TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, April 29, 1994
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading; the amendment; and amendment
to amendment 3691
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3702
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3702
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3703
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3703
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3704
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3704
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3705
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3705
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3705
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3706
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3706
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3708
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3708
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3709
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3709
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3710
Bill C-244. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted. 3711
Motion for concurrence in 19th report 3711
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3711
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3711
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3711
Consideration resumed of motion 3712
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3713
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3717
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3722
Bill C-210. Motion for second reading 3723
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3728
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3730
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3730
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3732
3691
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 29, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning
the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester
B. Pearson International airport, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment; and of the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
on Bill C-22 which is the Liberal government response to the
Pearson airport fiasco it inherited from the previous
government.
We all know that over the last number of years the previous
government tried to address itself to the cost and administration
of regional airports in this country. One of the things it tried to
do was follow through on a different policy regarding its budget
management by setting up local airport authorities and
quasi-independent authorities.
The administration and financing of airports were moved off
the government's balance sheet and therefore away from the
government's deficit. This allowed these independent
authorities to borrow on their own although the loans were
guaranteed by the federal government. Because the federal
government guarantees a loan it allows them to avoid bringing
forth documents to show that the budget would have been that
much larger, yet the amount of money borrowed by the
government and its institutions would nonetheless remain the
same.
This was part of the smoke and mirrors used by the previous
government to deceive the Canadian public as to the true
situation of this country's finances. The previous government
should be ashamed of that approach. Of course the election
showed that Canadians had lost complete faith in its approach to
the situation.
Because of the magnitude of Pearson airport and because it
was the only profitable airport in the country, the Conservatives
decided they would take a different approach. They entered into
negotiations which were behind the scenes and not public tender
to lease, sell and give away property belonging to the taxpayers.
It seems ironic they would choose their friends and those of
other political parties to come forth and negotiate with the
government behind the scenes. The agreement would allow
them to take charge of one of the prime federal assets in this
country, hundreds of acres of property close to downtown
Toronto. They would have a sweetheart lease on it for many
years which guaranteed them income, all at the taxpayers'
expense.
When the situation blew up in their faces during the last
election this government decided it was time to do something
about it and said to stop the deal from going forward. Of course
the government did not heed the cries and concerns of the
electorate and the last government in its dying days signed a
deal.
Now we have the present government's response to that in Bill
C-22. It is going to kill the deal signed by the former federal
government. It was a sad day for Canada, for government and for
administration in this country when the previous government
entered into the contract. However, it is an equally sad day when
the government presents Bill C-22 in which it is going to use its
force and power to override a signed agreement.
The phrase force majeure means if someone of a higher
authority exerts their power to kill a legitimate transaction that
is already in agreement, it is perfectly acceptable in law. But
when the federal government enters into a transaction with the
private sector and then changes its mind, no one in the private
sector can do that without recourse. Nonetheless the federal
government has used its power, the ultimate power in this
country, to cancel the agreement which has already been signed.
(1010 )
Our position in the Reform Party is that we do not like the bill.
It gives compensation to some people who knew that the
Canadian taxpayer disagreed and knew the Canadian taxpayer
was being taken to the cleaners in this situation. We do not like
the bill because the minister, in the sum of millions of dollars to
be determined, is going to compensate them for the costs they
incurred in the negotiations on this contract. They knew it was
contrary to public policy and contrary to the desires and benefits
3692
of the Canadian taxpayer. Now they feel they are entitled to
compensation because they entered into that type of a
negotiation.
The taxpayer is being taken to the cleaners. The Canadian
taxpayer is being insulted by this bill. In our opinion the people
on the other side should not be entitled to any compensation
whatsoever. They knew when they signed the contract there was
a very good chance if the Liberals won the election that the
contract would be gone. For them to wait another week or two
for the outcome of the election would have prevented them from
being in a position to claim any money from the government
whatsoever.
Therefore, being responsible to the taxpayers and being
concerned about taxpayers' money, our position is that this bill
should be defeated and voted down. No compensation
whatsoever should be paid to the group that signed the lease.
I mentioned on a wider topic that the whole local airport
authority concept as it was envisaged by the previous
government was an attempt to move some borrowing off the
balance sheet and off the budget. We disagree with that as well.
The Auditor General has looked at these situations over the past
number of years. He has been quite critical of the way the
government has approached the method of financing and
administration of the airports.
It is time this government that is so new in its mandate
decided to review the whole area of administration and
financing of this country's airports. It should develop a clear,
concise policy to ensure this type of boondoggle does not
happen again, to ensure that the taxpayers are respected and that
their money is spent wisely and fairly for the benefit of all
Canadians in the transfer of people moving around in this
country.
That is the position of the Reform Party. I hope that the
government will take that into serious consideration and if this
bill does go forward, when it comes time to negotiate with the
other parties that the amount is kept if not to nil, to an absolute
minimum.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the bill before the House today has a very evocative
title: the Pearson International airport Agreements Act.
Pearson airport has become a symbol of all the old partisan
practices and the more or less above-board lobbying that goes
on in a parliamentary system when elected representatives do
not have sufficient control.
It is also a test of the present Liberal governement's approach
to such practices. I agree that they inherited a deal that had been
``negotiated'' by the Conservatives, but it seems that, although
Prime Ministers have changed, their friends remain the same.
On the list of lobbyists who were involved in this deal, we find
as many friends or contributors on both the Liberal and what
used to be the Conservative side.
The point I would like to make this morning is that we often
try to rationalize the lack of development in the regions by
pointing to a lack of initiative in these regions or similar
arguments.
(1015)
I would like to say that perhaps the real reason is that these
regions are not part of the more or less legal, sometimes
``shady'' networks of lobbyists. As a joke, I said to one of my
colleagues: I wish there was a bill on certain agreements
concerning the development of eastern Quebec. This might give
us some insight into why our projects, which are prepared by
development agencies, local contractors and regional
authorities acting in good faith, or even by citizens groups, are
seldom successful in attacking the dollars they need.
In other words, spending $250,000 in my region has always
seemed more complicated than spending $250,000 on the
Pearson airport deal, where $250,000 is a drop in the bucket
compared to what will be paid just to the lobbyists, for instance.
So what we have here is a double standard. In the case of
Pearson airport, the big bucks network makes sure everyone
around those who set up this deal gets their share.
We would have liked to see this bill specify exactly what form
of compensation, if any, will be provided for a given part of the
contract and how it will be awarded, so that there is an open
process.
One might also ask how we got into this mess. What is it in our
system that lets people who are not elected have more clout than
those who are? When we look at the list of people involved in the
Pearson deal, those who lobby the government for a decision,
why do we see so few elected representatives and so many what I
would call powers behind the throne?
I think we have a system that has lost control over the way it
operates, and I heard the same comment from voters during the
election campaign. It does't take a genius to see that, in our
current federal political system, there is a lot of waste, a lot of
money going down the drain. So why is this happening? Of
course we should always allow for some margin of error in the
way we do things, but there is no excuse for this kind of
behaviour, and I think that the Liberal government which was
elected on a promise of transparency will be judged on how it
settles the Pearson question. As I see it, what is in this billfalls very wide of the mark and there is certainly a lack of
transparency.
3693
What the government proposes is a bill with a kind of
fragmented authority, a bill so full of holes that all parties can
get what they want out of it. Another reason why this kind of
arrangement was tabled is the fact that the political parties
which have formed of government in Canada since this
country's inception were always financed, more or less openly,
by people who do not vote. By this I mean companies, unions
and other organizations which, in the final analysis, do not vote
and thus do not give a mandate to our elected representatives. In
this connection, I would like to mention the public financing bill
in Quebec, which has caused a significant shift in the behaviour
and authority of elected representatives and lobbyists.
In Quebec, and the same applies to the Bloc as far as party
financing is concerned, the only lobbyists who can influence us
are people who contributed to our fundraising campaign as
citizens and individuals.
(1020)
In the case of federal parties, and this applies to the current
government in particular, funding is provided by these very
same people who, merely by changing hats, become lobbyists.
They sign on to lobby for a given company, thereby placing the
government in a very difficult situation. It can hardly say no to
someone who, more as a corporate citizen than as an individual,
has made a major financial contribution.
Next week, we will likely proceed to debate a motion on the
funding of political parties. I find it totally logical that this
motion was introduced by the member for Richelieu and that it
ties in with the debate on Pearson airport. I think the government
should take a lesson from the opposition in the case of Pearson,
take a good hard look at its motives and determine how, in
future, it can avoid a recurrence of situations such as this.
Regarding the sub-amendment moved by the Reform Party,
my initial impression was that it was a technical amendment.
However, on further consideration, since it adds the words ``in
Canada'', it reflects more accurately the Canadian reality.
Why has Ontario always benefitted more from economic
development in Canada? Is it because there are more
entrepreneurs or more leadership in this province? I do not
believe this is the reason. I think it is a question of networks and
of contacts people have with political parties. In this respect, the
Reform Party's sub-amendment is interesting because it proves
to us that, in Canada, some people are more equal than others.
We want the government to take this principle of equality to
heart either by amending or withdrawing the bill respecting
certain agreements concerning Pearson International airport. In
its place, we would like the government to introduce a bill
entitled an Act respecting the Pearson airport agreement. This
bill would shed light once and for all on whether friends of the
government benefitted from this agreement. It would also give
us an indication of whether in future the Liberals intend to take
a different course of action.
Considering that, during the election campaign, a $1,000,
$2,000 or $3,000 a plate dinner was held-I am not sure exactly
which it was-this could be viewed as a warning sign of the
direction which the government intends to take. In my view, it is
important that a clear signal now be sent out that, in Canada and
in Quebec, it is possible to have development issues addressed
without having to resort to parallel circuits. What matters
should be the relevance of the project, not whether a company is
an influential friend of the government.
In this respect, it is important that all Canadians be made fully
aware of the situation and that this debate uncover the whole
truth about this transaction. All aspects of the deal must be fully
explored.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, having read through the Nixon report and
previewed statements made by the Minister of Transport and
other government members, it is very clear to me that the
government and the leader of the Liberal Party were wise in
raising concerns during the election about this agreement that
was struck between the previous government and the Pearson
airport authority.
It brings to mind how this deal came about. It was signed
October 7 in the middle of a general election. When the deal was
signed it was made very clear by the Leader of the Opposition,
who it was evident was going to be the next Prime Minister, that
when he became Prime Minister the deal would be reviewed and
perhaps rescinded. The people who came together and invested
in the Toronto Pearson deal knew in advance that it was a risky
venture. They knew at that time there was a very real possibility
that the deal would be struck down. We applaud the
government's decision to revoke this agreement by bringing
forward Bill C-22. I quote the minister on the reasons why he
felt the need to revoke this deal: ``The deal was surrounded by a
reliance on lobbyists, by backroom dealings, by the
manipulation of bona fide private sector investors and the lack
of respect for the impartiality of public servants''.
(1025)
We can appreciate the reasons why the minister made this
move, why the government made this decision. It causes me
concern and it causes the Reform Party concern that anyone
would expect to get reimbursed for having put together a
proposal for government to consider, and for any out of pocket
costs that it might have incurred after submitting the tender.
It causes me concern that the government is asking the House
to give it a blank cheque to compensate for out of pocket
expenses those investors when the investors knew it was very
risky in the first place. My experience with government
contracts and tenders is that a cost is involved in preparing
documentation for a proposed contract, and that for all those
many people who put proposals forward before government,
they
3694
never get reimbursed for the expenses incurred in putting the
proposal together.
I am concerned in this instance that we have a clause in the bill
that allows for compensation to be paid. We have to continually
remember the date that this contract was signed, which was
October 7, in the middle of a general election. Is consideration
being given for out of pocket expenses prior to that date or are
we talking about after October 7, after the contract was actually
signed? It is very important that the government remember that
companies making a proposal for government do so at their own
risk and at their own expense. They should not be compensated.
I would suggest that anybody who was made well aware by the
media and by the statements of the soon to be Prime Minister
that the investment was very risky, going ahead and spending
more money after October 7 did so at his or her own peril.
This government, if it is truly committed to rejecting the
previous government's way of doing business, the Tory way of
doing business, will send a loud and clear message today that if
you involve yourself in a questionable arrangement with a
government in the dying hours of its mandate, you do so at your
own peril. If the government wants to show this group and others
in the lobbying business that it was wrong and that government
has to take a firm stand, half measures will not do. I would like
to suggest to the government that it take out any concept of
reimbursing the private sector for doing business with the
government.
The minister went on to say that the Minister of Transport
may, with the governor in council, approve appropriate
payments to the partnership for its out of pocket expenses. I
mentioned before that it sounds like a blank cheque. We have no
idea what these out of pocket expenses might be. It is definitely
going to be in the millions of dollars. I do not think that
Canadian taxpayers owe anything to a group of investors that got
involved in a risky venture at best.
Canadians want their government to reject the type of
patronage that was shown in this instance. If it pays this group, it
is completely undermining the message that it is trying to send
to Canadians. I do not think this bill should provide a
consolation prize.
When one gets into the discussion of the appropriate place for
government to be, there are other options of how government
can remove itself from direct control of airport operations. It has
done so successfully in the Vancouver International airport, the
Edmonton International airport, the Calgary International
airport and Montreal by establishing local airport authorities,
non-profit organizations, with the ability to provide the service
that Canadians expect with no consideration for making money
for themselves.
(1030)
Although I am not an expert in civil aviation, I am a frequent
customer of the Vancouver airport. It is not because I want to be,
it is because I have to be. From a consumer's point of view I am
really quite impressed with what the private sector is doing at
that airport.
The Vancouver airport is the second largest airport in Canada.
It is undergoing major expansion. A second main runway is
being built. The terminal is being greatly enlarged. The local
authority there is planning ahead to capitalize on the ever
increasing Pacific rim market. While this expansion is actually
taking place, the Vancouver International airport appears to be
running smoother than ever before.
The services in the existing terminal are better and more
accessible than they were in the past. Despite some early
objections to the airport improvement fee, which is payable by
everybody using the airport, it is being used for expansion of the
airport.
Canadians are quite prepared to see a user pay system come
into play so that the people who are actually using the services
are the ones who are paying for it, not the general taxpayer who
if ever or very seldom uses the airports under consideration.
The airports have to provide a service but it is best left in the
hands of the private sector. The government has to consider this
as an option when it is finished with the contract for the Pearson
airport. The government has to remember what the role of
government should be in the operation of an airport. I feel the
government's role is to ensure that the flying public has a safe,
affordable and convenient means of travel. It is not to make
profits or have politics as a priority.
The non-profit airport authorities appear to be a good way to
ensure that public interest comes first and that the service is
there for the public.
If the previous government had taken this approach we would
not be in this mess with Bill C-22. If the current government
wants to avoid problems in the future it should do two things.
First, it should scrap any payments to the Pearson Development
Corporation and second, it should carefully examine the
effectiveness of a non-profit authority running Pearson
International airport.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity to rise today on Bill C-22 tabled by
the Minister of Transport, a bill that cancels the agreements to
privatize Pearson airport. This whole affair can certainly not be
3695
held up as an example to follow. It is to me-and to the majority
of Canadians, I am sure-a total mess in all respects. A mess
founded on blatant patronage on an unprecedented scale.
It is an enormous cloud behind which the players, who are
certainly no angels, worked to reach their goal: get their hands
on the No. 1 airport in Canada, a profitable and promotable
facility, under certain terms of the agreement.
I think this case could be described as anything but
transparent and open. Every step is surrounded by very troubling
facts. The way this case was handled is no way to promote the
role and image of governments and elected representatives.
The Pearson agreement, signed in the midst of the election
campaign and whose cancellation was announced by the Prime
Minister on December 3, requires a thorough examination. This
whole affair must be cleared up quickly and in broad daylight.
(1035)
This was not done by the Nixon report, which was conducted
in private-again, demonstrating a lack of transparency and
openness, and which the Prime Minister commissioned and used
as a basis to cancel the agreements. Instead of Nixon's quick and
superficial look, people want an in-depth public enquiry to
really determine the facts surrounding the negotiations on the
agreement, in particular whether the firms involved should be
compensated. I remind the government that several members
from the Toronto region have demanded such a public enquiry. I
hope that the little they got, namely the Nixon report, will lead
them to continue to press their case. Let us hope that their
party's gag order will not turn them into sheep.
Commissioning the Nixon report shows a real lack of will and
courage. They wanted to look at this case and keep it under
covers. The Liberals, led by the Prime Minister, preferred not to
make waves to avoid splashing anyone. However, many
questions remain unanswered. People have a right to know every
detail of this case.
In this affair, decision makers were surrounded by many
people called lobbyists. As we all know, especially the ministers
opposite, various groups call on lobbyists to defend their
specific and well defined interests. These lobbyists, that the law
divides into two classes: professionals and employees, haunt
lobbies, pay visits to decision makers, and communicate with
public officials and ministers to influence their decisions.
In the airport case, it is clear that lobbyists played a crucial if
not predominant role. At every step of the way, including the
Nixon report, the close links between the players produced
results. If we look at the parties involved, it is easy to establish
close connections between them and the decision maker; we can
even picture a big spider web where everyone got caught in the
end. Conservatives and Liberals found themselves mixed up in
this case. Former ministers, organizers and chiefs of staff, and
old friends of the old parties, they all worked together. They
used their knowledge of the system, the people and the situation
to influence decision makers to their advantage or that of their
clients.
One wonders whether these people are not more influential
now than when they used to work right in political circles. They
have the financial resources they need to achieve well defined
objectives.
Faced with all this systematic and well-organized influence,
we must question our governments' decision-making process
and wonder if our political system and its supporters are preyed
on by lobbyists. Are our decision makers independent? Do they
make allowances? Are they vulnerable to all this pressure? Do
they keep a good measure of realism?
There is no getting around it: the causes worked on and
promoted by lobbyists are mainly economic and financial.
Lobbyists are paid by big business and, in the end, they exist to
make a profit. According to the annual report on the Lobbyists
Registration Act, the most popular issues are: international
trade, industry, regional economic development, government
contracts and, in fifth place, science and technology. All these
issues are strictly economic in nature.
The first social issue listed in this report comes in 40th place.
Youth issues, 40th place; housing, an issue I deeply care about,
41st place; women's issues, 42nd place; seniors, 43rd place; and
in 52nd and last place, human rights.
There is no doubt that lobbyists try to influence decision
makers on profit-related economic issues. Social and
humanitarian causes lag far behind and stay on the back burner.
(1040)
The results are obvious and denounced more and more.
Everyday reality is the best proof. Poverty which is becoming
more entrenched and the unmet basic needs of a growing number
of individuals and households clearly show that the decision
makers have given up social causes.
Nevertheless, many organizations work in the community and
demand thorough changes. Are they heeded? Their power is
very small compared to that of big corporations and industries.
Nor do they have the same means to exert influence. The big
shots have dollars and the little people have cents. The big shots
know many friends in high places, and the little people know
little people.
For some, it is cocktails, business dinners and fancy meetings.
Others have to march in the street, occupy offices and hold hasty
meetings with decision makers so that these officials can have a
good conscience and get rid of the few reporters who are
interested.
3696
The effects are there. The evidence is quite clear.
Governments are disconnected from the grass roots and have
been for a long time. Considering all the clout wielded by
lobbyists and large political contributors, there is very little
room left for ordinary people.
Seniors' groups, associations of the unemployed, community
groups, housing committees, women's shelters, day care
centres-none of these gives thousands of dollars to the old
parties.
The Liberals are caught in this system of lobbying and large
donors. The Martin budget is a perfect illustration of this. The
lower and middle classes are affected and the rich are allowed to
breathe easy.
The Pearson issue also shows very clearly all the influence
and pressure exerted by the wealthy. We sense that the
government is ill at ease and that it is reluctant to get to the
bottom of the issue.
The political system and politicians owe it to the people to be
open and aboveboard. Secrecy and intrigue are no longer in
order. The government absolutely must deal with the present
system of influence and also the financing of political parties.
Lobbying must be examined very thoroughly. Who is doing
what? Who is working for what? Who is meeting whom? Why?
With what results? Voters and taxpayers are entitled to know
everything because they are the ones who pay the government.
As for the financing of political parties, I call on the old parties
to show moderation. I call on them to follow our party and adopt
the Quebec formula. Governments must at last be free and
independent.
Let us hope that the system will soon be completely open and
let us give everyone equal access to decision makers.
Democracy can only gain by it.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I usually
rise with enthusiasm in this House to speak to various bills
introduced by the government. In fact, I often open my remarks
by saying it is with pleasure that I will rise in this House to speak
to such and such a bill.
Today however, it is without enthusiasm and even with
disappointment that I do. I am taking part in this debate with no
pleasure, but with the conviction of carrying out my duties and
obligations as a parliamentarian.
It is indeed my duty to stand up in this House and publicly
denounce the bill now being debated. The debate on Bill C-22
opened last Tuesday has brought to light an absolutely
outrageous business. The contract to privatize Pearson airport
entered into by the previous Conservative government has
turned out to be an exercise in distributing presents to the
friends of the system, the whole thing being engineered in an
atmosphere of scheming and secrecy.
Allow me to recall a number of flaws that led eminently
serious observers to come to that conclusion.
In 1993, Pearson airport generated over $23 million in profit.
Under the contract passed with the Conservative government in
the middle of an election campaign, Pearson Development
Corporation was to operate Terminals 1 and 2 for an annual fee
of $27 million.
At first glance, it looked like this transaction could be
profitable to the taxpayers.
(1045)
The picture changes completely once you know that the
corporation with the winning bid was planning a 350 per cent
hike in passenger fees, which would have resulted in a net
increase in earnings totalling over $100 million annually,
airport users footing the bill, naturally.
Air Canada publicly challenged this decision. To sugar the
pill, Air Canada was also given a little bonus in the form of rent
reduction, another cost to be absorbed by the taxpayers,
naturally.
The reason given by the government to explain why it was not
increasing fees itself and pocketing these substantial profits was
the necessity to finance major redevelopment work in Terminal
1, to the tune of $100 million. Yet, in a huge fit of generosity, the
government granted Pearson Development Corporation a 40 per
cent rent deferral for 1994, 1995, 1996 and part of 1997.
While these amounts were to be eventually reimbursed with
interest, the fact remains nonetheless that the government was
reneging on its promise not to finance the modernization of
Terminal 1 by accepting that rent be deferred over four years.
Also, it is stunning to see the obvious lack of financial analysis
in the development of these privatization agreements. No
financial viability study was done, and Paxport, to which the
contract was originally awarded, was faced with serious
financial difficulties and decided to team up with its only
competitor, Claridge Inc., thus creating a monopoly situation.
Yet, for some obscure reasons, the contract was not cancelled,
even though it should have been. It must also be pointed out that,
because the contract was split in two periods of 37 years and 20
years, the owners do not have to pay provincial tax, which would
have amounted to ten million dollars if the contract had been
awarded for a period of 50 years. Even if you include the cost of
work paid by investors, the taxpayer is still the big loser in this
transaction.
I also want to mention briefly that several newspapers have
reported that the rate of return of about 14.2 per cent after tax
given to Pearson Development Corporation was too high for this
type of transaction. The media, the Ontario government, public
opinion, and even the Liberal Party at the very end of the
election campaign, have all voiced their opposition to that
outrageous deal. Common sense dictates that the government
should have gone to the bottom of this issue.
3697
Unfortunately, this is not the case at all. Bill C-22 is not the
beginning of a new era. It is a smokescreen to cover the dealings
that took place. The government wants to avoid at any cost
having to go to the root of the problem, which is first an acute
lack of transparency in the privatization process, collusion
between the old federal parties and certain private businesses,
and also a lack of appropriate legislation to regulate the
activities of lobbyists.
Last October, the government appointed a former Ontario
Liberal minister, Mr. Robert Nixon, to conduct an in camera
inquiry to find out about the dealings which led, as Mr. Nixon
said in his report, to ``an inadequate contract arrived at through
such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political
manipulation''.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the government that you rarely shed
light on an issue when you look at it behind closed doors. Also, a
former Liberal minister, regardless of his personal credibility, is
certainly not the best choice to inquire about a transaction in
which some key players are directly linked to the Liberal Party
of Canada.
Following that inquiry, and in a moment of clear-mindedness
and common sense on its part, the government decided to fulfil
its election promise and cancel the formal agreement with
Pearson Development Corporation. Unfortunately, the
government did so in such a way that everything leads us to
believe that it has every intention of paying off its political debts
to its friends. When I say its friends, I mean those of both the
Conservatives and the Liberals, since the people and companies
involved in this mysterious transaction are very closely related
to one or the other of these old political parties.
While it is true that section 9 of Bill C-22 provides that no
compensation will be given in lieu of unrealized profits, or for
monies contributed to lobbying activities in connection with
public office holders, the fact remains that, in section 10, the
government gives the Minister of Transport the arbitrary right to
pay to people of his choice such amounts as he deems
appropriate.
(1050)
Does not that open the door wide for some more abuse? Under
section 10 of Bill C-22, the government can compensate and
even reward individuals and corporations involved in a rather
sordid deal which not only went against public interests, but also
bordered on something criminal.
Last Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport said that the Liberal government had learned from the
mistakes made by the previous government. I am not so sure
about that. There is something fishy about the government's
refusal to get right to the bottom of this nebulous deal, but the
government adds insult to injury by giving itself carte blanche
to hand out very generous compensation to the loyal
contributors to the war chests of the old political parties. The
government, which not so long ago solemnly promised to abide
by such principles as openness, integrity and sound management
of public funds, was quick to turn its back on its pious wish and
to revert to its old habits. As the old saying goes: what is bred in
the bone will not out of the flesh.
By allowing big corporations to generously contribute to the
parties' election coffers, the Canada Elections Act certainly
does not help to restore the credibility of federal politicians and
political parties. By refusing to change the legislative
framework under which such a deal was made, the current
Liberal government is asking the public to make another
profession of faith and to believe that it is totally impervious to
the financial and corporative interests supporting it and to the
pressure coming from its good friends.
All of this disgraceful incident just goes to prove how crucial
it is to act as soon as possible and pass an act concerning the
financing of political parties, something similar to Quebec's
current legislation. This would release federal political parties
from any obligation to the big financial interests and make
politicians accountable to those they are supposed to represent,
that is the people of Canada.
The other major problem stems from the fact that the
legislation concerning lobbyists is full of holes and does not
define specifically enough the nature of lobbyists and the nature
of their activities. The identification of the individuals who are
subjected to pressures raises also serious ethical problems.
The Nixon Report speaks of dealings by members of the
political staff who got too much involved in the transaction. It
seems that lobbyists are directly responsible in the case of
several officials who were reassigned and others who asked to
be replaced. The promoters behind the privatization proposal
knew very well that a future Liberal government would revoke
the privatization contract, so they decided to take a risk. The
government should not have to compensate for investors'
miscalculations. The reform of the Lobbyists Registration Act
would greatly contribute to prevent such muddle which, I must
say, borders on something illegal.
I urge the present government to do its utmost to avoid
making the same mistakes as the Conservatives. It was a
mistake, for example, to entrust the airport management to
private interests while everywhere else in Canada and in Quebec
it was agreed that the best solution was to establish a non-profit
group composed of local interests. It was also a mistake to deal
with this issue without taking into account the will and the
choices of the province concerned.
To conclude, I will join the opposition leader in asking for the
establishment as soon as possible of an independant royal
inquiry commission to get right to the bottom of this nebulous
privatization deal so that never again organized and
well-funded interests may influence the decision-making
process in such a big way. This public inquiry could pave the
way for the reform of the Lobbyists Registration Act. At the
same time, it is imperative that the government amends the
Election Act so that
3698
Canadians begin again to trust their political institutions as well
as politicians.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
with its Bill C-22, the Liberal government is reviving the debate
on what is now commonly known as the Pearson affair.
However, the provisions contained in this bill take the debate
one step further than a mere discussion on the sale of Pearson
International airport. They bring to light one of the biggest flaws
in the Canadian political system.
(1055)
The Pearson airport issue, which may only be the tip of the
iceberg, is a perfect example of the influence of lobbyists and
various pressure groups on government decisions, which have
the unfortunate tendency of always favouring special interests
rather than the public interest.
It is important that Canadians finally realize what goes on
behind the closed doors of their federal Parliament. In fact, it is
the whole decision-making process that must be called into
question. Right now, the most effective way to make your
grievances known to the federal government is to hire a
lobbying firm which, for a few thousands dollars a day, will put
you in touch with the highest government authorities. Needless
to say, only large corporations and very rich people can afford to
hire a professional lobbying firm.
There is another effective means of establishing contact with
the government in office, and it is, of course, by making a
substantial contribution to the election fund of the party that will
form the government. As for ordinary Canadians, after having
had their say in the federal elections, they must now sit and wait
to see how the government will manage its resources. People do
not always realize that their vote does not carry much weight
compared to the powerful corporations and the rich friends that
the government will support during its term. The Liberals and
the Conservatives have certainly helped to reinforce the image
of lobbying as an obscure phenomenon.
But what is a lobbyist? The image that most people have is
that of a mysterious individual who, in a dark corner, hands over
a big envelope to a minister or a senior official to obtain some
favour from the government. Unfortunately, reality is much
more subtle than that since very often, the lobbyists who are
active today behind the scenes are former ministers, deputy
ministers or lawyers of political parties who, thanks to their
contacts inside the government, are able to make the case of
those who hired them.
Their work is made easier by the fact that, most of the time,
their bosses contributed richly to the campaign fund of the party
in power. The lobbyists' task is to remind the government of its
political debts towards those interest groups. In fact, the real
elected representatives, that is the hon. members of the
government side as well as those from the opposition side,
collectively get less of a hearing from ministers than any of
those obscure professional lobbyists. That tells us a lot about
their clout in the decision-making process of government.
About fifteen years ago, political analyst Stanley B. Ryerson
argued that the Canadian federation had been formed in 1867 in
response to the demands of some interest groups. If you allow
me, I would like to quote what he said: ``Macdonald and Galt
were representing the general interests of English Canadian
business circles''.
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
I will add, dear colleague, that you still have five minutes left
to finish your speech when we resume after question period.
_____________________________________________
3698
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(1100)
[English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to commend the Minister of Justice for introducing
draft legislation to deal with the availability of serial killer cards
and board games in Canada.
Our government is committed to dealing with the growing
incidence of violent crime in this country. Therefore, the
exploitation of violent, cruel and horrible crimes must not be
allowed to undermine our crime prevention measures.
The glorification of people whose acts have taken lives, hurt
families and shattered the security of communities is
inappropriate and unwarranted. The government must seek to
curtail access to these products.
Mobilized by those who have been dramatically affected by
violent crime, people are signing petitions and indicating to
Parliament that these cards and games must not be made
available in Canada.
By introducing this draft legislation the minister has shown
that this government is listening and taking action. We must not
lead the children of this country to conclude that violent acts of a
Clifford Olsen or a Son of Sam are in anyway comparable with
those of-
3699
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the
Maraloï family, who had to put up with a lot of hostility from the
federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and a good
deal of procrastination from the department of immigration and
cultural communities, will finally be allowed to stay in Quebec.
As the Official Opposition, we want to pay tribute to the
courage and determination of these people who found
themselves, quite unwillingly, at the centre of bureaucratic
wrangling over immigration. After being wrongly told by the
federal government that Quebec had the power to accept them as
permanent residents, and then, turned back at the U.S. border
while facing threats of deportation to Rumania, they finally saw
an end to their troubles with the bureaucracy.
We are welcoming the Maraloï family in the Quebec society
and we wish them all the success and happiness they deserve, at
the eve of their new life in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday near Saint John, New Brunswick two airmen died and
two were seriously injured in service to our country. We do not
know yet how this accident happened and will not for some time
know why.
What we do know is that every day, whether it be here in
Canada, in Croatia, Bosnia or in other parts of the world our
Canadian forces service men and women willingly serve and
take risks for their country.
Nothing can change what has happened in this instance and
nothing can alter the impact it has on the families of those
involved.
On behalf of all members of this House we extend our best
wishes to Owen Hanam of Baddeck, Nova Scotia and Michael
Langdon of Canadian Forces Base Shearwater, Nova Scotia for a
full and speedy recovery.
To the families of Major Walter Sweetman of Peterborough,
Ontario, and Major Robert Henderson of Victoria, British
Columbia, who died in the crash we offer our heartfelt sympathy
and the hope that will help you to know that you are not alone in
your sorrow.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, when Nelson
Mandela cast his ballot Wednesday morning at the Ohlange
High School north of Durban, people around the world watched
and cheered. Nobel Peace Prize winner and democratic pioneer,
Mandela stands as a pioneer of integrity and dedication in our
chaotic world.
Canada played an active role during the 1980s mobilizing
world opinion against apartheid and supporting sanctions. Our
effort in South Africa includes the participation of some 57
Canadians in the observation groups of the UN mission. We have
sent electoral experts, NGO sponsored observer missions as
well as the Canadian bilateral observation mission led by the
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.
These observers come from all walks of life and all regions of
our country. Nova Scotia is represented by her provincial Chief
Electoral Officer, Ms. Janet Willwerth, and a few others.
Neither bigotry nor bombs can deter the democratic spirit in
South Africa. The secretary of state told the Cobourg Star that
the international community must continue its support for South
Africa after the election. The problems that lie ahead are
formidable, but when the results come out on Saturday,
Canadians and people all over the world can share in this victory
for equality.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last Wednesday
announced the results of a review of inactive groundfish
licences following a meeting in Halifax with fishing industry
representatives.
The minister agreed on new measures that would return
frozen licences to groundfish fishermen who meet the following
criteria.
They are head of an inactive multi-species fishing enterprise.
They have fished full time for seven years and have made 75 per
cent of earned income or recent annual enterprise revenues of
$20,000 from fishing.
(1105)
Earlier in the week the minister agreed to amend the seal
licensing policy for eastern Canada to allow retired fishermen
who are eligible for a sealing licence in 1993 to take up to six
seals a year for personal use. This approach to the frozen
inactive groundfish licence and to the seal licensing policy is a
step in the direction of economic viability in the groundfish
industry without jeopardizing conservation objectives. It moves
toward the fishery of the future by promoting multi-species
licensing.
3700
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Minister of Finance announced that Canada would
stop selling off its gold reserves which was initiated by the
previous government and which has resulted in the depletion of
Canada's gold reserves and has no doubt put pressure on the
downward trend of the price of gold on the international market.
This is good news for Canada and to my riding
Timmins-Chapleau, in particular to the city of Timmins which
is known as the city with the heart of gold.
I want to acknowledge in this House the hard work of His
Worship Mayor Vic Power, the mayor of the city of Timmins, for
having brought pressure to bear on the government to stop the
sale of Canada's gold reserves.
I am confident that this move by our government will have
positive results and that gold will once again regain its glitter on
the international market.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, a group of soldiers,
most of them from the 12e Régiment blindé de Valcartier,
arrived in Quebec City yesterday, on their way back from
several months of peacekeeping duty in the former Yugoslavia.
The remaining troops from the 12th Regiment are due to arrive
in a few days.
On behalf of all the Bloc Quebecois members, I would like to
pay tribute to these Quebec and Canadian soldiers for the
dedication and sense of duty they have shown in the
accomplishment of their task, during their long and difficult
stay in the former Yugoslavia. I believe that several of these
soldiers deserve that their acts of bravery be officially
recognized.
The UN peacekeeping mission in that country is not over, and
the 12th Regiment is being replaced by troops from Calgary. We
wish them all the best.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers have been telling the government for
months that it is possible to do more with less.
This morning several Canadian newspapers reported how
much each party paid for its seats in this House. It should come
as no surprise to anyone that the party that sank the nation so
deeply into a sea of red ink was the Conservatives, spending well
over $10 million for two seats. That is over $5 million per seat.
The NDP was also extremely wasteful, spending more than
$825,000 per seat. The governing Liberals fared a little better,
spending $56,000 per seat.
If the government wants to see how real fiscal responsibility
is practised it should take note of the party that spent less than
$1.5 million for 52 seats. That party is Reform which kept the
cost per seat down to only $28,000, half of what the government
spent and miles ahead of the others.
Canadian taxpayers are very concerned that much of their tax
money is wasted. Federal party spending in the last election
illustrates that the Reform Party would be the best stewards of
taxpayers' money because the party also completed the election
campaign in the black.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in my place today to thank the members of our
Standing Committee on Finance for the sterling work they did
on behalf of this House on the issue of replacement measures for
the GST.
I commend them for the many long hours and the many
thousands of miles they travelled on our behalf, listening to the
suggestions of Canadians as to how we can replace this detested
and very damaging tax.
This week I was privileged to testify before this committee
here in Ottawa to discuss my proposal for a tax on gross business
output at a rate of 2 per cent to replace the GST at 7 per cent.
Our government pledged in the famous red book to look at
options through public consultation to replace the GST. I believe
this committee deserves our sincere thanks for its diligent
efforts to consult seriously with Canadians to provide a real
alternative to the GST.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, crime in our society is a very serious matter and is
becoming more of a problem every day.
(1110 )
In 1992, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reported
3,270,000 criminal incidents, 87 per cent of which were
Criminal Code incidents.
Violent crime has been steadily on the rise every year since
1977 at an average yearly rate of 5 per cent. Youth crime has
become a major concern for many Canadians. In 1992, 135,348
youths aged between 12 and 17 were charged under the Criminal
Code. Fifteen per cent of these incidents were violent crimes.
Canadians want decisive action to curb the increase in
crime-
3701
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, the
haranguing continues with Canada and the United States over
trade disputes on everything from beer to softwood lumber.
Sometimes it reaches the level of near harassment.
The minister of trade in the last government was correct when
he said in the House one day: ``It is too bad that we could not
have agreed on a definition of what a subsidy is''. This
government should take a much needed initiative and call a
meeting of trade reps of Canada, United States and Mexico and
arrive at a definition of subsidy before things further
disintegrate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to draw attention to the
International Workers Day, also known as May Day, which will
be celebrated on May 1.
To mark this event, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois met this
morning, as he does every year, with the leaders of the three
main Quebec unions to talk about the problems that workers
presently face.
This year, Quebec bishops will be part of the rallies which will
be held Sunday to denounce the growing poverty problems that
our society is experiencing.
The Bloc Quebecois urges workers to come to these rallies to
show their pride and remind society of their vital contribution.
We also invite the unemployed to participate and thus denounce
the lack of action of governments in the area of job creation.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians believe that the key to parliamentary reform lies in
the principles of direct democracy. This would include freer
votes in the Commons, referenda, citizens' initiatives and of
course recall.
Much of the dynamic and constructive changes that have
occurred throughout our history have been due to citizens who
have insisted on renewal and reform of government.
Canadians have become cynical about politics. Parents, when
asked if they would be pleased to see their children become
politicians, replied no 98 per cent of the time. These responses
and the perceptions behind them reflect a serious sickness in our
parliamentary system and bode ill for the future of democracy in
Canada unless we reform now.
Accountability is the key word here. If an MP fails to do the
job that he or she was elected to do or abuses a position of trust,
their constituents should have the power to remove them. The
three rs are still alive. Let us be radical. Let us reform the
system. Let us be subject to recall, like every other worker in the
country.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, notwithstanding statements of some members across,
the support for the Official Languages Act in Canada remains
strong. A recent Angus Reid Southam News report reveals that
64 per cent of Canadians support the policy of having two
official languages.
[Translation]
Some members take pleasure in adding the costs of
bilingualism. How many of them took time to evaluate its
benefits. For example, the former president of Air Canada,
Claude Taylor, said that the company flourished because of the
language ability of its employees. How many similar cases can
we find?
A good knowledge of French and English allows us to deal
with these two great cultures. In fact, 33 countries have French
as a working language, while 56 use English. As Canadians we
are privileged.
[English]
Let us remember how lucky we are. Let us cherish the wealth
of using two great languages, the languages of Shakespeare and
Molière.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to the claims of several opposition members, the
pharmaceutical industry is neither surprised nor alarmed by the
federal government's position regarding Patent Drug Act.
(1115)
Not only is the industry in good shape, to use the words of Mr.
Charles Pitts of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association,
but it has a time trying to understand the concerns of the Bloc
Quebecois. There is no need to reassure an industry which is not
worried. I find it unacceptable that the Official Opposition is
using the pharmaceutical industry as a pawn to further its own
political ends!
3702
The people would be better served by political leaders
working at building a stable and thriving environment that
would encourage industry to create jobs, instead of playing
politics.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians
heard the news this morning they were shocked, astonished, and
by the end of the day they will be enraged. The Professional
Institute of the Public Service of Canada revealed that Revenue
Canada is not serious about enforcing the Income Tax Act and
other legislation.
They conducted a survey among the 4,000 employees who
audit corporate income taxes for Revenue Canada and 75 per
cent of the auditors surveyed believe that operations had been
hindered by the level of politicization by the Liberal
government. The auditors say that they get the word from the
Liberal government to drop this file and move to another.
While Canadians are filing their individual tax returns, while
small businesses are filing their tax returns and paying through
the nose, we now find out from Revenue Canada that corporate
Canada is once again getting off the hook from paying its fair
share of taxes.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to commend the Liberal member for Vancouver East who
stated in an interview in the
Hill Times on April 28 that she
realizes the provision in Bill C-18 for imposing a two-year
suspension on the redistribution of ridings does not do her
province any favours. In fact it would make it almost impossible
for the process to conclude before the next election. The hon.
member goes on: ``One year would probably be the right
approach''.
If this is the case I wonder why so many Liberals, including
the hon. member for Vancouver East, chose to defeat the
one-year amendment when it was brought forward by the
Reform Party in the House.
This is a perfect example of why Canadians are so cynical of
the representation they receive in the Chamber and why
democratic reform such as free votes are essential to restore the
confidence of Canadians in their elected officials.
3702
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry. Despite the
unsettling effect that his hasty, irresponsible statement about
reviewing the drug patent legislation has had, the Minister of
Industry reiterated yesterday his intention of going ahead with a
review of the legislation. Already, the review is jeopardizing
important investments in Quebec.
Does the minister intend to follow up on the request of his
Quebec colleague and put to rest his concerns, as well as those of
the multinational which this week decided, further to Ottawa's
hasty announcement to reopen Bill C-91, the drug patent
legislation, that it was holding off on a $50 million investment
in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say a word about this because the opposition is truly
exaggerating.
It is really very simple. A bill was passed by Parliament and
the pharmaceutical industry made a commitment to the
Canadian public. It undertook to invest money and to refrain
from increasing the price of drugs. The government therefore
has a duty to ensure that the promised investments have been
made.
If the industry believes that it has fulfilled the obligations set
out by Parliament, then it has nothing to fear. However, if it has
not fulfilled its obligations and made the investments, the
opposition should be telling us to take steps to ensure that these
investments are indeed made. But if we do not carry out a
review, we will never know.
We have an obligation to carry out this review, pursuant to the
legislation passed by Parliament. As the whip stated earlier, a
industry spokesperson said he was not in the least bit worried
and that this was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot
whipped up by the Bloc Quebecois. On the one hand, Bloc
members rise in the House and ask us to protect this industry,
while on the other hand, they want us to go along with their plans
for Quebec independence, which will create even more
instability for potential investors in this country in the years to
come.
(1120)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
as usual, in response to serious questions, questions dealing
with Quebec's economic interests, the Prime Minister and his
ministers talk nonsense.
The Speaker: Some days are more trying than others and we
had hoped not to hear words like the ones just used by the hon.
3703
member and those I have already asked another hon. member to
withdraw. I hope the hon. member can understand why I ask him
to withdraw the word ``nonsense''.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I withdraw the word ``nonsense'', but I simply used it to indicate
that, when we talk about vocational training for example, we are
told that it is nothing but one of Quebec's whims, and when we
talk about drug patents, we are told that we are getting excited
over nothing. Just last evening, Minister Tremblay called for
government intervention and I reiterate minister Tremblay's
request in that respect.
Could the Minister of Industry deal directly with the company
that reconsidered a $50 million investment it was about to make
in Quebec? Do you not think this would be a good way to
reassure the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? These
companies are seriously concerned at present, Mr. Speaker,
about the irresponsible remarks the minister has made. So, I put
the question to him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Did you hear
that? He just described the remarks as irresponsible. As for the
hon. member's own remarks, insult being the weapon of the
weak, as the saying goes, it is only natural that he would want to
insult everybody.
We have said, and the people in the industry themselves said
yesterday that they were not concerned about what is going on
right now. The industry itself said so. However, if the industry
wants to invest, it should go ahead and invest! The legislation is
in place, it was passed and investments have been made under it
in past years.
Why is it all of a sudden that one of them has become more
nervous than the rest? Those who made investments last year did
so under the same legislation. I imagine that these people who
have invested so far were familiar with the provisions of the
legislation. This company should read the law and follow the
same reasoning as the ones that invested last year and the year
before. That is the way to do it. It is nothing to make a fuss
about, and our position is that we will abide by the law in the
interest of investment and in the interest of the patients who
have to buy drugs.
That is one of the objectives of this legislation and we will
enforce it because either the patients pay or the governments
have to pay for them, when the pharmaceutical industry goes too
far.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I hear the Prime Minister talking about a review of the prices
charged and investments made by the pharmaceutical industry.
It is also provided for in Bill C-91. We do not need to re-open
that bill, a review is already planned. A body has been set up to
monitor these things, so I put the question to the minister again.
Does the minister not agree that his intention to review the
law has already hurt investment in research and development in
Quebec and that his intended review has a much broader purpose
than checking the prices of patented drugs or investments,
which are already controlled by a body reporting to the
Department of Health?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
already indicated in the House yesterday that we intend to
conduct a review, as the Prime Minister promised during the
election campaign, but as the Prime Minister just said, the
proposed review is not what is causing uncertainty. I can tell the
hon. member that I have two press releases here, the first from
Merck Frosst, issued yesterday, announcing that they have
completed their engineering study and have begun the design
work for the plant in question, and I quote: ``We will honour our
commitment because we are sure that the Canadian government
will honour its commitment''.
(1125)
Also, I have a letter from Astra Canada.
[English]
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is having-
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Minister of Industry could
bring his answer to a close.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc is genuinely concerned
about assurances on these things perhaps it could listen to the
assurances I can offer.
This is Astra Canada: ``I understand there has been some
indication that an unnamed pharmaceutical firm has indicated
that their $50 million investment has now been cancelled. I have
had some calls inquiring as to whether or not that company is
Astra. Please be assured that we remain fully committed to the
establishment of our basic drug discovery facility in the city of
St. Laurent. This is a very significant investment involving
about $33 million in building and equipment and an annual
investment of over $10 million in research''.
[Translation]
It is the Bloc Quebecois that wants to create instability by
pursuing its political goal of separation for Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The
Prime Minister says that the Bloc Quebecois is stirring up a
tempest in a teapot. Yet, he seems to refuse to listen to several
comments and interventions made by Quebec ministers.
The Quebec minister of employment has been trying
unsuccessfully for several months to convince the federal
government to reach an agreement on the manpower training
issue. Yesterday, he sent out a real alarm over the state of
relations between Quebec and Ottawa. Speaking of malaise, the
minister said that several of his Cabinet colleagues have been
coming up against Ottawa's centralizing designs.
Are we to understand from that statement, and contrary to
what the minister said in this House, that the negotiations
between Quebec and Ottawa over manpower training are more
than ever in a deadlock because of Ottawa's refusal to give
anything to Quebec?
3704
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, since I have been involved in interprovincial relations
for several dozens of years, I evidently do not have the same
blood pressure as the hon. member when it comes to a problem
such as manpower training, which has been going on for many
years.
Our position in the negotiations is clearly not the same as the
one of Quebec. We are pursuing our discussions with Quebec; it
is possible that we will come to an agreement, but it is also
possible that we will not come to an agreement on this issue at
the present time. That is part of the way federal-provincial
relations have been working for many years in this country, and
there are not more problems today than there were at any other
time in our history.
M. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, so the
minister is confirming that the negotiations are deteriorating
and that we are in a deadlock.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirming, and
will he have the courage to admit, that relations between Quebec
and Ottawa have been deteriorating in several areas, particularly
in education, youth programs, readjustment programs for
fishermen, the review of Bill C-91, health financing and the
high-speed train, to name just a few, and that, finally, Ottawa's
intentions are aimed at centralization?
The Speaker: I find that questions and answers are perhaps a
bit long. I would ask everyone to please make it shorter.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Health said that the government
would not reopen the Canada Health Act ``in the short term''.
She said: ``There is no question that there will have to be some
changes and change is always difficult''.
(1130 )
In light of these comments, could the Prime Minister tell the
House exactly when the government plans on reviewing the
Canada Health Act?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the government is planning a conference with all the people
involved in health services and I will be presiding over it.
We said we were having this review. We are holding
discussions with the provinces at the moment and the first
meeting of this continuing conference on health problems in
Canada will be held in the middle of June.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the health minister
was quite clear yesterday in her comments. She said there would
be changes to the Canada Health Act and that those changes
were necessary.
Yesterday the health minister also said that health funding
was holding steady under this government but the fact is that
federal funding as a portion of total health spending has dropped
from 50 per cent to 23 per cent and continues to drop. As a result
the provinces, handcuffed by the Canada Health Act, are being
forced to cut health services.
I repeat, when and how will the government amend the
Canada Health Act?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the financing of these programs is done by through a formula.
Sometimes the figures that are used are confusing because the
money transferred has been reduced, but there has been a
transfer of tax points to be used for the financing of these
programs.
Over a period of years people have stopped thinking that. In
fact we have made more room for the provinces to collect more
money. The transfer of cash has diminished but the participation
of the federal government has not been reduced, as some people
say.
What I was very pleased with yesterday was seeing the
Reform Party asking the federal government to spend more,
more, more.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): This is a good day, Mr. Speaker, a
good day.
The actions and inactions of the government amount to a total
abdication of responsibility toward the health care system. The
Liberal government keeps telling us about the sanctity of
medicare but cannot answer as to how it will be preserved.
3705
Why is the government now trying to snuff out creative
attempts by provinces, doctors and patients to preserve the
health care system when the government appears to have no
answers at all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
question that statement. We have one concern that is very
important to this party. We do not want to fall into the trap of
finding so-called new solutions, new approaches that very soon
in Canada it would be like in the United States: good service for
the rich and poor service for the poor. We will never let that
happen in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, this
morning we heard that a number of auditors with the Department
of National Revenue complained about political interference
when auditing Canadian companies.
The president of the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada said, at a press conference this morning, and I
quote: ``Auditors received instructions to back off from certain
files''.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime
Minister intend to investigate these very serious allegations and
could he give us the assurance that all provisions of the
Canadian Income Tax Act apply to all companies in Canada,
without exception?
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the survey that was
released today is very general in nature. There are no specific
allegations revealed whatsoever.
The department is very committed, as is the government, to
fair taxation for everyone. If concrete evidence of political
interference is provided, the department will definitely
investigate.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I may add
that 250 public servants complained about this kind of political
interference, which to me is pretty factual.
Would the Prime Minister agree that these serious allegations
may cause the public to doubt the impartiality of our tax system
and will he undertake to clarify this question by calling for an
independent investigation by the Auditor General, whose
findings would be released as soon as the report is tabled?
(1135 )
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the department is aware of
the survey and has a meeting scheduled with the union on May
11. It was scheduled before the announcement today. We will
proceed with that meeting. The survey is an item on the agenda
at that meeting.
Again I state there were no specific allegations released
today.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
According to a recent study by the Association of General
Surgeons, 23,000 people in Quebec are on waiting lists for
surgery. Half of them have been there for over 18 months. This
waiting list has doubled since 1985 and 626 of those individuals
are cancer patients waiting for urgent surgery.
In light of this will the Prime Minister acknowledge that
health care in this county is collapsing. The act is obsolete and
reform of the act is crucial. We are not asking for more money.
I would like the Prime Minister to please guarantee that
federal transfer payments for funding for health care will stay at
1992-93 levels at least and not decrease any more.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the member
says he does not want us to spend any more money. On the other
hand he is pointing out the difficulties being faced by the
provinces.
The Minister of Health met with provincial ministers in
February. She has another meeting scheduled in the next few
weeks specifically to discuss making sure that every Canadian
has access to health care services at no cost to themselves.
Frankly, if we followed the suggestion of the Reform Party to
cancel the Canada Health Act, every fibre of the work that we
have done over the last 30 years in building one of the best
health care systems in the world would be flushed down the
toilet and we do not intend to do that.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, we do not have the best health care system in the world
right now, but we should.
The government on the one hand is denying the provinces the
right to get health care under control by forcing them to adhere
to an obsolete Canada Health Act. On the other hand it is not
living up to its commitment by continually decreasing funding
for health care over the last 15 years.
Will you give us and this country, and on behalf of my
patients-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
3706
The Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member please direct his
question through the Chair and put his question, please.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, will
the government guarantee that it will live up to its commitments
and provide federal funding for health care for Canadians based
on 1992-93 levels and not continually decrease it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not agree
with the member's statement about the state of Canada's health
care.
Yesterday I had the privilege of discussing with the wife of the
President of the United States their health reforms. She was
asking me how they could put in place a system which would
mirror or be similar to the system we have in Canada. The
Americans are coming to this country to see a system that works.
Obviously the system has to respond to new realities.
[Translation]
We were very happy to see that midwives were finally
accepted by physicians in some provinces, including Quebec
and Ontario. It is very important that changes be brought to the
system.
It is not enough to say that we will only amend the Canada
Health Act. The answer lies in innovation and that is what we are
seeking to do in cooperation with provinces.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury
Board.
The Minister of Health stated in this House on February 3, on
March 23 and again this week on April 26 that the request for
extra funds for the Krever Commission and the Canadian
Hemophilia Society was still being examined by Treasury
Board.
Can the minister promise this House that he will give
immediately a clear, definite and positive answer regarding the
request for additional funds for the Krever Commission and the
Canadian Hemophilia Society?
(1140 )
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
consideration of the matter is nearing completion. I can assure
the hon. member that every opportunity is being taken to try to
expedite the matter, understanding the importance of it.
I must also add that nobody is being denied an opportunity to
appear before the commission and have his or her views
appropriately heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, we can understand that the President of the
Treasury Board is more eager to put on a show with the
infrastructure program than to address the real problems.
My question to the President of the Treasury Board is this: Is
he going to wait until the work of the commission is over to give
an answer to the Canadian Hemophilia Society? What is the
rationale behind such delay, given that granting additional funds
requested by Justice Krever would allow the commission to
carry on fully its mandate and to get right to the bottom of that
scandal?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the government has provided very substantial funds to the
Krever commission. In fact it has asked for additional funds.
That has taken some review but it is being done in an expeditious
manner.
As I said a few moments ago, nobody is being denied an
opportunity to have his or her views heard by the commission.
We will continue to make sure that we advance this matter so
that the commission can get on with its work and provide its
report.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Justice.
Jason Gamache of Courtney, B.C. was recently convicted of
the first degree murder of six year-old Dawn Shaw. Evidence
shows that Gamache was a repeat sexual offender who was not
allowed to be with children. However, this fact was not known to
the local authorities or to Jason Gamache's neighbours because
of the protection of privacy sections of the Young Offenders Act.
Will the parliamentary secretary and the ministry advise the
House if it is the government's intention to eliminate this
section of the act?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, it certainly is the intention and the present activity of
the Minister of Justice and the department to look into this
important question.
The Minister of Justice has stated to the House that he and the
department are presently analysing the question of a registry of
3707
sexual abusers and that there will be something brought before
the House in the not too distant future.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government if it is prepared to
commit to a philosophy that the rights of victims must come
before the rights of criminals, or does it believe that the rights of
the Jason Gamaches of this world should take precedent over the
rights of the Dawn Shaws?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the children in our country are the future of our
country. This government places the utmost reliance on our
children. Nothing will come before the benefit and the welfare
of the children of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In order to justify the controversial sale of Ginn Publishing to
Paramount, the governement has pointed out the specific
commitments made by Paramount to ensure that Canada obtains
a net advantage from that deal. But Paramount does not abide by
its commitments. The 140 members of the Canadian Publishers
Association ask the government to investigate the behaviour of
Paramount.
Does the minister aknowledge that, by depriving the Canadian
distributor Distican from a market of approximately $2 million
and by entrusting it to a firm controlled by American rather than
Canadian interests, Paramount blatlantly violates the deal which
was agreed regarding the sale of Ginn?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am of course aware of the allegation just made. So is
my colleague, the Minister of Industry.
Surely, a company must abide by its commitments, especially
when these are made to the Government of Canada. This is the
reason why an investigation has been launched in consultation
with the Minister of Industry.
* * *
(1145)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
recently at a meeting of the Middlesex County Federation of
Agriculture the concern was raised that Canada may have
abandoned the idea of expanding and improving country of
origin labelling for agri-food products. My question is for the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Has Canada made any commitments with the United States
and Mexico as part of NAFTA to implement country of origin
labelling for food products purchased in Canada? Could the
parliamentary secretary indicate what timeframe he might
foresee for the implementation of such labelling?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, country of origin
labelling is required on products coming into Canada at the
retail level. Most provinces also have requirements for any bulk
vegetables or fruit to be labelled whether they are a product of
Canada or another country. Also produce that is repackaged in
Canada must have its Canada grade designation on it.
There have not been any changes in the rules with NAFTA on
that. We will continue to ensure safety with the labelling so that
the consumer knows where the product comes from.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In a letter dated November 15, 1993 the Thunder Bay Harbour
Commission Port Authority warned the minister that the rail car
shortage problem had been some time in the making and was due
in part to the policy of dispersing the rail car fleet into trades and
routings outside its original purpose. This is just one of the
several warnings the minister received.
Could the minister please explain what measures were taken
in light of these warnings?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Minister of Transport I will take the member's
question under advisement and undertake to get a reply to him as
soon as possible.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
further to that I would ask the government whether it is doing
something with demurrage charges that are piling up on the west
coast. Grain and oilseed sales have been lost. Japan is in search
of a reliable supplier to grow more canola next year.
Would the government indicate what measures it intends to
take to keep Canada a reliable grain and oilseed supplier to the
world?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, all government
departments are aware of the situation in grain handling in
western Canada today. The minister of agriculture will be
announcing later today that as soon as he returns to the country
3708
he is bringing together the key players in the grain handling
industry in western Canada to resolve that issue.
The rail car companies have informed us they will be putting
several more thousand rail cars on the rails. They have already
started. It is our intention to solve this so we can better serve our
customers as we have in the past and will continue to in the
future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On April 10, the City of Montreal and the key players in social
and cooperative housing made a plea to the Quebec and federal
governments, asking for a non-recurring $40-million program
to renovate 1,000 dwellings every year in that city.
Considering that the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs
reacted positively to this project called ``Resolution Montreal'',
is the federal government prepared to make a commitment to the
Quebec government and to Montrealers, and help meet the
urgent needs of the population?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The minister
has already met with his counterparts and will meet them again
soon. The minister is holding consultations and will make a
decision later as to what new initiative the government can
undertake in co-operation with the provinces and territories.
Obviously, the above mentioned project is one which will get
very serious consideration.
(1150)
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, since the
beginning of this Parliament, no concrete action has been taken
regarding social housing. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree
that, by unduly postponing necessary funding to implement this
innovative program, her government is avoiding its
responsibility to the poor in Montreal?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, we have to consult with the provinces; we are asked to
do so. We have met with ministers and we will continue to do so.
I said that the project would be carefully considered; we will see
what other ministers propose.
To say that the government did nothing for social housing is
not true at all. Across the country, there are over 559,000 units
costing annually $2.1 million to the federal government. Also,
we will spend $100 million, over a period of two years, to
renovate dwellings. There are several other projects which I do
not have the time to mention. There are several projects,
including in Quebec, and I would appreciate it if the opposition
recognized that great efforts have been made. Moreover, the
minister said that the savings of about $100 million would be
used to support other initiatives.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of agriculture.
Recently the United States enacted article XXVIII of the
GATT in response to what it perceived as unfair imports of
Canadian durum wheat. The fact is that American prices for
durum wheat have increased approximately 90 per cent in the
past year. This totally refutes the claim that the American
industry is being harmed by Canadian durum wheat imports.
Could the minister please explain what actions his
government is taking to dispute the U.S. claim that Canadian
durum wheat imports are hurting its farmers?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, we certainly regret
the Americans took the action they did a week ago today by
putting in place article XXVIII. I want to assure the member and
the industry that this does not close the border; what it does is
move the negotiations to another stage.
We will continue to negotiate as strongly and as firmly as we
have with the Americans on this issue. We have won a number of
challenges and panels since 1990. The score for Canada on the
trade disputes on wheat with the United States is 4 to 0. And at
this time of the year when a hockey score is 4 to 0 it is a pretty
decisive win.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member indicated, four previous investigations have
exonerated the Canadian Wheat Board of unfair pricing. Despite
this we now have a scenario for counterproductive retaliatory
tariffs between the U.S. and Canada.
Is this government prepared to insist that the root cause of this
trade disruption is not Canadian durum wheat imports but the
distorting influence of the U.S. export enhancement program?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, we have made it
very clear to the United States if it decides to go ahead and take
unilateral action at the end of the 90 days that we will respond in
kind. We have indicated some of the areas where we might do
that.
3709
I also assure the member that we had representation yesterday
in Washington at the International Trade Commission hearings.
This should be of some comfort to us.
We must remember all of those commissioners who are
attending that hearing are American and as one of the
commissioners said: ``We have only received two documents
from the department. Both are essentially statements devoid of
analysis and one I could barely understand''. I think that bodes
well.
We look forward to the response and conclusion of that ITC
panel in July of this year.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Remembering Canada's record of leadership in the United
Nations General Assembly over the whole post-war period
under St. Laurent, Pearson, Paul Martin Sr. and Trudeau, in the
movement for nuclear and general disarmament under
international law, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs consider
intervening in the World Health Organization process now
pending before the World Court in The Hague on the illegality of
nuclear weapons?
(1155)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): I
thank the member for Vancouver Quadra for his question.
Indeed Canada was always a leader in the field of
non-proliferation. We can take pride in the fact that we invented
strangulation of nuclear weapons.
The question the hon. member raises this morning is a very
legitimate one. I am informed that it is up for consideration by
the foreign minister who will make a decision in due course.
However, there is no evidence in sight that Canada is going to
change its traditional support for non-proliferation and to stop
its fight against nuclear weapons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
who happens to represent the riding next to mine.
The Société des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec appeared
before the Copyright Board this week to ask for a 2 to 5 per cent
increase on royalties paid to songwriters every time their songs
are performed.
Would the minister give us a progress report on the review of
copyright legislation currently underway in his department, as
well as in the Department of Industry, and tell us when he
intends to introduce a bill to modernize the outdated provisions
of the current act?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I agree that the current legislation is outdated. I think it
is important we make all necessary changes.
The proposed amendments are being reviewed, not only in my
department, but also in all other departments concerned. When
all the preliminary work is done, we will be happy to report to
the House.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to see that my neighbour and I both agree that
some of our laws are outdated.
Recently, the Minister of Industry announced the membership
of the National Advisory Committee on the Information
Highway. We noticed that creative artists and songwriters are
not represented on this committee.
Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if he intends
to suggest to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, to appoint
such a representative to this committee?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister responsible for this issue should answer the
question.
On the committee I set up to advise my department are
representatives of the cultural industries. What the hon. member
just said is not true. We have on this committee some very
important Quebecers, who contributed a lot to the overall
cultural industry, such as Mr. Chagnon, of Vidéotron, who
implemented in the Chicoutimi area a very important pilot
project for the building of the information highway, as well as
Mr. Bureau, former chairman of the CRTC, and many more.
I do not know why the Bloc member would think that these
people do not understand cultural issues.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In November the Prime Minister announced that cabinet
ministers would be limited to 19 staff members, thereby saving
3710
$10 million. Yesterday it was reported in the press that the
Prime Minister in response to pressure from his caucus will soon
allow cabinet ministers to hire more staff.
(1200 )
Can the Prime Minister please tell the House if there is any
truth to this report?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): No, Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry. It is good news and bad news. A provision
has been made for summer students to be hired.
In the red book we said we were going to cut the budgets of
ministers by some $10 million. We have not only done that but
we have actually exceeded that amount.
I am pleased to be able to say that as part of the savings we are
able to provide ministers with an opportunity to hire summer
students and, most important, to create job opportunities for
those students to help to prepare them for the job market when
they are finished their education.
I would hope that all members would applaud that move.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, we
applaud any savings that the government can get in place. Our
concern was that there may be an announcement later on in the
summer. We applaud the government's move and congratulate it
on holding the line on staff requirements.
The Speaker: Maybe I should stop while I am ahead here.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
According to a report in the Montreal Gazette, Canada's
economy is outperforming that of the United States.
Specifically the report indicates a 4 per cent growth during the
last quarter in Canada and it projects continuing growth this
spring compared with 2.6 per cent growth in the United States.
How does this compare with the economic performance
projections contained in the government's budget?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
have the question and the opportunity to confirm that those
numbers are good news for Canada.
We have had a series of good news reports. Our economy has
performed better than it had before and a number of forecasters
have pointed this out. These are much better numbers than we
had used for the projections in the budget. That should be good
news to all members in the House.
* * *
The Speaker: Yesterday I was asked to consider and rule on
two points of privilege and a point of order. I am now prepared to
rule on the point of order and I will be ruling on the points of
privilege later on.
I have had a chance to look over the ``blues'' and Hansard
from yesterday with regard to statements which were made in
the heat of debate. At the time the hon. Minister of Industry in a
comment quoted Shakespeare.
Now I, as a former teacher, am far from ever criticizing
anyone for using quotes, especially from Shakespeare.
However, in the context in which the words were used, I have of
course done research and I find the words in the context in which
they were used are in my view unparliamentary.
I would invite the hon. Minister of Industry to reconsider the
words he used. In fact I would ask him to withdraw the statement
which he made yesterday on page 3648 when he referred to the
hon. member for Roberval.
The hon. Minister of Industry is in the Chamber and I would
invite him to withdraw.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
certainly out of deference to your wisdom and your office I will
withdraw the comments and I shall in future endeavour not to
associate the member for Roberval with Mr. Shakespeare.
The Speaker: I accept the withdrawal. I think the point has
been made.
We do have days such as yesterday where exchanges are quite
strong. I would simply invite all hon. members to please be very
careful in the words they use because words are our weapons and
our tools here in the House of Commons. I thank the hon.
Minister of Industry for withdrawing and the matter is closed.
(1205)
I will return to the House with the decision on the two points
of privilege which are before me.
_____________________________________________
3710
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both
official languages, the report to Parliament on the minister's
permits issued from January 1 to December 31, 1993.
3711
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion
to amend the Income Tax Act, the income tax applicable rules,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations
Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and
certain related acts.
I am also tabling a summary of the document and I ask that an
order of the day be designated to debate the motion.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the main estimates of the House of Commons.
The committee has considered the estimates and reports them
without amendment.
[Translation]
I also have the honour to present the 19th Report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
concerning the list of committee members.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
this report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the
aboriginal peoples of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, considering that most Canadians
consider it desirable that we have a day in recognition of
Canada's original inhabitants and considering that Canadians
earnestly seek an example of their commitment to honouring
native cultures, this bill would set aside June 21 of each year to
be called national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of
Canada.
Just for certainty, Mr. Speaker, this day would not be a legal
holiday nor would it be required to be kept or observed as such.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 19th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier
this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1210 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to present yet another petition requesting that
Parliament ban the importation and sale of killer cards.
By now it must obvious that the wide public outrage over
these despicable cards must be addressed swiftly by
government.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order
36. The first is signed by 31 residents mainly from the city of
Calgary that ask the government to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
killer cards.
I note with some satisfaction that the government has tabled
draft legislation relevant to this subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition concerns a national referendum on the issue of
the two official languages in Canada. It is signed by 36 citizens,
mostly from the city of Calgary. I think such a referendum could
succeed better with a policy based on the territorial principle
proposed by the Reform Party of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, question No. 17 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 17-Mr. Forseth:
For the years 1992 and 1993, have any departments, agencies or crown
corporations contributed funding to the legal education and action fund and, if
so, (a) which ones (b) in what amounts?
3712
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): I am informed by the Departments
of Justice and Human Resources Development as follows:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question enumerated
by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Mifflin: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3712
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the
Minister of Transport; of the amendment; and of the amendment
to the amendment.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
before I was interrupted by Question Period, I was mentioning
that Stanley Ryerson, a political scientist, was arguing some
fifteen years ago that the Canadian federation was created, in
1867, because of pressure by certain interest groups. I would
like to quote him.
``Macdonald and Galt were representing the general interests
of English Canadian business circles. And Brown was the
spokesman for Toronto's commercial and industrial circles.
Finally, Cartier represented the conservative wing of the
French-Canadian bourgeoisie and of the clergy. The new
political structures were tailored to the economic and politic
interests of the dominant social groups''.
Our proud Fathers of Confederation were therefore Canadian
bankers, financiers and businessmen pressuring the British
Parliament to unite the Canadian colonies in order to widen their
markets and protect themselves against the economic threat
posed by the U.S. According to that view, Canada was created by
lobbyists, and successive governments have perpetuated that
long tradition of favouritism. Since then, the two main national
parties have always relied on large corporations to finance their
political activities.
The Pearson airport privatization proves that things have not
really changed since Confederation, except that interest groups
have gained more and more influence on the decision-making
process in the Canadian government.
(1215)
Today, our society is organised around a corruption system
perfectly institutionalized. The voice of the people is getting
weaker in the hallways of the Parliament of Canada, and Bill
C-22 does nothing to prove it is not so. On the contrary, it makes
the system even more susceptible to manipulation by interest
groups.
The names that keep cropping up concerning the sale of
Pearson airport show how the system works in Ottawa. Here is a
list of friends of Mulroney and Conservative organizers: Otto
Jelinek, former Conservative minister; Don Matthews, former
president of the Conservative Party; Bill Neville, Joe Clark's
former chief of staff ; Hugh Riopelle, lobbyist and friend of Mr.
Mazankowski; Fred Doucet, former chief of staff of Brian
Mulroney; John Llegate, lobbyist and friend of Michael Wilson;
Pat MacAdam, lobbyist and friend of Mr. Mulroney; Bill Fox,
lobbyist and friend of Mr. Mulroney; Harry Near, lobbyist and
Conservative faithful; Scott Proudfoot, Conservative lobbyist.
On the Liberal side we have: Herb Metcalfe, former organizer
for Mr. Chrétien; Leo Kolber, a Liberal senator.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I ask the member
to refer to those who presently hold a seat in the House by their
title. For example, when referring to Mr. Chrétien, he must call
him the Right Hon. Prime Minister, since he happens to be
speaking about the head of the Liberal government. I am
committed to maintaining tradition whether members are
present in the House or not. I know the member for
Brome-Missisquoi has gained a lot of experience in a very
short time in the House but I ask his further co-operation in this
matter.
Mr. Péloquin: All those people were more or less implicated
in the secret dealings surrounding the sale of Toronto Pearson
International airport up to this point. Because of their political
contacts those lobbyists succeeded in having the government
sign a bad contract. In order to thank them, our government is
now considering compensating them because they could not
carry their shady deal to fruition.
That is exactly the kind of situation that confirms the
population's cynicism towards politicians. According to a
popular saying, a politicians's promise is a broken promise. This
brings the credibility of the whole Canadian parliamentary
system into question. Bill C-22 will certainly be adding to the
contempt and scorn with which Canadians regard politicians. In
fact, Cana-
3713
dians should not be surprised to see the Liberals act exactly the
way they do each time they form the government in Ottawa.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this extremely
important debate. This bill concerns the cancellation of the deal
signed by the Conservative government. But it also puts to the
test the government's credibility and the integrity of the
parliamentary process.
The point I would like to raise in the next few minutes
concerns the compensation provided for by bill C-22. When I
read this piece of legislation, I had serious doubts. You, and all
the members in this House, will surely agree with me that when
parliamentarians make legislation, they must respect certain
principles to ensure that our legislation is clear, the wording as
precise as possible, and the clauses consistent.
(1220)
Clause 7, regarding compensation, reads as follows:
No action or other proceeding, including any action or proceeding in
restitution, or for damages of any kind in tort or contract- may be instituted by
anyone against Her Majesty, or against any minister or any servant or agent of Her
Majesty-
In other words, clause 7 means that no compensation may be
paid in connection with the Pearson deal.
But when reading clause 10, we find that:
10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with
the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her
Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers
appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the
terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
And further, still under clause 10:
(3) No agreement may be entered into under this section after one month after
the coming into force of this Act.
When comparing those two sections, in my area, we would
say that ``there is something missing'' because on the one hand,
we have the impression that no action may be taken by anyone
against the government in relation to any possible agreement or
compensation while on the other hand, the minister may, with
the blessing of Her Majesty, enter into an agreement, but only
within one month after the coming into force of the bill.
After rereading those sections, I finally managed to find some
cohesion. Basically, what the bill is suggesting to us in terms of
compensation is that there is already a done deal. We now have
to find a way to go ahead with the deal. We have to be careful not
to fall into two or three traps. First, according to section 7, we
must not give the impression of giving away compensation.
Better still, we say to people: ``Don't worry, you will not have to
take us to court because we are going to forbid that. So, there's
no problem, you see the minister-under section 10-and you
make a deal with him which does not seem to be related to the
transaction itself but which will basically allow you to achieve
the same result''.
The reason I say that in all likelihood the deal has already
been made is because of the obligation to come to an agreement
within one month after the coming into force of the bill.
Therefore, there seems to be some urgency because the
legislator, who does not usually speak for nothing, comes to the
conclusion that all agreements must be entered into within one
month. That is what I wanted to point out.
I will go on about this deal, which has obviously already been
struck, although we know nothing about it. As was mentioned by
some of my colleagues, including the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi who just spoke and others who repeatedly
said so this week, lobbyists belong to every party and feed at
every trough, whether it be with this Liberal government or with
the former Conservative government. They just turn coat, then
go meet the minister and get the same results.
(1225)
Everybody remembers the famous $1,000-a-plate dinner
held during last election campaign. Charles Bronfman,
unquestionably a francophile emeritus who, in 1976, the day
after the election of the Parti Quebecois, had nothing better to
say than he would move the Expos out of Quebec, attended this
dinner party and was told by the Prime Minister that the
agreement concluded for the privatization of Pearson airport
would be cancelled.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister took great
pride in saying that Mr. Bronfman paid $1,000 to hear that his
agreement was no good. The dinner must have lasted a little
longer that this conversation, and Mr. Bronfman surely got
guarantees for what was to follow.
Several people reached that conclusion, especially the
chairman of the board of inquiry, Mr. Robert Nixon, who said in
his report: ``My review has left me with but one conclusion: To
leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a
flawed process and under the shadow of possible political
manipulation, is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that it be
cancelled''.
Also, still with reference to the famous $1,000-a-plate
dinner, I would like to quote the comment made by André Pratte,
a journalist for La Presse, during the election campaign: ``If a
$1,000 gift can help you drop a few words in the leader's or the
potential prime minister's ear, what privileges do people who
give $5,000 enjoy?''
And what does a business like Canadian Pacific, which gave
$64,000 to each party last year, get? These questions have to be
asked; and they have to be answered! There is an old saying, ``A
man is known by the company he keeps''. We have to know the
facts, we have to find out about these relations.
3714
Therefore, it goes without saying that I support the Bloc
Quebecois's amendment and the Reform Party's
sub-amendment requesting a commission of inquiry. Mr.
Speaker, it is one thing to come and legislate in this House, even
if we support the purpose of the bill, which is to cancel this
ridiculous contract, but we must also ensure that the government
and politicians never again find themselves in such a situation.
And to ensure this, we have to know the facts. To find them
out, since we have the report prepared by Mr. Nixon, who
conducted an in camera inquiry but still came up with some
serious conclusions, it is absolutely justified to appoint a
commission of inquiry. I repeat that we must not permit this bill
to end a process which, in my opinion, reveals some troubling
facts.
We have to know the truth because those who elected us
throughout Quebec and Canada want to know what this is all
about. The credibility of the government and of all
parliamentarians is at stake, and that is why we need a
commission of inquiry.
(1230)
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-22 to
explain how my constituents may be indirectly affected, by the
more or less successful privatization of this major airport.
Pearson airport in Toronto is Canada's largest airport, with
nearly 20 million passengers coming through annually, which is
nearly 57,000 per day. Pearson airport has a direct economic
impact worth nearly $4 billion annually on Ontario's economy.
Considering these figures, Pearson airport is considered to be,
and indeed is, a very profitable airport. That is good news,
because in a big country like ours, where equalization is the rule
so that all citizens get a fair share, profitable airports in the
south make it possible to finance the operations of airports
further north.
We need a commission of inquiry to investigate the
transactions that took place and those that might have been
concluded to realize the real financial potential of this
airport-whether or not it is sold to private interests-in order
to measure the financial impact and ensure profits can be used to
finance the maintenance and development of northern airports.
Air transportation in the north is a vital part of local
communications between communities and provides a vital link
between communities in the north and the south. Considering
the fragile economy of these communities, free competition
could adversely affect the security and autonomy of the people
in these regions. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to
discuss the privatization policy the government wants to
implement in Canada and Quebec. I think that in both cases,
Pearson airport and the government's plan to privatize air traffic
control, the result will be a loss of services for people in the
regions.
Some time ago, the Minister of Transport announced that
studies would be conducted on the privatization of air traffic
control in Canada and Quebec, to be followed by consultations
with users, unions and groups with an interest in Canada's air
navigation system.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the implications and
especially about the lack of transparency around this project.
The information we are getting is extremely vague. The Bloc
Quebecois is therefore anxious to find out the real reasons
behind the government's plan to transfer nearly 6,000 jobs,
including 2,000 air traffic controllers, to an as yet unknown
entity.
Will this be a Crown corporation, like Canada Post, or a
completely private enterprise?
Does the minister intend to give us the names of the
companies, commercial groups or interest groups that have
shown an interest or even tendered bids for an air navigation
system in Canada or parts of that system?
We think it is important that the public should know who
wants what and what the conditions will be for the sale of the
system, if there is one. We do not want the scandal of the Pearson
airport privatization happening again.
Air traffic safety. If there is a transportation area where
decisions concerning the safety of the travelling public should
not be delegated to the private sector, it is certainly air traffic
safety. Can the government explain to us how it will force this
new company to offer air traffic control services where they are
needed?
Will the government force this new company, or these
companies, to offer air traffic control services even in regions
where air traffic is not lucrative? Let us take, for example, an
airport with thousands of small plane flights every year which
does not bring in much money in terms of landing fees and
which is not economically viable, but where the volume of
flights is such that the danger of air collisions is high. Will the
government force this or these new companies to offer air traffic
control services even if they were to lose some money on that
part of their activities? We are not too sure about that.
How will remote areas such as Abitibi or the North Shore, or
any other Northern or remote area, be treated? How will the
government force this new commercial entity to monitor the
level and quality of services provided?
(1235)
You will recall the Dryden crash, where it was demonstrated
that Transport Canada had had trouble enforcing laws and
regulations. It has been proven that self-regulation does not
3715
work and is unacceptable, especially in air travel. How will the
government enforce air traffic safety?
If there is a service which is of national interest, such as the
Armed Forces, how can the government think about transferring
this responsibility-I am talking about air traffic control-to
commercial interests?
By the same token, can the minister tell us what will become
of the travellers protection, given the fact that he is now
considering putting an end to the presence of permanent and
professional fire fighters in regional airports in Canada?
We have not forgotten the cuts in services that followed when
Canada Post became a Crown corporation. In remote and
isolated areas mail service was drastically reduced in order to
save money and in the name of profitability. Does the
government intend to do the same thing in the case of control
towers, flight service stations and fire fighters in regional
airports? Will we end up with airplanes being controlled from
Quebec and Montreal? In a nutshell, is the government getting
ready to shut down regions by reducing services to a minimum?
Furthermore, can the minister explain why his government is
still going ahead with its project of ``modernizing'' the air
traffic control system by closing thirteen control towers in
Canada? Why does the department want to close four towers in
Quebec, or 44 per cent of all towers in Quebec? Must I remind
the minister that three out of those four towers are located in
peripheral areas, namely Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles and
Baie-Comeau? What a coincidence!
In addition to air security, how air traffic controllers and other
workers who are currently public servants will be treated is of
great concern to our party. Can the minister tell us what will
become of those men and women who have given 5, 10, 15 and,
for some, 20 years of faithful service to the Canadian public?
Will the minister dismiss those who refuse to join the new
private corporation or company? Does the minister intend to
offer them maybe a ``grandfather'' clause which would allow
them to remain public servants although working within the new
air traffic control system?
Is the minister aware of the fact that many believe the air
controllers working for the new entity could have the right to
strike, which they do not have now? Can the minister confirm or
deny that rumour? Can he tell us what he intends to do to clear
things up concerning that essential service? Will the
government require that seniority and other benefits
accumulated by theses employees as public servants for the
Canadian government be respected or will these people be at the
mercy of every whim of the new managers?
If the government maintains that project of privatizing the
Canadian air control system, will it force the new company to
abide by the Official Languages Act with regard to services
offered to users and employees? Will the pilots, private or
professional, still have access to air control services in the
language of their choice? Will the employees enjoy the same
work rules as they have now, for example the right to receive
training and communications in French wherever the
legislation permits?
I mention these points, Mr. Speaker, to stress the possible
impacts of loss of income in the south which would allow grants
and support for the northern regions.
Any privatization project which is of national interest, be it
the Pearson airport or the air traffic control system, should be
reviewed with everyone's interests in mind and in such a way
that citizens in the northern regions or remote areas would be
treated fairly.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
advantage of the debate on Bill C-22 to show how the Quebec
City airport has been unfairly treated by the federal government
up until now, to the point that it is slowing down the
development of Metropolitan Quebec City.
(1240)
What is striking in this bill is the double standard applied by
the Liberal government when dealing with the airports in
Toronto and Quebec City. In the case of Quebec City, the Liberal
government is dragging its feet. But in Toronto, it uses a
steam-roller approach, overlooking a lot of things, probably
under the pressure of lobbyists.
As a matter of fact, I am starting to understand what some
Liberal candidates in the Quebec City area meant, during the last
election campaign, when they mentioned the corridors of power.
They probably meant the corridors used by lobbyists. But do
people really want to leave the task of influencing the
government's actions to the lobbyists? Or would they rather
have their elected members make representations to the
government? I believe the latter.
Otherwise, Quebec should probably consider speeding up the
HST project or upgrading the Quebec City airport, to shorten
delays, since lobbyists for Quebec City appear to be less
powerful than those for the Toronto airport.
For some time now, the federal government has known that
the Quebec City airport infrastructure is totally inadequate to
meet the needs of an area where the capital city of all Quebecers
is located. On June 23, 1993, on the eve of Quebec's national
holiday, representatives of the federal Conservative government
held a big ceremony during which they unveiled a new sign and
announced that Jean Lesage airport in Quebec City would
henceforth enjoy the status of an international airport. Without
wanting to minimize the promotional impact of this new status,
plans to expand Jean Lesage airport are still collecting dust on
the responsible minister's desk.
A simple sign identifying the airport in Quebec City as an
international facility will not resolve the bottlenecks that occur.
The international flight passenger waiting area is so small that
overcrowding occurs on a regular basis, particularly when
several international chartered flights carrying hundreds of
passengers arrive at the same time. To avoid total chaos,
3716
passengers on the last incoming flight must all too often wait to
disembark.
A circus atmosphere prevails when hundreds of passengers
converge on the sole luggage conveyors in the area reserved for
international flights and on the customs area. How can we hope
to attract major international carriers when a short stopover in
Quebec City on a Paris-Los Angeles flight can mean a delay of
several hours for passengers who must patiently wait until those
wishing to disembark can do so and the flight can resume?
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the many
past attempts by airline companies to establish international
links to Quebec City have been quickly abandoned.
Another good reason for expanding the airport is Quebec
City's bid for the Winter Olympic Games in the year 2002.
According to the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, Jean
Lesage airport is too small to handle the traffic that would be
generated by the Olympic Games in eight years' time.
The association is of the opinion that, because of its
bush-league airport, foreign travellers will be left with the
impression that Quebec City is, and I quote, ``a banana
republic''. In fact, in our region, people can hardly believe how
little was done to fix the airport in recent years.
(1245)
Again, the president of the air transportation workers union
was quoted in a Quebec City daily newspaper as saying: ``The
main runway was widened so 747s could land. It is all very well
but runway lights were not even moved, so if that heavy aircraft
veers slightly off course, it will hit the lights and the necessary
repairs will slow everything down''.
A brief that the air transportation workers union sent to the
people responsible for the Quebec City airport development
plan and to Corporation Québec 2002 lists four major
deficiencies that need to be addressed quickly. First, a runway
less than 4,000-feet long running parallel to the main runway
would separate heavy aircraft from lighter aircraft for better
safety and efficiency.
Second, a taxiway network should be developed to allow
aircraft to quickly leave or enter the main runway, thus reducing
waiting periods. Third, access ramps must be widened as they
are getting more and more congested. Passengers must walk
long distances outside, an embarrassing and sometimes
dangerous situation, especially in winter.
Fourth, customs personnel must be increased. The lack of
customs officers sometimes creates long and tiring line-ups at
peak times for international passengers.
It is worth pointing out that these recommendations were
tabled on December 8, 1992. We are still waiting for a concrete
response from federal officials, something other than simply
designating as international an airport with such a status but
without the necessary facilities. Whatever we do, we must not
make the mistake of minimizing the importance of an adequate
airport for the 2002 Olympic Games.
Salt Lake City will certainly be Quebec City's fiercest rival. It
even has a truly international airport with all the amenities
likely to sway the people who will pick the winning city among
the applicants.
The applicant's guide to hosting the 19th Winter Olympic
Games in 2002, issued by the International Olympic Committee,
says under ``transportation'' that, as previous experience shows,
one of the keys to successful Games is an efficient
transportation system. This guide recommends that applicant
cities focus on three key areas, namely the transportation of
people, equipment and luggage, as well as customs clearance.
This is a very good reason to increase the number of customs
officers and put in new baggage conveyors at the Quebec City
airport.
Of course, the decision to expand the airport should not be
based only on the possibility of hosting the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games. We must consider above all the needs of the
Quebec City region, before and after the Games. The figures
quoted in this House on Wednesday by my colleague from
Louis-Hébert demonstrate the need for expansion due to the
dramatic increase in transborder and international flights at the
Quebec City airport between 1988 and 1992.
According to Transport Canada's own figures, as quoted by
the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, transborder flights have
increased by 179 per cent in Quebec City. In comparison, they
went up 12.5 per cent in Halifax, 13 per cent in Winnipeg and 15
per cent in Calgary.
I can hear from here the government side argue that
investments were made to upgrade the runway to accommodate
jumbo jets like the Boeing 747. It was a very minor
reconstruction project, a $7.5 million project, while the $33.5
million five-year capital plan announced in September of 1990
called for the construction of a new control tower, among other
things.
(1250)
Now what has come of that plan? I fear that, as usual, this
government will say it is under consideration, the classic excuse
to avoid admitting that, again, nothing was done.
3717
The fact of the matter is that millions of dollars were spent to
reconstruct the runway, just to prevent grass clippings blown
away by the 747s' jet engines from blowing back on the runway.
That is the kind of upgrade the Quebec airport has undergone!
But the business community in the Quebec City region have
been calling attention to the deficiencies of our airport for a
great many years.
Our region's development depends for a large part on
technological enterprises open on the world and on tourism.
Quebec has acquired international stature after it was
declared-the only city in Canada, by the way-World Heritage
City by UNESCO. Its cultural life and festivals make it a choice
destination for tourists from around the world. However, our
development is being compromised because, once again, a
central government out of touch with local needs is dragging its
feet.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleagues, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-22
and, following them, to shed some light on this bill. This bill
absolutely must be clarified because, as you heard in everything
they said, there are grey areas, some very dark grey areas, in this
bill.
A major topic of the government's red book, the real political
manifesto of the Liberal Party of Canada during the election
campaign, is to question the disproportionate and decisive
influence of behind-the-scenes lobbies on government policies.
The purpose is to restore the image of this same government
so that the people again trust their political elite and democracy
will experience an unprecedented renewal. The Liberal bible
says: ``We will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials
to guide cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators,
political staff, and public servants in their dealings with
lobbyists''.
Indeed, a key word in the Liberals' election campaign was
openness. However, the reality is quite different. Instead, it
shows this party's shameless opportunism and its thirst for
power with a view to consolidating the political and financial
establishment in Canada.
In the attempted privatization of Pearson airport in Toronto,
there is a series of troubling facts that make one seriously
question the openness of the Liberal government and of the
previous government.
Bill C-22 is a unique opportunity for the Bloc Quebecois to
shed light on all the lobbyists who are the real leaders in the old
parties, a shadowy area in Canadian politics, Mr. Speaker.
When the federal government published its policy on airport
management in Canada in the spring of 1987, it showed that it
intended to turn airport management over to local authorities,
such as provincial governments, municipalities or boards
authorized by federal or provincial legislation. Transport
Canada is to provide a safe and efficient airport system. This
can be done through appropriate legislation and financial
support, without Transport Canada owning an airport.
In the summer of that year, the Conservative government
designated Claridge Properties Inc. to build and operate
terminal 3 at Pearson. Since then, this consortium owned by
Charles Bronfman has had a monopoly. In the first half of the
1990s, he, with the help of the Conservative Party, was in a
position to become the sole manager of the airport's three
terminals. Not more than a month after his triumph in English
Canada last November, the Prime Minister, acting completely
contrary to a spirit of openness, asked a former Ontario Liberal
minister, Mr. Nixon, to conduct an inquiry behind closed doors,
yes, in secret, on this incipient monopoly. As you know, doing
something behind closed doors is just the opposite of ensuring
transparency. Yet, this is the way these old parties work. Mr.
Nixon writes in his report:
Terminal 3 will be privately based and operated for a further 57 years. To
contemplate the privatization of the remaining two terminals of this public asset
is, in my view, contrary to the public good.
(1255)
In March 1992, the government blatantly contradicted its
political statement by officially requesting proposals for the
privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport. The
deadline for proposals was 90 days. A 90-day period in this case
was not normal, because this was no ordinary call for tenders,
since it involved a very complex contract over 57 years. So, why
have such a short bidding period, if not to favour those firms
which had already expressed an interest, including Claridge
Properties Inc. and Paxport, which had already submitted a
privatization plan in 1989?
Let me give you some details on Paxport. The Don Matthews
Group, which has a 40 per cent interest in this consortium, has
links to the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal
Party. Mr. Matthews was chairman of Brian Mulroney's
leadership campaign and is a former chairman of the
Conservative Party. When Paxport made its bid following the
government offer to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, its
president was Ray Hession, a former deputy minister of Industry
and senior civil servant with Supply and Services where
contracts are awarded. In other words, all the key players were
related to the previous Liberal governments. The president of
Paxport Inc. himself hired the group of lobbyists which was to
work on the privatization project for the benefit of the company.
He then resigned from his position as president in 1992, once
approval of Paxport's bid was confirmed by the government.
And there you have it.
In February 1993, Paxport and Claridge Properties Inc.
merged and became T1 T2 Limited Partnership. One of the
reasons Paxport's bid had been accepted was that it would create
healthy competition between the manager of terminals 1 and 2,
Paxport, and the manager of terminal 3, Claridge.
Consequently, the merging of the two companies had the effect
of totally eliminating any such competition. Not to mention that
Claridge
3718
managed to acquire a 66 per cent interest in the consortium. So,
this is a monopoly.
Claridge Properties Inc. has very close ties to the Liberal
Party of Canada. Senator Léo Kolber, who sat on the board of
directors of Claridge when the agreements were signed, is the
same guy who held a benefit dinner at his home, in Westmount,
for the Liberal Party, at $1,000 per guest, where the guest of
honour was the current Prime Minister. Now you see why they
tried to keep this benefit dinner secret.
Herb Metcalfe, former party organizer for the current Prime
Minister, is a lobbyist at Capital Hill Group and represents
Claridge Properties. Ramsay Withers, former deputy minister of
Transport at the time the request for proposals concerning
Terminal 3 at Pearson airport went out, is a Liberal lobbyist who
has very close ties to the current Prime Minister.
Given these facts, we have to wonder about the nature of this
government and about its ties to the Toronto financial
establishment. What about the openness they promised us?
What about the ethics? Be serious. What we have here is
cover-up and patronage benefiting some private interests at the
expense of Canadian taxpayers, and particularly middle-class
citizens, which the government always picks on, and the
underprivileged. Let us be blunt. The Liberal Party of Canada
has always been in cahoots with the financial establishment.
On October 7, 1993, the legal agreement on the privatization
of Terminals 1 and 2 was signed. However, Claridge Properties
had taken control of T1 T2 Partnership Inc. a few months before,
in May of 1993. So, the October agreement was between the
government and Pearson Development Corporation.
(1300)
What is Pearson Development? It is a joint venture
partnership which manages operations at all three Pearson
airport terminals. Claridge Properties, which is the contractor
for terminal 3, holds a 66 per cent interest in Pearson
Development and is also the majority shareholder in Paxport,
which was awarded the contract in December 1992 for the
privatization of Terminals 1 and 2. Once again, so much for
transparency and ethics! The least we could say is that the
Pearson deal is nothing more than the takeover of all three
terminals by a financial power that has a friendly relationship
with a so-called democratic government.
Clearly, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it
is all the same. Today more than ever before, it is increasingly
obvious that powerful financial interests, to achieve their ends,
will put at the head of the Canadian government a friend who
will stop at nothing to stay in power, a person who will have
absolutely no regard for the most fundamental rule of
transparency and ethics.
Due to the troubling circumstances under which the 1993
agreement was negotiated and executed-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I am sorry but your
ten-minute period has expired. We have to move on.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): May I conclude my
remarks?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will leave it to the hon.
members. If they give unanimous consent, I have no objection.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for
Richmond-Wolfe to conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, because its credibility is at stake
here, the government has no other choice but to confirm the need
for a commission of inquiry to examine this matter as soon as
possible. We need an inquiry.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, most of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have taken
part in the debate on Bill C-22 so far looked at it in terms of
government openness, and all of them came to the obvious
conclusion that a royal commission of enquiry should be set up
to look into the whole issue of the privatization of Pearson
airport.
In the speech he just made, my colleague for
Brome-Missisquoi brought out quite well the large number of
friends of the government, both Conservative and Liberal, who
were involved or had a hand into this matter, which represents
millions of dollars.
My colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead told us
how this piece of legislation before the House today was put
together: under clause 7, no action may be instituted against the
government by any company that could have grievances against
it, but clause 10 allows the minister to make a direct but secret
settlement with people who might want to claim some small
compensation.
Besides, the Nixon Report, commissioned by the Prime
Minister, concludes along the same lines. I would like to quote
its conclusion:
My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an
inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the
shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I therefore
recommend that it be cancelled.
Leading to that conclusion, Mr. Nixon said: ``Failure to make
public the full identity of the participants in the agreement and
other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public
suspicion''.
In my opinion, when the government proposes to privatize a
Crown asset, openness should be mandatory and the public
3719
should be entitled to know all the details in the agreement. That
is why, on the whole, we are asking for an enquiry in that matter.
I would also like to quote some remarks made by the hon.
member opposite for York South-Weston and reported in the
media. They were reported in the November 26, 1993 issue of
the Ottawa Citizen, and I quote:
[English]
``I didn't spend the last nine years in Ottawa bashing Tory
sleaze to have it occur in our party or for our party to condone
it''.
[Translation]
Some other remarks were also reported by the Globe and Mail
where he was quoted as saying:
[English]
``This will be a true test of Mr. Chrétien's commitment to
integrity in government and I have considerable confidence in
him that he will kill the deal''.
(1305)
[Translation]
Of course, this is the bill that kills the deal. The only problem
is that giving the Minister of Transport discretionary powers to
compensate people party to this behind-the-scenes deal is
tantamount to having the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and
the Bloc is obviously against that.
Why was the privatization of Pearson airport ever considered
to begin with? It is quite simple. Pearson airport makes money.
Incidentally, it is one of the very few money-making airports in
Canada. Why does it make money? Because everything was
done to put it in that position.
The Mirabel airport was built many years ago because the
Montreal airport was crowded with international flights. A few
months after Mirabel was built, the ban on international flights
landing directly in Toronto without a stop-over at Mirabel was
lifted. After that, all international flights could land directly in
Toronto without stopping first in Mirabel.
What did that mean? It meant killing Mirabel and increasing
the number of international flights landing directly in Toronto.
Today, Mirabel airport is a white elephant and we are on the
verge of expanding Pearson airport at the cost of millions of
dollars, several million of which will come from Quebec.
The same pattern can be seen in the case of the port of
Montreal, with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over
the years, that system diverted traffic from Montreal to Toronto.
The port of Montreal is failing and the one in Toronto is thriving.
The same thing happened with the Borden line. It was
recommended by the Borden commission, on which not a single
Quebecer sat. It resulted in the petrochemical industry of the
east end of Montreal being transferred to Sarnia.
The Auto Pact is another example. It was signed with the
United Stated, which goes to prove beyond the shade of a doubt
that a small country like Canada can strike deals with a giant
such as the United States. But that deal was made for Ontario.
Quebec did not get anything out of it.
What is the logic behind all this? They want Ontario to be the
economic heart of Canada. This is a Canadian way of thinking.
Concentrate all the economic activity in Ontario. Unfortunately,
this concentration is to the detriment of Quebec. In the four
points I just mentioned, thousands of jobs were lost in Quebec.
Once Toronto's and Ontario's international attraction is
established, many companies deciding to come to Canada will
follow the same logic which says: ``If you want to do business,
go where the business is''. So they all go to Toronto or elsewhere
in Ontario because that is where the business is.
Once this attraction has become extremely strong, it even
drains Quebec's own companies. And I am referring to
companies like Cadbury, Black and Decker, Electrolux,
Habitant Soups, which all left Quebec because there were better
opportunities in Toronto. Of course, this endless corporate
exodus is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of
jobs in Quebec. As we speak, the media report that there are
790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed workers in
Quebec. And the media-and I heard it again this morning-tell
us about an economic recovery.
There is no economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, let us not kid
ourselves. The Prime Minister of Canada, under the
circumstances, must find a culprit because he does not want to
admit the phenomenon I just described. Of course someone to
blame is always found, as we saw recently in the House: the
unemployed and the welfare recipients, they are to blame.
So they are officially accused of being beer drinkers slouched
in front of their TV, this after their jobs have been taken away.
Unfortunately all these people are in fact looking for a job. Since
he got a very strong reaction, the Prime Minister is attempting to
find other reasons why the situation is bad, even if the corporate
exodus from Quebec to Ontario is very clear. And now the Prime
Minister has called all of Quebec's legitimate and historical
demands whims.
I would like to say a few words on this. All the Premiers of
Quebec, whatever their political party, as far back as I can
remember-and I am not very old, but I still remember
it-always said the same thing.
3720
In the mid-1950s, Maurice Duplessis wanted Ottawa to give
Quebec back its due. This was not a whim on his part; he said it
because he believed that we were being had by Ottawa.
(1310)
In the early 1960s, Jean Lesage liked to use the expression
``masters in our own house''; that was no whim. He was simply
convinced that we were not in charge of our own affairs and that
Ottawa always controlled everything.
A few years later, Daniel Johnson used the expression
``equality or independence''. That was not a whim either. He
simply felt that, with the way things were in Canada, Quebec
was not getting equal treatment. The situation was such that
ultimately Ottawa always decided what was best for Quebec.
Of course, several years after that, René Lévesque began to
champion the cause of Quebec sovereignty. And that was no
whim either. He believed that sovereignty was the only way for
Quebecers to become masters in their own home.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the same
conclusion. Either Canadian federalism undergoes a radical
change to ensure that Quebec is given its fair share, or Quebec
becomes sovereign. That conclusion was certainly no whim. It
reflected the clear consensus of all Quebecers who appeared
before the Commission.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I have one
minute remaining. There is so much more that I could say. When
we say that we do not want the federal government to intrude
into our field of jurisdiction with respect to vocational training,
it is no whim. This is the unanimous position of the National
Assembly.
The Prime Minister claims that disaster will ensue if the
separatists-this is the word he used-are elected. Need I
remind him that Moody's, which is certainly not a den of nasty
separatists, has pointed out to him that the debt, not the political
situation, is responsible for what ails Canada. When the Liberals
came to power in 1980, the debt stood at $80 million. They
managed to increase it to roughly $200 million. Under the
Conservatives, the debt rose from $200 million to $500 million.
Now the Liberals, in office once more, are saying that the debt
will come in at about $600 million.
It does not take a genius to figure out why our bankers are
nervous. The fault does not lie with the nasty separatists. They
are nervous because they are owed money. May I conclude, Mr.
Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I recall correctly, I was
asked yesterday if, by allowing one hon. member to speak
longer, I was in fact impinging on another member's speaking
time. We are supposed to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. this afternoon. I
will let your colleagues decide whether they will let you
conclude your remarks, briefly.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to
conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Pomerleau: To make it short, Mr. Speaker, I will skip a
few things. Let us just say that we request a royal commission
into the Pearson airport transaction. It is obvious from all the
facts stated in this place that there has been some degree of
scheming. We do not want any dealings to take place outside of
this House. If certain facts need to be disclosed to the public, we
want them to be made public here, before this House, so that the
people can have a good idea of what this is about.
The Speaker: I wish to thank the hon. member for his
co-operation. On debate, the hon. member for Jonquière.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, in the last days
of its second mandate and in the middle of an election campaign,
the previous government privatized Terminals 1 and 2 at
Pearson airport in Toronto by signing an agreement with a
company called T1 T2 Limited Partnership. After defeating the
Conservatives on October 25, the Liberal Party came to power
planning to cancel this deal, as promised during the election
campaign.
On October 28, the Prime Minister commissioned Mr. Robert
Nixon, former treasurer of a Liberal Ontario government, to
investigate this controversial agreement. The bill before us
today gives effect to Mr. Nixon's recommendation to cancel the
privatization agreement made between the government of
Canada and the T1 T2 Limited Partnership consortium.
Let me remind you that the principal shareholders of this
company are the fabulously wealthy Charles Bronfman and Mr.
Don Mathews, Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign manager
and former fund-raising campaign president for the
Conservative Party.
In light of the exceptional circumstances under which this
agreement was made and the many disquieting facts
surrounding it, and also in light of the findings of the Nixon
Report, simply cancelling the contract will do very little to
clarify matters for the public, which is expecting more from the
government.
The public wants light to be shed on the role played by lobby
groups in this whole business. According to the Nixon Report,
lobbyists had put a great deal of pressure on the Conservative
political staff as well as on senior government officials.
(1315)
Mr. Nixon says that lobbyists, by their actions, led the
government to make dubious decisions. He said, and I quote: It
is clear that the lobbyists played a prominent part in attempting
to affect the decisions that were reached, going far beyond the
concept of ``consulting''. With regards to lobbyists' influence
on government officials, he added: ``When senior bureaucrats
involved in the negotiation for the government of Canada feel
that their actions and decisions are being heavily affected by
lobbyists, as occurred here, the role of the latter has in my view,
3721
exceeded permissible norms''. Permissible norms were
exceeded in the Pearson airport affair. Such statements cannot
remain unanswered.
Obviously, excessive lobbying was used with Conservative
politicians and federal officials in order to influence their
decisions. It seems evident that the public service integrity and
impartiality are being questioned by the findings of Mr. Nixon's
inquiry. In view of these circumstances, the government cannot
turn a blind eye on this affair and just cancel the Pearson airport
privatization deal, by secretly compensating people who may
have lost money, as it intends to do with this bill before us.
A royal commission of inquiry must be established to shed
light on this dubious transaction which looks increasingly like a
political and financial scandal as the facts come out. Quebecers
and Canadiens must be told the truth about the role attributed by
the media to Bill Box, Pat MacAdam, Fred Doucet, Harry Near,
Hugh Riopelle, and Garry Ouellette, all lobbyists linked to the
Conservative Party, former senior officials or members of Mr.
Mulroney's party political staff. One could add to that list
Ramsey Withers, a Liberal lobbyist and former deputy minister
of Transport, and Ray Hession, former deputy minister of
Industry and senior official of the Department of Supply and
Services under Trudeau.
A royal commission of inquiry will be able to throw some
light on this whole affair and on the role played by these persons.
If nothing reprehensible is found, great, we will be pleased to
know it. This is not all. The government has to learn a lesson
from all this and to take this opportunity to conduct a
comprehensive review of the legislation governing lobbying in
Canada.
In a free and democratic society as ours, where citizens have
the right to express their views, lobbying is part of the
decision-making process. Citizens as well as organized groups
may influence the government decisions if they feel it is in the
public interest. In the United States, lobbying is
institutionalized, part of the political scene and well regulated.
In order to prevent undue influence of lobbyists on the
government, it is essential that their activities be governed by
stricter legislation than what we presently have in Canada,
which has been totally inefficient as far as the Pearson airport
issue is concerned.
The present Lobbyists Registration Act identifies two
categories of lobbyist groups. These are: professional lobbyists
who have contracts with third parties and approach politicians
and civil servants in order to influence them; and the other
lobbyists who, because of their functions, may have to approach
federal civil servants or politicians to defend their interests;
those are, for instance, unions or professional associations
seeking the support of the government on a specific piece of
legislation.
As for disclosure of their activities, professional lobbyists
must give the name of their employer, the name and address of
their clients and the purpose of their approach. Those of the
second group are required to give only their name and the name
of the organisation for which they are working.
Like the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Government Operations in its report, I think that
interest groups of all categories should be required to follow the
same rules of disclosure. Since the purpose of interest groups is
essentially to influence the decision-making process of the
government, it seems normal that they all be subjected to the
same rules.
(1320)
In brief, time has come for lobbyists to be required to disclose
the nature and object of their activities with governmental
authorities, as well as the financial benefits they receive for
their services.
Moreover, we must protect senior public servants against the
schemes of interest groups.
As a matter of fact, the Nixon report reveals that many senior
public servants were exposed to considerable pressure by
lobbyists who were trying to influence their decisions regarding
the privatization of the airport. It even points out that, and I
quote: ``Indeed this element of pressure resulted in several civil
servants being re-assigned or requesting transfer from the
project''.
The investigator found that some government officials
involved in the privatization of Pearson airport had to quit
working on that matter because the pressures from lobbyists
were too strong and their integrity was in jeopardy.
Given those disclosures, which are very disturbing-to say
the least-and in order to avoid any recurrence of such things,
Mr. Speaker, all public office holders must be required by law to
disclose all contacts they have with lobbyists. Canadians and
Quebecers have a right to know who is trying to influence
government officials, and why.
In conclusion, at a time when our fellow citizens are asking
governments to be more open, we have no other choice than to
demand that a royal commission of inquiry be established to
clarify the strange events that surrounded the privatization of
Pearson airport.
The government must also clean up lobbying in Canada. It has
to, because of the scandal that surrounded the privatization of
Pearson airport. We have to put an end to the maneuvering by
friends of the government and to influence peddling, which
tarnish the reputation of our democratic institutions and that of
the people working in those institutions.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-22 has been the focus of debates in this House
3722
since April 26. It is now at the second reading stage before being
referred to a committee.
However, it seems the decision of the House will have to wait
because the Official Opposition clearly intends to show that
supporting Bill C-22 is tantamount to supporting
non-transparency. Otherwise, the Prime Minister, who
professes to be the best advocate of transparency, would never
forgive us.
Since October 25, 1993, things have been happening in
Canada; among others, the House received a new group of
members for whom political transparency is just a ploy if there
are no strict statutory rules governing the democratic financing
of political parties. The impact of our arrival was traumatic for
Canada. But just like some hard-to-swallow pill, I believe this
impact can only be beneficial.
This debate on Bill C-22, driven firmly and efficiently by the
Official Opposition, is also educational since it proves clearly
that the present laxity of the federal rules on political parties'
financing is contrary to the best interests of society.
Traditionally, oppositions, like those of the 34 previous
Parliaments, hesitated, with good reason, to point a finger at
friends of the party in place because any accusation on their part
had a 90 per cent chance of turning into a boomerang as fierce as
the attacks themselves. But the opposition in this 35th
Parliament intends to prove that the absence of legislation on the
financing of political parties can only create a vicious circle
with a very simple and clear-cut rationale.
Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to bite the hand that feeds
him, much less this government. It's an open secret: this
government considers that corporate contributions to the
election funds of traditional federal parties are as essential as
bread and butter. There is enough butter left to clog the most
performing liver. Otherwise, how can we explain the presence of
clause 10 in this bill, which, for all intents and purposes,
authorizes the Cabinet to compensate Limited Partnership, if it
considers appropriate to do so? I looked into my crystal ball and
I could see, without any doubt, that the government will pay a
reasonable compensation to the groups connected with the
Pearson Development Corporation.
(1325)
But can a reasonable government take upon itself to pay a
reasonable financial compensation when the whole contract,
according to Mr. Robert Nixon, was anything but reasonable?
You can judge for yourself, since Mr. Nixon wrote the following
in his report:
My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an
inadequate contract arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow
of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I recommend to you that the
contract be cancelled.
In his wisdom, the Prime Minister followed the
recommendation of his investigator. Indeed, Mr. Robert Nixon,
the former Treasurer of Ontario under the Liberal government of
David Peterson, and a prominent member of the Liberal Party of
Ontario, knew what he was talking about.
I will repeat my question: Is it reasonable to pay
compensation as a result of the reasonable cancellation of an
unreasonable deal? Any citizen with any degree of common
sense will answer a resounding no. Why would the government
be tempted to answer in the affirmative? We can safely assume
that the reasons are many, but I will suggest two.
Answer no. 1: You do not bite the hand that feeds you,
especially when that hand is called Charles Bronfman, whose
links with the Liberal Party are well known; or Leo Kolber, a
Liberal senator and host of benefit diner at $1000 a plate during
the election campaign; or Herb Metcalfe, well-known lobbyist
and, surprisingly, former organizer of the present Prime
Minister, one job preparing the way for the other I suppose; or
Ramsey Withers, another Liberal lobbyist; or Ray Hession,
former Deputy Minister of Industry during the Trudeau era.
Answer no. 2: You do not bite the hand that feeds others. You
never know. Even if the others seem to be dying, there might be a
miracle, they might come back to life. Don Matthews was
chairman of the leadership campaign of Brian Mulroney in
1983.
I have other names, but time is getting short and since I want
to give you my conclusion, I will skip them. Besides, they are
well known.
So, we have come full circle. The government, which has been
bragging for a long time about openness, has no choice but to act
according to its commitments.
Since October 25, the government has made a number of
decisions. In Quebec, it cancelled the helicopter contract, but
where are the compensations for lost jobs? Do we have any
expectation of industrial reconversion? No. True, Quebec
workers are not the ones who contribute the most to the finances
of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In Toronto, the Pearson airport deal is cancelled. In that case
we know where compensations are going to go. Canadians and
Quebecers know it too. The jobs will be saved, and friends of
Pearson Development Corporation will be rewarded-I mean
compensated, Mr. Speaker.
On the one hand, contracts are cancelled and on the other
hand, verbal agreements are carried out, which is hardly
conceivable. Members will understand that I am referring to the
Ginn Publishing deal.
I can appreciate that our colleagues opposite think it is time to
stop quibbling about the issue. In my career as a teacher, I have
learned that even a clear message will not necessarily be
understood by everyone. We believe that, if we repeat it enough,
the population of Canada will finally come to understand and
will ask the government to implement a law on democratic
funding of political parties, for the sake of transparency.
3723
(1330)
The government should take the Quebec legislation as a
model in that matter. Besides, there is no reason to be ashamed
of trailing behind Quebec on that issue. In that field as in many
others, Quebec does not see things the same way, perhaps on
account of its difference.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when Quebec decides to
cut the Canadian trailer loose, my country will be glad to
collaborate with its neighbour in order to help bring more justice
and equity to our world.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3723
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River) moved that Bill C-210,
an act to provide for the recall of members of the House of
Commons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought we had
unanimous consent to put it straight through the House; that
would have been absolutely marvellous.
It is a real pleasure for me to stand in the House today to bring
forward an issue that many Canadians, at least outside the
House, are talking about probably far more regularly than some
of our colleagues would like to acknowledge.
Canadians are seeking dynamic and constructive change in
their political institutions; not just tinkering with this or that but
real change. They are demanding that political institutions and
politicians listen to them, consult with them, and ultimately be
accountable to them.
Over the past 25 years governments have expanded their
scope of activities enormously and touched people's daily lives
in many ways. Canadians want an increasing share in decisions
that affect their lives and their pocketbooks. During the same 25
years governments have become very large, very complex, and
are often out of touch with ordinary citizens.
One need only reflect on the findings a couple of years ago of
the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, of course referred to as
the Spicer report, to sense the frustration and anger felt by
Canadians toward government in the recent past. The defeat of
the Charlottetown accord in October 1992 was seen by many as a
massive rejection of the typical or traditional style of leadership
in Canada.
Members will know from media reports, from a wide variety
of polls and from their own door to door experience in the last
election, that many Canadians do not even think it worthwhile to
participate in the political process. Too many have become
disillusioned, alienated and cynical about political parties,
politicians themselves and government in general, perhaps in
some cases with good reason, sad to say, through failure of
politicians to listen, failure to consult, and failure to be
accountable at all times to the people who elected them.
We in the 35th Parliament have an opportunity to change this,
to rectify these shortcomings, and to improve the quality of
representative democracy in the country. Through a series of
modest, pragmatic, parliamentary reforms we can improve this
in future parliaments and work to restore confidence and pride
among Canadians in our political institutions. Nothing would be
more refreshing than that. We would have people coming from
sea to sea to the Chamber and saying: ``Yes, this place is real; it
is practical and it works''.
Recall legislation is one of those sensible, pragmatic,
progressive parliamentary reforms that the House should
legislate. Recall is a parliamentary reform whose time has
come.
There is much misinformation about recall. I would like to
quash some of the misinformation about recall legislation. I
certainly hope this may change the speeches on the other side of
the House that are already prepared. I would like to talk also
about the virtues of recall legislation because I believe they far
outweigh any misinformation or myth. Otherwise I would not be
introducing the bill.
(1335)
I think is important that we remember the key words again, to
listen, to consult and ultimately to be accountable to their
employers, the voters in their particular districts who hired them
and brought them into office.
Recall legislation would make sure that there was benefit both
to our constituents who voted us in and to ourselves. There has
to be benefit on both sides. It is not going to be just all good for
them or all good for us who sit within the sanctity of these halls.
The opponents of recall suggest at least three bogeymen in
expressing their opposition. First, they say that recall is a
procedure that has failed when tried in other jurisdictions. In
other words it has not worked so it will not work. That certainly
is inappropriate.
3724
Second is that recall would be used mischievously for partisan
purposes. For example, high profile government members such
as cabinet ministers or my friend from Broadview-Greenwood
who certainly is high profile would be subjected to harassment.
We would hate such a thing to happen.
Third, people will say that recall would encourage short term
or parochial thinking by members to the detriment of the long
term common interest of all Canadians.
If we fall for any one of those three myths we are saying that
the Canadian public does not have common sense. I am not sure
there is anyone in this House who would dare say such a thing,
especially after the fall of Meech Lake, after the fall of the
Charlottetown accord and after last fall's general election where
we saw incredible changes in this House of Commons.
Hon. members will know that recall has been a facet of the
Swiss system of direct democracy for a long period of time and
it is well regarded in that country. Fifteen states in the United
States of America employ recall for elected state officials and
two additional states, Hawaii and Utah, are now actively
considering recall legislation.
This is not ground breaking, this is nothing totally radical. It
is not the Canadian way of course to do anything radical. We
would be following other countries that have brought in
legislation on recall and which have proved substantially that it
works well. Thirty-six states provide for recall of locally
elected officials. No American state has ever repealed recall
legislation once it was established. I think that tells us volumes.
The United States has 36 states that have recall in place. They
have never once repealed recall legislation. Something about it
must work.
Of course we as members of Parliament know that it is not
maybe so much the exact act of recall but it is the threat of recall
where members must be looking over their shoulders all the
time, not so much with a fine bunch as this, but people are
saying: ``We do not think he or she is doing their job well''. We
would be continually looking over our shoulder realizing that
somebody stands there with a chain to bring us back into line if
we stand out of line.
That whole thing is so important. There would be members in
this House as they have done any number of times even in the
life of this Parliament, who would say: ``Oh, yes Deborah, but
Alberta brought it in and then repealed it''.
As we know recall legislation was brought in by Premier
William Aberhart in 1936. It was repealed. But it was repealed
because of some very serious weaknesses in it. They were
basically that people could buy off names for a petition. My
recall bill has made sure that cannot happen. When that bill was
repealed, and we want to make sure that it is on the record in
Hansard one more time, Premier William Aberhart and Ernest
Manning who was a senior cabinet minister then, the father of
Preston Manning the leader of the Reform Party, the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest, in fact voted against the repeal.
We can honestly say it was not their fault. They brought in the
legislation but it was repealed by a bunch of backbenchers who
thought there were real serious weaknesses in it.
Let us turn and look at the positive side because that is where
we gain the most. Let us look at Switzerland and the 36
American states in assessing the success of recall. The charge
that recall would be used in a frivolous manner by defeated
parties or special interest groups to harass high profile
government members such as cabinet ministers does not stand
up under examination. Who would benefit by such actions?
Political parties do not wish to appear frivolous. Dear knows
they may wish to appear to be any number of other things. But I
am not sure that political parties go out to seek the goal of being
frivolous. Not one.
(1340 )
Second, not all the losing parties in a constituency have an
interest in a byelection at a particular moment. They would not
say: ``Let us defeat that person immediately and have a
byelection''. As all of us well know, we are exhausted after a
general election and much work has to be done for the new
Parliament. By making the threshold high enough people will
not be tempted to be foolish and say: ``Let us unseat that
person''.
Most important, political parties do not have the degree of
authority over their members between elections for such
nonsense to occur. There is no way anyone from any political
party in this House of Commons would have their leadership
say: ``We demand that you trigger a byelection to force that MP
who won the election out of office''. I do not believe that would
happen. It takes an incredible amount of time, energy and money
to get the process going. I do not think political parties would do
that just to appear frivolous.
The second myth, the view that voters can be shamelessly
manipulated between elections, shows little trust in the electors.
If anything has been learned from the last five or ten years of
Canadian history it is that we should trust the electors. Some of
us might think they made some wrong choices at a particular
time. There are some Reform Party candidates I would have
loved to have seen in office because they would have made
excellent MPs.
At the same time, I know we must trust the common wisdom
of the electors. Therefore, when we say the people have spoken
on election day we must mean it. We must be able to say that the
electors spoke and this is the way it is. Sure, maybe those of us
on this side of the House wish the numbers had been different.
Who knows, maybe some on that side wish the numbers had
3725
been different as well. However, they were voted in by people
who care about their country and we must not dispute that.
These are the same electors who showed wisdom and
judgment during the general election. Surely they can be trusted
to show the same wisdom and judgment when faced with a
petition for recall.
It cannot be said on the other side of the House: ``We were
voted in with a huge majority so we think all the electors are
very wise'' and then this afternoon stand up in this House of
Commons and say: ``MP recall is ridiculous for any number of
reasons'', by intimating that the electors could not fall for such
foolishness. It does not work.
The third charge against recall and another myth I would like
to dispel is that members might become very parochial to the
detriment of implementing the government's mandate. Similar
to my previous comment, this view shows little trust in the
intelligence or the judgment of the electors. In addition, it shows
no confidence in the ability or judgment of the ordinary member
of Parliament.
I think it is always seen by MPs who are safe and cosy in this
place after being elected that they are on the payroll as it were
for four or five years, to say: ``Well MP recall is negative. It can
never do me, as a member of Parliament, any good''.
Let me talk about the positive side of recall for an MP. If I am
doing my job to the best of my ability or if my neighbour is
doing his best job, then why would they be able to get an
enormous number of constituents to sign a recall petition
against him? There would be a great deal of difficulty in getting
the number of people necessary to sign under my Bill C-210. It
would then show a vote of confidence in the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. If they were not able to rustle up
enough names to vote against him that would not be a negative
thing, it would be positive. It would show he has the confidence
of his electors.
It would be a marvellous exercise to see recall in action. For
constituents not to be able to get enough signatures together on a
petition, what a vote of confidence that would be for my friend
here to say: ``Wow, they could not get enough people together.
That means they generally believe in me and what I am doing''.
That would be healthy, refreshing and long overdue at this point.
The charges against recall contain little substance and much
misinformation.
There have been quotations in the House in the last several
days. Let me add a quote by Thomas E. Cronin in his discussion
of the pros and cons of recall in his book entitled Direct
Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall
put out by Harvard University Press in 1989. Thomas Cronin
states:
Today's critics of the recall device-
I suspect there may be some of them in the Chamber today.
-continue to view it as an invitation to unruly, impatient action and as a
potential hazard to representative government. They also say it is another media
age factor that could weaken the party system.
(1345)
Then he says, to close his comments:
No evidence exists to support either contention.
Beware anyone who might stand up in the Chamber this
afternoon, and say that such a thing would not work because
Thomas Cronin has said there is no evidence at all to support the
contention that member of Parliament recall is weak.
When I last spoke on this bill, as I have done several times
because I believe in it, I emphasized that members have nothing
to fear from its introduction. The bill contains a number of
sensible provisions to prevent its mischievous use and ensures
strict regulation in its application.
Perhaps the bill in Alberta in 1936 was not tight enough and
that is probably why it was repealed. However, we have come up
with sensible legislation.
These are some examples of why I think it would be taken
seriously by the electors and would not pose any personal threat
to probably most members in the House.
First, the petition must be signed by a sufficiently high
number of electors in a constituency to prevent mischief. If I
needed 100 names or 5,000 names or whatever I could find them
very easily. However if we looked at the number of voters who
voted in the last election and then took 50 per cent plus one, that
is a powerful number of names that we would need. It is a high
threshold because we have a multi-party system.
In the United States it is just one way or the other. You vote
Republican or Democrat and the person needs 50 per cent plus
one. It is about as simple as that. But we have four or five parties
running here. A seat can be easily won without 50 per cent of the
vote, so I have put the threshold high, that 50 per cent plus one of
the number of people who voted in the riding in the previous
election is needed. That number of names is very difficult to
come up with and the Chief Electoral Officer would need to
make sure that all those names were legitimate.
Also I have incorporated a period of grace into the bill, an
18-month waiting period after the general election before a
recall petition can be initiated. That also would destroy the myth
of people turning around and saying, ``let's go get her'' after she
has been elected for two weeks. We would need a period of a
year and a half in the bill for people to prove themselves. This
would make sure that MPs are given a chance.
3726
Naturally unusual circumstances such as criminal charges,
fraud, et cetera could shorten this period in the case of blatant
misrepresentation. Also, recall could be used only once in a
constituency during the life of a Parliament. If people got this
tool and went wild with it, they would be able to say: ``Oh, let's
get him'' and ``let's get her''. Let us put some sensible
guidelines in place. Another one is that it could only be used
once in the life of the Parliament.
Anyone who is still dubious about this should remember that
people are sensible. If we are talking about power to the people
we need to give it to them whether we like it or not. As we have
witnessed around the world people are taking power into their
own hands. Canadians are no different. They have proved it time
and time again: Charlottetown, 1992. That side of the House was
in opposition then, they all said ``yes'' at least publicly. I know
of some, I will not mention any names, who had a great deal of
difficulty with it and they voted ``no''. But publicly they all
came out and said ``yes''.
It depends how loudly we talk publicly, but nonetheless we
would make sure that if this only happened once in the life of a
Parliament that would be healthy. The recall process also would
be subject to strict regulations, verified by the Chief Electoral
Officer. For example, there should be procedures for verifying
that all signatures are genuine and obtained through legitimate
means.
Of course the first thing somebody would say is: ``That's
going to cost an incredible amount of money and you Reformers
are always, always saying cut, cut, cut''. There would be some
dollars involved in this but I ask the question to all of those
cynics: How much will it cost if we do not do that? What will the
ultimate cost be if we do not initiate recall and see some
incredible situations as we are witnessing even today where
members of Parliament are going to sit as independents or
whatever else? What is the cost ultimately to the constituents, to
the particular member, and to the Canadian political system in
general? We are all going to be harmed. I think this would be
cheap and would make sure that we have some healthy balance
in here.
(1350)
Let me talk about some more merits of recall. I have a feeling
I have not convinced everyone on the other side of the House.
An hon. member: They are coming.
Miss Grey: They are coming, though. Let us remember that
recall will strengthen the link between individual
representatives and their electors. That is a good thing to to have
happen in the country.
It will provide the disillusioned or dissatisfied voter with an
instrument and public process for practical action. We saw it in
the Charlottetown accord where people said: ``I have a vote'',
and vote they did in incredible numbers with an incredibly
resounding n-o from sea to sea. It was not just us rebels in the
west; one of the maritime provinces voted no as well and
Ontario as good as voted no.
That is exciting to me because people realize that they can
hold the reins of power; it is not just in the Chamber. People will
be able to do more than just sit and complain as they wait for the
next election. One can deduce from this that recall will ensure
political parties and politicians listen more.
I can think of nothing more to say to wrap this up. If
politicians would listen more, if they would consult more,
ultimately they would be accountable far more to the people who
actually voted them in, who actually are paying their
paycheques, and who are actually saying: ``We want some
mechanism in place whereby you are accountable to us''.
We have heard time and again from across the floor the Prime
Minister and others saying that we do have accountability, that
we do have recall; it is called general elections. No, it is called
MP recall. I would be thrilled to see the bill pass through the
House of Commons as quickly as possible.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Beaver River. She
speaks with thoughtfulness. She is always interesting and she is
good humoured. I hope to enter the debate with those same
qualities.
It is an interesting question. I think we are all interested in
participatory democracy. It was, after all, Pierre Trudeau who
coined the term. This Parliament is marked by a feeling that
transcends all parties to change the system to get more direct
involvement by people, more participation by members.
It should be understood, though, that we operate within the
context of two different antinomies or sometimes conflicting
principles of liberal constitutionalism today in western societies
and western influenced societies. One is the concept of
government by assembly, which is returning power to
Parliament after more than half a century in most western
societies of executive dominated regimes.
The other is direct democracy, getting people involved in
decision making in its logical conclusion or what my friend,
Professor Mirkine-Guetzévitch, called plebiscitarian
democracy. Sometimes those two trends run counter to each
other. Without anticipating the work of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee of the House of
Commons now studying these issues including the institution of
recall, I would refer to some changes that are already apparent.
The office of prime ministership is in the process of change. It
is always true that the office depends on the man or woman in it.
The prime ministership was different under Mr. Churchill from
that under his successor, Mr. Attlee, or under Margaret Thatcher
3727
and her successor whose name is often forgotten. The same is
happening in Canada.
The Chrétien model of the prime ministership is a very kinder
and gentler Prime Minister who rests on collegiality, consensus
and a heightened respect for Parliament. Some would say after
the last eight years that was very much needed. It is the Pearson
model and it is changing Parliament interestingly and
constructively.
There is also a heightened sensitiveness among individual
members of their responsibilities to their constituents and
getting their opinions and, by the way, no particular fear of
referenda as such.
(1355)
I happen to think referenda are fully part of democratic
constitutionalism. The Quebec referendum of 1980 was healthy.
It cleared the air. The Charlottetown referendum was healthy. I
never accepted the view of the prophets of gloom and doom that
the country might come to an end as a result of that referendum.
The decision has been accepted loyally and with goodwill by all
concerned and we are now on to the economic business of the
country.
Referenda should not of course be used as an instrument to
harass governments or to preoccupy the public agenda. I would
warn that there are constitutional limits. If referenda proposals
are deliberately ambiguous and confusing or they are repetitive,
repeated every year, there are ample constitutional means for
controlling them through the Supreme Court. Maybe at some
future stage some people, including myself, may have to return
to that issue.
Let us get on to recall, the institution as such which the hon.
member raised with such ardour and such persuasiveness. It is in
many respects antithetical to the main liberalizing
constitutional element I have already referred to: government by
assembly giving more powers to members of Parliament, not
merely opposition but government members, getting away from
this presidentialized prime ministership we see in so many
British influenced societies.
I would have to raise some questions to the hon. member. I
have lived in Switzerland as part of my professional life. I have a
great admiration for the Swiss system. However I am always
reminded of the particularity of constitutional institutions in
their own society and the difficulties in translating an institution
from one society to another, unless the basic societal and
cultural conditions in the one are sufficiently replicated in the
other. It is one thing to have recall in a Swiss canton where
everybody knows everybody. I knew all my neighbours; I knew
everybody in my canton, I think.
Try translating recall to a constituency. Not even speaking of
the hon. member for Ontario's seat which has 220,000 voters,
but a seat like my own of 100,000, how do you prove 50,000 or
40,000 signatures on a recall petition? It does not even take a
good lawyer to tie an issue like that up in the courts for 17 years
requiring everybody to prove their signatures.
I can foresee very great difficulties, endless litigation and
expense in carrying this proposal out if it were to be adopted. I
wonder if the liberalizing thoughts of the hon. member might
not be better directed to other institutions of participatory
democracy which I think are already receiving some early
favour with the standing committee.
There are more effective ways for Parliament itself to control
its own procedures and to ensure dignity and mutual respect
among its members. It must never be forgotten that Parliament
is a high court of Parliament. It is a vestigial judicial institution
too. It has enormous disciplinary powers which are sometimes
forgotten. It has the power to scrutinize its own MPs.
There are constitutional limits to this and political dangers.
As an academic commentator I warned during the U.S.
impeachment debate about confusing legal grounds for
impeachment with political grounds for impeachment. That is to
take us back to the bad days of the 18th century instead of the
golden days of the 17th century in which constitutionalism in
England was more vibrant. One is also reminded of the last days
of the Weimar republic when majorities used their power to
exclude minority members.
Nevertheless, this having been said the standing committee
would do well to re-examine Parliament's power itself to
discipline its members. It could look at these issues for taking
care of some of the pathological examples the hon. member
cited where recall in the absence of other more effective
mechanisms might be the constitutional instrument to look to.
(1400 )
I would ask the hon. member if she could put her proposals in
the context of a larger constitutional vision which includes a
revived Parliament where members do have something to do,
where the executive exercises modesty and self-restraint in
relation to opposition members and government members.
There are changes here that we are on the verge of making. We
have a sympathetic Prime Minister. I cite again the example of
Mr. Pearson. He and his great colleague, Paul Martin, Sr., were
great parliamentarians. This can be a House that will literally
reform itself.
Contributions such as the hon. member opposite has made are
constructive and helpful. They start the debate. They are the raw
material for the overburdened standing committee with a
strange double barrelled name. Nobody dares use the word
constitution but let us face it, it is a constitutional committee
that we have in Parliament, the Standing Committee on House
Management and Procedures, and it can act.
3728
Her contributions will add to the debate and I do believe she
will see results, perhaps not the particular institution she is
advocating. It does need more thought on the modalities, how to
get it through, how to overcome those battalions of lawyers who
will descend and those 17 years delays but it can be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-210
and consider certain aspects of this bill.
Speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to
start by saying that the essence of the act to provide for the recall
of members of the House of Commons may be expressed as
follows: ``any elector ordinarily resident in an electoral district
who wishes to seek the recall of the members for that district
may file with the Clerk an application for the recall of the
member in a prescribed form''. The recall procedure which
exists in 15 American States, allows for the dismissal of a
member of Parliament or public servant.
I would like to provide some historical background. A similar
system exists in four swiss cantons. Significantly, the procedure
exists only with a very restricted socio-political framework, and
even at that level, its use is extremely limited. In the United
States, for instance, the system only operates at the municipal
level. At a higher level, we have only the case of a Governor of
the State of Oregon who was recalled in 1921.
To define more clearly the position of the Bloc Quebecois on
this question and to explain the political background of the
recall concept, I think it is important to go back in history, and I
intend to go back a little further than the hon. member from
Vancouver Quadra, in fact, to the end of the 18th century. It was
the Age of Reason in Europe, a philosophical movement that
dominated the world of ideas and gave birth to the broad
democratic principles that would guide western societies and
still do. In continental Europe, the principle of sovereignty was
transferred from the absolute monarch to the people. Although
this movement started two centuries ago in England, France and
Germany, it has gained in depth and acquired a more universal
dimension.
For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, sovereignty is the
``general will'' which is always fair and equitable and thus a
very effective concept. We see the idea of democracy emerging,
where the people decide. But is democracy, in the sense of power
to the people, the best form of government? And by the same
token, is the right to recall based on the concept of power to the
people a good way to control the actions of politicians? If this
right to recall existed, would politicians be more likely to
answer to constituents for their actions?
(1405)
As for the foundation of government legitimacy, after royal
authority was abolished at the end of the 18th century, in
Rousseau's opinion, the people became the ultimate holders of
the decision-making power. That is why he rejects the idea of
representative democracy whereby the people can only wield
their influence at regular intervals. About the English people, he
said this: ``The people think they are free, they are sorely
mistaken; they are only free during elections. As soon as the
members of Parliament are elected, the people revert to being
slaves, to being nothing''. That is why Rousseau wanted to give
people the right to recall their representatives on a daily basis.
So, as we can see, recalling elected representatives is not a
new idea. I think the main flaws of representative democracy, in
particular the principle that citizens can only exercise their right
to vote once every four or five years, deeply troubles all
democrats since the beginning of universal suffrage.
The question raised at the dawn of representative democracy
can still be raised today: ``How can the sovereign power
exercised by a few parliamentary dignitaries result from
people's sovereignty?'' The notion of democracy expressed
through people's sovereignty, through the idea that every citizen
of a sovereign state can influence the decision-making process,
that everyone wields political power, will quickly take the form
of state sovereignty with the application of democracy.
Throughout the 19th century, especially with the advent of
universal suffrage, we see that the people's will expressed
through the election process does not coincide with the general
will. This is important: it does not coincide with the general
will. As we move away from the great revolutionary movements
that swept Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, the notion of
people's sovereignty gradually gives way to the more absolutist
concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
Given what I just said, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill
to be fully justified and symptomatic of people's misgivings
about their representatives and of the massive failure of the
Canadian political system. Actually, this bill would be
impossible to enforce, but it shows a democratic conscience
deeply disillusioned by over 100 years of a system that simply
does not work. Parliamentary sovereignty has lost all
credibility, and making members of Parliament subject to recall
will not restore its credibility.
Clause 4(d) of Bill C-210 says that a statement of 200 words
or less would be sufficient to trigger the recall process. This
provision would necessarily lead to anarchy in many ridings.
Further on, clause 6(b) mentions the requirement to have a
petition signed by a majority of the constituents of a riding in
order to recall a member. Such a procedure would make the
democratic process too costly and completely uncontrollable. I
3729
note what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said about
this.
This bill is not practical throughout a country whose
population numbers in the millions. It results from a nostalgic
feeling about the democratic idealism which arose in
18th-century Europe. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to this bill and prefers, along with some of our fellow
members, like the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, to take
the option of developing within the institution of Parliament
itself all the mechanisms for recalling members who are unable
to do their job and represent their constituents democratically.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Beaver River for raising this issue, which is a very important
one. This is not a new idea; in fact, it has been around since at
least the 19th century. As you know, we have always wondered
about the possible benefits and the effectiveness of such a
measure.
(1410)
This idea seems to be very attractive, even popular, but we
still do not have any proof that it would work. Personally, I do
not believe that a simple act would change a great deal the
behaviour of hon. members. I would like to believe otherwise,
but I think that the behaviour of hon. members cannot be
managed by legislation.
In the United States, for example, since 1908, if my memory
serves me correctly, there has been only 11 recalled elected
officials. You are certainly aware that hundreds, even thousands,
could have been recalled, but since 1908, only 11 were.
[English]
There are a number of questions that I think need to be
answered before we could possibly support this piece of
legislation. I will go back to something that the leader of the
Reform Party said and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.
The leader indicated that whenever a new initiative is
undertaken one has to ask at least three questions: What will it
cost? How many people will be involved? Where will the money
come from?
I have read the legislation. I have had some people take a look
at it. I have had independent parties do an analysis for me. These
questions have not yet been answered and they are important
questions.
I want to raise another couple of points. Perhaps there are
answers to these points. If you look at the last elections in
Canada you will find that some members of Parliament were
elected with majorities in excess of 80 per cent. Others had
majorities of 30 per cent plus a little bit. Is it appropriate to treat
both of those individuals, if they were to be made subject to
recall, in the same way even though there is a 50 per cent
difference in their win? That is a point that I raise that concerns
me.
The other point of course, and I indicated that initially in my
remarks in French, is it is appealing. There is no question about
that. I think the notion by itself is an appropriate one. However it
is much more complicated than it appears. How litigious would
it be? I suspect that anyone who would be the object of recall
would have many opportunities along the way to question
whether or not the process had been followed and whether or not
it had been followed properly. I think it could probably be
stalled for weeks, perhaps even months.
I will give a simple example. Once you were the object of such
a process and someone brought in the required number of names,
you as an individual would probably want to make absolutely
certain that every single one of those names qualified. First,
putting that list together would be a mammoth task and, second,
ensuring its absolute accuracy would be extremely important
otherwise we could be open to litigation. Of course all of that
would be extremely important to do and extremely expensive.
Some of you will know that the Lortie commission, after having
taken a look at it, indicated that this was not the best way to
proceed.
Some of you will know as well that Dr. McCormick, who is a
supporter of recall, left a lot of questions unanswered. In fact he
could not persuade people that this was the way to proceed.
I want to remind the House that on February 7-I believe that
is the accurate date-the government asked the Standing
Committee on House Affairs and Procedures to examine a
number of measures. Among them were, and I quote: ``Measures
to achieve more direct participation by citizens, including
citizens' initiative, the right of constituents to recall their MP''.
Therefore, there is a process in place in order, I hope, to address
that very question in a very serious kind of way.
Until that report is in, until the questions that I have raised are
answered-how much will it cost, how many people will be
involved in such a process and where will the money come
from-it seems to me that it would be wise to withhold support.
I come back to a point that I made initially. While it seems
terribly appealing to think that such a process, such a law, such a
bill would reform Parliament or the behaviour of
parliamentarians, I am very, very cautious about that. I say it in
no way to denigrates the idea, an idea I think which is motivated
by a member who believes that if it were to work, as she believes
that
3730
it might, it could bring about some additional refinement to
Parliament. We all know that on particular days it could stand
additional refinement.
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, even if the idea seems
attractive and even if there is some good in it, there are a number
of questions about its effectiveness, its advantages and its cost,
that must be studied before going ahead.
But the main reason is that the government already launched
an initiative which will deal with a number of questions. I
personally think that the matter must be considered as a whole.
If it is not considered that way, I am not convinced that it will
change very much the behaviour of hon. members.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I should have said initially, and I hope that you
and the members will permit me, to share my time with my
colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are five minutes
remaining in this block of time and if that is agreeable to the
House, the member for Broadview-Greenwood would have the
floor until 2.20 p.m.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the
member for Beaver River for advancing debate on this very
important issue.
Part of the reason why I will not support your motion is
because I believe you have been an example-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know the member
for Broadview-Greenwood brings a great deal of enthusiasm
and other qualities to his interventions, but the Speaker would
want to maintain the usual traditions and be somewhat-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, through
you to the member, I did not want the member to think that I was
all of a sudden becoming impersonal.
I believe that one of the unique qualities of the member for
Beaver River is the fact that the member has always had the
courage to go against the wind. I want to pick up from the
member's speech where she talked about the Charlottetown
accord and tried to bring the relevance of the Charlottetown
accord experience to this recall debate.
I was elected in 1988 for a very specific reason in downtown
Toronto. I ran opposing the Meech Lake accord. I believe in a
strong national government. I was ideologically supportive of
the Pierre Trudeau vision of this country and I still am. I was
given the trust in 1988 by the people of
Broadview-Greenwood, which had been an NDP riding for 25
years, because I took a very specific stand on that important
constitutional issue. I also thank John Turner for his terrific
debating skills. That was the other great reason I believe that I
won.
Two years ago, when we had the Charlottetown accord, I was
sitting in this House of Commons with a position on the
Constitution, a strong national government. If I were to
maintain the trust of my electorate, and the member for Beaver
River always says listen to your electors, I had to sit in this
House in opposition and I did not support the Charlottetown
accord. I sat here and I did not support my party's position. It
was a very painful experience.
I then went into my riding and I campaigned on the beliefs that
I had. My beliefs were personally that I did not believe in
dismantling or decentralizing this national government any
more than it had already been dismantled. I campaigned, not
vigorously, but I campaigned. I was not trying to get into a
confrontation with my leader or my party colleagues. It was just
something that I had been given a trust on in 1988 and I had to m
maintain it.
(1420)
During discussion of the Charlottetown accord I put my
position forward. A majority of my constituents at that time did
not share my view of the Constitution. Every night I gave my
reasons. Our office was open seven days a week, 24 hours a day,
for that period of time. It cannot be said that I hid behind the
curtain or anything like that. People knew.
Because of the incredible thrust of advertising and because of
the media, we were gobbled up by the big hustle on the
Charlottetown accord. During that campaign period many
people in the community went along with the pack. Those of us
in my own community at the time of the election who did not
share the view lost by 2 per cent.
I could have been at that moment in time, because of the
Charlottetown accord, a victim of a recall action. My
constituents could have initiated a recall action. They would
have had the basis for getting a recall motion going.
It is important that we debate the issue, but the real test of our
accountability does not come in the short term. It comes with
our four-year actions in the House. That is when we get our
recall test.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, it is truly an honour for me today to support my
colleague from Beaver River and Bill C-210. I will start with a
quote, if I may: ``People, it has been said, want a government
that listens, not lectures''.
When I was younger one of my goals in life was to represent
my country in a responsible fashion through entering the
political arena. I was lucky enough to do that through my
constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
3731
Prior to the Reform Party coming into existence, I did not feel
there was any political party around that truly stood for
democratic principles, where the politicians truly represented
the wishes of their constituents.
One of the things that attracted me to the Reform Party as
opposed to any other political party was its commitment to
democratic reforms, reforms that would give the power back to
the people. I feel putting the power back where it belongs is
fundamental to a truly democratic society.
A primary example of this is the ability of the public to recall
elected representatives when they are misusing their position or
are not representing their electorate in the manner they were led
to believe they would be represented. This is not pie in the sky
reform but is a very real part of democratic reforms in a number
of countries. We need to look at our neighbours south of the
border to see that reform, democratic principles and recall are
integral parts of both state and local politics. As mentioned
before it also occurs in Switzerland, a model of democracy.
What is the mechanism of recall in Canada? First, as has been
proposed by my esteemed colleague, there would have to be a
relatively high petition threshold of 50 per cent plus one. This
would be an attempt to avoid any spurious attempts at recalling
MPs by the opposition. I hope this allays some of the fears of my
colleagues across the way in government.
Second, members of Parliament must be given adequate time
to get a track record, that is recall cannot be instituted before 18
months in the tenure of a member of Parliament.
Third, recall can only be applied once during the tenure of an
MP in any four or five year period of time.
Recall is a remedy of the partisan block voting that has
plagued Canadian politics for decades. Members vote now in
many cases according to what their party wishes them to vote.
This is the antithesis of democracy. Hand in hand though with
recall there is another excellent opportunity for the government
to democratize the system. That is, we must see that every vote
in this House on a bill is not a vote of confidence in the
government. Rather, if a bill were defeated, we would have a
vote of confidence. This is a liberating thing and would enable
the members of this House to truly represent the wishes of their
constituents and they would not be hamstrung by party lines.
(1425)
It would only take the Prime Minister a couple of minutes to
make a statement in the House to liberate the members in this
House and enable us to do that. I implore him to do that.
A concern about recall that has been mentioned by my
colleagues in the government that I will put to rest right now is
that it would enable special interest groups to manipulate the
electorate and exert undue influence in the political process
through continually exercising a petition to have a member
recalled.
The reality is very different and will not occur because the
electorate is not gullible, It is not mindless or ill-informed but
then it does not bend to the whims of special interest groups. We
should have more confidence in the ability of the electorate to
not fall for spurious attempts at defeating a member of
Parliament. That is why this bill will be excellent for democracy
in this country.
This has been borne out many times in studies and is one of
the reasons why it has been so successful with our colleagues to
the south of our border.
My esteemed colleague from Beaver River has brought about
and is raising this matter partly because the people desperately
want recall. A few examples are evident right now and
appropriate.
In my home province of British Columbia in the 1991
provincial election the people were asked do they or do they not
want recall. Eighty-one per cent of the people in British
Columbia said that they want recall now.
We in the Reform Party asked 1,500 Canadians across this
country if they wanted recall or did not want recall.
Seventy-five per cent of them wanted recall. This is something
the public desperately wants. I think we should exert our
influence, our duty and our role to adopt this great bill.
There are a number of other initiatives that I think we ought to
address in tying in with our ability and our wishes in the Reform
Party to democratize the system. One of those is binding
national referenda and the other is citizens' initiatives, both
democratic forums that I think would strongly improve the way
in which business is done in the House.
Some would argue that these reforms somehow enable elected
officials to shirk their responsibilities and get them off the hook
in making difficult decisions. I submit that there is no higher
power in this land, in a democratic society, than the will of the
Canadian people.
We elected officials are merely agents of that will. It is true
that we are elected to make decisions on their behalf but I still
hold very dear to my heart the idea that the power of the people
is of primary importance.
I quote Thomas Jefferson who said in 1820: ``I know of no
safer depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people
themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not
to take it from them but to inform their discretion''.
It is our Reform Party belief of direct democracy which
distinguishes it from the other three mainline political parties.
These democratic reforms are what I believe in and are what we
as a party believe in. It is what we will fight for.
I hope other like-minded democratic parliamentarians will
think likewise, know that this Bill C-210 is integral and
important for democratic reforms and is equally important to
making our Parliament more effective.
3732
I implore them to adopt this worthy bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the bit of time we
have left, the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible.
I commend the member for bringing this debate forward. I
believe in her sincerity and I believe also in the underlying
principles around which the recall concept is being promoted.
Unfortunately I cannot support it. I see the exercise of recall as
an adversarial exercise.
The public is tired of that kind of adversarial system. I
genuinely believe we can come up with positive measures to
involve people. In my constituency we have held a number of
very successful public meetings that were well attended, well
received and non-partisan. It involves the constituents in
Fredericton-York-Sunbury in public policy discussions.
There are those kinds of positive approaches to involvement.
I agree with the member that the public feels powerless and
alienated from the system. I spent nine months going door to
door in the constituency and I have to say with honesty that the
concept did not come up as a mechanism, although the concerns
the member expressed certainly came up very often.
As a member of Parliament I felt an obligation to respond to
that and I have. On February 27 we had a large forum in the
constituency on health matters. In March we had a forum on
national defence matters. These were well attended, well
reported, televised public policy discussions. Just last Sunday
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development visited the constituency and we had a
non-partisan public meeting on HRD issues.
The need to change the system is real. I believe the public
expects us to do that. I also suggest that there has been evidence
so far in this Parliament, as brought to the attention of the House
by the members on the side of the member proposing this bill,
that changes have been made, for instance the debate in terms of
Bosnia as one positive change.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the
bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)