pain and suffering of
survivors. This is how the Reform Party deals with the events
affecting us.
The same analogy can be applied to the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca's explanations regarding Bill C-301.
The recipe is simple. Take some nice fat jailbirds. Add some
spicy tabloid news and a few drops of exaggeration. Brush with
empty rhetoric, taking care of never letting any rehabilitation
into the mixture. Mix all ingredients together, hoping that your
audience is so confused that it might agree with you.
If I am being cynical on such a serious subject, it is because I
want to show how distorted the examples used by Reform
members are. According to the inquisition member, parole
standards should be abolished, and we should treat offenders
like cattle by cramming them into correctional institutions that
are already overcrowded.
Let us now look at the Reform member's source of
inspiration. California's ``three strikes'' law went into effect
last year. This law provides for very harsh sentences against any
repeat offender already convicted twice of relatively serious
offences.
(1810)
Like Bill C-301, California law requires the judge who
convicts a person for the third time to sentence this person to life
imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Think
for a moment how outrageous such a legislation would be. The
judges will no longer have any latitude, since the act is taking
away any discretion they used to have. Sooner or later, this is
bound to lead to absurd decisions.
Let me illustrate this with an example. In March, a 27-year
old man was prosecuted for stealing a slice of pizza from a group
of teenagers and sentenced to life imprisonment. The facts are
quite simple: he stole a slice of pizza from a group of young
people between the ages of 4 and 14 in a restaurant in Redondo
Beach, California.
Because he had a record and was therefore a repeat offender,
the offender came under the three strikes act and the judge had
no other choice but to sentence him to life imprisonment without
any chance of parole for 25 years.
That is the logic behind the proposal made by the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Repression and
punishment are the only two ways the Reform Party has found to
control crime. With legislation like the bill introduced by my
Reform colleague, what happened at Redondo Beach could well
happen here; the situation may not be as absurd, but it could be
just as dangerous. It is more than likely that a 19-year old
offender would be sentenced to life for robbing a convenience
store. In fact, robbery is included in the list of offences
mentioned in the schedule proposed in Bill C-301.
Let us look at the type of offences for which three convictions
would buy a one-way ticket to the pen for a very long time.
There is piracy, hijacking, endangering safety of aircraft in
flight, using explosives. Whatever my hon. colleague's views on
the matter, these offences are already liable to life
imprisonment.
I find it hard to imagine that someone would be able to
commit this type of offence three times in his or her miserable
life, as he or she could have been sentenced to life twice already
before committing a third offence.
I have nothing to say about the other offences listed, except
maybe to mention that they are generally considered disgusting
and reprehensible. I cannot overlook however the case of
robbery. This offence is on the fateful schedule. Its inclusion
will cause such prison overcrowding that it is hard to predict the
implications. Again, this is an offence already liable to life
imprisonment. But very few individuals serve full sentences
because, objectively, the seriousness of such an offence does not
justify life imprisonment.
If the circumstances surrounding the offence did warrant such
severe punishment, Bill C-301 would indeed be superfluous,
since the offender would already have been sentenced for life.
How many life sentences can one serve consecutively? As far as
I know, unlike cats, we only have one life.
The schedule of offences provided for under this bill lists 15
or so major offenses. Naturally, I would have no sympathy for
any individual sentenced three times for any of them. Quite the
contrary, I am of the opinion that repeat offenders do not deserve
preferential treatment, but it is a different matter altogether to
put them away in penitentiaries under the pretext that this makes
our streets safer. Society will always be better served in the end
through rehabilitation programs suited to the various offenses.
Close supervision is the key.
Too many offenders were paroled before they were ready to
reintegrate society and went on to commit a subsequent offence.
13507
(1815)
Increasing the prison population will necessarily increase the
related costs. Will the hon. member have the honesty to tell
taxpayers how much his bill will cost us? We know that the
average cost of keeping an inmate in a maximum security
institution in 1992-1993 was as much as $56,000.
It is my opinion that the three strikes, you are out rule should
apply to hon. members in the House: after tabling three bills like
the one before us today, an hon. member should automatically
be sent home for life.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Dear colleagues, I would
like to inform you that the Chair has received notice of a
question of privilege. I give the floor to the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I raise this question of privilege and would
like to inform you that if the Chair determines that this is a
bona
fide question of privilege, I am prepared to table the usual
motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
I would like to refer to Erskine May's Treatise on The Law,
Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 21st edition,
p. 126: molestation, reflections and intimidation.
It is a contempt to molest a member of either House while attending the
House, or coming to or going from it. The Commons on 12 April 1733 and the
Lords on 17 May 1765, resolved `That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any
member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the
account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of
this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of
Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour', and on 6 June 1780 the
Commons resolved `That it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House for
any person to obstruct and insult the members of this House in the coming to, or
the going from the House, and to endeavour to compel members by force to
declare themselves in favour of, or against any proposition then depending or
expected to be brought before the House'.
It goes on to say in the second paragraph:
To molest members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a
contempt. Correspondence with members of an insulting character in reference
to their conduct in Parliament or reflecting on their conduct as members,
threatening a member with the possibility of a trial-
Earlier this afternoon after the speech by the member for
Beaver River, I went to talk with my colleague from Mississauga
South. At that time the member for Beaver River came over and
challenged me to a debate in my riding. She wanted to know
when I was available. I said I was probably available all
summer, that I would be in my riding. She said she would be
contacting my office.
Afterward in the discussions, I reinforced what I had said
earlier in my speech that as the federal representative for the
population of Madawaska-Victoria in regard to the
remuneration, the pension and whatever other compensation
Parliament allocates to me, I truly believe that I am worth it. It is
her problem if she does not believe that she is worth it. The
discussion escalated to a point where, Mr. Speaker, I think you
rose.
(1820)
At the same time, the whip from the Reform Party came
behind the curtains and told us to bring the level of discussion
down. I told the whip to take the member for Beaver River away
from where I was standing. I turned to go back to my seat. It was
not a question of my falling; I was turning to go back to my seat
in order to end that discussion. At that time the member grabbed
me by the arm.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian since 1987. I have
never, either in the House where I was sitting, outside the House
or in my riding, ever received any such physical threat.
I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that you will be ruling on this as soon
as possible because I find that absolutely no member in this
House, whether a man or a woman, should be assaulted
physically. I was sent here to speak my views and the views of
my constituents. That is what Parliaments are all about, to speak
and to discuss. This is not a boxing match. I do wish that you will
rule very soon on this point of privilege.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
hope we can address this now and clear it up just as quickly as
possible.
The member is right. I did go over and we did have a rather
heated exchange about whether I would come to her riding.
When she told me to get out of here and my whip said to call it
off, she told me to get real and to get out of here. She said that
she turned around to go back to her seat and she did. However, as
it was a heated exchange, she did turn around. I was on one step
higher than she was and she whirled around and I grabbed her
elbow and said: ``Come on, let's be reasonable here''.
I do apologize for that. I certainly did not mean any harm or
assault. I am twice her size. It is just foolishness to think that. I
do apologize if she thought there was any intention of an assault.
However, this is now on the floor of the House of Commons. I
might just mention that in my short discussion of this afterward,
and it seems unfortunate that we have to take up House time with
this, the member for Huron-Bruce said: ``I was here and this is
13508
crazy. I cannot support her in this. This is hardly what we would
call an assault''.
Mr. Speaker, again I publicly say that is what happened. I
absolutely meant no harm or any threat as the member has said.
We need to get on with this. Again, I do accept the challenge she
has issued to me. I certainly would be willing to go down to her
riding and will be in contact with her staff to see if we can get a
good political debate going. Or she is certainly welcome to
come to Beaver River and we will talk about that.
The issue here is the fact that I did take her arm but it was
certainly not a threat. It was something that just happened.
When she whirled around in a great hurry I did grab her right
elbow and I certainly acknowledge that. I appreciate the fact that
we can move forward from this. Certainly when we get into the
heat of political debate, it is unfortunate it is the MP pension
plan which escalated to this height. However, I trust that we can
certainly put this behind us now and move forward.
(1825 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
same point of privilege, I willl make some comments as I was a
witness to what occurred in this incident.
I did go over and I noticed you were standing. I asked the two
members to lower their voices because it was getting a little bit
loud and it was hard for other members to listen to the debate
that was going on.
The member for Madawaska-Victoria is going to great
lengths to build a case. I believe with all due respect, and I do not
want to any way diminish her concerns that she was not treated
with respect, but the exchange I heard was on an equal basis.
Whatever level it was at, it was on an equal basis.
There was no molestation with respect to her reference from
1780. Also there was no assault. There was no physical threat.
The comment I did hear, and I saw what was happening, was to
get her out of here and whatever. The member for Beaver River I
thought just grabbed her arm and said: ``Come on''. Let us
smarten up kind of thing is the impression I got from that
comment.
The debate did heat up to a high exchange. I think both
members have an extremely different point of view on the
pension plan. I recommend both members recognize they have a
severe difference of opinion and that with respect they basically
agree to disagree.
For you, Mr. Speaker, to have to rule on this, I think you
should hear from anyone else who wishes to contribute. I do
know the member for Huron-Bruce was present as a witness.
He can speak for himself as to what he saw.
In my humble opinion, with it being my responsibility to
make sure that members do respect each other, I know they
disagreed, but in my opinion there was no assault, no physical
threat. There was no intent to injure. There was no intent for
bodily harm. I really believe it was a war of words and that was
it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
not a matter of what was being debated. One hon. member as a
result of the debate in the House was not satisfied. She had made
her points wanted to carry on and did come to this spot. I was
sitting here beside where the event took place between the two
members.
There is a very important point to clarify. I agree fully with
the facts as laid out by the hon. member. Her comment was to the
Reform Party whip, not to the member as the member said. The
member is incorrect. The member for Madawaska-Victoria
had indicated to the Reform Party whip to get her out of here
because I had got your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rise because of
the sound level of the conversation. The member was clearly
aware that it was not going anywhere and tried to leave the
conversation. She very calmly tried to leave the conversation, at
which point the member for Beaver River in all fairness and with
due respect for the member, was not going to allow the matter to
finish and wanted to impose her position even further on the
member.
I was quite disturbed with the whole incident. Although I am
not a lawyer my impression of what went on here was that the
member for Beaver River had come to harass and impose herself
upon the member who has made this complaint and was not
prepared to let it go until she had won and imposed her view. I
think that is the issue before us. There was a physical contact.
There was an attempt to carry on something the member clearly
wanted to just get out of.
(1830)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if I may, hopefully in order to establish good
harmony between members, I would ask if the House could not
see the clock for ten minutes or so in order that we can end the
conversation. I think it would be helpful for the House as a
whole to sit an extra ten minutes to conclude the matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, given the
seriousness of the matter it certainly would be my intention to
hear whatever additional information might ultimately assist the
Chair in this matter, and I will not see the clock.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a few points
to the attention of the Chair.
13509
First, I was in the House some years ago when an incident of
molestation was raised. It was a dispute between the member of
Parliament for York South-Weston and the then member of
Parliament from Winnipeg, the late Mr. Dan McKenzie. The
Speaker will perhaps recall that incident, or the records of the
House will remind him of it. Essentially, it was a debate that
eventually ended in one member physically attempting to do
something to another member, which is certainly not in
conformity with our usual practices in the House.
There are, not only in Beauchesne but as well in Erskine May,
a number of cases of what are referred to as the molestation of
members while in the execution of their duties. Not only is there
the case of 1780, which has been mentioned, but perhaps more
importantly for the Speaker is the following. There is reference
in Erskine May's 19th edition at page 149 to cases of
punishment of members and others for molestation of members.
In other words, these are cases of members against members
within the precincts of the House. I could name a series of these
cases, but I will name the Franklyn case, the Mompesson case,
Holt, Gourlay, and so on, which refer to disputes between hon.
members inside the Chamber itself.
The point I am making, without judging this case, is that the
Speaker has in the past determined that this kind of an incident,
depending on the severity of it, was deemed to be punishable by
an action of the House. Therefore, it is, at least prima facie,
something for the Speaker to consider as being important, and it
falls under the general rubric, in Erskine May's 19th edition, not
only of breaches of privileges but also under the rubric of
contempt of Parliament. I bring this to your attention because of
these two important points.
Finally, there is the whole issue of privilege generally, which
is what enables us to function, not only as parliamentarians
individually, but collectively. This definition of privilege is
found on page 67 of Erskine May's 19th edition. In other words,
all of us as parliamentarians have a fundamental right and a
fundamental expectation that we will all be able to stand in the
House and say whatever we feel we must say on behalf of those
who sent us here, without fear, worry or concern that anything
will stop us, threaten us, or otherwise make it such that we
would be hampered in that capacity. That is a fundamental
principle, which is necessary for all of us to be able to represent
our fellow constituents in this highest court in the land, the
Parliament of our country.
(1835)
[Translation]
So, if we are to all enjoy this privilege and represent not only
properly but without fear of reprisal all that may be said in this
House, it goes without saying that the threat cannot be tolerated.
[English]
The best case to be made for that is surely the fact that no
member of Parliament could ever be brought before a court of
law for saying anything in the House. The reason that is there is
to ensure that there is no libel chill, to ensure that no one can
threaten to sue an MP for something said in the House. The
reason that is there is to give any member of Parliament the total
freedom from fear of any kind in order to represent constituents.
For the same reason, it is important, and I would argue
essential, that we be able to speak not only in the House in a way
that does not have in it libel chill, but free of any kind of
molestation or retribution on the part of anyone within
Parliament as well as coming to and leaving the Parliament.
That has been established, as I indicated previously, for
centuries.
I do not want to belabour that point. I thought it was an
important consideration for the Chair to take into account. I
hope it will assist the Speaker in deliberating on this important
issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, certainly the
matter raised before the House is a serious matter.
I begin by acknowledging and thanking all those members
who participated in the sharing of information and precedents.
That will assist the Chair in arriving at a decision.
I will take this matter under advisement. Again, I thank the
members for their information and their participation. We will
deal with the matter in the most respectful and the most just
fashion possible.
I would like now to return to the business of the House during
private members' hour. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest was seeking the floor.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the benefit of those viewers tuning in who thought
they had somehow switched into the O.J. trial, we are talking
about a private member's bill that would have the effect of
saying that for serious violent crimes perpetrators would have
three strikes and they are out.
Again for the benefit of those just viewing, it is interesting to
see how confrontations brew and exist and happen in life. They
can happen right here. They can happen everywhere in life,
some more violent than others.
13510
Here we have a situation of three strikes and you are out. In
my view this started in California where people said one day:
``We have to do something about this crime situation we have.
Perpetrators do not seem to get punished for it. We have to
somehow set the stage so that people know there is an ultimate
sanction for doing wrong''.
People who have spoken against the notion of three strikes say
wait a minute, what is wrong with one strike and you are out?
Why should we allow three strikes? Why should it not be one
strike and you are out?
(1840)
There is a good deal of validity to this because when I agreed
to speak to this bill, I refreshed my memory on some of the
articles I read about, three strikes and you are out.
One of the things I read was with the three strikes and you are
out law in place, very often a perpetrator would have absolutely
nothing to lose when making that third offence because the third
strike was life.
While I am speaking in support of the bill and in support of my
colleague, I do so in the full understanding there is a good deal
of reservation among those who support the bill and who do not
support the bill but for very different reasons.
The one thing people have in common when they are talking
about this is the motivation to get us into a three strikes and you
are out bill in the first place. There seems to be a sense of
frustration with the criminal justice system in that there does not
seem to be the kind of sanctions against wrongdoing which
would prevent more wrongdoing.
It is almost as though society has become inured to the fact
that there are people who are not good citizens, that we are
prepared to accept antisocial behaviour and violent behaviour
and say this is a fact of life and we have to accept it.
If we society take that view then the member is right, we will
have to accept it because we will get a lot more of it. This bill
speaks to that motivation in society at large saying do something
about it.
An earlier speaker suggested perhaps incarceration was not
the answer but then, what is? If incarceration does not make the
perpetrator better, at least it protects citizens.
Our responsibility as legislators is to put the rights of the
victims ahead of the rights of the criminals. The balance of
doubt has to lie in favour of the innocent victim. The balance of
doubt should no longer lie in favour of the perpetrator.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca can seek the floor again, recognizing
he has already spoken to his motion, and before I can consider
right of reply I must first seek if anyone else in the House wishes
to participate.
Under right of reply the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
will be the last person to speak. No one else will be entitled to
speak after his intervention. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
thank everybody who made an intervention on the bill, wittingly
or unwittingly, particularly my friend from Edmonton
Southwest who was kind enough to second the bill and speak
eloquently on it.
I will address some of the concerns. We hate to admit it but
there are people who have a total and utter disrespect for life and
other people. They offend and reoffend again and again. The
purpose of this three strikes and you are out bill, Bill C-301, was
to protect innocent civilians from those individuals who by their
actions have shown a complete disregard for society.
These individuals are not rehabilitatable because they have
had their chance. The hon. member from the government made
some very good points. He said we have in our courts right now
sentences for offences in this bill. However, these sentences are
not being applied by our courts. That is one of the primary
purposes of the bill.
If the courts were enacting these sentences, if they were
applying the available sentences to the individuals who were
committing these violent acts against innocent civilians, we
would not need this bill. We would not have needed in the United
States and we would not need it here. The reality of life is we do
need it because the courts are failing to enact those laws already
there.
Whether we are speaking about these violent offences or the
use of firearms in committing offences, they are not being
applied. People commit firearms offences and they have those
offences plea bargained away to get an expeditious conviction
on another offence. That is not law, that is not justice, that is not
protecting innocent civilians, which is why I proposed this.
I also put forth reasons the bill is good for Canada why it
would be cost effective. I hope the justice minister, members on
the committee and members of the House take it upon
themselves to look at enacting a three strikes and you are out bill
or a modification thereof for the safety of all Canadians.
The member from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned throwing
the key away. I ask her and anybody else who disagrees with it to
go into jails to speak with individuals who have committed
many offences and to speak to the victims of violent offences.
They will have a different opinion.
I move:
That this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs and that accordingly the bill be withdrawn.
13511
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 6.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)