CONTENTS
Monday, December 5, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 8605
Bill C-51. Report stage 8614
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8614
Division on motion deferred 8617
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 8617
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 8620
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 8620
Motion No. 5 negatived 8620
Motions No. 3, 7 and 8. 8620
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 8624
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 8625
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8625
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.35 p.m.) 8626
The House resumed at 2 p.m. 8626
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 8628
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8629
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8629
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8630
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8630
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8631
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8631
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8631
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8632
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8633
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8633
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8633
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8633
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8634
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8634
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8635
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8635
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8635
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8636
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8637
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8637
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8641
Bill C-60. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 8645
Bill C-61. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 8645
Bill C-293. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 8645
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8645
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8645
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8646
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8646
Bill C-56. Report stage 8647
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 8648
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 8654
(Motion No. 2 negatived.) 8654
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred. 8654
Division on amendment deferred. 8658
8605
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 5, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in the debate this
morning on the important subject of Canada's post-secondary
education system. I commend the leader of the Reform Party for
having taken the initiative to place the issue of federal support
for our colleges and universities on the parliamentary agenda, as
he did last spring, and for his suggestions regarding the concept
of income contingent repayment or ICR of student loans.
I believe this debate is helping members of the House gain
insights into the importance of higher education to our country's
future and how the federal government can work with the
provinces to assist our colleges and universities. Since this
motion was introduced last spring, however, there have been
several important developments.
First, the government moved the new Canada Student
Financial Assistance Act, which is known as Bill C-28, through
Parliament to receive royal assent. The new legislation, which
provides the framework for reforming the Canada student loans
program, will be proclaimed in 1995. The new act provides the
flexibility to implement the ICR pilot projects with interested
provinces. This possibility is being pursued as a means of
learning more about how an ICR scheme might be designed to
meet Canadian conditions.
The government has moved quickly to implement its
students' assistance reforms by increasing assistance for those
students who need it the most. In August of this year the full
time Canada student loan limit was increased from $105 per
week to $165 per week and the limit on part time loans was
raised from $2,500 to $4,000.
Over the next five years the changes already announced to our
existing student assistance program will provide $6 billion in
loans, which is over $2 billion more than during the last five
years. The reforms include not only higher loan limits but
special grants for students with disabilities, part time students
and women in certain fields of study at the PhD level.
In addition to the reforms already under way in the area of
student assistance, the government has demonstrated its keen
interest in the future of post-secondary education by informing
Canadians about federal assistance to the post-secondary
system and putting forward an innovative approach for
discussion.
The social security green paper provides two options for the
future of established programs financing arrangements for
post-secondary education. Under the first, total transfers would
be frozen at the 1993-94 level starting in 1996-97. The result
would be that as the tax portion of the transfer grows with the
economy, the cash transfers will decline correspondingly,
disappearing altogether within about ten years' time.
On the other hand, if we have an opportunity, we could
transfer the declining cash into a sustainable system of loans and
grants. These new loans could be based on the concept of income
contingent repayment. For those who enjoy relatively high
income after their studies, the rate of repayment would be rapid.
Those who experience periods of low income would repay only
when they were in a position to do so. The repayment would
adjust automatically to income, thus reflecting the ability to pay
rather than the amount borrowed. Those of us in riding offices
know a lot about that.
We are discussing this concept with interest groups and
provinces, examining how such a system might work in Canada.
The government is guided by the principle of equality and at the
same time the belief that those who benefit from post-secondary
education have a responsibility to pay a fair share of the costs of
their education.
We believe that every Canadian has the right to an equal
opportunity in the workplace and in the classroom, consistent
with the ability to do the job or handle the course work. At the
same time, government resources are very limited and must be
directed to those who need help to help themselves. It is true that
students are often needy while they are in post-secondary
8606
education, but thereafter their employment prospects and
incomes usually improve dramatically. On average,
post-secondary graduates earn 40 per cent more than the
general workforce over their careers.
Once graduates begin to reap the benefits of higher education
it seems reasonable that they should pay back part of the costs
which society has invested in them. We are proposing that
students take on a greater share of the costs of their education.
We are asking them to invest in themselves. This is the option
we want to discuss with Canadians.
The potential advantages of income contingent repayment or
ICR have been widely discussed in recent years and several
countries, including Australia and New Zealand, have moved to
introduce ICR schemes. Clearly, in making his original motion,
the hon. member concluded that ICR could be an important tool
in assisting students in financing their education.
An ICR loan program would be fairer and less risky for
students. Payments would be geared to income. If a year's
earnings fell below a certain level, repayment of the loan could
be suspended.
(1110)
ICR has the potential of making loans available to all students
without the means testing used in current student loans
programs. If the government was not paying the interest on the
loans while the students were still in school, there would be no
need to limit eligibility.
The ICR concept, as it could apply, is currently being
explored. The specific design would have to be tailored to
reflect the Canadian environment. The government is
undertaking work in this area in consultation with various
student and other interest groups and will involve the provinces
fully in such consultations.
We believe that ICR loans have a role to play in helping to
maintain a high quality system of post-secondary education
through the provision of a sustainable source of funding.
As I have indicated, the discussion paper on social security
reform suggests a new approach to how the federal government
might transform its decline in cash transfers into a sustainable
system of income contingent loans and grants. This represents
an innovative approach to dealing with the challenges ahead.
The idea is receiving considerable support and the option
deserves consideration.
To successfully face the challenges of the future, Canada
needs well-educated young people and citizens who will
continue to learn throughout their lives. The government is
seeking ways to help Canadians achieve their learning goals
through improved access to higher education.
As part of our social security reforms, we must enable
Canadians to develop the tools they need to become productive
and self-sufficient members of society. Our objectives must
remain consistent with the Canadian value of fairness and
generosity to those in difficulty while recognizing that
governments have limited resources. Quite simply, we must
help people to help themselves.
The government is listening to Canadians. We have put
post-secondary education high on our list of priorities through
reforms to the existing student assistance program and
proposals in the social security reform paper.
The standing committee has already started its consultations
from coast to coast and many members are conducting forums
on social security reform in their own constituencies.
We look forward to hearing from Canadians in all walks of
life.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
someone who has spent the best years of his professional career
working as a teacher, guidance counsellor and school principal
at the secondary level, I welcome this opportunity to take part in
the debate on motion M-291, introduced by the Reform Party.
The purpose of this motion is, basically, to amend the Canada
Student Financial Assistance Act to include a loan repayment
system that would take into account the employment income of
students after they have finished their education.
At first glance, we might think this measure would be to the
students' advantage. It seems reasonable to adjust the terms of
repayment to the income of the person who contracted the loan.
However, when we look at what the Reform Party has in mind
with this motion, our support for this proposal quickly
disappears as it becomes clear there is no benefit in this for
students. The objective is clear:
reduce the cost to taxpayers of financing post-secondary education by
reducing the number and dollar amounts of loans defaulted upon, by
charging accumulated interest, rather than simple interest on default loans,
and by reducing the number and dollar amounts of collection fees for
defaulted loans.
The Reform Party's first objective seems to be based on the
false premise that former students do not repay their loans
because they do not feel like it. There is a tendency here to forget
the economic problems facing young people today. Even for
those with a university degree, the unemployment rate is close
to 15 per cent. And there is also the troubling fact that many
university and college graduates are underemployed and, as a
result, underpaid.
In addition to the Reform Party's failure to realize that such
situations exist, it is clear that if we want to reduce the cost of
education for the taxpayer, someone will have to pick up the
slack and pay the bill, and obviously, that onus will now be on
the students.
8607
(1115)
This point of view is short-sighted on several accounts. First,
it ignores the social situation of a great number of students.
Second, it does not take into account the significant changes in
lifestyle of every class of society. Today's students are the
product of what is known as the consumer society which, as a
social model, constitutes the basis of our western economies.
How could we confine our young people to a ghetto and believe
that they will take part in mass consumption only when they
graduate?
A recent survey conducted in Quebec shows that high school
students spend one billion dollars a year. This means that half
the students in their last year of high school are working
part-time. Nobody will deny the impact of this new reality on
school results, but we must accommodate these new needs. We
created them from scratch and ubiquitous advertising fuels
them.
Transferring greater financial responsibilities to
post-secondary students will only increase the tendency of
students to go to school and hold a paid job at the same time.
Faced with increased tuition fees resulting from the
government's so-called social program reform, and the Reform
Party's intentions, as described in motion M-291, students will
react quite normally by trying to increase the number of hours
they spend on the labour market, in order to limit as much as
possible the need to borrow money. The consequences will be
disastrous: time spent studying will diminish, the failure rate
will go up, courses and even whole years will have to be
repeated, resulting in increased costs for the governments
subsidizing education. Basically, it is a vicious circle.
Transferring heavier financial responsibilities to students in
such a manner is short-sighted for another reason. It ignores the
fact that with the globalization of the economy, the quality of
human resources is the key to competitiveness. It is by taking
advantage of knowledge, research and development that
Canadian and Quebec businesses will be able to penetrate a trade
arena with no borders and maybe no rules.
Any increase in the financial burden of post-secondary
students flies in the face of this universal reality. Instead of
limiting access to higher education, as the Liberals and the
Reformers are planning to do, we should do the exact opposite.
That is a major reason for not supporting Motion M-291, a
motion which, by its objectives, is anachronistic.
The third objective of the Reform motion also reveals the
fallacious nature of their project. It reads as follows: ``ensure
that post-secondary institutions in Canada receive the funding
necessary to maintain the high quality of services they presently
provide''.
This is not very subtle! This objective acknowledges that
students, by bearing a larger part of the cost of their education,
will contribute to generate resources for universities and
colleges. Moving in that direction is refusing to recognize that
knowledge and know-how are the keys to any modern economy.
In this regard we should stress the vision of the Quebec Premier
who announced last week, in his speech from the Throne, that he
was freezing university tuition fees and removing the failure tax
at college level. This is the direction to follow if we want to be
able to compete with our trading partners under NAFTA and the
Uruguay Round.
We sense that the government as well as Reformers are doing
their best to gradually withdraw from the area of education. We,
of the Bloc Quebecois, believe that the federal government must
withdraw entirely from that area of provincial jurisdiction, an
area that it invaded not to serve the interests of the people, but to
enslave, to dominate and to impose its national standards on the
provinces. By withdrawing from that field, the federal
government could transfer tax points to the provinces. They
would then be in a better position to deliver to their people
education services geared to their needs and realities.
(1120)
In so doing, the federal government would go beyond
speeches and do something concrete to reduce the duplication of
services delivered by both levels of government. However, to
act in that direction would require great discernment and
common sense.
These ingredients do not seem to be on sale in the federalist
supermarket. To conclude, I urge all members who still care
about the future to vote against motion M-291, a dangerous and
anachronistic motion because of the objectives its seeks to
achieve.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lead this debate for my
party.
This motion is about Canada's future. It is about the future
because it is about education. Education is the key to the future
for Canada's young people.
I have spent virtually all my adult life in the teaching
profession. Conveying knowledge to our young people was for
me a most rewarding vocation. We must ensure the future of our
educational system in Canada, and part of that is ensuring that as
many students as possible can take part in it.
As literacy critic for my party, I recognize what happens if
people do not take advantage of our education system when they
are young. If you do not learn to read and write when you are
young, you are going to have to learn when you are older through
the various literacy programs sponsored by communities across
Canada.
Reading and writing are learned either young or old but have
to be learned at some point if one wants to become a fully
functioning member of society. That is why it is so important
8608
that everyone who wishes has access to education at every level
of our school system.
Years ago, back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, I believe we
thought we had licked the access problem for education and if
we had proceeded with balanced budgets from the 1970s through
until today, I suppose we could have been right. However with
the advent of budgetary deficits and the recession from which
we are desperately trying to emerge, access to education has
been called into question.
It has been called into question by two groups, the students
and by us, the politicians representing the people of Canada.
Students are concerned that through the Canada student loan
program they will receive insufficient funds to allow them to
attend university without worry.
At the same time because of the repayment scheme attached to
these loans, students are concerned they will emerge at the end
of their university careers with a huge debt which they are
unable to discharge in the amounts and in the time required.
The repayment problem for student loans is alarming. At
present one in five borrowers is in default on their student loan.
About two-thirds of these eventually repay but only after the
federal government assumes the debt from the bank and has
launched some form of collection activity.
The other third, about 7 per cent of all student loans, are never
repaid and become simply bad debts. In all, we are talking about
$1 billion in bad loans, money the treasury may never see.
That is why the Reform Party felt it important to look at the
whole scheme of financing again; look at it with a view to
making it easier to fund a student's education, making it easier
for the student to repay and therefore making it easier on the
country's finances because the loans would eventually be
repaid, perhaps with lesser amounts, but repaid nevertheless.
Let me explain how the Reform Party's income contingent
loan repayment program will work. It is designed to allow
students to pay back their student loans over a period of time
based on their annual income after leaving university. The
concept is funded on two fundamental principles, the full use of
the income tax machinery in monitoring and collecting student
loans, and the implementation of an income contingency
principle whereby students pay back a set percentage of their
income.
Upon graduation a student would begin to pay back their
student loan. There is no eight-month delay period as there is
presently. The repayment of the loan however would link the
repayment plan to a student's earnings or ability to pay.
Precisely how much a former student pays back would vary from
year to year depending on his or her salary level.
A specific amount set as a percentage of income would be
paid through the tax system. If a person's income does not reach
a specified minimum amount, the payment would be deferred
until earnings go up. This repayment system, however, depends
on the supply of accurate income statements long after the
individual has left the institution of higher education.
Revenue Canada could therefore supply the necessary data
automatically and cheaply through income tax statements. This
would necessitate the recording of student borrowers with the
tax department and the inclusion of social insurance numbers on
student loan forms.
With the possession of the full details of most students
changing future incomes and geographic locations, the income
tax authorities could then act as the primary monitor subsequent
to loan collection.
I do not believe the use of SIN numbers in this context should
be objected to. The end result of a more equitable loan scheme
justifies this requirement.
(1125)
We in the Reform Party like the idea of income contingent
loans for three basic reasons, the first being the reduced cost to
the taxpayer. Under the current Canada student loans program
taxpayers end up footing the bill for defaulted loans. The
difference between the simple interest paid by borrowers and the
accumulated interest paid by the government and the collection
fees charged on defaulted loans is charged to the taxpayer.
Two, there would be greater flexibility and fairness for
students under the program. Under the Canada student loan
program borrowers and taxpayers are discriminated against and
repayment terms are onerous and rigid. The current program
discriminates against borrowers in two ways. First, it
discriminates against the poor and unemployed by forcing them
to pay back their loans at the same rate and at the same level as
those who are gainfully employed and who can afford to pay off
their loans. Second, the prospective borrowers are discriminated
against on the basis of their parents' or partners' income
potential through means tests.
This often means that students whose parents are well off are
ineligible for student loans even if they receive no assistance
from these same parents. Low income taxpayers are especially
discriminated against, as they are less apt to send their children
to university.
The burden falls especially on those who pay taxes but do not
use post-secondary education services. By 1990 two-thirds of
the adult population did not possess post-secondary credentials.
In other words, under the Canada student loan plan the poor or
8609
those without university education as the case may be have been
subsidizing the rich.
The repayment plan is inflexible because it forces former
students to begin repaying their loan only eight months after
graduation irrespective of their income. The income
contingency plan in contrast involves no burden of debt that
must be repaid unconditionally. Repayment falls only on the
prosperous; that is, upon those persons who graduate and earn
income at or above the given level.
Three, the maintenance of high quality educational services.
The government is broke. As such both federal and provincial
jurisdictions are grappling with the problem of how to finance
post-secondary education. The financial pressure on higher
education through reduced public funding has been inevitable in
an era of growing deficits, high taxation and the increasing
competition of health, environment and other lobbies for a
greater share of public spending.
As governments contribute less and less funding and costs
increase at the same time the quality of education has and will
continue to decline. The bottom line is that governments can no
longer finance post-secondary education at a declining level
and expect the quality of the service to remain constant.
One cannot increase tuition and other fees charged to students
without making the cost of a university education more and
more prohibitive under the current system. If students were to be
permitted to repay their loans on an income contingent basis
over a longer period of time if necessary tuition fees as a
percentage of the total contribution to post-secondary financing
could easily be increased. This would ensure that the quality of
educational services would remain strong and that those who
benefit most from the system are those who contribute their fair
share.
The position taken on this subject by the academic world is
heartening. Mr. Clark Lajeunesse, president of the Association
of Universities and Colleges of Canada stated the current
student loan program is outdated as it does not meet students'
needs and it does not meet university needs either.
The income contingent repayment loan is seen by universities
as allowing them to maintain accessibility and qualify by
making more effective use of tuition fees.
Under the ICR program universities can be more realistic
about the cost of the programs that they offer. Some fees might
increase for high cost programs while other fees might decrease
for low cost programs. While some student groups have
expressed concern that such a method of financing education
could lead to higher tuition fees, other students and student
organizations have expressed support.
The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance believes that
ICR holds promise for protecting accessibility to and the quality
of post-secondary education. The most important matter for this
group is not so much that costs may increase marginally but that
the education received by students be worth something. The key
to the ICR program for this Ontario group is that it is never an
unmanageable debt load.
I believe we should now look seriously at changing the
method by which university education in Canada is financed,
especially the financing available for students. The proposal
from the leader of the Reform Party represents a scheme which
is fair and equitable to students but is also inexpensive to
administer. I would urge all members of the House to support
this motion.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today in response to the member's Motion No. M-291
and make some comments about the financing of
post-secondary education using an income contingent
repayment plan. I would like to offer some comments on
investment in post-secondary education.
(1130)
All of us recognize that the income contingent repayment
principle is intended to facilitate investment by individuals in
their own future. It therefore offers a way for public policy to
foster what the social security reform discussion paper calls
mutual responsibility, governments helping people to help
themselves.
Canadians collectively make a greater investment in learning
than practically anyone else in the world. Few industrialized
countries spend more of their gross domestic product on
education than we do. No country spends more than the 2.6 per
cent of GDP that we spend every year on post-secondary
education. This represents $16 billion per year, nearly 80 per
cent of which comes from taxpayers through federal and
provincial support.
Indeed our public investment in post-secondary education is
also the highest in the OECD countries measured in relation to
our overall economic activity. The result is some of the best and
most accessible post-secondary education in the world.
We have in relative terms more adults with post-secondary
qualifications than many other countries and we have more
people enrolled at any given time. There are currently nearly one
million full time post-secondary students in Canada, about 70
per cent in universities and the rest in colleges and institutes of
technology. Because of its shorter duration programs the college
level actually produces more graduates than the university
sector. Both of course make equally essential contributions to
individual opportunity and national development.
In addition to the full time students there are also hundreds of
thousands of students enrolled in part time programs. Still more
take short courses, specialized training and other learning
opportunities. Indeed, one in every four adult Canadians is
engaged in a learning activity in any given year, an increase of
8610
about 20 per cent during the last decade. Canadians understand
the importance of investing both time and money, public and
private, in learning to adapt to new challenges and
opportunities.
A recent survey by EKOS Associates showed that some 25 per
cent of the adult workforce are keen to improve their
qualifications and move up to better jobs through their own
efforts. These so-called bootstrappers are prepared to work hard
at self improvement and self investment. They typically have
adult responsibilities, modest incomes and limited
opportunities for learning on the job. Their learning needs are
widely divergent and may range from literacy training to
advanced education or technical training.
Despite our record in creating across Canada an excellent and
accessible post-secondary education system, many of these
people still have great difficulty in finding the optimum
combination of time and money in order that they can
participate. There are no easy solutions but we need to ask
ourselves how we can improve this situation.
The social security reform discussion paper therefore raises
two basic questions about federal investment in post-secondary
education. How can we help to ensure long term stable and
sustainable support for post-secondary education in a context of
increasing financial restraints by all governments? How can we
at the same time not only maintain our accomplishments in
making post-secondary education accessible but broaden and
expand that access to more people?
The social security paper outlines two options for future
federal support of post-secondary education. Under the first
option the current established program funding for
post-secondary education transfer arrangements would be
maintained. The total amount would be fixed at the 1993-94
level in keeping with the government's restraint on transfers
announced in the 1994 budget. With total entitlements thus
restrained but the tax portion of the transfers growing with the
economy, the cash transfer portion would decline
correspondingly.
(1135 )
In 1996-97, the first year of any new arrangements, tax
transfers are projected to be about $4 billion and cash to be about
$2 billion for a total of just over $6 billion. While this total
remains fixed, the tax portion is projected to reach $5 billion by
the year 2001, meaning that the cash will be automatically
reduced to about $1 billion at that point.
Finally, about 10 years after the new arrangement starts the
value of the tax transfer would exceed $6 billion and the cash
transfer would be virtually zero. The federal government would
no longer provide cash support to provinces for post-secondary
education.
We think there is a better way to invest the available cash.
Instead of just letting it dwindle away to nothing, the green
paper suggests using it to create a new $2 billion per year loan
scheme on income contingent repayment principles. This would
help students to meet the rising cost of tuition and thereby
contribute an increasing portion of the cost of post-secondary
education. It would thus help to ensure both the availability of
high quality relevant opportunities for higher education and
career training, but also their affordability.
The ICR principle as other hon. members have pointed out can
ensure that an individual's payments on student loans do not
become unmanageable. In a sense the income contingent
repayment plan means sharing the risk between government and
the individual, guaranteeing that payments will adjust
automatically to income and therefore to ability to pay.
This second option would provide support to the
post-secondary education system in two ways: first through a
permanent and growing endowment of tax points that provinces
can use to help finance their grants to colleges and universities,
and second through loans that enable students to contribute to
their own education.
Over the 10 year period beginning in 1996-97 the first option
of the continuing current arrangements would provide a total of
just over $60 billion to the post-secondary system. By contrast
the second option would provide around $70 billion in tax
transfers and loans over the same period. That is a difference of
$10 billion in favour of the alternative approach.
This approach depends on the creation of a new student loan
system that would ensure affordable payments for borrowers as
well as simple and efficient means of repayment that would
avoid problems of default. The scheme must be both fair and
efficient.
The income contingent repayment approach properly
designed could offer an answer to this need. The government is
consulting interested groups about the specifics of design and
welcomes their input to the process.
The options in the green paper for enhancing our national
investment in post-secondary education are proposals, not
decisions. The government is looking forward to reviewing
these ideas in light of the many valuable comments and
alternative proposals now being put forward. Not the least of
these will be the suggestions of members of this House offered
through the current debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I speak on the motion put forth by the Reform
Party, but it is with no pleasure that I read and consider it. It
8611
seems to me that much of this motion is contrary to the
principles young people have been given for many years.
If you take a look at what is underlying this motion, because
there are the words of the motion but there is a lot more to these
words, to what lies under all this. Reference is made to reducing
the number and dollar amounts of loans. We understand that the
intent is to recover a larger part of the defaulted loans that are
presently difficult to recover and that we should be shifting
toward a university tax situation.
(1140)
This smooths the way for what follows: to ensure that
post-secondary institutions receive all the funding necessary,
while the goal-as previous Reform speakers have
conceded-is to reduce the cost of education to taxpayers. So, if
the necessary funding is to be maintained while you reduce the
cost to taxpayers, of course someone else's costs will have to go
up.
Whose costs? Probably the students'. They are told: ``Your
costs will increase but you will be able to repay based on a fixed
percentage of your income-what is commonly called
university tax, or post-graduate tax, among students''. We are
told that this is a good idea, one that was always considered in
academic circles as potentially interesting-a post-graduate
tax- but not as part of a system that doubles their indebtedness.
In that sense, I fail to see the difference between the Reform
motion and the social program reform proposed by the HRD
minister, who is basically suggesting the same thing. He is not as
direct, though. Perhaps the one thing that can be said to their
credit is that the Reformers are more direct. The documents
tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development talk
about cuts in cash transfer payments to the provinces-this will
amount to $324 million for Quebec-as well as cuts in income
tax points-over $700 million-which will have the direct
effect of increasing students' indebtedness and doubling tuition
fees.
I now want to come back to indebtedness from a student's
perspective. I was one myself not so long ago and I have been
fortunate in that I have a good job and have been able to repay
my student loans. I am very proud of having been raised in a
good, accessible education system. I am one of those who first
saw tuition fees rise every year and those who followed me have
seen them rise even more because of subtle cuts in cash
transfers.
How can we hope for a competitive, highly qualified labour
force ready to take up challenges, when our young people look at
the labour market with little hope while we encourage them to
increase their debt load for their own good? Well, that is a major
problem.
Why not give them a chance to get through the system and
then increase their contribution? I think this would be a better
approach that will ensure greater access. Is this the new system
you are proposing for something that has always been a top
priority in this country? Is this the new alternative you will try to
sell Quebecers when the time comes to make collective
choices? Is that the system you want to give us?
Both Liberals and Reformers see eye to eye on this. The third
part of the motion would ensure that post-secondary institutions
in Canada receive the funding necessary. I told my colleagues:
``They have the wrong level of government; they should ask
their provincial legislatures''. Education is not an area of
federal jurisdiction; our Constitution clearly stipulates that it
comes under provincial jurisdiction.
But they always find a way. Liberal and Reform members
would like to campaign on improving the education system
because it is a priority for people. They do not have the courage
to tell them that it is in provincial jurisdiction and explain power
sharing under the present system to them. This leads to a lot of
confusion and debt. Let this be a warning to this government.
There is no question of letting them meddle in education. It
makes no sense. They will not repeat on a large scale with
education what they are doing with occupational training. We
should not let them. This paragraph about ensuring that
educational institutions receive the necessary funding is not the
federal government's role. So far, the federal government's only
role has been to provide funds for the provinces, which
reinvested them as they wished, and if this government wanted
to be consistent, it would let the provinces that so desire collect
these funds themselves by giving them the tax points or
achieving their objectives like reforming the sales tax.
Why not take the opportunity to see how the provinces could
do it themselves and at the same time ensure that they have the
necessary funds so that they would no longer need to constantly
ask the federal government, which always wants to centralize
more with a cumbersome bureaucracy that always wants to
meddle and control more?
(1145)
It has been a long time since the government-in fact it
probably never happened-downsized its operations and made
real transfers to the provinces.
Let us take a look at the situation of students. Quebecers and
Canadians in general often live far from educational
institutions. In order to pursue studies at the university of
college level, students often have to leave their place of
permanent residence. Not always, but very often. It was the case
for me. Except for those enrolled in a few training programs,
every university student from my region of Timiskaming or
from Abitibi-Timiskaming must move to some large centre.
Obviously, we could provide more university programs in the
regions and that would be a good thing, but it will always be
necessary to go somewhere else to get specific training. This
means that students will have to pay for rent and other expenses.
There are certain related benefits in that these students develop a
certain independence; they learn to become part of society and
they gain a greater autonomy. However, there are related costs
8612
which, traditionally, had been partly met by society, through
loan and bursary programs.
However, for the last ten years or so, the proportion of loans
and bursaries has been reversed. Greater emphasis is put on
loans now, since it costs students more to pursue studies. The
user pay principle is being implemented in the field of
education; yet, education is really a collective good in that
everyone can benefit from it.
Now the government wants to restrict that access in a very
underhanded manner. Attending university can cost around
$10,000 for a student from my region. Increasing, if not
doubling tuition fees would translate into an additional $2,000
per year for every student enrolled in a university program. Let
us not forget that, since many students must already work
part-time to pay for their studies, very few manage to complete
their program in the normal time frame. Many students need
four years to complete the three-year program leading to a
bachelor's degree. Many students take three years instead of two
to get their CEGEP diploma and they even take four and a half
years to get their university degree because they have to work
while completing their education.
What would happen if we were to implement the proposals
made by the Liberals and the Reform Party? What impact would
it have on full-time versus part-time students, on the quality of
education, on the quality of graduates? They do not seem to be
thinking about that. They just look at the financial situation, and
that is a real cause for concern.
If the debt incurred by students is supposed to double, do you
think that our young people will attend university in larger
numbers, especially since they often have to face a new
requirement? They must have a microcomputer, which has
become an almost essential tool. Of course, many universities
provide microcomputers on site. Also, there are loans
guaranteed by the Government of Quebec to help students afford
a microcomputer, but it is another loan and this ever-growing
debt becomes more and more of a burden to the system.
Students look at Canada's fiscal situation and they see that we
have an enormous debt, but they also see the cuts that are being
made. For example, our young people today will never benefit
from the capital gains exemption that was available to previous
generations. Many of the incentives and tools that Canadians
used to become successful are being eliminated. Our young
people are willing to accept that, but at the same time they are
being told that they will have to pay more for their education.
They are being asked to do the job the government is no longer
able to do with regard to the debt and we are supposed to believe
that it will be better for them, that it will improve our education
system.
Canadians are being deceived and the Bloc Quebecois will
never support such a motion that goes against all the principles
that society as a whole must contribute for the benefit of all,
whether for health or education.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak in support of the motion by my colleague, the
member for Calgary Southwest, on the income contingent
repayment of student loans.
For the record let me assure the House that my position and
that of all the Reform Party caucus is that we wholeheartedly
endorse all aspects of education. The country needs as much as it
possibly can get. The debate this morning seems to have centred
around education. The motion before us today deals with the
collection of outstanding amounts owed by students in order for
Canada to ensure the money that is being lent to students is
being returned.
(1150)
I listened to the debate and the nonsensical rant of members of
the Bloc Quebecois going back to the idea that only Quebec can
handle the problems. The arguments they put forward seem to be
rather ludicrous, looking at the motion put forward by the
member for Calgary Southwest.
The Liberals have talked about fairness. When we take a look
at outstanding loans we see that 90 per cent of Canadian students
repay their loans with or without hardship but they do so. Ten per
cent have been written off. If we are talking about fairness,
surely we should expect all students to live up to their financial
obligations rather than 10 per cent being allowed to walk away
from their responsibilities while the other 90 per cent act
responsibly and repay the debt.
Today we have a very difficult financial situation in the
country caused by previous governments and a current
government that refuses to grasp the situation and ensure that we
get our finances in order. By the admission of the Minister of
Finance we are going to add another $100 billion to our debt in
the next three years, thereby squeezing the amount of money we
are going to have available to pay for education and the other
services we so desperately need.
We also know that the young people are going to pay back the
debt on top of their education. They are the ones who are getting
squeezed twice. We are asking them to pay more for their
education as we continue to consume the assets of the country.
The students who graduate statistically speaking earn 40 per
cent higher incomes than those who do not have higher educa-
8613
tion; but we must look to the idea that higher education is very
expensive. It must be handed out to those who have the desire to
take that education, go forward, help develop the country and
use it for the betterment of Canada.
Higher education is not a place where people can fritter away
some time and borrow the money from the Canadian taxpayer
and hope that if they have some money they will pay it back at a
later date.
Lets look at some statistics. I have the 1994-95 estimates
from Human Resources Development Canada, the part III
expenditure plan. Looking at page 5.4 under the social
development and education program, we find that claims paid
by the government, it is estimated for 1994-95, will be $195
million. That has been increasingly steadily. Working
backward, the forecast for 1993-94 was $162 million. The
actual for 1992-93 was $175 million and back in 1991 it was
$147 million. The amount is getting larger all the time.
Can we expect the Government of Canada to continue to
provide education free for some who want to flaunt the rules and
expect those who abide by the rules to have to pay for it? I do not
think so. We have to remember that 90 per cent of students pay
their loans back.
Let us take a look at the defaulted loans. On page 5.39 of the
same book, in the 1992-93 loan year the student assistance
branch reimbursed lenders' claims for 29,079 defaulted loans.
Let us take a look at the dollar amounts. Under $2,500 there
were 8,180 claims. Between $2,500 and $5,000 there were
10,642 claims. Well over half of all student loans that have been
written off were for less than $5,000. Five thousand dollars does
not buy a decent used car today. It is not a downpayment on a
house. It does not go very far.
(1155)
The average income in the country is around $24,000 a year
per individual. We are talking just a few months of income.
Surely it is only fair, when we are talking about the obligation
people assume to go to university to get a higher education, that
these people live up to their responsibilities and repay the loans.
Regardless of the Bloc Quebecois talking about how hard it
would be, we must remember that only 10 per cent are abusing
the privilege. Of that 10 per cent more than half of them are for
less than $5,000. If these individuals whose student loans are
written off have financial difficulties because they have no job
and have no income, they should be allowed time to repay the
debt.
However when they become employed, when they start to
generate some income, surely we can expect them to live up to
their obligations. Therefore the motion by the member for
Calgary Southwest is perfectly in order. We should recognize
that when there is hardship we should allow them the
opportunity to defer payments. When they have the opportunity
to pay back the loans they signed up for which provided for their
education, provided for the betterment of their lives and
presumably added to their standard of living and quality of life,
the 10 per cent, like the other 90 per cent, should be expected to
repay the loans.
We must remember that over half of the 29,000 who defaulted
last year defaulted on an amount that was less than $5,000. Let
us be realistic. Let us talk about being fair. Let us talk about
fairness for everybody rather than just those who want to live up
to their education.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to be able to address the House on the crucial
subject of federal support for post-secondary education.
The motion before us which was introduced in the spring by
the Reform Party has taken on new meaning in the context that
has evolved since then. Not only has legislation been passed to
overhaul the Canada student loans program but the government
has released its social security reform discussion paper. Both
these initiatives reinforce the notion that income contingent
repayment of student loans is a potential important component
of the future post-secondary education financing scene in
Canada.
As a further example of the interest in income contingent
repayment loans demonstrated in the past few months, I would
like to point to the conference in September sponsored by the
Government of Ontario with financial assistance from the
federal Department of Human Resources Development. It
brought together leading experts from across Canada, Australia
and the United States and gave some 300 participants a chance to
exchange views and argue the issues.
The arguments in this area often involve strongly held views
as we have seen in the debate in the House. Throughout the
debate all sides of the House stress the importance of
post-secondary education to the future of individual Canadians
and of our country.
I believe none of us questions this basic value but we do have
differing views as to how best the federal government can
contribute to ensuring that Canadians continue to enjoy access
to post-secondary education over the long term.
In our red book we did admit that ``we must make better use of
the $44 billion we spend on education every year''. Many
Canadian students already receive assistance from the federal
and provincial governments to finance their studies. The costs to
students of post-secondary education have increased
significantly in recent years. The government has introduced
reforms to the Canada student loans program to help today's
students handle the increased costs.
8614
There is no doubt that in the past significant numbers of
students have difficulty repaying existing fixed payment loans.
The government has moved to address the problem by
introducing grants and expanding interest relief to include
borrowers of low incomes.
(1200 )
The government will soon be entering into contracts with
lenders for the Canada student loans program whereby the
institutions making the loans will assume greater responsibility
for servicing and collecting them.
Under this new financing arrangement lenders will have a
much greater incentive to provide income sensitive terms to
borrowers. This flexibility will assist former students in
repaying their loans.
More fundamental than the question of the operation of
existing student loans problems is that of the share which tuition
represents of higher education costs. Canadian post-secondary
students contribute through their fees on the average about 20
per cent of university operating costs. We know that
post-secondary graduates have much greater employment
prospects and income potential than those who have not
undertaken such studies. Should they perhaps contribute more
toward the costs of this education?
As the House knows, the standing committee on human
resources-
The Deputy Speaker: With profound apologies to the hon.
member, she will have six minutes when the matter comes up for
debate at the next occasion.
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.
_____________________________________________
8614
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, an act
to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain
regulations made pursuant to that act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are eight motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-51, an act
to amend the Canada Grain Act.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 will be grouped for the purposes of
debate but voted on separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 3, 7 and 8 will be grouped for debate but voted
on as follows. Motion No. 3 will be voted on separately. A vote
on Motion No. 7 applies to Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Motion No. 6 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
The Chair would now propose that Motion No. 1 be debated.
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-51, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 45, on
page 2, with the following:
``4.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural
matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner
and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise in the
House to speak to Bill C-51. The bill was discussed at length in
committee, mainly so that we could provide some clarification.
The House will recall that the purpose of this bill is to clarify
some procedures with respect to contracts concluded by the
Canadian Grain Commission with grain elevator operators and
producers.
I will first comment on the amendment I proposed to improve
Bill C-51. The amendment in question does not affect the main
thrust of this bill. According to the government, the bill will
impose greater responsibility on grain producers to secure
payment for their grain from elevator operators and grain
dealers licensed by the Commission. The government is telling
producers: Look, you know how this works. We now have to
make some adjustments to make things work more smoothly.
The amendment I am proposing to Bill C-51 is along the same
lines, in that its aim is to provide for more effective and, above
all, more transparent operations.
(1205)
The proposed amendment affects the government body that is
involved in all these operations, the Canadian Grain
Commission-and more specifically, section 2 of the bill which
concerns the appointment of the chief commissioner and the
assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain
Commission.
The section reads as follows:
The Governor in Council shall designate one of the commissioners to be
chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief
commissioner.
8615
Before the amendment provided in Bill C-51, the governor in
council only designated the chief commissioner. Bill C-51 adds
the appointment of the assistant chief commissioner to this
section. The motion I am presenting this afternoon in the House
would involve the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in
the process.
As amended, the section would read as follows:
The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, shall
designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another
commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.
The governor in council appoints the seven commissioners of
the Canadian Grain Commission. Of course, if you want to be
naive-I remember very well how the commissioners were
appointed under the previous government. I have some friends
who sat on the Immigration Commission, and I can assure you
that the Conservative Government did not appoint any Liberals.
These were well-paid jobs. You were paid to work not too hard
for five or six years, depending on the appointment.
The Liberal Party will be no exception. In appointing these
commissioners, it will make sure to select good red
commissioners, making partisan appointments. What we would
suggest is to enhance slightly the role of the MPs sitting on the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Our
proposal is that, within the committee, which is-need we
remind you-dominated by the Liberals, the Liberal Party could
nominate a chief commissioner and an assistant chief
commissioner. The Liberals are in the majority on the
committee, but at least we would get the impression that the
opposition parties had a say in deciding which of the seven
commissioners would make the best chief commissioner.
I sometimes wonder if committees are not used a little bit like
so-called occupational classes in a school, where you stick
less-gifted or motivated students who nevertheless have to
attend school.
But here, if we want our committees to have a degree of
credibility, we must give them responsibilities and roles to play.
With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois would give them some
role to play and slightly reduce this shameless partisanship.
As it currently stands, the clause allows these appointments to
be made unilaterally by the Governor in Council, that is, by the
government.
(1210)
You will understand that it is out of concern for transparency
that I am suggesting that the government consult the appropriate
committee so as to appoint the best qualified people to run the
Canadian Grain Commission.
I think it is only fair to say that the credibility and importance
of the commission are well established. That is why is must raise
above any partisanship and the best qualified individuals,
regardless of their political colour or affiliation, must be put in
charge of it. Such a unilateral approach has often led to
unfortunate situations in the past.
A competent person can be appointed to be chair, only to be
replaced by someone who is a little closer to the party forming
the new government. I imagine that certain very political
positions can only go to people who agree with the government's
policies and can implement them. But I do not feel that CGC
positions fall in this category.
Furthermore, when someone is fired for partisan reasons, the
tab for breaking this person's contract is often picked up by
taxpayers. If this person worked on implementing initiatives, we
hope that the whole process will not come to a stop while we
wait for someone else to be appointed and start carrying out the
new policies.
Several people came to testify before the Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I remember very well one
witness who was very interesting and especially quite eloquent.
A lady told us her story. She said that she used to sit on the CGC
and that she was fired when the former Conservative
government took office. Until we find evidence to the contrary,
the Liberal Party resembles the Conservative Party in all
respects. It will not hesitate either to get rid of someone even if
that person is doing a good job.
The members opposite will respond that they do not engage in
such practices. If all their decisions in situations such as this are
devoid of partisan considerations, they should be happy to shout
it from the rooftops today. As nothing lasts forever, they should
think about their successors who will have total faith in them.
Incidentally, this approach would also avoid many
recriminations since representatives of all political parties
would have their say on who is appointed to these two positions,
in the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In closing, I urge once again all members, at least all members
of the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, to vote in
favour of this motion.
(1215 )
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments on Bill C-51 which is before the House
this morning. Probably the best way is to sum up what this bill is
all about and then I will make a couple of specific comments
about the motion before us.
I would like to quote part of the speech the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food delivered to the House when the bill
was put forward some weeks ago.
8616
The grain industry is changing and the pace of change is accelerating. To remain
competitive in global markets, and global markets are where Canada sells most of its
grain, we need a regulatory and legislative framework which protects the shared
interests of all stakeholders. At the same time it must assist the individuals and groups
within the industry to compete successfully, adding value where possible to their
efforts.
The minister made that statement a number of weeks ago and I
can assure the House and the industry that this very
comprehensive consultation process has taken place as we have
moved through the bill.
As far as the motion that has been put forward is concerned, I
would like to assure the members of the House that as the
government reviews the appointments, we can guarantee that
they will be filled with competent, capable, enthusiastic and
qualified people. When those appointments come along they
will be advertised in the Canada Gazette. There is nothing
prohibiting any member of the industry or anybody else
suggesting that the minister consider someone. There is ample
opportunity for all of that to take place.
However, we must recognize in the final analysis that the
chief commissioner and the commissioners are responsible to
the minister. The best way to ensure that the minister is
comfortable with those appointments is to leave things as they
are at the present time, with the minister having the final say.
But I can assure the House that anyone whose name is put
forward will be reviewed in the same manner as everyone else.
The House does not have to be concerned about the quality,
capability and competency of those with whom the government
fills the positions.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support the amendment brought forward by the hon. member
this morning. From the parliamentary secretary's statement it
seems he really supports the motion as well.
This motion does not take final authority to make the
appointments from cabinet. All the motion does is give the
agriculture standing committee the power to discuss and to
recommend. I do not believe there is any disagreement and the
Liberals should support the amendment.
The amendment allows the agriculture and agri-food
committee to recommend names to cabinet for the Canada
Grains Council's chief and assistant chief commissioners. Our
party supports this because it will allow for discussions to take
place, at least in the standing committee, which is better than
only in cabinet.
Even with a Liberal dominated committee, as the committees
are now, it would still give opposition parties the ability to put
forward suggestions and to talk about the qualifications or the
lack of qualifications of these appointments.
Where Reform and Bloc members do not agree with the
appointments the Liberals are making, we can talk about it in
committee and get some public involvement in the discussion. It
would make it more difficult for government to make
appointments strictly based on patronage. It would take that
aspect out of it to a large extent. At least if the minister did make
appointments strictly based on patronage and the qualifications
of the person appointed were not there, then the public could
make him pay the price because there would be open discussion.
(1220 )
I would like to close by asking a question of the parliamentary
secretary. Who could possibly oppose a motion which will
provide for more discussion of these appointments and still
leave the final authority to appoint with cabinet? I think I heard
the parliamentary secretary say that so why would he or his party
oppose the motion? They should not, based on what he has said.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with care to the member for Frontenac. While I agree with his
sentiments, he is attempting to define a role for the agriculture
committee in the appointment of personnel for boards such as
the grain commission.
In reading the motion carefully I see that the amount of
leeway available to the agriculture committee is very limited.
Essentially all its members will be doing is deciding among the
three to five people who currently are appointed to the
commission which would be the chief commissioner and which
would be the assistant chief. I get that reading in either
language.
Essentially what you will have, even if this becomes part of
the law, is the governor in council or the cabinet appointing the
three to five commissioners. After that process is finished the
agriculture committee or designate would then recommend to
the agriculture minister and to the governor in council, the
cabinet, which of those three to five-however large the
commission happens to be at the choice of the government of the
day-would be the chief commissioner and which would be the
assistants.
That is not particularly important. I have no objection to it
going into the bill but it does not change the power of members
of the committee to decide which of a bunch of Liberal
appointees, Conservative appointees, Reform appointees, or
Bloc appointees might be considered the chief and which would
be the assistant chief in the event that the chief could not act.
I liked the arguments that the hon. member for Frontenac
made when he argued that committees should have more power
in the management of these commissions by proposing names.
Unfortunately that is not what the proposed motion does. It only
picks the three to five appointees and ranks them. That is really
not a very important job even though it might set a bit of a
precedent.
8617
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to my colleague from Frontenac. His
amendment reads:
``4.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural
matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner
and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.''
I think that is the key to a transparent appointment process for
the Canadian Grain Commission and I really see the members
who will oppose it. It also gives the members of the agriculture
and agri-food committee a new role.
The purpose of the amendment submitted by my colleague
from Frontenac is to have good people appointed to the
Commission in a non-partisan way.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1225 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-51, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38,
on page 6, with the following:
``et or receipt relates within one hundred and eighty days after the day on which''.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-51, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 9, on page
11, with the following:
``grain in a licensed primary elevator, licensed terminal elevator or li''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-51, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40, on
page 11, with the following:
``81. (1) With respect to the purchase of western grain from the producer
of that grain, every licensed grain dealer shall, at the prescribed time and in
the prescribed manner,
(a) issue a grain receipt, elevator receipt or cash purchase ticket stating the
grade name, grade and dockage of the grain, and immediately provide it to
the producer, or
(b) where no Canada grade name is applicable to the grain, issue a grain
receipt, elevator receipt or cash purchase ticket stating the type of grain by
name, value of the grain and dockage of the grain, and immediately provide
it to the producer.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, these motions propose to achieve two
things. One is to extend the time that grain may be left in an
elevator before it is priced. In effect it will be extending the time
from 90 to 180 days and provides additional protection to the
farmer who left the grain for storage up to the 180 days.
This is a reduction from the current law in which the
protection lasts for one year. It would cut the time in half. The
effect on farmers is that it forces them to price grain more
quickly than is currently required. Ninety days in my estimation
and in the estimation of a lot of producers is not a great deal of
time. It forces them to unload the grain that has been delivered
to commercial storage to await a price.
Second, Motions Nos. 4 and 5 have the effect of including the
designation, ``elevator receipt'' in the choices of paperwork that
might be engaged in on delivery of grain to the various
receivers.
It is extremely important that an official elevator receipt be
available on demand for the producer. I remind the House that
the elevator receipt means a document in the prescribed form
issued in respect of grain delivered to an elevator
acknowledging receipt of the grain and subject to any conditions
contained therein or in this act, entitling the holder of the
document, who now be the farmer; (a) to delivery of grain of the
same kind, grade and quantity as the grain referred to in the
document or; (b) in the case of a document issued for specially
binned grain, which is another designation under the act, to
deliver the identical grain.
With the inclusion of an elevator receipt we are permitting the
producer to retain the exact amount and type of grain he has
delivered. He has not yet given up ownership of it. He has only
put it in storage and started it into the system.
This is important in the event a grain dealer goes into
bankruptcy. It permits the farmer to extract his grain from the
institution and safeguards against what can only be described as
rip-offs that have occurred in the past.
Prior to the grains act being changed a couple of years ago,
some processors actually accumulated thousands of bushels of
grain and collected credit on them, when bankrupt, using the
grains to relieve some of the elements of their debt. In effect
8618
they were transferring the ownership of that grain from the
farmer to themselves without any money having changed hands.
(1230 )
These amendments are designed to provide adequate
protection for producers who use the wide variety of choices
under the grains act. Therefore no matter what their choice they
would have the same recourse to protection by the demand for
the issuance of an elevator receipt. With my amendments this
would give the producer the protection and knowledge that he
would still be the owner and would still have the right to the sale
of that grain.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak on the three amendments put forth by the hon.
member for Mackenzie.
The purpose of Motion No. 2 is to limit the time period for a
grain dealer to meet the paper requirements to 180 days from the
flexible type of arrangement under the Canada Grain Act right
now. I do believe flexibility is needed.
The Canadian Grain Commission has to be given the power to
set different lengths of time for the different transportation
situations and for the different types of dealers in the industry. It
takes and requires that flexibility. The 180 days would end up
setting a maximum which is too long for some grains and may be
too short in the rare case. Flexibility is needed.
We cannot support this motion because that flexibility is
needed for the commission to operate properly.
The intent of the motion is good. However we must consider
the Canadian Grain Commission's overzealous enforcement in
some cases and its unwise laxness in others as in the case of
ensuring that companies are operating within the bonding level.
While those concerns are there with some of the past dealings of
the Canadian Grain Commission I believe it does need the
flexibility in this case. Therefore we will oppose this motion.
Motion No. 4 adds primary elevators to the list of terminal
and transfer elevators in terms of facilities where the seller will
have top priority. If the company that is operating should
become bankrupt or insolvent the seller has the top priority, the
first right to receive payment for grain that he has in storage in
those facilities. This is a good amendment.
It never did make sense to me that a farmer with grain in an
elevator of a company that went bankrupt and was out of
business would not have the first right to receive payment for his
grain that was sitting in that facility. That is the case right now.
Therefore we do support the amendment.
Motion No. 5 adds the additional stipulation that in cases
where no official Canada grade name is applicable to a grain
under the Canada Grain Act, then the grain dealer shall
immediately issue a receipt stating the name, the value and the
dockage of the grain.
While its intentions are good, this amendment will make it
virtually impossible for speciality crop dealers along with
others to operate. This is especially so in cases where farmers
are loading directly on to a dealer car or a producer car or for
truck pick up in the yard and these shipments are going into the
United States. In cases like that it would make it virtually
impossible for the sellers, the farmers and the dealer to do
business.
(1235)
This recommendation restricts too much. Again the intention
is good in that the concerns the member has are legitimate. In
some cases now grain is being loaded on trucks without a grade
given and without a value assigned.
If that grain does not make it to its destination, what
compensation can the farmer get? What proof has the farmer
that the grain has been shipped other than the bill of lading,
which a farmer should get from a trucker before loading?
In the case of loading directly on a rail car, whether it be a
dealer car or a producer car, it is just a copy of the paperwork
that the farmer sends to the company and the Canadian Grain
Commission. The company they are dealing with has not really
been verified by anyone. How much weight would that carry in
legal terms? Probably very little.
In practical terms, how is the farmer going to weigh the grain
that goes on to the car? How is the farmer going to weigh the
grain that is put on a truck and is moving into the United States?
There is no practical way.
The cars of course are weighed when they go over the first
scale on the track but in terms of grade and dockage, that has to
be determined from the spill. In case of a spill, samples can be
taken from the product.
My personal experience with this is from people I have talked
to who have had spills. One happened a couple of years ago by
Innisfree in my constituency. The farmer felt that the
compensation was fair. Dockage and grade was taken from the
spill. A weight had not been taken but the farmer was paid out at
the maximum load that was allowed on the car. Therefore the
railways have treated farmers fairly in this regard.
For those reasons I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was
listening to the last debate and I wanted to clarify which motions
had been grouped. My understanding is that it was Motions Nos.
2, 4 and 5. I believe the hon. member was talking about Motion
No. 6. It confuses the debate to have him opposing something we
may not yet be talking about.
8619
The Deputy Speaker: The member is correct that it is
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5. It is very difficult for members I am
sure to keep track of what motion we are discussing.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Motions Nos. 5
and 6 do deal with a very similar topic area, but the member is
absolutely correct. I just spoke on Motion No. 6. A lot of the
same rationale does apply to Motion No. 5. It is virtually the
same rationale except we are not talking about transportation.
We are talking about paperwork. The debate I have just given
applies if it is translated to paperwork instead of transportation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to address Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Canada
Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to
that Act. As you know, the Canadian Grain Commission has the
responsibility to guarantee to purchasers of Canadian grain the
quality and the quantity that they order, and to ensure the
reliability and the wholesomeness of products intended for
domestic and foreign markets.
The government wanted to give more operational flexibility
to the commission by amending the act. The amendments
include changes to the current provisions on licensing and
security. The Official Opposition tabled a motion regarding the
appointment of the commissioners to the Canadian Grain
Commission. Let me tell you that the public has had enough of
partisan appointments and is tired of seeing heads roll as soon as
a new government takes office.
The amendment to clause 2, which will be discussed more
thoroughly later on by a colleague of mine, must be adopted for
reasons of transparency. Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, tabled by the
NDP, deserve some consideration.
(1240)
The hon. member for Mackenzie proposes that the deadline
set in clause 12 be changed. We cannot accept that amendment.
The Canadian Grain Commission requires producers to do
what is necessary to get paid for their grain, within 90 days of
delivery to an elevator operator or a grain dealer. After this
90-day period, a producer who did not get paid has 30 days to
notify the commission. The 90-day period is fixed by
regulation.
In its amendment, the NDP proposes to set that period at 180
days in the act. Thus, it would no longer be possible to change
that period by regulation. The Canadian Grain Commission
would see its flexibility to ensure payment for the grain within a
reasonable period of time and especially to avoid bankruptcy be
reduced.
Do we need to remind the NDP that this time limit was set up
following a Federal Court ruling in 1990, which held the
Canadian Grain Commission responsible for the bankruptcy of
two of its licensees? The security given by these two licensees
was not enough and the taxpayers had to make up the difference,
which came to $3.8 million in this case.
Let us just say that it would be better to avoid such incidents
from now on. The 90-day time limit provided for in the
regulations seems fair. This is why we urge members to vote
against this motion.
Motion No. 4 to amend Clause 19 is inappropriate, since we
are not talking about the same type of elevator receipts. In the
case of terminal elevators or transfer elevators, a receipt can be
resold. The last holder has the priority to receive the grain.
However, in the case of a primary elevator, the purchase or the
sale is handled directly by the producer and the terminal
operator.
The elevator receipts are redeemable immediately. Even the
Canadian Grain Commission does not see the need to add
primary elevators to Clause 19 of this bill, because we are not
talking about the same type of transactions.
In Motion No. 5 concerning Clause 22, the NDP proposes that
the commonly used name of some types of grain be stated on the
grain receipt, or the elevator receipt, if no Canada grade name is
applicable to the grain. After checking with the Canadian Grain
Commission, it seems that almost every grain has a Canada
grade name, even though it is not always well known.
The amendment as proposed by the NDP could cause even
more serious administrative problems than if everybody used
the grade names. Greater responsibility is imposed on grain
producers and operators to state the grade name, grade and
dockage of the grain in order to help assess the value of the
grain.
Anyway, the Commission can exempt an elevator operation
from using the grade. If the Commission releases the lesser
known grades of some grains, people should be able to manage.
In this case, we do not think the bill needs to be amended in this
way.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments on these three motions.
First I will comment on Motion No. 2. As has already been
said this motion which has been put forward by the member for
Mackenzie sets out a definite date on which settlement would
have to be made. Other members have commented today that
there needs to be some flexibility. After a long period of
consultation which has taken place on this the industry feels it
should be 90 days. That is why it is there. If we were to prescribe
in the bill that there be a set number of days, no matter what that
was, there would be difficulty in the future. If the industry
8620
deemed it should change, it would take a change in the
legislation to do so.
(1245 )
By doing this in 90 days, as will be suggested and done by the
commission without having been carved in stone in the
legislation, one of the things we have to keep in mind is to keep
the money getting to the producers as quickly as it possibly can.
If the producers were allowed to leave their grain in an elevator
for a longer period of time those elevator operators would
probably have to have a greater amount of security posted at all
times because of the volume that might be there.
Also, we want to get the dollars back to the producers as
quickly as we can. We do not want to put the temptation out there
for producers to leave the grain in the elevator a long period of
time and start using it as a storage facility to hold their product
so they might be able to speculate on the market as it goes along
and maybe have some distorting influence on the price of the
market.
We certainly cannot support Motion No. 2 for those reasons if
no others.
On Motion No. 4, I want to point out to the member for
Mackenzie that if he looks at section 112 of the act it already
provides protection for the holders of primary elevator receipts.
The section that he is referring to or suggesting that they make
an amendment to is the section that deals only with terminal and
transfer elevators. The provision that the member is requesting
is looked after.
The member for Vegreville raised the issue that the producers
should have first claim. The producer does have first claim. The
producers have first claim in any situation if the producers still
maintain their receipt. If the producers wish to assign their
receipt to somebody else well that may very well differ the
situation. The producers do have first claim as long as they have
that receipt.
Motion No. 5 refers to the use of grades on a receipt when it is
received. What we want to avoid here is the temptation that has
been there in the past to not list the grade name. The elevator
operator in the past, when they did not have to list the grade
name, it was not necessary that they post security for that
product in the elevator.
We want to close that loop and close that possible gap, also
recognizing that there may be times when that has to take place
and that can take place and that the grade name does not have to
be there. The elevator operator in that case, if it were a feed
grain or something, could have that without a described grade on
it providing that they agree with the commission that they
provide security so there would have to be specific recognition
and co-operation made in that case.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. All
those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a
recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
(1250)
The next question is on Motion No. 4. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. The
motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 3, 7 and 8 will be
grouped for debate but voted on as follows: Motion No. 3 will be
voted on separately; a vote on Motion No. 7 applies to Motion
No. 8.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-51, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 15, on
page 8, the following:
``49.2 (1) A person who proposes to operate a primary or process
elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer without being licensed under
this Act may apply to the Commission to be exempted by order under
paragraph 117(b) from the requirement to be licensed.
(2) Unless the Commission has reason to believe that the elevator is not
suited to handling grain or that the person is not a suitable person to carry
on business as a grain dealer, the Commission shall make an order under
paragraph 117(b) exempting the person from the requirement to be licensed.
8621
(3) A person who is exempted from being licensed under subsection (2) shall display
prominently a statement in the prescribed form that the person is not licensed under the
Canada Grain Act to operate an elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer
(a) at every place of business operated by that person at which a contract for
the delivery of grain may be executed;
(b) at every place where grain may be delivered to the person as an elevator
operator or grain dealer; and
(c) on every document that is, relates to or solicits a contract to deliver or
handle grain.''
(4) Section 83 does not apply to a person who is exempted from being
licensed under subsection (2).
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-51, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 15, on page
15.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
these three motions which have been put forward by the Reform
Party.
The purpose of Motion No. 3 is to allow grain dealers or the
operators of primary or process elevators the ability to opt out of
licensing under the Canada Grain Act. This amendment would
remove from these operators all of the requirements and
restrictions under the Canada Grain Act.
This amendment also imposes certain conditions for opting
out to make sure that it is very clear to people using these
services that this particular dealer or elevator operator is not
licensed and therefore meets no bonding requirements under the
Canada Grain Act. That is an important protection which I think
is necessary to make this opting out work.
The Canadian Grains Commission must allow the opt out on
the part of the dealer unless it can show good reason that this
person should not be allowed to carry on business or that the
facility is not a proper facility to carry on a business.
All we are talking about there is the individual who is
applying to carry on business should have a good credit rating,
one that would not interfere with allowing him to carry on a
business, and should not have a criminal record which would
restrict him, which the commission would feel would not allow
him to carry on his own business.
Those are the only restrictions. Barring those restrictions an
individual who wants to opt out should be allowed to opt out.
This amendment would also allow those who have opted out
to deal under the Canadian Grains Commission with grading and
inspection services, to use its services. Unfortunately, it was not
possible as far as I could tell to make this amendment require
that the Canadian Grains Commission allow these opted out
individuals to use its inspection and grading services. I would
hope that the Canadian Grains Commission would feel an
obligation because these people are in the grains industry and
the Canadian Grains Commission says it is important to have the
integrity in our business by having grading and inspection
services. I would hope that the Canadian Grains Commission
would allow for this grading and inspection even for those who
have opted out.
(1255)
That is the purpose of this amendment and I believe that it
would allow these opted out people to operate. They can of
course provide security on their own through some type of
private insurance, some type of bonding. It would also allow
groups like the special grains people who have expressed a real
concern with this bill to opt out and then, especially small
dealers, opt out as a group and form their own group, put their
own bonding or insurance in place. They could be under the
umbrella of a special grains group for example. It would allow
these individuals to operate still using official Canada grain
names where it applies.
I believe the purpose of this amendment would be allowed
under these changes. Still, it would depend on the goodwill of
the Canadian Grains Commission to allow for the grading and
inspection services to be used because these people would have
opted out completely from the requirements under the Canada
Grains Act. That briefly is amendment number three. The hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is going to speak later
specifically about the special grains end of it later.
I think we can talk about Motions Nos. 7 and 8 together. Both
of these motions are simply there to delete the changes that have
been made through Bill C-51 to the act. What it would do is have
these sections revert to the old language of the Canada Grains
Act which does not specifically state that the governor in
council, the cabinet, has the power to overrule the Canadian
Grains Commission in these areas.
These two changes that were put into the Canada Grain Act
under Bill C-51 specifically state that cabinet does have the
power to overrule the Canadian Grains Commission.
It is political interference with a body that is supposed to be an
arm's length body, a regulatory body. Those who are in favour of
making the change under Bill C-51 which gives the cabinet the
final say state that really all it does is give cabinet a power that it
has over the entire Canada Grain Act anyway. That is true to
some extent because the cabinet does have control. The minister
and the cabinet do have control of the Canada Grain Act.
When I was in committee my question to the people in the
Canadian Grains Commission who administer this act was why
put these amendments in Bill C-51 which specifically
designates this power to cabinet. I was given no answer.
8622
All I am asking is that these powers which are specified under
these section of Bill C-51 are again left out as they originally
were in the act. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party would
oppose this change. I would like to trust that the exclusion of
this was an oversight on the part of the people who drafted this
new legislation. The only other reason for adding it is to give
cabinet hands on, more direct control over the Canadian Grains
Commission in these specific areas of the act. That is the only
reason to leave them in.
I would ask for support from all parties in the House.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
speak to the House about Bill C-51 and the grouping of motions
3, 7 and 8. I will start with Motion No. 3. This motion presented
by the member for Vegreville is the result of complaints voiced
by western producers, in particular special crop dealers. I
understand that the purpose of this motion is to make it possible
for elevator operators or grain dealers to be exempted from the
obligation to hold a licence for selling or buying grain.
Before voting on the motion, we must consider the sections
involved, as they appear in Bill C-51. According to what was
explained to us, we understand that the amendment proposed by
the bill is aimed at reinforcing the obligation to hold a licence.
Bill C-51 clearly and explicitly prohibits the sale and purchase
of grain without a licence. If a producer deals with an unlicensed
merchant and if the latter goes bankrupt, the producer will
receive no compensation from the CGC. Therefore, he does so at
his own risk. The situation which led the CGC to include this
provision in the bill could roughly be described as follows:
Certain new elevator operators are in the business of cleaning
grain from special crops; their neighbours, too, find it practical
to deal with them because they are closer and, possibly, because
it is cheaper since they are not licensed, thus saving on
license-related costs.
These costs can amount to as much as $20,000 a year.
Eventually, the elevator operators offer to act as intermediaries
for their customers and sell the grain they cleaned. It seems that
there is some uncertainty in the act that would make this
possible. This is why the government wants to go ahead and
clarify this provision. The motion before us now would make it
possible for small operators to be exempted from the obligation
to hold a licence, thus allowing them to save the costs associated
with such a licence.
At the present time, all elevator operators and traditional
grain dealers hold a licence certifying that they meet CGC
standards. The commission prohibits anyone without a licence
from buying or selling grain. The CGC demands that licensees
post bonds equal to the value of their highest monthly
transactions. The reason for this is very simple. If they want to
deal in grains, they have to prove that they have the financial
capacity to do so.
There is a system of securities guaranteeing payment of
delivered grains in the event of bankruptcy of the elevator
operator or grain dealer. In the past, the CGC, and consequently
taxpayers, had to pay for shipments made to two elevator
operators who went bankrupt. The cost was $3.8 million. The
motion by the hon. member for Vegreville would be especially
worthwhile for special crops since the government intends to
introduce a bill on that subject in the spring.
I suppose that we could then include a provision to that effect.
What concerns me about the motion of the Reform Party is that it
could lead to deregulation of the industry. With this motion,
those who would apply for a licence exemption would get it
unless the CGC proves that the elevator is not suitable for grain
processing.
Given the cost of a licence, well-established companies, like
Cargill, could ask to be exempted and the commission would be
unable to refuse. Consequently, despite the underlying good
intention of the motion, I must reject it because of the risk of
deregulation.
As for Motions Nos. 7 and 8, grouped together, they puzzle
me. They are mainly technical in nature. Lines 9 to 15 in clause
33, and clause 34 have been added to the bill to allow the CGC to
change grade names more quickly. Removing these would block
the process. I will therefore oppose the motion.
(1305)
The confusion started in 1988 when the CGC wanted to be
able to react more quickly when new grades were needed. An
amendment allowing for the creation of grades and grade names
by regulation was adopted in 1988. Although the amendment
dealt only with grades and grade names, the approval of the
Governor in Council was needed. From 1990 to 1993, the CGC
used an invalid procedure to modify grades and grade names of
grains. Prior to 1988, grades and grade names were specified in a
schedule to the act and could be modified only by legislative
amendment.
According to lawyers, a regulation made without Governor in
Council approval cannot be implemented. The CGC did not see
fit to have Sections 33 and 34 exempted from Governor in
Council approval in order to speed up the process. Therefore, I
will oppose the motion because we must abide by the law and
also for the sake of efficiency.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to the Reform motions that
would amend the Canada Grain Act. I particularly want to speak
as they concern the special crop industry.
8623
I have spoken about the matter before in the House. I have a
very relevant concern in that it is a growing industry in my
constituency of Kindersley-Lloydminster. It is one of the
bright spots in the agricultural industry throughout at least
western Canada and possibly other parts of the country as well.
There have been a couple of minor problems, not minor for
those involved but minor in the scope of the entire industry. Two
facilities ran into disrepute. The one in my constituency was the
Klemmer seed company and the other was Pro Star. The
producers that delivered to these companies were not adequately
protected.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food is also aware of some of these concerns and
problems. It may be part of the reason some of the current
amendments are put forward to amend the Canada Grain Act.
However there have been discussions with the industry and it is
proposing further changes in the form of a new special crops act
that would adequately protect those who deal with this new and
growing industry.
In the interim Motion No. 3 would, temporarily at least and
ongoing if we did not change the act, allow special crop
producers to opt out of the auspices of the Canada Grain Act
which was first passed about 1912 and really does not fit the
needs of the industry, because they are not Cargill, the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or United Grain Growers. They are
much smaller operators, almost taking the form of family farm
operations in many instances. They not only provide valuable
services to the special crops act but they are extending the
viability of many rural communities through employment
opportunities and through service to local producers in those
areas.
The industry is a very conscientious industry and is promoting
changes and regulations to protect producers. It needs time for
the government to enact a special crops act so it can function and
protect producers who deal with the industry.
Motion No. 3 would allow them to opt out of the auspices of
the Canada Grain Act. That is not something that is unheard of in
the current situation. For instance, right now feedlots which buy
a lot of grain are able to opt out. They must clearly indicate that
they are not under the constraints of the Canada Grain Act.
The hon. member for Vegreville has indicated that the same
provision should be made available to other players in the
industry. They must clearly indicate that they are not under the
auspices of the Canada Grain Act so that those who would deal
with operations such as Klemmer and Pro Star would not be
under any illusions that they were being protected by the Canada
Grain Act.
(1310 )
There have been a lot of allegations of political interference
particularly in the Klemmer case. We may never know the full
story behind that situation, but it is clear producers must be
aware of where they are protected by the Canadian Grain
Commission and where they are not protected.
With this motion the hon. member for Vegreville is
attempting to clarify that and allow the special grains people to
opt out so they can bring in their own special crops act, which
would clearly protect producers who deal with them. Unlicensed
individuals may still buy and sell using Canadian Grain
Commission approved grade names if the commission would
agree. It could perhaps even charge a modest user fee to provide
that service.
As far as Motions Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, they apparently
clarify and revert to how the old act was structured. The
amendments as put forward in Bill C-51 would clarify and give
far more power to cabinet or to order in council decisions
affecting the Canadian Grain Commission. If anything, we
should be moving the other way where this quasi-judicial body
would be at arm's length and cabinet would not be interfering in
the daily work of the Canadian Grain Commission.
I also ask the House to consider support for Motions Nos. 7
and 8 so we can have better legislation to facilitate the work of
the industry and we can see it progress rather than revert to the
days of 1912.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments on the three motions before us in this
grouping, the first one being Motion No. 3.
I have to question something because I cannot quite figure out
where Reformers are coming from when they talk about wanting
some people to opt out. They want the Canadian Grain
Commission to make the decision on whether somebody can opt
out or cannot opt out. Let us look at the practical application of
that. If someone asked for permission to opt out and the
Canadian Grain Commission thought there might be some
requirement for the elevator or operator and it was not totally
satisfied the security was there without a legal bonding or
security being posted, the commission could say that he should
not opt out. What message does that send?
In other cases, as has been mentioned, some larger grain
companies that might be considered to have all kinds of backing
could opt out. As the member from the Bloc said, I could see a
total breakdown in regulation and therefore deregulation of who
was secure and who was not secure.
Having farmed for many years myself, not in the west
admittedly but taking grains to elevators, I know farmers are
busy. There is an assumption that if we know some elevators
8624
have bonding or security we assume that probably others do. We
could end up in a situation where an elevator had security posted
and 20 or 30 miles away an elevator might have security posted
because it chose to.
It is certainly not the intention of the government to leave in
place a situation where everybody is not treated in the same way.
Hopefully it will be some comfort to members that the Canadian
Grain Commission realizes every operator out there does not do
the same amount of business. They may not have a large volume
of product in their facility or on their site at any one time. There
is work being done as far as how smaller operators can
collectively post bond or securities so they can be covered. We
have to remember that.
What would it do as far as competitiveness between dealers or
elevator operators is concerned if one had further costs due to
posting security and another one down the road, 100 miles away
or even 10 miles away, did not have those costs? It is certainly
our intention to treat everybody fairly. It is not our intention at
this time to encourage or to allow some dealers to be in the
system and some dealers to be out.
(1315)
In reference to the comments from the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister as far as special grains, he is right.
The government is working with the industry to put a special act
in place to cover those, the peculiarities and specific
requirements there. There was some concern that we do it in Bill
C-51 but the general feeling was that there were some things in
this bill that we could and should do and get out of the way rather
than holding all those things up. I see the member is nodding his
head yes, get those done and then work with the special crops
people to look after their needs which are otherwise there.
As far as Motions Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, again I find the
comments from Reform Party members confusing. It seems that
if members of that party have questions on something that has
happened in agriculture they do not like, the first person they
turn to is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and ask:
``Why did you allow that to happen? It is in your ministry, your
department. Why did you allow that to happen?''
What we are asking here and what it does is it gives the
minister the final say, the governor in council. The minister
would have an opportunity to comment on it. It gives the
minister the final say on these types of actions and that is where
the responsibility is going to end up.
The intention is not to get into the day to day operations of the
commission. If there are questions, these things will have had to
be approved by the minister and the governor in council. This
will enable the answering of questions the Reform Party seems
to be in the habit of asking the minister as to why he allowed
something to happen. It gives the minister the opportunity to
review those types of decisions before they happen.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
just a few short words on these amendments.
Motion No. 3 proposes to allow people who operate a primary
or process elevator or who carry on business as a grain dealer
without being licensed under this act to apply to the commission
to be exempted under paragraph 17(b) of the act. In effect it sets
out a class that is not particularly well defined which may apply
for exemption under the Canada Grain Act. That is probably
rather dangerous for us.
We would probably be better to await a specialty crops act and
deal with these kinds of issues properly. There is the possibility
for the kind of anomaly that was raised by our friends from the
Bloc. One of the large players might decide to opt out. It would
make the whole marketing practice that Canada has been
engaged in since the turn of the century very suspect.
What we have now is a system where product identification is
absolutely secure. It is guaranteed in Canada. This is one of the
tools that Canada has used for almost 100 years to break into
markets. We are the quality product. We have made Canadian
grains similar to what the Mercedes Benz is to cars.
We have to take some care in allowing people to opt out. I am
sure that McDonald's would not permit some of its franchisees
to opt out and still go on selling Big Macs. We have not
designated with this opting out process whether Canada No. 1
can still be sold as Canada No. 1 even though there is a
disclaimer on the bill of lading saying that the dealer did not
comply with the Canada Grain Act. Customers are not going to
understand this. It is only going to reflect badly on all Canadian
farm produce. We would be just as well to stay away from it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1320 )
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
8625
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-51, in Clause 25, be amended
(a) by replacing line 16, on page 12, with the following:
``84. (1) Except with the written permission of'';
(b) by adding after line 24, on page 12, the following:
``(2) Except with the written permission of the Commission or in
accordance with prescribed terms and conditions, no public carrier shall
transport grain unless it has first been weighed, the dockage established and
the quality designated.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, technically this motion divides what is
now section 84 in the act. The bill we have in front of us
proposes to amend section 84 in the act into subsections (1) and
(2). In clause 25 of the bill before us now it would become
subsection 84(1) and we would add a subsection (2) which
would read:
(2) Except with the written permission of the commission or in
accordance with the prescribed terms and conditions, no public carrier shall
transport grain unless it has first been weighed, the dockage established and
the quality designated.
There are two reasons for this. One is to make it easier to track
grains that might be subject to bankruptcy procedure and as well
to look forward to the new technology which is now being
introduced into western Canada. It is the portable elevator which
is a very large tandem truck with two units behind it. It has the
ability to weigh grain as it goes in. The truck driver does the
dockage testing and provides a grade. It makes certain that
particular process which some companies are now engaged in is
done in a way that provides the kind of paperwork transactions
that will protect the producer.
The prospect of watching 2,000 bushels of flax or peas walk
off the farm maybe to disappear without the proper paperwork in
the event that particular grain dealer turns out to not have been
properly bonded is not one a farmer looks forward to. This
attempts to address that by requiring these kinds of operations to
do the same paperwork as elevators do.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a few comments on Motion No. 6. The purpose of
this motion is to add to transportation requirements for grain
being shipped out of Canada the stipulation that unless an
exemption has been provided for under the act which is already
available, that the seller of the grain, the farmers in most cases,
be provided with documentation stating the weight, dockage and
quality of the grain. That is the intent.
(1325 )
There is a concern no doubt that when farmers load their
trucks, as the hon. member just explained, not knowing the
grade, the weight and the dockage then they are trusting that the
people at the other end will give the proper payment for the
commodity. That is a concern. Who would like to see a truckload
containing $10,000 or $20,000 worth of commodity in extreme
cases going out of the yard and not knowing exactly what they
are going to be paid for?
However, I believe this amendment does not provide a
solution. Instead, for farmers and businesses that are operating
in this way with pickups on the farm or by producer cars, dealer
cars, rail cars, it would make it very difficult if not virtually
impossible for them to operate.
While I would like to know that every time farmers are
shipping a load of grain off the farm they know they are getting
paid for it, if we look at the practicalities it just is not possible.
We have to recognize that. For that reason I oppose the
amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member
for Mackenzie is to add standards for public carriers. It would
prescribe that grain carried by a public carrier must first have
been weighed and cleaned and its quality designated.
According to the Canadian Grain Commission, no amendment
is necessary since this is already being done in most cases and
always when grain is destined for human consumption.
As a result of the proposed amendment, smaller producers
who ship feed grain would see their costs increase
unnecessarily. If there had been complaints that the quality of
feed grain was below acceptable levels, the motion would be
justified. Since that is not the case, at least as far as I know, I do
not think it would be useful to oblige producers to spend more on
precautions that are absolutely unnecessary. If most of these
producers happen to use private carriers and the motion
therefore does not affect them, it will then have no effect at all,
since public carriers would only carry grain for human
consumption.
According to the Canadian Grain Commission, this grain is
already cleaned and weighed and its quality designated. So we
have their guarantee that grain for our own consumption is
8626
being handled in the way specified by the hon. member for the
New Democratic Party.
Furthermore, if small producers also have to conform to these
procedures, their costs will go up, although we have no reason to
believe they should be more regulated than they already are.
And if they use private carriers, they will not be affected.
I therefore fail to see the relevance of the motion presented by
the hon. member for Mackenzie. That is why the Bloc Quebecois
will not support the motion, since all wheat for human
consumption is very well regulated and perfectly safe.
(1330)
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say at
the outset that the government does not have any intention of
supporting the motion. I will give a few of the reasons for it.
There is no question in my mind that what is said in the motion is
a bit confusing versus what may or may not be its intent.
It would have a definite impact in the industry of slowing
down the movement of grain whether transported by truck,
producer car or dealer car. Therefore it would increase the cost
to producers, which is certainly not the intention of the
government.
At the present time the weight, the grade and the dockage
content of grain delivered by a producer or dealer car are
immediately determined at the unload. That is the system. To
have to do that as the car or truck is being unloaded would
certainly slow things up and add a cost. It would also put an
additional obligation on the public carriers to have with them at
all times the documentation on the grade and dockage. It would
shift some of the responsibility to public carriers for having the
documentation available at all times.
In practical terms, the motion would mean that when a
truckload of grain to be delivered to a local feed mill was loaded
by the producer on the farm it would have to be graded. The
dockage, the weight and everything would have to be with it to
take a load of grain to a local feed mill. That would be absolutely
unnecessary. It would be cumbersome. It would slow everything
up and be expensive.
We do not intend to support the motion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion negatived.)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill now
before the House.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
[English]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for
not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek
unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 2
p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to suspend
the sitting of the House until 2 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.35 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
8626
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Guelph-Wellington is enriched daily by the
contributions of our seniors. We can all learn from their
experience and are fortunate to have many seniors as important
members of our communities.
Unfortunately as time passes, it becomes more and more
difficult for some seniors to care for themselves and each other
8627
in their homes. I congratulate organizations like
Meals-on-Wheels, the Victoria Order of Nurses and Life Line
that are active throughout Guelph-Wellington and that help our
seniors stay in their homes for as long as possible.
Growing old should not mean having to leave the family
home. Governments at all levels should encourage our seniors to
remain in the family home where memories and stability
provide comfort and support. We owe them no less than this.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an
Ontario judge has ruled that General Motors Corp. did not act
properly when it fired a supervisor for using offensive language
and making sexual innuendos in the presence of five subordinate
female employees. According to the judge, sexually explicit
language was the norm in the GM security service.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois are concerned about the
implications of such a decision on present and future cases when
they go to trial. This decision implies that sexual harassment
cannot be invoked when the culture of a given service or
company allows this type of behaviour.
In 1987, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly established, in
the Robichaud case, that employers are responsible for sexual
harassment in the work place. The decision of this Ontario judge
reduces the scope of the Supreme Court decision, and we find
that regrettable.
This decision is a step backward in our fight for zero tolerance
of sexual assault against women. We must oppose it.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and
to say on behalf of my caucus how pleased we are that he is
recuperating.
When I arrived at Edmonton International Airport on
Thursday evening I received the news of his frightening illness.
I was stunned, as were all Canadians. I lay awake almost all
night thinking of him, praying that he would live through the
night and that the doctors treating him would have real wisdom.
I will always remember the years that the Leader of the
Opposition and I sat side by side in the House, from the summer
of 1990 until the election of 1993. We talked about the birth of
his two sons, Alexandre and Simon. His eyes would light up
when he spoke of them, of the incredible joy they have brought
to him and his wife, Audrey.
This disease ravages those whom it affects. Mr. Bouchard's
life has been spared and it seems nothing short of miraculous.
Good luck, Lucien. We continue to pray for your recovery.
God bless you.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent trade mission the government led to the People's
Republic of China has been a great success.
One of the agreements signed by Canadian business while in
China was the building of an ethanol plant. The people of China
will benefit greatly from ethanol. So will the environment of
Asia, Chinese farmers and industry. This technology can also
benefit Canada.
The proposed ethanol plant to be located at Chatham, Ontario
will ensure that this country does not have to rely on foreign
produced ethanol and, as in China, our agricultural industry will
be able to count on a stable consumer of corn.
Ethanol makes economic and environmental sense. I praise
the Chinese government for showing interest in this technology.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is a winner.
Prairie farmers have overwhelmingly demonstrated their
confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board by electing 10 strong
supporters of the agency to its 11 member advisory board. They
have rejected the efforts of a small but vocal group that wanted
to weaken the board and implement a dual marketing system.
Their vote was a sweeping endorsement of the board and single
desk selling.
It is a recognition of the outstanding job that the wheat board
has done selling Canadian grain, expanding export markets and
working with farmers to make Canada a world leader in
agricultural production.
The message from farmers is clear. The future of Canadian
agriculture must include a strong Canadian Wheat Board.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent subcommittee report highlighted our under
usage of the St. Lawrence seaway system.
It is my hope the justice department will approve the proposal
submitted to it by interested operators to allow cruise ships to
sail the lakes. With 14 million Americans within a one-hour
8628
drive of my riding I would welcome approval to allow them to
enter Canada to enjoy the pleasure of sailing the lakes.
This is an opportunity for the federal government to see a tidal
wave of American tourist dollars enter Canada, with a resulting
spin-off being increased employment in our hospitality
industries.
Skagway, Alaska with a population of 700 people welcomes
300,000 people each summer from cruise ships. Ports of all sizes
along the Great Lakes would welcome the same level of
prosperity if timely approval is given.
The Great Lakes Conference of Mayors recognized the
potential of this industry more than a year ago. I urge the
departments of justice and finance to move this concept to the
approval stage quickly before our American neighbours control
this industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in Montreal, 200 students and unemployed young
people came to tell the Minister for Human Resources
Development how deeply disappointed they were by the social
program reform the Liberal government is trying to impose on
them.
These young people, full of energy and eager to work,
denounced the cynicism and lack of action of the minister who
claims that he is powerless to stem the rising unemployment
rate.
These young people strongly criticized the reform which is
trying to save money at their expense, going ahead without the
provinces' consent, and turns a deaf ear to Quebec's demand to
take over manpower training.
These young people refuse to have imposed on them a reform
which endangers their future and cuts social benefits hard-won
by previous generations. The results of the public consultation
are loud and clear: the proposed reform is unacceptable and
young people reject it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the business community is near consensus. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business declared its
research consistently shows that small and medium sized
businesses advocate the complete elimination of all grants and
subsidies to businesses and associations. Yet the Liberals
continually insist they are helping small business through
regional development.
The Business Council on National Issues had but one
suggestion for the federal government: ``Just say no''. The
Canadian Aerospace Industry said: ``We have seen attempts to
create pseudo-competition by region in this county by pitting
companies against each other supported by tax dollars. This has
resulted in wasted energy, misguided marketing, lost
opportunity, squandered money, and all too frequently, failed
enterprises''.
If the minister will not eliminate regional development he
might as well amalgamate the regional development programs.
He could then create a new crown corporation called ``Pork
Barrel Incorporated''.
* * *
(1405 )
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently in
my riding of Brant, we have witnessed a successful and
important example of intergovernmental co-operation.
The town of Paris has recognized that its police station is
outmoded and can no longer effectively meet the town's needs.
Meanwhile, Canada Post, while continuing to serve the rural and
urban residents of the area, has been under utilizing its large
building in the downtown core.
After successful negotiations, the town of Paris and Canada
Post have reached an agreement under which the town will
renovate the old post office into a new and modern police station
with the help of infrastructure money, which I might add is
another product of intergovernmental co-operation. Canada
Post will find a more suitable and cost-effective location to
continue its service to the town.
I would like to congratulate the council of the town of Paris
and in particular, Mayor Bawcutt, for identifying and
implementing this common sense deal. I would also like to
recognize Canada Post for its effective resource management
and its commitment to the betterment of our local communities.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
delighted to see a draft memorandum of understanding between
Nunavut Arctic College, which is based in Iqaluit, and Trent
University in Peterborough. It provides for the development of
mutual accreditation of courses, exchanges of faculty, students
and staff and the development of other joint programs.
It also provides for the participation of the Nunavut
Implementation Commission, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
and other bodies in the development of post-secondary
education in Nunavut.
8629
Trent has the longest established native studies program in
Canada. Many students from the NWT have already studied in
that program and other programs at Trent University.
This new agreement formalizes two-way co-operation. I
congratulate those involved and look forward to working with
the member for Nunatsiaq on projects related to the agreement.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on November 21 my colleague, the member for Cape
Breton-The Sydneys, spoke eloquently in the House about the
importance of gun control to women.
He pointed out that a woman is shot to death every five days in
Canada, half of those by a partner, 78 per cent with legally
owned weapons.
I believe that most members of Parliament want to see an end
to violence against women and yet offhand comments in the
House and elsewhere call into question our commitment. As the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke on that
day, another member, like a little boy playing with a pretend
gun, said: ``pow, pow, pow''.
Such comments are a tragic betrayal of the hopes of women
for a better and safer country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after hours of anguish, we learned with tremendous
relief that Lucien Bouchard was out of danger. We now hope that
he can rest and recover at his own rate.
Speaking for the parliamentary wing of the Bloc Quebecois, I
want to thank everybody and the members of this House for their
fantastic messages of support and encouragement.
I also want to express our admiration for the Saint-Luc
Hospital medical team, for its unbelievable expertise and
dedication. Finally, on behalf of all of us, I want to stress the
courage and composure of his wife, Audrey, who stood by his
side every minute of this terrible tragedy, surrounding him with
her loving presence. She, too, deserves all our admiration.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada must stop the folly of regional policy. The Liberals
continue their borrowing ways and the pork barrel rolls on and
on. It is time to jump over the barrel.
Canada could learn from experiences around the world where
these programs have failed miserably. The government knows
regional development programs are doomed to fail, yet the
practice continues.
The finance minister's budget will be quite telling. Will it be
business as usual or will the minister heed the Reform message?
Western economic diversification has not diversified the
western economy. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is
not creating opportunity. The Federal Office of Regional
Development is not developing regions in Quebec.
Since their inception, these agencies impoverished the
Canadian taxpayer to the tune of about $1 billion a year. It is
time to end the folly of regional policy.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to wish the Leader of the
Opposition a speedy recovery.
Setting aside partisan rhetoric and the constitutional
differences of opinion that oppose us, all my colleagues from the
Liberal Party join me in telling the Leader of the Opposition that
he is in our thoughts as he goes through what must certainly be
the most difficult time of his life. We also wish his wife,
children and family the courage to see him through this ordeal.
The words of support that flood in from all parts testify to the
great parliamentary qualities of the Leader of the Opposition.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish for the speedy return of the
Leader of the Opposition among us, here in this House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the anniversary of the Montreal massacre.
8630
Today I will not talk of the increased incidents of violence
against women reported, nor will I talk about how only 18 per
cent of the guns used to kill women were illegally owned.
Instead today I would like us to take one minute to remember
the women who were killed that day. We remember the killer's
name, but the women are faceless to most of us and just a
number, 14.
Tomorrow I would like us to take a minute to remember,
Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Natalie Croteau, Barbara
Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara
Maria Klucznik, Maryse Laganiere, Maryse Leclaire, Anne
Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie
St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.
Violence against women is not just a women's issue. Violence
against women affects all of us.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
serious issue of women's health has yet to be addressed by the
government and that is the question of breast implants.
This issue was raised during the mandate of the former
government and continues to be a serious issue related to the
health of women.
Several organizations across the country of breast implant
support groups have been formed and have been asking for
assistance to make sure information is available to women who
have had breast implants, that there is equal access to surgery for
removal of breast implants and access to good primary care.
I call on the government to address this serious women's
health issue, to respond to these groups that are requesting
assistance and to look into the moratorium on breast implants
which has not seen an end of their use.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
just completed a series of town hall meetings across my riding of
Simcoe Centre.
My constituents attended so they could discuss the issues, ask
questions and give me their input. A survey was conducted at
each meeting and I would like to share the results with the
House.
Over 90 per cent responded that they believe there should be
mandatory AIDS testing of all immigrants to Canada. There was
overwhelming support for the review of social programs and
that they be focused on those who are truly in need. Over 90 per
cent want section 745 removed from the Criminal Code to
eliminate possible early parole for those convicted of first
degree murder. They also believe that the names of young
offenders convicted of serious crimes should be made public.
On the issue of gun control, my constituents believe that the
primary emphasis of new legislation should be placed on the
criminal misuse of firearms and firearms smuggling and not new
restrictions on legal gun owners.
Finally, I believe that I should represent my constituents and
vote according to their wishes. I encourage all other members of
the House to do the same.
_____________________________________________
8630
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
refusing to take a firm stand on the Hibernia contract issue, the
government has made another move which, combined with the
actions of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry,
will lead MIL Davie straight to disaster.
(1415)
We learned over the weekend that the Minister of Industry had
been keeping secret for more than a year a report on Canadian
shipyards that urged the government to depend only on a small
number of shipyards and drop MIL Davie.
In light of the unfair treatment of MIL Davie by the Hibernia
consortium and the failure of the government to follow through
with the Magdalen Islands ferry contract, does the Deputy Prime
Minister recognize that all the actions of her government are
being dictated by this secret report to the Minister of Industry,
which has the MIL Davie slated for closure?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, before
answering the hon. member's question, let me say that I was
relieved to learn that the Leader of the Opposition was on his
way to recovery. In the months to come, he will have to exhibit
incredible strength, something we all know he is capable of, and
we wish him much courage in getting better. Knowing the
Leader of the Opposition-he is a real fighter-we are confident
that he will return quickly.
[English]
In the name of all Canadians I would wish the Leader of the
Opposition a very speedy recovery. The whole of Canada was
watching the events of the last few days. Our hearts go out to
him and to his family. We wish his speedy return to the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
8631
[Translation]
Ms. Copps: To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, of course
the government of Canada, through the Prime, has expressed
disagreement with the policy adopted by the Hibernia
consortium. We are aware of the possibility and support
tendering. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a private sector
consortium that is entitled to make its own decisions and, in
spite of the views expressed by the government of Canada, it has
decided not to proceed to a call for tenders, as we felt would
have been proper and fair.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
asked the Minister of Industry several questions in this House on
saving the MIL Davie shipyard.
Are we to understand from the answers of the industry
minister, who has always hidden behind the lack of an MIL
Davie business plan to avoid facing his responsibilities, that
what he really wanted was to follow up on the secret report he
has been hiding in his department for over a year, which
proposes closing MIL Davie, and that the minister lacks the
courage to say so frankly?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is big enough to admit,
first of all, that MIL Davie's shareholder is responsible for
announcing its position on the MIL Davie corporate plan
submitted by the former Quebec government. That is first and
foremost the shareholder's responsibility. That is what I said
several times.
Yes, there was a report. That is no secret. The Financial Post
obtained it on request. That is normal. That is the position of
someone who was a consultant. That is not necessarily my
position or the government's. Moreover, if MIL Davie wants to
succeed, it must do so on global markets. That is what I said
several times here.
[English]
For any company to succeed in the modern marketplace it
must produce goods at a price the world is willing to pay to
acquire them. That is first and foremost for any company the
responsibility of its management and its shareholders to
determine.
When we hear the point of view of the Quebec government on
the MIL Davie business plan, when we know whether its unions
are willing to support it, perhaps then we can respond
accordingly to any further request we have on their behalf.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows full well that some contracts were necessary to
allow MIL Davie to reorganize. Instead of acting as his
responsibilities called for, the minister has always hidden
behind the lack of so-called business plans.
Are we to understand that after demanding that Quebec make
90 per cent of the efforts to rationalize shipyards in Canada, the
federal government's only goal, after closing the Sorel-Tracy
shipyard and the Vickers shipyard in Montreal, is to close
Quebec's third major and last remaining shipyard, MIL Davie,
so that the shipyards in the Maritime provinces can survive?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe using statistics for demagogic purposes is a
good strategy. In fact, Quebec's share of shipyard
rationalization is 30 per cent. Please, Mr. Speaker, let us stick to
the facts.
Second, I wish to say to the hon. member that it is not a matter
of hiding. I think it is essential for a company seeking help from
the taxpayers in Canada and Quebec to have a good corporate
plan that has been approved by shareholders and workers alike.
At that point, we can make a move with MIL Davie.
[English]
I cannot understand why the member is not willing to say that
we have to find a long term solution. If he would look at the
business plan that has been presented, he would understand the
business plan does not claim that the long term solution to MIL
Davie is one contract turned over from anybody. The long term
solution involves fundamental readjustment of that company to
a new marketplace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development
greatly disappointed the young unemployed people who had
come to discuss his reform of social programs with him. A
participant asked him: ``Where are these jobs? Tell me; I am
ready to work''.
Why does the minister have nothing else to offer young
people who want to work, who want real jobs, than a so-called
reform whose main purpose is to make cuts at their expense?
They will be the second-class unemployed. They will have to go
into debt to pay their tuition fees, which will double. Why?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, last Friday Statistics Canada released its latest job report.
It pointed out that for the first time in six years the jobless rate
had dropped to below 10 per cent; in fact it is 9.6 per cent.
Much more important, in the last 11 months 414,000 full time
jobs have been created. That is the fastest growing job rate of
8632
any industrial country in the world. The unemployment rate for
young people dropped a full two percentage points during the
same period of time.
We are living up to our commitment to create jobs. If the hon.
member would go back to her own riding and look at it, she
would see that the job rate dropped over the past 11 months by
3.1 per cent. It is now below 9 per cent. That is real job creation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that the Minister of Human Resources Development is not
pleased that 1,364,000 people are still without work, not
counting all those who are looking for work and are not declared
as unemployed.
(1425)
Does the minister admit that if he had wanted to do just one
thing to help create jobs, he should have reduced unemployment
insurance premiums in September, when he knew that the fund
had ten times as much as he wanted when he promised to reduce
UI premiums: $2.7 billion compared to $240 million?
Young people would have benefited the most from these new
jobs.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on January 1
the premium rate on unemployment insurance drops down to $3
per hundred. We have already taken the step we committed to in
the last budget and the premium rate is coming down.
While the hon. member is exaggerating a number of figures, I
remind her that she should recognize at the end of this year the
cumulative deficit for the UI fund will be over $3 billion. Until
we get that cumulative deficit down, because it is a real drag on
the economy, we will not be in a position to make changes. By
the time of the next budget I am sure we will be in a position to
have a better report or a better analysis. In the meantime we have
to move to get that $3 billion deficit out of the way.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the promises in the red book was for more
transparent government. I have not read the fine print but I do
not think that meant government leaks.
Today the industry minister's orange paper takes it place with
the GST report, the HRD green book, the justice minister's
action plan on gun control and the defence white paper. All were
conveniently leaked to the media before the official
announcements were made. The government's complete
disregard for Parliament reinforces fears of Liberal arrogance.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is the
government showing such disdain for the House of Commons
and what is it doing to end these leaks?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the hon. member that it was out of a desire to
present the next paper in our series of papers on the economy
that I decided to make the presentation in the House of
Commons this afternoon, which I will be doing immediately
following question period.
For that matter, I want the hon. member to know that there is
no obligation either under the rules of the House or otherwise to
make such a presentation in the House. I want to assure him that
we will be very interested in hearing his support for a plan which
should help build a more innovative economy.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the government totally missed the point.
The problem is that leaks are occurring and they are
unprecedented. Leaks to the media must be at the top of every
government communications plan. The government leaks like a
badly fitting diaper. The government is making a mockery of the
House of Commons with every proposal it produces. While
opposition MPs are sworn to secrecy and they are stuck in
departmental lockups, Liberal spin doctors are out descending
on the media like locusts.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Are these leaks part of a deliberate communications strategy on
the part of the government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a certain amount of experience with fitting
diapers. We always preferred the reusable rather than the
disposable in our household.
I assure the hon. member it would be of very great concern if
information were leaked that could either affect the markets or
could lead to somebody prospering inadvertently or indirectly.
In the case of the information I have seen published as a result of
these documents having reached the public domain, no such case
will occur.
I assure him that the participation of members of Parliament
in discussion coming from the proposals we put forward in the
action plan is of great importance to us.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I could quote instances when the Liberals were on
this side of the House and they condemned the government for
leaks. They are promoting more leaks that are far worse than the
previous government did.
8633
Time and time again they place political strategy ahead of
parliamentary procedure and have shown no respect for the
House.
(1430 )
They seem to think that polls give them a blank cheque to do
as they please. I have news for this leak infested government.
Reform MPs are tired of its arrogance and it is starting to wear
thin on Canadians too.
Will the government investigate this process of leaking
proposals and reports before they are even tabled in the House?
Will it take the appropriate and necessary action?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the point is being missed here. Most of the matters I
have seen reported in the newspapers today were matters which
were debated and discussed in various fora over quite a number
of months. In many ways what we see today is the culmination of
many months of consultation, of discussion and of thought
which have been engaged in among members of Parliament as
well as in the House.
I know the member is concerned about this because he
recognizes the strategic importance of this document. I hope for
that reason he will take the opportunity afforded to him to study
it, to read it, to make further suggestions. I believe it plays an
important part in the gradual unfolding of an active government
policy on economic development in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
More than two months after he tabled his working paper on
social program reform and two weeks before the public
consultations end, the minister has tabled only four of the nine
technical papers that are to lay out the directions of his plan.
This delay suggests the worst, especially as far as education and
welfare are concerned.
In view of the urgency of making all the relevant information
public, so that a real debate can take place on this reform which
will directly affect millions of Quebecers and Canadians, how
does the minister justify this delay?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the rest of the
papers will be tabled publicly within the next 10 days.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister not agree that this delay and the lack of information
in the papers already tabled, as the Auditor General pointed out,
are because the minister has gone ahead with this reform
blindly, just so that he can make the cuts required by the
Minister of Finance?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that may be the case but I
just read a large scale national survey this week. It showed that
96 per cent of Canadians believe major changes have to be made
in social policy. It may be that the hon. member does not
understand but 96 per cent of Canadians are in favour of what we
are doing.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. It appears
the industry strategy seems to be one of shuffling money around,
not reduction in spending. Yet this morning the Minister of
Industry stated on ``Canada A.M.'' that his departmental budget
would be reduced by as much as 50 per cent by the end of the
third year. That is two years from now or less than that.
Can the minister tell us specifically what will be cut?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not disclose that. As the member knows we are
involved in an ongoing process of program review which is in
effect, as the Prime Minister announced in September in Quebec
City, a basic review of each and every program in every
department and agency of the Government of Canada from
bottom up.
I believe this review is important. It is a vital part of our own
plan in order to achieve our objective of reaching 3 per cent of
GDP as the level of the deficit by the third year of the mandate.
In the industry department we are prepared to make the changes
that, as the member indicates, will result in an overall budget
decrease of almost 50 per cent by the third year of the mandate.
(1435 )
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly the answer I expected the minister to
give.
I think it is about time that we get down to some specifics
rather than these generalizations. It has been very clear that
Canadian business has said the best way for government to
create a competitive environment is to reduce taxes. Yet there is
no such statement in the industrial strategy.
8634
Why will the minister not make a definitive commitment to
reducing taxes?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because one of the happiest days of my life so far was
the day I was told I was not Minister of Finance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On September 19, here on Parliament Hill, the minister
promised Ogilvie Mills workers that, by December, he would
table amendments to the Canada Labour Code, introducing
anti-scab provisions. Yesterday, the minister reneged on his
promise, giving as a pretext that his department was preparing
another bill on pay equity.
How can the minister justify his about-face regarding the
need to introduce anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour
Code? How can he justify his about-face, except by an obvious
lack of political courage?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, it just means that we
are doing a very thorough job of consulting with business,
labour unions and other parties that would be affected. We are
trying to do a major rewrite of labour codes. I have assigned the
assistant deputy minister for labour to undertake that process.
He is busily engaged at the present time reviewing the various
aspects and a fairly broad based set of proposals. As soon as that
is ready we will present the appropriate legislation to the House
of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how can the minister justify his refusal to table a bill before
Christmas by saying that there is not enough time, when all that
is required is a few amendments to the Canada Labour Code?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
know that it is not as easy as that. Certainly our experience over
the last several months is that when we table amendments the
members opposite usually hold up that legislation for weeks and
months on end.
I have asked our assistant deputy minister to make sure that
we have a very carefully assessed, very carefully judged set of
reforms and proposals to make to the labour code.
As the Minister of Industry put in his paper today, the reform
of the workplace, reform and modernizing our whole labour
relations is the key to economic growth and development.
Therefore we want to make sure that we do it right.
The Speaker: I would encourage all of us to listen to both the
questions and the answers. It takes time to both pose and answer
but I would ask you to curtail both the questions and the
answers.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is reported to be increasing the total
value of loans it guarantees under the Small Businesses Loans
Act to $12 billion, an increase of 300 per cent. The program now
loses about $100 million a year.
Would the Minister of Industry tell the House why taxpayers
should underwrite Canadian banks by assuming liabilities that
should properly fall to entrepreneurs and banks, not taxpayers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are really two questions there. The first one is
why should there be a Small Businesses Loans Act program in
the first place. The answer to that is very simply that the primary
reason for getting loan capital to many small businesses is to
provide some government guarantee, thereby offsetting the fact
that many small businesses lack the security they require in
order to otherwise borrow from the banks.
(1440 )
In answer to the question about subsidies, I would like to
assure the hon. member that we are proposing changes to the
SBLA program and further review which will move that
program to one which is fully cost recoverable because I agree
with him that it should not be an indirect subsidy to the banks.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the business community and banks cannot be blamed
for taking advantage of government largess. If we are dumb
enough to give it to them they are going to be smart enough to
take it. We have to put a stop to it.
We do not have a revenue problem in our country. To
paraphrase a colloquialism, which is not intended to anybody in
this House certainly, it is government spending stupid that we
have to get under control. It is those three or four words.
The business community has time and time again told the
government to reduce the tax burden on business and
individuals. What specific measure has the Minister of Industry
taken that will reduce government spending which will in turn
reduce
8635
government borrowing which will in turn reduce interest rates
and taxes?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Let me say,
Mr. Speaker, that I am sure the member will agree with the thrust
of the document which we will be tabling today. It does
recognize the fact that the key to continued economic growth
and job creation is going to be the private sector and that it is
important for government to do as much as it can to stay out of
the way of the growth and job creation potential of the private
sector.
That is how we intend to move the economy forward so that as
the cycles go up and down overall we see a general gain in
employment levels as well as in productivity and the economy.
That is the key to it.
Do we need to reduce spending? Yes, we need to reduce
spending. That was the purpose behind the consultation process
that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, launched in this
House and in the finance committee a few weeks ago. It is
toward that end that we will be working in this February's
budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs at Health
Canada, who is currently on leave without pay, is lobbying MPs,
on behalf of a group of private drug companies, regarding the
virtues of bovine somatotropin.
Does the minister realize that this paradoxical situation in
which her department finds itself, with a senior civil servant
responsible for the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs now acting as a
lobbyist for drug companies interested in marketing
somatotropin?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the person in question is on leave of absence without
pay and as such has not been involved at all on the file having to
do with BST.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister realize that such leniency in dealing
with this unacceptable situation completely destroys the
credibility of Health Canada with the public and with the dairy
industry, as well as her own credibility as minister responsible?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I already said, the person in question is on leave of
absence without pay, is employed by another centre at this time,
is not speaking for Health Canada and has not been involved in
the BST file.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Most of my constituents are very pleased with the numerous
signs of economic recovery, including the slide in the
unemployment rate. Many, however, especially young people
and women, remain concerned about their future. What steps
does the minister intend to take to ensure that the benefits of this
recovery are enjoyed equally by all Canadians.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, last
spring we introduced a major program for youth employment
which sponsored in particular major internship programs in
which we would work with the private sector and educational
institutions to sponsor on the job training programs for young
people.
(1445 )
Up to this point the program has only been working for four or
five months. Already close to 10,000 young people have
enrolled through private sector arrangements to help them with
that major problem of school to work transition. It is our aim by
next year to have close to 60,000 young people enrolled.
I believe the new wave of the future is to bring business,
government and education into partnership to provide better
opportunities for Canadian youths.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Business leaders and academics and most recently the Globe
and Mail have called for the end of regional development
agencies across the country. The Minister of Industry has one
industrial strategy yet other ministers have another strategy.
How does the Minister of Industry explain the obvious
contradictory messages being sent out? While he says that
regional development programs do not work, his colleagues are
handing out over a billion dollars a year to repeat defaulters,
8636
huge corporations that do not need the money, lobby groups and
friends of ministers. Which one of these incompatible ministers
are we supposed to understand?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not only have I not made the statement the member
alludes to but I would say to him that he has made a startling
allegation and it is incumbent upon him to provide facts, dates,
numbers and names. We will be happy to look at them.
Let me say also that a key component of an economic
development strategy has to be one that recognizes the
differences that exist among and between the regions of this
country. We have a very large country with quite a varied
economy.
The role played by the federal government in understanding
the differences among regions, in meeting the needs and
requirements of sectors as diverse as those in natural resources
as well as those in the manufacturing and new advanced
technology sectors is one which requires a great deal of
co-ordination across government. That is what we are
endeavouring to do.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
could have retracted one statement because these people do not
have too many friends.
We are releasing a report this week on regional development
which showcases the government assisted gravy train which is
off the tracks.
The Minister of Industry is on record as opposing massive
grants and subsidies to businesses. Therefore, what assurance
can he give the business community and Canadian taxpayers
that he will fight the difficult decision among the ministers of
goodies who have two different messages coming out, one from
two ministers of goodies and another from the Minister of
Industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us try to keep some perspective on what we are
trying to accomplish here.
The member will know the concern I have about assistance to
business is that it be very strategic in target. That is in line with
the strategy other ministers who have responsibility for
economic development are pursuing.
As the member will know, we need to make sure our
investment in economic development is strategic. It is targeted
and focused. It recognizes the need to recognize those sectors in
which high risks are prominent, in which other countries are
providing assistance to their businesses, in which the markets
for goods and services being produced are international and
therefore subject to the discipline of international marketplaces.
Those are criteria that apply to regions. Those are criteria that
apply to sectors. We have been very consistent in seeking to put
our assistance to business programs on that kind of footing.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday in Budapest, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said
that we should give the search for peace in the former
Yugoslavia a last chance and that he used the expression ``last
chance'' because he thought an agreement was not far off.
Meanwhile, the Bosnian Serbs still refuse to listen to reason and
accept the peace plan proposed by the majorpowers, including
the United States and Russia.
(1450)
Could the Minister of Defence tell us what grounds his
colleague at Foreign Affairs has for being so optimistic, at a
time when the Bosnian Serbs still refuse to accept the peace plan
proposed by the contact group?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Budapest
the Minister of Foreign Affairs was stating the obvious and I
believe a position all Canadians would support. That is that this
country believes the only way out of the terrible tragedy which
is unfolding in the former Yugoslavia is through a negotiated
settlement.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs was expressing that
optimism. I hope the hon. member shares it. If he does not I
would like to hear the alternative from him.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure we would love to share the optimism of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. Could the Minister of Defence indicate what
the Canadian government intends to suggest at the meetings of
the CSCE that would help revive negotiations and lead the
Bosnian Serbs to finally accept the proposed peace plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the
Prime Minister himself stated the importance of a negotiated
peace. There is also the fact that at this very moment, 55
Canadians are still being detained in Bosnia, and I think that,
following the release of 53 Dutch and British soldiers, we first
want to ensure the release of our soldiers over there.
That being said, their release is expected to be imminent, and
the pressure is being kept up at all levels, including the CSCE,
the UN forces and all international means, as the Prime Minister
did this morning.
8637
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Department of Western Economic Diversification has
loaned $670 million to companies in the four western provinces
since the Tories invented the department. Only about 25 per cent
of those loans are currently being repaid. Many experts predict
that the default rate will be in the 40 per cent range.
Given that the minister has publicly stated he is not in favour
of massive subsidies and that he said earlier today that he
favours private sector development, is he prepared to admit that
regional development programs are not effective ways of
enhancing Canada's economy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to
the hon. member that both his facts and his assessment are
wrong.
We have made major changes in western economic
development so that we are not giving large grants to large
businesses. We are now providing basic assistance to firms with
under 50 employees so that we can help them deal with some of
the challenges in the export market, such as meeting quality
testing and other kinds of requirements.
I will give one example. A few months ago we were able to
assist with a very small grant of $200,000 the Vancouver based
firm Northstar which allowed it to secure a $30 million line of
credit with one of Canada's major banks so that the firm could
provide export financing for small business. Since then the firm
has already had 2,000 applications for financing of small
business export development around the world.
It seems to me that was one very good investment that will
help thousands of western Canadian companies secure new
markets. The hon. member should get his facts straight.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, speaking
about facts, perhaps the minister could get his facts straight.
One good investment out of $1.2 billion worth of regional funds
is not good enough in this country.
Since the Minister of Industry will not answer the question,
my supplemental is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. There is a world of difference between
entrepreneurs taking risks with their own money and taking
risks with other people's money, especially when it is the
taxpayers who will have to pay the interest on the borrowed
funds and the defaulting loans.
What does the minister consider as an acceptable level of risk
from his Department of Western Economic Diversification as it
continues to flush taxpayers' money down the drain? Where is
the rest of the justification on the $1.2 billion?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew
anything about the way the program worked rather than just
repeating a bunch of mythology and garbage he has heard from
other people he would realize that most of the money is coming
back by repayable contributions. Western economic
development recycles money back into business so we can
create jobs. I understand the Reform Party is not interested in
jobs, it is not interested in employment and it sure as hell is not
interested in western Canada. I can tell you that.
* * *
(1455)
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade has pushed very hard for Chile
to join NAFTA. He visited Chile last January and he has made
numerous speeches on the subject.
Can the minister explain why he believes it is in Canada's
interests to have Chile join a free trade agreement?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is entirely topical in that we do
hope to make some real progress on the accession of Chile to
NAFTA at the Miami summit of the western hemisphere later
this week.
There are three reasons. Principally while we urge and have
continued to take a lead in urging the early accession of Chile to
NAFTA, one is that Canada is a principal investor in Chile. We
have already promised a $4 billion plus investment in Chile. The
second reason is we want to counter the confusing network of
trade rules that are becoming a problem for members of our
business community as they develop their trade in the western
hemisphere. The third reason is that we are in favour of open
markets, market liberalization throughout the world and the step
toward the integration of Chile in NAFTA-
The Speaker: Three kicks at the can and that is about it. The
hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. On December 1, impor-
8638
tant elements in the report of the expert advisory committee on
the safety of Canada's blood supply system were leaked to and
disclosed by the media.
How can the minister explain to us, as mentioned in the report
of the expert committee, the blatant lack of rigour in Health
Canada's Bureau of Biologics, which has the huge responsibility
of checking the quality of blood products and facilities at all 17
transfusion centres of the Canadian Red Cross Society?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject.
This report is in the hands of the Krever Commission. I will not
comment on this until the commission has held public hearings
on this issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the results of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory
elections were made public. It is not a surprise that less than 40
per cent of farmers turned out to vote for these largely symbolic
positions. It is a surprise that leading up to this election Lorne
Hehn, the chief commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board,
campaigned actively for a group of candidates who had a
specific political agenda.
Does the minister of agriculture condone the fact that the
chief commissioner who is supposed to be politically neutral
campaigned actively during the advisory committee elections?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the
chief commissioner and a number of the commissioners of the
Canadian Wheat Board participated in public meetings during
the fall. They discussed a broad variety of aspects pertaining to
the marketing of western Canadian grain. To the best of my
knowledge they were not actively involved in any campaign
with respect to the election of the advisory committee to the
Canadian Wheat Board. If the hon. member has any information
to the contrary I would be happy to have it.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the same minister who has had a chance now to
analyse the results of that same advisory committee election
which demonstrated overwhelming support for pro-wheat board
candidates.
(1500 )
Since the sole support for dual marketing and the subsequent
weakening of the board's powers is clearly seen to be limited to
a small minority special interest group, what action will he take
to protect and reinforce the ability of the board to act in the best
interests of the vast majority of producers who support the
board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated on a
number of occasions that I will be providing the opportunity this
winter for farmers to become engaged in a discussion about the
marketing systems that they regard to be most appropriate and in
their interest.
In the course of that kind of objective, reasonable, rationale
dialogue, the respective merits of certain marketing systems
will become obvious. I would imagine under the close scrutiny
that public dialogue and examination gives, the Canadian Wheat
Board will be able to demonstrate its merits very effectively.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans.
The Prime Minister's recent trip to China secured trade
opportunities and created wealth for our country. On the heels of
this success, can the secretary of state tell the House what is
being done and what will be done to promote Canada's fishing
products in the far east?
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit, since her
question is quite timely.
[English]
I will have the honour of leading a Canadian delegation to
China for the first ever China Fish Processing Expo on
December 10-15.
Nineteen executives, representing 11 Canadian companies,
will be participating in an attempt to forge closer links with the
Chinese fishing industry and also explore business
opportunities.
Furthermore, of 15 booths made available to participants
outside China, 10 have been reserved for Canadian companies at
that Expo. It goes without saying that Canadian participation is
in keeping with the new spirit of closer ties between China-
_____________________________________________
8638
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
certain petitions.
8639
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, under Standing Order 32(2), I am tabling a document,
in both official languages, entitled ``Building a more Innovative
Economy''.
I will have remarks to make apropos this document.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to join the
Deputy Prime Minister, who spoke earlier, in wishing the leader
of the opposition and his family a lot of courage on his way to
recovery.
Today on behalf of my Cabinet colleagues, I am putting
forward the next key part of the government's jobs and growth
agenda. This plan introduces over 30 concrete measures
involving ten Ministers and their departments ``to help create a
climate where business can create more jobs for Canadians'', if I
may quote the Prime Minister.
But before I turn to what we will do next, let us revisit where
we were just over a year ago when this government took office.
[English]
We were faced with an unemployment rate when we took
office of 11 per cent. Business confidence was volatile and
consumer confidence was very low. After two years of a
half-hearted jobless recovery, fewer Canadians were working
and the economy was producing fewer goods and services than
at the beginning of the decade.
As a government our first order of business was to work with
other levels of government and the private sector to get the
recovery moving. Our first weeks in office were characterized
by decisive action, including the launching of the national
infrastructure program. The reward for leadership and action
has been a continuing rise in confidence and improvement in the
overall economic conditions of the country.
Most important of all, more Canadians have jobs. Since
taking office 414,000 jobs have been created by Canadians for
Canadians. Only a year ago people were talking about
unemployment rates in excess of 10 per cent to the year 2000. As
of last Friday we broke the 10 per cent barrier and Canada's
unemployment rate stands at 9.6 per cent. But the government
believes it has to do better than just recover from the last
recession.
The cycles of recession and recovery over the last three
decades have shown some disturbing trends. Decade over
decade average unemployment rates have risen, productivity
growth has fallen and with it real incomes of Canadians have
stagnated.
[Translation]
The time has come to reverse these trends. The time has come
to get average unemployment rates down permanently. The time
has come to increase productivity, thereby increasing real
incomes. But you cannot do this simply by wishing or declaring
it to be so. What is required is decisive action by government,
wise investment by business and labour, and a new model of
co-operation and partnership.
[English]
The government is taking decisive action. That is why we
have launched a root and branch review of our social programs.
That is why the Minister of Finance has set out a new framework
for economic policy. That is why we are reviewing every
program in every department and agency of the federal
government. That is why the government is committed to
reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, come hell or high
water. That is why I am introducing Building a More Innovative
Economy.
At the outset let me say that this plan will disappoint some. It
will disappoint those who believe that government can and
should do everything. That approach defined the success of
economic programs by bigger budgets, not better government.
That is an approach I reject.
This plan will also disappoint those who believe that the best
thing government can do is nothing. That is not our view. We
believe that economic leadership by government can contribute
to economic success.
(1510)
The fundamental premise behind Building a More Innovative
Economy is that it is the private sector, not government, that
creates jobs. What government can do is to improve the climate
for the private sector to create those jobs.
Where can good government make a difference? The first
priority is building a healthier marketplace. Business needs
better access to the financing required to help it grow. It needs a
labour-management environment that is more co-operative,
less adversarial. It needs fewer and more focused government
programs. It needs regulations that makes sense. It needs fewer
demands from government to fill out forms and shuffle paper.
Tomorrow the President of the Treasury Board will announce
the details of our plans for regulatory reform and paper burden
reduction. We will use the power of government purchasing as a
strategic tool for small and aboriginal business development and
growth. My colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Gov-
8640
ernment Services, will soon announce the details of this
initiative.
Our second strategic priority is trade. The challenges here are
crucial for all Canadians. For jobs, incomes and prosperity we
depend more on trade than almost any other country does. Yet
we are not the nation of traders that we could be.
[Translation]
That is why my first priority as Minister of Industry was to
achieve Canada's first internal trade agreement-the beginning
of a process that will bring down interprovincial trade barriers.
And that is why in the early days of its mandate, the
government moved quickly and decisively to improve Canada's
international trading arrangements both in North America and
elsewhere in the world.
[English]
That is also why the Prime Minister has made international
trade a personal priority. The recent Team Canada trip to China
was an unprecedented success, showing how Canada can
succeed in global markets when we work together. We will build
on this momentum.
This plan introduces a variety of steps we will take to improve
Canada's trading performance. For example, my colleague, the
Minister for International Trade, will introduce measures to
help develop globally minded businesses. Our challenge as a
government is to equip more and more Canadian firms to win in
the fiercely competitive international marketplace.
[Translation]
We will focus on support to small businesses that are entering
export markets for the first time and target resources for
exporter preparation.
We will improve export financing measures.
Taken together, these measures will quickly enable more
Canadian firms to meet the challenge of international trade.
Also, a large component of our balance of trade accounts is in
tourism. Tourism is big business in Canada and, for the last ten
years, we have done a pathetic job promoting ourselves to the
rest of the world. That is why last year, Canada suffered a travel
account deficit of almost $8 billion.
[English]
That is why the Prime Minister announced we will be
establishing a Canadian tourism commission to work with other
governments and the tourism industry to be more aggressive in
marketing Canada as a safe, beautiful and sophisticated
destination, meeting the needs of almost every traveller.
(1515 )
Our third strategic priority is infrastructure, both physical and
intellectual. This is an area of comparative advantage over
which we have control. In this area the government is working
on several fronts. The Minister of Transport is producing a new
direction for transportation in Canada to meet the needs of the
21st century. The Canada infrastructure works program is well
under way and will create a further 65,000 direct jobs.
Today I am announcing that the government will proceed with
phase II of CANARIE, the Canadian network for the
advancement of research, industry and education. This
commitment will accelerate progress on the Canadian
information highway.
In addition, I am announcing a continuation of the SchoolNet
program which will see all of Canada's 16,500 schools and
3,400 libraries connected to the information highway by 1998, a
full two years before the target set by vice-president Gore for
the United States.
Our fourth strategic priority for building an innovative
economy is science and technology.
[Translation]
In the world today, virtually all product innovation is
science-based, the result of research and development. And
nothing is more important than product innovation for
businesses to maintain and improve market share, thus
contributing to economic growth and productivity.
[English]
Therefore, nothing is more important for jobs. I believe that
no one will dispute the importance of the federal government's
role in science, technology, research and development. The need
to be more strategic and to ensure that our investment in this
area supports Canada's social, economic and environmental
goals led to the launching of a comprehensive science and
technology review last June.
This review is nearing completion and will set the stage for a
clear articulation of a renewed science and technology strategy
for Canada.
[Translation]
Building a more innovative economy lays out specific
initiatives to do just that: build a more innovative economy. My
plan is a series of over 30 initiatives involving ten ministers and
their departments-a truly government-wide effort in
responding to the challenges of economic leadership.
[English]
It is not a panacea. Panaceas do not exist. It is a co-ordinated
plan of action, responsive to the real needs of the private sector,
a result of consultation, a commitment to a work plan and the
accountability that comes with it.
8641
The challenge before us is clear, to push the limits of this
recovery and to achieve real and sustained jobs and growth. We
will not decree an innovative economy. That simply means we
must work together to build one piece by piece. I believe we can
do that by acting together, by focusing on real results and by
targeting our programs and reducing our spending to meet our
deficit commitment.
We said in the red book: ``Dynamic economies constantly
re-invent themselves and grow through innovation. Innovation
and experimentation inevitably entail risk and the possibility of
failure. It is the job of government not to protect entrepreneurs
against all failure but rather to create the best economic
conditions and institutions to allow entrepreneurs to get on with
the job''.
Building a more innovative economy is a plan of action to
implement this vision.
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to react today to the tabling of the industry
minister's policy statement for his department.
Although this document has some good points, as we admit,
we can only see it as a political document that seeks to make up
for a non-existent substantive industrial policy; we were
entitled to expect a substantive policy, given the state of the
Canadian economy.
The statement refers to a plan of action for some thirty
programs involving co-operation among ten or so departments.
We already know that for some aspects of the announced action
plan, some ministers will work together and we will only see the
results in 1998, according to information we obtained for parts
of the document. Some plans will only take effect in 1995, if
then, according to conversations I had with people in the
department.
We therefore think that this paper is premature, since the
proposed new policies depend on other departments' policies
which are not yet known or will come, very late, from
consultations that are still incomplete and program reviews that
are a long time coming.
We know very well that several key documents on social
programs have not yet been tabled. How can the minister boast
that his policy takes into consideration all that businesses need
to achieve the desired growth? For example, the action to be
taken by the Department of Public Works will not be known until
1995.
The minister wants to promote growth for small businesses by
opening up government procurement and allowing companies to
have access to what is available in terms of such procurement.
However, we have no idea of where this will come from, nor
when the action plan will be completed.
In the context of that growth, how will this access to
government procurement for small businesses work? Will
companies be allowed to register in some file? Will there be
calls for tenders for professional or technical services? How will
this plan work? We do not know. For companies, growth does
not mean the same as development. Indeed, the growth of some
companies does not necessarily promote economic development
for a territory or a region.
Given these unknowns, we find it hard to understand why the
minister is so quick to extol the virtues of his action plan and say
that it meets an urgent need in the economy, and particularly a
desire to develop small businesses, which will generate
employment as everybody agrees.
The strategy for technological innovation is another example
of the government's lack of global vision. Indeed, the minister is
considering a technological innovation policy without knowing
the results of the current consultations on research and
development, which will only be completed in 1995.
The minister talks about consulting with partners. However,
when you think of the information highway issue raised by
Quebec, it is very hard to see the minister showing leadership,
since his government is totally opposed to any dialogue on this
issue.
How can the minister justify the existence of a true
technological innovation policy while putting on the back
burner the whole issue of research and development? By
definition, innovation implies the search for new products and
processes, so that companies are competitive in the
international market. Otherwise, we obviously cannot talk about
competitive businesses.
In his action plan, the minister proposes three strategic
priorities: Support for small businesses, infrastructure and
technology. As far as support for small business is concerned,
the minister reluctantly proposes to maintain funding support
through the Small Businesses Loans Act program. I say
reluctantly since it is only because this program is mentioned in
the red book that the minister has decided to maintain it,
although without implementing the red book promise to get rid
of personal collateral.
The minister is announcing that available funds will be
increased to $12 billion because this program gets results. In
itself, this is good news.
(1525)
This program is so popular that businesses register quickly.
Small businesses are a well-known fact; they are dynamic,
eager to innovate and expand. On the other hand, the minister is
announcing that the program will have to be self-financing.
This is what the government is seeking, to go and get back the
money it loaned. I believe that to be its fundamental goal. In
itself, it is laudable.
8642
But if we compare that to what the Minister of Human
Resources Development is suggesting when he says that access
to credit will be made easier for students, we quickly understand
the equation. To save public funds, the government is forcing
individuals into debt. What is the impact of this on SMEs? Are
they going to be pushed deeper into debt or will they really get
help to start up or develop domestically or internationally?
Thus, without even conducting a cost-benefit analysis, which
could have shown the efficiency of the program and indicated
which policy was preferable with respect to tariffs, the minister
is acting, in our view, as an amateur, increasing, without any
consultation, the cost of financing SMEs. We can draw a parallel
with the social reform whereby the government says that it will
cut support to students, but they will be given the chance to go
deeper into debt while the government sets up mechanisms to
recover the loans it guaranteed.
I wonder whether this is a responsible way to behave for the
government and especially the industry minister, in the present
economic context. Although some people on the government
side sometimes think we are the bad guys, I must congratulate
the minister on announcing measures to reduce red tape.
Everybody is complaining and rightly so. Everybody agrees,
every time you want to do something you have to fill out 16
different forms and send them all over. Therefore this is a good
move by the government. Reducing red tape is something SMEs
have been asking for for a long time in order to stop wasting time
and resources. Imagine having to submit 119 pages of
information to get $10,000. Finally we are giving SMEs what
they have been asking for.
However, I would like to point out to the minister that we are
here to promote a sovereign Quebec and I mentioned the
information highway where the message to the minister was to
open up to negotiation and co-operation. The minister did not
open up, so I remind him that under our option, a level of
government-the federal level-will disappear, thereby
reducing red tape, inefficiencies and regulations often at cross
purposes, making our industry much more efficient. This is a
clear goal.
The government is continuously reminding us that we must
create the atmosphere for growth in the high-technology sector.
We agree. SMEs in that area represent the future of our
industrial base. True, high-tech SMEs are creating the jobs of
tomorrow and will be mainly responsible for our ability to
maintain the high standard of living we need and must have.
It is therefore regrettable that the government would not
propose any policy to stimulate their growth and, in particular,
improve their financing. We must realize that these companies
pursue speculative endeavours and have specific financing
problems. Banks are seldom willing to finance technology and
this brings me back to the role of government. It says it wants to
recover its money, and it acts like a banker. We know what a
bank does, it loans money when it is reasonably certain that it is
secure. Precisely what the government is doing.
Yet, there are technological areas where risk is high. It is
impossible to act like a banker in the sense that we cannot expect
all the guarantees that a bank would normally require. That is
obvious.
(1530)
If we really want to encourage the development of these
businesses, we must provide ways to find more appropriate
funding for them. In our dissenting opinion to the report of the
industry committee we proposed extending the Small
Businesses Loans Act in order to fund the working capital of all
businesses. This would have made it possible to support the
financing of small and medium size high-tech enterprises.
Instead, this government proposes a piecemeal strategy with a
program that would only provide exclusively for the financing
of exporting SMEs.
Even the Canadian Association of Exporters recommended to
the industry committee-and I do not know if the minister has
heard about it-that the working capital of exporting SMEs be
financed under the act. The government does not listen to the
people involved.
As for infrastructure, the minister praises the transport
minister's policy. We have seen what has been going on in that
area up to now and we are not at all heartened. If this is an
indication of what this government intends to do about
transportation, we should expect the worst.
We believe that the national policy on airports, among others,
is nothing but a disguised way to pass on the cost of regional
transportation to municipal and provincial governments. This
process had begun under the previous government and we
already see costs being passed on to other levels of government.
Furthermore, the federal government has the nerve-and this
is important because they did it in several departments-to keep
the revenue from the national network of airports and use it to
finance regional airport infrastructure while disavowing any
responsibility for their operating costs. This is how the federal
government wants to manage public property and public funds
throughout Canada.
This is what federalism is all about. This is it. The federal
government keeps the power even though it cuts funds and
totally withdraws from the administration of services. As we
were told, it does not have any choice, it is debt-ridden. It will
have no choice but to turn to the provinces for help, and will be
8643
unable to return the favour. The facts are really very simple.
Everyone understands the situation.
The Minister of Transport is following a policy which
jeopardizes some regional transportation facilities and will
greatly increase the cost of transportation from region to region.
The information highway is the best example of the total lack
of consultation and co-operation between the federal
government and the provinces. As I said earlier, the minister is
about to ask the CRTC to significantly change the regulations
concerning telecommunications in order to facilitate the
creation of this information highway, without even consulting
the provinces. The information highway will have a major
impact, as you know, on a great many areas, some under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
In committee, we were very surprised to learn that the
minister is going ahead with the information highway. But who
will control the information to be found on this highway? Who
will provide the information? One thing became clear in our
discussions with officials from the Department of Industry,
nobody has the answer to these questions. This issue has not
been examined yet. It will be in the months to come. We are
about to go ahead with the information highway without even
making sure that its contents will be controlled and that there
will be joint action with the provinces, which obviously have
jurisdiction in this area.
Finally, I would like to address the issues of technology andR & D. The document tells us that Canada's effort in R & D is
less than that of other G-7 countries. However, the Canadian
government invests as much as its competitors in civilian R & D.
This demonstrates how badly administered and inefficient the
government's R & D effort is.
It is about time we thoroughly reviewed our involvment inR & D matters and adopted a true science policy for R & D. The
government must be ready to question everything, to
decentralize our technological efforts and to base our research
laboratories outside Ottawa to take advantage of the scientific
resources that are found across the country and make better use
of them. This may create some synergy with the scientific
research capabilities throughout Canada.
(1535)
To conclude, the document tabled by the minister is nothing
but an incomplete policy statement, which contains many
policies already announced by his colleagues and others that
will be announced by 1998. Thus, to be able to put Canada and
Quebec back on the prosperity track, we have to consider-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. I will now recognize the hon. member for
Okanagan-Centre.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege and very exciting actually to be
participating in response to the minister's statement. I think
there were some very positive things said by the minister and I
want to commend him for those kinds of things, particularly for
the fact that he recognizes that there is a problem. The difficulty
is that I am not quite so sure that he has a solution to the
problem. This is where I think we have to focus our attention.
It is very interesting the way this particular paper has been
presented to us. The first omission I find that really bothers me a
lot is that there is no particular and no direct reference to the
recommendations that were contained in the ``Taking Care of
Small Business'' report by the Standing Committee on Industry.
There were many recommendations in that particular report
that gave direct impetus to the kinds of strategic planning that
ought to be done in the Department of Industry and in the
government at large.
It became very clear during that particular discussion that
there was a major gap in the recognition of the contribution that
small business makes to the creation of jobs in Canada. It is true
that there have been a number of new jobs created in Canada but
for the government to take credit for this is not correct. The jobs
were created by entrepreneurs and those people want to develop
themselves.
I commend the particular suggestion that there is going to be a
particular place for small businesses to enter into government
procurement contracts, contracts that are $125,000 or less but
larger than $25,000. It raises all kinds of interesting questions
that my hon. colleague raised not so long ago when he spoke
about a particular department other than the Department of
Industry in which certain contracts were divided up into smaller
components so that indeed they would not have to meet certain
regulatory provisions.
Is this a possibility now that certain procurements may be
made so that larger procurements will be broken up into
$125,000 ones, or will that not be the case? Will others be
combined? This not clear.
I want to pay particular attention to the Small Businesses
Loans Act. That ceiling was increased from $4 billion to $12
billion. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says
that particular program is not working so well. This morning I
heard the hon. minister say on Canada AM that small businesses
liked it so much that they used it up right away, within 18 months
of it having been increased.
The interesting thing is that banks have to a large extent used
the SBLA to cover their particular risks, so that it became a
subsidy to the banks. It is small wonder that with this kind of
help the larger banks in Canada can show a combined profit of
something like $4 billion. Is this the kind of thing that small
business is supposed to be supporting, so that the big banks can
8644
make big profits like that? The Small Businesses Loans Act had
no small contribution to that particular sector.
That is not all. The other part of this is that there seems to be a
suggestion that subsidies and grants to businesses create jobs. I
submit to you, Madam Speaker, and to the minister and to this
House that is probably false, that in fact when you have a
subsidy which may create a job over on this side, it loses a job
over on the other side because this business over here has to pay
larger taxes, has to pay increased interest rates in order to
subsidize that particular business over there. That is misleading
if nothing else.
There is another thing that happens when you do this sort of
thing. You divert investment from those businesses that are solid
to those businesses that have some kind of artificial government
support and shoring up.
(1540)
Business should be allowed to stand on its own feet. Where I
commend the minister is where he says that the government
should create an environment so that private businesses can
succeed. I endorse that 100 per cent. I commend him for that
statement. Now may he go ahead and prove that he believes that
by taking away subsidies and grants for small business.
Much was made about trade and much was made about the
imbalance in trade when it comes to tourism. There is a
suggestion that some $100 million is going to be spent in the
tourism industry, approximately $50 million for the setting up
of a tourism commission, another $50 million from $15 million,
so it is not quite the $50 million in addition, for a promotion
budget that has been increased from $15 million to $50 million.
That suggests more than a triple amount of dollars spent in
promotion.
I ask the minister and the House whether they really believe
that spending three times as much money will result in three
times as many tourists coming to Canada and spending three
times as much money than if that promotion budget were not
there.
Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that there may be an
increase but it will not be in direct proportion to the increase of
public spending in that particular sector.
The minister said not too long ago and he states in his orange
book that the solution is not in throwing dollars at a problem but
rather to solve the problem. The best people to solve the problem
are the entrepreneurs. They understand the business. They
understand the marketplace. They know the value of the dollar.
They know how to efficiently deploy those dollars. They know
how to employ people. They know how to get good work out of
people. Throwing dollars at the problem is not the answer. We
need to recognize that applies in the tourism industry as well as
in every other industry.
There has been a suggestion that the infrastructure program is
a major innovative development in this particular strategic
document that has been presented to the House. The
infrastructure program that currently exists, I believe it is $6
billion on the one side and that is going to be matched by the
provincial government and the municipal government, is a
beautiful pot of money. It has become known in many quarters
as boccie Canada, and builds boccie courts.
The infrastructure program needs to be recognized for what it
is. It is a program that benefits particular places. I want to really
commend the British Columbia government. So far I know of no
instance, and there may be some since I last looked at the list,
when the money has not been spent on bona fide infrastructure
programs such as highways, bridges, water systems, sewer
systems, things of that sort. That is significant but building
boccie courts is not. Building canoe museums is not. These are
the kinds of things.
I want to move into another area which has to do with the
science and technology program. We have had a review this
spring of the science and technology program all across Canada
and we had the hon. secretary of state go across Canada holding
various discussions with business people, interest groups,
looking at what should be done in this particular area.
Three things became very clear. When they put together the
summary forum which took place here in Ottawa in
mid-October they came up with a bunch of round tables with
some very high powered, highly trained, highly developed and
intelligent people who made some beautiful statements. When I
examine those particular conclusions and compare them with
conclusions of 1940, 56 years ago, there are in many instances
very few substantive differences between the problems
articulated today and the problems articulated some 50 years
ago.
(1545)
When a noted journalist put things together and compared the
two he recognized, in particular when it came to the industrial
application of the technological and scientific studies and R and
D research that had been done primarily through government
funding, that the minimal effect was industrial application.
Some $6 billion is being spent in that area plus $1 billion
being spent on tax credits. That is a total of $7 billion. In this
fall's statement the Auditor General said that we were not
getting an effective resolution and application of those dollars.
We were not getting the kinds of results we should be getting.
The time has come for us to do some new thinking, not to go
through the old thinking and do it all over again. We know what
the problem is. It is time we build a new innovative economy
8645
that provides for the private entrepreneur the ability to make
money and to give everybody jobs.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an
act respecting an agreement between Her Majesty in right of
Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian Band.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act
to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for
the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the
Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act and the
Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant
Protection Act and the Seeds Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (use of a firearm in the commission of or attempt at an
offence).
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Fraser Valley West for seconding introduction and first reading
of the bill.
Today it is my pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. It
will increase the minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a
gun in the commission of a crime to five years.
Canadians are demanding stiffer sentences for the criminal
misuse of firearms but the recently proposed four-year
mandatory sentence of the justice minister is only restricted to
10 offences and is not consecutive.
He is merely introducing a minimum sentence for four years
for these crimes, and with parole it may be less. Although the
tougher sentences in his reaction plan are a step in the right
direction the bill would go even further. It would make the
minimum five-year sentence consecutive to any other sentence
and would apply to any accomplices who had access to the
firearm during the crime or attempted crime whether or not the
gun was fired.
Canadians want deterrents and I believe the bill would
provide some.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1550 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of Susan MacDonell and 59 other Albertans,
many of whom are my constituents.
The petitioners request that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms to extend the same protection enjoyed
by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Not only am I pleased to present the petition but I endorse it as
well.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to table to two
petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the clerk of
petitions.
In the first the petitioners are concerned about the future of
VIA Rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario and call
upon Parliament to urge the government to place a moratorium
on any passenger rail cuts in the Sarnia-Toronto corridor.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I give my support to two senior
citizens' clubs in the beautiful riding of Frontenac, namely the
Saint-Alphonse and the Saint-Maurice clubs in Thetford, which
are opposed to the uncontrolled use of voice mail.
8646
Since senior citizens are naturally more intimidated by voice
mail technology and have a right to expect proper service,
especially for enquiries concerning income security payments,
we ask the Liberal government not to use voice mail for senior
citizens.
I fully support the Saint-Alphonse and Saint-Maurice senior
citizens' clubs from Thetford Mines.
[English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I have the
pleasure of putting forth this afternoon. One petition deals with
gun control.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition in opposition
to euthanasia or person assisted suicide.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition in support of
the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition in opposition
to same sex couple benefits.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have several petitions I would like to enter, the first
dealing with sexual orientation.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same
sex relationships or of homosexuality, including the amending
of the Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation. There
are 304 signatures.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with the topic of
euthanasia, one with 242 signatures and the other with 93.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament makes no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker
the third petition deals with the sanctity of human life. There are
305 signatures from my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament acts immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
(1555 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the last petition deals with immigration levels. It has
128 signatures from various parts of the country.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to reduce
immigration to the previous average level of one-half of 1 per
cent of the population, or about 150,000 per year, with the basic
intake of not less than 50 per cent of the total composed of
carefully selected skilled workers required by the Canadian
economy and to bring our refugee acceptance rate in line with
the average of other asylum destination countries.
I heartily agree with all petitions.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of the constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
immediately revoke the directive from the Minister of Transport
that proceeds with a detailed plan for a program of unmanning
all west coast light stations and request a complete and thorough
public inquiry in the province of British Columbia into the need
for these manned light stations on the west coast.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House two petitions.
The first petition asks that Parliament ensures that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament makes no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I concur with the petition.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a second petition that respectfully requests that
Parliament acknowledges, through compensation under a
redress agreement, an injustice did occur when Canadians of
Japanese ancestry who happened to be in Japan on December 7,
1941, were denied by the actions of the Government of Canada
the right to return home until March 31, 1949.
8647
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present
the following petition which comes from all across Canada and
contains 244 signatures.
The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a
six-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of
Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of
Parliament. The petitioners request that Parliament enact
legislation to change the justice system to provide greater
protection for children from sexual assault and to assure
conviction of offenders.
I fully concur with the petitioners and endorse the petition.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition from more than
40 people living in the city and county of Peterborough.
The undersigned consider the present gun control legislation
in Canada to be more than adequate. Therefore the petitioners
humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to refrain
from any further gun control legislation in the name of
controlling crime that would be of no value and would constitute
unjust harassment of a lawful gun owners.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my
duty to present two petitions from citizens of Oxford.
The first one is signed by 25 petitioners and requests that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to legalize, normalize or indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including
amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): The second petition,
Madam Speaker, is from 156 constituents. They request
Parliament to ban lap dancing as understood, as such activity
poses a potential fatal health risk. It may be compared to
prostitution.
Exotic dancers may have to lap dance against their will or lose
their chosen profession. Lap dancing devalues the essential
worth and dignity of all people.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting six
petitions from my constituents in the riding of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.
The first two petitions containing 120 and 467 signatures
respectively call upon the government to amend the Criminal
Code to extend to unborn children the same protection enjoyed
by born human beings.
(1600 )
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): The third
petition contains 121 signatures and calls upon the government
not to amend the human rights code in relation to the recognition
of same sex relationships.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): The fourth
petition contains 59 signatures and calls upon Parliament to
conclude the parliamentary prayer with the phrase ``through
Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen'' and reinstate the Lord's Prayer at
the conclusion of the opening prayer.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): The fifth and
sixth petitions contain 121 and 362 signatures respectively and
call upon the government to ensure that the present provisions in
the Criminal Code with respect to assisted suicides be enforced
vigorously and make no changes to the law which would
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all the questions
be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
40 minutes.
_____________________________________________
8647
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, an act
to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment act, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
8648
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are four
amendment motions on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill
C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted
on as follows: Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motion No. 3.
On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 2
necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-56, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 11, on page
1, the following:
``(b.2) to ensure that projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental
effects or public concern are publicly reviewed through a process of independent
decision making.''
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-56 in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 33, on
page 2, with the following:
``(1.1) Where a report is submitted by a mediator or review panel, the
responsible authority shall take a course of action consistent with the
findings and recommendations in the report.
(1.2) Within 30 days of the public release of a report mentioned in
subsection (1.1), the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing
with any or all of the findings or recommendations set out in the report
(a) require the mediator or review panel to clarify any of the findings or
recommendations set out in the report; and
(b) substitute its own findings and recommendations for those of the report where it
concludes that the findings or recommendations of the report are not in the public
interest.
(1.3) Following a decision by the Governor in Council under subsection
(1.2), the responsible authority shall take a course of action under
subsection (1) that is consistent with the decision of the Governor in
Council.''
(1605 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-56, in Clause 3, be amended
(a) by replacing line 22 on page 2, with the following:
``approval of the Governor in Council given by order in council, re-''; and
(b) by adding after line 33, on page 2, the following:
``(1.2) The order in council made under paragraph (1.1)(a) is exempt from the
application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.''
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to
speak on the amendments, some of which I brought forward and
one of which has been brought forward by a member of the
Reform Party.
The amendment process of Bill C-56 that is in front of us
today will give us a good indication of the seriousness with
which the government wishes to approach the process of
developing the best environmental assessment legislation that
we possibly can.
A lot of testimony was heard before the committee studying
the bill. Among that testimony were many clauses of the original
bill that are not discussed under Bill C-56 today but are matters
which require attention in any case. I am hoping that we will
have some opportunity in the future to address some of the
additional concerns that we are unable to deal with in this bill.
Also among the testimony of the witnesses before the
committee were matters relating to the concept of an
independent decision-making process. That is what the first
amendments I proposed today deal directly with. First, these
amendments ensure that the concept of independent
decision-making is included in the section outlining the
purposes of the act to make things perfectly clear. Second, they
ensure that the decisions are consistent with the
recommendations of the assessment panel and are treated
seriously by giving the necessary authority to the responsible
authorities.
The concept is not a new one. It is one that has already been
recognized by the Liberal Party which, prior to being elected,
made certain promises to the Canadian people in regard to the
environment. These promises contained in the now famous red
book include the following: ``Under a Liberal government the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be amended to
shift decision-making powers to an independent Canadian
environmental assessment agency subject to appeal to cabinet''.
In Bill C-56 the only amendments the Liberals have brought
forward to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act fail to
create this independent decision-making body. In fact one could
argue that they do almost the opposite because the government
bill amends the act to give cabinet, referred to as the governor in
council, the ability to amend the panel reports and then gives it
8649
the final say on the panel report. Certainly cabinet cannot be
considered an independent decision-making agency.
There are all too many examples where government
departments and even ministers are the proponents of projects
which would sooner see the recommendations of an independent
assessment panel disappear than have them implemented. The
possible conflict of interest with cabinet or between federal and
provincial governments is altogether far too likely to go
unaddressed.
On the other hand it is important to recognize that elected
governments must be held accountable for their actions and they
must be given the power to act when the interests of the
electorate, the Canadian people, the citizens of Canada, need
protecting.
I recognize that at the end of the day the government is
responsible for its actions or the actions of those operating in its
name.
Therefore in writing the amendment before us I have tried to
establish the framework for independent decision-making, that
is establishing the independence of the assessment panel.
(1610 )
At the same time, I want to express my support for the concept
of an appeal of this decision to cabinet. I tried to incorporate the
idea of appeal into my amendment but it was ruled out of order
by the legislative counsel before it appeared on the Order Paper.
Therefore I had to rewrite my amendment in a way that would fit
the needs of the legislative counsel rather than the needs that I
really wanted to bring forward here today.
I was told that the idea of an appeal to cabinet was not
consistent with the government's intent in Bill C-56, but I want
the government to realize that although my amendments do not
specifically allow for the appeal to cabinet of a panel decision or
of a cabinet decision, I am willing to accept an amendment in the
future, another bill that the government may wish to bring
forward.
I am willing to accept an amendment that would incorporate
an informal appeal process. It would be easy to do with
reference to the fact that any person who participated in a
mediation or a panel review in respect of a project could appeal
to the governor in council any or all of the findings or
recommendations set out in the report.
I want to make clear that accepting my recommendations
today does not preclude a further amendment by government in
the future to ensure that the appeal process exists and to give the
protection that the government may think is necessary by
government.
In the meantime, it is absolutely imperative that the
legislation ensure the independence of the process. I think only
the support of my motions today would ensure that. It is worth
noting that the concept of independent decision-making is
already accepted and practised in other areas of federal
government activity.
Perhaps the best known example of the process, although it is
somewhat different, there are similarities, exists within the
mandate of the CRTC. It exists basically at arm's length from
government. It issues orders that are basically binding on those
applications that have been made before it.
However, there is an appeal process of sorts that allows the
cabinet to make decisions on appeal. In the testimony heard
during the committee study of the bill before us, officials from
the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO,
admitted that the current process requires that every decision of
an assessment panel is not actually final until such time as the
cabinet responds to it.
They also admitted that cabinet is not required to respond
within any specific period of time. Therefore it is fairly easy to
say that cabinet could take an infinite amount of time to respond
to any report or any recommendations contained in a report from
an assessment panel or from a mediation review.
We are already aware that cabinet, when it is not supportive of
a panel decision or indeed parliamentary decisions, and I give
the example of Bill C-13, the legislation that required more than
two years to be proclaimed because of arguments received in
cabinet over the regulations, as an example of how cabinet can
delay matters for a long period of time.
Actually, the Indian lands claims process is also one in which
cabinet has indicated that it is prepared to take its time on
reviewing a decision that it is not altogether happy with. The
Indian Land Claims Commission reported two years ago on the
Canoe Lake Indian Band claim regarding the Cold Lake air
weapons range. Cabinet is still sitting almost two years without
responding to that recommendation of the commission.
We cannot allow that sort of a timeframe to elapse in regard to
environmental assessment reports. Without going into any
specific detail about how the two amendments that I have
brought forward would work, let me simply conclude by saying
that regardless of which path the cabinet wishes to take, the
responsible authority is required within a short period of time to
take a course of action consistent with the recommendations of
the panel and, second, cabinet, if it has found the panel authority
not consistent with the public idea, does have an opportunity to
respond but the idea of an appeal is not within this amendment.
(1615 )
Therefore, I would be very happy to hear what the government
has to say about adding an appeal process to the motion I have
put forward.
8650
It is my submission that the bill fails to meet the test of an
independent decision-making authority as promised by the
government prior to the election. I urge support of the motions I
brought forward to ensure that the independent
decision-making authority exists within the new agency.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to put forward Motion No. 3 to amend Bill
C-56. This amendment addresses clause 3 of the bill which
amends section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. My amendment changes the decision-making authority on
environmental panel reports from cabinet to order in council.
That is the basic meat of it, changing it from cabinet to order in
council.
Prior to Bill C-56, the decision to act on or reject panel
recommendations was made solely by the Minister of the
Environment. Bill C-56 broadens the distribution of power to
include the governor in council, which basically means cabinet.
However, this is still not strong enough.
Although the spirit of the government's amendment is to
ensure that responses to public panel recommendations are
decided by cabinet, it must be clear that cabinet, or governor in
council, does not refer to cabinet as a whole.
Cabinet remains undefined. It could mean full cabinet or it
could refer to only a few ministers. Cabinet may be many things.
Cabinet can be simple and informal or it can be formal in the
way of an order in council. Cabinet has many versions. For
example, there are inner cabinets, outer cabinets and
committees of cabinet.
The term cabinet is far too loose. As it stands, important
environmental decisions could be controlled by two or three
ministers with their own agendas. To avoid this potentially
divisive situation, an order in council involving the full cabinet
is required to ensure that all interests are fairly represented. The
interests of one particular region will then be balanced by the
representation of ministers from regions all across the country.
To ensure that decision-making is democratic, panel
recommendations must be approved or rejected through order in
council which means the cabinet as a whole, not just two or three
ministers. This amendment reduces the likelihood that
environmental decisions will be subject to the whims of any
individual minister as government as a whole is responsible for
actions on panel recommendations.
The amendment addresses concerns brought forward by the
Liberals regarding the environmental assessment process. The
Liberal red book states: ``The gap between rhetoric and action
under Conservative rule has been most visible in the area of
environmental assessment. All too often Conservatives have
ignored the solid recommendations for environmental
protection offered by public review panels''.
As it stands there is nothing in the bill to prevent a few cabinet
ministers from rejecting panel recommendations. What better
way to ensure that recommendations for environmental
protection, brought forward by public review panels, are fairly
reviewed and justly responded to than to make sure that the
decision-making power is held by cabinet as a whole, not two or
three ministers. This amendment directly addresses those
concerns by limiting the discretionary powers of ministers.
It is my hope that hon. members on the opposite side will give
serious thought to this amendment before they cast their vote.
This is a fair and just amendment that will ensure a more
democratic and balanced process of environmental assessment.
It ensures the interests of the environment and industry are
protected and works in favour of the best interests of all
Canadians to ensure the continued protection of our
environment.
I now wish to respond briefly to the proposed amendments to
Bill C-56 brought forward by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
In Motion No. 1 the member proposes to amend clause 1 of
Bill C-56 by adding a subclause that strengthens the intention of
the bill to ensure that projects likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects or public concern are publicly reviewed
through a process of independent decision-making.
The Liberal red book promises that: ``Under a Liberal
government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will
be amended to shift decision-making powers to an independent,
Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal by
cabinet''. Yet nowhere in the act or proposed amendments
contained in the bill is such independent decision-making
powers granted to the agency. As it stands, the current intent of
the bill is in conflict with the promises contained in the red
book. There is no process of independent decision-making
granted to the agency in the bill.
(1620)
As it stands, the agency provides for ministerial
decision-making as Bill C-56 proposes to broaden
decision-making to cabinet. However, there is nothing in the
bill that allows for independent decision-making because
recommendations are approved or rejected by cabinet. The
agency attends the hearings, prepares its report and presents it to
cabinet. Beyond that there are no powers granted to the agency.
This proposed amendment will recognize the agency as an
independent decision-making body.
I agree there are several advantages to having this agency at
arm's length from the government, similar to the relationship of
the CRTC and government, as proposed in the red book. This
proposed amendment by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake is in line with the Liberal red book
and as such I
8651
would expect the government to honour its election
commitments and include this amendment, which I support, into
the act.
The member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake also
proposed Bill C-56, clause 3, Motion No. 2 in the Order Paper,
to make the panel or mediator reports binding to the governor in
council. This proposed amendment requires the responsible
authority to take a course of action consistent with the findings
and recommendations in the panel report.
The amendment addresses the first amendment as it gives the
agency independent decision-making powers. As I said earlier, I
agree that the agency should have some independent
decision-making powers. However, the proposed amendment
would give the agency absolutely authority over decisions.
There are some merits as well as some concerns with this
proposal.
One aspect it recognizes is that panels and mediators have a
far greater level of expertise regarding the issue than a review by
cabinet. It also makes the final decision-making process more
open to the public as panel reviews are open to the public,
whereas cabinet meetings are not. The public is not privy to
matters which guide cabinet decisions behind closed doors.
I agree that there are many benefits to granting
decision-making powers to the review panel. However, I cannot
support this clause which allows for appeal to cabinet. The
government must be allowed the opportunity to intervene when
necessary.
There will be occasions when the government will need to
make decisions for political reasons, contrary to the review
panel. Obviously this will not be a popular decision for which
the government will undoubtedly take political heat. However, I
feel the option must be open to the government. Therefore, I
cannot and do not support this amendment.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the three motions. First,
Motion No. 1 from the member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake, ensures that projects reviewed through a process of
independent decision-making are instituted.
The member's suggestion is indeed interesting. However, he
is adding words to an amendment which has been put forward to
promote the concept of one project, one assessment. In this
regard I suggest his proposal is out of place.
With respect to the intent of the member's suggestion, the
government has put forward in Bill C-56 an amendment to
section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
which would ensure that projects are subject to public review
through an open and transparent process. This amendment
ensures that panel recommendations are reviewed and
responded to by the governor in council, thus ensuring that not
just one minister will respond to panel recommendations.
The government believes that this amendment, along with the
creation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,
will allow for decision-making which is as independent as
possible, coupled with an open and transparent process in which
all Canadians may participate. For this reason the government
will not support this motion.
(1625 )
Motion No. 2, moved by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, goes right to the heart of the
cabinet decision-making process. The government has
committed itself to ensuring that public reviews are carefully
considered and responded to.
However to suggest that the governor in council be given a
time limit to respond would unduly fetter the decision-making
process of the federal government. It would as well not reflect
the seriousness of the decisions in front of cabinet.
In some cases ministers may wish to respond quickly, or
depending on the significance or complexity of the issue, the
governor in council may well wish to take more time in its
consideration of projects which are of national significance. The
length of deliberations might also be influenced by stakeholders
that in some cases may desire speedy responses or in others a
more lengthy debate.
Further, as the member knows, the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act is progressively designed to encourage
harmonization with the provinces. In this light many provinces
do not have time lines and it would be inappropriate for the
Government of Canada to impose them.
While we can understand the intent of the member's motion,
we feel that the proposed amendment would unduly fetter
decision-making and would contradict the careful deliberation
that environmental assessment calls for. The government
therefore cannot support this motion.
Finally, with regard to Motion No. 3, introduced by my
colleague for Comox-Alberni, as was confirmed by the
committee studying Bill C-56, the governor in council
responses to public reviews will be and must be made by order in
council. This is the way the governor in council works.
In this regard the member's motion is somewhat redundant
and the government again cannot support its adoption.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 put forward today by our colleague from
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and Motion No. 3 put forward
8652
by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are amendments to
Bill C-56.
First, I will remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will vote
against Bill C-56 since this bill amends the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act which implements across the
country an environmental assessment process that duplicates a
process already existing in some provinces, including Quebec
where there has been an environmental assessment process for
more than 15 years now.
We have spoken against the enactment of this Act wich we
consider to be unacceptable federal interference in provincial
jurisdiction. We will have another opportunity to oppose federal
interference in provincial jurisdiction on third reading of Bill
C-56.
Let us look now at the motions from our colleagues. Motion
No. 1 wants projects likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects to be publicly reviewed through a process
of independent decision making. That amendment would be
included in the purposes of the Act. It is hard to see what our
colleague from the NDP is really getting at with this
amendment. He should tell us more about this process of
independent decision making. Should the body or agency
making the decision be permanent or ad hoc? What would the
administrative structure of such an agency be? Who would be on
it? Who would pay? How would the recommendations or the
reports of that body be handled?
Members of the NDP propose creating a new body which
would only add to the list of existing agencies. In Quebec, we
already have the BAPE, Bureau d'audiences publiques sur
l'environnement. On the other hand, for those who support the
imposition of the federal process-which we do not-the act
provides for the establishment of the Canadian assessment
agency, as well as opportunities to use a mediator or a review
panel for major projects.
As you can see, there are already many authorities provided
for in the act. It seems to us that the NDP motion wants to add
more to that federal superstructure, but without saying
specifically what that new independent authority will be.
(1630)
You will understand that we, in the Bloc, cannot accept this
motion from the NDP. We have a firm fundamental position on
this bill and nothing can change it. We will also vote against
Motion No. 2 that was moved by the same member.
I would like to deal a little more with parts (1.1) and (1.2)(b)
of the motion. Part (1.1) says: ``Where a report is submitted by a
mediator or review panel-'' But what does the NDP do with the
independent authority that it is proposing in its first motion? It is
talking here about the report of a mediator or review panel. What
about the independent authority report? Clearly defining
structures does not seem to be a strength of the NDP.
I think that the NDP does even worse when it proposes, in
clause (1.2)(b), that:
-the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing with any or all the
findings or recommendations set out in the report
(b) substitute its own findings and recommendations for those of the report
where it concludes that the findings or recommendations of the report are
not in the public interest.
I ask my colleague if the whole process that the federal
government wants to implement and impose on the provinces is
really to further public interest in environmental assessment
issues. With this amendment, the NDP is telling us that the
process as a whole is not important and that, in the end, Cabinet
can impose its own decision in the public interest.
It is not reassuring at all, considering who influence our dear
ministers. Lobbyists are certainly not the greatest champions of
public interest and the environment.
Another major inconsistency in the motions of the NDP is that
it is asking for an independent public review while giving the
last word to the government. It is inconsistent and illogical to
advocate these two things at the same time, that is, an
independent agency whose recommendations will be submitted
to a higher authority.
The NDP is not very clear and rigorous in its proposals. If
what it wants is to give more power to the people, its two
motions are not very convincing. They are pulling in opposite
directions. The result is a draw, since it is impossible to answer
yes and no at the same time.
Motion No. 3, presented by the member for Comox-Alberni,
adds a reference to orders in council in clause 3 of Bill C-56.
The bill only mentions the approval, or consent, of the Governor
in Council, in a non-specific fashion. The Reform Party simply
wants to specify how it will be done, by order in council. For us,
this is merely specifying how they will go about it; it does not
change Bill C-56 significantly.
Finally, we will not vote in favour of any of these motions.
Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are
both unacceptable and the changes proposed by our NDP and
Reform colleagues do not make them more acceptable to us.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on the amendments to Bill C-56 proposed
by NDP and Reform members.
My comments will be similar to those made by my colleague
for Laurentides, because, for different reasons, three of the
motions cannot be approved by our party.
The first motion proposed by the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake raises problems, as it says this:
8653
``projects likely to cause- public concern are publicly
reviewed through a process of independent decision making''.
The process of independent decision making causes
problems, because it remains undefined. It is said that an
independent process should give some directions, but the
process itself is not defined.
(1635)
As far as environmental assessment is concerned, I wish to
analyze some aspects, some government structures, mostly at
the federal level, where these assessments are made. One must
remember that each department, before implementing a project,
must do an assessment demonstrating that it is not harmful to the
environment.
Moreover, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review
Office, FEARO, is about to be replaced by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency.
The bill provides for a mediator who will review, hold
hearings, carry out consultations-an activity our Liberal
friends are particularly fond of-and this mediator will make
decisions as part of the environmental assessment process.
Such processes also exist at the provincial level, as my
colleague from Laurentides pointed out earlier. In Quebec, the
BAPE, or Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement
(office of public hearings on the environment) conducts an
environmental assessment which, by the way, is very serious
and highly respected. My hon. colleague, who was Minister of
the Environment, could attest to this.
The bill also provides for something that no one has objected
to, a very good idea: environmental groups, which are concerned
with the environment but, unlike industry groups, may not be
able to afford to appear before committees and panels to express
their views, would receive government funding to come and
share their views with various committees. I think that this
provision, and particularly the government funding granted to
environmental groups-it is important to mention this because
these groups will finally be given a chance to be heard-will
facilitate public participation in the various environmental
assessment processes.
I think that adding to the four or five existing environmental
assessment organizations or agencies a fifth or sixth one, which
would be this independent umbrella organization at the federal
level, is going too far. It is difficult enough getting along as it is.
As my colleague said earlier, they are pulling in opposite
directions, so that putting the icing on the cake would not
necessarily make sense.
As I said in my preamble, how does our colleague from The
Battleford-Meadow Lake define ``independent organization''?
That is very important because we can move in different
directions with that.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to give you another
reason why we are opposed to Bill C-56. We see here that Clause
4(d) of Bill C-13 would allow the public to participate in the
environmental assessment process. Bill C-56 also provides for
the compulsory creation of a participant funding program, as I
said earlier. So we see that the public is really involved in this.
As for Motion No. 2 providing that the Governor in Council
may substitute his own decisions for those of the mediator, we
find it somewhat unparliamentary and undemocratic, since we
were elected to the House of Commons by the people. We have
had responsible government since 1848 and we are here to make
it work.
So the Cabinet could be asked to reject out of hand the work
done by our environmental assessment agencies and impose its
own decisions when the public interest is at stake. I submit to
you, Madam Speaker, that this is not quite acceptable in a
democratic society.
With respect to Motion No. 3 proposed by our Reform
colleague from Comox-Alberni, we have a slight problem, as
we have with three of the motions, in that simply adding by
order in council would not amend the bill sufficiently for us to
support Motion No. 3.
Decisions are made by the Governor in Council but it remains
to be seen whether the government has the will to act on the
environment; we seriously doubt it. That is why I support my
colleague from Laurentides in opposing the three motions
proposed to us.
(1640)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
8654
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next 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 (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8) a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-56 be amended by adding after new subclause 5(2), the
following new Clause:
``5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 59:
``59.1 (1) Every regulation that is proposed to be made under section 59
shall be laid before each House of Parliament at least twenty sitting days
before the proposed effective date thereof.
(2) Where, within fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid
before either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the
consideration of that House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be
approved, signed by no fewer than fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the
House of Commons, as the case may be, is filed with the Speaker of the Senate
or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Speaker shall, within five
sitting days of the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment put every
question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(3) Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by both Houses
of Parliament, the proposed regulations to which the motion relates may not be
made, and the proposed regulation shall be referred to the committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers environmental affairs for further
consideration.
(4) Where Parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than fifteen sitting days
after a proposed regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament under
subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in
relation to the proposed regulation in both Houses of Parliament, the proposed
regulation may not be made.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ``sitting day'' means, in respect of
either House of Parliament, a day on which the House sits.''.''
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my
motion in front of the House today. This is a motion that I have
raised in this Chamber on one previous occasion. I am very
pleased to have an opportunity to again try to convince the
members of this House of the importance of dealing with public
involvement in the regulatory process.
I should indicate to members and to those who are watching
today from outside this Chamber that public involvement in
decision making is something that I have always taken very
seriously.
Although Bill C-56 in front of us deals to a certain extent with
participant funding and individual participation within the
process of environmental assessment, I was very anxious to
include amendments as well dealing with participant funding,
define more readily participant funding and also ensure that the
agency in the legislation take more responsibility for participant
funding programs.
(1645 )
I found that the amendments I submitted for inclusion on the
Order Paper for today were ruled out of order before they were
printed, again because they did not deal specifically with the
intent of the legislation before the House.
While we are dealing with the importance of public
participation in the environmental assessment process I want to
urge the government to do more to ensure a public participation
funding program or an intervener funding program than has
been done in the legislation in front of us.
The government responded in committee to the question of
greater definition of public participation funding programs by
stating that it will include guidelines and rules within the
regulations that make the act operable. That and other reasons is
what prompts the amendment on the table now.
8655
What I am saying by moving the amendment is that the
current regulatory process is inadequate, troublesome and
lacking in public scrutiny. Members of the public and in fact the
members of the House do not have the ability to examine in
public, debate in public, discuss in public with a view to change,
regulations once they have been dealt with, generally behind
closed doors.
As witness after witness before the committee in the previous
Parliament and before the committee in this Parliament
indicated, it is the regulations which run the act and therefore
the process, not the act itself. The regulations are as important as
the act.
We have spent on environmental assessment legislation
hundreds if not thousands of hours putting in place the proper
wording for the legislation but we have not dealt at all with the
regulatory process.
One of the witnesses before the committee, a man by the name
of Brian Pannell from Winnipeg had some comments in this
regard that I want to bring to the attention of the House before I
proceed with my arguments. Mr. Pannell said: ``On the law list,
the law list remains substantially deficient. I can tell you that
this law list has been worked on for years and it has always been
a struggle to be relatively inclusive of the real substantial
decisions that should be on there and there are still many
decisions that should be on there that aren't because there are
many departmental interests that are served by not having them
there and I don't see an early resolution to this process''.
The regulatory process takes place behind closed doors.
Decisions are made about how the act will be run by people who
study this very closely. To a certain extent the people in this
regulatory process are doing a great job. The regulations are put
in place and go before cabinet. Before those regulations can be
published the cabinet makes decisions, makes deletions, makes
additions, does whatever it wants to, not referring anything back
to the regulatory development committee or whatever it is
called, and the regulations are published. That is it. Everything
is done and the operations of the act proceed.
Some time ago in dealing with the previous government's gun
control legislation the government set a precedent by
establishing a process by which regulations could be reviewed
by members of Parliament. The government conceded, because
the regulations concerned the addition of firearms that could be
prohibited by order in council, not by debate, not by public
discussion but simply by cabinet deciding that this or that
firearm could be put on a prohibited list.
(1650)
In this case we have regulations that can decide the future of
environmental assessment, the process, how the participant
funding program is going to operate, who is going to get
funding under participant funding processes, which projects
will be reviewed, which projects will not be reviewed, who can
appear before panel decisions, who can sit on panels and where
they are going to operate. All of these details about the
decision-making process that will eventually lead to
recommendations on projects are dealt with under regulations.
As members of Parliament we and the public have no
participation in that process before, in the middle of or after it is
completed.
The point I am making is fairly simple. We are asking that
when the regulation process is complete and the regulations are
on the table that we set aside a period of time when members of
Parliament or members of the Senate can respond to those
regulations. We can say to the country that we do not want these
regulations to pass until such time as we have had a chance to
look at them. These matters can then be brought before
committees or dealt with in any way that the government wishes
to have them dealt with. Should public scrutiny allow those
regulations to go forward, they can.
The government loses nothing in this process other than the
fact that some of the regulations and some of the regulatory
process is under the scrutiny of members of Parliament, the
Senate and therefore the people of Canada, if we are paying
attention to the needs and the interests of the Canadians who are
concerned about these matters.
I do not consider this to be a significant amendment in terms
of what it means to the government achieving its ends. I do see it
as a significant amendment in terms of allowing for greater
public participation on the side of the question that really
matters: the operational and administrative side, the regulatory
side.
I urge the government to carefully consider its concern and its
stated support for public participation in the process. By
supporting this amendment it will bring greater clarity to the
whole regulatory decision-making process.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 4, the third
amendment proposed by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. The proposed amendment relates
to section 59 of the act which grants the governor in council
authority to make regulations relating to environmental
assessment and follow-up programs set up in the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
These regulations are an essential part of the act. They are the
guiding principles which shape the environmental assessment
process. Once again there is some merit to the proposed
amendment but there are also many concerns which arise with
this proposal.
Presently under the act, the regulations which guide the
environmental assessment process are determined by governor
in council which basically means the cabinet. Cabinet decides
what the regulations will include. Members of Parliament
8656
outside of the inner circle of government are excluded from the
process.
The amendment to the bill proposes to address this concern so
that the regulation proposed under section 59 would be laid
before the House of Parliament. This would allow for a more
democratic process in the development of these regulations and
would allow members of the House to participate in the
decision-making process as regulations are proposed.
The hon. member also proposes that regulations are presented
to the House at least 20 sitting days before the proposed
effective date. The time line of 20 days would ensure that
members have adequate time to comment on regulations and
proposed meaningful amendments where necessary.
My concern with this proposal is that it would slow down the
process. I have concerns that if every regulation were brought
forward, the process would be far too time consuming and would
in fact be unworkable. Members need to participate in decision
making but this suggested amendment would grind the House to
a halt.
(1655)
For these reasons I cannot support and therefore oppose the
motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker,
we recognize that Motion No. 4 put forward by the hon. member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake definitely has some merit.
While it will not gain our full support, it is far from worthless. It
has the advantage of applying the concept of transparency to one
of the most fundamental aspects of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, the regulations made under the Act.
I would like to remind my colleagues that on October 6, the
Minister of the Environment announced in this House that the
Act would be proclaimed and that its regulations would soon be
published in the Canada Gazette. These regulations are actually
one of the many shortcomings of this federal legislation. They
confer great power and allow the federal government to give a
wide application to its environmental assessment process,
without any regard for assessment processes already established
by the provinces.
The federal regulations have a major impact in Quebec. In
view of the great power the federal government has seized to
initiate federal assessments, as provided under the regulations,
most projects covered by Quebec regulations are likely to be
subject to the federal regulations also. Clearly, two processes
could be undertaken for the same project, unless, of course,
there was a bilateral agreement between the province and the
federal government. So far, I think that only one province has
signed such an agreement with the federal minister.
Federal regulations on environmental assessment reinforce
and give further extension to the Act. That will lead to a
duplication of assessment processes, an inability to meet
deadlines under provincial processes, the possibility that
provincial decisions could be challenged, some uncertainty and
hesitation by developers in submitting projects owing to the
dual assessment process and the subsequent decisions, a waste
of time and money, the possibility of legal challenges for the
results and decisions, if the two assessments reach different
conclusions. These are serious consequences of regulations
made under the Act.
Since the minister refused to amend her legislation to specify
that provincial procedures, and more specifically those in
Quebec, are comparable to the federal process and equally valid,
so that projects subject to Quebec regulations would be subject
only to provincial procedures, we now have two sets of
procedures, which is very costly and very confusing for all
concerned.
The federal legislative process is opaque to the point of being
secretive. Regulations are churned out without any genuine
debate by members. They are published and easily pass
consideration by the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations,
without anyone being able to challenge the basis for certain
regulations. The process makes absolutely no sense at all and is
also dangerous because these regulations are often vitally
important.
In this particular case, the regulations of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act mostly duplicate Quebec's
regulations. It is most unfortunate that no Quebec members had
a chance to look at these regulations before they came into force.
It is also unfortunate that members have had absolutely no say in
this respect. We find the same situation-not a very democratic
one, in my opinion-with all other bills debated and voted on in
this House. We can see the bills and study them clause by clause,
but we never have that opportunity with the regulations.
If the NDP motion is adopted, it would have to be part of the
general procedure for proposed legislation, so that at least
elected members would be able to discuss draft regulations
before they become official.
We support the main purpose behind this motion. However,
we object to including the senators in a process to prevent the
approval of draft regulations. The Senate consists of
non-elected individuals, appointed strictly on a partisan basis.
These are patronage appointments, and these friends of the
government cost us $53 million.
(1700)
As I said before, the motion's purpose, which is to give us a
chance to examine the regulations and to amend or reject them,
8657
is entirely valid. The legislative system should make it possible
for members to intervene in this area.
Therefore, I move, seconded by my colleague the hon.
member for Terrebonne:
That Motion No. 4 be amended:
(a) in sub-clause (1), by replacing the words ``each House of Parliament'',
with the following:
``the House of Commons'';
(b) in sub-clause (2),
(i) by replacing the words ``either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a
motion for the consideration of that House'', with the following:
``the House of Commons under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration
of the House''; and
(ii) by striking out the words ``fifteen Senators or'', ``the Senate or'' and ``, as
the case may be,'';
(c) in sub-clause (3), by replacing the words ``both Houses of Parliament'',
with the following:
``the House of Commons'';
(d) in sub-clause (4), by replacing each instance of the words ``both
Houses of Parliament'', with the following:
``the House of Commons''; and
(e) in sub-clause (5), by replacing the words ``either House of
Parliament'', with the following:
``the House of Commons''.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I rise to further explain why I will have the pleasure to support
the sub-amendment presented by my colleague from
Laurentides.
To clarify where we are coming from with this
sub-amendment to Motion No. 4 presented by the NDP member,
I will say that the only thing we agree with is that we would be
ready to support the motion presented by the member for
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Therefore, we would be pleased to
support it. However, to be consistent with the positions we have
taken since the opening of this Parliament, we cannot accept that
non-elected individuals might take the place, even occasionally,
of elected representatives.
We must point out that the Senate is composed of appointed
members who are, as my colleague so skilfully demonstrated,
appointed in a partisan way; they are government cronies. These
appointees, who cost taxpayers $53 million a year, and who are
supposed to be wise, have shown that this is seldom the case.
Therefore, according to the 1848 principle of responsible
government which I explained earlier, decisions made here by
democratically elected representatives of the people should only
and always be discussed in this House. I should point out, for the
benefit of all those present, that each one of them represents a
federal riding, but that they also represent their provincial
legislature, and that there is only one House in each province
because their provincial legislature recognizes the authority of
democratically elected representatives.
What we are opposing mainly is the fact that non-elected
individuals could make decisions. We must therefore support
the amendment to the amendment submitted by my colleague
from Laurentides and make sure that we remove from the
motion of our NDP colleague anything that could be interpreted
as meaning that both Houses must be involved in the
decision-making. Democratic decisions are made here, in this
House, and anything not democratic, like the present proposal,
must be rejected.
(1705)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I am a bit
surprised at the Bloc Quebecois position. Despite explanations
by the hon. member for Terrebonne, one cannot help wondering
how the Bloc Quebecois can move an amendment to an
amendment to a bill over which it is in total disagreement. It is a
bit surprising.
Similarly, I would like to refer to remarks by the hon. member
for Laurentides who keeps harping on the same old theme that
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is some kind of
absolute intrusion in prerogatives of provinces and more
particularly Quebec.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the federal
government has not only the right but the responsibility, as
stated by the Supreme Court, to deal with environmental
assessment, if only in such areas of exclusive jurisdiction as
coastal zones, navigable waters, fisheries, national harbours,
airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway, Crown lands, native lands,
defence facilities, not to mention the shared jurisdiction on
environment itself.
Indeed, I would point out to the hon. member for Laurentides,
if she is interested in getting information, that joint assessments
have been made for a very long time in Quebec concerning, for
example, Cacouna Harbour, the St. Marguerite River more
recently and the Lachine Canal very recently. There are
instances of several projects assessed either by BAPE or, on rare
occasions, by the federal government, when the project was
essentially under federal jurisdiction.
As for the motion by the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, we are quite aware that under
several acts of Parliament, regulatory systems are established
independently of Parliament.
In the case of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
the regulations were subjected to one of the most rigorous and
progressive procedures established by the Government of
Canada. During the last election, we on this side of the House
promised an in-depth review of the existing regulations-
8658
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the parliamentary secretary. We are debating the amendment to
Motion No. 4.
Mr. Lincoln: May I speak to both at the same time? It is the
same subject anyway.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the member have
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: During the last election, we on this side of the
House promised an in-depth review of existing regulations as
well as ongoing consultation on the others. Some existing
regulations have been reviewed thoroughly and substantially
improved as many witnesses have recognized, in fact.
All the other regulations are subjected to the same in-depth
analysis by all the interested parties.
[English]
I am very sympathetic to the member's suggestion, but the
suggestion does not seem to recognize that extensive
consultation has taken place, nor does it reflect the fact that the
development of regulations is a much larger question than that
contained in the regulations under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
If the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake wishes to
change the federal regulatory development process, the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is certainly not the
place to do it. For this reason the government will not accept this
motion, nor the amendment to the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to defer the vote to tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if
you could seek unanimous consent to adjourn the House, having
completed the legislation before us for today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.12 p.m., as
there are no members available for the proceedings on the
adjournment motion, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.12 p.m.)