CONTENTS
Thursday, November 24, 1994
Bill C-48. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 8209
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 159; Nays, 43 8209
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8210
Bill C-59. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8210
Bill C-291. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8210
Motion moved and agreed to 8210
Motion moved and agreed to 8211
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8211
Bill C-57. Report stage (with amendments) 8212
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 8212
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8212
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 8213
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8215
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 8226
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 8226
(Motion No. 6 negatived) 8226
(Motion No. 7 negatived) 8226
(Motion No. 3 negatived.) 8230
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 8230
(Motion No. 4 negatived.) 8235
(Motion No. 5 negatived.) 8235
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8238
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8239
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8240
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 8241
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8242
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8243
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8243
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8243
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8243
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8244
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8244
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8244
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8245
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8246
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8246
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8251
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of report stage 8253
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred. 8255
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 8256
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 8256
Bill C-57.Consideration resumed of report stage and of amendment 8256
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 8259
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8262
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 8264
Division on Motion No. 10 deferred 8265
Bill C-55. Report stage 8265
Motion for Concurrence 8265
Motion for third reading 8265
Bill C-262. Motion for second reading. 8270
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8270
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8274
8209
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 24, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion at third reading stage of Bill C-48, an act to establish the
Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 117)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Young
Zed-159
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
8210
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-43
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Cauchon
Crête
Dingwall
Dubé
Gray (Windsor West)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lebel
Minna
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St-Laurent
de Savoye
(1035)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
8210
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
nine petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development dealing with Bill C-56, an Act to
amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, reported
with amendments.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Finance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act and the income tax application rules.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-291, an act respecting a national year of the
grandparent.
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill is designed to declare the
year 1995 as the year of the grandparent to celebrate the value of
grandparents in the Canadian family. Many of us who have had
the privilege of having grandparents realize the pillars they are
to children and grandchildren growing up.
We also realize that grandparents experience some
difficulties in modern day life. They concern access to
grandchildren when a divorce occurs and so on. It seems to me
that 1995 could be correctly utilized as the year to raise the
consciousness of all of us on the value they provide to the
Canadian family.
(1040)
I am honoured to present the bill to the House. I certainly hope
it meets with some success in subsequent proceedings.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Toronto
on November 28 and 29, 1994, during its consideration of matters set forth in
Standing Order 83(1);
That, on Monday, November 28, 1994 and, if necessary, on Wednesday,
November 30, 1994, the business to be taken up under Government Orders shall
be the following motion:
That this House take note of the opinions expressed by Canadians on the
budget policy of the government and, notwithstanding the provisions of
Standing Order 83(1), authorize the Standing Committee on Finance to make a
report or reports thereon no later than December 7, 1994.
And; that no later than the time of completion of consideration of
Government Orders on November 30, 1994, every question necessary for the
disposal of the said motion shall be put, forthwith and successively, without
further debate or amendment.
(Motion agreed to.)
8211
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House
for the withdrawal of Item No. 16 listed on today's Order Paper
under Private Members' Business, being the motion of Mr.
Gauthier, now Senator Gauthier, who has left the House.
I think you would find consent to strike it from the order of
precedence.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today to
present a petition from constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. To date I have presented
898 signatures to a petition regarding further legislation on gun
control.
There are legitimate reasons for people to own guns,
including hunting, collecting and target shooting. Some people
have actually distinguished themselves in Canada for their
expertise in this particular area.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to get
tough on criminals and not to get tougher on law-abiding gun
owners. Therefore they oppose any further legislation for
firearms acquisition and possession. They call on the
government to provide strict guidelines and mandatory
sentencing for the use or possession of a firearm in the
commission of a crime, and I agree with the petitioners.
(1045)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to table a petition signed by hundreds of residents
from my riding of Longueuil. The petitioners disagree with the
new training standards used by Canada Employment Centres
and ask the Parliament to revise them and make sure they remain
the way they were.
We disagree strongly with the new standards which impose:
an increase in compulsory attendance at training from 24 to 30
hours; a reduction of credits given per training course from 25 to
22 hours; a reduction in the number of days you can miss from
one and a quarter days to one day per five weeks; and the loss of
school or school-related activities which were useful to relieve
boredom and facilitate the adjustment to student and family life.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this petition is about unnecessary violence and abuse
on radio, television and in other forms of the media.
These petitioners have great concerns as to the impact on the
Canadian population of abuse and violence in the media. They
request that the CRTC regulate all forms of unnecessary abuse
and violence. Parents point out that often what occurs there is
counterproductive to what they are trying to do in raising their
families. They point out that there have been some advances
made and the CRTC is to be commended for some of the steps it
has taken.
[Translation]
Not only do they want this to go on, they want more progress.
They believe it is necessary for their children.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of constituents
from Regina-Lumsden. This petition is signed as well by
people from Saskatoon, Balcarres, Watrous, Esterhazy,
Langenburg, Churchbridge, Carnduff, Kisbey and Carievale in
Saskatchewan.
The passage of the drug patent legislation Bill C-91 has
caused undue hardship on the consumers of prescription drugs,
the sick and the elderly. Since this bill was passed the cost of
prescription drugs has increased over 100 per cent, at the rate of
12 per cent per year since 1987. The petitioners are calling upon
the government which in opposition supported the repeal of Bill
C-91 to repeal the drug patent legislation now that it is in
government.
Bill C-91 is creating a great deal of hardship not only on
individual users of prescription drugs, but on health care plans
and governments across the country. Health care plans spend
about 17 per cent of their money on prescription drugs and
hospitals.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Question No. 80 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 80-Mr. Williams:
8212
What is the number of charges that were laid under section 85 of the Criminal Code
in 1991, 1992 and 1993 that were subsequently withdrawn without prosecution?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): The
exact numbers of charges laid or withdrawn in any specific year
are not available because the statistical information is not
compiled on a Canada-wide basis. The Minister of Justice has
asked for a survey and study of the application of section 85.
These will examine the frequency with which the section 85
offence is charged, as well as the disposition of those charges.
When completed, this information will be released by the
minister.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question as
enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been
answered.
Mr. Milliken: I would ask that all remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8212
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, an act
to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have a ruling on Bill
C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization.
There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the notice
paper for the report stage of Bill C-57, an act to implement the
agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but
voted on separately.
(1050)
[English]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 will be debated and voted on
separately.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 to the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11, on page 3, the following
new Clauses:
``3.1 The Minister of International Trade shall establish a process for
consultation with the provinces regarding
(a) implementation of the Agreement wherever implementation relates to a matter
within provincial legislative jurisdiction; and
(b) any matter relating to trade dispute resolution under the Agreement;
(c) any economic matter of major international significance.
3.2 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or in the Agreement, the
Governor in Council or the Minister shall not, without prior agreement of the
provinces,
(a) authorize any change to the Agreement in respect of allocation mechanisms for
tariff quotas;
(b) establish or implement policies for selecting trade partners to receive access to
the Canadian market.
3.3 In respect of subsidized exports, the Minister shall, in implementing the
commitments made by Canada under the Agreement in respect of prices and
quantities, have regard at all times to actions taken in the relevant areas by
foreign competitors.
3.4 In respect of agricultural products imported beyond established tariff
quotas at a time of shortage of such product in domestic markets, the Minister
shall take such measures as may be required from time to time, including
imposition of tariffs, to ensure that such products are not imported at prices
lower than those prevailing for the same products in the domestic markets.''
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11, on page 3, the following
new Clause:
``3.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the Agreement, the
Minister of International Trade shall each year lay before the House of
Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee
of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external
affairs concerning
(a) implementation of the Agreement in Canada;
(b) the trade obligations and commitments undertaken by Canada at the
international level by the trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially
the United States; and
(c) the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies.''
8213
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-57, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 29, on page
5, the following:
``(2.1) The Minister shall consult with the appropriate House committee
before any vote is taken by the Ministerial Conference or the General Council
authorizing or approving any one or more of the following actions by WTO:
(a) the adoption of an interpretation of the Agreement or any other multilateral
trade agreement to which Canada is a party;
(b) the amendment of the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement
to which Canada is a party;
(c) the granting of a waiver of any obligation under the Agreement or any other
multilateral trade agreement to which Canada is a party;
(d) the adoption of any amendment to the rules or procedures of the Ministerial
Conference or the General Council;
(e) the accession of a state or separate customs territory to the Agreement; or
(f) the adoption of any other decision if the WTO action described in paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) would substantially affect the rights or obligations of Canada
under the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement or would require a
change of any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada.
(2.2) Not later than 30 days after the end of any calendar year in which the
Ministerial Conference or the General Council authorizes or approves any WTO
action described in subsection (2.1), the Minister shall submit a report to the
appropriate House committee setting out
(a) the nature of the WTO action;
(b) the efforts made by the Minister to have the matter decided by consensus in
accordance with paragraph (1) of Article IX of the Agreement and the results of
those efforts;
(c) which WTO Members voted for and which voted against the WTO action;
(d) the rights or obligations of Canada that are affected by the WTO action and any
law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada that must be amended or
repealed, for purposes of conforming with the WTO action; and
(e) the measures, if any, that the Minister intends to take in response to WTO action
and if the Minister does not intend to take any measures, the reasons therefor.
(2.3) Where the World Trade Organization grants a waiver as described in
paragraph (2.1)(c), the report under subsection (2.2) shall also describe the
terms and conditions of the waiver and the rights and obligations of Canada that
are affected by the waiver.
(2.4) Where the World Trade Organization approves an accession of a state or
separate customs territory to the Agreement, the report under subsection (2.2)
shall state whether Canada intends to invoke Article XIII of the Agreement.
(2.5) Promptly after submission of a report under subsection (2.2), the
Minister shall consult with the appropriate House committee with respect to the
report.''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-57, be amended by adding after line 36, on page 5, the
following new Clause:
``13.1 The Minister shall, twice in each calendar year after the
proclamation of this Act, report to Parliament on any negotiations that take
place under Article III(2) of the Agreement, including negotiations that
pertain to the labour, social and environmental dimensions of the multilateral
trade relations of member states.
(1055)
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The member for
Verchères, on a point of order.
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your
attention that I do not see a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We now have a quorum.
The hon. member for Laval East.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I rise today to speak
on the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization. I wish to deal more precisely with the
amendment presented by the Official Opposition, which is
aimed at adding new clauses, namely clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and
3.4, on page 3 of Bill C-57.
First, clause 3.1 proposes to establish a process for
consultation with the provinces regarding three specific issues.
It is important for us that the Canadian government establish,
before the agreement comes into force, such a
federal-provincial mechanism to implement the agreement.
This is the first issue about which provinces should be consulted
wherever the implementation of the agreement relates to a
matter within provincial legislative jurisdiction. For example,
the federal government should be obliged to consult the
provinces on matters relating to copyright, agriculture,
environment and labour. Sovereignists are not the only ones
demanding such measures.
(1100)
Since 1988, the provinces have demanded to be consulted in
connection with the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. If we
take a close look at what is happening next door in the United
States, we see that such measures have already been introduced.
In the Statement of Administrative Actions, the U.S.
government statement on the implementation of the GATT
agreement, it says, and I quote: ``these consultations'', and this
refers to consultations with the American States, ``will begin
immediately upon enactment of the implementing bill''.
8214
In the bill now before Congress in the United States, there
is one specific section on the consultation process between the
U.S. federal government and the States. Section 102 of the bill,
part B, under the heading: ``The relationship of the agreement
to United States law and state law'', explains how consultations
between the States and the central government are to proceed.
If the Canadian government refuses to support the Official
Opposition on amendment 3.1, this would mean that my federal
colleagues have an even more centralist vision than the U.S.
government and that they consider the provinces to have less
power than the American States.
If that should be the case, members who vote against our
amendment will have to tell the Prime Minister of Canada to
keep quiet, when he says Canada is the most decentralized
country in the world. A federal government that would refuse to
undertake to consult the provinces on matters over which they
have jurisdiction is centralist in the extreme.
The second point on which we believe consultation with the
provinces is important is dispute resolution under the
agreement. Without this amendment, Bill C-57 puts absolutely
no obligation on the federal government to consult the
provinces, even when the disputes affect them directly. In recent
disputes about magnesium, softwood lumber and beer, to name
only a few, the federal government was under no obligation to
consult the provinces. This amendment is therefore essential if
we are to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces.
In their bill, the Americans also provide that the federal
government shall consult the States when trade disputes are
reported to the World Trade Organization. Clause 102, Part C,
paragraph iii), clearly states that every state of the union should
be actively involved at every stage of consultation and at each
subsequent stage of any trade dispute resolution process.
Third, we want the provinces to be consulted on major
economic issues. Clause 145(4) of Bill C-57 states that the
territory of Canada may be divided into two or more regional
markets. This entails developing specifically regional or
provincial policies, hence the need for a consultative
mechanism between the two levels of government, to harmonize
our policies in view of our international commitments.
Major international fields may have a substantial impact on
Canada. Take the monetary policy, employment development or
loans to developing countries for example. The provinces are
greatly affected by what happens in these areas. For all these
reasons, the government must consult them.
Let us now move on to paragraph 3.2. This Bloc Quebecois
proposal is to ensure that the Governor in Council and the
Minister of International Trade will obtain prior agreement of
the provinces before taking one or the other of the following
actions.
First, the federal government would not be allowed to change
allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas without prior agreement
of the provinces. We all know that, as a result of the Uruguay
Round, import quotas on dairy products, poultry and eggs were
eliminated.
Import quotas were replaced with tariff quotas, which will
make the quantity that can be imported increase slightly. What
the agreement entitles us to do is to allow a specific volume of
imported goods tariff-free in accordance with tariff quotas and
to jack up the tariff on the rest.
(1105)
Bill C-57, however, provides that the minister has
discretionary power to decide who can import these products
within tariff quotas. In order to avoid log rolling or an apparent
conflict of interest on the part of the government, we propose
that this decision be made jointly by the minister and the
provinces.
The second type of action requiring provincial consent has to
do with the agreements negotiated with some trade partners to
give them guaranteed access to part of the Canadian market.
While the government is committed to opening up our
economic borders under trade liberalization agreements, a new
protectionist trend is emerging. Canada is currently negotiating
quasi-formal agreements with some countries, which would
receive special access to Canadian markets in return for
guaranteed access to their markets for some Canadian products.
For example, Canada could promise a country that it will buy a
certain quantity of their butter during the next year in return for
their commitment to buy a certain quantity of Canadian beef in
the next 12 months.
Such agreements could have considerable regional impact in
Canada. The production of certain goods is often concentrated in
a single region. A good agreement for all of Canada could have a
disastrous effect in one province in particular. It is therefore
imperative that the provinces have their say on this.
Let us move on to Clause 3.3. The Bloc Quebecois proposes
that, in respect of subsidized exports, the federal government be
very vigilant and have regard at all times to actions taken in the
relevant areas by foreign competitors. The GATT agreement
provides that export subsidies should be reduced by 36 per cent
over a six-year period. In addition, the volume of subsidized
exports is also to be cut by 21 per cent.
Canada-that is why we are proposing this
amendment-must ensure that its trade partners periodically
reduce their subsidies to the products covered by these
regulations.
This amendment is especially important since these
regulations already favour both the EEC and the United States.
Because American and European exports are already more
heavily subsidized, reducing the current subsidy rate will main-
8215
tain their export subsidies at higher levels than ours. The
poorest countries on earth will be hit even harder than us by
these measures, since they often do not subsidize their exports.
This measure threatens the access of developing countries to
our markets. We should at least make sure that the wealthiest
trade partners honour their commitment to lower the level and
volume of their subsidies, in order not to reduce even further our
competitiveness on international markets.
Furthermore, under section 424 of the Uruguay Round
Agreement Act in the United States, the U.S. government will
require the President to submit a report to Congress in which
Canada's actions will be reported in order to see whether Canada
is complying with the Uruguay Round and NAFTA
commitments concerning dairy and poultry products. Why
would Canada refuse for its part to anticipate what might
happen?
Fourth and last, we propose adding to clause 3.4 guarantees so
that the minister can ensure that the discretionary tariffs he
establishes in case of shortages for some agricultural products
set the price no lower than the Canadian market price. This is an
important addition because it seeks to prevent importers from
claiming a false shortage if they know that the minister will
impose tariffs that are low enough to let them sell their imported
products at a lower price than Canadian producers.
In conclusion, I would like to return to the spirit of clauses 3.1
and 3.2 and repeat that the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois are not simply an expression of Quebec sovereignist
rhetoric. We want every Canadian province to be consulted by
the federal government. We are just demanding the same kind of
measure that the United States is about to vote on.
Canadian parliamentarians today have an opportunity to show
that Canada is a flexible country. That is how the amendment
now being debated should be seen.
(1110)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to discuss Motion No. 2, which I would like
to read again for the benefit of our listeners:
``3.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the Agreement, the
Minister of International Trade shall each year lay before the House of
Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee
of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external
affairs concerning''
We are referring here to the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
``(a) implementation of the Agreement in Canada;
(b) the trade obligations and commitments undertaken at the international level by
the trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially the United States;
and
(c) the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies''.
The motion aims at simplifying and facilitating the process
for those who would like to address complaints, comments or
recommendations to the government. It will allow them to go to
a specific body and place where they will get proper attention.
It has often been noted in the past that, when people make
representations to their member of Parliament, to ministers or to
senior civil servants, these officials do not follow up on the
recommendations made to them.
I believe it is very important to have a place where people can
make claims and complaints if, for example, their rights have
been violated as regards imports, or if changes could result in
problems for some industries or for employment.
We think that the responsible committee of the House of
Commons could be a permanent forum which would listen to all
those who have complaints, so that appropriate
recommendations can be made to the minister, followed by the
required adjustments.
It is very important that Canadians can have access to a
standing committee of the House and that this committee be
made known to the public. Indeed, those who wish to complain
have to know that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade is responsible for receiving their
recommendations and complaints so that we can adjust as fast as
possible to major changes in the world.
In 1985, I had the privilege to sit on the committee chaired by
Mr. Hnatyshyn, the current Governor General, that was
reviewing the reform of Parliament and Parliamentary
institutions. At that time, we asked Mr. McGrath to undertake an
in-depth study on the role of Parliament. In 1985, he stated in
his report: ``On the eve of international free trade in the
economic arena, Canada must have the parliamentary structures
needed to become increasingly competitive at the national and
international level''.
(1115)
Parliamentarians have been examining this issue for some
time now. In 1985, Gulf Canada carried out quite a detailed
study on the relationship between Parliament and big
corporations as well as the population as a whole. I have made
copies of the Gulf Canada report, but among other things,
business people stressed the need to know their MPs well. So,
businesses and groups tell their representatives that it is rather
important that they maintain a good relationship with the
members of Parliament who represent them.
People approach their MPs, but often the poor guy does not
even know how to reach the right person to ensure that things are
progressing well. This is a very unstructured way of doing
things, which prevents us, first, from understanding our constit-
8216
uents' needs and working on them and, second, from solving
problems quickly. This is an important concern.
This 1985 Gulf Canada report also says that, with time, more
and more citizens are trying to make themselves heard by the
government. This is nothing new. It has always been difficult for
citizens, businesses and groups to know to whom they should
address their complaints to get their problems solved. That is
why this motion provides for the Committee on External Affairs
and International Trade to act as a forum, pursuant to Bill C-57
concerning the new World Trade Organization, to receive those
complaints and to make the necessary recommendations to the
minister so that he can respond quickly.
Opening international trade will bring about very important
changes. Surely, in some industries, it will directly affect
employment and businesses. Some adjustments should be made
swiftly.
No structure was put in place to hear the claims of businesses,
individuals and groups. We think, as this motion says, that the
Committee on External Affairs of the House of Commons could
and should be the place to deal with these claims so that we can
adjust as quickly as possible to the important changes and
economic disruption expected in the years to come.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendments brought
forward by New Democrats today is to commit the government
to reporting to Parliament regularly on its activities in the World
Trade Organization and especially on the progress toward the
development of a social clause to the WTO. In this way we can
keep the momentum going for a social clause by ensuring that
the public spotlight is kept on the government's policy on this
important issue.
A social clause is needed so that the WTO can address not
only classic trade disputes between nations but also the problem
of what has become known as social dumping, that is a nation's
competitive advantage that results from unregulated labour
markets and lack of environmental protection regulations.
During the Marrakech conference where the Uruguay round
of the GATT negotiations drew to a close, expectations were
high that the final text of the agreement would include a social
clause.
(1120 )
Although the Americans and the French were pushing hard for
one, nothing came of those negotiations. The Minister for
International Trade was quoted in the press at the time as saying
that he was lukewarm to the idea.
The purpose of the amendment is to get a categorical
commitment from the government to be actively involved in the
development of a social clause in the WTO agreement.
The idea of a social clause is one which enjoys wide support
around the world as a necessary counterweight to the
liberalization of investment. As a constitution for the new world
order of the global marketplace, the WTO agreement as it stands
is remarkably one sided in its defence of the rights of investors
and silent on the rights of workers. It pretends that labour, social
security and the environment are not trade issues.
It is eloquent about the multinationals' right to intellectual
property and to the free movement of capital but says nothing
about the workers' rights to form trade unions or to have a safe
workplace. It speaks loudly about level playing fields but is
silent about the most important playing field of all, the one
between the employer and the employee.
A social clause is needed to strike a balance between the
market efficiencies of liberal trade and investment practices and
the social solidarity of all communities that want basic human
rights and decent employment practices enforced everywhere
where capital is free to come and go.
The multinationals can and do now operate outside the
regulatory reach of individual states. We must in partnership
with our trading partners establish some way of restoring the
abilities of communities to set the ground rules for the
marketplace. An unregulated global market effectively allows
the multinationals to hold an auction to see which countries will
bid the cheapest and least regulated labour and the most lax
environmental standards in order to get their investment.
If we do not establish some basic rules about the labour
markets and environmental protection, globalization will
certainly remain what many observers have called a race to the
bottom.
This is the view of the International Labour Organization
secretariat which earlier this month recommended to the
governing body of the ILO that there should be a social clause to
the WTO. This is also the view of the joint committee that
recently reviewed Canada's foreign policy. Its report included a
recommendation that there should be a co-ordination of
international labour and social standards.
I look forward to hearing the views of the members of the
committee who can support this amendment as a way of putting
their recommendation into action.
During the recent visit of Team Canada to China and the Prime
Minister's attendance at the APEC conference in Indonesia, the
Prime Minister claimed that the best way to address the problem
of human rights abuses in China, Indonesia and elsewhere was to
engage in trade to open up these societies. There is nothing in
the WTO that prevents countries from joining the WTO, trading
with member states and continuing to abuse human rights,
8217
denying workers the right to join independent unions, or
allowing child labour.
Support for a social clause which would link trade benefits to
basic human and social rights is the only way for us to begin a
true commitment to using trade as a way of improving human
rights situations in many countries. Without such a clause, the
WTO legislates a turkey shoot where the multinationals and
their allies in some developing countries can exploit the most
vulnerable.
Support for a social clause is the obvious response to
globalization by anyone who is not hypnotized by the
neo-Liberal rhetoric that the development of world markets
unfettered by democratic control is the inevitable and
unstoppable result of new technology.
The new technologies in telecommunications and in
information technology certainly make it possible for capital to
move instantly around the globe or for technologies to be
transferred between states very easily. It does not mean that it is
necessary for us to let the elites in the multinationals use that
technology without any obligations to the communities where
they operate.
Globalization as it is now occurring with multinationals
glorying in their freedom from democratic responsibility is not
an impersonal force of technological innovation. It results from
the deliberate choice of governments to liberalize trade and
investment policies, to hand over to the multinationals a carte
blanche to design a world order that suits their wants and
interests. We should not let the free market rhetoric blind us to
the fact that we can choose to win back some measure of our
ability to impose some community standards on the trade and
investment practices of the multinationals.
(1125)
The idea of a social clause to the World Trade Organization
has been opposed by some governments of developing countries
as a baldly protectionist measure to deprive developing
countries of their competitive advantage in low labour costs and
general lack of regulation.
If it is protectionist to protect children from exploitation as
virtual slaves, to protect workers who do not enjoy the basic
human rights of forming unions or having a safe place to work or
to protect the environment from rapacious multinationals then
we have no embarrassment in saying that we are protectionists.
We have to resist the way that the rhetoric of free trade has
perverted the word protection so that any public intervention to
protect any public good whatsoever is deemed to be a threat to
prosperity.
A social clause to the WTO however would not even fall under
the conventional definition of protectionism as regulations that
unfairly restrict the legitimate economic opportunities of
another country. The proposals that have been made by
supporters of a social clause, like the ILO, France and the United
States, simply call for a set of minimum standards of the rights
of workers to form unions. The effect of such a clause would not
only be to respect the rights of workers around the world but
also to bring economic benefit to the entire world economy.
It is astounding that advocates of market liberalization
trumpet the growth that supposedly results from open world
markets during a time when liberalization has led in the
developed countries to chronic high unemployment and falling
income for workers.
The introduction of a social clause would be an important step
forward in raising global demand, thereby stimulating
investment and consumption. The advocates of the
liberalization of world markets assumes that as developing
countries become more prosperous internal social pressures are
generated from a maturing and self-confident workplace to
insist on higher wages and better working conditions as
happened in the industrialized countries.
This assumption fails to recognize that the vast pool of
unemployed workers in rural sectors in the economies of east
and south Asia for example creates a huge drag on the ability of
wages to rise at a reasonable level. Moreover it ignores the fact
that workers in many developing countries do not enjoy the
basic democratic right to form unions that would allow them to
improve their condition. An essential ingredient to raising
global demand is therefore to intervene in the world labour
markets and to let natural economic forces raise wages. We can
thus begin a process of transforming globalization from a race to
the bottom into an upward spiral in the living standards of all
people around the world.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss the amendment to Bill
C-57 proposed by the hon. member for Laval Est. I respect the
hon. member's dedication to federalism and the learning and
thoughtfulness that she brings to this task.
Allow me to make a general comment in starting that it is
necessary in approaching the matters of amendments to
substantive bills to exercise a prudent economy in drafting and
at all times to consider criteria of relevance so that the main
purpose and thrust of the bill be not deflected.
The opening paragraph of amendment 3.1(a) is one that is of
course very dear to the heart of the present government. The
Prime Minister of Canada has led a very successful delegation to
China with the full co-operation and presence of nine of the ten
provincial premiers.
(1130 )
The intention of the government is to proceed in full vigour
with ideas of co-operative federalism as developed by Prime
Minister Lester Pearson and carried on by his successors. We
want to work with the provinces because we recognize that the
8218
common problems of the world community entering the 21st
century require a co-operative path in Canada of all the players.
We recognize a certain ambiguity in 3.1(a) but we have no
particular problems with that. I simply mention that what is
within provincial jurisdiction is by no means clear. There are no
watertight compartments. The Canadian rule under the Labour
Conventions decision of 1937, much criticized incidentally, is
followed by no federal state other than Germany.
In general, the view in federalism is that once an international
agreement is entered into the legislative power to implement the
agreement follows. That is not the Canadian position. I would
stress that all Canadian governments, particularly the present
one, have been very respectful of provincial interests and very
anxious to ensure co-operation.
Some of the suggestions here seem to go well beyond the
scope of an amendment and what good federalism requires or
even sensibly suggests. Is it suggested, for example-I looked
to see if there was any ambiguity as between the French and
English texts-that the issue of trade dispute resolution, the
machinery and processes, to which both the French and the
English texts of article 3.1(b) are directed is a matter that should
be discussed-now that the agreement is there-between
federal and provincial governments?
It is a well known Canadian position that we support
compulsory third party settlement of disputes. We have
constantly raised the necessity for implementing the
jurisdiction of the international court as final arbiter. Our
problem with many international agreements, including
NAFTA, is that this is not something with which the United
States is happy. The solution for the United States is to
understand the World Court better and to learn to adjust its
claims better to the processes of decision making there.
On these issues, Canada obviously will continue to study the
matter and continue to raise new issues of dispute resolution. I
wonder at this stage what is useful in retaining this as another
matter for extended federal-provincial discussion. You could
drive a Sherman tank through the proposition ``any economic
matter of major international significance''. I wonder whether it
sensibly belongs in an amendment.
It seems to me that what the hon. member for Laval East is
proposing reaches other areas of continuing concern for the
government of federal-provincial relations including
federal-provincial economic relations. The Constitution is not a
static institution even though the amending powers may not
work. There are enormous possibilities for creative adaptation
of machinery by custom and convention.
I would have thought these matters were probably better
addressed through another arena and perhaps another minister.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is concerned with
studying the issue of continuing federal-provincial economic
consultation and co-operation.
I wonder whether 3.1(c) is a useful amendment to Bill C-57. I
look at 3.2 and 3.4 and wonder again. Article 3.4 opens a
Pandora's box. In essence you are getting into asking the
minister to take measures that may run in direct conflict with the
international agreements. In any case it is not a matter to be
reached by indirection in the interstices of what purports to be
an amendment. I would suggest again some prudent economy
there.
Mr. Solomon: What's wrong with giving in?
(1135 )
Mr. McWhinney: I hope the hon. member is listening to the
debate. Good. The truth will make you free. It is an important
point to remember.
Let us come back to this again. I heard so much tired ideology,
19th century ideas, on trade and commerce that take no account
of the fact that we are into the 21st century, that I deliberately
eliminated the amendment of the hon. member opposite from
my discussion. I am referring instead to the member for Laval
East because there are matters of federalism that are of special
concern to the government, and we are with them in trying to
improve the mechanisms.
My suggestion is to cut down the scope of this amendment and
direct it generally to the issue of federal-provincial
jurisdictional matters. You will find a continuing governmental
concern with attending to that. It may well be the time has come
to re-examine the Labour Conventions decision. That is not a
matter the government would approach unilaterally. It is a
matter on which we can make subtle arrangements, much as the
German federation did, and we will do so also.
On the other matters, you have gone beyond the scope of an
amendment directed to federal matters. You are really directing
attention to the need for some improved federal-provincial
economic consultative mechanism. That is well within the
mandate of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In fact we
know it is part of the continuing constitutional revision he is
undertaking.
That is the main substance of my remarks. I compliment the
hon. member for Laval East for the thoughtful intervention. The
thrust of it is one that the government takes very much to heart. I
would think again that probably the main thrust is in article
3.1(a) and that the other matters could be raised at another time
in another arena in a substantive discussion of
federal-provincial relations.
8219
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to speak at report stage of Bill C-57, specifically
to Motion No. 1.
It is important to me and my party that the World Trade
Organization be allowed to get up and running very quickly.
Canada has a number of disputes we would like to see moved to
the international stage such as the wheat dispute and the
constant steel disputes between Canada and the United States. It
very important to move these on very quickly.
Motion No. 1 never really tries to accomplish this. It goes
against the spirit of the trade agreement, especially the fourth
part of that section which proposes the imposition of new tariffs
at a time when we are seeking to reduce all tariffs worldwide.
In addition, constant provincial consultation will tie the hands
of the federal government in trade disputes and international
economic matters. Canada should speak with one voice in
international forums.
The second part would tie the federal government's hands in
allocating tariff quota for supply managed sectors. I am sure that
is not what is intended in Motion No. 1, but that could be a
result.
I would like to deal with Motion No. 2 which is in the group
we are debating this morning. This motion asks for a yearly
report to the House of Commons outlining trade implementation
and the major trade obligations undertaken by Canada and the
impact on Canadian workers and companies.
Those kind of assessments are being done on an ongoing
basis. The government should not commit itself to studying the
impact of trade agreements on workers and companies on a
yearly basis. These studies are carried out all the time by the
industries and workers groups and the parties involved should
be the ones that assess the impact. They would also be a little bit
more effective in studying the impact on their groups rather than
having the government do it for them.
(1140)
I oppose Motion No. 6. It would create unnecessary delays.
International relations are the responsibility of the federal
government. A House committee can ask the government to
justify its actions, including calling ministers and departmental
officials before a standing committee at any time. This is an
ambiguous motion, one that would be really designed to make
more work. That option is already there, let us use it.
Regarding Motion No. 7, the House already has the power to
ask the minister for reports when it deems necessary. Regarding
the social clause that is being proposed by the NDP, this has
already been rejected by the parties that negotiated the GATT
agreement for the last seven years and to try and move it back in
now would be a mistake.
In addition to that, labour and environmental standards that
the members down the line here have suggested would actually
have a detrimental effect on the very people they are suggesting
to help. If people in underdeveloped countries have to conform
to a minimum wage standard and strict environmental standards
like Canada has, how can they compete in the world
marketplace? It is not necessary. It was recognized that it is not
necessary in the discussions that led up to the signing of the
GATT. In addition it is a matter that is going to be discussed on
an ongoing basis in the second round of the GATT negotiations
to see if there is any necessity for it.
I oppose the motions being proposed and urge the House to
move quickly to implement the GATT agreement through the
World Trade Organization and try to resolve a lot of outstanding
issues very quickly with the weight of all 120 member countries
behind us.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to speak to Motion No. 1, especially clause 3.4. Clause 3.4
of Motion No. 1 indicates that in the case where imports exceed
the established tariff rate levels, the minister shall impose tariffs
to ensure that such products are not permitted at prices lower
than those in the domestic market.
The concern that is being raised in Bill C-57 is the proposal
that would allow supplemental imports of supply managed
commodities as ``within accessed commitment'', which means
they would enter Canada at low or no tariff.
In talking to people in the industry about section 3.4, they
have indicated that they think the section is far too restrictive in
that it provides the minister with little or no discretionary
power.
It is important to understand that in supply managed
industries some commodities require from time to time to
import and require supplementary quotas. The problem is how
do you do that in such a way so as not to allow the industry to use
the supplemental quotas as a lever with which to either
manipulate prices or to break the supply management system?
Let me give the House an example. A cheese manufacturer
who makes frozen pizzas, when asked for future milk demands,
understates them. Later when the cheese manufacturer needed
milk to manufacture cheese for pizza he would indicate that
market demand has all of a sudden increased. Milk could not be
sourced in Canada because no one would be prepared to produce
that unexpected demand in that short a time. The manufacturer
then could apply for and be granted a tariff free supplemental
import permit. Other manufacturers would learn of this
advantage and either try and beat the system themselves, as the
original applicant had done, or pressure domestic producers for
a lower price to match that of the non-tariff imports so that they
could compete.
8220
That kind of situation could happen if supplemental quotas
are granted without restriction. This amendment has restricted
the discretion of the minister to the point that it would be
unworkable.
(1145 )
The supplemental quota is an extremely important area,
especially as a result of the new arrangements under the GATT
in which we are moving from import controls to tariff level
controls.
The government has assured us that supplemental quotas can
be granted in such a way so as not to undermine the supply
management system.
Mr. Penson: It needs to be undermined.
Mr. Easter: I hear the member opposite. The government
made a commitment, might I say, to support the supply
management system. In the legislation we are trying to ensure
we support the supply management system to the extent the
agreement that we signed implied. We trying to ensure through
the supplemental quota provisions that the industry cannot use
those supplemental quotas in such a way as to break the system.
In conclusion I indicate again that the system has certainly
changed substantially as a result of the GATT negotiations. The
World Trade Organization in Bill C-57 will try to implement
those changes into domestic law. As a government we certainly
recognize a legitimate concern under supplemental quotas, but
we have indicated that those concerns will be addressed if not
through this legislation then by some other means.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-57.
I want to make a comment in response to the Liberal member
for Vancouver Quadra. He made some comments with respect to
the bill. He indicated that some of the amendments before the
House would actually force the minister to stand up for
Canadians. The member is opposed to that. He wants the bill and
these types of laws implemented on an international basis so that
ministers of our government and our people will not stand up for
Canadians whether it be in supply management, the steel
production area or any other manufacturing sector.
I want the House of Commons and the people of Canada to
understand that the Liberal member from Quadra who
represents the Liberal government in the debate does not want to
restrict the minister to making any commitments or standing up
and fighting for Canadians across the country when it has to
happen. I find that very shameful.
I want to make some remarks with respect to the bill on behalf
of steel producers of Canada. A steel producer in my
constituency, IPSCO, is one of the larger producers or
manufacturers of pipe and steel in North America. It actually
has some operations in the United States as well, as do many
Canadian steel producers. This industry is quite concerned
about Bill C-57 as it is presented before the House today
because there are no equal legislative footings in the act which
would support it in cases respecting anti-dumping.
For example, in the United States there is detailed drafting of
legislation and a law in effect which support American
anti-dumping processes. Bill C-57 does not provide an
equitable amount of protection for Canadian steel producers.
The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to
anti-dumping should be revised in the view of the Canadian
steel producers to mirror as strictly as possible U.S.
implementing legislation.
The steel industry in Canada is quite important to the
Canadian economy. In 1993 there were $8.6 billion in sales. It is
a fully competitive operation, having dramatically raised
productivity in Canada over the number of years it has been in
existence. We have over $3 billion in exports from Canada
mostly to the United States. The Canadian Steel Producers
Association employs 33,000 employees, not counting all those
who work in downstream operations such as distribution,
fabrication and wire production.
(1150)
Trade is increasingly important to the Canadian Steel
Producers Association and in particular to our country. Trade in
all goods and services increases economic growth which on its
own is good for the steel industry. Trade in steel is becoming
increasingly important to Canadian steel producers. It is
reflected in the sense that they are concerned about some of the
NAFTA and some of the American legislation which is
protectionist. They have undertaken to initiate businesses in the
United States to get around some of this, thereby costing
Canadians jobs in the end. The volume of steel shipped from
Canada for export has risen from 30 per cent in 1983 to nearly 40
per cent in the last year.
With respect to Bill C-57 I would like to talk about the sort of
proposals the government might consider implementing to
ensure that steel producers are not at a disadvantage with respect
to American producers. There have been anti-dumping actions
between Canada and the United States over the past two years.
They have been involved with 11 different anti-dumping cases,
9 of which involved trade between Canada and the United
States.
We believe such actions have no place in the free trade area. It
would be to our mutual advantage to stop anti-dumping actions
between our two countries. A NAFTA working group has been
established to look at alternatives to the present anti-dumping
regime in North America and has a deadline of December 1995.
We want this effort to succeed so that steel can be traded within
NAFTA on a basis of price, quality and service, not lawsuits.
8221
So far lawsuits still play an important role. There is a major
imbalance between the way American and Canadian
anti-dumping processes work. This puts Canadian firms at a
disadvantage. It weakens the bargaining leverage of the
Canadian government in negotiating change. Bill C-57 does not
address this particular issue. That is what I am calling upon the
government to do today.
For example, data requirements under the U.S. system are so
onerous as to be a barrier in trade to themselves regardless of the
outcome of a case. If dumping is found, the Canadian system
allows the company either to adjust prices to eliminate any
unfair trade practice or pay a known duty. The American system
does not allow an exporter to simply adjust his price. He has to
pay the duty deposit. Moreover, the exact amount of the duty is
unknown until months or years after the sale has been made. The
Canadian exporter thus faces uncertainty and financial risk by
continuing to export. Anti-dumping actions between Canada
and the U.S. should be stopped, but as long as they continue
Canada should do nothing to diminish its leverage to negotiate
change.
Unlike the American implementation of legislation the
Canadian bill provides no guidelines on what would be
acceptable evidence. Without guidelines it would be very
difficult for a Canadian company to know how to demonstrate
foreseen and imminent threat of injury. American companies
will have an easier task under their legislation, even though the
same principle of the WTO is being implemented.
The U.S. implementing legislation also provides that if
dumping diminishes in reaction to the filing of a complaint, the
International Trade Commission may discount evidence after
the filing in its assessment of injury. This makes it easier for an
injury charge to stick. There is no comparable provision in Bill
C-57. Again the legislative support for Canadian producers will
be weaker than that for American producers.
We have the member for Vancouver Quadra saying: ``We
don't want the minister to be in charge of providing some
support for Canadian producers; we want the American and the
international fields to be speaking for our producers''. We all
know they will not be supporting or speaking for our steel
producers.
With the U.S. legislation spelling out in detail options for
interpretation for its responsible agency, it will be easier for
American companies to get injury findings and for those
findings to be defended in any process of review and appeal.
There is also a concern in the steel production area with respect
to assessing the threat of injury at the time of sunset review,
which is after five years.
(1155 )
Bill C-57 does not say anything about how the threat of injury
should be interpreted at the time of review of an anti-dumping
action, but the American implementing legislation does. It
states that the International Trade Commission, in determining
whether the threat of injury meets the WTO criteria of clearly
foreseen and imminent, may consider that the effects of
revocation or termination may not be imminent but may
manifest themselves over a longer period of time. And it may
consider indirect effects including whether the imports would
potentially inhibit a domestic producer from developing
improved versions of the product.
In short, if we compare the wording of the U.S. and Canadian
legislation to implement the sunset requirement of the WTO, it
will clearly be much easier for American than for Canadian
companies to prove the need for a continuation of anti-dumping
action. It will also be easier for such a finding to be defended on
appeal because of the latitude of interpretation spelled out in the
American legislation.
There are other things that are quite important to the industry.
I want to summarize by saying that the detailed drafting of the
legislation should not be allowed to widen the gap between
Canadian and American anti-dumping processes which already
puts Canadian companies at a disadvantage with respect to their
primary market and weakens the leverage of the Canadian
government negotiating alternatives to anti-dumping under
NAFTA.
The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to
anti-dumping should be revised to mirror as strictly as possible
the implementing legislation of the United States. That is what
we in the New Democratic Party caucus are calling for. That is
what the steel producers of Canada and their association are
calling upon the government to implement. We are asking that it
happen by supporting the motions we have put before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): I am pleased to
support the motion of my colleague from Laval East.
It is important to the Bloc Quebecois that the Minister of
International Trade establish a mandatory process to consult
with the provinces regarding the implementation of the
Agreement wherever it relates to a matter within provincial
jurisdiction, any matter relating to trade dispute resolution and
any economic matter of major national or international
significance.
I will go over each of these elements. Regarding the
implementation of the Agreement, a federal-provincial
consultation process is required because the federal government
cannot interfere in areas within provincial jurisdiction as it
pleases and also because it is necessary to harmonize provincial
policies with international obligations. What the Bloc is
requesting is not excessive or extravagant since our American
neighbours have already made provision for such a mechanism.
Indeed, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 provides for the
establishment of a consultation process between the federal
government and the
8222
states regarding the implementation of any trade agreement
affecting these states.
The provinces are not involved either in the dispute
settlement mechanism described in this bill. Yet, it is essential
that the provinces be involved in a formal consultation process
for the development of the Canadian position, especially
regarding matters within provincial jurisdiction. How can the
federal government prepare itself adequately in disputes over
things like beer, magnesium and lumber? Again, let us not forget
that, in the same legislation that I mentioned moments ago
regarding the implementation of trade agreements, the United
States have made provision for the establishment of a
consultation process for the settlement of disputes affecting
American states. Canada could do the same thing.
Finally, it is also imperative that the federal government do
not act alone with regard to economic matters of major
significance. These matters have a direct impact on the lives of
all Canadians and on the social and economic development of
every province. Thus, provincial governments must be
consulted on such matters as employment enhancement,
monetary policies, etc.
The second major point is the need for agreement with the
provinces on tariff rate quotas and selection mechanisms for
access to Canadian market. The import quotas set to protect our
supply management programs have been abolished by the GATT
agreements. They have been replaced by tariff quotas. This
affects four agricultural areas: dairy products, eggs, poultry and
turkeys.
Under the Canadian legislation implementing the Uruguay
Round agreements, tariff quota mechanisms and their allocation
are in the minister's hands. The Bloc Quebecois believes it is
imperative to limit that power and to make it incumbent on the
minister to get the agreement of the provinces for any change in
these tariff quota allocation mechanisms.
(1200)
But there is something more important. Because of the impact
on regional economies, it is important that the provinces be
involved in allocation. As with the tariff quota allocation, we do
not see how the mechanisms for selecting our trade partners to
be given access to the Canadian market can be concentrated in
the hands of the minister only.
It is imperative that the provinces be involved in this selection
process, because of the direct and indirect impact it can have on
regional economies. As for the subsidized exports, our
amendment seeks to give Canadian industries more flexibility
for the phasing out of our export subsidies in compliance with
our GATT commitments.
That flexibility is needed to maintain the competitiveness of
our businesses on the international market, should their trade
partners not comply with these same commitments. Again, we
have to insist on the need for a parliamentary follow-up.
This bill gives the minister the authority to levy duties on
farm products imported outside tariff rate quotas, so that prices
will not be lower than prices on the Canadian market when we
are experiencing shortages. We all know that shortages are not
always real, but can be engineered.
I am pleased to speak to this amendment moved by my
colleague for Longueuil providing for a parliamentary
follow-up mechanism. For the sake of openness, it is imperative
that we set up such a mechanism to monitor the implementation
of the agreement in Canada, trade commitments undertaken by
Canada's trading partners, and the impact of the agreement on
Canadian workers and companies.
Canada already has a mechanism to monitor U.S. trade
practices, especially trade barriers against Canadian goods.
That process is open to the public, but no report is tabled in the
House. This amendment involves a control of the bureaucratic
system by the Parliament of Canada in order to inform the
Canadian public as fully as possible, and promote public debate
on major issues affecting the Canadian economy.
This same concern about openness can already be seen in the
United States. The American version of our Bill C-57 provides
for an annual review of trade policies by Congress. It is essential
that Canadian elected representatives be informed of the status
of commitments undertaken by our trading partners under the
Uruguay Round. For example, Parliament should get
information on reductions in internal and export subsidies in the
United States, the opening-up of U.S. borders to Canadian
exports, etc.
More importantly, Parliament should be apprised of
developments in trade disputes between Canada and the United
States concerning, for example, wheat, beer, yoghurt and ice
cream. Our American neighbours are prepared, with the number
of consultation processes I mentioned earlier, to settle those
disputes. Canada is not in the same state of readiness, and that is
why we should implement similar mechanisms immediately.
Since the Liberal Party promised labour adjustment measures
in its red book, members opposite should not reject this
amendment which provides that the minister should inform the
House of new developments in this area.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker,
like my colleagues who already spoke on the various
amendments now before us, I am pleased to give my views on
amendments 1, 2, 6 and 7. With your permission, I would like to
start with amendments 6 and 7, proposed by the hon. member
from the NDP.
8223
With respect to amendment 6, I must first say that we
subscribe to some of the principles underlying the amendment
itself. However, we believe that certain provisions of this
amendment will make the World Trade Organization's
decision-making process much more cumbersome.
(1205)
Consequently, we have some difficulty supporting this
amendment. We agree particularly on the principle that the
changes to be made to provincial legislation must be considered,
along with the provincial areas of jurisdiction affected by
implementing the Uruguay Round agreement.
I would like to point out to my colleague that we presented an
amendment which will require the government to take into
account the provisions concerning provincial areas of
jurisdiction. So I respectfully invite him to support our
amendment instead of his, because his amendment will make the
World Trade Organization's decision-making process
considerably more cumbersome, as I said earlier.
As for amendment 7, requiring the minister to report twice a
year on the state of negotiations on the labour, social and
environmental aspects of trade relations, we agree on this
principle, of course. However, I repeat that we proposed an
amendment which addresses this concern. I regret to inform the
hon. member that, during the work of the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International trade, our colleagues on the
government side were not very receptive to the idea of having
only one annual report on the implementation of the Uruguay
Round agreements by our main partners, particularly the United
States.
I see that the amendment moved by the hon. member of the
New Democratic Party, which suggests not only one report but
two of them, has even less chance of being approved by
members on the government side. Consequently, I would invite
him, so that we can be sure that this point will be accepted, to
support our amendment, which seeks only one report every year.
Before I go any further, may I draw your attention to the fact
that, once again, we do have not a quorum. On the government
side, we only have the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
International Trade. So, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to rule
on the quorum.
And the count having be taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Since we have a
quorum, the hon. member may continue.
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I am impressed with how
diligently you have applied the Standing Orders.
I am surprised to hear our colleagues from the Reform Party
constantly repeat that we should have Bill C-57 adopted as soon
as possible in order for the Uruguay Round Agreement to be
implemented at the earliest possible time. I think nothing should
stand in our moving as quickly as we can, even though obvious
and significant improvements must be made to the bill tabled.
My colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, is
concerned with the expectations of the steel industry. I can
assure him that today's Order Paper also contains an amendment
which will likely meet these expectations.
I mentioned earlier that we intended to oppose amendments
Nos. 6 and 7, mainly because we wanted to submit concurrent or
similar ones which, according to us, would be simpler and easier
to implement. With your permission, I will go back to these
amendments.
(1210)
I think our colleague, the hon. member for Laval East, did
very well in introducing her amendment. I shall not elaborate
further on that one.
However, I would like to add a few comments on the
amendment also brilliantly introduced by my colleague from
Longueuil. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert mentioned a few
things with regard to these two amendments and I would like to
shed new information on the subject.
I would like to remind the hon. members in this House that the
purpose of the amendment was that Parliament be informed each
year about the implementation of the Agreement in Canada, the
fulfilment of our international obligations and the impact of the
Agreement on Canadian and Quebec workers, according to
priorities previously set by the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
It must be understood that the Uruguay Round Agreement is
anything but a simple agreement between technocrats. It is the
result of eight years of very complex negotiations which meant
that the various participating governments and States had to
make a number of political choices.
The effects of this Agreement are numerous and they affect a
great many different areas. The Americans are ready, and we see
this in the bill that is now before Congress-to challenge our
tariff measures and compare them with the provisions of the
international treaties we have signed, and I am referring to the
Uruguay Round agreement and NAFTA. They have set up a
consultation process to collect information that will be used to
challenge our measures, for instance. We must be prepared. We
must have the information we need to prepare on defence. In this
respect, I note that section 424 of the U.S. bill to implement the
Uruguay Round agreement reads as follows:
[English]
``The President, not later than six months after the date of
entering into force of the WTO agreement with respect to the
United States, shall submit a report to the Congress on the extent
to which Canada is complying with its obligation under the
Uruguay round agreement with respect to dairy and poultry
8224
products and with its related obligations under the North
American Free Trade Agreement''.
[Translation]
This translates more or less as follows: ``The President, not
later than six months after the date of entering into force of the
WTO agreement with respect to the United States, shall submit a
report to the Congress on the extent to which Canada is
complying with its obligation under the Uruguay Round
agreement with respect to dairy and poultry products and with
its related obligations under the North American Free Trade
Agreement''.
If the United States makes provision in its legislation for
verifying Canada's compliance with the Uruguay Round
agreement, we can drop any reluctance we might have about
including provisions in our own legislation provisions
authorizing Parliament to report on how our principal trading
partners, and mainly the United States, are complying with the
Uruguay Round agreement.
The amendment in question also refers to the impact on
workers and companies, and I would like to expand on this
aspect. Paragraph (c) of the amendment proposed in motion No.
2 reads as follows: ``the impact of the Agreement on Canadian
workers and companies''.
The report to be submitted by the government should indicate
the impact the Agreement has on Canadian workers and
companies. This is important and reflects concerns raised by our
colleagues in their amendments.
I may recall that this provision in the amendment is entirely in
line with a promise in the Liberal Party's red book that the
government would assist individuals and firms in
labour-intensive sectors of the Canadian economy, such as
furniture manufacturing and textiles, to deal with restructuring.
As you know, there is a significant concentration of these
sectors in Quebec, and especially in Montreal.
With this amendment, the government has an opportunity to
meet one of their commitments in the red book which was to
consider the impact of the Uruguay Round agreement on
individuals and firms, so that subsequently, it can assist
individuals and firms to deal with restructuring.
(1215)
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will speak to
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7, starting with motion No. 1.
We believe the amendment suggested entails many problems
and should be rejected. The first problem with subclause 3.1 is
that we already have an efficient process for consultation
between the federal and provincial governments regarding
external trade when the provinces' interests are concerned. The
provinces were very well served by these instruments in the
implementation of international agreements or the resolution of
disputes ensuing from this agreement.
As for subclause 3.2, by requiring the Governor in Council to
ask the provinces' consent before doing any of the things
mentioned, it would change the current rules under the
Constitution. It will give the provinces a veto in international
matters.
As for subclause 3.3, Canada cannot subject the
implementation of its international commitments to the
behaviour of its trading partners. If it considers that they are not
respecting their obligations, Canada can then resort to the
dispute resolution mechanism, which is usually successful.
Canada cannot simply decide not to respect its obligations. It is
still in Canada's interest to obey the rule of law, not to go against
it.
[English]
Paragraph 3.4, the proposal would be contrary to what was
negotiated in the agreement, specifically paragraph 4.2 of the
agriculture agreement. A central part of the agriculture
agreement is the elimination of measures such as variable
levies. The effect of this amendment would be to introduce such
measures. The government appreciates the interest on the issue
of supplementary import of an agriculture product in cases of
shortage in the domestic market. However, these matters are
currently the subject of consultation with all domestic
stakeholders.
We also recommend rejection of Motion No. 2. Committees of
the House are always free to request reports from ministers,
imposing the statutory obligation. At this point to produce a
report would I presume tie Parliament's hands in the future. I
suggest it would be a lot more prudent to request such a report as
the need arises. Preparation of such a report, I have no doubt in
my mind and in the minds of my colleagues, will cost a
significant amount of resources both financially and otherwise.
Concerning paragraph (b), this refers to all trade obligations
and commitments of Canada's principal trading partners and
therefore goes beyond the scope of the bill before the House.
Concerning paragraph (c), the impact of the agreement on
Canadian workers and companies as a matter of economic
analysis, there are methodological problems with isolating the
effect of the agreement from other elements affecting Canadian
companies and workers.
(1220 )
Concerning Motion No. 6, we recommend the rejection of this
motion for the following reasons.
The consultation requirement contained in paragraph 2.1
would be very onerous and unworkable. The World Trade
General Council will meet frequently and take numerous
decisions that directly or indirectly affect Canadian interests,
rights and obligations. The requirement for the minister to
consult
8225
with the committee prior to each such decision would require
frequent meetings with the committee on a plethora of details
and highly technical issues. Moreover, the agenda of the council
is often fixed very shortly before its meeting and a prior
consultation requirement would hamstring Canada's ability to
respond quickly and flexibly to new developments in a manner
that takes account of the position of other World Trade
Organization members and that effectively advances Canadian
interests.
The reporting requirement in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 is also
unworkable and would have significant resource implications.
Some of the information requested is contained in the GATT
reports. Other information is restricted under GATT practice
and therefore its public release is not permitted. Canada is
currently working in the World Trade Organization preparatory
committee to have such documents derestricted on a more
expedited timetable. These World Trade Organization reports
and documents could be made available to a committee of the
House.
Finally, we also recommend the rejection of Motion No. 7
because the reporting requirement is onerous and would entail
significant resource implications. The minister could in any
case report on ongoing negotiations from time to time as
appropriate or as requested by a committee.
My colleagues from the New Democratic Party suggest that
we introduce an amendment that would deal with the social
clause. This suggestion is too late to even be considered. Our
answer to that would be that the best social clause this or any
other government could offer would be a job.
To that extent, I would suggest that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7
all be rejected.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that we are stressing in
this motion the necessity for the federal government to consult
provinces and establish mechanisms before taking position in
sectors which are, formally and constitutionally, within
provincial jurisdiction.
In agriculture, for example, we have seen during the last
negotiations the impact that it could have on the marketing of
eggs, poultry and other products. We believe that the federal
should not only consult the provinces but also create a formal
mechanism so that, in sectors such as agriculture, culture, and
natural resources, provinces are not only consulted but have a
say on the position taken by Canada in this international forum.
This supposes that negotiations will go on with the provinces.
We are told that provinces will be fully consulted; we fail to see
how the government can oppose the amendment we are
proposing.
Let us take the American government, for instance. Liberals
are of the opinion, and so am I, that the American federation is
much more centralized than Canada. Yet, in Part E of the
Statement of Administrative Action, the American equivalent of
Bill C-57, which deals with the Uruguay Round Agreement Act,
sections 102B and 102C provide that the US federal government
must not only inform but establish a process to consult the states
regarding the general implementation of the Uruguay Round as
well as the positions to be adopted during the settlement of
commercial disputes.
(1225)
In the case of lumber, for example, Quebec had to bear the
burden of tariffs which were in no way warranted. The problem
existed only in British Columbia. Yet Quebec had to pay the
price although, strangely enough, New Brunswick was exempt.
Why two different treatments, one for Quebec and one for New
Brunswick, when the problem was in British Columbia?
If there was a compulsory system like the one we propose,
first, we would not come to a point where some provinces, like
Quebec, are penalized. Second, the government would have to
stop pretending that it is consulting provinces, because there
would be mandatory consulting mechanisms which would have
to produce results. That means that the position of Canada would
be arrived at after due consideration of the powers granted to
provinces by the Constitution of Canada.
We are only asking that the government abide by the
Constitution and recognize provincial jurisdictions at the
international level. We are asking for an extension of the rights
of the provinces to the international level in the area of trade
agreements and, as long as Quebec remains in confederation, we
want Canada to respect provincial rights. If the United States
can do it, what prevents Canada from doing the same?
These are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1, standing in the name of Mrs. Debien.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
8226
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2, standing in the name of
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of
Mr. Taylor.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 6 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 7 standing in the name of Mr. Taylor.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 7 negatived)
(1230 )
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-57, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 4, with
the following:
``8.(1) Subject to this section, the Agreement is hereby approved.
(2) In subsections (2) to (6), ``law of Canada'' includes laws duly enacted by
any province or territory in Canada.
(3) No provision of the Agreement shall apply where its application or
enforcement would result in contravention of any law of Canada.
(4) Nothing in the Agreement or in this Act shall be construed
(a) to amend or modify any law of Canada, including any law relating to
(i) protection of human or animal life,
(ii) protection of the environment, or
(iii) worker safety;
or
(b) to limit any authority conferred under a law of Canada, unless specifically
provided for in this Act.
(5) As may be required, the Minister shall consult with the governments of
the provinces and territories for the purpose of achieving conformity with the
provisions of the Agreement.
(6) No law of Canada may be declared invalid on the ground that the law or its
application or enforcement in a particular circumstance is inconsistent with any
provision of the Agreement.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on
this motion amending Bill C-57.
8227
This amendment writes into Canadian law precisely the same
measures that have been written by Congress into American law
regarding the implementation of the World Trade Organization
agreement in the United States. Congress has feared that the
WTO will seriously compromise American sovereignty.
We have heard many of the newly elected American
politicians talking about their desire to remain an independent
and sovereign nation capable of making their own economic
decisions for Americans. This sort of statement is something we
should be hearing from the front benches of our own government
and from the other members in this Chamber who wish to ensure
that all Canadians, regardless of their profession, vocation or
status in life have an opportunity to succeed with the support of
their government in their endeavours.
As I indicated, Congress fears that the WTO will seriously
compromise American sovereignty, It has therefore included
several clear statements in its legislation to ensure that
American law will prevail over any WTO decision. In looking at
the American legislation which defines the relationship of the
agreement to United States law and state law, in section
102(a)(1) I read this:
United States law to prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay
round agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or
circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have
effect.
Incredible. Section 102(a)(2) states:
Construction. Nothing in this act shall be construed
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States including any law relating to:
(i) the protection of human animal plant life or health;
(ii) the protection of the environment; or
(iii) worker safety; or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including
section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The United States is one of the largest if not the largest trading
nation in the world. Again the Americans are ensuring that the
agreements they are reaching on the international stage protect
the interests of the people within their borders. Surely we in
Canada deserve to be negotiating and agreeing to no less.
(1235)
We are familiar with the behaviour of the Americans under the
North American free trade agreement especially with regard to
durum wheat which I am very familiar with and softwood
lumber which all members of my caucus are familiar with. We
can assume that the Americans mean business when they say
they will not let any international agreement stop them from
harassing the trade of their trading partners if they feel it is in
their interests.
It is not that I am trying to say we can learn a lesson from the
Americans in this regard. The Americans will defend
themselves right or wrong. We know from durum wheat,
softwood lumber and other matters that even when they are
wrong they will take every measure they can to ensure that their
interests are protected and the people whose interests need
protecting are supported.
Even in our own case where we know we are right on durum
right we caved in. On the Crow benefit, transporting grain to
port for sale in the international marketplace, we know we are
right to maintain that benefit for our producers. Even before the
agreement is signed here in Canada or the legislation
implementing the agreement in Canada is concluded, the Liberal
government across the way is giving away the Crow benefit.
The government is negotiating right now on the prairies how
to change that benefit for Canadian producers. The people who
are best served by that benefit are being let down by this
government in the absence of even an agreement through this
legislation to proceed, whereas our trading partner is going to
every length it possibly can to protect its producers even though
it is wrong. This is unbelievable.
Canadians have to take note of what is happening not only
through this debate but through this whole WTO practice. As we
know, in such circumstances we believe it is not only right but
also proper for Canada to arm itself with the same legal weapons
containing the effects of the WTO agreement until such time as
the Americans will demonstrate goodwill in making a rules
based trading system work.
The member for Winnipeg Transcona, our party's trade critic,
has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and
has carefully thought through many of the provisions. As a
result he has written a letter a portion of which I would like to
read into today's record of Hansard and for the benefit of all
those who are watching. This letter appeared in the Washington
Post on November 6. I quote the last two paragraphs of his letter:
The apparent failure of a rules-based trading regime is rich in irony.
Canadians and Americans, like others around the world, have been asked by the
multinationals and their allies in governments to sacrifice considerable national
sovereignty over investment policy and social, labour and environmental
standards in exchange for this rules-based regime. If it becomes evident that the
rules do not work as a result of either American ideological arrogance or
American self-interest masquerading as ideology, informed voters around the
world may feel that there has been a breach of the contracts their country has
entered into through the various trade liberalization agreements. Such voters
may demand that their governments try to take back some of that lost
sovereignty, until such times as a real global community can be established as an
alternative to the moral anarchy of the current ``globalization''.
In this sense, any American sabotage of a rules-based regime may be the great hope
for those opposed to globalization on the terms set out by the multinationals. America
may yet be the undoing of free trade, either by harassing others into despair about its
sincerity, or by exiting such agreements themselves if they prove to be too effective in
cases where fair trade conflicts with American self-interest.
8228
(1240 )
It is very clear here that the Americans in attempting to
protect their own economic interests are taking steps that could,
if they scuttle the agreement in the United States, benefit
Canadian interests in ensuring that those engaged in our
economy receive a fair shake for what they are doing.
The amendment in front of us today does nothing less than
ensure that our legislation is exactly the same or carries exactly
the same interests forward as what the Americans are doing in
theirs.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to stand in this House and support the New
Democratic Party motion on Bill C-57 to provide the businesses
and people of Canada with the same rights under the WTO as the
Americans have.
I want to start my remarks by sharing with the House and the
people of Canada the fact that I had an opportunity to meet with
a number of U.S. senators and congressmen last spring. The
purpose of the meetings were to discuss certain issues relating to
Canada and the U.S. with respect to steel production, steel trade,
exports and imports, as well as the question of the durum wheat
export problems that the Americans perceive to be having with
Canada.
This is what I concluded during the course of our discussions.
We met with about 16 or 17 senators and congressmen from the
United States. They are not free traders. They are not people
who respect international agreements if the international
agreements and free trade threaten their industries or jobs in
their country or threaten markets which they have captured
during the course of doing business.
We should not be discarding or brushing off Americans as
incompetent business people. Americans usually undertake
business to make money. They undertake business around the
world to make money around the world. They do not give other
countries concessions such as: ``We will do a little business with
your country and you can do a little business with our country
and make a lot of money off us at the expense of jobs in the
United States, at the expense of United States industry''.
Americans are not stupid people and neither are their business
people. They know full well when they see a business
opportunity they will take full advantage of that business
opportunity to maximize their profits and returns for their
people.
From this visit with these American senators and
congressmen I also concluded that they view trade with Canada
as important, but they view protecting their own industries and
their own jobs to be of greater importance. In view of that they
have laws which the member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake has already outlined. They have clauses in their legislation
to protect their industry. Under Bill C-57 we do not have the
same protection with respect to the WTO for our own industry,
businesses and producers.
Earlier in the day I spoke about the importance of the steel
producers in Canada and the problems they are having with the
Americans. Now even under the North American free trade
agreement the Americans are able to say to the steel producers in
Canada: ``We appreciate your competition, but you are hurting
jobs in the United States. Therefore we are going to undertake to
countervail and create a little bit of a problem for your
industry''.
There are mechanisms in the agreements, but whenever they
do this it causes a great deal of expense to the steel producers in
Canada because they have to comply with all the American laws
that protect the American industry. It costs them money for
lawyers. It costs them money for analyses. It costs them money
to produce an argument in support of their position with respect
to exporting steel form Canada to the United States.
By the way, Canadian producers do not dump steel in the
United States; they produce steel for contracts they have
received in the United States of America. They produce the steel
ready made. It is already pre-sold once it is there, but the
Americans still do not like this process.
(1245 )
Bill C-57 is about 200 pages in length and is a fairly
substantial bill. I know all five members of the House who are
left here right now seem to be concerned about the bill and
seeing it passed in its entirety. New Democrats on the other hand
are quite concerned that the bill provide the same protection to
its producers and manufacturers in Canada as the American
legislation provides to their producers and manufacturers. That
is all New Democrats are asking for.
We are asking for fairness. We are asking for equity. We are
asking that the Government of Canada stand up on behalf of
Canadian manufacturers, workers and others in the international
market. The international market and other countries will be
standing up for themselves. Unless Canadians feel it is a priority
to protect and promote our own industry we have a real serious
problem.
Therefore in this motion we are asking the government to do
what other countries have done for their people. We are not
asking for anything more. We are not asking even to be
provocative. We are just saying that we should do what others
have done. Let us do what the government is obliged to do, that
is to protect Canadians in the event of trade agreements.
Mr. Taylor: Do the right thing.
8229
Mr. Solomon: As my colleague from The
Battlefords-Meadowlake has said, let us do the right thing for
producers, business people, farmers and the working people of
Canada.
In summary, the American legislation protects its industries
and its jobs. All we are asking in the amendment to Bill C-57
that we have put before the House is for the government to do the
same; no more or no less but just to do the same so we can stand
proudly as parliamentarians and say that we are aware of the
challenges facing our producers, our workers and our industries
and we are prepared to stand four-square behind them in making
sure they are not at a disadvantage in the international
marketplace.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand
why my colleagues are so anti-American in their approach to the
legislation. We are talking about the World Trade Organization
implementing legislation in terms of Canada and Canada's
obligation to the international community. Since they
mentioned section 102(a)(1) of the American implementing
legislation I should like to suggest to my colleague that this
action only reflects a congressional view that necessary changes
in federal statutes should be specifically enacted rather than
provided for in blanket pre-emption of the federal statute by the
agreement.
Canada's legal regime is similar in that respect. Actually
under our Canadian domestic law Canadian legislators have
precedence over our international obligation in case of conflict
unless specifically provided otherwise in the legislation. This is
as a result of basic Canadian constitutional law.
The section which was quoted, section 102(a)(1), does not
reflect U.S. intentions to apply domestic law in contravention to
its World Trade Organization obligations or have recourse to its
domestic legislation to unilaterally enforce World Trade
Organization obligations against other countries.
Irrespective of this section the U.S. will be bound by its World
Trade Organization obligations under international law. Those
obligations could be enforced under the dispute settlement
mechanism if need be. This provision of the U.S. implementing
legislation does not represent any threat to Canada.
We are recommending rejection of the motion as proposed.
Subparagraph 8.2, depending upon its interpretation, could have
important constitutional implications. The bill does not intend
in any way to introduce legislation which would impact on
provincial legislation. The paragraph could be seen as an
intrusion by Parliament into provincial jurisdiction. In
subparagraphs 8.3 and 8.6 there is no need for these proposals.
(1250)
Under Canadian constitutional law our international
obligations become part of Canadian law only to the extent of
their implementation by Parliament. No international
agreement can prevail over Canadian law unless Parliament
specifically legislates to that effect. There is nothing in the bill
that gives precedence to the agreement. Therefore our basic
constitutional law will continue to apply.
Subparagraph 8.4 is contrary to our international obligations.
The sole purpose of the bill is to approve the World Trade
Organization agreement and to implement obligations under the
agreement. It is necessary to amend and modify existing
Canadian statutes to implement those obligations and to allow
Canada to become a full member of the World Trade
Organization.
Subparagraph 8.5 proposes to introduce a federal-provincial
consultative mechanism for the purpose of implementing the
agreement. This mechanism is already in place and is very
efficient. Therefore we see no need to legislate on the matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
also would like to speak on motion No. 3 and point out that the
Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion presented by our
colleague from the New Democratic Party, not because we are
opposed to its subject matter, on the contrary. A number of
principles contained in the motion are quite laudable and we are
in total agreement with them.
Obviously, it goes without saying that we support the
protection of human or animal life, the protection of the
environment and worker safety.
We are also in total agreement with clause 8(2) which deals
with the application of the agreement to the laws of the
provinces and territories in Canada.
We are opposed to this proposed amendment, and regrettably
so, because we in the Bloc Quebecois have also been faced with
having a similar amendment rejected by the government. During
the clause by clause study of the bill, we attempted to present
two amendment proposals to the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but we eventually
withdrew them. With our proposed amendments, we wanted to
make the implementation of the agreement conditional on a
number of points. There were a few problems, consequently we
withdrew our proposals and worded the amendments differently
so as not to make the approval of the agreement conditional.
The amendment presented by the New Democratic Party
makes the approval of the agreement conditional on a number of
things. Obviously, for our part, we would see no problem in
making it conditional on the protection of human or animal life,
the protection of the environment or worker safety.
8230
Rather, the problem is that the approval of the agreement is
made conditional. It means that we are willing to renege on the
word given on the international scene, which will not
necessarily endear us to our trading partners. On the other hand,
clause 8(6) states: ``No law of Canada may be declared invalid
on the ground that the law or its application or enforcement in
a particular circumstance is inconsistent with any provision of
the Agreement''.
The effect of this provision of the proposed amendment is to
render Bill C-57 completely null and void. This is basically why
we are opposed to this amendment.
I say it again, we are doing so with great regret since the
underlying principles are laudable and we are in total agreement
with them. We will have to vote against this amendment and we
most sincerely regret it.
(1255)
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to oppose Motion No. 3. I believe the trade agreement must be
allowed to overrule protectionist domestic laws both here and in
the United States. We must act within the spirit of the agreement
that was signed by the 120 member countries after seven long
years of negotiations in the GATT Uruguay round.
If we adopted the amendment proposed by the NDP we would
not be achieving the move to free trade which benefits a lot of
us, and particularly those in agriculture who did not have rules
regarding trade in agriculture under the GATT. They are now
being brought under it for the first time. I believe protectionist
laws may be developed in some provinces that would handcuff
the ability of the federal government to work within the World
Trade Organization and the GATT.
I believe it should be defeated and therefore oppose the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 3 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I shall now propose
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 which will be grouped for debate but voted
on separately.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the
following new Clause:
``12.1 The Minister shall conduct a study to determine the effects of the
Uruguay Round Agreements on the Canadian milk marketing system and shall,
not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the Agreement with
respect to Canada, table a report in the House of Commons on the results of the
study.''
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-57, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 4, the following
new Clause:
``12.1 Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Minister
shall table in the House of Commons a report describing, in respect of the
preceding fiscal year of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''),
(a) the major activities and work programs of WTO, including the functions and
activities of committees established under Article IV of the Agreement and the
expenditures made by WTO in connection with those activities and programs;
(b) the percentage of budgetary assessments by WTO that were accounted for by
each WTO Member including Canada;
(c) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat at WTO
and the number of professional, administrative and support staff at WTO;
(d) for each personnel category described in paragraph (c), the number of citizens of
each WTO Member and the average salary of the personnel in each category;
(e) any report issued by a panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement
proceeding regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada
and the efforts of the Minister to provide for implementation of recommendations
contained in the report that are adverse to Canada or any province or territory in
Canada;
(f) details on proceedings before a panel or the Appellate Body that were initiated
during the fiscal year regarding any law of Canada or of any province or territory in
Canada, the status of the proceeding and the matters at issue in the proceeding;
(g) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a report
adverse to Canada that was issued by a panel or the Appellate Body; and
(h) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of the
Ministerial Conference and the General Council and of dispute settlement
proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
8231
12.2 The first annual report submitted to the House of Commons under section 12.1
after the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the Agreement enters
into force with respect to Canada and after the end of every 5-year period thereafter
shall include an analysis of the effects of the Agreement on the interests of Canada, the
costs and benefits to Canada of its participation in WTO and the value of continued
participation in WTO.''
(1300 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to these
amendments before us in relation to Bill C-57, the bill under
debate today.
I found it very interesting in the remarks just preceding the
reading of the motion that we are debating now concerning the
previous amendments that have been dealt with by the House
that both speakers from the Reform Party and from the
government indicated the inability to support a motion
protecting the interests of Canadian producers by saying that the
agreement has been signed and we cannot go back and
renegotiate.
The amendments that have been brought forward were
identical to what the United States Congress is implementing
today. The Americans are not asking that we go back to the table
and renegotiate the entire Uruguay round. They are just acting in
the interests of the people they represent.
For this government and the Reform Party to side by each
against the interests of Canadian producers, manufacturers,
ordinary working people, people who care about the
environment, people who care about whether or not children
work or go to school is unbelievable. I find it completely
unbelievable.
The government has an opportunity with the two amendments
in front of us now grouped for debate to redeem itself somewhat.
The motions in front of us once again point to the need to ensure
that Canadian legislation represents the same type of interest
that the American legislation is representing.
First, we have Motion No. 4 implementing in Canadian
legislation section 425 of the American legislation dealing with
the study of the milk marketing order system. Mr. Speaker, you
have read into the record the motion that is in front of us calling
on the minister to conduct a study to determine the effects of the
Uruguay round on the milk marketing system.
We could probably choose to do a study on a number of
matters within the Uruguay round agreement but certainly the
milk study is one that is very important to our producers. We
have not yet seen the interpretive papers that this government
examined during the negotiations which tell us how the milk
marketing changes will affect producers throughout Canada.
In order to be fair to this system, to the agreement and to the
government that has accepted the changes at GATT, we are
simply asking that in six months time this government in
fairness to the milk producers of Canada go back over the
previous six months, take a look at what has happened since the
implementation of the agreement and find out if the interpretive
papers it looked at previously are in line with what was supposed
to be happening in the industry.
I said: ``Mr. Speaker, you read the motion out in front of us
today''. Let me read to members section 425 of the American
legislation and they can tell me if it is at all similar to the
amendment in front of us:
425. The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study to determine the
effects of the Uruguay round agreements on the federal milk marketing order
system. Not later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of the WTO
agreement with respect to the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
report to the Congress on the results of the study.
The government should not tell us that we have to renegotiate
the entire Uruguay round in order to protect the interests of our
milk producers in this country.
Second, let us take a look at Motion No. 5 in front of us
grouped for debate today. Mr. Speaker, you spent some time
reading that motion into the record.
(1305 )
Let us take a look at section 124 of the American legislation
that instructs the United States trade representative to present an
annual report on the WTO to Congress. Let me read for the
record the American legislation that is in front of us, section
124.
Not later than March 1 of each year beginning in 1996, the Trade
Representative shall submit to the Congress a report describing for the
preceding financial year of the WTO
(1) the major activities and work programs of the WTO, including the
functions and the activities of the committees established under article IV of the
WTO Agreement, and the expenditures made by the WTO in connection with
these activities and programs;
(2) the percentage of budgetary assessments by the WTO that were accounted
for by each WTO member country, including the United States;
(3) the total number of personnel employed or retained by the Secretariat of
the WTO and the number of professional administrative and support staff of the
WTO;
(4) for each personnel category described in paragraph (3), the number of
citizens of each country, and the average salary of the personnel, in that
category;
(5) each report-
I cannot read the word there. I will have to look at what we are
presenting to Canadians.
-issued by the panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement
proceeding regarding Federal or State law, and any efforts by the Trade
Representative to provide for implementation of the recommendation contained
in a report that is adverse to the United States;
8232
(6) each proceeding before the panel or the Appellate Body that was initiated during
the fiscal year regarding Federal or State law, the status of the proceeding, and the
matter at issue;
(7) the status of consultations with any State whose law was the subject of a
report adverse to the United States and was issued by a panel or the Appellant
Body; and,
(8) any progress achieved in increasing the transparency of proceedings of
the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, and of dispute settlement
proceedings conducted pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
Sound familiar? The Canadian bill, C-57, contains no such
provision. We are asking today that Canada ensure that we have
a report on the activities of the WTO in front of us just as the
Americans will have by legislative authority. It is the only fair
and equitable way to deal with this international crisis
confronting us in trade.
I would, even if the Americans had not put this legislation in
front of them asking for an annual report, be asking that the
Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament receive no less.
We are entering into an agreement on a world stage. We then just
allow that agreement to carry on without any kind of responsive
action to the people of Canada and to this Parliament. It would
be most unfortunate if we allowed it to happen.
Let us ensure that we the Canadian people, producers, and
parliamentarians have an understanding every year of what is
happening on our behalf in the global marketplace and that we
are with that information able to respond in appropriate manner.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon in support of this
motion put forward by my New Democratic Party colleague, the
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
All we are asking in this motion is that the government be
responsible, accountable, fair, and to introduce equity with
respect to these international trade agreements. Accountability
is very important to the people of this country. The government
was elected on the basis of trust, on the basis that it would stand
up for Canadians in Canada and stand up for Canada outside
Canada.
What we see here is a government that is not being fully
accountable in Bill C-57. That is why we are moving this motion
to ensure there is an accountability process so the government
can review this particular bill and this particular trade
agreement, the WTO, and report back to us in a regular and a
timely fashion.
(1310 )
It is a natural course of doing business. As a business person,
you never undertake a business plan, or in this case a
government plan, without having some mechanism from which
you can assess whether the program is working or not, or
whether your business plan is functioning properly and working
well. There has to be a regular review process. All we are asking
is for the government to be accountable to the people of Canada
and to the businesses of Canada by undertaking a regular review
and reporting back to Parliament; nothing more, nothing less.
The government has the responsibility to the Canadian people
to be accountable for the actions it takes and to be accountable
for the treaties it enters into with other countries. It has to be
responsible in its actions. All we are asking is for the
government to take responsibility and to account for its actions
on a regular basis.
We are asking for fairness, the third point in my remarks. We
are asking the government to treat its own people in a fair way.
Some people may debate whether the Americans in their
legislation are being fair internationally, and we believe that
they are not, but they are being very fair to the people that they
govern. They are being fair because they are saying if an
international agreement is unfair to their working people, their
industries, or their manufacturing sector, they will implement
and take action to protect their people.
Some people may view this as protectionism. Some people
say why should we as Canadians play the same game? It is a
mugs' game when you start putting a defence of one sector over
another or defending one situation with respect to international
agreements when other countries are not doing that. It starts
bidding up or bidding down the intricacies and the processes that
are involved that have made this agreement work in the first
place.
The government has to be fair to its own country, its own
persons and its own industries and producers and manufacturers,
by saying that in the event there is unfairness to Canadians, the
government will have legislation which will protect the interests
of Canadians to make it fair.
With respect to equity, we need an amendment in Bill C-57
which is equitable for everybody. We cannot insist on other
countries doing what we are doing, but with respect to these
amendments, we can inject some equity into the system.
I end my remarks by responding to a comment that was made
by a Reform member a few moments ago. He talked about how
this Bill C-57, without amendment, would ensure that we have a
free trade agreement. I have a book here written by John Ralston
Saul called The Doubter's Companion. It is a dictionary of
aggressive common sense. It defines the word free as the most
over used term in modern politics, evoked by everyone to mean
anything.
Samuel Johnson once spoke of patriotism as the last refuge of
scoundrels. Evocations of what is free and of freedom have now
overtaken patriotism. This has led to a limitless series of
oxymorons which have somehow become respectable: Free air
miles, free trade, the twinning of free men and free markets
when history demonstrates clearly that free markets do best
under sophisticated dictatorships and chafe under limitations
imposed by democracy. Another oxymoron with respect to the
8233
word free is not only free trade but free love, free glasses at gas
stations, free offers, and in general a free ride.
Of course parliamentarians here may be more aware of the
oxymoron that we see almost firsthand in some of the actions we
are taking as a Parliament now to rebuild our country after nine
years of Conservative rule. The most widely used oxymoron in
the entire country is Progressive Conservative. It does not make
any sense. They are two opposites.
The problem with this word free is that it has two
contradictory meanings, as Mr. Saul goes on to say. One refers to
political freedom, or liberty, and has an ethical value; the other
refers to an imaginary state of being in which there is no effort
and no cost. Freedom is thus confused with the gambler's idea
that you can get something for nothing, and that is why
Johnson's scoundrels are attracted to it. I maintain that Bill
C-57 as proposed, without amendment, will injure Canadians
and industry. That is why New Democrats are putting forward
these amendments, to ensure that Canadians' interests are
protected at the international level so we can continue to build a
strong country from sea to sea.
(1315)
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the
NDP sound like a broken record attacking the Americans and
requesting that we do the same things the Americans are doing.
It reminds me of somebody who cannot go to bed at night for
worrying that someone else might be having a good time.
The bill before us deals specifically with an agreement that
was reached by 123 countries around the globe, nothing more,
nothing less. The provinces have been consulted on the matter
throughout the debate on the agreement, for the past six and a
half years.
I do not understand the NDP members. The premier of the
NDP government in Ontario just came back from a trip to China.
He supports the notion of the World Trade Organization and the
GATT implementing legislation. The NDP premier from B.C.
was on the same trip. He came back very happy and very excited
about the notion of opening new markets around the globe.
I do not know what the problem is with my colleagues in the
NDP. Every time we use the word free, they jump.
For Canada, which has the largest and longest border of
almost any country on the globe, trade is very important. Trade
means jobs. For every $1 billion in trade at least 9,000 to 10,000
jobs are created. The NDP should be grateful that we have a
government that cares, that we have a Prime Minister who cares.
He led one of the largest business delegations in the history of
Canada and came back with some good results.
I suggest that my colleagues from the NDP stand up and
congratulate the Prime Minister and the government for a job
well done. For the first time ever in the history of the country we
had a united team that went on a mission in order to promote
Canada's interest.
We would recommend the rejection of Motion No. 4 as
proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party for
the following reasons. The agreement does not require such a
study as is proposed. The government already has such authority
in any event. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary and
redundant.
Furthermore a report entitled ``Impact of the GATT
Agreement on Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food'' was
released on June 22, 1994. This report prepared jointly by
provincial and federal agriculture officials examined the effect
of the Uruguay round on all agriculture sectors, including the
Canadian milk marketing system. The report concluded that the
effect of the Uruguay round on the dairy industry will be
minimal. There will be no domestic price impact over the
transition period on industrial milk. Production may decline 0 to
2 per cent by the year 2000 as a result of new minimum access
commitment for butter.
For the same reasons we are recommending rejection of
Motion No. 5. This amendment mandates a very specific and
onerous reporting requirement that would have important
resource implications.
(1320)
The information on the activities of the World Trade
Organization mandated in paragraph 12.1(a) to (d) is contained
in the GATT annual report. The minister could undertake to
table the World Trade Organization annual report in the House if
it is necessary.
For the reasons I listed we are recommending that Motions
Nos. 4 and 5 be rejected.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too
welcome this opportunity to speak on the two motions put forth
by our hon. colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. On
Motion No. 4, to subject the effects of the agreement on the milk
marketing system to parliamentary review, I would just like to
remind our colleagues from the New Democratic Party that we
presented a motion this morning, Motion No. 2, in which
reference was made to a report to be laid before the House of
Commons each year, concerning, in a more general sense, the
implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement by our major
partners, especially the United States.
8234
I have the feeling that Motion No. 4 goes somewhat along
the same lines, yet has a much narrower scope than Motion No.
2 that we presented this morning. Motion No. 4 stresses the
importance of parliamentary review and, in that sense, I think
that we can support, endorse this position, although, as I said
earlier, the motion we tabled this morning, on which recorded
division will be taken later on, has a much broader scope, while
at the same time addressing our colleagues' concerns, concerns
that are evident from Motion No. 4.
Let me remind you that-and I think it is important to mention
this, for the benefit of our colleagues from the government party
of course, who gave us the impression this morning of being
opposed our motion to amend No. 2-it is important to bear in
mind that Motion No. 2 which we presented this morning had
been suggested to us by the Union des producteurs agricoles and
the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at one of the public
hearings held by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
Both organizations testified before the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ask that Bill C-57
include a provision requiring that a report be tabled each year on
the implementation of the agreement in Canada, of course, but
also by our major trading partners. Such a provision was part of
the proposal we put forth this morning.
Despite the expectations expressed by the Quebec farmers'
union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the
government party apparently decided to oppose this proposed
amendment. I therefore urge our colleagues from the New
Democratic Party to strongly support this proposed amendment,
which is consistent with what they are proposing in Motion No.
4 but whose scope is much broader.
As for Motion No. 5, which is aimed at ensuring in a way that
the World Trade Organization operates in an open manner and
that the Canadian government publishes studies on the
implementation of the agreement, we always come back to this
aspect of the problem: we think that Canada does not have to
conform to provisions 12.1 (a) through (d). In our opinion,
Canada must insist that the World Trade Organization should
produce a comprehensive and relevant annual report.
However-this is always a problem we have with the broad
motions proposed by our colleagues from the New Democratic
Party since this morning-we clearly are in complete agreement
with some of the paragraphs, namely (e), (f) and (g).
(1325)
These paragraphs provide for consultations with the
provinces provisions, under the Agreement, that affect areas of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is very important to point
out that the federal government, which claims to believe in
co-operative federalism, must not hesitate to include in the
agreement specific provisions calling for consultations with the
provinces on issues of particular interest to them.
The parliamentary secretary said earlier: Yes, but we did
consult with the provinces. If so, why are they so reluctant to put
in the bill a provision specifically requiring such consultation
with the provinces? In no way would it make the process more
cumbersome. Despite what he said, it would not give the
provinces a veto. It would simply give the provinces an
opportunity to convey their concerns to the federal government
on issues that concern them. I think that is quite legitimate.
That being said, of course paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of
Motion No. 5 now before us refer to this taking into
consideration of provincial jurisdiction and of particular
concerns of the provinces.
If these paragraphs were separate from the rest of the
amendment, we could vote for such an amendment, but given
paragraphs 12.1(a) to (d), which we believe are wrong for
Canada, we must oppose this amendment, again, with regret.
As for 12.1(h), we find it totally unacceptable because we do
not really see how it could be applied right now.
I think that it is also important to say something about clause
12.2. Of course, we agree with the principle behind this clause,
namely periodic review, but that being said, we would not want
people to think that we on this side of the House have cold feet or
are afraid of international trade agreements. For this reason, we
could not legitimately give our full and complete support to that
clause.
In view of what I just said, and although we could very well
have agreed to paragraphs 12.1(e), (f) and (g) without any
problem, we must oppose this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak in opposition to Motion No. 4.
Why single out milk marketing? Dozens if not hundreds of
industry groups would like to have government fund their
studies. In fact we are dealing with Motion No. 5 here as well as
the two tie together.
Motion No. 5 asks for an annual report from the World Trade
Organization. Those reports already exist under GATT. In a
moment I want to read an article in today's Globe and Mail that
deals specifically with the biannual reports from the GATT.
These reports exist. The minister can be asked to table them in
the House. Why cause extra work? It is more bureaucracy. It is
something that the NDP sort of like, I understand.
I want to read a quote from today's Globe and Mail regarding
Canada's involvement in the GATT. It states: ``Canada's trade
policy and practices receive generally high marks from the
members at the GATT council during a two day discussion of a
biannual report but the council criticized Canada's tariff system
and interprovincial trade barriers''.
8235
The party that wants to have a review of the milk marketing
board might be quite surprised with the outcome.
(1330)
Members opposite would be well advised to listen. The people
at the GATT meeting today are the people who are making the
report reviewing Canada's interprovincial trade barriers and our
present milk marketing system. They are saying that the council
criticized the complexity of Canada's tariff system and
questioned the exceedingly high tariff rate quotas in the
agriculture sector-and they are referring specifically to supply
management-with an average of 205 per cent which will only
go down to 174 per cent in the year 2000.
They are critical of this. I am quite surprised they are asking
for a review because a review would not be very kind to the
supply management sector. It is an area that Canada is very weak
in. Our position is that we have taken a minimum reduction in
tariff in the supply management sector of 15 per cent. I think it is
recognized worldwide that we have a problem that has to be
cleaned up. If we talk about free trade, let us practise it here at
home.
In addition, members talk about the need to clean up
interprovincial trade barriers. The three provincial governments
in the country with NDP governments are the ones that are
co-operating the very least in trying to get Canada's house in
order in terms of cleaning up our problems at home, the trade
barriers.
We have more barriers to trade internally in Canada than in all
the European Union. That is a disgrace. How can we compete
internationally when we cannot even compete at home? Let
them put their money where their mouths are and co-operate to
try to get trade barriers reduced internally to give our businesses
a chance to compete without one hand being tied behind their
backs. Let us put Canada on the same level nationally as we do
internationally in these trade agreements.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 4 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 5 negatived.)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-57, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8, on page
25, with the following:
``(a) to fix the performer's performance in any existing or future medium by means
of which sounds may be reproduced,''
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-57 amends some 30
Canadian acts, including the Copyright Act.
We must first point out the archaic character of the Copyright
Act. Bill C-57, An Act to implement the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, includes a few
amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act.
Among those changes, the one in clause 58 illustrates the
archaic character of this act which is meant to protect creative
artists and performers.
(1335)
Indeed, Clause 58(a) gives a performer the sole right ``to fix
the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by
means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means
of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced''.
8236
The wording of this change takes us back to the days of
mechanical pianos. How, in 1994, can the government amend
the Copyright Act and completely ignore the technological
progress of the last few decades? This certainly does not make
the government look like it is aware of the future challenges
that await us. Yet, the government received numerous
reminders.
I want to quote a few paragraphs from the brief submitted by
the Union des artistes to the Standing Committee of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade:
For almost eight years now, the Union des artistes and the Coalition of
Creators and Copyright Owners have been asking for the rights regarding the
fixation, the reproduction and the communication to the public of their
performances in musical, literary, dramatic and choreographic works, known
as neighbouring rights. Meanwhile, Bill C-57 recognizes the exclusive right
of our people to fix the performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means
of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds
may be mechanically reproduced. If Canada recognizes, in 1994, our
exclusive right to the fixation of a sound performance by means of a
perforated roll, how long will we have to wait for the recognition of our rights
on performances fixed or reproduced by using optical discs, compact discs
like CD-ROMs and other modern supports?
Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is not only totally disconnected from
today's reality: It also creates a great danger for the future.
This government does not seem to realize that when Canada
signs a commercial treaty such as the one resulting from the
Uruguay Round of negotiations, it waives part of its
sovereignty. This is true not only in the case of trade
agreements, but also in the defence sector. Just think of the
North Atlantic Treaty or NORAD.
So, it is essential for the government to recognize that section
58 limits its own future jurisdiction and that every measure must
be taken, now and in the future, to minimize any negative
impact.
We fear that, as soon as it is passed, this bill could in fact limit
the performers' rights to the only rights recognized in this bill.
This leads one to fear that restrictions set here and there in
commercial agreements could be seen as absolute restrictions
when the time comes to review our own national legislation in
this area. This is why our amendment is crucial.
Members will recall that the Uruguay Round Agreement only
dates back to December 15, 1994. When the government
introduced Bill C-57, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
minister of International Trade admitted that only 13 of the
hundred or so countries which signed the agreement had already
introduced their implementation legislation.
Since this bill was introduced, the race has begun. The
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
is in a hurry. The number of witnesses has been limited and
committee members are rushed off their feet. We have to cut
corners, because an international agreement was signed.
Let us draw a parallel between the position of the Liberal and
Conservative governments concerning the protection of the
creative and performing artists' rights.
I would like to quote from the brief submitted by the Union
des artistes:
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
was concluded in 1886. Canada's Copyright Act, which was passed in 1926,
forty years later, was not reviewed by Parliament until 1988.
As for the Rome Copyright Convention on the protection of performing
artists, producers of recordings and broadcasting agencies, it was concluded
in 1961 and is already obsolete because it applies only to sound productions.
Thirty-three years later, Canada has yet to sign the convention and adjust
its own legislation to meet the minimum provisions of the convention. As a
result, Canada, which takes pride in being one of the most progressive
countries in the world, lags far behind in defending and promoting the
interests of its creative artists.
Germany, France and Japan all signed the Rome Convention. In addition,
these fellow members of the G-7 group, realized it was important to adjust their
respective legislations to the current realities of artistic creation. Germany and
France have passed legislation dealing with neighbouring rights. They also
recognized the need for royalties on private copies, which is the case in Japan.
Meanwhile, Canada is proceeding in a haphazard way, through its legislation
to implement trade treaties, to change its own copyright legislation.
(1340)
That is not the only paradox. I have another example. On
November 14, Liberal majority members tabled in this House
the report of the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canadian
Foreign Policy. Against the wishes of the Official Opposition,
majority members made culture, a jurisdiction shared by the
federal government and the provinces, the flagship of foreign
policy. How can the government claim that culture, the result of
the work of performing artists and creators, is central to its
foreign policy, when it refuses to do what is necessary to
promote and protect the work of those who create culture?
The cultural sector is an important one. The present
government's failure to proceed with its review of the Copyright
Act can only be explained by its failure to recognize a basic fact
of our economic life. The government seems to be ignorant of
the fact that in 1991, the cultural sector was responsible for jobs
employing more than 300,000 Canadians and Quebecers,
putting it ahead of the forestry, mining and insurance sectors in
this respect.
It is almost miraculous that the cultural sector should play
such an important role in our economy, no thanks to the federal
government's reluctance to invest in this sector, which may have
serious consequences. According to the Union des artistes, and I
quote: ``This minimalist and timid approach may jeopardize
creative activity in this country. At a time when digital
conversion has removed former distinctions between sound and
audio-visual productions, at a time when direct broadcast
satellites and the information highway are about to redefine the
relationship between the consumer, the user and artistic
productions, Canada still protects its creators and defends its
culture by
8237
means of incidental measures consequential on its ratification of
international trade treaties''.
This questionable approach on the part of the government can
only be explained by the tremendous impact of lobbying by big
producers and broadcasters. I would urge hon. members to vote
in favour of this motion presented by the Official Opposition,
whose purpose is simply to provide a minimum amount of
protection for our performing artists and creators. Remember
that this class of cultural workers has an average income of less
than $10,000!
Remember also that our creators and performing artists need
financial independence. They need freedom and pride to
continue to work at their art. The dignity of work, a favourite
phrase of the Prime Minister, should also apply to this class of
Canadians and Quebecers. We must also protect the integrity of
the work done by our creative artists. The Copyright Act must be
improved, but meanwhile, we could make do with the
amendment I am proposing to Bill C-57, and I would ask hon.
members to support that amendment.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We are not
surprised that our colleagues in the governing party have
difficulty understanding our arguments and our amendments,
since once again, I submit to you that we do not have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now have quorum and
are resuming debate on Motion No. 8.
(1345 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak once again on the amendments to Bill
C-57. Before getting into my specific remarks on this motion I
want to say a couple of things.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International
Trade in his remarks earlier on this bill made some inference
that the New Democratic Party provincial governments across
this country were not in favour of trading with other nations. I
want to correct the record.
I want to inform the parliamentary secretary that coming from
Saskatchewan as I do, I know firsthand how important trade is to
the farmers of Saskatchewan, the potash producers of
Saskatchewan, the steel producers of Saskatchewan, the
uranium miners of Saskatchewan and all the other people in our
province who rely quite heavily on trade, including those who
produce natural gas, oil, coal and other resources. The New
Democratic Party government of Roy Romanow is not only on
record supporting trade, but has instituted very aggressive
trading policies with other nations with respect to the resources
of Canada and the resources of Saskatchewan.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary made an oversight or
had a sudden collapse of memory when he made reference to
NDP governments and their support of trade. I am sure he would
want to stand and correct that at some point after my remarks.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, precisely what I
said is that the NDP government in Ontario-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Clearly, that is not
a point of order. I concede it may be a matter of great debate for
the House but we are seized with Motion No. 8.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled to see
that not only does the parliamentary secretary not have a great
deal of knowledge about Saskatchewan and its many resources,
but he does not seem to have a great deal of knowledge of the
rules of the House either.
I will continue my preface by saying that the New Democratic
Party government in Saskatchewan has been leading in many
areas. For example, Allan Blakeney's NDP government from
1971 to 1982 had 11 consecutive balanced budgets, the only
provincial government or jurisdiction in this country to do so.
As a matter of fact that government was the last one to have a
provincial balanced budget. The only reason it did not continue
on was that in 1982 a Conservative government under Grant
Devine was elected, supported by the Liberals. It proceeded to
almost bankrupt the province in the nine years that followed.
At the same time as those balanced budgets we also had a
prescription drug plan for all of our citizens. We had a dental
plan for all of our children 18 years of age and under. We also
had the lowest provincial tax regime in the entire nation.
I know the parliamentary secretary is salivating at this
information. He is becoming quite educated with respect to
Saskatchewan now that he has had the correct information put
before him. I am sure he will look forward to visiting our
province some day and meeting with Premier Romanow, who by
the way was elected in 1991 after nine years of Conservative
government. With respect to Bill C-57, I can assure the House
that he has concerns as we do in this caucus with respect to these
amendments.
Since 1991 we have undertaken to go from a $1 billion annual
deficit to the point where now after three years we are on the
verge of being the first jurisdiction provincially or federally in
Canada to introduce a balanced budget. I want members of this
House to know that. That is under an NDP government.
8238
The second point I want to make is in relation to the Reform
member from Peace River. He made some comment about Bill
C-57 and the amendments thereto and how he supports Bill
C-57, which does not protect the interests of Canadians. He
believes it should proceed because he believes in competition.
John Ralston Saul is the author of The Doubter's Companion,
a book which members should pay some attention to. It is a
dictionary of aggressive common sense in which Reformers are
very interested. He defines competition as an event in which
there are more losers than winners. Otherwise, it is not a
competition.
(1350 )
A society based on competition is therefore primarily a
society of losers. Competition is of course a very good thing, he
says. We cannot live in a complex society without it. On the
other hand, if the principal relationship between citizens is
based on competition what has society and for that matter,
civilization been reduced to?
The purpose of competition is to establish which is the best.
The best may be defined as any number of things: the fastest, the
cheapest, the largest quantities. It may even be the highest
quality. Unfortunately the more competition is unleashed the
more it tends to eliminate quality as something too complex to
be competitive.
Finally he says that the point of competition, if it is left to set
its own standards is that only the winners benefit. This is as true
in economics as it is in sport. A society which treats competition
as a religious value will gradually reduce most of the population
to the role of spectators.
Democracy is impossible in such a situation and so is middle
class stability. That is why the return to increasingly
unregulated competition over the last two decades has led to
growing instability and an increasing gap between an ever richer
elite and an ever larger poor population.
In final summary, competition in a middle class society must
include the cost of middle class infrastructure. Hundreds of
other factors create hundreds of other levels of competition.
That is why in serious competition such as hockey or football
there are strict regulations controlling time, movement,
numbers, dress and language. Unregulated competition is a
naive metaphor for anarchy.
What I want to say, thanks to Mr. Saul, is that the Reform
Party wants competition in its purest form. If we have
competition in its purest form, which I am not opposed to in a
purest form society, we will have in essence anarchy. That is
why we have Bill C-57 which establishes in continuity with the
WTO some regulations on the playing field we are operating on
on this globe.
I am saying that the government has to ensure that the playing
field rules have fairness, equity and justice for Canadians as
other countries are undertaking to provide for their own citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just want
to support my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who made an
excellent speech. He explained very well his reasons for
presenting this motion, which requires considering not only
products made in the past but also those to come in the future. I
find it rather strange that the government did not consider what
may be coming down the road.
We know that technology is changing very rapidly and I do not
see how the government overlooked this item. Fortunately, the
parliamentary secretary is not looking at me any more, but he
should be here to listen to me because it is quite important for
him to hear-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I appreciate the
long experience which the member for Longueuil has, but I want
to remind him that we must not comment on the absence of
anyone in this House. I will therefore ask the member to stick to
his speech.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. It
was so important for me that I could not help saying it.
As you know, technology is changing very fast. The compact
disks which we see today, that have just come on the market,
may be obsolete in a year or two or three. If we do not consider
future products, we are likely to have big problems.
For example, some experts say that technology will develop
more quickly in the next ten years than it did in the past fifty.
Just imagine how many products and machines will be invented.
All kinds of inventions will be made just in the next ten years. So
I think it would be a serious mistake not to recognize the motion
from the member for Louis-Hébert, which says that future
products must also be considered.
(1355)
That is why I wanted to reinforce the very good explanation
given by the member for Louis-Hébert, but I still hope that the
members here in this Chamber will inform those outside that
this motion is really important.
I repeat, it is Motion No. 8, which says that future products
and not just present products must be considered. I know that the
hon. member near me has understood very well what I just said
and that he will hasten to repeat it to his Liberal friends so that
this motion passes, because I think it is very important for the
future.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-57 to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization includes approximately 20 clauses dealing with
copyright. Most of these clauses are designed to ensure that the
8239
Canadian Copyright Act is in conformity with the Trade Related
Aspects of International Property Right, the document that sets
the WTO copyright rules.
On the whole, as necessary as they may be, these are
nonetheless minor changes. They do however put into
perspective the resistance to change and indifference of the
Canadian government in terms of intellectual property, as
evidenced by Clause 58, lines 5 to 8, on page 25 of Bill C-57.
This clause establishes a new right, namely that of authorizing
without consent the fixation and reproduction of the performer's
performance. The wording of this provision is prima facie proof
of how deeply anachronistic and antiquated the Canadian
Copyright Act.
In poetic terms, one could say that in the beginning, there
were the natural sounds of the elements: the crash of the sea, the
whistling wind, the murmuring breeze, the rumble of falling
rocks and the crackling of the fire. Then came the natural sounds
of human and animal communication: bird songs, monkey
grunts, a child's cry, the murmur of love, the African tam-tam.
Less than a century ago, all sounds had to be heard live.
Through an evolutionary and creative process, the air is now
filled with sounds recorded on records, tapes, CDs, videos,
CD-ROMs. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Canadian
Copyright Act remains frozen in time, around 1878 to be more
precise, the year that Thomas Edison invented perforated roll
recording.
Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is a clear, not to say glaring, example.
It reads: ``to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial
part thereof, by means of a record, perforated roll or other
contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically
reproduced-''
When he invented the phonograph, Thomas Edison thought
that sounds could be fixed permanently to be reproduced.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you can continue after
Question Period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8239
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in September an agreement was signed by the
Government of Canada, Saskatchewan Wetlands Conservation
Corporation, Ducks Unlimited Canada and Wetlands for the
Americas to work with one another and other organizations and
individuals. They will maintain and enhance the Last Mountain
Lake Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Regional
Site as a critical habitat for shorebirds.
Last Mountain Lake is the 25th site to be dedicated as a
shorebird reserve in the western hemisphere and the third site in
Canada. The two other sites are the Bay of Fundy in Atlantic
Canada and Quill Lakes, Saskatchewan.
This action will contribute to the maintenance of the
hemisphere's biological diversity and further educate people of
the internationally significant natural resources Canada
possesses to protect for future generations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 55
Canadian peacekeepers are now surrounded by Serb rebel forces
in Bosnia. It is not the first time Canadian troops find
themselves in a difficult situation because of hostile acts by
fighters in the former Yugoslavia.
Nevertheless, the illegal actions of Serb forces against
international peacekeeping forces in Bosnia worry all
Quebecers and Canadians. The Bosnian population is literally
torn apart by the fighting that goes on, but it could suffer even
more this winter without the presence of the peacekeepers.
Our soldiers are carrying out their humanitarian duties in the
former Yugoslavia with courage and dignity, and the members
of the Bloc Quebecois are very proud of them. The federal
government and the international community must continue to
provide them with all the support they deserve.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate Sara McMillan of Fort McMurray for
winning first prize in the eight year old and under category in the
Keep Mining in Canada poster contest which was sponsored by
the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Sara's poster was entered by Syncrude Canada in my riding
and was competing against posters from across Canada. Sara is
in the gallery today along with her sister, mom, dad and
grandmother.
I would like to ask my colleagues to join with me in
congratulating Sara for winning such a prestigious award.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
8240
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Campaign 2000 released disturbing statistics today.
The number of poor children in Canada has increased to almost
1.3 million, an increase of 35 per cent since 1989. Campaign
2000 is a partnership of 51 organizations across Canada
dedicated to promoting support for the all-party House of
Commons resolution to eradicate child poverty by the year
2000.
Campaign 2000 reports that Canadian children today are more
likely to be poor, to be dependent on social assistance, to use a
food bank and to live in families where parents are unemployed.
As a society we must no longer tolerate this horrible plight
faced by many Canadian children. As members of Parliament we
must tackle the problem of child poverty.
I urge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development to allocate more resources toward
improving the dismal situation of child poverty. We must not
sacrifice future generations in our attempts to reduce the debts
of current generations.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to join with my colleagues in
extending sincere congratulations to Romeo LeBlanc on his
appointment as Governor General of Canada.
As a New Brunswicker and an Atlantic Canadian I must admit
I am very proud of this appointment. I congratulate the Prime
Minister on this wise and popular choice. Romeo LeBlanc is
well respected in his home province of New Brunswick, in
Atlantic Canada and indeed in all of Canada.
Romeo LeBlanc's appointment as the first Governor General
from Atlantic Canada demonstrates the high esteem the
government has for Atlantic Canadians and goes a long way in
dispelling the many slurs recently heard against Atlantic
Canadians.
I congratulate Romeo LeBlanc and the entire LeBlanc family
on this very happy occasion.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise out of concern with the continued attempts by
members of the Reform Party to portray immigrants and
refugees as criminals.
(1405 )
As reported in a recent article in the Montreal Gazette, ``A
Reform MP asserted that almost 25 per cent of refugee claimants
have criminal records, when in fact all reliable figures place the
rate at less than 2 per cent''.
By making statements like these, Reform members not only
imply an inability to grasp the concept of decimal points but also
imply an overzealous desire to paint refugees in a negative
manner regardless of the facts.
It is disappointing that neither the member concerned nor his
party has come clean and apologized for their mistake. In the
name of integrity and honesty, I ask the leader of the Reform
Party to apologize to the House for misleading Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is stepping up its attack on our higher
education system, under the pretext of reducing government
spending.
After trying to dismantle the Royal Military College in
Saint-Jean, the government is now going after universities in
Quebec and Canada. In this regard, the Quebec federation of
university professors is concerned about social reform trends
affecting the financing of post-secondary education.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to
make the people believe that his reform will benefit learning. On
the contrary, the minister is sabotaging higher education at a
time when, in an increasingly competitive international market,
economic competitiveness clearly depends on the quality of
human resources.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, next
Monday and Tuesday a conference entitled Electronic
Democracy '94 will be taking place in Toronto. You must have
noticed that every time Reform Party members mention
electronic democracy or initiative or referendum or recall,
Liberal members enthusiastically demonstrate their opposition
to such radical ideas.
It seems they have a redneck in their midst. The guest speaker
with top billing at the conference next Monday and Tuesday is
none other than the junior minister of science and technology. A
sudden convert to real democracy, perhaps the member for
8241
Portage-Interlake now realizes that the way the government
ignores the will of the people is going to have to change to keep
pace with the information age.
We clearly have a long way to go before all government
members catch up with the times because so many of them are
set in their ways. However, I am extremely pleased that the more
forward thinking members among them have finally realized
there is a need to reform our democracy.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fair and just treatment of all members
of society is a cornerstone of a compassionate nation. In
particular the House will agree with me that wife abuse should
not and cannot be condoned in any form.
A victim of wife abuse should not be penalized further, as is
the case of my constituent June Ann Sullivan Robinson. She has
been ordered to leave Canada because her husband has
withdrawn his sponsorship as a result of her complaints of wife
abuse over a period of three years. He has since been convicted.
Ms. Robinson is a self-supporting woman with strong family
ties in Canada. Her request to immigration officials to continue
processing her application under humanitarian and
compassionate grounds has been denied.
I am very concerned about the precedent set by this ruling. It
sends a message that wife abuse is fair game for a sponsoring
husband. I urge the minister to reconsider this policy in view of
its far-reaching consequences.
* * *
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute to a great Londoner, Jim Ashton, who passed
away suddenly on October 25, 1994. His contribution to the city
of London was immense for such a short life.
Jim became a member of the United Auto Workers in 1974
and in September of 1985 became president of CAW Local 27.
Jim Ashton was elected president of the London Labour Council
in October of 1988 and was re-elected to that position just prior
to his death.
He was more than a union leader. He was a community and
social activist who spoke his mind and stood his ground. He is
survived by his wife Lucy and daughters Amanda, Jessica and
Tanya, and his sister Susan Ashton of London.
He will truly be missed by all of us but his memory and
contribution to the city of London will live forever.
(1410 )
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise in the
House today to acknowledge the contribution to municipal
politics of one of my constituents, Mr. Frank McKechnie, who
has the distinction of being one of the longest serving municipal
councillors in Canada.
Mr. McKechnie has been elected by the voters of ward 5 a
total of 16 times and has been a councillor for over 36 years. His
service to Mississauga has been outstanding and his continued
success at the polls illustrates the affection of his constituents
and the trust placed in him.
I salute the continued electoral success of Mr. McKechnie and
commend him on his service to Mississauga.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate, on my behalf and on
behalf of the residents of Madawaska-Victoria, the
Honourable Roméo LeBlanc, who will become our new
governor general in February. There is no doubt that Mr.
LeBlanc is very qualified for the position.
He has always worked with dedication for a united and
prosperous Canada. Mr. LeBlanc's appointment is an honour for
the Atlantic provinces, for New Brunswick and for all Acadians
and French-speaking Canadians. It is the first time that the
governor general is a native of Atlantic Canada.
After 127 years of Canadian history, after the deportations of
1755, we are truly pleased, in this year of the World Congress of
Acadians, by this historic appointment. This is the crowning
achievement of the long and perilous road already covered and
still to cover.
I wish the best of success to the Honourable Roméo LeBlanc
in his role as governor general. I also want to thank the Prime
Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, for making an
excellent choice.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a second army doctor, Major Lee Jewer, has also stated
that Canadian military authorities ordered the photos of Somalis
beaten and tortured by Canadian peacekeepers to be destroyed.
This confirms the statement made by Major Murray Armstrong
8242
to the effect that military authorities had indeed ordered the
destruction of incriminating evidence.
These new revelations demonstrate once again that the
government must appoint, as soon as possible, a real
commission of inquiry. If the Minister of National Defence
really wants to shed light on the behaviour of Canadian military
personnel in Somalia, he must take such action as quickly as
possible, rather than wait for the conclusion of the current
judicial proceedings. If this is not done, some important
evidence will be missing, including incriminating photos, the
existence of which is known.
The minister must reconsider his decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
the election campaign, the Prime Minister waved around the red
ink book and told Canadians that he had the plan. It is in fact the
Reform Party that has the plan to deal with the country's deficit
and debt.
In the presentation to the finance committee today, the
Reform Party outlined $10 billion in specific expenditure
reductions. This is the first phase of an updated zero in three
plan to eliminate the deficit in three years. The presentation
pointed out the absolute necessity of going beyond the
government's 3 per cent target if we are to preserve Canada's
fiscal integrity.
Unlike the government, whose fiscal plan will add $100
billion to the debt bringing the total to an astronomical figure of
over $611 billion, the Reform Party's plan tackles the economic
problems of the country in a responsible manner.
We have set out a clear time frame for eliminating the deficit
and we challenge the government to do the same.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Regina Rams
junior football team from Saskatchewan.
On November 11 the Regina Rams had a day to remember
when they won their 12th national football championship
against the St. Leonard Cougars in Montreal. It was their second
consecutive Canadian junior football championship.
It came as no surprise to Regina fans to see their team win by a
score of 52 to 6. The Rams lost only one of the 25 games they
played this season.
Despite their excellent record, the Regina Rams Football Club
is about more than winning. It teaches teamwork and gives to
these young men an opportunity to develop confidence and
maturity. I am proud of all these fine players.
I would also like to offer special congratulations to Coach
Frank McCrystal for his leadership and to congratulate Darryl
Leason, the offensive star player, and Randy Sorchensky, the
defensive star player.
I ask all parliamentarians to join with me today to
congratulate the Regina Rams on winning the Canadian Junior
Football Championships.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is to be commended on his
judicious appointment of Jean-Robert Gauthier to the Senate of
Canada.
Mr. Gauthier faithfully served Canada and his constituents in
Ottawa-Vanier for 22 years. For many years he championed the
cause of Canada's francophone minority as well as that of other
minorities, all of which are part of Canada's cultural mosaic.
I am sure that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier will continue to
serve Canada faithfully and with passion. I would ask all
members on all sides of the House, and especially the hon.
member for Rosemont, to join me in congratulating our senator
and wishing him the very best in the Upper House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
challenge recent comments of the hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[Translation]
During the 1993 election, Bloc candidates said they would
stay on as members of Parliament only up to the referendum.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois said that the
members of his party will stay even if the majority of Quebecers
reject their party's mandate.
A member of the Parliament of Canada must realize that even
if it is his duty to represent his riding, he must work for Canada
first. Bloc members keep saying that Canada's institutions do
not work.
If that is true-and it is not-why are they so determined to
stay after a defeat in the referendum?
8243
8243
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in retaliation for NATO air raids on their positions,
the Serb forces have taken peacekeepers hostage, including 55
Canadians, in Visoko, all the while pursuing their offensive on
the Muslim enclave of Bihac. In addition, some 1,200
peacekeepers under Canadian command are presently in a very
vulnerable position as they find themselves besieged by Serb
troops.
Can the Prime Minister bring us up to date on the situation of
these Canadian peacekeepers being held hostage and the
progress the UN is making in its negotiations with Serb
authorities to have them released?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition gave a very accurate account of the
situation. Fifty-five members of the Canadian Armed Forces are
presently detained near Visoko, in an area under Bosnian Serb
control.
I have been informed that they are well, thank goodness, and
that negotiations are under way between the Serbs and the
Canadian commanding officer. I hope that the situation will
soon be resolved.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm the statement made by
Brigadier-General Ashton, to the effect that Canadian
peacekeepers may not be released for another four or five days?
Are we to conclude that this is the way the Serb forces have
found to finish off their offensive on Bihac without further
disruption from NATO raids?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think that the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct in his
analysis. I cannot say whether our troops will be released earlier
than in four or five days. It is too early to tell.
[English]
It is somewhat premature to speculate on how long our
soldiers will be detained. There is no question that it is tied in
with the NATO air strikes. There is no question that there is an
escalation of rhetoric and threat against UNPROFOR members
in general but our personnel in particular. As I said a moment
ago they are in good shape. There are negotiations going on
between the Bosnian Serb authorities and the Canadian officers
on the ground.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate the position that Canada
defended today at the NATO meeting, held in Brussels,
regarding the advisability of new air strikes in order to
discourage the Serbian forces from carrying out further attacks
in Bihac? What are the risks that new raids would pose for the
security of United Nations soldiers either held hostage or under
siege?
(1420)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a difficult
situation like this one I do not think we should speculate about
the effects of further air strikes.
NAC was in session today in Brussels. We were engaged in
those discussions. We are now being debriefed on the outcome,
as to whether or not there is any change in the position of NATO
in consultation with the United Nations. As soon as we have
further information we will inform the leaders of the other
parties.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Quebec federation of university professors
sounded an alarm about social program reform, which it called
an unprecedented threat to Quebec's education system. The
federation estimates that the reform will result in a
$721-million shortfall of cash transfers and also tax points,
through the abolition of Quebec's special abatement.
In order to alleviate the legitimate concerns of Quebec's
entire academic community, does the Prime Minister promise
not to unilaterally review the agreement with Quebec that was
negotiated under the Lesage government, which provides for a
transfer of tax points to finance post-secondary education in
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want every interested group to express its views on
reform. All the elements raised by the hon. member will be
considered by the committee reviewing the matter. Committee
members will, I hope, have a chance to study the comments
made by academics so that the recommendations to the
government, in their report, will take everybody's interests into
account.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we note
that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to reassure
the academic community.
How can he justify his government's attack on
post-secondary education when Canada's major challenge is to
compete internationally with other industrialized countries by
relying on increasingly well-educated people? How can he
justify his position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should analyze the paper tabled by the
Minister of Human Resources Development. He will realize that
the government's intention is to find a way to make more money
8244
available to universities. However, if people would rather
maintain the status quo, we will consider that option.
But all members should be given the chance to analyze all
relevant factors. The minister clearly intends to see how, in this
era of budget constraints, we can find the extra money needed to
allow more Canadians to take advantage of our excellent
universities across the country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today Reform members of the finance committee tabled a
proposal for government spending and government spending
cuts that totalled $9.4 billion, with the principles attached, all in
areas of non-social program spending.
My question is for the Minister of State for Finance. When
will the government be releasing for public discussion its own
principles and proposals for dealing with federal public
spending?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for finally seeing the Reform Party making some
positive suggestions. I am delighted to see he has taken the
advice of the Minister of Finance to make some positive
suggestions.
We are very happy to consider those suggestions along with
those of all other Canadians. I am delighted to see that the
Reform Party has joined in the consultation process which it has
criticized in the past. We will consider those suggestions along
with those of everybody else.
If the Reform Party member does not realize it, the answer to
his question is when we bring down the budget next February.
(1425 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting. We have the finance committee travelling round the
country. Virtually every group and organization has presented
proposals for the federal budget. And after a year we still have
no fiscal policy from the Government of Canada.
Since the Minister of Finance appeared before the committee
a month ago and admitted that his budget projections were all
wrong, the Canadian dollar has lost over a cent in international
markets and interest rates have risen steadily as a consequence.
I have a supplementary question. Does the government have
any proposal for dealing with the deteriorating financial
situation other than raising interest rates?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that
we have no fiscal policy runs counter to the statement of the hon.
member for Capilano-Howe Sound who gave the finance
minister a 90 per cent mark.
Of course the government has a fiscal policy. We had a fiscal
policy of bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. We had
that before we were elected and we have that now. The Prime
Minister has maintained it and the Minister of Finance has
maintained it.
That is our policy and we will do that in the third year of our
mandate.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound gave the government good
marks for realizing that all its fiscal assumptions during the
campaign were wrong.
[Translation]
My supplementary question is for the same minister. The
reason for the lack of confidence in the financial market is
clearly the government's fiscal policy.
Does the minister admit that the goal of reducing the deficit to
3 per cent of GNP is completely inadequate in a period of
economic growth?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have never said
that our target of 3 per cent of GDP in the third year of our
mandate was a final result. We have said that is an interim target
on the way to a balanced budget.
It is an interim target. It is achievable and we intend to get to
that target of 3 per cent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Human Resources Development said
yesterday that the technical papers on social program reform
which he has tabled in recent weeks answer the concerns
expressed by the Auditor General in his report. Nevertheless, at
a press conference two days ago, the Auditor General said that
several issues are outstanding, even though these additional
documents have been presented:
[English]
Some information has already been published on that. I think
there is a lack of credible evaluation of the effect or the results
produced by those programs so far.
8245
[Translation]
Can the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to answer
the Auditor General's concerns about the incompleteness of the
information which has been made public?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the committee has been
travelling across the country as that is happening and
undertaking the social security reform exercise.
There have been a number of technical papers put forward.
Those papers have provided information that is very important
to the way in which the social security reform is undertaken.
In relation to that also we have been listening to Canadians
across the country through the committee. They have let us
know what the effects have been on their lives and their
communities. We are very sensitive to that and that will be
integrated into the direction the government takes on the overall
reform.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, only
four of the nine technical papers on social program reform have
been tabled to date, a few weeks before the consultation ends.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please not use
accessories.
Mrs. Lalonde: Does the Prime Minister not agree that the
consultation is thus being rushed because the only purpose of the
reform is in fact to lower the federal deficit, despite what the
finance minister said about social programs not being the cause
of the deficit or the debt?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to see the opposition accuse us of going too
fast with the reforms, and to see that it would rather maintain the
status quo for all programs in Canada.
Mrs. Tremblay: That is false!
Mr. Bergeron: You have misunderstood! You are not
listening!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I understood
that we are going too fast, that we are too efficient, that we want
to make changes, that we do not want the status quo, that we
want to give the dignity of work to all citizens while the
opposition prefers to maintain the status quo. The people of
Quebec know very well that we want to see changes in Canada,
while the members opposite are satisfied with the status quo.
Very well!
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Serbs have said: ``If you hit us, this means all
out war''. Meanwhile 200 peacekeepers are being detained,
including 55 Canadian troops. Clearly our peacekeepers are in
imminent danger despite claims to the contrary. This is no
longer a peacekeeping situation. Will the Minister of National
Defence pull our troops out?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we
have answered some of these questions before. This is a very
dangerous situation in Bosnia and Croatia. We knew the risks.
We are doing our job there. We have no intention of pulling our
forces out. We have said that we want to see the peace process
through. We do believe the safety of our forces is paramount in
the final analysis.
At this moment in time thankfully they are in good shape.
Negotiations are under way and I have every hope this situation
will be resolved shortly.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, just two months ago the minister will recall that he
renewed the six month commitment. I would like to quote from
page 6087 of the September 23, 1994 Hansard. The minister
said: ``if the situation on the ground changes or if the political or
military situation calls into question the safety of Canadian
troops or the usefulness of the UNPROFOR mandate''. This is
clearly happening. Will the minister show leadership today and
pull our troops out of this situation?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we stand by
the statement made in terms of re-engaging our forces. We are
not in that kind of a situation. I would only caution the hon.
member that it is better in difficult circumstances like this to
work together. We should not make this a partisan issue, but
should work together to assess and evaluate the situation.
This government will do nothing that will endanger the lives
of Canadians serving a very noble cause for the United Nations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The minister admitted in this House that she was not
interested in how the Hibernia project was managed. However,
the Auditor General is interested in the issue and says that the
8246
government does not have any evaluation mechanism to
determine Hibernia's profitability.
Will the minister confirm the information contained in the
Auditor General's report to the effect that her department does
not have any means to evaluate the Hibernia project, in which
the government is investing billions of dollars?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member across the
way that this government is indeed very interested in the overall
management of the Hibernia project. What I stated was that we
are not involved in the day to day management decisions, the
operating decisions affecting the project.
I have read that which the Auditor General has said in his
report. The hon. member knows that to be fair he should point
out that the Auditor General indicates we have gone a very long
way to put in place systems to ensure this project is managed
appropriately and that the taxpayers' money is spent effectively.
Let me suggest to the hon. member that we will continue to
improve the mechanisms we have in place to ensure the
taxpayers' money is spent effectively.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is omitting the fact that this evaluation
mechanism will only be in place once construction of Hibernia
is completed. Talk about control!
In this period of budget constraints, how can the minister
explain to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers that she is sinking
three billion dollars into a project without having any way of
evaluating its profitability?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it absolutely plain that the
Government of Canada does have an evaluation mechanism. The
Auditor General suggested that we improve it and we are doing
that.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This government has been asking for spending cut
recommendations. Mr. Parizeau recently said that Canada's
system of equalization payments is too generous and saps the
initiative of Quebecers. Why does the government not hit two
birds with one stone: Reduce the deficit by $3 billion and
simultaneously stop sapping the initiatives of Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the statements of the Premier of Quebec are very
interesting.
Yes, we probably could study his suggestion that we cut on
transfer payments of that nature. However I think he has not
thought it through completely. I could hit two birds and two
home runs at the same time but I think that for the good of
Quebecers it is better to keep equalization payments in place.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General in his report noted that welfare and
UI create dependency and add to unemployment in Canada.
Does the Prime Minister recognize the opportunities for
budgetary savings which arise from these facts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Long
before the report of the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, we
decided to have a reform to do that, to make sure that these
moneys are used to create opportunities and training.
The main goal is not to make money to reduce the deficit. If
we can do it at the same time it would be perfect. The main goal
is to use our money better and help people get training and get a
job so that they will become productive. That is exactly what the
Minister of Human Resources Development is doing at this
time. I am delighted he will have the support of the hon.
member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Pressed by the media, the president of CN, Mr. Paul Tellier,
admitted yesterday during a press conference that three or four
CN administrators enjoy the same benefits as he does, namely
interest-free loans.
Since these interest-free loans are not mentioned in the
annual information circular of the company, will the minister
confirm the information given by Mr. Tellier, and will he tell us
how many directors of CN enjoy this type of benefit, as well as
the amount of taxpayers' money which is loaned in that fashion
to these CN officers?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is fully aware that yesterday we
explained that the benefits granted to the CEO of CN and to its
board of directors are an internal decision of the corporation.
The salary is set by order in council.
8247
As I suggested yesterday, the CEO of CN held a press
conference and answered questions from the media, as I knew
he would. If the hon. member has other questions, he should
address them to the appropriate body, namely CN's board of
directors.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister not agree that any amount of money loaned to senior
officials of CN or any Crown corporation accountable to his
department should be declared, so that the shareholders of these
corporations, namely Canadian taxpayers, are aware of such
practices?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that there are rules to be followed in
this type of transaction. As I have indicated on a number of
occasions, the arrangements between the president of CN and
the board is one that is subject to the controls that are internal to
a crown corporation.
The rules as I understand them are that if any loans are made
in excess of salary they have to be declared. That was the basis
of the legal advice the president referred to yesterday. I have
indicated in this House before that it is very, very complicated
when you get into loans and acquiring homes in defining what
the rules are, as the leader of the government in Quebec well
knows.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last July, Canada arrested two U.S. fishing vessels fishing
Icelandic scallops beyond our 200 mile limit. At that time
Canada's actions were described by the United States
spokesperson as illegal.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell the House what
action has been taken to resolve this disagreement with our
friends in the United States?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East who
has a powerful and passionate commitment to the livelihood of
the fishermen of Newfoundland for raising this important
question.
Yesterday the Government of Canada received a
communication from the Government of the United States. It
was by way of a diplomatic note in which the United States
recognized fully and without reservation Canada's jurisdiction
over Icelandic scallops both inside and outside the 200 mile
limit.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last week Major Barry Armstrong, a military doctor, released
information indicating orders had been given to destroy certain
photographic evidence. Last night Major Lee Jewer, another
military doctor, confirmed that orders had indeed been given to
destroy photographs showing a pattern of mistreatment of
Somali civilians.
Has the minister asked Major Lee Jewer who issued the order
to destroy potential evidence?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in view of
the fact that we have announced an inquiry which will be open
and which will be civilian, I do not think it is in the best interests
of justice for me to join in these kinds of discussions.
I am concerned about the fact that another member of the
Canadian Armed Forces has made a public statement without
authorization. The hon. member should know that as a condition
of service if individuals have something to communicate they
communicate it through their superior.
I overlooked the rules last week because what Major
Armstrong said was of such purport and seriousness that I
believe he had the right as every Canadian citizen does to make
this particular statement. Therefore, we called for an inquiry.
We cannot have this matter tried on a daily basis in the
newspapers, on television programs or here in the House of
Commons. It has to go to the inquiry.
As a result I have directed the Chief of Defence Staff to
inform members of the armed forces of the sensitivity of this
matter and remind them of their obligations as members of the
armed forces in the interests of justice. Hon. members opposite
may not care about justice, but we on this side of the House do.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister will know and the House is aware that the
events in Somalia happened almost two years ago. Every time
we get closer to having an investigation, pop, poof, somebody
else gets charged and the investigation gets put back another six
months. Two years have passed already. The circumstances of
this case demand an immediate investigation.
(1445 )
Further, Mr. Minister, members of the Canadian Armed
Forces have a-
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would put his
remarks through the Chair and would the hon. member put his
question, please.
8248
Mr. McClelland: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware
that presently the lowest ranking soldier charged in the Somalia
affair is convicted and in jail. This is the very individual who
gave the first evidence to uncover-
The Speaker: I would ask that you put your question
forthwith.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, what specific action is the
minister taking to ensure that others in the military feel free to
come forward and provide evidence without fear of retribution?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how clear do
we have to be? There will be an open civilian inquiry and any
member of the armed forces who has such information or
concerns will have not only the opportunity to make those
representations but the obligation to make those representations
to that inquiry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Last Thursday, the minister granted a two-week stay of
proceedings to have time to review the case of Mrs. Sabadin and
her two children. If he does not revise his decision, Mrs. Sabadin
and her two children will be deported to the Seychelles, where
her husband has threatened to kill her as soon as she returns.
Three days before deciding to stay deportation proceedings,
the minister wrote me the following, and I quote: ``I have
personally reviewed Mrs. Sabadin's case. This review has
revealed no overriding reasons that would justify taking
exceptional measures''. Why did the minister change his mind
three days later?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be
inappropriate to delve into the specifics of one case. However, I
think the hon. member should know, because one of his
colleagues asked the question some time ago, that the decision
was to stay the deportation so that a proper and full review may
be conducted.
The member and his colleague have been asking if I would
basically prejudice that review and make a guarantee on the
basis of how that review would go. I think that would be an
inappropriate action for a minister of the crown.
Second, let us allow the review to properly function. We have
as good a system as anywhere in the international community. If
new evidence is brought forward that will be dealt with
accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister agree he made a serious mistake in the case of Mrs.
Sabadin and why will he not admit there are overriding
humanitarian grounds for immediately cancelling the
deportation order?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why members
of that party continue to put down a generous progressive
system in this country.
The individual in question applied for humanitarian and
compassionate consideration. That consideration was extended.
That extension is now undergoing a full review of this
individual's case. Now this member is trying to somehow say
that the system or the government is doing the wrong thing.
The system is proceeding well. The system is compassionate
and it is time we say so instead of always running a Canadian
system into the ground which it clearly does not deserve.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government promised Canadians that it would do things
differently but after only one year I cannot really tell the
difference between it and the Mulroney government.
The president of CN has received a $300,000 interest free loan
to live in style in Westmount courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.
The National Capital Commission, which has already rifled the
public purse for its chairman's social club dues, is spending $2
million on office renovations, and Liberals across the country
are lining up for patronage appointments.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. When
will these lavish expenditures stop and when will this
government realize that it is not its money that it is spending?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if she cannot tell the difference between this
government and the Mulroney government she clearly needs
glasses. Maybe the glasses would help her to see that this
government is taking every measure in its first year in office to
ensure the cost effectiveness, the efficiency of the programs and
the spending of taxpayers' dollars.
(1450 )
We will not tolerate the inefficiencies. We will not tolerate the
wasteful spending of the previous federal government. That is
what this government is committed to doing.
8249
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when I was here at the beginning of the last Parliament, the
Tories were high in the polls too. This first year is over.
When the president of CN was asked about possibly ending a
few of his lavish perks, he responded: ``Are you saying that as a
result of downsizing all of us in the executive ranks should
reduce our compensation by 10, 15 or 20 per cent?'' You bet, that
is exactly what we are saying and we proposed that this morning
to the finance committee.
When will this government start to lead by example and not
lead by the nose?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the example could be set by her leader. He might
want to cut out the clothing allowance and save some money
over there.
This government is reviewing the programs and the services
that are offered to Canadians because we know that we have to
make our programs efficient and effective to be able to reach the
3 per cent of GDP target which is our target to bring down the
deficit and to make sure that we have affordable and responsive
programs and services to the people of this country.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Hong Kong government has admitted that 142
Vietnamese refugees were injured in a forced repatriation
operation at the end of September. There is also a proven risk to
the safety of these refugees returning to Vietnam.
Could the minister inform us of what actions the Canadian
government is taking to ensure the fair treatment and safety of
Vietnamese refugees in southeast Asia?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
The House should know that in 1989 with respect to the
Indo-Chinese refugee crisis, the international community came
together and signed a comprehensive plan of action to which
Canada was a signatory and continues to be a member of the
steering committee.
There were two obligations under the United Nations for that
comprehensive action plan. One was to repatriate those found
not to be convention refugees back to Vietnam and, second, for
those who were found to be convention refugees to resettle them
abroad.
On the latter, since 1989 Canada has accepted some 20,000
individuals. All screening and all repatriation is done under the
auspices of the United Nations. Generally it could be said to
have been a very worth while and very successful international
comprehensive plan that has repatriated safely from 60,000
Indo-Chinese refugees back to Vietnam.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The price
of food in remote areas of Northern Quebec and the Northwest
Territories is so high that it is practically impossible for
residents, most of whom are Inuit, to eat properly. Today, an
Inuit in the far north pays twice as much for the same basket of
groceries as we do here in the south, while his average income is
much lower.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs explain why, despite the
fact that $14 million is spent annually on subsidizing the
distribution of food in the far north, a person who lives in that
area always has to pay twice as much for his food as people in
the south?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I totally agree
with my friend. He has a perception of my portfolio that I
sometimes find lacking in other members of this House.
He has pointed out the cost of food mail. A gallon of milk in
Nunavut is $12. There is nutrition that does not exist. We have
$14 million in food mail. I do not think it is enough and I for one
will fight within my ministry and other ministries to improve
that.
Mr. Solberg: Increase spending.
Mr. Thompson: That's right, spend more.
Mr. Irwin: Go and see for yourselves instead of sitting here
making smart remarks. The issue is not so much
self-government in Nunavut. It is bringing education, it is
handling 14-year old children who have children, it is bringing
nutrition, it is bringing the future and that is what we are
committed to.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
wonders whether the minister saw my question beforehand,
because he used exactly the same example I will give you now.
8250
How can the minister accept the fact that an Inuit has to pay up
to $12 for 3 litres of milk in the far north, while his department is
still looking into the matter instead of coming up with some
answers?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I started off this term hoping
that I would turn my hon. friend into a lovable and committed
federalist. Since he is using my answers for questions, I think I
am 60 per cent there.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Air Atlantic creditors vote on Monday to determine whether
they will accept the company's restructuring proposal or be
forced into bankruptcy. Apparently most of the creditors are in
agreement with the restructuring proposal and have declared so.
The sole exception is the Government of Canada that has not
given its public indication of its position. Rejection of the
restructuring proposal means the bankruptcy of the company.
Will the Minister of Industry today please advise the House
and through this House the employees and creditors of the
position of the Government of Canada to the restructuring
proposal.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the question because it gives me an
opportunity to make clear that first of all Industry Canada is
really an insurer of certain of the debt which is involved in this
transaction. The creditors themselves have a vote. Industry
Canada will not be voting with respect to it.
I have directed my officials to retain a neutral position on the
proposal because I believe that it should be examined by the
creditors with a view to its commercial viability. That is the test
they should apply in their own best interests. If that test passes
then we will be happy to see the airline continue on the basis of
the proposal.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the Minister of Industry for his frank and
forthright answer. I am very pleased indeed that the minister
will take a neutral position.
Does this mean that the creditors will have sole discretion as
to their vote on the restructuring proposal without interference
by a government official or a representative of the department?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly the intention which I intended to convey
by my first answer. There will be no interference from us. I
expect the creditors to evaluate their own positions and vote
accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime
Minister. In its attempts to reduce costs the federal government
has on occasion dealt with the public service job vacancies by
not replacing them on the basis of attrition.
My question has to do with the recent appointments to the
Senate, apparent worthy appointments. I am just wondering if
the Deputy Prime Minister would suggest to the Prime Minister
that in the interest of saving costs around this place, perhaps the
Senate should be treated the same way as the public service and
that vacancies be treated as not filled by attrition.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a slight
problem with that logic. I think the member would certainly
recognize that he does not want to leave the Senate with a
majority of Mulroney appointees.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions.
In a report released on Tuesday the Senate banking committee
recommended that the $60,000 guaranteed deposit by the CDIC
be reduced from 100 per cent coverage guaranteed to a lower
level where depositors, that is Canadians, would assume more
risk and the banks less.
Can the Secretary of State tell us if the government is
prepared to implement these changes and why?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
member's interest in the subject. The Senate committee has
reported recently. We have looked at the proposals it has made,
some 42 of them. One was the recommendation for a partial
co-insurance clause. That is something we will have to consider
very carefully.
A number of other recommendations it has made are very
positive ones. That one is going to be carefully considered. We
would certainly not consider implementing co-insurance
without careful consultations with all stakeholders and
reference to the House.
8251
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon.
members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vilém Holan,
Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order following the Prime
Minister's comments during question period yesterday on the
results of the election of the Speaker.
Standing Order 3(6) states:
The Clerk of the House shall, once all members wishing to do so have
deposited their ballot papers, empty the box and count the ballots and being
satisfied as to the accuracy of the count, shall destroy the ballots together with
all records of the number of ballots cast for each candidate and the Clerk of
the House shall in no way divulge the number of ballots cast for any
candidate.
In reference to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the
Prime Minister stated yesterday, and I quote from page 8170 of
Hansard:
-Mr. Speaker, that it was by two votes he did not become the Speaker. A lot
of people thought we had two great candidates and he lost by only two votes.
In so doing the Prime Minister left the impression that he was
in possession of information that is supposed to be secret. By
making these comments the Prime Minister has called the whole
process into question. I merely want to ensure that the rules of
the House were adhered to and that the Standing Orders were not
compromised.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if his comments
were purely-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I take the point of order seriously.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his absence the
Prime Minister asked me to transmit to the House that he was
basically reflecting on the fact there were two votes. I think
everybody who watched the votes in the House that day realized
there were actually two votes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate on the
particular matter. Is the hon. member rising on the same point of
order?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, even in your own response
which is also recorded in Hansard you said-and I am not
quoting exactly-that this was the first time you realized how
many votes you won by.
Obviously the Prime Minister needs to do some explaining in
the House.
The Speaker: Order. Of course I should not have intervened
like that. What really surprised me is that I have not met a
member yet who has not voted for me.
I will take both statements under advisement and if it is
necessary I will come back to the House.
(1505 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in Statements by Members under Standing Order
31 the hon. member for Vancouver South said that the leader of
the Reform Party should apologize for misleading Canadians.
Under citation 489 of Beauchesne's it is unparliamentary
language to use the words misleading the public. I would ask,
Mr. Speaker, that you also rule in this case and perhaps ask the
member to withdraw his statement.
The Speaker: I will have a look at the blues. Generally
speaking the word misleading could be inadvertent. If we use the
words deliberately misleading they would surely be out of order.
I will review the blues.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State, the usual
question put to him on Thursdays as to what the legislative
agenda will be for the next few days?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, and tomorrow
if necessary, we will pursue consideration at report stage of Bill
C-57, the World Trade Organization Implementation Act.
[English]
We will follow this with report and third reading stages of Bill
C-55, the Yukon surface rights legislation.
Since early autumn the Standing Committee on Finance has
been conducting for the first time in history formal public
prebudget consultations. On Monday and Wednesday next week
members of the House will have the opportunity of making their
own contributions to the work of the committee. They will be
8252
able to give their own views on public discussions about the next
budget and debate in the House a motion to take note of this
process and to give the committee an additional week to
complete its report.
On Tuesday we hope to debate third reading stage of Bill C-57
and to commence second reading debate of the income tax
amendments introduced this morning.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Order! I am now ready to rule on the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Roberval on November 16,
1994, concerning the format of the Report of the Special Joint
Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention,
and to thank the former member for Ottawa-Vanier and co-chair
of the special joint committee, the chief government whip, the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Government House Leader for their
contributions to this discussion.
In his submission, the hon. member for Roberval requested
that the report of special joint committee be ruled out of order
for a number of reasons. First he noted that Standing Order 108
provides that dissenting opinions be appended after the
signature of the Chair and argued that printing dissenting
opinions in a second document breached the provisions of the
Standing Order.
Further, he argued that, although the committee had agreed to
append dissenting opinions to its report, no decision was taken
by the committee to print the report in the format in which it was
tabled. He therefore went on to request that the report be
reprinted in a single volume.
[English]
The House has a relatively recent practice of allowing
committees to include dissenting opinions in the reports. In
1991 Standing Order 108 was amended to permit standing
committees to ``report from time to time and to print a brief
appendix to any report after the signature of the chairman
containing such opinions or recommendations dissenting from
the report or supplementary to it as may be proposed by
committee members''.
(1510 )
Also in 1991, Standing Order 35(2) was added to permit a
representative of the official opposition to give a succinct
explanation of such dissenting opinions when the committee
report is tabled. These changes made explicit the House practice
with regard to dissenting opinions in the committee reports.
As the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government
House Leader noted, a close reading of these standing orders
reveals that the provisions of the rules refer only to standing
committees of the House.
A review of the 20 reports tabled with dissenting opinions
since these rules were adopted in 1991 reveals that four have
been from special committees. Three of these four reports were
presented in the House and on these three occasions a
representative of the official opposition rose to comment,
pursuant to Standing Order 35(2).
It appears that it has become our practice to apply Standing
Order 108 to special committees and there has been heretofore
no challenge to such a practice. So, unless the House directs
otherwise, the Chair does not intend to intervene on that point.
The wording of Standing Order 108(1)(a) is very clear. First,
it allows a committee to print opinions or recommendations that
dissent from a report or are supplementary to it. It specifies that
such an appendix is to be printed after the signature of the
chairman. It specifies that such an appendix must be brief and
brief means short and concise.
The standing order does not allow for minority reports.
Regardless of how the media or members themselves may label
such dissent, the House has never recognized or permitted the
tabling of minority reports. Speaker Lamoureux twice
condemned the idea of minority reports, explaining to the House
that what is presented to the House from a committee is a report
from the committee, not a report from the majority.
I would draw the attention of members to the rulings of July
24, 1969 at pages 1397 to 1399 and March 16, 1972 at pages 194
and 195 of the Journals.
[Translation]
If members of this House or parties in this House wish to
disseminate their views on a matter, they are free to find their
own way of doing so. This Standing Order does not exist to
provide a convenient vehicle for publicizing a different or
alternate report on a subject matter.
With the exception of the provisions of Standing Order 32(4)
requiring that documents be table in both official languages, the
rules of the House are silent on questions relating to the format
of a committee report. These questions are largely left in the
hands of the committee.
In the past, committees have allowed their chairs
considerable latitude as to the format and presentation of special
cover reports to the House. Perhaps in this case we have
discovered the limits to such latitude and the lesson for all is that
committees
8253
themselves will have to decide these matters in advance of the
printing of the report.
Committees must be careful to assume their responsibilities
in this regard: they cannot heedlessly go forward without
deciding such specific matters as the relevance and brevity of
dissenting opinions and the form in which these will be
appended to the printed report.
[English]
For example, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's
Defence Policy presented a two-volume report some weeks ago
with the dissenting opinions contained in volume one after the
signatures of the co-chairs. This was in conformity with a very
explicit motion adopted by the committee to include the
dissenting opinions in volume one. But the publication of
committee reports in more than one volume is a new
phenomenon and this may have contributed to our present
difficulty.
(1515)
[Translation]
The Standing Joint Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign
Policy also adopted a motion to append dissenting opinions to
the report, but the committee minutes reveal that the only
motion specifically speaking to the question of format is one
requiring that the report be printed in a bilingual tumble format.
Futhermore, the motion authorizing the printing of dissenting
opinions is phrased in general terms and this too may have
contributed to the current imbroglio.
The Chair concludes that the report as presented meets the
spirit of the Standing Order and that it should be accepted as
tabled. While supplies last, the report will continue to be
distributed in its present two-volume format. However, I am of
the opinion that the report does not meet the letter of the
Standing Order. Therefore, should a reprint be required, I am
instructing my officials to ensure that the dissenting opinions of
the Official Opposition and Reform Party be printed after the
signatures of the co-chairs in the same volume.
[English]
The terms of the standing orders which allow for the printing
of dissenting opinions must be carefully observed and it is the
duty of committees to ensure their observance. To avoid any
future confusion, the Chair expects that all committees will
ensure by means of explicit and carefully worded motions in
keeping with the terms of Standing Order 108(1)(a) that their
members are perfectly clear as to the format in which their
reports will be presented to the House.
I thank all members for their interventions and I hope that this
clarification of Standing Order 108(1) will be useful to the
committees of the House.
_____________________________________________
8253
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
continue my statement on the amendment moved by my
colleague for Louis-Hébert to amend clause 58 of Bill C-57.
Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is eloquent, not to say blatant, on this
subject. I quote paragraph (a):
(a) to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by
means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which
sounds may be mechanically reproduced,
In inventing the phonograph, Thomas Edison thought that
sounds could be permanently recorded for reproduction.
Personally, I think that the Canadian government thinks that the
Copyright Act is and must remain permanently recorded on
obsolete media.
Here is a very small example illustrating how outdated
Canada's Copyright Act is. The cultural community in Canada
and Quebec is still waiting for a real review of this law passed in
1926, which has been only slightly amended since 1988.
Unfortunately, it is only because of economic imperatives
arising from multilateral trade agreements to which Canada is a
party that Canada is concerned about the cultural development
of Canadians and Quebecers.
The Union des artistes, which appeared before the Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studying Bill C-57,
is very explicit on this subject. I quote: ``At a time when digital
technology is breaking down the old distinctions between
various audio and audio-visual media; at a time when direct
satellite transmissions and the information highway will
redefine how our works are consumed and used, Canada is still
protecting its creative artists and defending its culture with
measures imposed on it because it signed international trade
treaties».
(1520)
Continuing on this route is unthinkable.
The amendment presented by my colleague from
Louis-Hébert would simply modernize and update an obsolete,
antiquated law and at the same time give our artists a minimum
of protection, and I do mean just a minimum.
8254
Let us hope that Quebecers will soon have an opportunity as
well to rejuvenate their political system and adapt it to new
realities and to get rid of the outdated structures of Canadian
federalism.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recommend that
this amendment be rejected because we have problems with it.
First, the new expression would be inconsistent with clauses
2, which includes the definitions of ``plate'' and ``producer'', as
well as 5.4 and 5.5, which refer to ``a record, perforated roll or
other contrivance by means of which sounds may be
mechanically reproduced''. Second, it would therefore be
difficult to apply in a consistent manner these provisions, if we
were to use the new expression contained in the motion.
I should also point out that Canadian jurisprudence gives a
rather wide interpretation to the current wording. Therefore,
although the expression is somewhat archaic, it does include
new technologies.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to address the motion tabled by
the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
It is strange and almost sad to amend the archaic and obsolete
Copyright Act because we are forced to do so when dealing with
a bill which indirectly affects it, as the hon. member for Laval
East pointed out.
If I were sitting here at the end of the Second World War and
reviewing this bill to implement the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization, I might feel comfortable with clause
58(a), which reads:
(a) to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means of a
record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be
mechanically reproduced,
Indeed, if I were debating this bill at the end of the Second
World War, I might feel comfortable with this clause, although
the perforated roll was already somewhat obsolete at the time.
Now, more than half a century later, the government tables a
bill to implement the agreement establishing the successor of
the International Trade Organization, namely the World Trade
Organization, and we still have an archaic and obsolete
provision.
In this era of high technology such as optical fibres and laser
techniques, the government is talking about the perforated roll.
The parliamentary secretary said that, according to existing
precedents, new technologies are included in this clause of the
bill.
(1525)
Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the government refuses to
modernize the wording in the very simple way proposed by the
hon. member for Louis-Hébert, a way that allows for any new
technology. We know that technology changes very quickly. As I
said earlier, today it is fibre optics and lasers, but what will it be
tomorrow? Will we have to change the legislation again to
include new technology?
I consider that we have to allow for any technological change
that might apply in the future to sound reproduction, and even
image reproduction, although the bill is rather vague on that. I
suppose that the parliamentary secretary will tell us that it
includes sound reproduced with picture.
At the time of the Second World War, the reproduction of
sound and picture was not all that common. There has been a
tremendous technological evolution and the technological
changes are not even considered by the legislation as presently
drafted.
The proposal of my colleague for Louis-Hébert is very
simple. It is the result of submissions made to us by artists and
creators, more specifically by the Union des artistes, which
appeared-which took the time to appear-before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to voice
its concerns, concerns which are the bare minimum and quite far
from what they would really like to see in a piece of legislation. I
am glad that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is present. We
are talking about amendments to the Copyright Act in an
indirect fashion, through changes to Canadian legislation
brought about by the signing of the Uruguay Round Agreement,
or the creation of a Department of Canadian Heritage.
When are we going to amend the Copyright Act to bring it up
to date? The government does not have the political will to do
so. Absolutely not. The old Copyright Act is being amended in a
roundabout way through other legislation. It is absolutely
unacceptable.
Could it be that the present Minister of Canadian Heritage
does not have the necessary clout with his colleagues to have the
Copyright Act amended as it should be and as the artists are
demanding? I am very sorry to see, following the speech by our
colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade, that our government colleagues intend to
oppose this proposed amendment which, after all, is rather
innocuous, but affects writers, authors and performers in a
fundamental way. It is at their request that we are proposing this
amendment which is, I could not stress it enough, very
important for them.
However, as I mentioned before, what they would like to see is
a comprehensive review of the Copyright Act. But in the
absence of real political will, in the absence of a minister who
would truly stand up for them, in the absence of any reform of
the Copyright Act, this piece of legislation should at least be
adapted to today's reality.
I hope that the government members will not prove to be
close-minded, that they will not choose to oppose this
amendment, otherwise we will have to conclude that they lack
openness and concern for the needs of the industry, and that they
do not take into account the new technology. It will be a pity if
the
8255
government chose to oppose this proposed amendment just
because it did not originate on its own side.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1530)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 8, standing in the name of Mr. Paré. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-57, in Clause 103, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 31 to 33, on page 54, with the following:
``paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):''; and
(b) by replacing lines 41, on page 54, with the following:
``plies; or
(g) to restrict the importation of goods made, or containing components made in
contravention of International Organization Conventions numbers 79, 90 and 138
regarding child labour.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
am not mistaken, I have the unanimous consent of this House to
move, seconded by the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake:
That Motion No. 9 be amended by deleting the words:
``by children under the age of 16'' and replacing these words by the
following: ``in contravention to International Law Association conventions
Nos. 79, 90 and 138 concerning children's law''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If the hon. member for
Terrebonne would be so kind as to assist the Chair by way of an
explanation. Is consent requested to change the text
immediately or rather to add an amendment to the motion?
Mr. Sauvageau: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and
emotion that I present this amendment to an amendment,
because the way it was originally worded, proscribing-
An hon. member: That is not an amendment to an
amendment.
Mr. Sauvageau: A change to an amendment-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Then this is a motion to
change the text, is it not?
Mr. Sauvageau: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake care to comment on this? It is clear
to the House then that in fact we are changing, modifying the
text to the motion?
(1535 )
Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is as I understand it. We
are changing the text of the motion in front of us today. It is with
my full concurrence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Finally now, if I could ask
then, does the House give its unanimous consent to change the
text of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
my hon. colleague pointed out, it is indeed in the best tradition
of goodwill displayed on Thursdays, and I thank my colleague
from the NDP for his support and good work ensuring this
change could be made.
First, we are opposed to the original motion to amend that
refers to restricting work done by children under the age of 16.
The reason being that it could be somewhat prejudicial to certain
persons. There are Liberal members who have told me: ``This is
great, but if little boy or little girl work with me on the farm, that
does not necessarily constitute exploitation of child labour''. If
a paperboy or girl or anyone else has a craft, business or family
activity, it is not necessarily exploitation.
One of the reasons for changing the text before us is that we
understand that some children may want to gain work
experience in extremely favourable conditions or students may
wish to work in the field, so to speak, to increase their chances of
8256
finding a better job later in their lives. But to restrict any work
done or the importation of any components made by children
under the age of 16 might, for one thing, make it obviously
difficult to enforce the legislation, as well as be prejudicial to
children who want to learn, who are simply interested in
experiment with a new job.
I also move this amendment in a somewhat special context.
As you know, National Child Day was celebrated last week. I
was invited by a high school in my riding to attend a
demonstration to remind international leaders of the
commitments they made in writing only four years ago in New
York at the UN international convention on children's rights.
They told me about some of the promises that were made.
They quoted seven of the 24 promises. I will tell you about some
of them in a moment. None of the promises-which dealt with
child malnutrition, exploitation and conscription-even came
close to being kept. None of the almost 150 countries, including
Canada, that signed these promises showed the will and rigour to
implement them.
The students at Paul-Arseneau high school who invited me
asked me to mention it in this House. Since I was waiting for the
opportunity-I also have a petition on this subject I should table
in this House before long-with today's proposed amendment to
this bill, I, as a member of Parliament, become the
representative of these 1,200 students who have asked me and
other parliamentarians who sign papers and make commitments
to honour them. These promises were made four years ago.
I will repeat to you some of what a 12- or 13-year-old student
told me: ``Everyone knows that people sometimes forget things.
It happens to us when we are taking exams. It can also happen to
our government leaders. All of us here today-I remind you that
there were 1,200 of them-want to help them remember. That is
why we all signed a giant petition to remind the Prime Minister
of Canada of the government's promises at the World Summit
for Children that was held at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York four years ago. All promises made should be kept.
People should keep their word.'' And I think we are here to lead
by example.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Sorry to interrupt the hon.
member.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been
received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate
has passed Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act.
8256
THE ROYAL ASSENT
(1540)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I have the honour
to inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
November 24, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 24th day of
November, 1994 at 3.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain
bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
(1550)
[Translation]
And being returned:
I have the honour to inform the House that when the House
went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General
was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to
the following bills:
Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act-Chapter
36.
Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco
Sales to Young Persons Act-Chapter 37.
Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend
or repeal certain other Acts-Chapter 38.
Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act-Chapter 39.
_____________________________________________
8256
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
8257
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is the first time that I have seen such a thing and I am somewhat
surprised, I admit. I shall try to continue my speech without
laughing too much about what just happened.
An hon. member: Many things here are out of date.
Mr. Sauvageau: So I was saying-Someone whispered that
not just the previous amendment was out of date, but I have
respect for our traditions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Sauvageau: I told you earlier that I would quote some of
the 24 promises made in New York about respecting children's
rights in the world. I have only three to quote so that you can
understand why international conventions should have priority
over wording that says ``under 16 years''. I shall read you
commitment 18 made by Canada and about a hundred other
countries that signed this international agreement. Article 18
says that children's welfare requires political action at the
highest level. I think that means us here. We are determined to
take such action. However, it does not say when. But there was
no political will to act on it.
Commitment 19 says that this declaration is a solemn
commitment to give high priority to children's rights, survival,
protection and development. This would also ensure the welfare
of all societies. I repeat, it mentions a solemn commitment to
give high priority, but it does not say when. It still has not
happened today.
Commitment 20 is divided into several points. I will tell you
about part of the seventh one, which refers to helping child
refugees establish new roots in life. States would also strive to
ensure the social protection of children who work and promise
to abolish illegal child labour. Efforts would be made to prevent
children from falling prey to the scourge of illicit drugs. This
part also attaches the greatest importance to children's rights.
Where my text would amend article 38 of the Child Labour
Convention is in item 1. You do not have to look very far in the
Convention to find where it states that State Parties shall adopt a
national policy to effectively abolish child labour and to
progressively raise the minimum age for admissions to
employment or work at a level that would allow teenagers to
reach their full physical and mental potential. Yes, children can
work, but only in conditions where they will have hope and be
able to physically and mentally develop. They should never be
exploited.
Earlier this week, we had some good news. We learned of the
creation of the International Children Tribunal, and one of the
two co-founders of this Tribunal said that she saw last summer a
movie where children in chains were producing goods. We saw
an excerpt of this movie on the news when the creation of the
Tribunal was announced. We saw children in chains working to
produce luxurious goods currently in use in Canada and the
United States. So, we have to ask ourselves: Can our supposedly
developed society allow countries to exploit children and make
them work in awful conditions to produce goods we will use?
(1555)
So, I support this bill, with a minor change to the motion,
because we should keep our words and fulfil our commitments.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motions
amending Bill C-57 and in this case, Motion No. 9. We are
happy to consent to the change made by the hon. member from
the Bloc who spoke thoughtfully in support of not only his
amendment but of the motion. I am very pleased to know of the
growing support for the idea that has been put forward here.
The purpose of the motion is to ensure that as Canada joins the
World Trade Organization, it creatively addresses the problem
of child labour, one of the most troubling aspects of the new
international trading order.
It amends the Export and Import Permits Act to allow the
government to introduce regulations to restrict the importation
of goods made in whole or in part by children, contrary to
international guidelines.
Many observers of the trend of globalization have noted that
the more we leave the multinationals to seek out the lowest
labour costs in the unregulated labour markets of developing
countries, the more globalization tends to become a race to the
bottom. Armies of young children around the developing world
already find themselves at the very bottom. They work long
hours at punishing work in atrocious conditions for a pittance.
They are thereby deprived of an education which is their right
under the UN charter.
In many instances, such children are indentured into virtual
slavery. The numbers of children involved and the conditions
they face are staggering. It is estimated that 300,000 children
work at hand knitting carpets in India while two-thirds of the
workforce in Nepal's 600 factories producing rugs for export are
children under the age of 15.
According to the International Labour Organization half the
children in Pakistan's carpet industry die of malnutrition and
disease before they reach the age of 12. Girls 10 years of age
work in China's special export zones in toy factories for $10 a
month.
In Indonesia, after relaxing its regulations on child labour in
1987, some 2.8 million children are working in factories. The
most revealing fact is that child labour has been growing in
tandem with the liberalization of world trade.
These children produce rugs, textiles, garments, shoes, toys
and other light manufacturing products for export markets. The
8258
multinationals that manufacture, trade and retail the products of
child labour often claim that they do not hire the children
directly but they never acknowledge that they knowingly
subcontract out parts of the manufacturing process to employers
that do.
Child labour has become an integral part of the new world
order of trade liberalization and gives the lie to any glorification
of unregulated world trade as a force of progress. For the
pathetic armies of children in the developing world, market
liberalization means a regression to the brutal exploitation that
we in the developed countries have not permitted for more than a
century.
Because it has become part of the fabric of the new
international economy, child labour implicates all of us as
consumers. On any visit to the local mall, unknowingly we are
likely to buy for our own children clothes and toys made under
conditions that would horrify us if we imagined our own
children in their situation. Here is a case where we must let our
basic human sympathy, our sense of solidarity with children
around the world move us to act. Some have argued that when
developed countries today restrict trade in goods made by child
labour they are forgetting the role that child labour played in
their own development and acting to deliberately restrict the
development of new economies.
(1600)
We in the developed world have indeed had our own
experience with child labour, which was as much a part of
European and North American industrialization as it is now in
many developed societies today. We must remember that
government regulations prohibiting the use of child labour were
among the earliest public interventions to tame a predatory
industrial capitalism. The fact that the same predatory
capitalism has returned with a vengeance, its leaders boasting of
their ability to operate outside the regulatory reach of individual
states, does not relieve us of our duty to protect the most
vulnerable members of the global village.
The multinationals like to talk about the need to establish a
level playing field. Let us establish one between them and the
children whom they now exploit. The elimination of child
labour will be a long and arduous process that takes place on
many fronts. The International Labour Organization has a
program that has been in place for years to study and propose
measures to address the problem. Canada should actively
support this program.
The ILO secretariat has also recommended that the WTO
should adopt a social clause to enforce basic labour rights on
member states, a strategy that would go a long way to
eliminating child labour. This is why we proposed a separate
amendment earlier today that the government chose not to
support, that the government commit itself to such a policy of
developing a social clause for the WTO.
Some individual governments of developing countries are
making efforts to introduce regulations to help children and
some of these programs, such as the one in Hong Kong, have met
with success. Many developing countries do not have the
resources to police regulations on child labour, however well
intended those regulations may be. That is why the developed
countries like Canada have an obligation to help the
governments of developing countries prevent multinationals
from trading in goods made by children.
That is why we are proposing this amendment today to Bill
C-57. It would put the burden of proof on the large importers
and retailers to establish that they have not imported goods
made with child labour and apply the resources of the Canadian
regulatory regime to police the problem.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
an interesting motion, one that in spirit I would agree with but in
practicality is going to be very difficult to deal with. That has
been recognized by the countries that have been negotiating this
GATT agreement for the past seven years. That is why it is not in
the current GATT agreement.
The intent of this amendment is certainly good. It is to end
child exploitation, especially in third world countries. The
difficulty is that a multilateral trade agreement is not the forum
for this. Children's rights are protected under the International
Convention on the Rights of the Child through the United
Nations.
Some of the difficulties were outlined by the member for the
Battlefords-Meadow Lake when he said that individual
countries do not have the resources to police this kind of
intervention.
I would like to pose a question for the member: Do we have
the resources? In other words, on every article of clothing or
textiles that come from some third world country, how would we
prove that this is not made using child labour? It is very, very
difficult. I think we have to work through the International
Convention on the Rights of the Child and encourage these
individual countries to stop the exploitation in those areas.
Just another interesting little sidelight. It also raises some
questions about practices that we have at home, practices that I
think are actually quite good.
I have a grain farm. We have four children who all worked on
that grain farm prior to reaching the age of 16. They learned
responsibility at a very early age. They learned how that
business worked. There are literally hundreds of thousands of
businesses in Canada that have children of the owners working
and learning the system, learning how to conduct business in
those businesses. Would that not also raise the question of our
own practices at home? I do not think those are bad practices.
I have to oppose this. The spirit of it is I think right, but we
have to pursue it through the proper avenues.
8259
(1605 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the
need for programs and initiatives to deal with child poverty.
That is precisely what this government is doing with the
initiative of the human resources ministry. There is something
now before the public and we welcome their ideas. To agree to
this proposed amendment would be almost like changing the
game half way through or after it has already been played.
First, we are raising the issue of relationship between the
international trade regime and social and labour standards. The
purpose of the bill is to implement the World Trade Organization
agreement. There is nothing in the agreement that deals with this
subject. It was not the object of any negotiation and no
obligation needs to be implemented in this respect.
The proposed amendment would represent a major departure
from the position taken by Canada on several occasions. This
issue should be addressed in multilateral negotiations rather
than by taking unilateral actions. It is one of the areas that was
identified truly in Marrakech as potential subject matter for
future negotiations. Canada is now participating in discussions
on this subject in the OECD as well with the ILO.
Nevertheless, we agree with the spirit of the motion, but
unfortunately, technically speaking we will not be able to accept
it. We are recommending rejection of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed to the
motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-57, in Clause 185, be amended by adding after line 22, on page
124, the following:
``(6) Section 97 of the Act is amended by adding the following after
subsection (2):
``(3) The Governor in Council shall, on the recommendation of the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of Industry, make regulations prescribing the
factors that shall be considered in determining whether the dumping or
subsidizing of any goods has caused any injury or retardation or is threatening
to cause injury, which factors shall include, among others,
(a) unused production capacity;
(b) any increase in imports;
(c) any adverse price effects;
(d) inventories;
(e) any other demonstrable adverse trends''.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we say: Last but not least. I do hope
that the government will be more open-minded than it has been
so far.
I find it somewhat despicable that the government would
oppose the previous amendment, which merely sought to ensure
that Bill C-57 take into consideration Canada's international
commitments in other sectors, particularly as regards the issue
of children's law.
(1610)
That being said, I want to discuss Motion No. 10, which we
proposed and which is the result of representations made by
Canadian steel producers who appeared before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade late last
Wednesday, to tell us about their concerns.
Those concerns are essentially that, when comparing the
Canadian and American bills to implement the Uruguay Round
Agreement, the steel industry notes that the American bill is
much more precise regarding the identification of the causes of
dumping. Consequently, the association has come to the
conclusion that, for its members to be able to compete with their
American counterparts, the Canadian legislation also has to be
more precise regarding the issue of dumping.
The steel producers informed us of their findings. Mrs. Van
Loon, the President of the Canadian Steel Producers
Association, told us that, given the rather special relations
between Canada and the United States regarding the steel trade,
if the Americans were giving themselves a baseball bat in their
legislation, as she put it, the least we could do was to give
ourselves a baseball bat too, even if it is a smaller one.
Consequently, we are asking that the Canadian legislation be
amended so as to allow our industries to compete with their
American competition.
8260
The next day, we were conducting a clause-by-clause review
of the bill, which means that the Canadian steel industry only
had a few hours to propose amendments or changes. I must say
that they worked diligently and in a professional manner, since
the next day, at dinner time, we had a series of very specific,
comprehensive and to-the-point amendments concerning the
steel industry's expectations.
I gather that the amendments proposed by the steel industry
were far too specific and well designed for the government party
to accept them. We were told that the vision the Americans have
of the Uruguay Round Agreement as reflected in their
legislation is not right, that our vision of the Uruguay Round
Agreement as reflected in our legislation is better and that,
consequently, we cannot do the same thing as the Americans nor
support their point of view.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that I find this position rather
too meek and legalistic, since we have to deal with a powerful
and, if I may say so, intrusive trade partner, that is, the United
States. We must be able to work along the same lines, with the
same means, on a level playing field.
Since our colleagues did not see fit to acknowledge the
accuracy of the arguments presented by the steel industry at the
committee stage, the steel industry agreed, in response to
concerns expressed by our colleagues and in particular by the
hon. member for Rosedale, to give more thought to another
amendment which is far more precise, in fact, shorter, if I can
say, far more general in the sense that it applies not only to the
steel industry but also to several other industries, several other
sectors of our economy.
Our friends from the steel industry have begun consultations
with parliamentarians from both sides of this House in order to
make their expectations known. Not knowing if our colleagues
from the government, the Reform Party or the New Democratic
Party would bring forward the amendment proposed by the steel
industry, we placed the amendment before us on the Order
Paper. Motion No. 10 does not come from the Bloc Quebecois,
but from Canada's steel industry. We are merely bringing this
amendment forward on behalf of the industry because nobody
else would.
(1615)
Clause 185 of Bill C-57 deals with the way the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal must evaluate complaints related
to dumping. For this tribunal, it is imperative not only to prove
that dumping has indeed taken place, but also that such dumping
has caused injury to the Canadian industry.
Moreover, the bill in its present form stipulates that the
tribunal can determine injury only if the circumstances causing
such injury are clearly imminent. We have to recognize that, on
one hand, this is much too restrictive and, on the other hand, it is
much too vague. The bill also stipulates that the Governor in
Council may, if he so wishes, make regulations to give the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal detailed information on
acceptable evidence and on the general interpretation of the new
conditions with regard to dumping.
As I was saying earlier, the Americans have gone a lot further
in giving their tribunals much more detailed information on the
interpretation of these new conditions and on the evidence that
can be presented. This means that Canadian producers are
clearly at a disadvantage compared to their American
competitors because they have no indication as to how they must
prove that they have been victims of dumping.
It must also be understood that injury has to be determined
before any anti-dumping measure can be taken. That is the
whole point. Getting back to the Canadian steel industry, I think
it is important to put it in context to show how important it is.
The Canadian steel industry generates $8.6 billion worth of
sales each year, including $3 billion worth of exports, and
provides 33,000 jobs, including 10,000 to meet export market
requirements. To show how important it is to have legislation
similar to the United States, or to give us a level playing field, I
will point out that 90 per cent of our steel exports go to the
United States while more than 60 per cent of our steel imports
come from there.
Canada is the largest steel export market for the Americans. In
the steel industry, the need for a level playing field in both
countries is essential. What is more, our industry must be able to
ward off blows, to get ready for any threat of dumping, as the
Americans are doing. If the rules are too vague on this side of the
border only, our industries will not be able to take advantage of
the benefits resulting from agreements such as the GATT
agreements.
So, this amendment seeks essentially to ensure not that the
Governor in Council be allowed to make regulations on what
should be considered as dumping but more particularly that the
Governor in Council be required, rather than leaving it up to
him, to make the necessary regulations setting up guidelines to
be followed by the courts when making determinations about
dumping.
This amendment also seeks to specify the kinds of evidence to
be considered among the factors described in the regulations.
Finally, those regulations will have to be made on the joint
recommendation of the Minister of Finance, as provided in the
bill, and the Minister of Industry so that the industry's
competitiveness will be taken into account in decision-making.
We all know that the Minister of Industry is often in a good
position to understand the rapid changes in market conditions at
that level.
8261
I urge my colleagues of all political parties to support this
amendment which meets the expectations of the Canadian steel
industry, and of thousands of workers in steel mills in Quebec
and throughout the country.
It is imperative that Parliament pass this amendment that does
not take anything from the bill, nor detract from its substance
and its importance. It will in fact make it more specific and give
it more teeth for the sake not only of the steel industry, but also
of many other industries in the Canadian economy.
(1620)
I know those issues are a matter of deep concern to our
colleague for Hamilton East, who is also Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister of the Environment. She was with us yesterday,
when we met with the Minister for International Trade,
members of the steel caucus, and spokesmen for the Canadian
steel industry and unions in that industry. She seemed quite
anxious that Parliament consider the amendment suggested by
the Canadian steel industry.
I hope the wisdom of the Deputy Prime Minister prevailed in
discussions with her colleagues and that they will deem it useful
and relevant to pass this amendment that is critical if Canadian
industries, including the steel industry, are to compete
successfully with our major trading partners and competitors,
especially the United States.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will make a very short intervention in this regard.
For those members of the Chamber who were away on
business or whatever this morning, or for those who are tuning
in on their television sets to this debate for the first time this
afternoon, I simply want to remind the House that earlier today
the member for Regina-Lumsden on behalf of the New
Democratic Party put on record the concerns of the
Saskatchewan steel industry. I believe he quite nicely brought
together the views of our caucus on behalf of the Saskatchewan
steel industry and the steel industry in general with regard to the
motion before us.
I also want to respond to comments the parliamentary
secretary made on the last motion dealing with child poverty and
the exploitation of child labour. I can state his words fairly
closely. He said that the government was not prepared to take
unilateral action in this regard.
I remind the parliamentary secretary that the government is
already taking unilateral action with regard to the WTO and
agreements reflecting on the GATT. The parliamentary
secretary should recognize that as a government it seems
prepared to take unilateral action to penalize western grain
farmers but is not prepared to take unilateral action to protect
children. I think that is just shameful.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my friend in the NDP
has a tendency to bend the statement I made a bit. I said that the
government was taking action and that the minister responsible
for human resources was taking action on the whole question of
child poverty.
I said that we could not change the game halfway through. I
suggested that the issue was not agreed to in Marrakech. What
we signed did not include that issue. A future agreement or a
future debate might take place around the issue. I think the hon.
member would suggest that it would be unwise for us to take a
unilateral action as a country and add a new amendment to our
legislation; but for him to say that we are not concerned about
child poverty is not fair and not warranted.
I go back to some of the comments made concerning the
whole notion of dumping and anti-dumping. The new
disciplines on the treatment of dumped goods will not impair the
Canadian ability to respond to exporters that dump goods into
the Canadian market when such dumping threatens or causes
injury to Canadian industry. The new discipline should however
reduce the scope for the harassment of Canadian export interests
resulting from unfair dumping duty actions by our trading
partners.
(1625)
I also add that our existing dumping action will be continued
under the new system as if it had been made under that system.
Any continuation of an injury finding will be made in
accordance with the new anti-dumping agreement. It is not
expected to put an increased burden on Canadian authorities.
They already operate in a system which for the most part
conforms to the new rules.
There was a reference to the American legislation. I assure the
House and Canadians that we are examining, have examined in
the past and will continue to examine all moves and changes or
proposed changes to the American legislation in terms of
language or statement to ensure that they are consistent with the
NAFTA as well as with the World Trade Organization
agreement.
Should Canadian interests be harmed for whatever reason by
any provisions which are inconsistent with our right under the
international trade agreement we will take appropriate action.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If somebody has gone beyond
the agreement in introducing changes to our laws and
regulations to divert from the agreement does not mean that we
should be doing the same. As a government and as a society we
have to fulfil our commitment under the World Trade
Organization agreement.
8262
The proposal suggested by the opposition member is
inconsistent with the World Trade Organization. First, pursuant
to article 3.7 of the agreement, implementation of article 6 of
the act, the anti-dumping agreement, and article 15.7 of the
World Trade Organization agreement on subsidies and
countervailing measures, the specific factors listed in the
motion are threat or injury factors. Adoption of the motion in
our opinion would extend the application of these factors to
injury and retardation in a manner inconsistent with the World
Trade Organization specifically. Article 3.4 of the
anti-dumping agreement and article 15.4 of the subsidy
agreement require examination of a much larger list of factors
in the broader determination of injury.
Second, with respect to the threat of injury, a list of factors
will be set out in regulations being prepared under the authority
of the new subparagraph 97.1(1)(a) which allows for full
consideration of the factors set out in the hon. member's motion.
Third, the reference to the Minister of Industry in prescribing
injury or causation factors should be deleted since he is nowhere
else specifically mentioned in SIMA and the regulation making
authority under SIMA is the responsibility of the Minister of
Finance.
For these reasons and what I clearly stated earlier we are
recommending rejection of the motion.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
being asked in Motion No. 10 to consider factors such as
dumping, foreign subsidies and putting extra regulations into
Bill C-57, an act to implement the World Trade Organization.
I am afraid I am going to disappoint the member for Verchères
who has asked us to support the motion. It is not that I am
unsympathetic to the discussions he outlined about the steel
industry or any other industry undergoing trade actions.
(1630 )
The bill calls for minimum compliance to try to move these
disputes forward quickly to the World Trade Organization. It has
better mechanisms to resolve these disputes than is currently
available in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement for steel, for
example. A lot of regulations have been built up over the last
several years and we still had several dozen trade actions on
steel alone last year. Surely that is not the best approach.
The best approach is moving disputes to a forum such as the
World Trade Organization where all factors will be taken into
account by a panel that hears disputes. The panel will not just
take into account things like unused production capacity,
increases in exports and inventories. It will consider all relevant
factors as it should.
We should not try to build up a big regulation wall. The steel
industry said at committee that it wants us to build a big
regulation wall like the United States is doing with the ultimate
goal of tearing it down at the World Trade Organization. We
should not take the same kind of action that the United States is
taking. The World Trade Organization panel will consider the
type of regulations that are being built up in the United States in
its implementing regulations. The panel will take that into
account when it hears these disputes.
There is a process. It is a better process. We have to put our
faith in it. It is going to work. Placing undue emphasis on the
factors that were outlined just a few moments ago by the hon.
member for Verchères might put undue emphasis on factors that
would benefit things like supply management. It would also
cause injury in some other sectors of our industries.
That does not say we do not have some problems. I outlined
them during discussion of Bill C-57 at second reading. Those
problems are internal trade barriers, high debt and deficit, our
inability to trade. The Western Grain Transportation Act needs
revision. There are problems with the tariff rate quotas. I do not
believe we should have them. There is the problem with the sale
and allotment of quotas but that is for a different day. Those
problems have to be worked out in the next few months.
What is important is getting through the minimum
compliance and have the World Trade Organization come into
effect. Let us start hearing some of the disputes such as the
wheat dispute that has been bubbling for the last year and the
other disputes that have been talked about such as steel. Let us
put the World Trade Organization to the test and it will come out
with flying colours.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
a member of the steel committee for several years. Recently, you
had the opportunity to meet the people from the steel industry, at
the steel committee, and also on two occasions at the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, where we had the opportunity to
hear their claims.
I want to tell you that what we are proposing in our motion is
exactly what the steel industry is asking for.
I cannot understand the government on this issue. It seems to
be stubborn. I cannot understand it. Earlier, I heard the
parliamentary secretary talk about this, and I still do not
understand why he does not agree with the amendment that we
are proposing, all the more so since I do not agree either with the
Reform member who just spoke on the same subject regarding
dumping.
It is clear and obvious, and we heard that several times,
including just last week or two weeks ago. The president of the
Steel Producers Association came to the committee and clearly
explained to us that, as for our protection mechanisms in
dumping and steel trade between Canada and the United States,
among others, the United States had regulations this thick,
which she did put on the table before us, while we only had a few
pages of regulations to protect us.
8263
(1635)
It is not I nor my colleague from Verchères who said that, it is
the Canadian Steel Producers Association who said it several
times. It is for these reasons that we have a lot of difficulty, this
afternoon, understanding why the parliamentary secretary and
the government did not amend this bill.
The steel industry is very important, particularly for Quebec.
In my riding and the riding of the hon. member for Verchères,
there are many major industries producing steel pellets. Steel
trade is very important in Quebec, and that is why we are very
concerned by the government's lack of attention towards the
steel producers who came several times to explain to us, in great
detail, their claims.
Once again I strongly hope the government will change its
mind because, once this legislation is tabled and sanctioned, we
will be facing major problems. That bill will have a negative
impact on the steel industry which, it seems to me, is still quite
dynamic and full of promises for the future of Quebec and the
rest of Canada.
That is all I wanted to add. I do not want to get into the
specifics, but I urge the government to listen. It said it had
reviewed the issue. On what basis? The parliamentary secretary
said earlier that they had reviewed the question, but on what
basis and on whose advice?
We have heard the exact opposite and, once again, the
government is not listening. I really wonder where we are
headed. I think we will continue to sink further into a terrible
deficit with that type of regulations that do not protect
industries, that increase unemployment and add to the problems
of Quebec businesses, particularly in the steel industry, one that
I know very well.
I beg the government to accept this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to speak on this motion as a past chair of the steel
caucus. This is a caucus of all members of the House who have
joined together to support the Canadian steel industry. My
colleague from Oakville is the present chair, having taken over
yesterday. She will guide steel issues through the House with the
co-operation of all members.
The hon. member for Verchères, who put this motion forward,
is a very active member of that committee and has taken almost
word for word a proposal that was put forward by other members
of the committee that represent steel industries.
Let me speak briefly about the intent of the motion. The steel
industry felt it was important for it to send a strong message to
the Americans that the present situation in which anti-dumping
and trade actions are brought against Canadian steel industries
is not acceptable. If we are going to have fair, open and free
trade, if we are going to belong to an organization like the
GATT, the World Trade Organization, the WTO, then we need to
follow similar rules. The steel industry in North America is so
integrated that we need to have similar rules on both sides of the
border.
The intent of this motion is to make sure that there are similar
rules on both sides of the border.
(1640)
Yesterday we had the opportunity to speak with the Minister
for International Trade. I want to thank the minister for coming
to the committee. We discussed this very issue. Unfortunately
he only saw this after he walked into the meeting and did not
have the opportunity to look at it. It was his view that the intent
of the motion could actually be handled by regulation.
Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to listen to the
parliamentary secretary but I am sure that is what he meant when
he responded to the hon. member. The minister gave us his
commitment yesterday that he would look at this issue very
seriously, make sure someone in his department would respond
to our concerns and would work with the steel caucus so the
intent of this motion is carried through. When Canadian steel
companies or for that matter other industries want to do battle in
trade disputes with companies in the United States they should
have the same arsenal to work with.
I agree with the hon. member that the arsenal is not balanced
now. Not only steel producers but other producers will tell you
that it takes a heck of a lot longer to deal with a dispute in the
United States than it does one in Canada. When they go to the
United States they have to take a truckload of documents with
them. But when Americans come here to deal with a dispute they
just have to carry a briefcase full of documents.
If the values and the intent of the World Trade Organization is
to bring down these sorts of barriers, then certainly industries,
particularly the steel companies who employ thousands of
workers in members' ridings across the country should have an
opportunity to have fair trade.
I know that is the intent of the motion by the member for
Verchères. I support the intent of his motion. We will work with
the minister and members of the steel caucus to make sure that
that intent is put forward as strongly as we can, and to work to
make sure that through regulation the intent is carried on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
now on the last amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend, improve and clarify
the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization. Although the parliamentary secretary does
8264
not agree, I still believe that the hon. member for Verchères
proposed an excellent amendment.
The amendment is an attempt to provide the basis for certain
rules on what constitutes injury, with respect to dumping. At the
very least, what I have to say may expand the horizons of the
parliamentary secretary. During the past few weeks, through the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
we were able to consult many Canadians and Quebecers.
They admitted their concern about the lack of clear provisions
in Bill C-57 with respect to dumping. A number of people said
they were afraid that imported goods would be sold on the
Canadian market at prices below those prevailing on national
markets and, in some cases below cost.
Bill C-57 already contains certain provisions on the
evaluation of complaints about dumping by the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal. An attempt is made to determine
whether certain unlawful acts would harm the interests of
Canadian and Quebec producers.
However, the bill provides that the tribunal cannot recognize
the existence of injury unless the circumstances causing injury
are clearly perceived and imminent.
(1645)
These provisions are not only extremely restrictive but also
extremely vague. The bill contains no detailed instructions for
determining what constitutes clearly perceived and imminent
injury. It does not define the type of evidence that may be
considered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
Furthermore, it is simply left up to the governor in council, on
the advice of the Minister of Finance, to establish regulations, if
necessary. If he feels like it, as the hon. member for Verchères
said. We think it is important that the Minister of Industry, who
is in the best position to know about the problems facing
Canadian businesses, should also be able to make
recommendations to the governor in council on factors to be
considered in determining whether there is a case of dumping.
More should be done, however.
Our American neighbours have issued clear and detailed
instructions on approaching tribunals with complaints about
dumping and on the evidence to be considered by those
tribunals.
It is therefore imperative that Canada provide clear and
specific guidelines on the factors that would be admissible as
evidence before the tribunals. Without these guidelines,
Canadians and Quebecers, when they lose the advantage as a
result of unlawful acts-I am thinking of steel producers, for
instance-will not know how to argue their case to obtain
justice.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the amendment put
forward by the member for Vercheres. I appreciate his initiative.
This has come upon us fairly quickly. He has responded very
quickly to the concerns of the steel industry by getting an
amendment in by the deadline.
I think his speed and his responsiveness demonstrates the
commitment not just of this government but indeed of this
Parliament to both the management and the workers in the steel
industry.
In the all-party steel caucus that support is obvious at every
meeting. We sit around the table, people from all parties and
management and labour, working together. It really is quite an
exciting experience to be part of that particular group here
where usually the setting is so highly partisan.
I should point out that we did have the opportunity yesterday
to speak with the minister. He pointed out to us the difference in
the wants of the way we legislate and the way the Americans
legislate. It is much more their style to put a lot of details into
their legislation whereas it is more our style to keep things
pretty clean and put the details into regulation.
Yesterday the minister did not seem to be adverse to the idea
of those concepts in the amendment in the regulations, however
he pointed out to us that it was going to require as the
parliamentary secretary pointed out the involvement of the
Minister of Finance. He could not speak completely freely at
that meeting knowing he had to get a cabinet colleague on side.
I would like to inform the mover of this amendment and those
who are supporting him that I happen to know that this issue has
been brought forward to the Minister of Finance in the last 24
hours by the Deputy Prime Minister. We now have three
members of cabinet responding to the concerns of the steel
industry as my colleague across the floor has responded today.
Keeping in mind that those three members of cabinet will
work together on it, I think I can assure him that the general
intention of what it is he wants to achieve will probably come
forward. However, the idea of this amendment does not seem to
be true to the Canadian tradition of how we write legislation and
therefore I will have to join the parliamentary secretary in
voting against it.
I would also like to assure the member that within the steel
caucus we will continue to press to make sure that these things
are achieved but in a more subtle way.
(1650)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief, first of all because the member for Verchères has
explained quite well the theoretical and practical basis of his
amendment as well as the need for it.
8265
I find somewhat deplorable that members opposite have
completely ignored the public hearings that we held with
representatives of different industries. It is as if those public
hearings were absolutely useless. I think it is a waste of time.
Not only have we wasted time, but if we added up all the
consultations that this government has done in the last year, we
would probably find that vast sums have been gobbled up
practically for nothing since the government always ends up
doing what he intended to do anyway.
Members opposite recognize that the amendment is
essentially good but they say they would prefer doing it by way
of regulations. Let us not forget that regulations do not have the
scope of an act; members opposite probably know that as well as
we do. Actually, it is probably the reason why they are opposing
this amendment to the act.
People often say that they are all for virtue, but such an
assertion is not enough to guarantee that virtue will prevail. I
think that in a way it applies to anti-dumping. The fact that the
Uruguay Round prohibits dumping is not a sufficient guarantee
that it will not occur. Therefore Bill C-57 must provide for a
means to face the problem when it arises because it will.
We all know that dumping is an unfair trade practice. It can be
so harmful to the industry against which it is used that it may
make it disappear. In order to avoid such consequences, the
GATT agreement prohibits dumping. However, it is incumbent
upon the industry victim of dumping to prove that it has suffered
a prejudice so serious that its future is threatened.
The amendment we propose defines the factors for
determining such prejudice, which is not provided for in this
bill. In the absence of guidelines, the injured industry would be
unable to present its case in an appropriate way. Nevertheless,
the United States could be used as a model in that regard.
Therefore I invite the government to support the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 10, standing in the name of Mr. Bergeron. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
(1655)
And the bells having rung:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the chief government whip to defer the division until a later
time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the division on
the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment at which time the bells
to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act
to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes
respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
Territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Brian Tobin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Mr. Tobin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to rise and address the House on third and final reading of Bill
C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.
I begin by thanking hon. members for supporting this bill at
second reading. My colleagues clearly see the need to proceed
with this bill because it will bring positive and lasting change to
the Yukon. We appreciate their contribution to second reading
debate and ask the House to once again give positive
consideration to this legislation.
8266
Bill C-55 will establish a new surface rights regime in the
Yukon, a regime that will serve and protect the interests of all
residents of the territory. As well, this final piece of legislation
is required to allow implementation of the Yukon First Nations
land claim and self-government agreements to proceed.
Clearly we only have one reasonable course of action. We
must proceed with this bill as quickly as possible. We must live
up to the crown's commitments to build new relationships with
Yukon First Nations. In doing so we will open the doors for
economic development, job creation and other social benefits
for all residents of the Yukon.
Yukoners are virtually unanimous in wanting this bill to pass
quickly. The minister has received letters, for example, from the
Yukon Chamber of Mines urging the government to pass this
legislation. Yukoners want and need the certainty of the
economic development opportunities that this bill and the land
claims settlement will bring.
Hon. members are aware that the surface rights board that will
be established by Bill C-55 is a requirement of the Yukon
umbrella final agreement. The creation of this board
acknowledges the changing face of land ownership in the Yukon.
It is an excellent example of foresight, planning and
preparedness by government.
As land claims in the Yukon are settled, large tracts of land
will be confirmed as First Nations land. Other residents of the
Yukon will also be able to more readily acquire land as private
owners. The crown's current role as primary land owner in the
territory will gradually be eliminated.
(1700)
At the same time, the certainty of land and resource
ownership that will result will rekindle interest in subsurface
minerals, including minerals on privately held land. In support
of resource development and resource development initiatives,
a new mechanism of public government is needed. This will
ensure that access rights are available to those who want and
need to use the land.
That mechanism is known as the Yukon surface rights board.
It has been modelled on similar boards operating in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. This board will
resolve disputes relating to both settlement and non-settlement
lands throughout the Yukon. As has already been said, we
anticipate that most of these disputes will involve access to land
for exploring for or developing subsurface mineral resources.
We want to emphasize that the Yukon surface rights board will
have a range of known and definite powers for resolving
disputes. These will include the power to issue access orders, to
establish terms and conditions of access, and to award
compensation for access or for damage resulting from access.
However, Bill C-55 will require people to attempt to negotiate
access in compensation agreements before bringing a dispute to
the board. The board will only be asked to resolve disputes
where no such agreement was possible.
Orders of the Yukon surface rights board will be enforceable
through the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory. Decisions
may be appealed to the court on limited grounds, such as bias or
lack of procedural fairness.
We also want to stress that the board will take a balanced
approach to its work. Bill C-55 ensures that all sectors of the
Yukon society will have an opportunity to participate in the
important decisions that need to be made.
Under the terms of its land claims agreement, the Council for
Yukon Indians will have the right to nominate one-half of the
members of the surface rights board excluding the chairperson.
Yukon Indians will also be guaranteed representation on any
panel created by the board to deal with matters concerning
settlement lands. This will give aboriginal people an important
and effective role in decision making relating to surface rights.
The remainder of the board's members will be nominated by
the federal government. The minister intends to ensure that all
interests in the Yukon are represented on the board. It will
become a practical example of resource co-management that
can be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Bill C-55 was drafted with cost efficiency in mind. It
provides a less costly and time consuming option than the courts
for addressing issues of access and compensation. The
requirement for negotiation and possibly mediation before
bringing a dispute to the board is also intended as a cost saving
measure.
As hon. members are aware, this bill is based on extensive
consultation with representatives of the Yukon First Nations, the
territorial government, the mining industry and the Yukon
general public. Many of these parties have been directly
involved in drafting this legislation. Consequently, Bill C-55 is
fair and responsible to everyone with a stake in the future of the
Yukon.
As a result of the unprecedented consultative process, we
have been able to reach a general agreement on the principles of
this bill. We have also reached consensus on almost all of its
provisions.
As I said at the outset, we have no reasonable alternative but
to proceed with this bill. Parliament's endorsement of this
legislation is critical to the process of settling land claims in the
Yukon and bringing the fundamental democratic right of
self-government to Yukon First Nations. It is vital that we
uphold the crown's honour by fulfilling our obligation to Yukon
First Nations under the land claims agreement.
8267
Bill C-55 is also sound, responsible and necessary legislation
in its own right. It will bring decision making closer to the
people affected. It will provide a known regime for obtaining
access to private and public lands. This in turn will facilitate
economic development and provide a level playing field for
Yukon industry compared to other areas in Canada. This will
ensure that resource development projects will go ahead after
many years of delay and frustration.
Bill C-55 will also give Yukon Indians the chance for a new
partnership with governments and non-aboriginal Yukoners.
This is a goal that is supported by all Canadians. I therefore urge
my hon. colleagues to agree to send this legislation to the other
place after which an order in council can be approved to
proclaim this legislation into law.
(1705)
Combined with the Yukon land claims and self-government
legislation, Bill C-55 will help bring about positive changes that
have been long envisaged in the Yukon.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
it will not come as a surprise that, of course, we will support the
bill, as we did for Bill C-33 and Bill C-34.
In fact, I say that it would be illogical not to adopt the bill now
before the House, Bill C-55, since it will give effect to bills
C-33 and C-34. Knowing the Yukon's concerns and since, as the
critic responsible for these matters, I kept up with them for the
whole session, we will be totally logical with ourselves by
supporting the bill.
The bill is giving effect to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34. Before
making a short description of these bills, I want to remind
members that I went to the Yukon, this year. For me, it is the best
way to deal with the issues and to see the way native peoples
live.
Most of the members who will speak on the bills now before
the House will do so without having visited the communities
concerned. For my part, if possible, I try to go to these places in
order to better understand the feelings of the people there and
also to become aware of their quality of life.
I met some really remarkable people in the Yukon, very
tolerant people who have also been very persevering. It was said
repeatedly that these negotiations required 21 years of efforts
before they could be concluded. Yet, we have to realize that the
injustices do not go back only 21 years, but much further. When
you become aware of the native way of doing things, of the way
they see the world, you realize that from the very beginning,
from the day the first Europeans came to the Yukon, aboriginal
people accepted willingly to share their territory with them, but
without relinquishing in any way their native rights, their rights
as first occupants.
When the economy developed and when aboriginal people
realized that they were excluded from that development, they
understood that it was necessary for them to have a say about
economic development and resource management on their land.
This is where we are today, after years, decades of injustice
and after 21 years of negotiations. Bill C-55 will put into effect
Bill C-33, which dealt with self-government. With that bill, and
in some areas of activity, we were saying to aboriginal people:
``Here, now, instead of designing and managing programs from
Ottawa, we are letting you decide in areas like education, health,
etc.'' I think we really have here a way to solve the major
problems we find on reserves.
It is an interesting solution, because for too long we have had
a very paternalistic approach to their problems and we simply
pushed them into a situation of extreme dependency. Often,
there is no economic development because their land base is
very limited, and the resources they have access to are also very
limited. Therefore, they cannot flourish economically.
The Auditor General revealed this week that close to 40 per
cent of the native population is heavily dependant on either
welfare or unemployment insurance. I visited reserves where
the unemployment rate was around 80 per cent. It is painfully
obvious that the way we deal with the native situation is
outdated and does not work. What we have here is an example of
how to help native communities help themselves.
(1710)
When they manage their own affairs, not only are they no
longer dependent on the bureaucracy in Ottawa, but they are in
tune with local concerns. You know that when it comes to
education and health matters, the native way is often very
different from ours. Their approach is much more holistic, more
respectful of the environment they live in. I believe that it is
important to ensure that powers which used to belong to Ottawa
be transferred to native communities. Bill C-33, which was
passed recently, gives native people authority over some
specific activities. It is the way of the future.
I referred to Bill C-33, which deals with self-government.
Even though it is a different matter, it has something to do with
the fact that one must ensure that the land which is given back to
native people will contain enough resources to allow them to opt
out of the Indian Act. As I mentioned before, this act keeps them
in a state of extreme dependence. The land base arrived at in the
agreement with the Yukon and the main stakeholders who have
signed so far, will ensure that they will be able to become
economically independent.
We could point out the importance of the board. The board is
very important for the very simple reason that it must settle
disputes. In the Split Lake agreement, for example, the lack of a
8268
board to settle disputes is rather obvious. What would happen
without a board such as the one proposed in this bill? The courts
would systematically be called upon to settle disputes.
We realize that there might be hundreds of disputes, that
people are waiting for their cases to be resolved because we
know how heavy the courts' backlog is. The board proposed
today will clear some of the backlog by settling disputes
concerning both rights and territories.
We also at one point toyed with the idea of proposing
amendments. However, after consulting with Yukon first
nations, we concluded that it might be better not to define the
rights and interests because they said that the nations could
probably agree among themselves on what these rights and
interests are.
We also played with the notion of person because, as you
know, the agreement before us covers four first nations out of
14, if I am not mistaken. Another 10 or so are negotiating or
close to a settlement. We were concerned at one point that the
notion of person would only apply to signatory nations.
However, after discussion, we realized that the term ``person''
had a broader meaning. As a result, the board will be able to
settle disputes not only among the first nations that have signed
the agreement and are subject to the act but also with the first
nations that have not signed it yet.
That is why today we will support the bill without
amendments as such.
Why do we support the bill? I think I have just given a few of
the reasons: the Natives' desire to manage their own affairs
along with the Canadian government's intention to stop placing
Indians under its guardianship. I think that this government has
announced its intentions, including a pilot project in Manitoba
among other things. Let us say, however, that after almost 100
years the government finally realized that the law was obsolete
and did not achieve its objectives and that it was imperative to
completely alter the way we deal with Natives.
The government is willing to make these changes. Of course,
Bloc Quebecois members also realized very quickly that
changes were needed. One only has to visit some reserves a
number of times to see that the system does not work. Avenues
of resolution lie before us and the Bloc Quebecois will certainly
agree that a new approach must be taken involving
self-government and land claims.
(1715)
As for respect for aboriginal cultures, if there is an issue that
is truly fascinating, this is it. There are 635 communities living
on reserves in Canada. I am limiting my comments to aboriginal
people living on reserves, because you notice that many no
longer do and this is the kind of unique dynamic that they have to
deal with. There is the whole issue of the Metis, and the Inuit as
well, because they too are very preoccupied with not being
drowned by such concerns, by aboriginal concerns. In fact, they
say so, every chance they get.
Coming back to aboriginal communities, to the 635 of them.
This is a really fascinating issue, because although they belong
to first nations and often speak the same language-there are
approximately 50 aboriginal languages you know-we notice
that from one of these 635 communities to the other, these
aboriginal people all have their own way of looking at things.
And that is what makes aboriginal affairs such a great challenge.
It is a fascinating issue.
So, the agreement before us concerns aboriginal nations of the
Yukon. Yukon has a rather unique history and the aboriginal
people are proud of having shared in writing it with the
Europeans. I can say, having travelled myself to that part of the
country, that these people took me to see magnificent sites,
including the Yukon River. It was beautiful at the time of year
when I visited. Because of the glaciers, the river was completely
transformed, taking shades of blue like I had never seen, except
perhaps at sea or from a beach, watching colours change as the
horizon becomes indistinct. But in the Yukon, the depth and
colour of the river were really amazing. They are proud to say
that they have shared this territory with others.
I was taken to a mountain where the first Europeans
supposedly went to see the midnight sun. I had never seen the
midnight sun. I found it thrilling. I was taken to the Klondike,
now Dawson City, and we are proud to see that there was a happy
coexistence between Europeans-I was even given the
opportunity to try to find gold. I was assured that I could find
gold, but unfortunately I could not take the time to do it. I spent
more time trying to fish on the river and perhaps I did not catch
any fish, but I did not get any gold either. I met some wonderful
people there and I tell you that the trip was quite what I
expected, a realization that those people are extraordinary and
live in a wonderful place.
As I said at some length before, the inhabitants will have the
resources needed for economic development. I think that with
the areas granted and the degree of responsibility that these
people will have-and they have been waiting to take control of
their lives for a long time-I think that their future is now
assured. They will have both the land base and sufficient
economic resources to break from the tutelage of the Indian Act.
They will also be able to ensure their identity as native people.
Several examples to illustrate this point could be mentioned. Let
us take a very specific one, housing. One need only go to the
reserves to see how all the houses are alike. It is so because the
houses and the housing development plans were designed in
Ottawa, and also because the budgets were usually rather
limited. So, the question was: How are we going to build
adequate houses, but without any frills? The result was that
8269
these houses were often all identical and that the aboriginal
culture was not taken into consideration.
It is important to them to ensure their development while also
affirming their cultural identity. I think you will see a major
change in the way native people will do things in the Yukon. I
believe they will give us quite a demonstration. I am anxious to
go back there and see how things will have changed in a few
years. I hope that by then Quebec will be an independent
country. However, it will still be possible to go to the Yukon
because we have no intention of building a Berlin wall between
Quebec and the rest of Canada. I will always be happy to visit the
Yukon, look at the new way of doing things and see how these
people will have taken control of their destiny and ensured that
their culture is reflected in the decisions they will make.
This legislation puts an end to the uncertainty regarding
territorial rights, land titles, cutting rights as well as mining
rights.
(1720)
Indeed, there was a great deal of uncertainty before, but things
will finally be settled.
Negotiations lasted 21 years and surface rights had to be
established to confirm ownership and rights over usable land. I
briefly alluded to this earlier and I do not think it is necessary to
go over that again.
Bill C-55 proposes the establishment of a board having
jurisdiction to settle disputes. I also mentioned that point earlier
and I made a comparison with Split Lake, where no such board
exists and where arbitration problems are mounting. If such a
board was established there, a large number of disputes would
be settled without having to go before the courts. This is an
original idea that will also save a lot of money to a lot of people.
Given the current state of public finances, it is very important
to make good use of our money. I believe that this board will
result in savings, considering the legal costs generated by all
those endless disputes which would often end up in the Supreme
Court. These people would rather settle things differently, more
or less by consensus, which is the way democracy works. The
board, through its membership, and I will come back to this later
on, will solve these disputes.
It will be a last resort and it will represent a true transfer of
jurisdiction to the first nations.
I want to say a little more on the housing and health issues,
and also discuss infrastructures. We know that the government
has spent a lot of money on infrastructure. I have personally
visited several reserves and, as I mentioned yesterday in this
House, I was stunned to see how dilapidated housing on the
reserve is, but also that a large number of houses have no water
system, no sewer and no running water. In Canada, we boast
about our remarkable quality of life. But we tolerate these
things, which only go to show that the Indian Act provides no
solution at all. We boast about the remarkable quality of life in
Canada, but the native people are living in what I consider Third
World conditions.
With this kind of bill, and bills like C-33, C-34 and C-55,
people will be able to invest their own resources in whatever
basic infrastructure projects that might meet their own needs.
This is not only a step in the right direction, but also the way to
nip the problem in the bud.
I will now turn to the membership of the board, because I see
that the private members' hour is coming up soon. The board
will be made up of 3 to 11 members. What is original here is that
the native people will have their say in the appointment of these
board members. Since we are giving natives a land base and
granting them self-government, it would be a bit silly to seize
the very first opportunity we have to set up a board and appoint
only white people. Of course, in Yukon, the majority of the
board members will be natives. I think this is an adequate
compromise. Half of the board members will be natives
appointed by natives.
It is equally important that the people making up the other
part of the committee also come from the Yukon. Personally, I
have a good knowledge of native affairs, but I would feel very
uneasy if the minister or the government chose me to sit on the
Yukon committee. It would be ill advised on my part to say that I
know that community and that I want them to benefit from my
great wisdom. I think that the days when Ottawa could impose
its wisdom on the regions and on the native communities are
over and I think that the bill before us reflects a desire to help the
First Nations take their own destiny in hand. Therefore, there
must be a native component in all of the various committees so
that the policies and the plans of the First Nations are reflected
in reality and that the natives are free to take the directions they
want.
(1725)
I would be remiss if, before concluding briefly, I did not also
mention Quebec's experience. I believe that Quebec's
experience, notably the James Bay Convention, somehow sets a
standard. I say this every time the issue of self-government
comes up, and I say it again: I believe that the James Bay
Convention set a standard which truly serves as a model
elsewhere in Canada.
So I think it was very interesting in this regard. I would be
remiss if, every time we have an opportunity to talk about
self-government, I did not mention it, because that convention
8270
was signed in 1975. I am not saying the agreement is perfect
since there are no perfect agreements. They often are the result
of a fine compromise. But even if it is now being attacked by the
Cree nations, as some colleagues of mine said this week, we
must consider that in those days, at the time of the signature,
people were very happy with that document. Today, many
provisions of the James Bay Agreement apply even in Yukon and
I think many parts of the James Bay Agreement served as a
model for the regulations on self-government that were adopted
here, after that legislation.
There is wide consensus also in Yukon. Of course there are a
great number of natives in Yukon, but there are also a great
number of people of other nations who shared the territory with
the native people. I say share, but I am being generous in saying
that because, down deep, there was no sharing. It is more like the
natives had to share part of their territory because the mining
companies established themselves there. Perhaps these
companies gave work to a few natives in the region, but we must
admit the resources extracted from the Yukon territory did not
really help finance the solution of the native issues in Yukon.
Therefore we will remedy the inequities with a proper
compromise. The consensus is wide enough, even in the Yukon.
The Yukon government agrees on that, the Mining Association
agrees on the proposals that are before us. People realize that
there have been inequities for too long and that negotiations
have taken place for 21 years. Finally, I want to say that the last
page of paternalism in Yukon has been turned today, that we are
putting an end today to an era that may have been useful at the
time for some people, but surely not for the native people, and
that a new era in which native people will take control of their
destiny, in which there will be no dependence towards the
federal government, is beginning.
These people will now be able to tell their children and
grandchildren:``That happened in 1994''. And if we consider
their attitude during the negotiations, and their perseverance,
for decades, from generation to generation, these people have
been saying: this must be changed, and they persevered, so that
today, we are turning over a new leaf, and as a result, aboriginal
people, I am positive, will be much better off, as far as their
culture, natural resources, territory and their relationship with
non-aboriginal people in the Yukon are concerned. From this
day onward, there will be no more dependency. They have
started something new, and I am looking forward to seeing how
things will evolve, and from now on we will see that we made the
right decision in 1994.
I want to congratulate all first nations who, I know, are
listening to us today. Today is the culmination of all these
negotiations, and of course the Bloc is delighted to have been a
part of these discussions, and in concluding, I want to thank
them for their cordial welcome, and I am so happy that we were
with them throughout this process, and the Bloc Quebecois is
pleased to say that they will support this bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8270
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved that Bill C-262,
an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting
the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak in support of my Bill C-262 respecting the Grain Export
Protection Act. The bill deals with an issue that grain farmers in
western Canada and in my constituency have been addressing
and wanting to address for some time.
For 11 days last January and February a labour dispute at the
Vancouver ports disrupted the flow of Canadian grain to export
markets. It is estimated that Canada's grain industry incurred
losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The federal government responded by introducing special
back to work legislation, Bill C-10, to end the dispute and
resume the flow of grain. Far from being an isolated case, it
marked the 13th time that the workers were legislated back to
work since the year 1966. Bill C-262 provides a permanent
solution to this chronic problem by amending the Public Service
Staff Relations Act to prevent labour disputes from disrupting
the flow of grain from the farm to export.
In cases where grain transportation is threatened by strikes or
lockouts those actions are prevented. To settle such disputes the
bill provides for a settlement mechanism known as final offer
selection arbitration. The process is only utilized if the parties
involved are unable to reach an agreement through the normal
collective bargaining process.
For those who are not familiar with final offer selection
arbitration, let me quickly mention some of its key features.
First, the trade union and the employer are requested to provide
the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend
as the arbitrator.
Second, the trade union and employer are required to submit
to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed upon and a list of those
matters still under dispute. For the disputed issues each party is
required to submit a final offer for settlement. The arbitrator
8271
then settles either the final offer submitted by the trade union or
the final offer submitted by the employer. The arbitrator is not
permitted to split the difference. In the event that one party does
not submit a final offer the other side is automatically accepted.
The arbitrator's decision in these matters is binding on both
parties.
Why was the final offer selection chosen? This dispute
settlement mechanism used by the federal government in Bill
C-10 was chosen to force the negotiating parties to make a
greater effort at settling their differences by themselves. By
compelling each party to submit a final best offer and by
preventing the arbitrator from splitting the difference between
the two, the mechanism creates a strong incentive for both
parties to submit a credible, constructive and economically
realistic offer for settlement. Any party that tables an
unreasonable final offer would be taking a huge gamble the
arbitrator would choose the other party's proposal. It is hoped
that the existence of the process will encourage negotiating
parties to reach agreements before it becomes necessary to have
the arbitrator choose one offer or the other.
Since 1966, as I have mentioned, the federal government has
had to pass special back to work legislation in the areas of
longshoring and grain handling 13 times. The cost of such
disruptions to grain farmers and the grain industry is
tremendous. The Western Wheat Growers Association
estimated that the 11-day work stoppage which was ended by
Bill C-10 of this year cost the grain industry some $35 million in
demurrage, penalties and out of pocket expenses.
(1735)
When the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke
on Bill C-10 he stated that the strike was threatening some $500
million worth of grain sales. That is not acceptable.
The frequency of such work stoppages over the past 20 to 30
years has also made foreign buyers question the reliability of
Canada's grain supply. The most recent work stoppage at the
west coast ports so concerned Japanese canola importers that
they have begun offering Australian farmers minimum pricing
contracts to encourage them to grow canola.
Another reason Bill C-262 is necessary is the vulnerability of
western grain farmers to work stoppages in these industries. To
illustrate just how vulnerable grain farmers are, let us consider
this example. In 1988, 30 per cent of the country's grain exports
were halted by 69 grain handlers in Prince Rupert. As usual the
federal government was compelled to legislate them back to
work after a few days.
One source of the problem is that Canada's transportation
network has failed western grain farmers by limiting the options
available to them in moving their grain to market. This is largely
a result of the distorting effects government policies such as the
WGTA subsidy, the Crow benefit, have had on the development
of the nation's transportation structure.
Another source of grain farmers' vulnerability is the
composition and location of Canada's grain markets.
Approximately 80 per cent of Canadian grain is exported and
most foreign buyers prefer loading out of west coast ports.
Finally there is a combination of legislation, regulations and
purely economic considerations that has made it uneconomical
or impractical for farmers to ship grain to export markets via
such alternate routes as Thunder Bay, Churchill and American
west coast ports.
On average the federal government has had to legislate grain
handlers and longshoremen back to work, as I have said, about
once every two years. Each time it happens grain farmers lose
control over their livelihoods and their lives. Why should we not
settle the issue once and for all instead of waiting for the next
time it becomes necessary to rush through emergency back to
work legislation? There is no need to have next times because
with Bill C-262 we can resolve the problem once and for all.
One question asked is: Does Bill C-262 not violate the right to
bargain collectively? I want to say very clearly that Reform is
not anti-labour. That is not the intent of the bill. It is not a bill
about union busting. We fully support the principle of collective
bargaining. As a member of the legislature in the province of
Alberta I have spoken a number of times in support of the
process. However we also support the right of farmers to earn a
living. We believe that governments have a responsibility to
protect western grain farmers from ever again having to incur
the costs they incurred during past strikes and lockouts.
In the sectors affected by the bill, that is the grain industry
itself, the right to bargain collectively and to strike or to lock out
employees is presently somewhat of a fiction. All the parties
involved realize this very fact. Why do I say that? It is fiction
because the federal government is always compelled-and the
history is there-to intervene to end such work stoppages within
a matter of days. The proof for this statement, as I have said
more than once already in my remarks, is that the federal
government has had to legislate the workers back to work some
13 times since 1966.
(1740)
In a properly functioning labour environment with employers
and employees they both have to take into account costs in the
form of lost wages or in the form of sales. Then the question
about strike action becomes something different. Normally this
is a powerful incentive for both sides to reach an agreement at
the bargaining table.
However this normal safeguard does not apply in the case of
longshoring and grain handling. The knowledge that any work
stoppage in these areas will not be permitted to last for any
length of time has been factored into the negotiation process for
the parties. They do not fear a strike nor a lockout knowing it
8272
will not last too long. They know the victims in the process will
not be the employers or the employees but western Canadian
grain farmers because in the end they pay the bills.
When I look at legislation such as this I wonder whether or not
it should be permanent legislation. I do not believe it should be
permanent. We in the Reform Party hope that at some point we
could take the legislation off the books. Such legislation is
presently necessary due to a number factors. Western grain
farmers have no choice but to export their grain via one
transportation route. If they had the option of shipping their
grain via route a or via route b when there is work stoppage there
would be no need for Bill C-262.
This is one reason a Reform government would work to create
a more flexible and efficient transportation network.
Transportation reform is one of a series of measures which
Reformers believe would empower farmers by giving them
greater flexibility and control over their own livelihood. When
such reforms are put in place there would be no need for
legislation such as the private member's bill before us today. At
such a time the legislation could be repealed with no harm to
grain farmers. Until such reforms are made Reformers believe
the government's priority should be to protect the western grain
farmer.
If in the future after Bill C-262 has been repealed and there is
some combination of events that threatens western grain
farmers again, we would not hesitate to bring back into effect
that kind of legislation.
I look at Bill C-262 as a private member and as a farmer from
western Canada. I was involved in each work stoppage that
occurred over the past 13 years either as a member of the
legislature or as a farmer who wanted to ship grain to meet my
expenses and commitments as a farmer. I was always frustrated.
I remember in the legislature moving resolutions that the
provincial government should go to the federal government and
get the work stoppage stopped so that farmers could start
shipping their grain and getting out of some of the financial
stress they were facing. The provincial government said it was a
federal matter. Often it stayed that type of thing even though
members of the legislature in Alberta agreed that something
should be done.
I remember as a farmer saying: ``I know I am paying the bill
but I cannot sit at the table. I have no place at the table as a
farmer even though I am paying the bill in order to make my
case. There is no one at the table representing me''. The grain
companies did not have the vested interest of the farmer. We
could not say anything to the grain companies. We could not say
anything to the longshoremen. They were not responsible to the
farmer. It had been and still is a very frustrating and difficult
problem.
I always said that if I had the opportunity something should be
done where the farmer is represented at the table. The bill
empowers the federal government to be at the table and to say to
the 23 or 25 unions between the farm gate and the hold of the
boat that if they move to a point where they can negotiate no
further at the table they must move to arbitration. You present
your case at the table the best you can. If you win you get that
settlement; if the employer or the shipping companies win then
that is the settlement. That is the way it is. We would be a little
more involved as a farmer in an indirect sense, the federal
government would represent us there.
(1745)
What happens now under the circumstances? What happened
in January and February 1994? Again we had work stoppage.
Farmers were in difficulty. The government was being pressured
to bring in a bill to put these people back to work.
Then it becomes a political item. Should we force labour back
to work or not? Should we get involved or not? What are the
politics of it? Are the farmers stressed or are they not? Do we
want to represent the union? We do not want to lose their vote
out there.
All of a sudden here is the farmer of western Canada in terms
of his financial circumstances and his marketing capabilities
being involved in a political process. He should not be involved
in this type of circumstance. As far as I am concerned, that is
wrong and it should stop.
It is incumbent upon this government to look seriously at this
proposal and take some action. I know that western farmers
would shout hurrah and be excited about it. They would want
this type of action from the government. They are getting tired
of being pawns of these few longshoremen who are paid very
high hourly wages, exorbitant wages, for the jobs they are doing
out on the coast.
I have said this in the Alberta legislature and I have said it
publicly to the media and in a variety of other places. We as
farmers were so disgusted with the circumstances out there. I
said that I could train 25 to 40 of the young farmers from my
constituency in two weeks or less and move them out there. We
could take over those jobs and we could continue to get our grain
on the boats and move it forward.
I can tell you a lot of young farmers were so upset because of
this strike, with people getting paid high wages out there and
having no consideration. Living on the coast at Vancouver,
sitting out on the port where the water never freezes over, or
sitting up at Prince Rupert where there is not any kind of
agricultural environment, there is no loyalty, no communica-
8273
tion, no concern for that farmer. That farmer is out on the flat
prairie trying to survive under not only very adverse climatic
conditions but economic conditions as well.
This bill should not be taken lightly by government. The
normal practice for this kind of thing is that if a private member
introduces and presents a bill on the floor of the House of
Commons or in a legislative environment, just because it comes
from a private member of Parliament from the opposition the
first knee-jerk reaction is for government members to come up
with one reason or 10 reasons to reject the bill.
Government members do not think about the merits of the bill
and whether it will it work. They often think about who is going
to get the credit. Well, I could not care less who gets the credit,
but we should think about the idea behind the bill and consider it
sincerely so that we can solve this problem once and for all for
the farmers of western Canada.
That is my case. I leave it with this House of Commons. I am
certain that western Canadian farmers, the agriculture industry,
are very interested in these kinds of changes. I urge my
colleagues to give it their utmost support and consideration.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because of time constraints I will give an abbreviated
version of my speech. The comments of the hon. member are
interesting especially in light of his saying that we should be
looking at the idea behind it. Perhaps the idea is most
commendable. It is a question of whether this legislation meets
the needs we are looking at.
I would like to begin my remarks on Bill C-262 by noting that
we have been asked to look at what I regard as a very unusual
piece of legislation. The author of the bill, the hon. member for
Lethbridge, has titled the bill the grain export protection act. I
say it is unusual because the House is very seldom asked to pass
legislation that seeks to protect an economic activity from the
participants themselves.
(1750)
We have passed legislation that protects people from
dangerous products or dangerous working conditions and we
have passed legislation that protects consumers from unfair
competition. In Bill C-262 in contrast we are being asked to
pass a piece of legislation that seeks to protect an economic
process, which is the transportation of grain, from the
participants who are capable of slowing down or stopping the
transportation process.
The first question I would ask with regard to the stated
intention of the bill is, who would the bill affect if it were to be
passed? What companies and trade unions in the grain handling
and transportation industry would be covered?
A shutdown of the national railway system or a shutdown of
one of the major terminal elevators would certainly affect the
transportation of grain and would come under the scope of the
bill. What about a shutdown of one of the transfer elevators on
the Great Lakes or along the St. Lawrence seaway system? What
about a shutdown of the Prescott elevators or the Sorel elevators
near Montreal? Would the legislation apply to the companies or
unions at these points? They are involved in the transportation
of grain to the export market.
Obviously, the scale of operations of these companies is much
smaller than the terminal elevators at Thunder Bay or
Vancouver. Therefore it is questionable as to whether or not they
should be included. Unfortunately, the bill is unclear on this
point and we are left to surmise for ourselves as to the
companies and workers who might be covered by the bill.
I should like to emphasize the important role played by grain
farmers throughout Canada to our national economy as
indicated by the hon. member. As we examine Bill C-262 we
will want to keep in mind that we are assessing the relevance of
this bill to grain farmers principally in the prairie provinces as
well as the men and women who work in the grain transportation
system across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is an abbreviated version of my
speech. The management of the grain transportation and
handling system is a complicated matter. There are an untold
number of factors that contribute to the success in the operation
of the system and there is an equally wide number of factors that
can go wrong. The experience of this past year with the
difficulties in the grain hopper car supply and weather
conditions illustrates this point very well.
When we look at a bill such as C-262 and the drastic measures
it proposes, we have to keep in perspective the fact that
industrial relations is only one dimension in the workings of this
very expensive and complex system.
I feel extremely uneasy about one implication of this bill
which I believe should be highlighted. That is the fact that it
seeks to ameliorate the conditions of one group in the western
economy by restricting the rights of others, namely the parties
involved in the grain handling and transportation system.
I would suggest that it would be an extremely questionable act
for the House to enact such a measure. I say this especially in
view of the fact that many of the difficulties in the prairie grain
economy are attributable to the international competitive
environment and the difficulties we experienced earlier this year
with the hopper car situation.
I seriously doubt that the proposed legislative amendments
would have the desired effect for the prairie economy and may in
fact have negative implications for the agricultural sector.
There is well founded evidence in those countries that have
institutionalized the use of arbitration that work stoppages
albeit illegal in nature continue to occur. In addition the arbitra-
8274
tion process can result in settlements which are not always
reflective of the mutual interests of the parties.
The export of Canada's grain and its delivery to domestic
markets depend on the vital activities of many companies and
their workforces. On occasion the reliability of grain
transportation and handling can be inconvenienced by work
stoppages involving players in the system.
Hon. members will be aware there have been occasions in the
past where the particular party in power has had to take action in
the public interest and bring about a resolution of work
stoppages by legislative intervention. However, these
infrequent occurrences hardly warrant the passage of proposed
Bill C-262 before us which would remove collective bargaining
rights and provide for the drastic measures that are contained
within it.
(1755 )
We need only look to the experience of countries in which
compulsory arbitration is widely practised. That experience is
instructive. It indicates very clearly that strikes continue to
occur even with compulsory arbitration and that such a measure
turns out to be less than the solution or the panacea it is
purported to be.
I have stated that there is a widespread consensus on the
source of present difficulties in international grain markets and
in the measures that are being introduced to help augment the
supply and efficiency of grain hopper cars. In view of this reality
my feeling is that it would be unfortunate to inflict such a
weighty and questionable measure as is proposed by Bill C-262
on the employers and workers in the industry.
Therefore, I have to say that Bill C-262 is not an appropriate
measure for regulating collective bargaining in the Canadian
grain handling and transportation system. I would urge hon.
members of this House not to support the proposed legislation.
There has been mention made of the needs of Canadian
farmers and certainly there are losses that occur in strikes. There
are always losses that occur in strikes, losses that occur not just
to the grain farmers, but losses that occur to the people who
work in the industry and to the companies involved. This is part
of the bargaining process and labour management and it should
continue. Elimination of such processes causes bitter feelings,
causes stress and tension. In fact it exacerbates the situation
rather than improves it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbrige deals with
grain tranportation from the point of production to the point of
export.
If we go back a little, we find that this bill has its origin in a
work stoppage which occurred last February at the port of
Vancouver. To better understand the scope and the reasons of
this bill, we must go back in time.
On January 27, in Vancouver, representatives of the
Longshoremen's Union and management failed to come to an
agreement. The union decided to go on legal strike at the port of
Chemainus on Vancouver Island. Two days later, on January 29,
management reacted by imposing a lock-out. On February 8,
that is 10 or 11 days later, the Minister of Human Resources
Development had this House pass Bill C-10 forcing
longshoremen back to work. That bill imposed a settlement of
the labour dispute. It provided for the appointment of an
arbitrator to whom both parties where to submit their final
offers. He would then choose one of the two which would be the
new collective agreement.
This way of doing things is contrary to the bargaining process
since it totally rejects one of the two offers. The object of
bargaining is to find a compromise fair to both parties.
At the time, my colleague from Mercier had proposed an
amendment which would have made the bill more in keeping
with the spirit of collective bargaining. She was proposing to let
the arbitrator choose parts of both offers to construct a final
offer which would contain elements proposed by both parties.
As I said, the essence of bargaining is finding the right
compromise.
The amendment of my colleague from Mercier was rejected
by the Liberals opposite who argued that their basic idea was the
best, and rejected also by Reformers who considered that this
bill did not go far enough. They will correct me if I am wrong,
but I believe that the bill before us today espouses the same
logic. They want to settle once and for all labour disputes
affecting the export of grain.
(1800)
To this end, the bill proposes two measures. The first one is to
forbid employees to strike and employers to lock them out, if
this strike or lock-out would cause cessation of work by any
employee whose work is essential to any stage of the progress of
grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.
The second one is to make grain transportation an essential
service.
This is the crux of the matter. Is grain transportation an
essential service? You will understand that, for our part, we too
are sticking to the same logic as last winter and spring by
vigorously opposing this bill.
By removing the right to strike and to lock out, bargaining
powers are reduced to nothing. We recognize that grain export
constitutes a special case. Last winter, the strike was having
devastating consequences for western producers: the grain
shipped to port could not be loaded on the 25 foreign ships
waiting for their cargo. Some even sailed to an American port to
8275
get their cargo. Obviously, when Canada does not meet its grain
export obligations, it has a serious impact on the industry. But
we believe that this is not the way to solve the problem.
Many strikes in this industry have ended in ad hoc legislation
by the governement. Earlier today, I learned, much to my
surprise, that since 1966, in 28 years, no less than 13 ad hoc bills
have been passed in order to settle disputes in the port of
Vancouver. This is an average of a little more than one ad hoc
piece of legislation every two years. Serious questions have to
be asked. What is happening there? What is the matter?
Is management taking advantage of those employees? How
come the federal government has had to intervene 13 times to
settle directly a labour dispute? Mr. Speaker, this might make
you smile, but I have a friend who is getting divorced for the
sixth time. I told him: ``Listen, there is a problem. It is either
you or the women you choose. Either you do not know how to
choose your girlfriends or you are the problem''.
Thirteen bills in 30 years, that denotes a serious problem. I
suggest to members of the Reform Party that labour relations
should probably be looked at. There is probably a problem in
that famous seaport, if not in all the west coast harbours,
because it is not normal to have labour strikes every two years.
I have been on strike before, and I was proud of it. An
employee on strike loses his salary. His ultimate goal when
striking is to put an end to some injustice.
(1805)
If an employee loses money, the employer should also lose
money. I barely had time to say half of what I had in mind, but I
will conclude by saying this: unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois
will vote with the government and against the Reform Party,
because this bill does not agree with our policies.
In Quebec, we know about essential services, and we
associate them with hospital workers, firemen, and policemen,
but not with seaports. If we were to let longshoremen become
essential services, tomorrow it would be the bulk milk carriers,
the day after, workers in feed mills, because people would say:
``Oh, those poor cows, sheep, pigs and hens will have nothing to
eat!''
Mr. Speaker, obviously this does not make sense, members of
the Bloc Quebecois will simply vote against this legislation and
support the Liberal Party, in order to defeat the Private
Members' bill presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address this bill today from the
viewpoint of the farmer. I have farmed through all the years that
we have had disruptions in the grain handling system.
My career started in 1957. I farmed through about 10 years of
fairly decent grain handling activities. We were without strikes
until 1966. It amazes me when I hear members on the opposite
side today saying how important it is to support labour and
management. My colleague from Lethbridge never stressed that
it was totally labour's fault that these strikes existed. There was
probably some belligerence from the management side as well.
The problem in the grain handling system probably lies with
both management and labour.
The first strike in 1966 was at a time when farmers had no
grain drying facilities. I remember very well how the grain was
backed up in 1966. We had decent weather to combine but we did
not dare combine because the grain was tough and damp. We had
to leave that number one quality wheat out in the field until the
weather cooled enough so that we could store it. This is what
happens to the farmer in the grain handling system when we
have labour and management disagreeing.
By 1972 we had had backups on grain. There were good crops.
I remember very well that in 1971 I bought three bushels of
barley for $1 because there was no movement in grain. I bought
numbered wheat at 70 cents a bushel to feed to my cattle
operation.
Grain farmers did not know what to do with their top quality
grain. That was the first time in my life that I had ever heard of
farmers going bankrupt. It was not due to the farmers nor to their
efficiency or work habit. It was due to unions and management
not agreeing on a set price.
In 1971, grain handlers got a 66 per cent increase in wages.
Farmers were selling their grain for one-third of the price that
they should have had. If that is treating people fairly, I never
want to be discriminated against.
(1810)
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn, who is a lawyer
by profession, suggested that there is third party liability in this
situation. If two cars driving by his home were involved in an
accident, rolled into his house and his house burned, who would
pay for it? Would the hon. member pay for it? I bet he would not.
That is what farmers have put up with for 30 years.
The Liberals will get no feathers in their hat because they
have had as many strikes during their reign as the Conservatives.
If this country is going to survive, the primary producers of
our products must be treated fairly. If that does not occur
something is going to happen. Hon. members should remember
that in 1995 GATT will come into effect. The western Canadian
grain farmer will have the opportunity to move his grain through
the transportation system in the U.S.
As the hon. Minister of Transport pointed out in his speech in
Winnipeg in October, the United States transportation system is
66 per cent more efficient than the Canadian system. The United
8276
States primary elevator system and terminal system is less than
half as costly as the Canadian system.
If farmers do not get a decent deal through this bill, in 1995
farmers are definitely going to move their grain through a
system outside this country. At that moment the people in the
east can start floating their toy boats down the St. Lawrence
seaway because that is all they will have. Farmers will not put up
with that any longer.
It is important that members opposite and members of the
Bloc realize that if we do not give fair treatment to the people on
the land who are being discriminated against, those people will
no longer support them.
Any political system that allows its primary food producers to
go down the drain will itself follow quickly. The slightest blip in
the economy will force grain prices down. The 20 per cent of
farmers who produce 80 per cent of the food today will be gone.
I want to see hon. members on the other side at that time try to
import food with a dollar that is worthless.
It is time that we as members of Parliament and the
government start addressing the real issues, not the superficial
issues. If we do not protect our food industry we will see
something happen that this Parliament will wish it had never
seen.
Mr. Whelan, the former minister of agriculture, said that we
have lost 100 food manufacturing plants in the last 10 years.
That tells me that something is very wrong in our system. If that
continues another three or four years this country will lose its
balance of payments to the point that we will not be able to pay
the interest on the debt that Conservative and Liberal
governments have put on the backs of our children and
grandchildren.
Today, instead of being partisan we should start agreeing and
improving the system so that farmers can make a living and
support the rest of this country.
(1815 )
The hon. member for Malpeque is a very strong supporter of
supply management. If the grain producers do not get a fair deal,
his supply management theory will be out the window.
I wish I could impress on Parliament the seriousness of this
problem. When I look at the Soviet Union today, which I visited
after the coup in 1991, I see a country that has half the
agricultural land in Europe, the oil of the Middle East and gold
of South Africa, starving. It is an example of what happens when
we allow the primary producer to go down the drain.
I hope that Parliament has enough logic and sense to start
dealing with these issues. When I see statistics that show it takes
the same amount of time to move a rail car from the prairies to
Vancouver as it did in 1907 there is something wrong with our
transportation system. It cannot be put on the backs of the
farmers.
When I see that charges at our elevators are four times as high
as in the U.S. it is not the farmers' problem. When the taxes on
our terminals are three and four times as high as they are in the
U.S. that is not the problem of the farmers.
I hope I have impressed on Parliament that there has to be a
solution found to this inefficient, expensive system of grain
handling because if we do not find it somebody will do it for us.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of
labour disputes affecting the export of grain is legislation which
has been needed for many years in the often stormy climate
affecting Canada's reliable supply of grain to the hungry world.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to support this private
member's bill. Shortly after the newly elected 35th Parliament
was opened early this year, the people of Canada were asking us
to do something about the prolonged strike of nine locals of the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
known as the ILWU and the accompanying lockout by British
Columbia Maritime Employers' Association representing 70
different west coast companies.
By the time this matter came before us, the economic impact
of this major disturbance in the workplace had spread to some
3,500 west coast grain handlers as well as approximately 200
employees of railroads while the cycle of rail car movement also
suffered major disruption.
A great many prairie farmers whose grain was not yet being
moved suffered major financial losses. Included were
demurrage costs of some $10,000 per day for 26 ships in port
plus the threat of even more demurrage for 38 ships due to arrive
during that week and the next.
The disrupted labour contract had been the subject of
prolonged negotiating sessions from July through December
1993, but rather than prompting a settlement the threat of strike
erupted into job action at financial costs which were estimated
as high as $300,000 per day for wheat alone.
However, perhaps the greatest loss was to the reputation of the
Canadian Wheat Board and the port of Vancouver as being
reliable suppliers of grain.
We should be aware that both our Canadian production of
wheat and world demand for it are increasing. For example,
according to figures supplied by the Canadian Grain
Commission in its publication, ``Grain Statistics Weekly'', at
the close of business January 9, 1994 farmers delivered 20,900
tonnes of durum wheat; 95,700 tonnes of other wheat; 10,200
tonnes of oats; 85,900 tonnes of barley; 71,100 tonnes of canola;
6,400
8277
tonnes of flaxseed and over a tonne of rye for a total of 291,400
tonnes, all for export.
(1820)
But the previous week the totals were nearly three times as
high; 912,900 tonnes, the vast majority also headed for export.
International demand for wheat, especially among customers
living around the Pacific rim is growing.
According to a letter from the Canadian Wheat Board called
``Grain Matters'': ``The Far East and Oceania, home to 3.2
billion consumers, could account for 40 per cent of the world
wheat trade by the end of the century. Population and income
growth, increased urbanization and the resulting dietary shift
away from rice, are expected to lead to greater use of wheat
based products. Canada could secure as much as 30 per cent of
this market''.
Such growth in both Canadian productivity of wheat and
growth in Pacific rim demand for that wheat could be good news
for farmers and for the Canadian economy as a whole. We must
ask ourselves what happens in corporate board rooms around the
Pacific rim when chief executive officers and boards of
directors see shipments expected from Canada being delayed for
two weeks or more due to a labour dispute?
Unlike a current TV commercial for coffee, those ships
cannot simply be turned around en route. Instead they sit in port
while we pay penalties called demurrage. According to figures
supplied from both the department of agriculture and the
department of human resources the Japanese cancelled some of
their barley orders for April over the strike in January.
Unfulfilled or seriously delayed orders cause serious damage to
the willingness of our customers to buy from us, if they can
possibly obtain sufficient grain for their needs in either
Australia or the United States.
Nor was the grain handling disruption in January this year a
one time occurrence. On the contrary. The need to settle grain
handling disputes has been the most prominent issue requiring
recent federal back-to-work legislation, starting with the West
Coast Ports Operation Act, providing for the resumption and
continuation of longshoring and grain handling operations,
rushed through Parliament on August 31 and September 1, 1972
and even earlier on the St. Lawrence in 1966.
From then onward until earlier this year the list reads like a
sad litany to mourn the failure of the labour negotiation process
as regards this perishable commodity: in 1974, 1975, 1976,
1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and again in 1994.
In part the blame must lie with the excessive taxes caused by a
quarter century of excessively high peacetime federal
government budgets. As proof of these excessive taxes, in
British Columbia tax freedom day according to the Fraser
Institute has advanced 49 days during that period of time until in
1994 the average B.C. worker must put in fully half a year's
wages to pay his taxes before he can finally draw a full breath
and start to work for himself and his family on the first day of
July.
Seeing less and less of his pay cheque being left to spend on
the necessities of life for himself and his family, at the same
time as the prices of goods have been relentlessly driven
upwards by the same causes, the average employee wants a
bigger pay cheque when it comes time to negotiate a new
contract.
Likewise, British Columbia employers continue to be saddled
not only with the highest personal income taxes in Canada on the
profits, but also as business people with high levels of taxes not
related to profits, including business licences and insurance,
plus premiums paid for things like unemployment insurance and
workers' compensation.
These factors, influencing both sides of labour negotiations,
make it harder and harder for all employers and all employees to
readily reach new terms once an existing contract expires.
(1825 )
Given the size of our federal debt, now in excess of $530
billion, it is clear that high taxes are not going to go away in the
near future. It must also be clear that we need a new method for
settling disputes such as the one involving west coast grain
handlers whose economic consequences are so widespread.
Indeed many members of Parliament, including myself, have
received representations from the elevator operators asking that
some long term resolution of their dispute be legislated as it has
become apparent that the present system simply does not work.
My fellow members of Parliament in the Reform Party caucus
and I voted in favour of the government's back to work
legislation last February with the understanding that a long term
solution must be found so that the federal government need not
continue to interfere on a case by case basis in the collective
bargaining process.
It was therefore with a great sense of relief that I first read this
private member's bill, C-262. It lays down a simple method of
settling future disputes precisely along the lines employed in the
government's back to work legislation earlier this year as
embodied in Bill C-10 passed on February 8. The only
difference I can see between the actual dispute settlement
mechanisms outlined in private member's bill C-262 and the
government's Bill C-10 is that C-262 asked an appointed
arbitrator to make his recommendations within 60 days, but
allows the arbitrator to appeal to the minister for a longer time if
needed, whereas Bill C-10 starts with 90 days instead of 60.
Both of these bills use the last best offer method of dispute
settlement whereby either the final offer of the union or the final
offer of the employer's association must be accepted in its
entirety for matters on which the two have not previously been
able to agree. However, nothing in the legislation would prevent
the two parties from negotiating peacefully together and possi-
8278
bly never needing to use the new legislation at all. It would be in
place if it were needed rather than requiring Parliament to once
again rush to interfere if the two parties should again find
themselves unable to sign a collective agreement and the
shipment of grain again become jeopardized.
In view of the widespread and long term economic
consequences of possible future disruptions in handling
Canadian grain, I hope that all members of this House who
joined together in support of government Bill C-10 will once
again be able to join together to support Bill C-262.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with interest to the remarks by members opposite on
Bill C-262, especially the remarks by the member for
Lisgar-Marquette. I recognize full well the impact that labour
and management problems, whether in the railway system or on
the west coast, have on the farm community. In fact I have been
involved in a lot of those disputes over the years.
I think there are ways of resolving those issues through better
labour management negotiations other than what this bill
proposes. I believe this bill puts too much of the burden on the
labour side of the equation rather than on equality between the
two. I think it is possible to have labour and management come
together. I know as a member on the government side that I will
certainly be encouraging the Minister of Human Resources
Development to look at ways of resolving disputes before they
get to the stage where the system shuts down.
I remember one time I was involved in a dispute where we as a
farm organization met with labour. We knew they were going to
go on strike in July. The end of the crop year is July 31. We were
able to talk to them and prevent them from taking that kind of
action prior to the end of the crop year because prices were going
down at the end of the crop year.
It is possible to find other ways to resolve labour disputes and
we will be working at that as a government in coming years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m. and since there are no members to take part
in the proceedings on the adjournment motion, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)