TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 27, 1994
Bill C-274. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6180
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6184
Bill C-50. Motion for second reading 6185
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6188
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6196
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6199
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6200
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6201
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6207
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 6209
Bill C-48. Motion for second reading 6209
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6213
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6214
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6215
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6215
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6215
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6216
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6216
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6216
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6216
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6216
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6217
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6217
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6217
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6218
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6218
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6219
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6219
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6219
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6219
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6220
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6221
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6221
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6222
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6223
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6223
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6223
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 6225
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 199; Nays, 44 6225
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 6226
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 6226
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 7; Nays, 206 6226
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 85, Nays, 138 6227
Bill C-48. Consideration resumed of motion 6228
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 6229
Bill C-229. Motion for second reading 6241
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6242
6177
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 27, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, this morning I am
releasing for consultation a discussion paper outlining a
proposed Canadian policy for the management of toxic
substances.
The policy proposes that Canada introduce the most advanced
toxic substances strategy in the world. It would be the leading
approach taken by any nation. The document is based on the
most up to date international scientific findings and is consistent
with the conclusions recently reached by the world's leading
scientific experts at a meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry.
[Translation]
Although the document I am tabling today contains some very
complex information, the objectives of the policy document are
quite straightforward. We want to eliminate from the
environment, as completely as possible, all substances that are
the result of human activity, take a long time to break down in
the environment, accumulate in living organisms and are toxic.
[English]
The bottom line is that the Canadian government wants to see
no measurable release of toxic substances into the environment.
We want to clean up what is there now and we want our
international partners to do the same.
[Translation]
In the case of all other substances that meet only one or more
of these criteria, we propose to put in place a system for the
integrated management of their life cycles.
[English]
We propose to take a leading edge approach to toxics, those
that are currently being used in Canada and those that may be
introduced in the future.
[Translation]
If we cannot find ways to prevent toxics from being released
into the environment, we intend to take steps to prevent their
manufacture and use.
[English]
The new policy involves a principle of reverse onus. It is a
very simple principle, a principle that applies now when we deal
with issues like medication. It basically means that the onus is
on industry to satisfy Canadians that a substance is safe rather
than vice versa.
When a substance is targeted for virtual elimination, the onus
will be on industry to prove that it will achieve no measurable
release into the environment.
[Translation]
According to our proposal, the most hazardous toxics should
not be allowed in the environment at all, and management of any
other substance that causes problems should be subject to the
strictest possible controls.
(1005 )
[English]
The policy would provide a clear framework for all federal
laws, regulations, policies and programs dealing with toxics.
[Translation]
In the coming weeks, our government will consult all the
provinces and territories, business sectors and environmental
groups on the subject of the process and about any
improvements they would like to see in the policy and the
discussion paper. We want to find out what Canadians think by
November 30, because time is of the essence where the health of
Canadians is concerned.
I want to make it clear that our ultimate goal is to have a
national policy on toxic substances that is the best in the world.
We need a healthy environment, both for our economic
well-being and our personal well-being. We must concentrate
on preventing environmental damage instead of taking action
once the damage is done. More efficient management of toxics
means that the federal government must take a militant
approach.
6178
[English]
In the red book we said:
Canada needs a new approach that focuses on preventing pollution at source.
Timetables must be set for the phasing out all use of the most persistent toxic
substances. Manufacturing innovations are needed to avoid the use or creation of
pollutants in the first place; for example, through raw material substitution or
closed-loop processes that recycle chemicals within the plant. There is no
alternative if Canadians wish to stop long-term toxic pollutants from entering
our air, soil, and water.
[
Translation]
A new policy that will be the focus of Canada's position on
toxic substances in our negotiations with the rest of the world.
We want Canada to lead the way in a movement for international
action.
[English]
The simple reality is that Canada is open to the world on the
Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic. We cannot solve our toxic
problem alone. We must encourage our American neighbours
and indeed the whole world to clean up their act. Airborne toxics
do not respect borders. The milk of nursing mothers in Inuit
communities that have never been touched by industrialization
is contaminated by toxins used literally thousands of kilometres
away. Toxics dumped in the sea do not respect borders.
I had a meeting earlier this week with Canadian and U.S.
members on the International Joint Commission who advised
me that when we move to a policy of zero discharge in Lake
Superior, which should be in the not too distant future, that lake
will still suffer from levels of toxicity up to 25 per cent because
of airborne toxins that come from countries around the world.
If we are to protect Canada and Canadians we need local
action. We need global action. We need a global agreement. We
will only be in a position to reach that agreement if Canada leads
from a position of strength. If we have the best policy in the
world, if we clean up our own toxic act, we will be able to
encourage other countries to follow suit.
Canada must take the lead to establish its position to influence
the international agenda on the reduction and virtual elimination
of toxins. To that end we intend to host an international
conference on airborne toxins in Vancouver. We hope, along
with other countries, to pull together an international agenda for
joint action on the reduction and virtual elimination of toxins.
We need to seize that opportunity to present a model program to
the world.
The proposed policy would control the entry of toxic
substances into Canada from sources outside our country
through commerce and long range transport. If we can move our
country ahead in managing toxics we can be at the vanguard of
new environmental technologies, new green jobs and new
opportunities. Sooner or later the world will move to control
toxic substances, and we want Canadians to be in the best
position to capture the new markets for green alternatives.
(1010)
[Translation]
Within the next few weeks, I will be announcing new
environmental initiatives to be taken by the government.
I hope, whatever other disagreements we may have, that all
members of Parliament will agree on the importance of moving
forward on our country's environmental agenda.
[English]
All members of Parliament must agree on the importance of
moving forward on the country's environmental agenda. I think
we all agree that we need to take very serious action to deal with
toxic substances that are potentially a poison to our children.
[Translation]
Some of the proposals in the discussion paper may seem
harsh, but we really must stop poisoning ourselves, our children
and our world.
[English]
I know the 60-day time frame is a tight one. I also know that
the time to end toxic substances is rapidly running out. That is
why I look forward to not only the discussion but the resolution
of the toughest toxics policy in the world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, we are
happy to hear from the Minister of the Environment that she
intends to establish a new policy on toxic waste. You will
understand, however, that we cannot give our support to this
working paper without first having a chance to examine it. The
minister's intentions seem good, but the federal regulations are
often not implemented in due form.
The implementation of the primary Canadian legislation
concerning toxic substances, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, presents a number of difficulties. For example,
in the two years since the CEPA was first implemented, some
20,000 substances have been placed on the domestic substance
list and 44 have been identified for assessment and added to the
priority substance list.
In his 1991 report, the auditor general noted that, although the
CEPA required that the 44 substances on this list be analyzed by
1994, only two had been investigated fully. In addition,
Environment Canada and National Health and Welfare have
assessed
6179
20 of the 33 chemical products on the list. To date, only ten of
these assessments have been made public.
The creation of the Office of Enforcement is an initiative that
should help to solve these problems, but a number of concerns
remain, particularly with respect to the regulation and control of
toxic substances. Thus, according to the Auditor General, there
is confusion within the federal administration regarding who is
responsible for introducing environmental programs and the
department has failed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
controls.
This example, just one among many, is a clear indication that
the federal government is already having trouble enforcing the
CEPA. The minister should show us what means she intends to
use to ensure compliance with the policy she will be introducing
and she should realize that this is necessary if she is ever going
to make us think that it will have a definite impact on the use of
toxic substances in Canada.
I would like to see the minister's policy ensure a healthier
environment and an improved quality of life for us all.
The minister talks about regulating industry in order to
prevent the proliferation of toxic substances. Industry should
convince the government that a given substance should not be
eliminated from the environment. However, the federal
government is not itself snow white in this regard.
I would invite the minister to take a stroll in the Old Port of
Montreal, a few hundred metres from the downtown core. I
would invite her to wander over to hangar No. 3 by the
Alexandra pier, at the corner of Callières and de la Commune.
The federal government is storing 1.5 tonnes of PCBs here in
downtown Montreal, for lack of another appropriate site.
(1015)
There is no cause for alarm. The building is inspected on a
regular basis and well guarded at all times. But I can assure you
that the Old Port of Montreal officials would be only too willing
to get rid of it. Environment Canada should above all manage
these toxic substances responsibly, by not taking any risk,
however remote, of causing an environmental disaster in the
heart of Montreal.
Last week-end, I had the opportunity of discussing with
members of environmental groups from Quebec and Canada at
the general assembly of the Canadian Environmental Network.
These people strongly dedicated to environmental protection
described to us the enormous difficulties they are faced with
when working on issues involving dangerous substances.
What they are referring to is the powerful lobby of big
industries that use harmful chemicals for the manufacturing or
conversion of certain products. We must warn the hon. minister
of the political and economic context of the discussions she is
planning to have with the industry with respect to the burden
that shall rest on it of proving that a given chemical substance
poses no immediate or long-term threat to the environment.
The minister also indicated that she intended to discuss with
the provinces with a view to improving on the working paper she
has tabled. This is the least she can do. In fact, toxic substances
control does not fall under the jurisdiction of any level of
government under the Canadian constitution. Both the federal
and provincial governments can act in that area and it is of
paramount importance that all levels of government be involved
in developing a policy in that respect.
Having read the minister's paper over, if it is clear that
Quebec's jurisdiction was respected and that the policy
provisions were duly negotiated with the Quebec government,
the Bloc Quebecois will give its support to the minister's policy
proposal. This means that the Bloc Quebecois support depends
for a large part on the consultation process the Minister of
Environment will choose to use with the provinces.
Environment is one area where Quebec and Canada can set
common goals. A sovereign Quebec will quite obviously
negotiate environmental agreements with its neighbours. Where
the interests of Quebec and Canada coincide, which is often the
case with regard to environmental protection, the governments
must agree to look for a mutually beneficial solution to the
problems confronting us.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this paper.
We are all environmentalists. I believe the environment
committee is an excellent example. It is one of the committees
on which we all get along because we have the same aims. The
difference is degree, and that is what we are talking about here.
Toxic substances can be brought into the scene, for example in
eastern Europe, in particular Romania where there were huge
quantities of waste going into the air. The other end of the
spectrum is something like Wood Buffalo National Park. We are
in the middle. We clearly want to manage our affairs in the best
way possible.
There are naturally occurring substances such as mercury,
lead and asbestos but then there are the man made toxics which
are the ones we are talking about today. Clearly something that
is toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative should not be on our
6180
shopping list. Those should not be there and I believe that is
where we are going.
My concern, however, is that we take too hard a line. In some
areas of B.C. we have done that. I would hope that there are good
scientific data so that we are acting from a good broad base
rather than a good feel, for example. As the onus is going to be
on industry, it needs to be involved.
I would like to go back into my other life, when I first got to
Port Alberni in 1970. This is not a criticism of the pulp mill
industry; in fact it is the reverse. The first time I got to Port
Alberni I parked in a hotel lot. The next morning I got up and I
could not see out my windshield because of the fly ash from the
pulp mill. That was 24 years ago.
(1020)
It was the same for scuba divers I talked to who had gone out
into the canal. The bottom of the canal 25 years ago was like a
wasteland. Today Alberni is much different. One has to take a
second look at the mill on a day during which there is low
humidity so there will be no steam to actually see if that mill is
running. There is just heat going out of the stacks. There is no fly
ash.
When I talk to scuba divers now they say the marine life in the
harbour has all come back. That is where we have come in 24
years.
The minister is to be complimented on the consultation
process. I have concerns about the time frame because it is
clearly pretty tight. I would hope that in the process the minister
will listen to what comes out of that process. I hope it is not set
down in stone now so that in the process it can evolve.
I am pleased to see all the groups, environmental groups, the
industry, all levels, so they can have input into this process.
There are some concerns with international agreements and the
Great Lakes. How does it tie into CEPA, the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act?
In short, I look forward to working with this document. I
thank the minister for getting it to us so quickly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the Government's response to five
petitions.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-274, an act respecting a national
grandparents' day.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to
recognize and celebrate grandparents in Canada. We have over
four million grandparents living in North America. They take
care of more than six million children.
It is extremely important that we celebrate this day by
designating the second Sunday in September every year as
national grandparents' day, as we do in many provinces and
cities in the country.
(Motions deemed adopted adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1025 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, the
petitioners from my riding oppose any further legislation that
might be brought forward concerning doctor assisted suicide.
They believe the provisions of section 241 of the Criminal
Code should be enforced. It is their opinion that this by itself
would go a long way toward prohibiting this type of activity.
They also would like expansion of palliative care.
I should mention in passing that hearings have been
undertaken by the government, by the special Senate committee
on euthanasia and assisted suicide. There will be hearings in
Winnipeg from September 29 to October 1 of this year.
Anyone from the city of Winnipeg or the province of
Manitoba who wants their points of view to be known could do
so through this vehicle.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of residents of provinces across Canada who draw to
the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code
denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible
and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily
to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal
Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by
allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating
6181
illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their
lives at a time of their choice subject to strict safeguards.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by 42
constituents of Ontario riding.
The petitioners call upon Parliament not to amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way that would indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships.
They also call upon Parliament not to amend the human rights
code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Madam
Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 500
constituents from several communities in my riding including
Williams Lake, Forest Grove, McLeese Lake, Quesnel and 150
Mile House. The petition is also signed by people who live
outside my constituency.
The petitioners call upon the government not to pass any new
legislation that results in additional gun control laws. The
petitioners also call upon the government under existing gun
laws to increase penalties for the illegal possession or criminal
use of any firearm.
I concur with the petitioners.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both on the same
subject matter of gun control.
The petitioners from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt are
outraged at the prospect of additional gun control legislation.
They oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and
possession and urge the government to provide strict and
mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the
commission of a crime.
I agree with the petitioners.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 27, 28, 29,
30 and 51.
[Text]
Question No. 27-Mr. Althouse:
How many Canadian grain hopper cars have been dispatched with: (a) CWS
cargo; (b) open-market WGTA cargo; (c) specialty cargo into the United States in
each of the past three months and what is their turnaround time?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): (a), (b) and
(c). Transport Canada and the Grain Transportation Agency do
not have access to the necessary data to answer this question.
Question No. 28-Mr. Althouse:
In this crop year, how many loaded hopper cars taken into the United States by
CP and CN were diverted to United States owned lines for transport of cargo to
final destinations?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Transport
Canada and the Grain Transportation Agency do not have the
necessary data-information with which to comment on this
issue.
Question No. 29-Mr. Althouse:
Have any grain or specialty crops shipped into the United States been
destined for final destination outside the United States?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Transport
Canada and the Grain Transportation Agency do not have the
necessary data-information with which to comment on this
issue.
Question No. 30-Mr. Althouse:
How many additional hopper cars have each of the railways leased for use in
the grain trade this year compared to each of the previous three years?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): The Grain
Transportation Agency advises as follows.
The following table indicates the car fleet supplied by the
railways. The table includes both owned and leased cars, as the
agency does not have the necessary data to provide a breakdown
for leased cars alone.
Question No. 51-Mr. Harper (Calgary West):
With regard to grain cars purchased or leased using federal public funds, (a)
who is responsible for allocating their use, (b) what is their present geographic
distribution, and (c) how is the revenue resulting from their time-mileage use
accounted for?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): The Grain
Transportation Agency advises as follows: (a), (b) and (c).
The Grain Transportation Agency assumed responsibility
from the Canadian Wheat Board for administering the car fleet
in 1987. This responsibility includes dividing the fleet between
the railways and negotiating new operating agreements with the
railways. The operating agreement establishes the terms and
conditions for operation of the federally owned hopper cars. The
federal hopper car fleet consists of 12,902 cars which the
government has provided for railway use to transport grain free
of charge. The first operating agreement between the
government and CP Rail and CN Rail was established in 1972.
Prior to 1972 the railways supplied their own cars to meet
western grain
6183
movement. As grain became an increasingly non-compensatory
movement, the railways found it uneconomical to invest in
rolling stock and the governments, federal and provincial, began
supplying cars to meet export demand. Since the passage of the
Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA, the railways are
responsible for augmenting the fleet to meet all demands. The
railcars are used to transport eligible commodities listed in the
WGTA.
The bulk of the federal fleet would be moving grain in western
Canada to domestic and export positions. If the federal cars are
used outside the western division, basically western Canada, the
railways pay funds to the federal government under the alternate
use agreement.
The Grain Transportation Agency also administers the
alternate use agreements. Government cars can be used in
alternate service in order to improve customer service, to reduce
railcar switching and improve system efficiency as long as the
railways are able to meet WGTA movement requirements. The
agreements restrict the number of cars in alternative service.
Alternative service includes non-WGTA movements outside
western Canada. The railways are charged a commercial per
diem rate. The money earned through alternate use agreements
is paid to the federal government through the consolidated
revenue fund. Funds totalling $3.4 million were earned during
the 1992-93 crop year.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The questions as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I have given the Chair notice of a point of order arising
from comments made in the House during a debate on Bill C-41
on Tuesday of last week.
I will state my point of order briefly. It arises pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 18 of the House. That standing
order lists a number of groups and states:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of-nor use offensive words against
either House or against-any Member thereof.
It goes on from there.
(1030 )
On Tuesday of last week the following words were spoken in
the House: ``The reference to sexual orientation in the code and
its proposed inclusion in the human rights legislation gives
recognition to a faction in our society which is undermining and
destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality''. It goes
on to state: ``Homosexuality is not natural. It is immoral and it is
undermining the inherent rights and values of our Canadian
families and it must not and should not be condoned''.
Those words, spoken by the member for Central Nova, clearly
in my view give rise to a point of order pursuant to Standing
Order 18. As a gay man, indeed as the only openly gay member
of the House, I want to point out that certainly I am not the only
homosexual in the House. Indeed there are gay people on both
sides of the House and in the other place. I dare say there always
have been, just as gays and lesbians are found in all other walks
of life.
Pursuant to Standing Order 18, I want to ask what could be
more offensive, to use the words of Standing Order 18, than to
suggest that my very existence is immoral, unnatural,
destroying Canadian values and must not be condoned. If
similar hateful words had been directed toward another
minority, be they Jews, Blacks, Chinese Canadians, people with
disabilities or aboriginal people, all of whom are represented in
the House, it is inconceivable the Chair would not have
intervened and called the offending speaker to order. Therefore I
want to ask why the standard should be any lower in the case of
hatred directed at gays and lesbians in the House.
Finally, just to conclude, it is not good enough to suggest that
just because these words are not directed at a specific individual
therefore they can be spoken with impunity. If the words are
unparliamentary if spoken with reference to one individual
member, why should they lose that character if spoken of an
unnamed general group of members?
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Madam Speaker, I feel
I have a right and an obligation to respond to the point of order. I
point out to the Chair this is not a point of order that the member
for Burnaby-Kingsway raises.
If any member has the right to rise on a point of order arising
from our debates on the floor of the House on Tuesday,
September 20, 1994, it would be me. I have a right as a
parliamentarian to express unequivocally what I feel is
appropriate on debate when scrutinizing legislation.
If anyone has any concerns it should be this member because
of the comments made by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
In Hansard the Speaker will see where he refers to me making
statements on the floor of the House that I did not in fact make
on the floor of the House. He specifically makes reference to
select words and uses the words out of context, words arising
from a debate on May 15, 1994 on the CBC prime time news
program ``On the Line''. The issue discussed and debated was
what rights should gays be entitled to and questions were posed
by both the commentator and the public at large.
The member for Burnaby-Kingsway stood on the floor of the
House and used select words and put to other members of the
House his opinion of what I said. I will quote specifically from
Hansard at page 5913. He states: ``Will she now stand in her
6184
place and retract those hateful comments?'' He makes reference
to words that I used on the floor of the House as being hateful.
Second, he indicates that I have no place in the Liberal Party.
He then refers to me at page 5912 as ``the hon. member, and I use
those words advisedly''. That is not proper parliamentary
language.
(1035 )
At page 5916, speaking to another member when I was not
present in the House, on four occasions in the same commentary
he referred to me as ``she''. Not once did he refer to me as the
member for Central Nova. I object to that. That is improper. He
is a senior parliamentarian and I expect respect on the floor of
the House, particularly when I am not present.
At page 5919 the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway in a
commentary to the hon. member for Yellowknife said: ``The
hon. member was present in the House'', referring to the
member for Yellowknife, ``when the Liberal member of
Parliament for Central Nova made comments, among other
things, suggesting that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural
when she suggested that AIDS was a scourge to mankind which
had been inflicted upon the country by homosexuals''.
Nowhere in Hansard will it be seen that I made those
comments on the floor of the House. I demand a public apology.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments which may
assist the Chair.
I think it is obvious that two members of Parliament have
made statements in the House on which they obviously have
strong views and have disagreed with each other. One member
said that another member had suggested that AIDS was a
scourge and so on. I do not know whether those comments were
made anywhere but they were not made on the floor of the
House. To repeat them here in the House certainly is not helpful
to any hon. member nor to the debate nor even to decorum.
On the other hand it is quite true that from time to time
members of the House do make statements with which others
disagree. I think the issue before us this morning is whether or
not Standing Order 18 has been breached, notwithstanding all
other considerations.
Standing Order 18 reads:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any member
of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering
the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or
against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the
House-
I think those words in our rules have traditionally been
interpreted by you, Madam Speaker, and by other occupants of
the chair as meaning that a member of Parliament cannot accuse
another member of having done a particular thing which is
offensive. I cannot accuse another member of Parliament
personally of having committed a criminal act, for instance. I
cannot accuse another member of other types of wrongdoing in
the House and get away with it.
The reason that standing order is there is obviously so that the
occupant of the chair can remind members that anyone in the
House who makes an accusation personally against another
member is forced to withdraw in order to have proper decorum
and order in the House.
We have before us today a case of strong disagreement
between two people. I am not judging the disagreement. I am
suggesting that Standing Order 18 has not been breached in this
particular case.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I rise on
the same point of order. I would urge you to rule that this is not a
point of order that is before us but a matter of debate where two
members of the House of Commons have put a point of view
forward and it is part of debate.
When I look at the circumstances here in referencing Standing
Order 18, the member as I recall from what I heard was not
referencing a specific member but was talking to a general
circumstance. I think that must be taken into consideration when
you make your ruling, Madam Speaker.
I believe that as members of the House of Commons we are
given the privilege of speaking about a variety of subjects, of
giving our opinion personally or on behalf of other individuals
or on behalf of our constituents. When we do that we take the
responsibility for those opinions and those words as we set them
before the House. Those are items of debate in the House and do
not come under what we are referencing today or considering a
point of order. We have that privilege. Sometimes we are going
to say things in the House that are not deemed to be politically
correct. That may not be acceptable to some people but in
general in referencing freedom of speech they are acceptable
and can be said as a member of the House of Commons.
(1040)
Ms. Skoke: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has
been brought to my attention that I made reference to the hon.
member for Yellowknife and I wish to apologize if there were
problems arising from that. It is the hon. member for
Yellowhead. I apologize if there was any confusion there.
6185
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Chair realizes the
seriousness of the matter before it. We will take it under
advisement and come back to the House very shortly.
I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order
33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government
Orders will be extended by 20 minutes.
_____________________________________________
6185
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, last October the government was
elected based on a comprehensive plan for Canada known as the
red book, which was our platform. In that red book we made a
number of commitments to the people of Canada. I am very
pleased that within our first 11 months in office we have made
considerable headway on a number of fronts.
As Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food it is my great
pleasure to speak today about one of these initiatives, namely
the government's commitment to research and development
specifically in the context of Bill C-50.
I recall attending my very first meeting with producers as a
new minister. It was a meeting of the Manitoba pool elevators
last November in Winnipeg. There were a number of issues on
the minds of delegates at that meeting. They wanted to talk
about GATT and about trade issues. They wanted to discuss
transportation and safety nets. All of these issues have been
moving forward at a very rapid pace and some of them with
much public fanfare and media interest.
I also recall at that meeting another important issue that was
raised by one of the delegates, one which received less fanfare
and less public attention. The question was about research. I told
the delegates at the Manitoba pool convention what I have been
telling farmers and farm organizations across the country
throughout the course of this past year. I believe agricultural
research is an extremely important issue, one where we must
continue to focus our resources.
My department already has a very good track record in
selecting research and development projects with a high return
for Canada. We are continually reviewing our research priorities
and programs to ensure that we are getting the best possible
value for every research dollar. We are also nurturing our
partnership approach to industry responsive research by inviting
our industry, academic and producer partners to take
responsibility with us.
We are placing a strong emphasis on matching funding and
joint projects with stakeholders in all facets of our operations.
This allows us to use the market for direction.
Some might say this approach reduces the federal
commitment to research or that my department may use the
check-off proposed in Bill C-50 as an excuse to reduce
expenditures in wheat and barley research. While it is likely that
overall government spending will decline as we battle against
the deficit, as we must, I want to emphasize that innovation and
a strong research program are essential to Canadian agriculture
and will be a priority for my department.
(1045 )
I make no apologies for sharing the responsibility of the
future of agriculture with our industry and producer partners.
Some members may have heard me talk about the matching
investment initiative which we have launched this past year.
Under this program we will spend some of our existing R and D
dollars in a new way. Where industry identifies research
projects that are of commercial interest we will match industry's
investment dollar for dollar. This is not new money but money
we have redirected from lower priority activities.
This approach makes sense and allows us to move forward on
research while maintaining fiscal responsibility to Canadians.
Producers have told me they want to play an important role in
research since the results of research directly affect their
operations and ultimately their livelihoods. This shared
approach gives us the best of both worlds.
Good research is not a frill or an ivory tower pursuit to be
thrown aside in tough times. Dedicated and focused research is a
necessity for survival particularly in tough times. Dedicated and
focused research supplies the technology that creates
opportunities for market development and new exports which
are so vital to the sustainability of our industry.
One of the most important initiatives with significant long
term implications for the future of agriculture generally and the
grains industry in particular is in plant breeding. Today we are
considering Bill C-50 which is legislation that will lead to an
additional $4.7 million in annual investments in plant breeding
research.
This investment has the potential in about 10 years to
translate into a $400 million increase in gross returns to prairie
farmers annually. It is an investment which will cost wheat
producers about half a cent a bushel or about 20 cents a tonne. I
think any investor would be more than just a little interested
about such an attractive rate of return.
What I am talking about today is a research partnership, the
result of a proposal put forward by producers through the
Western Grains Research Foundation. The proposal calls for a
voluntary producer levy or a check-off program to support plant
breeding research programs for wheat and barley. The federal
6186
government is acting on this recommendation from the
foundation.
For the past several months my department has been working
very closely with the Western Grains Research Foundation to
develop a check-off program which will enable grain producers
themselves to supplement existing research budgets. To make
this happen we require some legislative amendments. That is
why I am recommending that the act which governs the
Canadian Wheat Board be amended to allow voluntary levies to
be deducted for the explicit purpose of supporting plant
breeding research. Such deductions are simply not possible
under the existing Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I bring this legislation to the House today and I am asking
members to support it based on the knowledge that this program
is a joint effort among government, industry and the research
community. This check-off plan has been developed in close
consultation with producer groups as well as with scientists
from universities and from my department.
As I stated earlier I am a firm believer that the best way we can
accomplish our research objectives is for both industry and
government to invest in research in a partnership approach. This
effort before you, this specific check-off plan, is supported by
the Canadian Wheat Board and has already received strong
support from a majority of farm organizations. And well it
should since the concept has been a producer initiative from day
one, an initiative which we have been working on with
producers to make it a reality.
This program will generate additional research funds through
the voluntary levies on wheat and barley sales. The levies will be
deducted from Canadian Wheat Board final payments to
producers. They will apply to board sales of most wheat in the
four western provinces and the sales of barley in Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and B.C. Alberta sales of soft white wheat and barley
would not be subject to this levy as producers of those
commodities already have check-offs in place provincially.
(1050)
Some people might point to reduced wheat acreages and
suggest that producers will not want to support a so-called
declining crop. To these people I would say that despite ongoing
diversification of crops, wheat is still a major crop for many
producers on the prairies. Last year it contributed $2.7 billion to
the Canadian economy.
Despite the recent and dramatic surge in the importance of
canola as a crop in Canada, with better world prices in the last
number of weeks wheat may have regained its rank as our most
valuable crop. It is important to remember also that wheat is not
one crop but actually is seven. Some varieties such as durum,
extra strong, and white prairie spring are gaining acreage and
gaining market share.
I would like to provide the House with a bit of background
about why research levies are needed and what we hope to
achieve with them. I would like to explain how the grain
producers on the prairies in partnership with government came
to the decision that such levies are a necessary and important
key to the future of prairie agriculture and the grains industry in
Canada.
The Western Grains Research Foundation is a federally
chartered public organization with a proven track record in
supporting effective pure research. It was established just over
10 years ago to allocate research funds. Its economic base came
from the interest earned on $9 million left over from the prairie
farm assistance act when it was repealed.
Currently the foundation distributes about $900,000 a year in
interest funds. It has done some very good work with that
money. It has focused on vital issues such as the problem with
fusarium head blight in Manitoba. The foundation is quick in its
reaction time and it is targeted on vital issues.
The foundation is run by a board of directors representing its
member producer organizations and includes a representative
from the research branch of my department. What this means is
that the research decisions of the Western Grains Research
Foundation are made by producers and the foundation is
accountable for those decisions to all of its producers as well as
the federal government.
To carry out its new research objectives the foundation will
establish two research advisory committees, one for wheat
breeding and one for barley breeding. These committees will be
responsible for developing operational plans and co-ordinating
research programs designed to achieve our plant breeding
objectives. They will decide which research projects to fund in
western research centres and the emphasis will be on funding
work that will meet a future market need.
Western plant breeding centres receiving funding will report
on their progress annually to the Western Grains Research
Foundation. This progress will be reviewed by the advisory
committees who will make decisions about continued support.
Furthermore the foundation will report annually to all prairie
permit book holders giving an accounting of the money received
and how it has been used to accomplish the research goals.
The role of the Canadian Wheat Board in all of this is purely
administrative. All major decisions will be the responsibility of
the Western Grains Research Foundation which is ultimately
accountable to its producers and to the Government of Canada. I
feel very comfortable with the accountability process which the
Western Grains Research Foundation has established for itself
under this proposed program.
In supporting these amendments to the Canadian Wheat
Board Act hon. members of the House will be in very good
company. They will in fact be joining a team of supporters from
6187
12 prairie farm organizations which make up the Western Grains
Research Foundation.
(1055)
Those member organizations are: United Grain Growers;
Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association; Manitoba Pool
Elevators; Prairie Canola Growers Council; Flax Growers of
Western Canada; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; Keystone
Agricultural Producers; Western Barley Growers Association;
Oat Producers of Alberta; Alberta Wheat Pool; Canadian Seed
Growers Association; and the Unifarm organization of Alberta.
There are recent indications that other groups and organizations
wish to join this team of research oriented and progressive farm
organizations.
These organizations are key players in the Canadian grains
industry. All of them have backed the voluntary check-off
proposal and they have consulted with their producer members.
It was the decision of these organizations that dedicated
research funds be collected and applied explicitly to plant
breeding research.
What we have here is a program that producers want. It is one
we will be supporting through the legislative amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act now before the House in the form of
Bill C-50. Simply put, the program will enable producers to do
what they have asked for: to invest a portion of their own money
into the future of their crops, their industry and their very
livelihoods.
Canada's grains industry is highly dependent on exports.
Today's grain customers are demanding both a stable supply and
a high quality product that meets their end use requirements. I
have consistently maintained that we must be able to respond
quickly to changing market conditions if we are to remain
competitive in those vital global markets.
The proposal before the House will help us to improve our
competitive advantage while also improving farm incomes.
New varieties of wheat and barley will be developed. New
varieties will lead to improved field performance, higher yield
potentials, increased resistance to disease and insect pests,
earlier maturity and reduced harvest losses, all improvements
which will reduce per tonne production costs for farmers.
The development of new varieties with specific qualities
required by the marketplace will improve sales through the
development of new market opportunities. This will keep
Canada on the fast track in meeting marketplace demands.
For example, Canada must be able to respond rapidly to new
demands for varieties of wheat suitable for specific uses such as
frozen bread dough, Asian type noodles, or new varieties of
malting barley that are needed in markets like Korea and China.
In fact we do have a variety of wheat that is suitable for the
frozen bread dough requirement, but so far it is not grown in
large enough quantities.
Meeting the demands of these changing trends in food
consumption preferences could mean significant new market
potential and increased profits for western producers. Sound
investments in crop research will pay off in better market
returns to farmers in the future.
Will Canada be ready when opportunity knocks in terms of
these new markets? With the benefit of research initiatives such
as this voluntary check-off proposal contained in Bill C-50, I
firmly believe Canadian farmers will be in a better position to
compete in that very tough and demanding international
marketplace.
As I said earlier, the program has the potential to bring plant
breeding research almost $5 million in additional funding each
year. The House will note that I used the word additional. This is
important. I know concern has been expressed in some quarters
that governments might take advantage of the contributions
made by producers under this program to reduce the government
spending on wheat and barley breeding programs.
We all know that cuts have occurred throughout government
and that overall spending reductions are likely to be a fact of life
in government for the foreseeable future. My department will
not target wheat and barley research for special reductions just
because of the contributions made by farmers under the
program. Funding levels for wheat and barley research will be
held in proper proportion to the amount being spent on research
for other grain crops within the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada.
(1100)
Here is how this voluntary check-off will be implemented. It
will work in the simplest form possible through deductions from
Canadian Wheat Board final payments before that money is
distributed to farmers. When I say ``as simple as possible'' I
mean just that.
There are no huge administrative costs or red tape. I would
suggest that the administrative costs proposed in Bill C-50 will
be lower than the costs of other similar types of programs
already in place in some provinces.
Annual operating costs are estimated to be in the order of
$106,000 a year or about 2 per cent of revenues. That amount
will be deducted from the total amount of levies collected.
Western producers of wheat and barley would pay levies of 20
cents per tonne on wheat and 40 cents per tonne on barley. The
barley levy is higher to partially offset the lower volume of
barley deliveries.
The amount to be levied will be fixed by order in council. The
levies will be deducted from Canadian Wheat Board final
payments beginning with those for the 1993-94 crop year and
those final payments in the ordinary course of events for
1993-94 would be made in January 1995.
6188
The funds collected, beginning in the coming year and in
subsequent years, will be automatically transferred by the
Canadian Wheat Board to special accounts set up and
administered by the Western Grains Research Foundation.
This program is not intended to duplicate or replace current
check-off programs already in place in some provinces.
Producers who choose not to participate may opt out if that is
their preference. Any farmer wishing to opt out of the levy on an
annual basis can do so by a simple notice in writing.
However early indications are that we can anticipate a
participation rate in this check-off program in the order of 90
per cent. We have confidence in that participation rate because
this program has been initiated by producers and producer
organizations. It has had their keen support throughout its
developmental stages to the point now where legislation is ready
in the House of Commons.
Research and development spending cannot be simply turned
on and turned off like a tap. Such an attitude toward research
only results in inadequate and inconsistent support and missed
opportunities. Inaction on the research front would negate the
day to day efforts of hardworking farmers across the prairies and
Canada would risk losing its competitive edge in wheat and
barley markets. We absolutely cannot run the risk of our wheat
and barley breeding programs falling behind those of our
competitors. For years now our major competitors like
Australia, the United States and the European Union have been
taking a direct role in renewing public plant breeding programs
in wheat and barley. Incidentally, much of their research has
been implemented as a result of producer funded programs. A
check-off or a producer levy in Canada is required to keep up
with that international competition.
I am pleased to bring forward this producer initiative to
increase funding for plant breeding research in Canada. The
proposed wheat and barley check-off is a very good example of
how producers and government can work constructively
together to achieve something that will benefit the industry as
whole and will translate into benefits for future Canadians.
I recommend that the House approve Bill C-50 amending the
Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow voluntary levies to be
deducted in support of this important research program. I am
anxious to hear the comments and remarks of members of the
House who I hope will indicate their support for this particular
direction.
(1105)
I would draw to the attention of the House, this being Tuesday
morning, that I have a commitment in cabinet to which I must
attend. I regret not being able to stay to listen to the remarks that
will be offered by other members in the course of the debate.
I am very pleased that the secretary of state for agriculture and
agri-food and my parliamentary secretary will both be here and
listening to the remarks of hon. members. I suspect they will be
participating in the debate. I very much look forward to the
reaction of members to this important bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, as
the new agriculture critic for the Bloc Quebecois, the Official
Opposition, I am happy this morning to speak to Bill C-50 on
the Canadian Wheat Board.
According to the information we received at our meeting this
week with Agriculture Canada officials, this bill results from a
Western grain producers' initiative. What they want is simple:
they are willing to cut back on their profits in order to invest in
research aimed at improving the genetic quality of wheat and
barley. This bill will allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make
deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment
cheques for the purpose of increasing private research funding.
As the single marketing agent for Canadian wheat and barley,
the Canadian Wheat Board buys almost all grain produced.
Deductions of 20 cents per tonne of wheat and 40 cents per tonne
of barley will be made from payments on delivery. These figures
were calculated by estimating research needs in millions of
dollars and dividing the total by the number of tonnes bought.
As a Quebec farmer, I know much more about beef, pork and
milk production than about grain production. So I was surprised
to learn that although the bill only refers to wheat, the officials
who explained Bill C-50 to us assured us that amendments
affecting wheat would automatically apply to barley under the
regulations. It also appears that two separate funds will be
established, one for wheat and the other one for barley.
The deduction rates I mentioned will be set by
order-in-council and not by legislation. This provision could
exempt some classes of grain or some provinces. Alberta, for
instance, will not participate in the barley deductions since the
Alberta Barley Commission already makes such deductions.
Again, as a Quebec farmer, I was also surprised by the fact
that deductions are optional. Officials said they were very
confident that grain producers would participate based on the
current rate of participation in the Alberta Barley Commission
deductions program. We, in Quebec, have a similar process for
marketing and advertising milk, but participation is
compulsory.
(1110)
A method like the one proposed here would not work in
Quebec. As you see, we are really distinct in every way. With
this 90 per cent participation rate, the commission intends to
collect $4.7 million, of which $3.8 million is for wheat and
$900,000 for barley, according to the estimates.
6189
This money will then be used to subsidize research on
improving the genetic quality of wheat and barley. Also,
increasing the yield per acre makes the varieties more resistant
to diseases and parasites and helps find new varieties to better
meet new market requirements.
The first question that comes to our mind is of course the
funding that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada allocates to
research on wheat and barley. We are told that the budget for it
now is $18.7 million. If so, why must producers fund parallel or
complementary research out of their own pocket? Do not
misunderstand me. I think it is quite laudable to encourage
farmers to take charge and proceed with the solutions that they
know are best for them.
Nevertheless, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada should not
shift its responsibilities to the private sector nor should it be
dependent on the private sector. Last week, the Department of
Agriculture tabled a bill that, among other things, clarifies its
mandate by specifying the department's involvement in
research and development. Despite this restructuring, western
grain growers conclude that they have to pay twice to benefit
from research that meets their needs.
All taxpayers, which of course includes farmers, already pay
$18.7 million for research and development on wheat and
barley. Nevertheless, farmers will have to invest $4.7 million
more to orient the research to their priorities. The department
explains that funding for research and development is going
down and that the private sector must take over. In the future,
will the Liberal government lower its share to increase the
contribution from the private sector, namely farmers?
Certainly, research and development is the key to remaining
competitive on foreign markets. Initiatives such as this must be
encouraged and the participation of the private sector, producers
and industrialists, must be increased so that more research and
development is carried out. But I think it is fundamental for the
government to play its role and to finance agricultural research
and development equitably. Earlier, I asked the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane if maple syrup producers in his riding had
problems disposing of their production.
(1115)
In my riding, and more specifically in Plessisville, the world
capital of maple syrup, we have a surplus. I urge the federal
Department of Agriculture to promote research on maple syrup
and sugar in order to find new markets. Surpluses are enormous.
Our producers must sell their maple syrup for roughly the same
price as they did nine or ten years ago. Production costs are
constantly increasing, while the selling price remains the same
or is even lower than before.
In any case, what we are looking at this morning is the
financing of a private research group, namely the Western
Grains Research Foundation, which has already looked at the
issue. Private financing of research offers some benefits to that
sector. It meets specific needs identified by those who finance
that research. On the other hand, the information gathered may
remain confidential. Regardless of what we may think, the
reality is that those two factors may influence grain producers.
The budget allocated by the department is insufficient. That
department is all in favour of finding new markets, but it does
not provide the necessary tools to that end. The money spent by
the department on research and development for wheat and
barley is not in line with priorities in that sector. This second
finding shows a certain lack of understanding of the industry's
needs.
I will conclude by emphasizing the importance of
avoiding-and the minister alluded to that issue earlier-any
duplication or overlapping between the department's research
projects and those of the private sector. As the member
representing the Quebec riding of Frontenac, I know what I am
talking about when it comes to duplication and overlapping.
The most recent example is the referendum held in 1992.
Quebecers are very familiar with the issue of duplication. We
pay double and we keep our mouth shut. Last week, at a briefing
on this bill by Agriculture officials, we were told that research
initiatives will be discussed with the stakeholders in that sector,
precisely to avoid any duplication or overlapping. It seems that
the projects to be financed will complement each other but,
unfortunately, the legislation is totally silent on that aspect.
Right now, we support Bill C-50, except for a few minor
details. When the time comes to review this bill section by
section for the benefit of western farmers, we will try to coax the
Liberal government, the minister, as well as the new
parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Beauséjour.
(1120)
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Champlain will also
discuss Bill C-50 in a few moments.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, it is truly
a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act to allow a refundable check-off from wheat and barley
which will be taken from the producers' final payment for the
explicit purpose of plant breeding research.
6190
I would like to start by summarizing provisions of the bill.
The bill would allow deductions from the farmer's final
payment checks for each pool period unless the farmer files with
the Canadian Wheat Board to be exempted from the deduction.
It places revenue into a special account set up and administered
by the Western Grains Research Foundation.
The Canadian Wheat Board must estimate how much money it
will take from farmers to put into the account and then estimate
the share for the research agency. The Canadian Wheat Board
will then give the money to the research funding agency after
paying the administration costs to the board for administering
the fund.
The research funding agency would then distribute the money
received to persons or plant breeding centres engaged in the
research into new varieties of wheat and barley. An additional
reserve account will also be set up into which a portion of the
money collected will be put. This reserve account is there to
cover the costs of research contracts if there are insufficient
deductions in a particular pool period.
An annual report must be submitted to the agriculture
minister on its operations and affairs no later than the end of
June, three months after the end of the previous fiscal year.
The deductions would start immediately and would be
retroactive to August 1, 1993, with farmers having to file notice
before February 25, 1995 if they decide that they want to have
their contributions deducted or refunded.
The governor in council may make exemptions to the program
on the basis of the class of wheat sold or on the province or
region in which the wheat was produced.
The rationale behind the bill and the assumed benefits are to
give producers a role in supporting and directing agriculture
research. It will give farmers control to more closely link
agriculture research to farmers' priorities and to marketing
priorities and needs, and to develop new wheat and barley
varieties which will assist the competitiveness of Canadian
farmers by providing $4.7 million in additional research money
which certainly seems to give a good payback to farmers.
Another rationale behind the bill is to develop new market
opportunities and to improve farm income to reduce unit
production costs. This is a rationale behind the bill.
I do have some concerns about the bill. The first is a concern
about the possible overlap in deductions. There are some farmer
groups such as the barley commission in Alberta which have
check-offs in place now. Will there be an overlap with the wheat
board check-off? It is a concern. There is no fixed levy and the
rate of the levy may be increased in the future. That is a concern
as well.
(1125)
The plan focuses on producing new crop varieties. However,
for reasons of efficiency, farmers should probably be moving to
completely different crops in some cases. I think it is important
that this be considered. If the money is simply not in the
agriculture department's budget for this type of research then I
have a concern that the department should do some priorizing
regarding research projects under its existing budget and not
merely download this expense on to farmers.
Another concern is that in the last Auditor General's report it
was revealed that research efforts within the department of
agriculture were very poorly co-ordinated. It is important that is
worked on and not just allowing a separate fund to deal with the
targeting of research money.
There would certainly be an increase in the cost of
administering the program. There would be new administration
costs taken from research funding. This is always a concern and
I think it has to be carefully monitored.
The Reform Party and I do support the bill, however. The
reasons for our support are that the contributions to the research
fund are automatic, although they may be refunded on an annual
basis upon a written application by the farmer. We propose that
the application for refund be made easier by having a box on the
Canadian Wheat Board permit application form which gives
farmers a choice of whether they want to take part and want to
have the deduction refunded.
Another reason for support is that farmers and industry
representatives seem to support the program. There seems to be
widespread support among farm organizations certainly, and
there is some support among farmers.
Another reason for support is that the program will bring an
additional $4.7 million of research to be targeted for wheat and
barley, which has already I believe taken a bit of a hit in terms of
research funding due to research money going into research on
other crops such as peas, lentils and canola.
The research funds I believe will be in the hands of farmers
and farm organizations; they will direct the funding. It is
certainly a positive step any time we can get farmers, the people
who are going to benefit from the research directly, involved in
allocating the funding. That is a possible move.
Again the Reform Party supports the bill. We will be
proposing some amendments in committee. We will do that
when this matter is discussed in committee.
I am extremely disappointed that any bill which opens the
Canadian Wheat Board up to discussion was not far more broad
and substantial. If there is any doubt at all that there is a need for
major reforms of the Canadian Wheat Board then I would like to
demonstrate with the scenario I am going to present now.
6191
Last Thursday on a farm in southern Manitoba a group of
seven RCMP officers, special officers and customs officials
arrived at a farmer's door, knocked on the door and seized a wide
variety of documents from a farmer. In a neighbouring town the
same morning at the same time another group of RCMP officers,
special officers and customs officials arrived at a door of
another farmer and seized documents.
What heinous crime had these farmers committed to have this
large group of RCMP officers, special investigators, customs
officials seizing their documents? Was it a drug bust? Were they
suspected of some kind of embezzlement? Was it a crime like
that? No. The crime they were accused of was shipping grain to
the United States without a Canadian Wheat Board permit.
(1130)
Canada signed a free trade agreement with the United States
which allows for free movement of wheat and barley across the
United States-Canadian border. We signed the free trade
agreement but the crime those farmers were accused of was
shipping wheat or barley across the border without a Canadian
Wheat Board permit. Now that is a heinous crime.
The government, the minister of agriculture and the revenue
minister are using these heavy handed tactics on farmers who
are only trying to make their business profitable and in one case
to save the farm which is close to being foreclosed by the Farm
Credit Corporation. Instead, why does the government not
change the law that applies to the Canadian Wheat Board which
prohibits farmers from taking advantage of the free trade
agreement? I think the crime is that the government refuses to
act in spite of a groundswell of support among farmers for these
changes.
I believe that we do need major reforms to the Canadian
Wheat Board. These reforms must centre around giving farmers
direct control over their organization which they fund. Farmers
pay the complete operating costs for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board was set up for farmers. It was
much needed when it was set up and it probably still has an
important function to serve but farmers must be given control.
No longer is it good enough to put the control of the Canadian
Wheat Board in the hands of government appointed
commissioners.
The change must start by having farmers elect a board of
directors so they gain control of their Canadian Wheat Board.
Beyond that I am not sure the direction in which the board would
go. Farmers have told me some of the things they would like to
see, but it is up to them to determine the change once they do get
control.
I propose that shortly after the board of directors is elected a
mechanism should be put in place with different options for how
the Canadian Wheat Board would look. These options can be put
forward to farmers and they can decide what the make-up of
their organization will be and what it will look like.
Some of the things I have heard from farmers is that they want
competition to be allowed with the Canadian Wheat Board. They
want the freedom to take advantage of the free trade agreement
by shipping their wheat and barley into the United States and
other markets. That is what farmers have told me. Farmers have
said that once competition is allowed to the Canadian Wheat
Board but certainly not before, they would be open to the idea of
the Canadian Wheat Board handling other grains and oilseeds
and specialty crops besides wheat and barley but only after they
have the right to compete.
Farmers have told me they want the wheat board to continue
to guarantee loans on wheat sold abroad only as long as other
countries continue to do the same.
Those are some of the things farmers have told me. Once
again, I cannot understand why this government seems so
opposed to giving farmers control over their organization. Why
is it so determined not to have this happen? I do believe that
farmers absolutely will not put up with it much longer. The
movement is there. There are more and more groups and more
and more farmers all the time who are supporting this change in
the Canadian Wheat Board.
(1135 )
I am not talking about getting rid of the Canadian Wheat
Board. I am talking about improving it so it truly works for
farmers and not just for the sake of the organization itself. Make
it democratic.
When talking about the wheat board the argument has been
raised from time to time that one of the advantages of the
Canadian Wheat Board is that because it is a monopoly, because
it totally controls the export sales of wheat and barley, it should
give farmers a better price. It has that bargaining power.
First, whenever there is a monopoly involved in a market the
market does not function well. Second. when it comes to buying
for export the Canadian Wheat Board does have a monopoly, but
when it comes to selling it is competing against all the other
sellers in the world. The monopoly argument just does not work.
The wheat board is one in an oligopoly, many sellers all of which
do have some influence on the market.
The argument along that line has changed since the wheat
board was put into place. When the wheat board was originally
put into place wheat was not nearly as diverse a commodity as it
is today. Back then there were far fewer different grades and
types of wheat and markets. Customers did not demand a very
specific product. In the market today however there are dozens
and dozens of different types of wheat. No longer is wheat just
wheat. Customers are looking for a very specific commodity.
This of course changes the influence of the Canadian Wheat
Board.
6192
Instead of looking at huge markets we are often looking at the
smaller, harder to find markets which want a very specific
commodity. I believe as do many farmers that the wheat board
just does not do a good job in finding and taking advantage of
those smaller markets. Farmers and their agent grain companies
do a good job of that and they must be allowed to do that job.
They must not be interfered with by the Canadian Wheat Board.
Let us realize that times have changed. Customers are very
demanding in terms of the products. We are looking at smaller
more lucrative markets. Let us change the board and allow
farmers involvement to accommodate that.
Some have suggested that the first step in changing the board
might be to put a continental barley market into place. This may
well be a place to start but it does not go nearly far enough. It is
interesting to note that both the minister of agriculture and the
Prime Minister during the election campaign promised to hold a
plebiscite on a continental barley market very shortly after the
election. It was a promise. They thought it was a good idea.
I would like to know why they are not honouring their
promise. Farmers also want to know and they want them to
honour their promise now and that is only reasonable. Farmers
expect the government to keep its commitment and honour its
promise. I expect that, as do the farmers.
The government continually takes pride in talking about how
it consults with people before it makes a decision. I am not going
to talk about the general consultations in other areas, but I do
want to talk about consultation in agriculture. The government's
consultation in the area of agriculture has been almost
exclusively with government organizations and with farm
organization leaders.
Farm organizations are extremely useful bodies. They do a lot
of good in promoting their particular commodity or their area of
interest, but it is time for government to talk to farmers about
what they want in terms of their future in agriculture.
There are plans for the committee to travel to study
agriculture. The unfortunate thing is this plan does not allow for
focused and organized consultation with farmers. Reform has
put forth in committee over the past several months a very
specific plan as to how this consultation program could be
improved immensely.
(1140)
We have proposed focus groups with properly trained
conciliators running them to determine what issues are
important to farmers, what issues they want to talk about. These
focus groups would lead to a public consultation process, public
meetings where everyone would be welcome but the discussion
would be focused based on the results of the focus groups.
It would be a travesty and a misuse of taxpayers' dollars if this
committee did not allow some type of process similar to what
Reform has proposed. I am not saying necessarily we have the
only process, but it will work and it will work much better than
what the plans are now. I strongly encourage this minister to go
ahead with that.
I will conclude by saying that we do support Bill C-50. Being
as the Canadian Wheat Board Act has been opened up, it is a real
shame there were not far more broad and sweeping changes. I
compare this change to adjusting a rearview mirror on an old
beat up car that really needs to be replaced with a brand new
model. I encourage this government to go out and let farmers tell
them what brand new model they want.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I would like to give notice
that the members on the government side from now on in this
debate will share their time, 10 minutes and 5 minutes questions
and comments, until further notice.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill today, the
amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, particularly so
in view of the comments I just heard from my colleague in the
Reform Party. I shall be splitting my time with my colleague
from Dauphin-Swan River.
As the minister said earlier the amendment will allow a
check-off to Canadian Wheat Board sales of wheat in the four
western provinces and of barley sales in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
There are two very good reasons the bill deserves the support
of all in the House. The amendments will pave the way for an
additional $4.7 million annually in research funding,
specifically in the area of plant breeding. I raise for the
consideration of the House why the Reform Party would favour
a long consultation process with the farm groups that are already
supporting these amendments which would delay that kind of
valuable research. It makes no sense to me because we already
have grassroots support for the initiative.
Second and more important, and it ties into the point I was just
making, Bill C-50 is a result of a specific request by the grain
industry. The speedy response of our government to the request
recognizes the importance of such research initiatives as well as
the fact that no longer can government solely be relied on for
research. Results can be achieved only through strategic
alliances with industry.
My riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt includes a portion of the
city of Saskatoon and a large rural area. It is an urban rural split
of about 60:40 respectively. In fact this time last year I spent
many hours on the road driving around the farm area of my
riding during the election campaign. I remember stopping along
the road north of Domremy to talk to a couple of farmers. I guess
the Reform Party would call that consulting with the farmers on
6193
their views. Lawrence and André Georget took a moment to tell
me some of their concerns.
Just last week I had a most enjoyable and informative
half-hour meeting with one of the Canadian Wheat Board
representatives from my province of Saskatchewan. We
discussed many things, including the check-off provisions
which are under discussion today. That fellow made the point,
and I think it is a good one, that the additional research that will
be carried out as a result of these amendments will benefit not
just the producers but all Canadians. All Canadians will have the
benefit of better credit as a result of increased research funding.
(1145)
How did this check-off scheme come about? It should be
noted that the Western Grains Research Foundation, made up of
12 prairie farm organizations, asked the government to enact
legislation that would enable producers to invest a portion of
their own profits into plant breeding research.
The Western Grains Research Foundation is accountable
directly to the producers as well as the federal government for
the way in which research funds are spent. Producers believe
that plant breeding research will help find new varieties and, in
turn, enable the industry to maintain and increase its market
share. All of this, for a farmer's investment of about half a cent a
bushel or 20 cents a tonne.
Another interesting point is that studies have shown the return
on investment in agricultural research can be more than 50 per
cent. In the case of the legislation before the House this could
translate into an extra $400 million to prairie farmers annually.
That is because research and plant breeding has a potential to
lead the development of varieties that are 15 per cent higher
yielding and equal in protein content to existing varieties.
This brings me to another point. As I noted in my opening
remarks, my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt includes a large
rural area as well as approximately one-third of the city of
Saskatoon. That one-third of the city of Saskatoon includes the
University of Saskatchewan and our College of Agriculture,
which was one of the founding colleges in 1907 and enjoys a
stellar reputation in the area of agricultural research.
Just north of the university in the lovely area along the South
Saskatchewan River bank we have Innovation Place, a business
research cluster whose focus is biotechnological research,
development and commercialization. Hence my particular
delight in having an opportunity to speak to the bill before the
House today.
Producers know that research is vital to our agricultural
industry. They know that their future livelihood depends on their
ability to grow crops which will meet the shifting demands of
the marketplace. Producers know as well that unless they start
investing in research they risk lagging behind their competitors.
Farmers in Australia, United States and the European Union
have been taking a direct role in renewing plant breeding
programs in wheat and barley for years. In the United States
over 15 states have check-offs on wheat. These are made at the
state level and are deducted at first point of sale. The check-offs
are generally voluntary and enjoy a high level of participation as
we anticipate this will be. The Australian wheat board has had a
non-voluntary levy in place for the past five years.
I mentioned partnerships between government and industry in
my opening remarks. The industry strongly supports Bill C-50.
This producer initiative has enjoyed broad industry support in
its development and it will continue to do so, supporting a form
of 12 prairie farm organizations that make up the Western
Grains Research Foundation.
Perhaps not everyone is aware of who the members of this
organization are: the United Grain Growers, Western Canadian
Wheat Growers Association, Manitoba Pool Elevators,
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, Prairie Canola
Growers Council, the Flax Growers of Western Canada,
Keystone Agricultural Producers, Western Barley Growers
Association, the Oat Producers Association of Alberta,
Canadian Seed Growers Association, and Unifarm.
Five of these organizations are also members of the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture and, most important, all these
organizations have taken this issue to their membership and
have received a strong vote of confidence. Again I would
suggest this indicates some form of consultation. I doubt very
much if the membership of those organizations would thank the
government for going through yet another consultation period,
at the taxpayers' expense, to find out the answer to the question
that producers are in favour of this kind of research check-off.
What contribution does government currently make to
agricultural research? Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spent
over $2.5 million on wheat research in the last crop year and a
further $8 million on barley research. The department will
continue its commitment to research but this check-off
proposed by producers will help us catch up to our competitors
by providing additional research funding. These additional
funds will allow us to double our wheat and barley breeding
research programs. Government cannot do it alone and that is
why we are so pleased to enter this research partnership with
Canadian producers.
I would like to take a moment to review the minister's
explanation of how the system will work. Western wheat and
barley producers will pay voluntary levies of 20 cents a tonne on
wheat and 40 cents a tonne on barley.
6194
(1150 )
I should point out for some of our urban listeners that this
constant reference to check-off has nothing to do with Russian
literature. These levies or check-offs from the Canadian Wheat
Board payments will be put into the research fund.
The amendments before us today are necessary to permit the
use of the moneys collected by the Canadian Wheat Board for
this cause. The Canadian Wheat Board will not be distributing
the moneys collected. The funds from the check-offs will be
distributed under the direction of the producer driven Western
Grains Research Foundation.
The foundation will establish two research committees, one
for barley and one for wheat. These committees will ensure
research moneys are spent on research projects in western
research centres that focus on the development of improved
wheat and barley varieties.
Participation in this check-off is voluntary. Producers who
want to opt out need only to submit a written request. As I said
earlier, this check-off will garner additional research funds. It
does not replace existing funding for agricultural research.
Supporting the legislation will mean that the levies collected
will assist in providing the Canadian agricultural industry with
the means to develop and use new technologies, technologies
that will boost our competitive edge.
The ultimate objective of the legislation is to improve farm
income through two main mechanisms; first, by improving the
field performance of barley and wheat through new varieties
that mature earlier, have higher yields and offer increased
resistance to disease and insect pests; and, second, by
maintaining and improving sales of wheat and barley by
developing varieties with specific qualities required by the
marketplace.
The government is committed to strategic partnerships to
secure our research goals. We have invited the industry to share
the responsibility for the future with us as equal partners and it
has accepted.
I recommend the legislation be enacted to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act for the purpose of initiating
voluntary producer levies in the interest of plant breeding
research. We will be financially supporting the legislation
because it is directly accountable to the producers of western
Canada and because at its heart the legislation is motivated by
producers who want to work with government in partnership to
increase their competitive edge.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments of the member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt. I recognize that she represents an
agricultural riding. I want to follow up by getting her thoughts
on the idea of consultation with farm groups.
I understand that in the hon. member's comments she
suggested that farm groups are supporting this check-off bill.
As a result of what my colleague from Vegreville said I suggest
that it might be important to broaden the base of the
consultations in these ongoing hearings that agriculture is
putting forward to meet with individual farmers.
Although there is support from farm organizations, these
organizations may not speak for the majority of individual
farmers. If the hon. member checks the membership she might
find that out. Would she agree it would be important to consult
agriculture producers in large numbers, and not just the farm
organizations, to build support for this check-off?
Also would she agree it might be important for the Canadian
Wheat Board to have elected directors as opposed to those
appointed by the federal government? Would that not also boost
the kind of support that we need in order to build a strong
agricultural industry?
Mrs. Sheridan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. The point I would like make on consultation, and
where I had some concern with the remarks made by the member
for Vegreville, has to do with what appears to be a mixing of
strategies.
The amendments before the House today deal specifically
with amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that will
permit an additional $4.7 million to go into research funding.
There seems to be broad grassroots support as represented by the
12 members in the foundation, who, I would expect, speak in a
large part for their membership, for the producers themselves.
My comment to my colleague earlier had to do with the
wastefulness of delaying the accumulation of these research
dollars that can be immediately put into plant breeding research
for the benefit of the producers, the industry and, as I said in my
comments, all Canadians.
(1155 )
Perhaps I misunderstood the member for Vegreville, but it
seems to me what he was suggesting was a giant overview of the
Canadian Wheat Board and how it functions. That would be time
consuming. It would involve delay and it would impede the very
valuable contribution that this research initiative as proposed in
Bill C-50 would have. Those were my comments and that was
my intention.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, just to
clarify matters for the member who just spoke, I did say very
clearly that Reform supports the bill. I also said that the bill is a
very small change to the Canadian Wheat Board compared to
what we need. We need substantial, wide sweeping, major
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. I was just pushing for
these changes to happen, some time in my lifetime I would
prefer, and the sooner the better.
6195
I just got a call from my assistant who said she had taken a call
from a constituent who was wondering who this Bill Checkoff is
and what team he plays for. Does he play for the Edmonton
Oilers? He did not really know. She explained that no, it is a
check-off bill we are talking about, not Bill Checkoff, a hockey
player. I just wanted to clarify that.
The hon. member mentioned a figure for the number of
dollars spent in research in agriculture. What benefit is derived
from those dollars spent? I would prefer her to talk about the
benefit derived and not so much the number of dollars spent, as
though we are bragging about the number of dollars spent. I
would like to ask the member to respond to that. What was the
benefit?
Mrs. Sheridan: Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to
anyone in the Reform Party at any time. I thank him for his
support of the bill and our colleagues in the Bloc who have
endorsed the broad picture that is before us today.
Admittedly it is a small change. I do not think we get
anywhere in this life by saying that if we cannot do the whole
thing today we will not do it at all.
I also would like to question the member for Vegreville on his
support of the new politics we are supposed to be seeing from
the Reform Party, in particular having the decency to come
forward from time to time and say: ``Yes, this is a good
initiative. We give it our support. Let's get this done today and if
there is another aspect that we need to worry about, yes, we will
continue with that''.
The minister has indicated his willingness to constantly be
improving and helping the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Perhaps that is a matter for another day. We welcome the
member's input to that process and consultation can take place
in that regard.
For the moment we have before us a bill that will permit
increased research funding right away. We should just get down
to it and keep our minds focused on what we are talking about.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Madam
Speaker, as the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I would like
to share with you and my hon. colleagues a brief but fascinating
snapshot taken from the pages of Canadian history.
I do this in support of the legislation that has been introduced
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The amendments are
required to make way for a voluntary wheat and barley
check-off that would help fund plant breeding research in
western Canada. This initiative is producer driven and is
expected to generate an additional $4.7 million a year to
research funding. These funds will be administered by the
Western Grains Research Foundation, a federally chartered
public organization comprised of 12 prairie farm organizations.
Wheat was first introduced into western Canada in 1812 by
the Selkirk settlers in Manitoba's Red River valley. The names
of the wheat they brought with them were not recorded. In 1842
Mr. David Fife received a sample of red fife from a friend. It was
a contaminant in a winter wheat sample obtained from a
shipment in Poland. When this seed was grown a few heads
appeared to be more vigorous than the rest. These were carefully
selected and increased to become red fife, which was first
introduced in Manitoba in 1870. Red fife quickly became the
main variety of spring wheat grown in the area and went on to
become the international standard of high milling and baking
quality typical of Canadian hard red spring wheat.
(1200)
As the wheat growing area of western Canada gradually
progressed north and west, it soon became apparent that the
relatively short summer would eventually limit the wheat area.
Plant breeders began to focus their attention on the development
of early maturing varieties of wheat.
That is when Dr. Charles Saunders entered the picture. Dr.
Saunders was a plant breeder at Agriculture Canada's Central
Experimental Farm in Ottawa. He was the son of William
Saunders who founded the farm in 1885. It was the young Dr.
Saunders who in the summer of 1892 began experimenting with
a cross between the famous red fife and an early ripening variety
of hard red spring wheat from India.
Following 10 years of plant breeding experiments, Dr.
Saunders led the way in the development of a wheat cross called
marquis. Marquis became a world renowned wheat variety and
is said to be the single most important factor in establishing
Canada's reputation as a producer of high quality wheat. Its
performance was so remarkable that all inferior varieties were
practically eliminated from production and marquis was to
remain the varietal standard for Canadian bread wheat for most
of this century.
Since the days of Dr. Saunders more sophisticated breeding
techniques have evolved but the original challenge of human
versus nature remains. Plant breeders have continued their
efforts, developing subsequent varieties for qualities such as
plant vigour, early maturing, resistance to chatter, resistance to
rust and a number of other problems that were bane to the early
prairie farmers.
Canada has originated some of its most eminent varieties
from the search for better stem rust resistance, all the while
retaining excellent milling and baking qualities.
I believe this brief historical overview is necessary to our
discussion on the importance of the proposed amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, amendments which will provide for
a voluntary producer of wheat and barley check-off. The
check-off will provide western Canadian plant breeders with
additional research funding to continue developing new
varieties which
6196
will in turn help Canada maintain its competitive edge and
ensure a future for our industry.
Plant breeding enables us to produce new varieties more
resistant to diseases and insects, to give larger yields and a
higher grade and better quality. Specific varieties are needed to
adapt to specific conditions. For example, varieties of eastern
Saskatchewan and Manitoba must be resistant to the rapidly
changing races of leaf and stem rust. Varieties for western
Saskatchewan and Alberta must have resistance to drought. For
northern wheat growing areas the new varieties must be early
maturing to minimize losses from early autumn frost.
Since the early 1930s over 600 crop varieties have been
introduced into Canada and since 1990 more than 70 varieties of
seed crops resistant to disease, cold and stress have been
released.
One might say after all these years we must be getting very
close to the perfect variety. It is much more complex than that.
Our plant breeders have achieved wonders in developing
varieties best suited for the full range of Canadian growing
conditions and challenges. However, it must be remembered
that the industry is constantly facing new crop threats. The pests
and the diseases we fight do not always go away but when they
do they are replaced by new ones.
It must also be recognized that a variety that suited our
purposes extremely well over five or ten years ago may no
longer be in great demand in the marketplace.
One of the key roles of today's scientists is to help develop the
varieties that will enable us to meet the new and diverse
international market demands. It is plant breeding research that
gives us the ability to grow crops that can be made into the
products such as frozen bread dough or into Asian type noodles
with just the right consistency to beat out all of our other
competitors.
The costs of research extend beyond the need for a lab where
trained scientists experiment in crossing two varieties of wheat.
To find the required gene, such as a gene resistant to a particular
strain of stem rust, the wheat breeder may have to find it in
native wild grasses. Information is needed on the milling,
baking and other qualities of potential plant breeding material.
Above all, new varieties must possess the high quality milling
and baking qualities which are the characteristics of Canadian
wheat and which meet the needs of the end user.
(1205)
Tests must be performed on new varieties to be recommended
for registration. A new variety must perform for at least two and
normally three seasons to the satisfaction of a committee of
specialists recognized by my hon. colleague, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. All varieties must be registered
prior to sale.
Is it costly? Yes, it is. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Specialists in
the field believe that a well co-ordinated and adequately funded
research program over 10 to 15 years in all western wheat
classes would bring significant results such as the development
of varieties that are 15 per cent higher yielding and equal in
protein content to current varieties. This would be above and
beyond any yield increases resulting from existing research
funds.
If the price of wheat were $125 per tonne this would translate
into $400 million annual increase in gross returns to prairie
farmers. Perhaps this explains the foresight of Canadian
producers who have asked for this check-off and who are quite
willing to invest what amounts to less than one cent a bushel or
about 20 cents an acre. I call it an excellent business decision on
the part of producers.
I strongly recommend that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be
amended to allow voluntary wheat and barley levies to be
deducted in support of plant breeding research.
Support will give producers the research program they want,
one directly accountable to the producers who fund it. Members
will be supporting this government's commitment to continued
research through a framework that includes the industry as a
strategic planner or partner with a shared responsibility.
In backing this legislation members will be recognizing the
need for the Western Grains Research Foundation to continue
the important work carried out by the David Fifes and the
Charles Saunders of the country. Most important, members will
be supporting the future of plant breeding research which offers
Canadian producers a strong presence in the international
marketplace.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate our colleague who has just spoken, so
optimistically, to Bill C-50. Past events do not, however,
warrant her boundless optimism today.
Would the member indicate to this House the minimum
number of producers needed to participate in this voluntary
deduction scheme at 40 cents and 20 cents a tonne respectively
for wheat and barley, in order to raise the $4.7 million
anticipated by the Minister of Agriculture?
The Minister of Agriculture estimated that 90 per cent of
Western grain producers will participate willingly, but there is,
of course, a clause allowing grain growers to opt out if they
wish.
My question is as follows. If, five years down the road, only
40 or 50 per cent of producers actually pay for research and
development, while the others are benefiting from the fruits of
the research, will voluntary participation still be tolerable?
6197
(1210)
Another of my fears is that a future Liberal government might
gradually withdraw from agricultural research and
development. This is a constant danger, one we cannot ignore.
I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that I do not have all that
much confidence in the Liberal Party when it comes to
agricultural research and development.
[English]
Mrs. Cowling: Madam Speaker, that was an excellent
question from the member across the way. He mentioned being
optimistic. I want to remind the member that this is a new
government on this side of the House.
Of course I am optimistic about the future. I am a farmer. I
come to this House with a long record of community
involvement and have been involved in major farm
organizations across the country developing agriculture policy.
I know how important it is to have a voluntary wheat and barley
check-off that will fund plant breeding research for western
Canada.
Farmers have been saying this for a long time and that is why
it is so important that as a government we move ahead. As a
Liberal government we are keeping our promise to those people
out there producing that grain.
In my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River, Jim Parker, one
of my constituents from Gilbert Plains, was a pioneer in plant
breeding. He was an optimistic gentleman and clearly an
example of the producer-farmer involvement in plant breeding.
Parker developed a more rust resistant variety of wheat. This
illustrates how farmers are committed to the research and
recognize its importance.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Madam Speaker, my
hon. colleague from Frontenac and critic for agriculture, has
covered all the issues raised by Bill C-50 on the Canadian
Wheat Board. I must say that I do agree with him that it is
essential to support initiatives from people who want to take
charge of their development, as in the case of western grain
producers.
Since last October's elections, we have heard the term
consultation used to mean just about anything most of the time.
It means meeting with many groups from a given sector, talking
a lot and listing their recommendations in a neat document that
will end up on a shelf. For once that bureaucracy does not get in
the way of the public will, we are certainly not going to object to
an initiative grain producers consider desirable.
Two elements of the proposed legislation caught my attention
however. First, the means by which the Canadian Wheat Board
will pay the balance of research funds to the agency concerned,
and second, the voluntary nature of deductions. The bill states
that the Board must pay the research funding agency back no
later than 180 days after the end of each pool period.
In the present case, this would be the Western Grains
Research Foundation as the agency that offered to raise the
contributions. The Foundation, which represents 12 Prairie farm
associations, seems the most logical choice. According to the
Foundation, producers would derive a gross revenue of
approximately $400 million from research. The bill also
provides that the Board will decide which agencies will receive
research funding. In that case, the choice appears to be
unanimous. But, for the protection of the producers' money, it
could be suggested that the bill be amended to provide for the
selection of the agency to be made by a vote among
representatives of the wheat and barley producers. In the event
the Foundation were dissolved or new ones emerged, it would be
better to have a consultative process than to let the Board decide
alone.
(1215)
By the way, while board members come from the agricultural
sector, all five of them are appointed by the minister. As for the
voluntary nature of the 20 or 40 cent deduction, it would not get
very far in Quebec, where mandatory deductions are favoured.
I understand that a different approach be taken in the West,
particularly given the different historical development of
farming in the Prairies. The voluntary approach could be
criticized for allowing individuals to benefit from research
without having contributed to its funding. On the other hand, it
also enables lower income producers who cannot afford to
contribute to the research fund to benefit from it anyway. It may
nonetheless be advisable to set a minimum participation rate
below which the deduction mechanism will have to be reviewed
or abolished.
In addition, as the deduction rates are set by order in council,
on the advice of the Canadian Wheat Board, it should be
specified that could only be changed after consulting all
agencies representing western wheat and barley producers.
One last word of warning in closing. The research this bill will
help finance should be geared towards meeting the needs of all
producers. It would be unfortunate if it focused on problems
peculiar to businesses of a specific size.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Madam Speaker, I will now
congratulate the first speaker from the Bloc, the member for
Frontenac, on being appointed critic for agriculture and
agri-food as we could not make comments after his first
comments in the House today.
I also want to comment on some of the concerns that the Bloc
has raised. One is the statement made by the Bloc inadvertently
that the wheat board buys Canadian wheat and barley. The wheat
board does not buy Canadian wheat and barley. The wheat board
6198
sells Canadian wheat and barley on behalf of producers in
western Canada. It does not buy the product at all.
Regarding the other concern of some overlap or concern about
spending taxpayers' dollars, one really tremendous thing about
this amendment to the act which I want to clarify for them is that
this will cost Canadian taxpayers absolutely nothing.
The cost of administration within the wheat board and in the
research foundation will both be subtracted from the fees
collected voluntarily from the producers.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, we are always concerned
about program overlap and duplication but I think it will not be
the case here. At least, we hope not, so that Western grain
producers will not be at a disadvantage. As it is, with their
contributions of 40 cents and 20 cents, they already pay twice
for research.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Madam Speaker, I
deem it an opportunity to speak on Bill C-50 with a backdrop of
optimism and accomplishment in this harvest season throughout
our country.
Our agriculture and agri-food sector is positioning itself to
tackle the future with increased confidence and fundamental
strength. We must ensure the decisions we make today and the
initiatives we undertake in the future are part of a
comprehensive long term plan for a modern progressive
industry that is nothing less than the best in the world.
(1220)
Research is fundamental to this government's goal of making
Canada the world agriculture and agri-food leader. Without
research the grain farmers of the Canadian prairies would never
have gained their reputation as producers of the highest quality
wheat in the world, a reputation that is well deserved and one
that the government intends to preserve, protect and promote.
In our platform outlined in the red book the government made
a very strong commitment to research. Currently the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-food spends about $21.5
million on wheat research and $8 million on barley research
each year. The industry has recognized that we need to do more
to keep up with our competitors and the industry has recognized
that government cannot and probably should not do it alone.
It has looked at what we need to maintain our international
reputation and keep up with competitors like Australia and the
EEC which have been investing heavily in their wheat and
barley production and programs for several years. They have
realized we need to spend additional money on research.
This is why I am recommending the House support the
proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we
are discussing today. These amendments are required to make
way for a voluntary wheat and barley check-off that would help
fund plant breeding research in western Canada. It is estimated
that the proposed wheat and barley check-off will result in about
$4.7 million additional cost per year added to the funds already
mentioned earlier today.
What do prairie producers hope to accomplish with the
additional infusion of funding into plant breeding research?
They hope to continue to develop new strains, to meet new and
developing markets, and to better meet changing climatic
conditions.
As the minister outlined earlier this morning plant breeding
research gives us new varieties to resist disease and insects, to
increase yields and produce higher grades. The voluntary
check-off program was brought to the government by the
Western Grains Research Foundation. The foundation has a
track record in supporting effective, purer research in the west.
The idea for the check-off came about when the producer
organizations making up the foundation were discussing the
problem how to innovatively boost research funding. They did
not come to the government asking for additional funding. They
did not throw up their hands in despair because the money was
not handed to them. They came with a plan of action. They said
they wanted to place some of the responsibility squarely on their
own shoulders.
Since that time the Western Grains Research Foundation had
been working with my colleague, the hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, to develop the mechanism to make
their proposal a reality. The proposal is being brought to the
House today for additional member support. I believe that this
legislation is indeed an excellent example of a partnership
initiative which will benefit the entire sector.
While the legislation before the House today calls for
amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, all funds will be
managed by a third party with emphasis on funding work that
will meet future marketing needs. The foundation will be
accountable to the very producers who pay for it, accountable
through an annual report to all permanent book holders and
accountable to producers who have the ability to opt out at any
time. Any producer who does not wish to participate may so
indicate in writing and indicate that they are not supportive of
the program.
The projections however are that a 90 per cent participation
will be in place because of the producer driven initiatives
mentioned earlier.
6199
In conclusion, through partnership efforts such as this leading
edge research and development will continue to receive support.
The grain producers of western Canada may ask for your support
of these legislative amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board
Act, legislative amendments which will allow them to divert a
portion of their income toward their future, a future that they can
secure through technology.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I
would like the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to give me his
opinion. In his speech, to which I listened very attentively, he
talked about the importance of research and development.
Does the hon. member for Brandon-Souris undertake today
to put pressure on his good government to release funds?
I would be satisfied with $700,000 or $800,000 a year for
R&D on maple syrup products which, fortunately or
unfortunately, come almost exclusively from Quebec.
[English]
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Speaker, in relation to the
components of the bill, we are talking only of wheat and barley.
I would bring to the attention of the members opposite the fact
that if we are talking about the $21 million that agri-food and
agriculture have in place right now, I believe those allocations
are put through the budgetary process from this department.
If we are talking about the half cent, the $4.5 million that we
are discussing here today, we are only talking about wheat and
barley research. I can only comment that I would not support
additional funding out of this allocation for anything other than
barley and wheat research.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to speak on Bill C-50, especially as the bill
relates to the Canadian Wheat Board, one of the superior
marketing agencies not only in Canada but in the world.
Much of my comments will be directed to the Canadian Wheat
Board as it is this agency that will allow a check-off on board
sales of wheat in the four western provinces and sales of barley
in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C.
It is important to note that this check-off is voluntary. I as a
member of Parliament oppose the idea of imposing on farmers a
check-off that could be viewed as another form of taxation. In
part in response to the previous question, we as a government
must be committed to research and development from public
revenues. The public of Canada as a whole benefits greatly from
the increased economic spin-off of research and development
and especially so in the agriculture sector.
This voluntary aspect shows the principle of co-operation of
farmers working together through the Canadian Wheat Board
and other agencies in terms of achieving greater research and
development as they already do in terms of marketing.
It is designed as the wheat board was in the very beginning to
challenge the inequities and the inefficiencies of the bare bones
marketplace.
It is significant to note that Alberta barley is not contained in
the bill. I will have some questions later at committee stage on
that point. I need to know and I will question whether there will
be duplication of research. I need to know and I will question
whether Alberta barley producers are given a choice in terms of
whether their funds go to research in Alberta or through the
Canadian Wheat Board system.
Let me for a moment talk about the bill specifically. The
purpose of the bill is to bring in additional plant breeding
research. The plant breeding research funded by the proposed
check-off is anticipated to improve farm income through two
main mechanisms: first, by reducing unit production costs
through improved field performance due to increased disease
and pest resistant varieties and, second, by maintaining and
increasing exports through the development of varieties with
desired market qualities.
(1230)
A key point is exporting and marketing those improved
varieties in a way that enhances and maximizes producers'
returns. That is where the Canadian Wheat Board really comes
in.
It is important at this stage to review where the government is
at in relation to the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to go
back to our policy announcement in May of last year. I will
quote from the red book. I am sure members in the Reform Party
will want to hear this. The book states: ``An effective and
efficient agri-food strategy must provide policies and programs
such as orderly marketing boards, the Canadian Wheat Board
and stabilization programs to minimize the impact of market
price fluctuations and ensure adequate returns to producers,
processors and other efficient managers in the system''.
I stand by that commitment and I fully support the Canadian
Wheat Board. I used to be involved extensively in the west. I
continue to get calls from farmers in the west emphasizing that
this government should maintain that support with the onslaught
from some of the industry at the moment.
Yes, there are some who are attacking the Canadian Wheat
Board and have been for a number of years. It should not
surprise us. They are looking for short term personal gain at the
expense of the industry as a whole. They are attacking Canadian
institutions when they should be attacking the fundamental
6200
problem in terms of the grain industry, the use of the export
enhancement program south of the border.
In fact I would suggest that some of those groups have fallen
victim to the American corporate interests and are fostering
their agenda rather than a truly Canadian agenda.
Yesterday I was shocked as members of the Reform Party
stood in their places and condoned the illegal practices of those
breaking the law in terms of Canadian Wheat Board marketing.
It really amazes me that a party that talks about law, order,
justice and following the law would condone those practices. All
I can say is shame.
The two key characteristics which distinguish the Canadian
marketing structure which is focused on the wheat board are
single desk selling and price pooling. I think I had better speak
for a moment on those. Through single desk selling, the
Canadian Wheat Board is the only accredited agent for the
selling of Canadian wheat and barley in export markets. This
ensures that the needed quality and quantity of grain is provided
to the marketplace. It ensures that the Canadian Wheat Board
has negotiated power and flexibility, enabling it to provide
farmers with the best possible return. That is an agency that
maximizes returns to primary producers, works in their interest,
finds those markets and does the market intelligence on behalf
of all wheat board area producers.
The second major component is price pooling. Under that the
Canadian Wheat Board ensures that farmers benefit equally
from sales regardless of when and where their grain is sold.
Returns are deposited into one of several pool accounts. All
farmers delivering the same grade of wheat will receive the
same return at the end of the crop year. The federal government
ensures that any shortfalls are covered.
The member opposite is raising funny questions here. The
reason I feel so emphatic about that principle is that I come from
the east coast and I can see those of us in the potato industry
missing opportunities because we do not have an agency like the
Canadian Wheat Board that maximizes returns and works in the
producers' best interests. I have seen that concept operate. I
realize that an agency like the Canadian Wheat Board works far
better than the absolute bare bones marketplace that I talked
about earlier.
(1235)
A very important component relative to the Canadian Wheat
Board is the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. I will
just take a moment to explain. The advisory committee consists
of 11 elected members who represent more than 130,000 permit
book holders throughout western Canada. Elections are held
every four years. The committee provides good advice to the
Canadian Wheat Board in terms of its marketing initiatives.
I think I am running out of time. I would have liked time to
talk about the challenges, certainly the Americans. The Reform
Party members seem to be the only ones out to attack the
Canadian Wheat Board and try to do away with that really good
structure of marketing. Members will note that in the four
challenges from the United States we won every one.
In closing, it is very critical the Liberal government stands
behind our commitments to the Canadian Wheat Board, those
commitments that we ran on in the last election across the west
and won. Although I am from eastern Canada, I stand fully
behind that board in terms of its ability to maximize returns to
primary producers.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with considerable attention and what surprised me is
how strongly the hon. member for Malpeque supports the
Canadian Wheat Board. Like him, I come from the East, from
Quebec to be more accurate, and I have four questions to put to
the hon. member for Malpeque. These questions could require
long explanations but I would be happy with a short answer.
Is the hon. member for Malpeque proud of the Canadian
Wheat Board? Does the hon. member for Malpeque think that, in
the past 12 months, the Canadian Wheat Board was dynamic
enough in finding new markets? Could the hon. member for
Malpeque tell us if he believes that the Canadian Wheat Board is
democratic enough? Finally, does the hon. member for
Malpeque believe that the appointment of members by the
government, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is today,
in 1994, a good thing, as it was in 1949?
[English]
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the
Canadian Wheat Board. I have been fortunate enough to have
travelled internationally. Farmers around the world look at the
Canadian Wheat Board and wish they had an agency like it.
The Canadian Wheat Board over the past 12 years has been
aggressive. It can be improved in terms of its aggression in some
areas. We have to understand that one of the difficulties the
Canadian Wheat Board has had is that we had a government in
Canada for the past nine years that did not believe in the
principles of the Canadian Wheat Board and did everything it
could to undermine the ability of the board to operate as
effectively as possible.
In terms of democracy, I mentioned a moment ago the
Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. Looking at the
record over the last nine years of the previous government, the
one that lost the last election, it did not use the Canadian Wheat
Board advisory committee which was the elected representative
of farmers. It did not want to hear what those elected
representatives of the farmers had to say in terms of support for
the wheat board. The previous government undermined those
democrati-
6201
cally elected producers, the mass majority of which support the
Canadian Wheat Board in the west.
(1240)
In terms of commissioners there are several concepts of
marketing. If commissioners are appointed, they should sit at
the pleasure of the government. I personally believe we should
conduct an investigation to ensure that the commissioners
appointed by the previous government are operating in the
interest of the policies of strenghthening and maintaining the
Canadian Wheat Board and are not trying to undermine it from
within. The principle of appointing commissioners is that the
government appoints those with expertise in marketing. It is not
like an election where people are elected by popularity. They are
appointed for their expertise in marketing, those who will do the
best job of marketing on behalf of producers.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have some
questions for the hon. member for Malpeque.
First I want some clarification. The member said we condone
the law breaking that is going on by farmers shipping wheat over
the border to the United States without a wheat board permit.
This is absolutely untrue. He is deliberating distorting what
Reform has presented.
As well the member said that the Reform Party is out to
destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows he is distorting
the truth. We are not out to destroy the wheat board.
I have three questions. Does the member's party support him
in his left wing purely socialist view in regard to the Canadian
Wheat Board? Does the member believe that farmers should
determine how they run their organization, the Canadian Wheat
Board, or does he hold his strong socialist principles in such
esteem that he refuses to give farmers control over their
organization?
My last question is with regard to the advisory committee
representing 110 permit book holders. What power does it have?
I will answer that one because he will not. It has no power
whatsoever. Why not elect a board of directors that has power?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my answer short.
In response to the first question I may have misinterpreted the
Reform Party. I hope that one of its members will get up on a
point of order later today and ask that the government charge
those people violating the laws of the land. Maybe that would
clarify it specifically.
These members have tried to talk about inefficiencies. I just
want to make one point before I sit down. The Canadian Wheat
Board has reduced its staff substantially over the last number of
years. In fact, with a staff of 430 the wheat board transacts $4.5
billion to $5 billion worth of business annually which translates
into an administrative cost of less than 3.5 cents per bushel for
wheat and 2.8 cents per bushel for barley. That is amazing
efficiency on the part of the wheat board in terms of operating
for producers.
As the member knows full well, the democracy is in the
election of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee
which advises the board on matters. Democracy also exists in
terms of this party campaigning in the last election that it would
strengthen and maintain the wheat board and stand by it. We
intend to do that. We have been elected to do that and I stand by
that commitment.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to enter into this debate. I would like to make my
points of view known with regard to Bill C-50 and possibly
make some remarks on some of the issues that have been raised
in this assembly.
As we know the bill has as its main purpose to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. It allows members of the House to
look at the Canadian Wheat Board in its broader sense and make
some judgments and certainly make our points of view known in
this assembly with regard to those matters.
(1245)
Bill C-50 is set before us with one specific purpose. It allows
a voluntary deduction from the final payment cheques of wheat
and barley producers for the purpose of plant breeding research
programs. That should be the focus of our discussion but
certainly other items could be raised in the general arena.
When we talk about a voluntary check-off we should also
recognize that this is somewhat of a taxation on producers. The
producers of the country should have some kind of right to
determine whether they accept it or not.
We know that in bringing the legislation forward a number of
industry representatives have given support to the program and
that is good. The farmers involved in those organizations have
been consulted and we think that is good as well.
We recognize the driving force behind the legislation has not
been the government in total, even though it may take credit for
it through its red book. Rather, the Western Grains Research
Foundation has initiated it and through a variety of actions has
made it possible that the amendment has come before us today.
That research organization is made up of 12 prairie farm
organizations. It certainly has done some excellent work in the
area of funding research for Canadian farmers.
6202
A number of successful WGRF funded research projects have
already been undertaken at Agriculture Canada Research Centre
located in my constituency of Lethbridge. I would like to
recognize those here today.
There is a communication to the hon. member for Vegreville
from the chairman of the board of directors of the Western
Grains Research Foundation. Mr. Roy Piper indicated that the
Western Grains Research Foundation since its incorporation in
1981 had been working toward improved funding of grains
related research.
He said: ``We now provide grants of about $1 million
annually. An accumulative total of our grants paid and
committed through 1996 is $11.5 million''. He goes on to say:
``Of this amount, 50 per cent has gone into projects in plant
breeding in wheat, barley, canola, pulse crops and plants. Most
of this money has been paid to Agriculture Canada research
stations and the Universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta''. I can only commend the organization for providing
that support. A number of benefits have certainly occurred to us
as farmers.
In my constituency one project should be of note. Research
funded through the research grants is going on in the area of
biological control of the Russian wheat aphid, which if allowed
to continue to spread could be very devastating to our grain
production in southern Alberta and other parts of Canada.
One of the other items of note is a funded project at the
University of Alberta. They are applying biotechnology to
reduce green seed in canola. We all recognize that having green
seed in our canola certainly downgrades the canola and
downgrades the net return to the Canadian farmer.
The Reform Party is supporting Bill C-50 largely because of
the support expressed for it by the major stakeholders in the
grain industry and because of the excellent work since 1981 of
the Western Grains Research Foundation and the projects it has
funded.
The central feature of the bill as has been recognized and
outlined by the minister is the voluntary nature of the program.
Western wheat and barley producers would voluntarily pay
levies of 20 cents a tonne on wheat and 40 cents a tonne on
barley. I do not think there is any necessity to go into detail but
this then makes it incumbent upon the government in terms of
accountability for this tax.
(1250)
The request is 20 cents per tonne on wheat and 40 cents per
tonne on barley. It is my hope there will not be an abnormal
increase in that funding imposed by the government. If there is
any kind of increase in funding it should be done with the
co-operation of not only the farm organizations we have talked
about today but also Canadian farmers as well, because it is a
tax. It is a cost to us as farmers.
There is also the inclusion of an opt out provision. That opt
out provision is expected to have a number of beneficial
outcomes. It introduces a degree of market discipline that is
difficult to create in a bureaucratic setting. The voluntary aspect
of the program-and I hope it does not change-allows farmers
who disagree with how the WGRF operates or with how it is
allocating its funds to effectively withhold their contributions
until the research foundation responds to their objections. This
should help to ensure that the research foundation acts in a
responsible and a very responsive fashion.
Another benefit provided by the voluntary nature of Bill C-50
is that it provides a degree of flexibility for the farmers
depending on their needs and their interests. Hard-pressed
farmers would not be forced to contribute to the program nor
would farmers who have had an unexpectedly bad harvest be
expected to contribute. Likewise, if farmers do not feel they will
benefit from the research being conducted, they cannot be
compelled to participate.
As my colleague from Vegreville explained earlier, the
Reform Party will support Bill C-50 both because of the
voluntary nature of the check-off and because of the support it
has received from the farmer groups in the Western Grains
Research Foundation. However, there are some aspects of the
bill that raise concern in my mind.
A potential problem is that Bill C-50 might be looked at by
government as a way to shift the cost of its research and
development responsibilities to the farmers. According to the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food the $4.7 million that
is expected to be generated each year by the check-off for plant
breeding research is in addition to what the government already
spends on agricultural research and development.
In other words this is not a reallocation of funds from within
the current budget, but rather an additional research and
development initiative controlled by a private sector
organization that is designed to complement the existing
government research efforts.
When taking this into consideration with the effects of
inflation government support for agricultural research has
decreased in recent years. If the government makes further cuts
to agricultural research programs then the impact on the
research foundation program will be seriously undermined.
Nobody is disputing that producers have a role to play in
supporting agricultural research. They are the ones who benefit
directly from such spending and it only makes sense that they
bear some of the costs. However, Canadian farmers need
government support to survive in a global marketplace that is
awash in agricultural subsidies. At a time when governments of
the United States, the European Community and Australia are
all increasing their financial support for plant breeding
programs, the Canadian government should not reduce its own
support.
6203
Any attempt to make the WGRF an alternative to publicly
funded research rather than a complement to it will adversely
affect the competitiveness of Canada's agricultural industry.
Today in the House the minister assured us that the government
will not reduce its present contribution in terms of research and
development in the area of wheat and barley. I respect him for
making that statement in the House. As an opposition member
and a member from the farming community of Alberta I intend
to hold him accountable to the commitment he has made to this
assembly.
(1255)
As I said earlier one of the most attractive features of the bill
is the voluntary nature of the check-off. The Reform Party
would like to see this philosophy extended even further. We
believe Canadian exporters of grain should not be forced to
operate exclusively through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Reform is encouraging the implementation of special opting
out provisions for entrepreneurs interested in developing
special niche export markets. If individual farmers believe they
can get a better price for their produce, especially barley, than
the price negotiated by the Canadian Wheat Board then we
believe they should be given the freedom to do so.
Instead of allowing farmers this freedom the present
government has already demonstrated it will support the
Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. The best example of this is
what happened when farmers this year tried to take advantage of
high prices in the American market. Rather than encouraging
such a growth of an entrepreneurial spirit, Revenue Canada and
the Canadian Wheat Board instead worked together to impose
heavy fines on all prairie grain farmers attempting to transport
grain into the United States for direct sale to customers.
When we in Reform talk about opting out provisions, be it for
the plant research check-off in Bill C-50 or for the broader
questions of farmers opting out of the Canadian Wheat Board
pooling system of export of grain, what we are really talking
about is choice. Farmers must be given the choice to control
their own lives. The Reform Party has serious doubts about
whether the Canadian Wheat Board as it is currently organized is
capable of providing the flexibility and choice demanded now
by Canadian farmers.
A good place to start is to undertake a review of the Canadian
Wheat Board. I am not suggesting that the Canadian Wheat
Board should be disbanded. There is a lot of support for the
Canadian Wheat Board, but there is a lot of support for change as
to how it operates.
For many years now the Canadian Wheat Board has played a
vital role in assisting individual farmers to penetrate foreign
grain markets. However I am suggesting it has a virtual
monopoly over all sales. This virtual monopoly is unnecessary
and serves only to stifle the initiative of those farmers who wish
to market on their own.
Another aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board that should be
reassessed is its undemocratic nature. Because the board of
directors is appointed by the government there is no democratic
way for producers who support greater freedom from the
Canadian Wheat Board to influence its actions. Reformers
believe that steps must be taken to democratize the Canadian
Wheat Board. We have already had a discussion in the House
about that.
The people who are now on the Canadian Wheat Board are
political appointments. Most likely most of them were
appointed by the last government. I am sure it is going to be the
intent of this government as soon as it is possible to take those
people out of their appointed positions and appoint its political
friends. But where do farmers stand in that kind of action?
Farmers do not have a role in determining who represents them
and one of the most important boards in this nation, the
Canadian Wheat Board, has a monopoly.
The present government appointment system should be
changed to a board of directors consisting of producers elected
through a fair and open electoral process. The first thing this
would accomplish is to increase the legitimacy of the Canadian
Wheat Board. Farmers would know they have had a means of
influencing wheat board policy through exercising their vote.
They would also be more likely to accept wheat board decisions
made by a democratically elected board.
Flowing from this democratization would be the improved
responsiveness of the wheat board. Not only would election of
board members encourage candidates to listen to farmers'
concerns but farmers would be in a position to hold wheat board
members accountable at election time.
In conclusion, let me quickly review the main points I have
tried to make here today.
(1300 )
Reformers have decided to support Bill C-50 for two reasons.
First, we believe that the voluntary check-off provides farmers
with a degree of flexibility and choice in how their money is
spent and invested in their future. Second, we are optimistic that
this will encourage the Western Grains Research Foundation to
be responsive to farmers' concerns. As well, we support Bill
C-50 because it allows producer organizations, in this case the
Western Grains Research Foundation, to have more say over
their own destiny. Decisions on how to spend the moneys raised
by the check-off will be made by the private sector
stakeholders, not by the government.
Finally I have argued today that much remains to be done to
improve Canadian agriculture. Specifically there is need for a
reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. By advocating the
democratization of its board of directors we hope to encourage
the
6204
creation of a more flexible, more responsive Canadian Wheat
Board for the farmers of Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Madam Speaker,
on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I would like to
join in making some comments on Bill C-50, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The Liberal government is amending the Canadian Wheat
Board Act to introduce the voluntary check-off program for
wheat and barley research. I believe this is a very good move on
behalf of the government and on behalf of the producers and
those who support this move.
It is reminiscent of the pulse crop producers in Saskatchewan
who over the years have had check-offs on their crops, on their
production for the purpose of research, for the purpose of
enhancing their markets, for the purpose of providing greater
returns for agriculture in the pulse crops that are produced in the
province of Saskatchewan.
It has proven very successful there. I predict it will be very
successful if it is managed properly by the government and by
the administrators for the wheat and barley end of it as well.
The proposed check-off has been debated by western farmers
over the last few years. There is no major opposition to the
concepts and the government is responding to a proposal from
the Western Grains Research Foundation. The proposal was
developed by producers and farm organizations, the research
community and the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Western Grains Research Foundation is proposing a 20
cents per tonne check-off on wheat and a 40 cents per tonne
check-off on barley. This could produce an estimated $3.8
million for wheat and $900,000 for barley. The levies will be
deducted from the CWB final payments beginning with those for
the 1993-94 crop year. These funds would be automatically
transferred to special accounts set up and administered by the
WGRF.
The bill excludes check-off on soft wheat and barley
marketed at delivery points in Alberta. This is a point that
requires further review and explanation. The Alberta
government has introduced a long list of check-offs on farm
products.
It is our view in the case of barley producers that some of the
money is being used in a permanent campaign against the
Canadian Wheat Board. All farmers should be in the check-off
as proposed in this bill. Alberta farmers will obtain the benefits
of plant research financed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba
farmers while the Alberta barley growers association uses its
check-off to attack the Canadian Wheat Board which is trying to
build its industry.
If the Alberta barley producers want to maintain a check-off
for political purposes, it would be their business. If the aim of
the check-off is to foster plant breeding research to reduce the
administrative costs of the check-off, since the barley growers
association, including Alberta producers, members of the
WGRF and others, there is no logical explanation to exclude
them from this voluntary check-off.
I have a question for the member for Lethbridge, a member of
the Reform Party. How do the member and the Reform Party
square their support for the bill and yet do not support the
Alberta farmers from being involved in the check-off,
contributing to the research and contributing to the benefit of
their industry and using their money to contradict and campaign
against the CWB?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I certainly can
only respond in a general sense rather than in a specific sense.
My understanding is that the Alberta barley growers have as
their purpose and function to promote their organization and to
make contributions to research. To say that they are just a
political body I would not agree with that. They are trying to
make a case that the wheat board is not serving their purpose.
(1305)
More of a concern about the Canadian Wheat Board comes
from individual barley producers who are financing their own
campaign against the wheat board. They are entrepreneurs who
feel that they can market on their own and can develop a market
in the United States and other places in the world. They would
like the opportunity and privilege to do so. What we should do in
the Canadian Wheat Board legislation is allow for that to
happen.
We cannot have producers having their cake and eating it.
There would have to be some kind of a provision that if a
producer wishes to do it on their own and go out into the free
marketplace as an individual producer then they have to take
that risk and not be able to all of a sudden jump back into the
Canadian Wheat Board when something looks better in that
case. Therefore there has to be some kind of a trade-off done
through the Canadian Wheat Board legislation.
I believe that Alberta producers want to play their part in
research and development, specifically in barley.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-50, an
act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The purpose of the bill is to allow for a voluntary check-off on
board sales of wheat in four western provinces and the sales of
barley in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. The
funds collected, an amount estimated to be $4.7 million a year,
6205
would be administered by the Western Grains Research
Foundation and would be used for plant breeding research.
The research moneys would be directed toward improving
farm income through two main mechanisms: by improving the
field performance of barley and wheat through varieties with
increased disease and pest resistance, and by developing
varieties with specific qualities required by the marketplace.
The CWB act is specific in the terms of the deductions that
can be made from final payments. The bill would amend the
CWB act to allow voluntary research check-offs to be made.
There are a number of key provisions in the bill which are worth
taking note of.
The CWB would now be legally empowered to make
voluntary deductions from final payments to producers of wheat
and barley for the purpose of plant breeding and research. We
are really talking about responsible legislation from the
government that in essence is helping western Canadian grain
farmers ensure the future and viability of the industry.
The program is voluntary but I believe that participation will
be high as most farmers, including myself, realize the
importance of research and development. The program has the
potential to bring in $4.7 million in additional plant breeding
research. This figure is significant in light of the fact that
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres spent $18.7
million on wheat research in 1991-92 and a further $10.5
million for barley.
Plant researchers have expressed the belief that a well
co-ordinated and adequately funded research program over 10
to 15 years in all western wheat classes could lead to the
development of varieties that are 15 per cent higher yielding and
equal in protein to current varieties.
Based on a current price of $125 per tonne for wheat, the
preceding implies that the gross total return for the research levy
is projected to be worth approximately $400 million to the
prairie farmers annually.
Producer funded research programs are not new. This type of
initiative is well established and conforms to our GATT
obligations, as producer funded programs are not subject to any
restrictions. Over 15 U.S. states have check-off programs on
wheat. These are made at the state level and are deducted at first
point of sale.
(1310 )
The levy can be refunded by request within 60 days. The
check-offs are generally voluntary and have a high level of
participation. In general most funds are used for market
development activities and domestic production. Research also
receives a small portion of the levy fund.
There is also an Australian example. The Australian wheat
board has a wheat industry fund levy that has been in place since
the 1989-90 crop year. In this case a non-voluntary levy is used
in part to fund plant breeding research. It is set at approximately
1.5 per cent of the return price. As all hon. members can see,
Canada is not breaking new ground here; we are simply catching
up.
Another key aspect of the bill is the provision made by way of
order in council for fixing the rate of deductions and for
excluding from deductions certain grains and/or classes of
grains for certain regions within Canada. A study of the needs
for enhanced plant breeding programs in wheat and barley has
shown the need for an additional $3 million annually in wheat
and $1 million in barley.
The business plan of the WGRF proposes a check-off of 20
cents per tonne or a half cent per bushel of wheat, and 40 cents
per tonne or about one cent a bushel for barley.
I believe this is a small price to pay. The world grain industry
today has a high dependence on export markets. Consumers
demand both stability of supply and the quality of the product
for their end use requirements. The ability to meet these
demands provides a competitive advantage for Canada.
Satisfaction of both these demands depends to a large extent
on the genetic make-up and the varieties grown by barley and
wheat producers in Canada. It is expected that there will be
significant growth in demand, not only in the heavily populated
Pacific rim nations but around the world, particularly for the
quality and quantities of grain that western Canada has so far
been unable to supply.
Canada must be able to respond rapidly to new demands for
the varieties of wheat suitable for specific end use such as frozen
bread dough and noodles. Meeting this challenge could mean
significant new market opportunities for western producers.
The bill also provides for the deposit of the amount of
deductions from the final payments into a special account, by
way of order in council providing for the ultimate distribution of
those amounts to the account through the WGRF to the various
organizations where needed.
These would include governments, organizations,
corporations, foundations, educational institutions and other
bodies having among their objectives the support of scientific
research to develop and improve wheat and barley varieties.
The WGRF is made up of 12 major prairie farm organizations,
including the United Grain Growers, the Manitoba Pool
Elevators and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The board of
directors is made up of these 12 organizations as well as one
representative from the research branch of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada which will collectively set their priorities.
6206
The program has been designed with its own checks and
balances. There is accountability at the individual producer
level since a person can flag their support or disapproval by
opting out of the program. There is accountability at the
institutional level since the WGRF is made up of such a broad
base of farm groups.
The WGRF which will be overseeing the research also
represents the interests of its member organizations. There are
costs associated with the program. The CWB has estimated a
one-time setup cost of $56,800 and the annual costs of
approximately $55,700. The WGRF has estimated its total costs
at $50,000.
(1315 )
The total administrative costs are estimated to be less than 2
per cent of the research funds generated and will be deducted
from the levy funds. The proposed bill obliges the WGRF to
provide annual reports to both the producers and the federal
government of their activities.
What we have finally is a recognition that producers have an
important role to play in an activity that is directly related to
their livelihood.
Producer funding is increasingly important because plant
breeding of wheat and barley has been eroded by so many years
of inflation. By allowing producers to have such a direct role in
this process they can contribute directly to ensuring the future
and viability of their industry.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Madam Speaker,
the main political issue of Bill C-50 would be the opening up of
the Canadian Wheat Board Act. That is the view of the New
Democratic Party caucus. We are a bit concerned about opening
it up even though it is for a good purpose. Inadvertently this may
have a negative effect on the wheat board and its operation.
The reason I mention this point is that members of the Reform
Party are demanding freedom to choose. They want referenda
and other approaches to the wheat board and its orderly
marketing process. It is my view and the view of some farmers I
represent in the province of Saskatchewan that it poses a
possible threat to the stability of the board.
I want to ask the Liberal member if the government could give
some assurance or a clear statement on the future of the wheat
board and to confirm again the government's commitment to
orderly marketing and its election promise to ensure that the
Canadian Wheat Board is an ongoing strong, single desk
marketing agency.
Mr. Calder: Madam Speaker, I understand where the hon.
member is coming from with this. First, the bill allows for more
funding and is actually GATT responsive. That is one thing we
have to look at here.
To allay his concerns as to whether or not it is backed, I just
want to read off some of the grassroots organizations that have
already said they approved. The list includes the Prairie Pools
Incorporated, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool
Elevators, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Canadian Seed Growers
Association, the Saskatchewan Seed Growers Association, the
United Grain Growers, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers
and Keystone Agricultural Producers.
I do not think the hon. member has anything to worry about
concerning the Canadian Wheat Board in the future.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the member opposite. He spoke about the support
the bill has from all of the different organizations. I believe he
went on to list 12 organizations that had indicated support.
Would he also have enough confidence to seek direct support
from producers by making it possible for them to say when they
apply for a permit book whether or not they support this type of
check-off? I suggest to the member opposite that although there
is a lot of institutional support, these people may not speak for
the majority of farmers. The fact that they have to continually
reapply to get this check-off back if they do not support it is very
cumbersome.
Let us give producers the option of indicating whether they
support this when they apply for their permit book. Would he
support that?
(1320 )
Mr. Calder: Madam Speaker, the key here-we have to take a
look at what is being discussed in the bill-is the word
voluntary. That is exactly what we are discussing here.
As a poultry producer, I have a lot of faith in my industry. I
know what research and development means for the chicken
industry. I hope that wheat and barley producers have that same
commitment to their industry and that they want to put money
into research and development.
In looking at research and development in this industry, if the
researchers see they have the backing of the people who are
involved in the industry itself, they will go a lot farther in the
development of wheat and barley for the world market.
Let us face it. Canada is an exporting nation. If we have the
best quality wheat and barley product to put forward on the
world market, I know we can go farther. I will cite members an
example in the chicken industry.
In the 1960s, it took us 14 to 16 weeks to produce a
four-pound chicken and we said: ``Wow, that is as far as we can
go''. I do it in 36 days now and through research and
development, they are also talking about a 30-day chicken.
Wheat and barley is no different.
6207
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Madam Speaker, I rise today to
speak in favour of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
I commend the minister of agriculture for the work he is doing
to improve the prospect of the Canadian farmer. My riding of
Oxford has a large variety of agricultural production. The north
end of the riding is dominated by livestock, mostly dairy. Just
north of Woodstock is the Western Ontario Breeders
Incorporated which collects, tests, stores and sells semen
around the world for the artificial insemination of cattle. Toward
the south end of the riding, we have a predominance of tobacco
production. Over the past decade as tobacco has decreased,
these producers have looked for alternative crops to grow on the
sandy soil of the tobacco belt.
We have found that not many crops are successfully grown in
this soil. As one moves throughout tobacco areas, one can see
the occasional farm growing ginseng or peanuts. However not
all farmers can afford to make this change, nor can we have these
markets flooded by new producers.
Another experimental crop which was successfully
introduced this year on a limited acreage by Mr. Joe Strobel of
Tillsonburg was hemp. This crop was harvested last month and
will be used in the production of hemp clothing.
This is why this bill is important to my region. The provisions
in the bill for research and development of new crops is good for
all Canadian farmers. It is hoped that this research may even
develop a new wheat or barley variety that could be successfully
grown on lighter land such as that formerly used for tobacco.
We sometimes forget just how competitive the agricultural
industry is world wide. With our shorter growing season in
Canada, we must take full advantage of improvements in crop
and livestock variety and quality in order to finish ahead of the
competition.
If research can develop new and better crops that can be used
for human and livestock consumption, then we can forge new
markets around the world. These new markets will not only
develop income for our farmers but will generate employment
throughout Canada.
As this country has moved from a primarily agrarian economy
to our present industrial and information age economy, we
sometimes forget how important agriculture continues to be not
only for the food it produces but for the jobs it creates. Jobs in
our transportation networks, packing plants and food processing
plants are all dependent on agriculture.
As every farmer knows, the greatest resource we have is the
land. This land is a farmer's capital. It is our basic resource and
our goal has to be to preserve the land and to make it as
productive as possible. The research that is called for in this bill
is good for all Canadian farmers.
I would like to address a few remarks to my hon. friends from
Lethbridge and Peace River. I had the pleasure last week to sit
with the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. This
is an elected body of grain farmers from the various regions of
the grain provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
(1325)
To a man these elected representatives supported the
Canadian Wheat Board largely because of its success in
marketing our grain and because of its pooled selling. There was
some discussion about the possibility of some entrepreneurial
ventures regarding barley. I am sure that will be discussed by the
board. There are farmers elected who give input to this board. I
was pleased to meet with them and to know that they were
satisfied with what was being done.
When the bill becomes law we will be able to say to our
farmers that we have passed a law that will improve the ability
of the Canadian farmer to compete in international markets.
This is a strong step forward for Canadian farmers and the
Canadian agri-food industry as a whole.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member for Oxford, who represents his riding so well, just
told us once again that he wishes western producers would pay
40 cents and 20 cents per metric tonne for R&D; he also
expressed in the same breath the hope that tobacco producers
who can no longer grow tobacco will benefit from research
spin-offs.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Oxford is not a little
dependent on Western producers for his region's development.
If it is good for his region, he should urge his government to rack
its brains to find a way to make everyone-or at least those who
may eventually benefit from agricultural R&D-pay.
In addition, I would like to ask the hon. member for Oxford,
who also seems very happy with the Canadian Wheat Board, to
enumerate some improvements that would make the board more
active, vigorous and democratic. I must tell you, Madam
Speaker, that the Canadian Wheat Board is far from enjoying
unanimous support in the west. Most producers want to keep it,
but most of them also want the Canadian Wheat Board to make
major changes, in particular at the senior management level.
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend raises some
interesting points. He might be encouraged to know that the
wheat farmers of Oxford county and of other parts of Ontario are
already paying a dollar a tonne into a fund for research.
Probably he is also aware that the Flue-Cured Tobacco
Growers Marketing Board takes a certain amount from each
pound of tobacco that is sold through their marketing agency.
The money is used for exactly what he is concerned about,
6208
research into varieties and improving the production of tobacco
in Oxford, Norfolk and Elgin counties.
I am not sure that Frontenac is any closer to western Canada
than Oxford. I am sure that all farmers are interested in
maintaining the best possible production in all parts of the
country. Research is essential.
(1330 )
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I was looking for question period. I thought I would get
out of this before that started.
It is a privilege for me to address the bill and I am going to
address it more or less in a way that a Reform farmer does, not a
Reform politician.
I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for all the free
publicity for Reform he is giving us. We really appreciate that. It
is good advertising.
The spirit of Bill C-50 goes in the right direction. The spirit is
good. The increase in private funding for research, pretty well
every farmer supports. I am starting to wonder who drew up the
bill. When I look at the body of the bill it looks very sick, very
old and very decrepit. I do not think it is going to provide the
incentive this money is supposed to give.
To me it looks like it must have been a Liberal lawyer drawing
it up, not a Liberal farmer because I am sure some of the clauses
would be different.
We take a look at clause 31(3) and all of a sudden I realize we
have another agency. The agency is called the western research
fund and if we look at the track record of federal agencies we
know that they usually have deficits, not surpluses. When we
look further on we will see that is exactly what the next clause
says. It says the cost of collecting these moneys will be deducted
from distributed moneys. What have we left over?
I am becoming very suspicious that there will not be very
much money for research which we originally intended.
We go back down to the other clause, and all of a sudden we
find out we have another fund, a reserve fund, more
administration. How much cost is there going to be to the
administration of this 20 cents a bushel levy? It does not end
there.
Then we go to clause 33(2) and it says there will be provisions
made that certain projects are not eligible for this funding and
certain research projects that do not pertain to research on these
products could be funded. There is no clear direction in the bill.
We go down further to clause 33(3) and we are talking of an
annual report that will have to be made to the minister but there
are no guidelines that say what kind of a report. It will be at the
minister's discretion what kind of report. Is it going to be a
report saying it is minus or plus? Or is it going to show us which
projects were funded? Why is there no body to the bill? I want
some body in the bill.
Then we go further down and we find the door is left wide
open to whatever we can think of. If it is at the minister's
discretion to call the report, why call for something when there
are irregularities in it, especially if the government of that day
would not like the irregularities.
Why not put out a bill that is simple and will direct these funds
to the research that we want to target? It is very simple. As I
mentioned the other day, give farmers the choice. In the next
federal election the hon. member on the other side would be
really provoked if he were forced to mark his ballot Reform and
then ask for it back because he did not agree to vote for Reform.
Let us try it and see what they will say. Maybe they all will vote
Reform. Maybe it is going to be that impressive. If we want
democracy let us have it everywhere.
(1335)
I am not surprised, if I look at the bill, that we have problems
in government. If bills about immigration and bills about law
and justice are so vague and so unpredictable no wonder we have
lawyers having the richest industry in the world today. To me as
a farmer if I want to support something I want to have that right
to say so. I do not want somebody to tell me you put this money
in here and then if you have time, if you feel things are not right
you can ask for it back. I want that money to go to research. That
is why I suggest very strongly to the government, if it wants my
support as a farmer, to give me that opportunity. I will guarantee
that if farmers have that opportunity the government will get
more money for check-off to research funding than it will
otherwise.
I have another suggestion for the government. If we really
want to co-operate in the House why not ask some of the Reform
members on this side to help draft the bill because I know it can
be improved. The intent is tremendous. We want to co-operate.
It is always suggested that we do not want to co-operate. Any
member on this side could draw up a bill that would direct that
money specifically to the research that we wanted.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the
comments of the member for Lisgar-Marquette. I guess that is
about as far as we can say, that they were enjoyable.
I do want to point out to the member from the Reform Party
that it keeps stressing that decisions like this by governments
should be producer driven. There are already, as he and the
Reform Party well know, 12 farm organizations and others
requesting addition to the list. I do not really know what more
they want than that type of thing. The legislation is producer
driven and we as a government are responding to that at
absolutely no taxpayer cost whatsoever other than providing a
very efficient administrative process or availability to do so.
6209
When I mention that it is clearly stated in the bill that Alberta
barley producers will not be taking part. I would ask the member
if he has any comments on the fact that since the Alberta barley
growers through the Alberta barley commission have their own
fund which they voluntarily submit money to, would he consider
suggesting to the Alberta barley commission that it become part
of this research situation?
When we look at the figures of the amount of money that the
Alberta barley commission collects, it collects $1.11 million
and spends $270,000 or 24 per cent of the amount of money that
it collects on administration. When it is done through the
Canadian Wheat Board it will cost 2 per cent.
Would the member for Lisgar-Marquette and his Reform
Party colleagues consider suggesting to the Alberta barley
producers who certainly want a good return on their dollar that it
would be a much better return?
The Reform Party is always talking about administrative costs
and wastes. We see 24 per cent used on administration and less
than 50 per cent of what it collects used on research, market
development, producer servicing and policy development. That
same organization is sitting on an annual surplus of farmers'
money that it is doing absolutely nothing with after having
collected it of $295,839.
Mr. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I do not have all those
figures available that readily. I do not know all the Alberta
barley producers but I can guarantee the hon. member that if
they are not paying their fair share in research, they will.
(1340 )
He says they have representation from all farmers and that the
wheat board is doing such a fantastic job for farmers. I remind
the hon. member that in 1993 after staff reductions, after
tremendous cuts, salaries to the Canadian Wheat Board
increased by $1.4 million.
Not only that, the advisory group spent $50,000 more on
travel and sold 15 per cent less last week than the year before.
They should not try to tell me that it is working for farmers. Last
fall the wheat board and the provincial and federal governments
told us there was no market for our tombstone wheat.
Farmers in southern Manitoba marketed that wheat within
hours. My son sold his whole crop of wheat in four hours. There
was a good market for it and a good price. They should not tell
me that all farm organizations are always supporting farmers or
doing the best job because I get a little riled up.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the member for Lisgar-Marquette.
I am a farmer in the Canadian Wheat Board area. We have
heard a number of speakers on the other side who are not in the
Canadian Wheat Board area extolling the values of the Canadian
Wheat Board. A lot of these people who have spoken earlier
belong to an area called the Ontario Wheat Board in which the
directors are elected rather than appointed as with the Canadian
Wheat Board. Does the member for Lisgar-Marquette agree
that the Ontario Wheat Board model of an elected body rather
than appointed is better than the current one we have at the
Canadian Wheat Board?
Mr. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
that question. If I read the Liberal red book on the fairness it is
portraying that everybody will get under that government, I am
sure the Liberals are going to give the western Canadian farmers
that privilege to elect their wheat board just like they do in
Ontario. If that is the case I applaud them for doing it. It shows
democracy in real style, not democracy by region.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)
moved that Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on second
reading of Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend other related acts.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to describe to my
colleagues and all Canadians how this bill is consistent with this
government's agenda for Canada's natural resource sector.
(1345)
[English]
As well I will describe the importance of the natural resource
sector to Canada's economic strength and job creation and the
role of my department to ensure that the natural resource sector
continues to be a cornerstone of our economy, of employment
and of Canada's progress toward sustainable development.
Bill C-48 will establish the Department of Natural Resources
under one act. At the present time authorities for the minister
and the department are set out in two acts, the Department of
Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Re-
6210
sources Act. According to the bill natural resources incorporate
all of the resources covered in the two departmental acts.
Specifically, these resources are mines, minerals and other
non-renewable resources, energy and forest resources.
While we recognize the provincial responsibility for the
management of natural resources in Canada, the federal
government has the responsibility in partnership with the
provinces to maintain and enhance the contribution of the
natural resource sector to our economic growth and job creation.
In essence, Bill C-48 provides a legal framework for the
federal Department of Natural Resources to provide a national
perspective on mining, energy and forestry issues and to provide
leading edge expertise in research and development to help the
natural resource sector meet current and future challenges.
[Translation]
One of those challenges is Canada's progress toward
sustainable development. Bill C-48 respects the federal
government's commitment to encourage progress toward
sustainable development.
[English]
For example, the bill states that to carry out the minister's
assigned powers, duties and functions the Minister of Natural
Resources is required to have regard to the integrated
management and sustainable development of Canada's natural
resources. While this requirement is contained in the present
Department of Forestry Act there is no such reference in the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. This provision
will now be clearly stated and applied to all natural resources.
Canada's natural resource industries are not sunset industries.
Let me make that point today very emphatically. These
industries provide a major portion of Canada's gross domestic
product. For example, in 1992 the value of energy, forestry,
mineral and metal production totalled $69 billion or 14 per cent
of our GDP. In 1992 net trade in energy, mineral and forest
products amounted to $40.5 billion and provided much of the
basis for Canada's $15 billion trade surplus.
One in every 13 members of Canada's workforce is employed
in the energy, forest and mining sectors in all regions of this
country. In fact natural resource activity provides the economic
backbone for over 500 Canadian communities, many of them in
remote areas.
As well, our natural resource industries are high tech
industries. Canada is a world leader in the development and
application of technology to improve productivity and
competitiveness of our mining, forestry and energy industries.
This effort to develop new technology has resulted in the
emergence of new industries and therefore new jobs.
For example, Canada's requirements for accurate information
about our resources has stimulated a new industry known as
geomatics. This high potential, $1.3 billion industry employs
over 12,000 Canadians. Furthermore Canada's geomatics
industry contributes $100 million a year in exports.
(1350 )
Economic challenges face Canada's natural resource
industries. Improved productivity and efficiency are essential to
our country's ability to remain competitive in the natural
resource sector. However the environmental challenges facing
the sector are equally important. As a result, I believe that
Natural Resources Canada will be a vital bridge between
industrial and environmental concerns as we move to meet the
challenges of the future.
Fiscal restraint affects all orders of government in Canada.
Therefore we must find new and innovative ways to work
together. I believe that our ability to encourage the integration
of economic and environmental demands will be enhanced
through co-operative ventures and partnerships which involve
all stakeholders.
Throughout the years the department's research and
technology expertise has built a solid reputation throughout the
world. Its work has been geared to improving resource sector
competitiveness and environmental performance. Natural
Resource Canada's scientific and technological expertise has
focused on all aspects of natural resource management.
For example, in forest management the Canada forest accord
and its action plan, the national forest strategy, represent a
commitment to sustainable forest development in the country.
Through partnerships between federal and provincial
governments, environmental and aboriginal groups and other
forest users, we are working together to test and apply new
approaches to manage forests as ecosystems.
Our mining industry is always moving forward, searching for
innovations to become even more efficient and more
competitive. As a result, the mining sector has one of the highest
productivity levels in the world. The department's science and
technology expertise has contributed to the development of
many of these innovative processes. Many are linked to the
challenge of meeting environmental concerns. Examples
include acid mine drainage, effluents and promoting the use of
metal recycling.
The energy sector will continue to be an important part of the
department. There is no question that oil and gas development is
important to sustain jobs and to Canada's overall economic
strength. We are committed to market based principles. We are
committed to sustainable development. Therefore we will work
closely with industry, the provinces and others to harmonize
economic and environmental goals.
6211
Increased energy efficiency is widely recognized to have the
greatest potential for short term contributions to our progress
toward sustainable development. Moreover, energy efficiency
can help Canada make a positive contribution to the
government's goal of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy efficient technologies also contribute to wealth
generation and job creation. Many companies and businesses
have discovered that energy efficiency makes business sense.
Innovative, made in Canada technologies for new products,
processes, systems and services can also be exported to a rapidly
expanding world market.
[Translation]
Natural Resources Canada will therefore continue to address
the economic and environmental concerns of the natural
resource sector. Canada will continue to lead and be a model in
all aspects of natural resource management and use.
[English]
I will continue to work with the provinces, industry,
environmental and aboriginal groups, and other stakeholders in
the natural resource sector. The Department of Natural
Resources will promote sustainable development practices and
will apply its science and technological expertise to enhance our
international trade, our competitiveness and the contribution by
the natural resource sector to Canada's economic strength and
job creation.
(1355 )
The bill will provide the Department of Natural Resources
with the legal mandate and framework in which to deliver all
these commitments as we move forward to the next century.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I understand full well
that the purpose of this bill is to ratify what is already a fact; a
pure formality, it seems. I dearly hope that our colleagues in the
Liberal Party do not expect us to ratify this bill establishing the
Department of Natural Resources.
It is easy for us to speak on the subject of natural resources.
Quebecers elected us, members of a sovereignist party, both to
defend Quebec's interests and to begin the dialogue with the rest
of Canada in order to prepare Quebec's accession to sovereignty.
It is essential for us to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction
over natural resources. We would be acting contrary to our
mandate and the will of those who elected us if we did not speak
out against this bill.
All governments of Quebec have always demanded respect
for provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution. The
Constitution Act, 1982 describes provincial powers fairly
precisely under section 92(a) with respect to the exploitation,
conservation and management of forest resources, including the
rate of primary production.
This position was maintained by the Government of Quebec
when the former Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Sirros, said
in the National Assembly on May 25 that the full authority of the
Government of Quebec for managing natural resources on its
territory-
The Speaker: Order. You can continue after question period,
when we resume debate.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6211
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, when the
government took office 11 months ago it immediately took
action to stop the waste of taxpayers' money. One of these
actions was the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters. These
helicopters were the Lamborghinis of the helicopter world,
sleek, fast and very expensive.
They were not what was needed to modernize our helicopter
fleet at a reasonable cost. Notwithstanding the commitment to
modernize our fleet is something that must be done and be done
soon. The present Sea Kings have done a marvellous job over the
past 30 years. They are, however, near the end of their life
expectancy.
I ask that the government take a serious look at replacing our
helicopter fleet with an appropriate made in Canada model
reflecting our commitments to our armed forces as well as the
Canadian aerospace industry, both of which are so important to
the constituents of Erie.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport does not care about the problems of our
regions. He suggests policies which will adversely affect
transport in remote areas. As the national policy on airports is
about to be implemented, his department keeps eliminating,
arbitrarily, regional airport facilities.
Sept-Îles is the most important airport on the North Shore.
The closing of the second of three runways creates additional
risks in terms of safety, including for any airplane experiencing
6212
problems. Moreover, this decision will reduce the exceptional
potential of the airport facilities in Sept-Îles.
It is unacceptable that the streamlining policies of the
Minister of Transport, who seems determined to stop the
region's economic development, be once again implemented at
the expense of regions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, recently publicized
internal memos have drawn the attention of Canadians to very
unethical accounting practices between government
departments and Canada Communications Group.
It is incredible that Canada Communications Group would
enter into illegal contracts in order to hide money from the
scrutiny and accountability of Parliament. We intend to hold the
government accountable for this scandalous practice.
The ministers involved have promised a full investigation.
We will be watching for the reports with great interest. I am
informing the House, as I have informed the ministers, that
should this investigation not provide full disclosure I will be
calling for further public review before the government
operations committee.
Our debt is currently $532,098,154,000 and has grown by
$88,000 since I started speaking. We cannot tolerate any more
mismanagement of our precious tax dollars.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Spruce Glen Public
School's graduating class of 1994. These students are now in
their first year at Huntsville High School and they carried with
them the tutelage of Susan Hawkins, teacher extraordinaire.
Ms. Hawkins, while teaching at Spruce Glen Public School,
undertook a class project entitled ``Rescue Mission; Planet
Earth, a Children's Edition of Agenda 21''.
The students participated in the rewriting of environmental
plans for the future which arose from the 1992 earth summit in
Rio de Janeiro. This led to a teleconferencing project involving
the Spruce Glen students and others from around the world.
Spruce Glen was designated as Canada's focal point.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Hawkins
and the grade eight students for their proactivity in undertaking
this important initiative and commend them on their continued
support in educating others on the importance of the
environment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday,
during Question Period, the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata said that the problems in obtaining
from the Kingston city council a piece of land on which to build
a French-language high school confirmed the Commissioner of
Official Languages' statement to the effect that it will be
difficult to turn Kingston into a bilingual place.
The Prime Minister assured the hon. member that the
problem, which is related to finding a piece of land and is not a
linguistic issue, will be solved and that a French-language
school will be built in Kingston.
It is sad to see how the Bloc Quebecois has a distorted
perception of the reality. The Bloc should know that the million
francophones living outside Quebec are alive and well.
In my riding, we are proud of our French-language schools.
Indeed, in spite of the fact that French-speaking people account
for only 2 per cent of the total population, we have one high
school and three elementary schools for francophones. I myself
benefitted from that school system, as did many other
Canadians, thanks to the policies implemented by the Liberal
Party over the last 25 years.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, on Thursday, September 22, a member of the Reform
Party stated in the House opposition to Bill C-41. I would like to
state for the record that I am deeply disappointed with the
member's opposition to such a well conceived bill.
Given that the Reform Party continues to campaign on a law
and order, get tough platform, demanding strong justice
legislation from the government on a daily basis, I am
particularly surprised that it is not supporting the government's
efforts to increase the severity of punishment for crimes
motivated by hate, crimes even more reprehensible than random
acts of violence because they are clearly premeditated based on
the offender's hate for his victim.
This is just another example of the Reform Party's empty
rhetoric, inconsistent messages and lack of substance.
6213
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, the Canadian Environmental Network held its general
meeting. The organization consists of a number of ecological
and environmental groups from Quebec and the other provinces
and territories. The work they do in educating the public and in
making governments and industry aware of the need to protect
our environment is essential, although the government often
fails to appreciate this fact.
(1405)
At the meeting, a number of network representatives told us
of their concern about possible cuts in grants by the Department
of the Environment. The government must not abandon agencies
that remind us daily that the environment concerns everyone and
that recognizing our responsibility for our environment is the
key to sustainable development.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker:
Cautiously, wisely,
Canadians had thoughts
That investing in RRSPs
Meant a future without knocks
But comes the finance minister
year after year,
Teasing and punishing
and
creating such fear.
Pension consultants have said: it is wrong!
To punish Canadians for being wise and strong.
But the finance minister says:
``We must take steps
In order to meet
Our budget deficits''
Reformers agree
The deficit's bad
But reducing expenditures
Would make us so glad
Its the expenditure rocks
Not in our socks!
Hands off our pensions, Mr. Minister, we say
Stop all the rumours, long before budget day.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the aggressive
promotion by Fredericton, New Brunswick, of the information
technology industry has resulted in a first time, major
international conference being hosted by Fredericton.
Softworld '94, Canada's premier international conference and
showcase for the information technology sector, has attracted
over 480 delegates from 28 countries around the world. These
delegates are senior executives from across North America,
Europe, Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America.
Softworld '94 is not a typical conference and trade show. It is
specifically designed to encourage deal making and investment
between Canadian and international firms.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has played a
substantial role in organizing and funding the conference. I
thank the Government of Canada for its support. This major
initiative once again illustrates the important place of
Fredericton and New Brunswick in Canada's information and
high technology sector.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Institute of Child Health today released its report
``The Health of Canada's Children''. Based on 1990-91 data, it
paints a dark portrait of the poverty, illness and death that afflict
so many of them.
In Manitoba the child poverty rate and deaths during infancy
and among pre-schoolers remain alarmingly high, exceeding
the national average. Almost 1,000 Manitoba babies were born
underweight.
It is therefore timely to remind the House that since the
election of 1993 the government has launched initiatives for
First Nations children and a nationwide prenatal nutrition
program.
I am optimistic that a reformed social security system will
win big for the 1.2 million poor children of Canada. This is
crucial. Children are less than 30 per cent of our population but
they represent 100 per cent of Canada's future.
6214
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to convey the pride felt by Manitobans
because we have been selected to host the upcoming special G-7
conference on partnership for economic transformation of
Ukraine.
Canada has had a long and rich Ukrainian presence. Between
the two world wars some 70,000 Ukrainians immigrated to
Canada for political and economic reasons. Although 80 per
cent of Ukrainian Canadians are native born, today there is a
strong and significant attachment to Ukraine and to its
socioeconomic wellbeing.
In order for Ukraine's political independence to be
sustainable and stable, economic prosperity is a must, and
Manitobans of all backgrounds are proud to be a part of this
process.
May the special G-7 conference on Ukraine lead to further
co-operation between our two great countries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, when they
were in the opposition, the Liberals demanded that the
government introduce stringent and effective measures to
provide better regulation of lobbyists' activities.
(1410)
According to documents from the Department of Industry, the
government gave in to pressure from lobbyists even before Bill
C-43, which was supposed to implement Liberal commitments,
was tabled. The bill does not include, for instance, the
obligation for lobbyists to reveal their fees, nor does it do away
with the corporate tax deduction for lobbying expenses.
These specific provisions were intended to restore public trust
in government. Dropping them without further ado, as the
Liberal government has done, is irresponsible, in our opinion.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, many times in the House members are reminded to
show due reverence for the other place, also known as the
Senate.
Our unreformed Senate is an out of date, undemocratic
institution filled with out of date patronage appointees. To date
there has been only one elected senator, a Reformer, the late Stan
Waters.
Until the membership of the Senate is chosen directly by the
people of Canada, the democratically elected representatives of
Canadians should not feign deference to it.
Canadians have indicated that they have very little affection
for the Senate. As elected representatives of the people-
The Speaker: That statement is out of order.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, from
September 16 to September 25, St. Catharines celebrated the
grapes and wines of the Niagara region.
My riding of St. Catharines hosted the 43rd annual wine and
grape festival. The festival is an annual harvest tradition of
elegant gourmet dinners, outdoor events, concerts, winery tours,
parades, children's events, a royal ball and a wide variety of
winery hosted events.
The grape, wine and juice industry in Canada is a vital part of
our economy. In Ontario alone the industry represents thousands
of full time and seasonal jobs. Canadian wines with its VQA,
vintage quality alliance, have won many international awards
for excellence.
I would like to take the opportunity to honour the excellent
wines of the Niagara region and of Canada, and congratulate this
year's grape and wine king, Dr. Clair Wiley.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, last
week I rose in the House to ask the new Premier of Quebec to
keep his promise about holding a referendum on Quebec's
political independence not later than eight or ten months from
now.
Following his swearing in yesterday, Mr. Parizeau said, in
referring to the 1995 timeframe, that it was too early to be either
more specific or more undecided. This is an obvious sign of
ambivalence.
The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois used the symphony as a
metaphor for the position of the two sovereignist parties on a
referendum date in 1995.
Unfortunately, today Quebecers are not getting much in the
way of harmony from the two sovereignist maestros on a
definite referendum date. Ignoring the wishes of the public and
the solemn commitment by Mr. Parizeau regarding a
referendum, some of our separatist stars, showing a total
disregard for promises and democratic values, want to postpone
the referendum date and thus penalize Quebec by not letting it
exercise its right to choose.
6215
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, September 25, 1994, over 3,000 people
gathered in Coquitlam to send a message to the government that
they want real change to the Young Offenders Act.
On August 13, Graham Niven, a 31-year old man stopping by
a Mac's Milk store, was brutally and senselessly kicked to death
by two teenagers, one of them just 15 years old. This is just one
of a recent number of tragedies in the Vancouver area.
Addressing the rally were the voices of citizens from our
community. Diane wants the government to know that its rules
have tied her hands as a caring parent. Her 14-year old daughter
is a young offender. The discrepancies and inconsistencies of
our youth justice system were voiced by the school board, the
RCMP, the mayors, a provincial cabinet minister, the Cadman
and Niven families and young people themselves. Neither the
YOA nor Bill C-37 are enough.
Yesterday alone my office received over 500 faxes to add to
our community petition for real changes to the Young Offenders
Act. ``YOA give the people a say''.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, concerns still continue in the Patrick Kelly case.
In spite of the fact that 10 months ago the crown's main and in
fact only witness recanted her testimony saying that she was
forced to give this testimony by investigators in the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, the minister still is acting
without any great sense of urgency.
Why is the minister and his department so casual about this
matter? Why has so little been done by the minister and his staff
over the last 10 months? Why are charges of corruption and
dishonesty on the part of the investigating officers not regarded
as serious by the minister?
Why have officers involved in this case not been suspended
pending an outcome of the investigation? Why has evidence that
would clear Patrick Kelly not been made available to his
lawyers? Why has it taken eight months to contact the one single
witness on which his freedom in this whole case depends? Why
is the same investigating officer whose honesty and motives are
under serious question involved in the new investigation?
It is time the minister acted with some sense of urgency in this
case. The Canadian justice system is under attack as a result.
6215
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after promising an action plan for social program
reform, the Minister of Human Resources Development said
yesterday that next week he would only table a discussion paper.
He also made it clear that social program reform would again
be postponed, when he said that the government's position
would be presented next spring or next fall. In other words, a
year from now.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Should we see these
successive delays as an attempt by the Prime Minister to put off
the cuts his minister wants to make at the expense of the needy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are trying to find out what Canadians think about a reform
that is extremely important. The paper will be released to the
public, and a parliamentary committee will travel across the
country to hear what the public has to say. That is democracy at
its best.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this looks more like hesitation at its best than
democracy. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether we are to
infer from all this that postponing the reform was motivated by
the Prime Minister's reluctance to take unpopular measures
before a referendum is held on the sovereignty of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
our job is to give Canadians good government, and that is what
we intend to do. Good government involves consulting people.
A few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition criticized us
for going too fast, but now he says we are not going fast enough.
We were elected for at least four or probably even five years, if
we look at the precedent set by the Conservatives. So we have
plenty of time, and we will take that time to do a good job, which
is what Canadians expect from their government.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, good government means a government that governs
and does not spend its time consulting, publishing white papers
and travelling all over the place and making speeches.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that by
postponing social program reform indefinitely and restraining
his minister's urge to make cuts, he is actually asking the
unemployed in Quebec to wait at least another year until the
training issue is settled.
6216
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
anyone who says this government is not doing anything should
look at what we have done since we came to power. The
helicopters were out in half an hour. Then we dealt with the
problems around article XI at GATT. We dealt with the problems
around NAFTA. We dealt with the problem of fraud in the
cigarette trade. We brought down a budget. We made cuts, we
made changes and we intend to go on being an active and
responsible government. I am sure that a year from now, if the
Leader of the Opposition is as good as his word, when they have
lost their referendum, he will no longer be a member in this
House.
* * *
(1420)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has intentionally not ruled out the
possibility of taxing RRSPs in his next budget. This is what
Alain Dubuc, an editorialist at the daily newspaper La Presse,
had to say about this:
``-a tax that would affect the living conditions of present and future retirees
counting on this income in good faith is immoral.''
He goes on to say:
``It is the most outrageous idea conveyed by a minister of finance in a long
time.''
In the interest of the already overtaxed middle class, I give the
Minister of Finance another chance to end the speculation about
taxing RRSPs. Can he undertake today not to tax RRSPs in his
next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the idea was not
conveyed by the Minister of Finance but by Bloc and Reform
members who raised it many times here in this House. So if there
is a ``trial balloon'', they are the ones responsible.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, the simple
fact that he does not automatically rule out this possibility poses
an unacceptable threat to middle-income taxpayers.
Does he not agree that it is totally immoral to change the rules
in the middle of the game and create a kind of retroactive tax by
taxing RRSPs in his next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the
Bloc Quebecois is afraid of listening to Canadians, of a
pre-budget process that will be open and of making constructive
suggestions. It is very clear that the Bloc has nothing to say to
Canadians who want a chance to tell us what they want to do.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, details of
the government's social policy review appeared today on the
front page of the
Globe and Mail. It seems the only place the
minister has not discussed details of his much delayed action
plan is here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development
insulting members of Parliament by leaking details of this
action plan to the media before presenting it to Parliament?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it is almost a historic moment
that someone has accused me of actually talking to the Globe
and Mail.
I caution the hon. member and all members that this is a
period of time when there are going to be all kinds of speculative
stories and reputed leaks. I suggest that the member be patient
and simply wait for the real paper and real proposals which will
be tabled in the House next week.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, we
appreciate that these are proposals and not just discussion points
that the minister has referred to.
The minister boasted at the beginning of this Parliament that
he would be introducing an action plan to reform Canada's
social program but we have seen this delayed again and again for
months.
Has the minister lost his nerve? We want to know, where is the
action?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the action really resides in the
will and motivation of the Canadian people to make a
fundamental reform and bring about a modern social system
based upon real compassion and justice for Canadians.
Presumably during the last election campaign opposition
members made certain commitments to their electors ensuring
that their points of view would be heard. Therefore I find it
exceedingly strange they would be so opposed to any attempt to
have real serious dialogue and consultation.
I recommend that the hon. member change her position and
turn around and use this as an opportunity to engage Canadians
in a very serious debate about the future of this country.
6217
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, of course
we are in favour of consultation. It is just that consultation must
end sooner or later and then we must act on it.
(1425 )
The social policy review was undertaken because as the
minister knows, the status quo is simply unsustainable. Our
social programs are too costly, too inefficient and in desperate
need of reform.
Knowing that social programs must be better targeted and that
Canadians will have to take more personal responsibility to
provide for their own retirement, will the minister tell the
finance minister to keep his hands off Canadians' private
pensions and RRSPs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I prefer to answer my own
questions if you do not mind. In my experience the hon. Minister
of Finance is a gentleman of great discretion and judgment and
he knows exactly where he wants to put his hands.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Ontario's finance minister proposed giving Ottawa
exclusive control of a national sales tax that would replace the
GST and all provincial sales taxes. In return, the provinces
would receive a greater share of individual income tax revenues.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to
follow up the Ontario finance minister's proposal and are we to
understand that the GST reform he is considering will be based
on this suggestion?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Before answering, Mr. Speaker, may I say I would
like to see the Hansard blues.
[Translation]
The treasurer of the province of Ontario telephoned me
yesterday morning, just before question period, to let me know
about the suggestion he made yesterday. The details were not
provided and I think that our officials are going to meet. We are
very open to any suggestion that will help us harmonize the tax.
That said, we will certainly have many questions about the
suggestion, but I think that any constructive suggestion is
worthwhile.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
does the Minister of Finance think that to really simplify
consumer taxes, eliminate duplication and reduce the huge
administrative costs, he should instead abolish the GST as
promised and transfer this tax field to the provinces in exchange
for an equivalent reduction in transfers, as the Bloc Quebecois
recommended in its report on the GST to the finance committee
in June? The minister wants suggestions-there is one.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly
consider the suggestion from the Bloc Quebecois with the same
open mind as we received the suggestion from the Treasurer of
the Province of Ontario. We did so when they presented their
report. We discussed with the provinces and we must say that the
provinces, including Quebec, are not unanimously in favour of
it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
have a 1992 internal report which examined mismanagement in
the Department of National Defence and raised the spectre of
abuse and cover up.
The deputy minister's office was renovated at a cost of
$327,000. This contract was awarded without tender and
concealed under a completely different project in order, and I
quote from the report, ``to hide the cost of the DM refit which
would be considered excessive by the public''.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House what action the
government has taken to correct this bureaucratic
mismanagement within the defence department?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence
I will take the question under advisement for the minister.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is not just one of excessive spending; it appears that the
department compounded its sins in trying to hide the report by
classifying it ``protected C''.
(1430 )
According to the Treasury Board guidelines ``protected C'' is
reserved for extremely sensitive information which might cause
extremely serious injury such as loss of life.
Will the minister agree that this seems to place DND in a
position of deliberately trying to conceal information?
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are skating on a little bit
thinner ice, ``deliberately conceal''. I would ask hon. members
to please be very judicious in their choice of words. I will permit
the hon. Secretary of State for Veterans to answer the question if
he so wishes.
6218
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)):
Mr. Speaker, again in the absence of the minister, I will take it
under advisement for the minister of defence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries
minister refused to admit in this House yesterday that he had
encouraged Gaspesian fishermen to gear up for turbot fishing.
Yet, at the very last moment, just hours before they were to cast
their nets, the minister refused to authorize the transfer of turbot
licences in addition to having slashed their quotas one month
earlier.
How can the minister explain his decision to grant a turbot
fishing quota to Seafreez, a company located in his riding which
hires Russian trawlers, when he refused to grant the same quota
to the Gaspesian fishermen, thereby forcing them to live off UI
or even welfare?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the member really ought to try to be consistent.
The issue here is cutbacks in quotas and whether or not new
entrants would be allowed into the fishery. New entrants
whether they were in Newfoundland, Quebec or anywhere else
were not allowed into the fishery.
With respect to the allegation made for the second day in a
row, and I admire the member's persistence and also his power
to take a punch, that allocations to Seafreez increased or that
allocations to Russian vessels increased, let me read the
numbers.
The allocation in 1993 to Seafreez was 5,000 tonnes. In 1994
it was reduced to 2,200 tonnes. The allocation caught by Russian
vessels under charter with Canadian companies, and they were
doing this for years in advance of this government coming to
power, decreased by 60 per cent last year.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt
that quota cutbacks may become necessary for reasons relating
to the biological environment. But what we want to know is why
the minister gave part of the available quotas to a company
located in his riding, a company that used Russian trawlers to
fish its quota? That is what we want to know.
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the member knows the answer. Not a single pound, not
an ounce, not even a sniff of that turbot has been processed in my
constituency, not one single job. It is processed in the great
historic community of Canso, Nova Scotia, which is in a
different province.
When all the members of the fishing constituency in every
province in Canada recognize there is a resource crisis, when the
world meets in New York and recognizes a fisheries crisis, when
NAFO meets in Halifax and recommends a fisheries crisis,
surely even the Bloc Quebecois should recognize a fisheries
crisis.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
(1435 )
Last week I asked the minister if he would release the
Nordicity study which recommends a new tax for the CBC. His
ministry received the study in early March, fully six months
ago, and still we have not seen it. This document has now been
leaked to the press, but the minister continues to say there will
be no secrets regarding the CBC.
When will the minister release the study his government has
commissioned recommending a new tax for the CBC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, our colleague will be very pleased. The report will be
released but there is no recommendation by the government to
impose new taxes. If there are recommendations they are
contained in that report which I have read.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to hear that the minister has now read the report.
However through the Access to Information Act I do have a copy
of the contract between the minister and Nordicity and I quote:
``a report to examine a tax on theatre tickets, video rentals, cable
fees, TV sets, VCRs, radios, satellite dishes, pay per view
services''. This list goes on and on.
We have the contract and the media has the complete report.
How can the minister now deny that he is planning a new tax to
pay for the CBC?
The Speaker: Before the minister answers the question I
would ask all hon. members please not to use papers or anything
to wave around to make their point. The point is very well made
with just your voices.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, our colleague does not seem to be able to tell the
difference between having studies carried out and making
policy. Studies are being carried out day in and day out. Policy is
an act taken by the government. When policy is made she will be
informed.
6219
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The cleaning-up of sediments contaminated by dormant
PCBs in the St. Lawrence River, across from the GM facility in
Massena, New York, will begin in a few days. These sediments,
which contain between 500 and 5,000 parts of PCBs per million,
are a major threat to the environment. The clean-up will be
carried out by GM and the American government.
Did the minister demand to participate in the preparation and
monitoring of this operation, given the risks involved for those
living along the St. Lawrence River?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister confirm information from SVP to the effect that
Environment Canada will monitor this extremely dangerous
operation during only 10 per cent of the total time required to
complete it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, what SVP says is not
accurate. The hon. member should know that SVP may no longer
exist as an organization since it was on the brink of bankruptcy
two months ago. It was mentioned in just about every newspaper
that SVP is now bankrupt.
What the federal government did in co-operation with the
former Quebec government was to develop an action plan
precisely to solve, with the help of American organizations, the
problem which exists in Massena. The previous Quebec
minister, Mr. Pierre Paradis, was co-operative and I intend to
write today to the new environment minister to make sure that
we are ready to ensure that the clean-up is done properly. I
expect the same degree of co-operation from the new Quebec
minister.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment.
As reported in the media, 40 fuel pipeline containers of DDT
have been found at the former U.S. army pumping station in
Rainy Hollow in the province of British Columbia.
(1440 )
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House the
present status of the cleanup of the site?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that all
the barrels have been removed. They are on their way to
Washington state. Frankly, with the co-operation of the
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States and the
Government of Canada we have not only succeeded in cleaning
up the site, but we are sending the Americans the bill.
We have asked for an inventory of all similar sites across
Canada to make sure that Canadian taxpayers are not forced to
foot the bill for American problems with dumpage.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, it is time for
accountability. The government promised to scrap the GST.
When will the Minister of Finance announce a plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we are currently
in discussions with all of the provinces in order to obtain a
harmonized tax, which is something that all Canadians
including consumers and small and medium size businesses
want.
Those discussions are ongoing. It is obviously something that
we want and I am sure it is something that the members of the
Reform Party want. I would remind the hon. member we stated
that we would do this within a two-year period.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. In the House and in the red book the
government promised to scrap or replace the GST with no
increases in tax levels to individual Canadians.
Could the minister stand in the House today and give
assurance to Canadians that promise will be honoured in any
new tax plan involving the GST or the introduction of other
kinds of taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes,
y-e-s.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the gay community is still struggling to have its rights
6220
recognized. Last week, the hon. member for Central Nova
expressed in this House a rather controversial view concerning
this community.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the view expressed by
the hon. member for Central Nova reflects this government's
policy concerning the recognition of gay rights?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in my party as in others, many opinions are expressed. Our
members can speak freely. When the government introduces a
piece of legislation, government members vote according to the
party line or else a free vote is held.
If party leaders were to be responsible for all the opinions
expressed in this House, they would have a lot of problems. This
is a democratic country, and every citizen can express an
opinion. The government listens to all views expressed,
introduces legislation and then the party supports the
government.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, following the unspeakable remarks made by a
government member, will the Prime Minister demand a public
apology?
The Speaker: Honourable colleagues, just this morning this
matter was raised in a point of order. Inquiries will be made to
answer this point of order. If the hon. member could put his
question simply and directly, we will continue.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister condone
remarks any member of this House may make, challenging the
rights of the gay community? Is the Prime Minister responsible
enough to answer this question from his seat? That is the
question.
The Speaker: No, that question is out of order.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
response to my question the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
agreed to an independent review of management enforcement
procedures of DFO on the Fraser River. Yet the terms of
reference of the review released yesterday do not include
fisheries management or enforcement activities.
Will the minister assure us that enforcement and management
activities will be included in the stated terms of reference of the
review?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, those conducting the review, and there are four
independent individuals who are experts in their respective
fields, are free and able to comment on any aspect of the matter.
I will personally ensure that the report they give, whatever it
says, is made public and subsequent to that, remedial measures
taken.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the
House and again today the minister promised a review of
fisheries management and enforcement involving four
individuals, none of whom is involved with DFO. In fact three of
the four are associated with agencies listed in the DFO phone
book.
Is this the minister's definition of independence?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I have no idea at this stage what the hon. member is
referring to. If he is suggesting that these individuals have some
involvement with fisheries management or have some expertise
that has been called upon in the past and therefore because of
their expertise are not qualified to participate at this time, I
would be surprised. If an involvement in the fishery disqualifies
one from commenting then I guess this fishermen critic would
be disqualified from commenting for the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, the government took office with a commitment to work
with the provinces to cancel unnecessary programs, streamline
the process and eliminate overlap.
What specific examples can the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs give us of action taken to make
Confederation more efficient?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, for a year, we had excellent co-operation with the
Government of Quebec, which we hope will continue in the
future.
Among other things, we concluded agreements on managing
the environment, on environmental regulations for pulp and
paper and on exchanging information between those responsible
for financial institutions, to name only these.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In a very surprising statement last Tuesday, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Environment announced that the
government would present a comprehensive reform of the
Canada Labour Code and that the matter of anti-strikebreaking
legislation would be looked at within this reform. It is the first
6221
time such a reform is announced, although anti-strikebreaking
legislation is sorely needed.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
that the government will undertake a reform of the Canada
Labour Code as a whole and, if so, when?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member fully
understands that having good industrial relationships in the
country is one of the key elements in producing better growth,
better productivity and having a prosperous economy.
As part of that overall initiative of the government we have
undertaken a series of discussions with a wide variety of groups,
with labour groups, with labour professionals and with
employer groups to begin discussing what changes we might
make to the labour code down the road when we come up with
the kind of consensus or agreement that we think would be
appropriate.
We are studying how we can modernize the labour code and
move toward certain specific recommendations.
(1450 )
At this time I cannot say specifically what they will be
because we have not finished those discussions yet.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, given the
intolerable situation faced by Ogilvie Mills workers, does the
minister not agree that he must urgently table an
anti-strikebreaking bill so that the workers who are covered-I
should say who are unfortunate enough to be covered-by the
Canada Labour Code have the same rights as those covered by
75 per cent of provincial labour codes, including the one in
Quebec, since 1977?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I met last week with
representatives of the unions involved in the dispute between
ADM Ogilvie and themselves. Certainly as a result of that I
agree that there is proper room for filing a complaint or a
grievance against the way in which the bargaining has taken
place.
I have already sort of signed off a request so that they can go
before the Canadian Labour Relations Board and table their
grievance, which I think is a proper one. We have already taken
action on that specific request and as part of the general
examination I spoke about we are looking at the labour codes of
other provinces and how they apply to replacement labour.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
commented that farmers exporting grain to the U.S. must obey
laws that are in place.
Under the Western Grain Transportation Act railways face
financial penalties for non-performance. These railways have
continually broken this law for years without consequences.
How can the minister fail to enforce this law against
non-performing railways and at the same time encourage law
enforcement against farmers selling their own grain at the best
prices available?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the situation
pertaining to the railways to which the question refers, the hon.
gentleman will know that while there are provisions in the
Western Grain Transportation Act that deal with the
performance standards of the railways, under the previous
government the appropriate regulatory regime required under
those legislative provisions was never implemented or enacted.
We have the draft regulations being prepared at the moment so
that those provisions of the Western Grain Transportation Act
pertaining to railway performance can be implemented and
utilized in appropriate circumstances. The hon. gentleman can
rest assured that there is no double standard.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for that answer.
As the minister knows very well, last May the subcommittee
on transportation recommended that back tracking of grain was
illegal, disruptive and should be stopped. In June the minister
guaranteed that action would be taken. Now he is delaying this
action six months at a time.
Would the minister explain to the House who is running this
country, the railways or the Liberal government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, since May 16 I have been meeting on
a very regular basis with not only representatives of the
railroads but also their unions, the grain companies and all the
governmental institutions involved in the transportation of
western grain in order to ensure the backlog problems that
occurred in the last crop year are minimized and hopefully
avoided altogether in the current crop year and for the future.
Those meetings through the spring and the summer have
identified a range of actions, including the solution to the back
haul problem that the hon. gentleman refers to, plus the matter
of demurrage and storage charges on rail car, plus improvements
6222
in the efficiencies of the system, plus the addition of private cars
to the fleet and so forth.
All those measures are going forward and, as promised in the
spring, those which require either a legislative framework or a
regulatory framework to allow them to be implemented will be
proceeded with in the House this fall.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. Last February 25,
the minister said, in answer to a question from the Official
Opposition, that he would do his utmost to solve the problems at
Davis Inlet and that he would support the relocation of the Innu
community, which is experiencing a tragic and inhuman
situation.
(1455)
Now we are told that the whole relocation process has been
put on hold. How can the minister explain this delay, on the part
of his government, in relocating the Innu community other than
by saying that it is to meet demands from the Newfoundland
government, which wants to put pressure on these people?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, tremendous progress has been
made in Davis Inlet. Right now as a result of the agreements we
have signed alcoholism is down 25 per cent; six houses have
been built; the lodge has been reconstructed; they are working
out agreements with Labrador Inuit College; we have agreed to
the move to Sango Bay; and we are looking at a road pattern.
I was very disappointed with what happened last month. Part
of those agreements, at least the spirit of those agreements, was
that an Innu court would be developed and an Innu policing
system would be developed, only a small part of a major
agreement.
Most ministries are still working with the Innu, health,
fisheries, coast guard. We will continue to work with the Innu
people because they are making good progress. Hopefully Mr.
Roberts and the Solicitor General will reach an agreement on
policing within the next couple of weeks and progress will keep
on flowing.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the grain growers in Wild Rose my question is for the
agricultural minister and his department. These farmers would
like to know if the minister believes that in Canada they should
have the freedom to sell their own produce as they see fit. Y-e-s
or n-o.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, sometimes those who are trying to
avoid all the facts like to reduce things to simple one line
answers and that is thoroughly inappropriate to these
circumstances.
Farmers in western Canada would tell the hon. gentleman that
this is a critically important and vital subject. It is a subject that
is exceedingly complicated in terms of the administration of
world markets. I have undertaken that farmers will have the
opportunity in a forum which I intend to commence this fall to
explore all of the pros and cons of the issue so that all the facts
can be fully known and understood and that the information
available to farmers is fully complete and not partial or biased.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Given that this year's quota of bluefin tuna on the east coast
by the inshore fleet has been caught in near record time,
resulting in the early closure of the fishery just last Friday, I
have a question for the minister. Given that there still seems to
be an abundance of bluefin tuna on the east coast and given the
state of the Atlantic fishery, would the minister consider
transferring some of next year's quota to this year's quota so that
the fishery may remain open?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The short answer
is, because this is run on a two-year quota cycle, that we are
consulting with all the players in the industry. I met with senior
officials today and once the consultation is completed, if such a
transfer is recommended by the fleet itself, the majority of the
fleet, we will look at it favourably. If not, we will stick with the
current fish plan.
The bottom line is conservation will not be put at risk.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we just
learned that an American soldier was killed in Haiti. We do not
have any more details about the incident and I want to ask the
Prime Minister if, given the seriousness of the situation, he is
being kept abreast of the latest developments and if he can
inform this House accordingly?
6223
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am not aware of that unfortunate incident. We believe that
operations in Haiti are progressing rather well and that a much
more serious bloodbath was avoided through the negotiating
efforts of former President Carter.
(1500)
We hope that President Aristide will be back in office in the
next few days, and we intend to lift embargoes at the earliest
opportunity, so that Haiti's economy can function normally and
that the situation can go back to normal as quickly as possible in
a country which has already experienced too much suffering.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, my question concerns the federal environmental
review panel investigating a proposal to expand low level flying
in Labrador. All the public interest groups, including the Innu,
the group with the most at stake in the process, have withdrawn
from the proceedings.
How can the Minister of the Environment continue to give
federal government approval to the assessment process when
she knows how unfair and insensitive it is to the Innu and the
traditional aboriginal way of life in the area?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my reply to a
letter I received from Ovide Mercredi earlier this week, the
panel members include seven eminent people, the former
president of the Canadian Geographical Society among others,
who have impeccable credentials.
I also pointed out to Mr. Mercredi as I pointed out to
representatives of the Innu community with whom I am
organizing a meeting this week, if there is any evidence of a
panel member showing any bias, I will be the first person to
remove that member from the panel.
The panel needs to have an unbiased approach. It needs to
have the necessary tools to hear all sides of the case. That is why
I personally wrote to Ovide Mercredi asking him to encourage
the Innu community, some of whom are continuing to
participate, to participate fully so that their story can be heard by
this impartial panel.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, during
question period, my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
tried to put a question to the Prime minister, but you ruled that
question out of order.
I may have repeatedly been out of order and I would ask you to
enlighten me because, like other members of this House, I have
on many occasions referred to remarks made by one member or
another and asked, as is proper, the government, the ministers
whether they rejected, supported, agreed with or wanted to
qualify such remarks.
My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve did the same
thing, making a very general reference to the remarks a
government member made about the gay community.
My question is as follows: What is the difference between
referring to remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova
and asking the Prime Minister whether he rejected or supported
her remarks and the questions we have being asking in this
House so far, referring for instance to remarks by the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell or someone else on
other issues?
Why in this particular case did you rule the question out of
order, while such questions have always been allowed?
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, if I may, according to the Standing Orders of the House
of Commons, to citation 168 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary
Rules and Forms in particular, a member cannot appeal a
decision by the Speaker nor consult the Speaker from the floor
of the House.
Second, Madam Speaker, acting this morning on behalf of Mr.
Speaker, took a matter under advisement. If I remember
correctly, the Chair has not yet ruled on this matter which was
referred to the Speaker this morning.
For these two reasons, I think it would be totally against the
rules for anyone to question the Speaker's decision.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the government
whip has just spoken on a point of order I raised myself. I would
simply like to remind him that, as the guardian of
parliamentarians' rights, you have always agreed to provide
guidance and information to ensure the smooth operation of this
House.
6224
The question I asked is very much in this spirit. I simply want
to ask for the Chair's assistance in understanding the order of
business and seeing that our behaviour is always in keeping with
the letter and spirit of the rules and traditions of this House.
(1505)
As far as the second part of my comments is concerned, please
note that my point of order and the question from the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve did not deal at all with
the problem now under advisement that was in dispute the other
day. It is simply a point of order saying this: Why should a
member not be allowed to ask the Prime Minister to confirm or
deny remarks when it has always been allowed? That is it. So
one should not confuse the facts, as the Government Whip seems
to be doing.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I simply want to support the point of order raised by the
Bloc Quebecois House leader. This morning, I raised a point of
order pursuant to Standing Order 18. This has nothing to do with
the point of order now raised by the Bloc Quebecois House
leader.
The basic issue is whether or not a member of Parliament has
the right to put a question to the Prime Minister regarding
comments which are totally unacceptable and full of hatred.
That is the issue. Mr. Speaker, I suggest you do not follow the
Standing Orders during question period.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, we in the course of our debates
and our questions sometimes use words that the Chair considers
at the time to be inappropriate. The hon. member points out that
at an earlier time some questions were permitted. I would hope
that the hon. member at a later time will let the Chair know when
there is this inconsistency.
As for an explanation, I am loath to explain why the decision
was taken. Yet so that the House can understand, if it has to do
with the administrative responsibility of the government, in my
view I have allowed the questions. Whether a minister will be
responsible for any other member of Parliament or what the
other member of Parliament said, I do not think this is
admissible. That is why I ruled that question out of order,
because it called on a minister to give an opinion with regard to
another member.
Again I would hope that members would not call upon the
Chair at every turn when there is a statement or question that is
ruled to be out of order. If the hon. member wishes to pursue this
with me in my chambers I will be happy to hear him at that point.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. Earlier today during members
statements I was ruled out of order presumably based on
Standing Order 18. If I am wrong in that assumption I would
appreciate your information to the contrary. Standing Order 18
states in part:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the
Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the
Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against
any member thereof.
Citations 485 to 492 of Beauchesne's talk about
unparliamentary language. I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker,
that I did not use unparliamentary language in any portion of my
speech.
The Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely correct. I was
referring to Standing Order 18. I would call this matter closed
now.
(1510 )
I know that many times hon. members would like to pursue
and debate but at one point the Chair must rule. As I said to the
member, I am referring specifically to Standing Order 18 and I
would hope that in future all hon. members, my colleagues,
would give the respect due to the other place and members in the
other place.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to say that I have no intention of
challenging the decisions which you may make in this House.
However, you will recognize, as the leader says, that it is
important in our role as members of Parliament to understand
what kind of flexibility we have when it comes to asking
questions. In my opinion, the issue raised by the point of order is
this: When we tried twice to understand the comments made by
an hon. member, we did so from a legal standpoint and in the
context of the government's activities.
You are well aware that the comments made were paving the
way for a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Allow me
to point to your attention the fact that the question asked is
closely related to a governmental responsibility of the Prime
Minister.
The Speaker: Order. Dear colleague, the question was
deemed out of order because of the way it was phrased.
[English]
If it was referring to a government policy then the question
would have been permissible. That is what I based my ruling on
and I stand by my ruling with all respect here.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard:Mr. Speaker, always in the interest of our
proceedings, like the Bloc Quebecois House leader said, what
we tried to see and what we are still trying to figure out, is the
leeway we have when we address the Chair to raise-
The Speaker: Hon. members, the first question was in order
but the second one was not.
6225
6225
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to
the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: It being after 3 p.m., pursuant to order made on
Thursday, September 22, 1994, the House will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred division on the second reading stage of
Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the
Customs Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 83)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-199
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-44
6226
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bergeron
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Graham
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Pillitteri
Young
(1540)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment
of the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre to the motion of the
hon. member for Richelieu relating to Private Members'
Business.
_____________________________________________
6226
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the
motion and the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When
you proceed with the vote may I request that the vote be taken by
row as opposed to the traditional party vote, since this is a
private member's item and there is no whip discipline.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the government
whip for his intervention. That will be the case with this
division.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the amendment sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover. Then those in favour of the amendment sitting on the
other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the
amendment will be called in the same order.
The question is on the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 84)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Assad
Bryden
Bélair
Harvard
Loney-7
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
6227
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Zed-206
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bergeron
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Graham
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Pillitteri
Young
(1550)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of
the House, I would move that the same vote be applied in reverse
to the main motion.
(1555)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As we say in English, nice
try.
The next vote is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is the custom, the
recorded division will be taken row by row, beginning with the
mover. Then I will ask the other members who are in favour of
the motion and who are on the same side of the House as the
mover to please rise. Then the votes of those who support the
motion and are on the other side of the House will be recorded.
The votes of those who are opposed to the motion will be
recorded in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived.)
(Division No. 85)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Bodnar
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jacob
Knutson
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-85
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
6228
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Serré
Skoke
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Zed-138
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bergeron
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Gerrard
Graham
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Pillitteri
Young
(1605)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
6228
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, in
Bill C-48 before the House today, the federal government
assumes rights and powers that directly encroach on the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over natural resources.
This is unacceptable. Apparently, the federal government is
unable to read what is said in the Canadian Constitution and
refuses to listen to Quebec's demands.
What we see in Bill C-48 is a federal government that
continues to get involved in a jurisdiction that is Quebec's
exclusively. It assumes the power to go over the heads of the
provinces and Quebec, directly funding organizations and
individuals.
(1610)
The federal government prefers to ignore Quebec's demands,
but I am willing to bet that many of my colleagues in the other
provinces share my position. I would like to say the following
for their benefit. These unwanted intrusions by the federal
government lead to overlap between provincial and federal
strategies for developing this sector, especially since many
provinces have already set up their own strategies for
promoting, regulating and developing their natural resources.
Quebec's forest management strategy tabled last May by the
Quebec government is a good example. The strategy is entirely
independent from the National Forest Strategy developed by the
federal government and the Canadian Council of Forest
Ministers.
The Government of Quebec has to provide funding for both
strategies. However, successive federal governments have
ignored what is said in the Canadian Constitution as well as the
legitimate demands of the Government of Quebec.
Take, for instance, the report of the Standing Committee of
the House of Commons on Forestry and Fisheries, in November
1990, about the struggle of provinces to defend their jurisdiction
over natural resources. The committee says that in the course of
the twentieth century, the government had on several occasions
tried to affect national policy in the forestry sector but had
sometimes met with resistance by the provinces to any potential
encroachment on their jurisdictions.
The committee felt it was clear that the federal government
had to play a more credible role to guarantee the success of all
these national forestry strategies.
6229
Although the committee suggests it is necessary to obtain the
co-operation of the provinces, it is clear that the federal
government has felt free to intervene in this area without the
specific consent of the Government of Quebec.
Quebec protested, to no avail, against the creation of a
Department of Forestry, quite properly seeing this as an
intrusion in one of its jurisdictions. Quebec did not sign the
National Forest Strategy. Since 1991, after the demise of Meech
Lake, no Quebec ministers have been involved in the Canadian
Council of Forest Ministers. Quebec has just released its own
strategy for forest management, as is its right in matters over
which it has exclusive jurisdiction.
How can the federal government legitimately intervene in an
area that falls under provincial jurisdiction? How can it claim to
act in the best interests of Quebecers, when for years it has
ignored both its own Constitution and the demands of successive
governments of Quebec?
Obviously, the Liberal government's stated desire to put an
end to overlap and duplication would be a perfect excuse for
getting rid of the Department of Natural Resources or letting
provinces opt out of federal programs that involve natural
resources.
Perhaps I may compare the mandate of the Department of
Natural Resources of Quebec with that of the Department of
Natural Resources of Canada.
(1615)
Based on the analysis of federal-provincial overlapping
carried out by the Treasury Board of Canada in 1991, the
activities of the federal Department of Natural Resources and its
Quebec counterpart overlap to a large extent.
That is why I would like to propose an amendment to Bill
C-48, an amendment respectful of the Constitution of Canada
and respectful of Quebec's traditional demands. Here is my
amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Frontenac:
That every word following ``that'' be struck out and replaced by the
following:
this House refuse to give second reading to Bill C-48, an Act to establish the
Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, because the
principle of the bill does not provide for granting the minister the power to
compensate Quebec if the province decided to exercise by itself the exclusive
jurisdiction over natural resources it was conferred under the Constitution Act
of 1867 and 1982.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair was consulted,
and the amendment is in order.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating the government for adopting Reform policy with
respect to departmental consolidation. Since we are dealing with
the legalization of a fait accompli I should probably be thanking
the previous government for this recycled bill, a toast to absent
antagonists.
Having said that, the government is pretty unclear on the
concept. As a matter of fact the government is pretty unclear on
almost every concept, but I will leave that for another day.
The object of consolidation is to increase managerial
efficiency and save money. What has been accomplished?
Instead of 10 assistant deputy ministers there are now seven,
which is commendable. Minor economies have been made in
human resources, accounting and so on, but the total decrease in
corporate overhead has been only $16 million, 1.6 per cent of the
department's annual budget. The elephant laboured and brought
forth a mouse.
The department has expressed pride in the fact that the
amalgamation was done with only minor staff reductions. The
act states in section 8 that all employees in the old department
will occupy their same positions in the new department. Perhaps
this makes some sense in the short term with respect to clerks,
typists, technicians and other lower rank staff who would merely
swell the massive ranks of Canada's already existing
unemployed. Is there really no scope for reducing the number of
middle managers and technocrats to conform with today's
economic reality?
(1620)
This department, which deals almost exclusively with matters
of provincial responsibility, has a $1 billion budget and about
5,000 employees, of whom 3,000 are right here in Ottawa. How
can that be rationalized?
I know that the uncontrolled growth of bureaucracy is not a
disease that attacks only governments. I have worked for or been
associated with a few multinational resource companies and
they have the same problems. They also have built-in safety
valves which prevent such growth from destroying them, as it
surely would if it went unchecked.
Every few years the boards of companies like Exxon, Shell or
Noranda become aware that the ratio of payroll to gross revenue
is grossly out of whack. Department heads are summoned to the
CEO's office and the word goes out: too many engineers, too
many planners, too many people engaged in redundant
programs, too many assistant managers, too many professionals
who never leave their offices, and so on.
The axe is swung and corporate survival is assured. It is not
pretty and it is not nice but it preserves not only the company but
also the jobs of the people who actually harvest the resources
and produce corporate and national wealth.
Up to now Canadian governments have not responded to these
same economic imperatives. With no apparent limits to their
capacity to increase income and no real motivation for cutting
expenses, they simply raise taxes, or more recently borrowed
unimaginably large sums of money.
6230
I know perfectly well that streamlining government
operations will not in itself get us out of the awful mess we are
in. It has been said many times in this House that the entire cost
of government operations is less than half of the annual deficit.
If we do not start there, where will we start and when?
Let me cite a couple of specific examples of where I believe
that small but significant cuts could be made in departmental
spending. The mining sector has 168 full time equivalent
employees and a budget of just under $26 million. More than
half of that budget represents contributions to mineral
development agreements with the provinces, primarily with
Quebec. These are sunset programs, most of which will expire
next year.
Planning, observing and studying these MDA programs
requires a substantial investment in time and resources. If the
federal government must participate in these programs as a form
of equalization, and I question the wisdom of that, it would be
much more efficient to just send cheques. We do not need two
levels of bureaucracy administering the same programs.
The mining sector's most essential functions are gathering
statistics and helping to formulate government policy with
respect to taxation, investment and trade. These duties could
readily be handled by Stats Canada and by a few specialists in
the various ministries responsible for the administration and
execution of the policy.
At the end of the day the usefulness of this small sector of the
Department of Natural Resources is open to question. Certainly
the possible cost benefits of dismantling it should be
considered.
Not all questionable department expenditures are related to
overlap and duplication. The Atomic Energy Control Board is
the sole agency in Canada which regulates the storage and use of
radioactive material. This is fitting and proper. The agency
suffers from a severe case of bureaucratic bloat. Between 1985
and 1993 the number of licences to sell, store or use nuclear
materials decreased by 17 per cent, from 4,543 to 3,743, while
the number of AECB employees rose from 252 to 373, a 48 per
cent increase.
(1625)
This organization is supervising only 10 licensees per
employee. Senior department officials attribute this ridiculous
ratio to increased public concern for health and safety. Really,
now.
The AECB is now working on a partial cost recovery basis.
All private licensees pay a fee for service. The AECB provides
no service. It is a regulatory agency and its fees are therefore
just another form of taxation targeted at small specialized
industries that cannot duck. The system reminds me of the
practice in China of requiring a condemned man's family to pay
for the cartridges used for his execution.
If the agency got rid of one third of its employees it would not
have to proceed with its well known plans to increase fees by an
additional one third annually until 1997.
Before I conclude my remarks I want to tell the House my
favourite civil service story. It concerns Charles Camsell, an
early director of the Geological Survey of Canada. He and some
young assistants were on a long canoe traverse of several weeks'
duration. They came to a Hudson Bay post. They had been living
on the usual diet of the day which was beans, bannock and fish
for these many weeks. One of the young fellows got up the nerve
to approach Mr. Camsell and ask him if they could get a little
variety in their diet since there was a store near at hand. The old
man reached down into his pocket, pulled out a quarter and sent
one of the boys over to the Hudson Bay post for a can of
tomatoes.
If we had one or two guys like Charlie in the Department of
Natural Resources today we might see some action in the
direction which the people on my side of the House would like to
see.
In closing, the mandate in article 6 of this act is a motherhood
mission statement which hardly anyone would disagree with. It
looks great, but should there not be something in there about
cost effectiveness?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Manicouagan-Canada Labour Code.
[English]
The first three members on Bill C-48 had a limit of a 40
minutes maximum. Now we will go into the next phase of debate
during which members will have 20 minute interventions,
followed by ten minutes of questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address the House again today at the second
reading of Bill C-48, an Act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related Acts.
I would like to add to the statement by my colleague, the hon.
member for Edmonton Northwest and Minister of Natural
Resources. The natural resource sector is tremendously
important to Canada's economy, and the Department of Natural
Resources should ensure that this sector remains a cornerstone
of Canada's economic growth as well as a significant source of
jobs.
6231
As indicated earlier, Bill C-48 will establish the Department
of Natural Resources and provide the legal framework within
which it will operate.
(1630)
The department's mandate will be defined in one document
rather than in the two acts now in effect, namely the Department
of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources Act.
Sustainable development is very important. My colleague
from Edmonton Northwest has indicated that one of the
challenges facing the natural resource sector is Canada's
progress toward sustainable development. Our ability to
integrate our economic and environmental goals at all levels of
natural resource management is essential if Canada is to become
more competitive in this sector. Bill C-48 confirms the
government's commitment to this objective.
[English]
The natural resources sector is important. The statistics
quoted earlier by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources, proves that natural resource industries provide a
major contribution to Canada's gross domestic product, our
trade surplus and job creation in our country. Over 500
communities depend on natural resource activity to sustain their
economy. As well, our natural resource industries are high tech
industries. Canada has a well-deserved reputation as a leader in
the development and application of technology to improve the
productivity and competitiveness of mining, forest and energy
industries. It is through our expertise in this area that new
technologies have emerged.
New technology has also created new industries in Canada.
For example, as the minister has pointed out, Canada's
requirement for accurate information on our land mass, such as
maps of our geography, has stimulated new industries like
geomatics. Already, this burgeoning industry employs 12,000
Canadians and exports $100 million each year.
The role of Natural Resources Canada. The Department of
Natural Resources has developed a solid reputation for its
research and technology expertise over many years. It is this
expertise that has and will continue to bridge industrial and
environmental concerns facing natural resource industries. Over
the years the work of Natural Resources Canada has led to
improved resource sector competitiveness and environmental
performance.
Earlier, my hon. colleague the minister described some of the
department's work in forest development, innovative mining
processes and energy efficiency. These examples demonstrate
how Natural Resources Canada is positioned to bridge the
industrial and environmental concerns facing the natural
resource sector.
[Translation]
In summary, the Department of Natural Resources will
continue to promote sustainable development practices, will
apply its scientific and technological expertise to the
enhancement of our international trade and will increase the
natural resource sector's contribution to economic growth and
job creation.
Bill C-48 will establish the Department of Natural Resources
and help Canadians understand the department's role as an
intermediary-that word is extremely important-in bridging
industrial and environmental concerns.
Under Bill C-48, the Minister and the Department of Natural
Resources will have a mandate to work with the provinces,
industry, environmental and aboriginal groups, and other
stakeholders to ensure that Canada's natural resource sector
continues to prosper now and in future years.
I listened earlier to the speech by my colleague from
Matapédia-Matane and I was very surprised, to say the least,
by how he approached the presentation of this bill. First of all,
he limited his comments almost exclusively to the constitutional
aspect, that is, the Constitution as it applies to this bill. He
accused the federal government of meddling in Quebec's
business.
I would like to take this opportunity to put that allegation in
context. To start with, there was the 1992 Canada-Quebec
Agreement on Forest Development providing for $136 million
over five years. The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane said
that Quebec had never signed such a document. We are talking
about an amount of $136 million made up of equal contributions
from each government, that is $68 million.
(1635)
In the case of the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, the total
amount of $68 million was paid by the federal government, as
was also the case with the $10.5-million Indian reserve land
program.
My point is this: under the Charlottetown accord, the forestry
sector was to become an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
But as you know, the province of Quebec rejected the accord.
The second point I want to make is that the two existing acts,
namely the Forestry Act and the Energy Administration Act,
remain almost intact. In other words, the federal government
participates in the financing of management activities related to
those two natural resources sectors, but does not in any way
interfere with the actual administration of the two programs.
I have a message for the hon. member, who might want to
transmit it to the new Quebec government. If the federal
contributions which I just mentioned are unacceptable and are
perceived to be a form of interference, then the Quebec
government can send them back, because we can certainly use
them elsewhere. I know what I am talking about; while Quebec
6232
received $136 million, Northern Ontario only got $30 million,
that is $6 million per year.
Consequently, last year, 45 million small trees were not
planted because there was no money available. So, if Quebec
does not want those federal contributions, I will be very pleased
to accept them on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, in
the Charlottetown accord, if that is what my hon. colleague is
referring to, we did ask for total jurisdiction over forests. That is
why we are going to have to hold a referendum: to obtain it.
Quebec receives federal funding. It needs that money, and as
long as we are part of this country, that is our money too.
As I said, Quebec did not sign the national strategy. We did
not sign it. Sometimes deputy ministers travel. The fact remains
that we did not sign. My hon. colleague from Ontario says that
Quebec received millions of dollars, but then Ontario received
transfer payments for regional development. So, there is
compensation on both sides.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: does he agree with
me that the federal government has very long arms when it come
to grabbing, controlling, strangling the provinces even more?
We in Quebec object to that. We do not refuse the money. We
need it. It is just that we should be compensated and that is
precisely what Quebec has been asking for since Lesage and
Johnson. That is what we are asking for, and we have been
asking for this for over 30 years.
It seems to me that this bill goes beyond the purview of the
Constitution. I would like him to comment on that.
(1640)
Mr. Bélair: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would
like to say that the amalgamation of two existing acts as in this
case is always subject to Section 92(b) of the Constitution Act,
1867, which provided at the time that natural resources
belonged to the provinces. That is exactly the point I was
making earlier: these resources still belong to the provinces, but
the federal government reserves the right to provide financial
support to those provinces that want some.
Quebec benefits greatly from this, with the $68 million it
received from the federal government corresponding to the 68
Conservative members it used to have in this House. Quebec
received a very fair share indeed. Again, if my hon. colleague is
convinced that when Quebec gets its independence, its will no
longer need federal funds, by all means send the money back!
Coming back to the Charlottetown Accord, Quebec rejected
it, with all the implications this had.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): So did Ontario.
Mr. Bélair: That is right, but we are talking about Quebec
here. We are not talking about Ontario but Quebec. My
colleague also raised the issue of regional development. This
bill is not about regional development, it is about agreements on
forestry. The figures just quoted were derived exclusively from
forest resource development agreements.
Regional development is a different matter altogether. Must I
add in closing that, with respect to regional development,
Quebec's share is about $600 per capita, as compared to $133 for
northern Ontario?
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-48 is a bill which in principle I support and the New
Democratic Party caucus supports in-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I would
like to hear all the statements, everyone in turn. We are now
listening to the comments of the member for Regina-Lumsden.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to share
with the House and the members that the New Democratic Party
caucus supports in principle the taking of the bill to committee.
The bill when it becomes law will amalgamate, as I
understand it, under one minister the powers, duties and
functions of the minister in the Department of Forestry Act and
the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act.
The bill defines natural resources to include all areas covered
in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources Act. The definition clause
contains a definition of sustainable development, the same
definition apparently as in the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
There is a requirement under the general duties clause for the
minister to consider the integrated management and sustainable
development of Canada's natural resources in carrying out the
minister's duties and functions. The general duties clause of the
bill reiterates some modifications to the duties in the
Department of Forestry Act to make these duties apply to all
natural resources. It also describes current activities of the
department and is consistent with federal government
responsibilities and priorities in the natural resources area.
A reorganization bill usually has many objectives and
opportunities: either amalgamation, centralization, efficiency,
streamlining, expansion or in many ways hiding budgetary
expenditures. During the report to the committee I will be
looking at some of these objectives of the bill.
6233
I have a couple of concerns I want to raise with the member
for Cochrane-Superior. The minister in her remarks today said,
and I quote: ``Economic and environment concerns will
continue to be addressed''. She also said in the same statement
that she will be committed to the market principles. It is my
sense that these are contradictory, that you cannot be carrying
out on behalf of the people of Canada an economic and
environmental study to ensure that these are addressed yet
leaving all of the elements of the responsibilities of the minister
up to market principles.
I wanted to make the above point and I also have two
questions. First, does the member not believe that these are
contradictory, that the minister has indicated this previously?
Second, has there been any provincial government response
other than the members from the Bloc with respect to possible
encroachments of provincial responsibilities in the energy
sector, the forestry sector or some of the other natural resources
sectors with specific reference to the province of Saskatchewan
which is a province that I represent in this House?
(1645 )
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Speaker, to address the member's question
directly, it is unavoidable today that the environment and the
economy be together. We should strive to protect our
environment while not being a nuisance to economic growth.
We should strike a balance between the two. We have seen
many instances where environmentalists were representing an
extreme point of view and industry was representing the other
point of view.
I was really surprised and pleased that finally in the hearings
of the natural resources committee, there seems to be movement
on both sides. Industry has finally said publicly that, yes, there
are environmental problems in Canada. The environmentalists
are also saying that some progress is being made.
This is the object of the bill. It is the power and the duty of the
Minister of Natural Resources to try to conciliate these two
extremely important parts of our Canadian way of doing things.
She will strive to do so.
The second part of the question concerned provincial
jurisdiction. As I said a while ago to my colleague from the
Bloc, amalgamating the two existing acts, the Forestry Act and
the energy, mines and resources act, is totally in accordance with
section 92(b) of the Constitution Act of 1867.
It is almost status quo, although it may not be the right thing to
say at this point. Nothing has changed. The federal government
still wants to be able to invest in provincial projects. They still
want to establish those partnerships with the provinces,
industries, recreational clubs, anglers and hunters, everybody as
a matter of fact. It is doing so by financing those projects and is
not directly involved in the administration of those projects.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, of course I support the proposal of my colleague, the
hon. member for Matapédia-Matane, to delete some words
from the proposal of the Minister of Natural Resources and to
add to Bill C-48 the amendment presented in this House.
I would like to take this opportunity to show this House that
the changes that these amendments make to the minister's
proposal will simply make her proposal comply with the many
requests expressed by all the successive premiers of Quebec for
many decades, which this government is again trying to flout.
Indeed, we can go back to Premier Jean Lesage in the early
1960s who said, ``Resource development is in provincial
jurisdiction. It is among the priority rights and needs of the
provinces, who are better able than the federal government to act
effectively and in a lasting way in this field''. He added: ``It
must be clearly established as a basic rule of our federal system
that Parliament's exceptional powers must remain just that,
exceptional, and must not be used to invade fields that are
normally in provincial jurisdiction''.
Daniel Johnson, Sr., who was also a premier, continued in the
same direction as his predecessor and said that exclusive
provincial jurisdiction includes ``the exploration, conservation
and development of resources'' in particular.
Continuing with Jean-Jacques Bertrand, another premier,
who in the same spirit said that Quebec also had to have
jurisdiction over underwater mineral exploration, adding that
Quebec could not accept the federal government acting
unilaterally to manage provincial waters and control pollution
in them, or acting with the provinces on the basis of the national
interest, a concept which is very often invoked.
(1650)
Even former Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, who was a
staunch federalist in Quebec, said that ``in the energy sector,
neither unilateral action by the federal government, nor
unco-ordinated measures by provincial governments will
enable us to reach the necessary goals. This can only be achieved
through concerted action from both levels of government and
from all governments''.
In its present form, Bill C-48 merely increases the federal
government's role in an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Former Premier René Lévesque said that the Canadian
economy was not an homogeneous thing which could be
successfully controlled and regulated with a single policy or
program. Provincial governments are in the best position to act,
since they know better than anyone their own economic context
as well as
6234
all the relevant factors such as resources, industrial structures,
domestic market, social climate, etc.
More specifically, Mr. Lévesque argued that provinces have
the sole right of ownership over their natural resources, adding
that ``as regards minerals and other resources located outside
the immediate provincial territory but within the 200-mile
economic zone, Quebec favours a joint jurisdiction whereby a
province's legislative authority would prevail''.
Mr. Lévesque also pointed out that since mineral resources
and their management come under provincial jurisdiction, it is
up to the provinces to find the best way to ensure the survival
and growth of their mining industry.
Even in the days when federalism was perceived as a beau
risque, and those days are certainly gone, Mr. Lévesque
suggested that each province should have exclusive legislative
power over its natural resources and interprovincial trade. In
that latter sector, provincial laws would have superseded federal
legislation so that the federal government would not have been
able to use its general power to oppose a provincial law.
As you can see, the bill before us does not comply with the
wishes expressed by the numerous premiers who have
represented Quebec over the last few decades. That is why I
support the amendment proposed by my colleague from
Matapédia-Matane, because that is the only way of ensuring
that this government respects the will of the provinces,
especially of Quebec, as it should under the relevant provisions
of Canada's Constitution.
The Government of Quebec has always been opposed to the
federal government's spending power, that is, its power to use
Quebecers' taxes. Canada is not doing us any favours. What it
gives us comes mainly from our own pockets. What we object to
in this bill is this ability to spend, to take our money and manage
our economy in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
according to all the laws of Canada and to Canada's
Constitution.
[English]
Once again the federal government is going to extremes in its
willingness to centralize everything in Ottawa.
[Translation]
That is what Mr. Bourassa used to call domineering
federalism.
[English]
In its willingness to centralize everything in Ottawa, in
attacking the exploitation, concentration and management of
natural resources, a sector which is exclusively in provincial
jurisdiction, we cannot endorse a federal process to which
Quebec in particular does not entirely subscribe.
For us federal intervention in natural resources is totally
illegitimate if the provinces are opposed to the project. Quebec,
of course, and we have said it before, has always opposed the
creation of a ministry of forests, for example, rightly viewing
this as an intrusion into one of its exclusive jurisdictions.
As well, Quebec is not a signatory to the national forest
strategy and no Quebec minister has participated in the work of
the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers since the Meech
failure. It is Quebec that must exercise its full jurisdiction to
determine its own policies, programs and priorities in the area of
natural resources.
(1655)
[Translation]
To convince this House of the challenge facing us, I would
like to close my remarks by repeating a statement made by a
former Quebec premier, Adélard Godbout-this goes way back;
we did not start fighting for our causes yesterday-who
expressed this somewhat prescient or prophetic opinion at the
time: ``Full respect for provincial rights is essential to Canada's
unity and progress. Any infringement on provincial rights would
inevitably weaken Confederation''. That is obviously a reality
which this government and its predecessors have always refused
to understand.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, I
have a simple question. When the forest management plan for
Indian lands expires in 1995, when the Canada-Quebec
agreement on the development of forestry resources expires in
1996 and the plan for Eastern Quebec expires in 1996 as well,
will the hon. member for Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies
recommend to his caucus and their colleagues in Quebec City
that they should not renegotiate and should turn down all
potential funding?
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, the question is very apt, and I
hope the answer will be as well. As long as we are part of
Canada, as long as we pay our taxes and provide 25 per cent of
Canada's income, we will insist that 25 per cent of any funding
that is made available should go to Quebec.
[English]
Most Canadians actually believe in two assumptions
concerning Quebec. We see it every day in the House. Most
Canadians believe that we are a bunch of troublemakers who are
never happy with what we get.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pomerleau: Well, you can see it is quite true.
The second assumption is that Quebec receives much more
money from Canada than it puts in. Most Canadians believe that
assumption. If it is really the truth, then what is the problem? Let
us go. You are going to make money and you are going to solve
the problem. That is what we want. But until that time, demo-
6235
cratically speaking, we are going to stay here and we will ask to
have 25 per cent of what is necessary for us because we give 25
per cent of our revenues to Canada.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, in the
region I come from in metro Toronto we look at natural
resources in terms of attachment because we have so few of
them.
It is interesting to note that in many municipalities we have a
department of urban forestry. We do have a regional
conservation authority of great significance. We have citizens'
participation and action in the cleaning up of our rivers. In other
words, we have an attachment to water, soil and the natural
resources probably because we are urban Canadians.
We do not have obsessions about jurisdiction. We think that
the few trees and the few rivers we have belong to us as
municipal dwellers, as provincial dwellers and as Canadians as a
whole. However, we have in common with everybody across the
country the preoccupation about the future of these resources.
This is what my intervention will focus on this afternoon.
(1700 )
I congratulate the minister for introducing this important bill.
I praise her for including a reference to sustainable development
in clause 6(d) under the powers, duties and functions of the
minister.
I would urge the minister to consider a better treatment of the
concept of sustainable development. In this bill it comes after
the minister's duty of co-ordinating, promoting and
recommending certain policies with respect to natural resources
and explosives. It comes after assisting in the development and
promotion of Canadian scientific and technological capabilities.
It comes after participating in the development and application
of codes and standards. It finally appears as the fourth item. It is
in clause 6(d) in having regard to the integrated management of
Canada's natural resources. That is where we find sustainable
development.
I urge the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the
committee to take a page from Bill C-46, the bill to establish the
Department of Industry which we debated yesterday. Look at
clause 5 of that bill where the concept of sustainable
development is outlined in the first part under the powers
exercised by the minister. It says that the minister shall exercise
the powers and perform the duties and functions in a manner that
will promote sustainable development. It comes as the number
one overall consideration.
It would make sense because in clause 2 of Bill C-48 there is a
very good definition of sustainable development. Actually, it is
the word for word definition given in the 1987 Brundtland
report. We applaud the minister and the government for having
done so. This definition has become the turning point in our way
of thinking, in our way of placing the environment and the
economy in a new context.
Therefore it would make sense that in a bill of such
importance relating to our natural resources that sustainable
development would not rank as an afterthought in the fourth
clause dealing with the powers of the minister. It should be
elevated to the first and stand on its own without any reference
to words like integrated management, the meaning of which we
really do not know. There is no definition of integrated
management in clause 2 but there is a definition of sustainable
development. In that sense it is hoped that a suitable amendment
will be moved in committee and the matter resolved along these
lines.
What does sustainable development mean? It is important that
we enter into this debate with some principles on what will be
guiding future ministers and officials over the next 10 or 20
years when they apply this legislation.
Reduced to its basic elements, sustainable development is a
concept that stresses the importance of integrating the economy
with the environment. It means that when we pursue growth, we
pursue it with environmental, economic, social and even
cultural concerns in mind. That is what sustainable development
is intended to imply.
(1705 )
From that general concept we would want to know what are
the principles which come under that general heading. How
should we be guided in the management of our resources when
we say: ``We accept the concept of sustainable development; it
is in the act. We have a general definition. Now what does it
really mean? Could you tell us?''
In search of these elements the first principle would be to
integrate the economy with the environment and make those
goals convergent rather than in conflict. They can be convergent
and mutually reinforcing rather than in conflict.
Also, it would require applying accounting practices that
would indicate to the nation that when we cut down a forest or
when we fish, in other words when we reduce our stock of
natural resources, that shows up in our national accounts as a
loss and not just as a revenue. While there is definitely a revenue
when a forest is cut down, that asset is gone for the next 95 or
110 years. Therefore, we must know of the loss in our national
accounting of that asset. This form of accounting is badly
needed.
Another principle that could be adopted is to ensure that the
stock of natural resources is not drawn down from the present
acceptable and desirable levels. The stock of our natural
resources should not only be maintained but also improved. Its
quality should also be improved wherever possible. This is not
just for us and our requirements but for future generations. It is
this preoccupation with the long term, this preoccupation with
the years 2050 or 3000 which makes the concept of sustainable
6236
development so important and so politically attractive. It looks
at the long term, the future.
Another principle is an operative one. In the application of
this act everything within the power of the minister should be
done to prevent climate change. Why? Because we know that
climate change means also a change in our natural resources. It
would mean a change in the location of agriculture. It would
probably mean a shift toward the north of our forests. It could
have a profound effect on our fisheries. It impacts on our natural
resources. I cannot think of another principle as important for
the Minister of Natural Resources than that of preventing
climate change.
If we look at the policies of today, it is legitimate to ask
ourselves: Are our energy policies sustainable? If we look at the
way we spend our public funds in terms of energy, we find that
for every dollar the Government of Canada spends to promote
energy efficiency, it spends over $100 in support of the fossil
fuel industry. This support increases pollution and supports
dependence on non-renewable resources. This support has a
negative impact on climate change.
If we look at the 1990 accounts, the latest for which figures
are available, what do we find? We find that the value of tax
deductions by the oil and gas industry in Canada amounted to
some $5.8 billion. With these deductions the government lost
some $1.2 billion in revenue. The current expenditures by the
Government of Canada to the energy sector are close to $700
million. Of that amount only 5 per cent goes to research and
development on alternative energy sources.
(1710)
I do not need to stress the importance of research and
development in alternative energy sources and the importance
of changing our dependence in energy from non-renewable to
renewable sources. Everybody knows that.
That means that under this act and the new minister's
commitment to sustainable development it is desirable to have a
profound shift in the department's budget. It should move
rapidly from a budget on which the emphasis is on
non-renewable to renewable sources of energy and should move
more rapidly to the implementation of policies that reinforce
and accelerate the movement toward more efficient use of
energy.
I am not talking of a carbon tax, although we all know that one
day the concept of a carbon tax will have to be tackled if we are
serious about the question of climate change. However, the
political moment has not yet arrived.
An hon. member: Thank god.
Mr. Caccia: Well, that may be an expression of relief for the
present, but the chickens are coming home to roost sooner or
later and we will have to cross that bridge at the proper time.
Moving into forestry, we can ask ourselves: Are our forest
policies sustainable? This is a sector in which we must apply the
concept of sustainability. There is a considerable debate in
Canada on what constitutes a forest and a sustainable forestry. Is
the volume of forest really the best indicator of the state of our
forest resources, one can ask. Does increasing the cubic metre
figures make up for loss of forest and species diversity? Is
volume really the only criterion we should be examining? Or
does the loss of area of old growth forest not represent an
important factor if we think of future generations, if we think of
biodiversity?
All of us know that one tree does not make a forest, of course.
Today many Canadians and many regions of the world are
undertaking alternative and sustainable forestry practices. In
that respect British Columbia is a fascinating example of new
ideas. All of us know there are alternatives to large cuts which
destroy forests. There are much better alternatives to clear
cutting. There are alternatives which would permit the
protection of wildlife habitat. There are alternatives which
would permit the retention of biodiversity.
Perhaps this is not the time nor the place to open the debate on
clear cuts, especially when one has only 20 minutes. However,
we know that our past performance with clear cuts has earned us
a very bad reputation abroad.
If the purpose of the new department as it is spelled out in
clause 6(f) on page 3 is to participate ``in the enhancement and
promotion of market access for Canada's natural resources
products and technical surveys industries, both domestically
and internationally'' then we must pay very close attention to
our forest practices. Those practices are being watched from
abroad and our future export opportunities in forest products
hinges on them.
(1715 )
In that respect, I would like to pay homage to the forestry code
introduced last spring I believe by the Government of British
Columbia. I want to express the hope that this forestry code will
not only be given the necessary regulations soon but also the
necessary funds to be enforced effectively because it is through
measures of that kind that we can establish for Canada a good
reputation abroad with respect to forestry practices.
We can also ask ourselves what is the role of the forest
services of Canada. Is it one to perform only scientific research?
Is it one to look for industrial opportunities only? Is it one that is
also to give guidance and leadership in forest practices for the
6237
rest of the nation? Suddenly after all these years the time has
come to examine the mandate of forestry Canada and to
determine whether it is still adequate in a changing world as we
approach the 21st century.
Moving on to mining, we can also ask ourselves whether our
mining practices are sustainable. Obviously this matter needs to
be given some close attention. It seems to me that instead of
having policies that encourage our production and consumption,
our policies should be focused on resource reduction, the
development of new materials and greater momentum to
recycling so that the results will be in decreased mining
activities, mining wastes, water consumption, pollution,
deforestation and erosion.
In this respect, in recent years the car industry in particular
has made enormous progress with new materials and in general
Canadian industry has made considerable progress, although not
as good as other nations, in achieving energy efficiency in the
consumption of energy per unit of production. We have come a
considerable distance but we still have a long way to go if we
want to emulate and do as well as Japan and other OECD
countries. Compared with those countries we are not doing as
well.
Having attempted to set out some principles that could guide
us in the management of our natural resources and in the
implementation of this bill once it is proclaimed, the
Department of Natural Resources has a very important role to
play. It would be desirable if it were to apply principles and
practices that are sustainable and that apply the concept of
sustainability for the long term.
We are, after the Rio conference of 1992, coming around the
corner in an effort to ensuring that we have a sustainable
development that takes into account the economy and the
environment. We must make sure that this agreement by the
global community which took place in Rio de Janeiro two years
ago is implemented and brought into the legislatures of this
country.
I will conclude by again congratulating the minister for
having introduced this bill. It is of paramount importance. It is
good to see that the concept of sustainable development has
somehow found its way into it but it must be given greater
prominence; actually, it should be given primacy. Once that is
done important principles of the application of that concept will
need to be fleshed out so as to give direction to the department in
the decades ahead.
(1720)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to
questions and comments I would like to remind all hon.
members that as mentioned this morning Private Members'
Business will be delayed by 20 minutes due to minister's
statements. Proceedings on Private Members' Business will
therefore commence at 5.50 p.m. this evening.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to recognize the hon. member opposite, the member for
Davenport. I recognize his very longstanding, very real
commitment to the environment and to sustainable
development. This is not a recent conversion. This is as we know
a very real, longstanding and very genuine commitment to
conservation.
Given the position of stature of the member opposite within
his own caucus and given the gravity of the consideration of
fossil fuels to that part of the country that I represent, I would
like to ask the member to respond to this question specifically.
Would the member recommend an immediate tax on fossil
fuels to ensure conservation and to induce consumers to shift
away from fossil fuels? Because of his influence within his own
caucus, if the hon. member for Davenport had his way today
would we have a tax on fossil fuel to conserve energy and to
induce people to switch to other fuels tomorrow?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Davenport were
on an ego trip he would certainly want to tackle this question
fully and give a very comprehensive answer.
We do already have taxes on fossil fuels. Every time we buy
gasoline at the pump we pay some hefty provincial and federal
taxes; those taxes already exist.
If the thrust of the question of the hon. member is whether I
would recommend policies related to the introduction of a
carbon tax then we are talking of something completely
different. A tax on gasoline or on coal or on gas as I said exists
already and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An
additional tax would not be a carbon tax. It would be a fake
carbon tax. It would be more of the same. It would be nothing
new.
A carbon tax is a massive change from the present system of
taxation that we have on income and labour and investment and
flow of capital to a system of taxation that would be taxing
consumption and mainly anything that relates to consumption of
fossil fuels.
It is an enormous political somersault, if I may use that term.
It would be a big step for which we are not ready and so since we
are all more or less realists, and in my caucus I do not have the
reputation of being a great realist but I still have my feet on the
ground, to recommend a carbon tax would be asking for
something for which we are not equipped politically or
otherwise.
Sooner or later we will have to cross that bridge if the trend
identified by scientists continues. These are not Marxist or
left-wing scientists, these are meteorologists at the United
Kingdom University of East Anglia, for instance, who have
recently produced a map indicating that over the last 30 years
6238
there has been a change in annual temperatures. There has been a
change in average winter temperatures.
(1725 )
I would be glad to show the hon. member a map to that effect,
which in essence shows that the increase in average
temperatures that has taken place over the last 30 years shows a
considerable warming in certain parts of the world.
This warming has led to the melting of the Arctic and
Antarctic caps. This melting has produced a certain flow of cold
water into the northwest Atlantic and some other oceans, which
could be an explanation for the fact that certain fisheries have
disappeared.
I am saying that if this trend continues and we have over the
next 30 years another +1.5C as an average increase-thus
amounting to +3C-we will be in for some big problems because
the water levels of our coastal cities will be higher. We will have
to do some basic coastal public works.
The livelihood and the survival of millions of people in
certain parts of the Pacific where the islands rise only a metre or
a metre and a half above sea level will be in serious danger.
Scientists are speaking about the flooding of some one-quarter
of Bangladesh.
We will see the movement toward the north of agriculture and
of forests. In other words, we will have a completely different
set of natural resources and of problems resulting from that. It
may be for the next generation of politicians.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Davenport for his comments regarding sustainable
development. The member talked about the important need for
sustainable development, particularly in the industry of
forestry.
I wonder if he would consider that one of our most important
natural resources we have in this country is our resource of top
soil for farming. Top soil gives us the ability to produce food but
is being eroded at an alarming rate.
Since the beginning of organized agriculture on the great
plains we have lost about one-half of our top soil. Yet we have
government farm policies that encourage this practice to
continue. Where would the hon. member rate this in his overall
scheme of sustainable development?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be treated as an expert
when you are not one. Coming from the great agricultural riding
of Davenport, one would perhaps expect more from me. The
most important natural resource we have is the human resource
in this country. We all agree on that.
Whether top soil for farming should be the next one-it may
be so-I do not know. I know that the Senate in 1983,
particularly Senator Sparrow, produced a very interesting report
on the losses in top soil. That report has been languishing since
1984. He even went so far as quantifying the yearly losses in
dollars in top soil, which was a unique feat by our historical
standards.
I should urge the hon. member to get a copy of Senator
Sparrow's report and perhaps ask questions of the minister
tomorrow.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-48 has been described by many as a housekeeping bill, to
combine the federal Department of Forestry with the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In my opinion Bill C-48 is far more than that. Today I want to
begin by praising Bill C-48 while also raising a few concerns.
First, I wish to praise the government for continuing with this
integration started by the former government, both from a
standpoint of tax dollars saved and new understandings included
in Bill C-48. From a recent departmental briefing I see that this
amalgamation is expected to save something in the range of $41
million over a four-year period starting in 1994-95 primarily
through streamlining at the corporate level, including such
things as putting together financial services and human
resources of what formerly were two cabinet level departments.
(1730)
The jobs of the rank and file public service generally were
spared the axe although the downsizing did remove a cabinet
minister and three assistant deputy ministers.
The preservation of those other jobs is perhaps due to the fact
that the Canadian Forest Services-and I would like to comment
on the forest services here-is already one of the most
decentralized of all in the federal government with some 90 per
cent of the people not in Ottawa.
Another reason for praising this legislation is the new
understanding presented by Bill C-48 of what principles and
methods should be used to manage the nation's natural
resources. For example under ``interpretation'', Bill C-48
defines sustainable development as ``development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs''.
The bill's list of the minister's duties in clause 6, items (d),
(e), and (f) are as follows:
The minister shall:
(d) have regard to the integrated management and sustainable development of
Canada's natural resources;
(e) Seek to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada's natural
resources and the competitiveness of Canada's natural resources products;
6239
(f) participate in the enhancement and promotion of market access for Canada's
natural resource products and technical surveys industries, both domestically and
internationally;
Although day to day management of natural resources falls
under provincial jurisdictions these directives in Bill C-48
should lay to rest many longstanding public concerns that the
federal government might either encourage the so-called rape
and destruction of our natural resources on the one hand or
collapse before extremists advocating only recreational and
tourist use of natural resources on the other hand.
The legislation makes clear that the minister must have regard
for integrated management and sustainable development. That
is good for everybody.
Another reason to praise Bill C-48 is that it will help
counteract an unfortunate tendency by some people to speak of
our natural resource industries as though they were so-called
sunset industries, as though their time had somehow come and
passed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The role of science and technology in the Department of
Natural Resources is widespread with the scientific
establishments at numerous sites from Victoria to Resolute Bay
to St. John's as part of a science and technology budget at
Natural Resources Canada in the order of $432 million projected
for 1994-95.
Among the minister's duties are that the minister shall, and I
quote clause 6, sections (b), (c) and (i):
(b) assist in the development and promotion of Canadian scientific and
technological capabilities;
(c) participate in the development and application of codes and standards for
technical surveys and natural resources products and for the management and use of
natural resources;
(i) gather, compile, analyse, co-ordinate and disseminate information respecting
scientific, technological, economic, industrial, managerial, marketing and related
activities and developments affecting Canada's natural resources.
Another indicator that our natural resource industries are
continually elevating in addition to the specific growth in
science and technology is the modernization of their insights,
their principles and the managerial techniques as the world
moves toward sustainable development, in part pushed by the
new wave of green consumerism.
As a prime example of such integrated resource management
the federal government has been a major participant in the
Whitehorse mining initiative whose report presented September
13 included a set of more than 150 recommendations in light of
16 principles and 70 goals voiced by more than 140 individual
participants in the process.
For all these reasons I applaud the government for uniting
these departments into one through Bill C-48. However, I also
want to voice some concerns.
(1735 )
Bill C-48 helps to spell out the federal role and relationship
with provincial jurisdiction over forestry and mining. Despite
much talk about the so-called new economy, the $40 billion
forest industry remains number one in Canada, providing some
777,000 jobs or one in every 16 in 1993 with approximately 350
Canadian communities dependent on forestry for their financial
existence. It also adds a $19 billion contribution to Canada's net
balance of trade, by far the largest of any industry in Canada.
Although the mining industry has been hard hit in recent
years, there are some 150 communities across Canada that
depend on mining and mining related activities. This
contributes 4 per cent of our GDP, 17 per cent of our exports and
a net $11 billion surplus to our balance of payments as well as
being the source of 60 per cent of rail freight and 55 per cent of
port traffic. Directly and indirectly, mining provides some
300,000 jobs.
Clearly, forestry and mining are two of the most essential
contributors to our national economic health. Therefore I would
have preferred to see clause 7 of Bill C-48 say that the minister
shall co-operate with the provinces and municipalities rather
than may as it now does. These economic sectors are simply too
important for us to tolerate government duplications or
squabbles regarding jurisdiction. As a Reformer I am especially
concerned that there should be as little overlap as possible
between the levels of government and that no activity be
undertaken by the federal level if the provincial level can handle
it.
I also have questions on clause 35, subclauses 7 and 8, which
detail other things the minister may do.
Subclause 7 says that the Minister of Natural Resources may
make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the
Governor in Council, provide other forms of financial
assistance. I am told that Parliament can exert control here by
simply refusing to appropriate money to the minister for such
purposes. But once the funds are voted, the minister does not
even need to consult with cabinet before making grants and
contributions.
I believe Bill C-48 should have included some procedure to
build into the granting process public accountability and
transparency as well as requiring at the minimum consultation
with cabinet.
Subclause 8 provides that:
(1) The Minister may co-ordinate logistics support and provide related
assistance for the purposes of advancing scientific knowledge of the Arctic
region and contributing to the exercise of Canada's sovereignty in that region
and its adjacent waters.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister may
(a) make grants and contributions; and
6240
(b) make recoverable expenditures on behalf of any other department, branch or
agency of the Government of Canada or a province or any university, organization
or person in respect of its share of the cost of any logistics support or related
assistance.
I have the same concerns as mentioned above about the
authority for grants but I would would like to ask some
additional questions.
First, is this Bill C-48 the appropriate place to authorize a
minister regarding contributing to the existence of Canada's
sovereignty in the Arctic? If there is doubt regarding Canada's
sovereignty in that region, it seems that a so-called
housekeeping bill on natural resources is at best an
inappropriate place to bolster such authority.
Second, in view of the tradition that natural resources north of
60 degrees latitude fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, why is the Minister
of Natural Resources given this twin function of asserting
Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and authorization to recover
costs from groups performing exploration or research, maybe
filming a movie or leading a tour group?
I look forward to hearing the government's explanations for
what look to me to be shortcomings in a bill which otherwise
deserves the praise and support of the House.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, in listening
to the hon. member's intervention, I was wondering about his
thoughts on the future of Canada's forests since he comes from
an area where the forests are so well managed and where an
experiment was carried out by the Vernon provincial district in
the marketing of lumber.
(1740 )
As you know, Mr. Speaker, until 1985 the forestry department
was part of the Environment Canada department. It was put in
that department because it was felt that forestry seen from an
environmental perspective is managed with concerns also for
wildlife, water and biodiversity considerations. That holistic
approach was valid then as it is today.
Would the hon. member favour a move whereby the
department of forests would again become part of Environment
Canada?
Mr. Stinson: No.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
what little time is left to congratulate the minister on this bill. I
hardly think that it is merely housekeeping. By defining
sustainable development in accordance with the Brundtland
report and by putting it into the part of the bill under the clause
which says ``the minister shall'', it has given this principle of
sustainable development some validity. The other aspects of the
minister's duties should be considered in light of that statement.
I want to refer to one or two of them. Subclause 6(c) states:
The minister shall participate in the development and application of codes and
standards for technical surveys and natural resources products and for the
management and use of natural resources.
Subclause (d) as we have noted and as my hon. colleague from
Davenport pointed out so well states:
Having regard to the integrated management and sustainable development of
Canada's natural resources.
Subclause (c) says:
To seek to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada's natural
resources.
It seems to me that it makes it pretty clear that the minister has
a twofold purpose and that they must be integrated. Further in
the bill we get to subclause 3(2):
The minister may enter into agreements with the government of any province
or with any person for forest protection and management or forest utilization and
for the conduct of research related thereunto or for forestry publicity or
education.
It seems to me that this allows the minister considerable
leeway in assisting all Canadians who desire to preserve or
enhance or continue our natural resources to be accommodated.
Personally, 24 years ago I entered into an agreement with the
province of Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources, under
its Woodland Improvement Act and established forest on my
property. It was a joint venture. I must say it is a pleasure to walk
through those trees now, 24 years later.
The minister is also empowered to collect and publish
statistics for the mineral explorations development and
production of the mining and metallurgical industries of
Canada. The words `exploration and development' have been
added. I think that suggests that the minister has some
responsibility for not only maintaining that industry but for
maintaining it in a sustainable way.
(1745 )
With respect to some of the comments of my hon. colleague
opposite, I find in clause 6 that the minister must co-operate
with persons conducting applied and basic research programs
and investigations. I have had concerns for some time that much
of our research money tends to go to applied research and not
basic research. We need to pay some attention to basic research.
My colleague from Davenport talked about biodiversity, old
growth forests and some of these rather intangible and not fully
understood benefits of the conservation of our natural resources.
I notice that again in clause 6(b) the minister can keep under
review and consider recommendations with respect to
transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange and with
respect to matters relating to the sources of these resources
within
6241
or outside Canada, which hopefully would mean that disasters
such as the Exxon Valdez might be prevented in future.
In clause 7(1) the minister may formulate plans for the
conservation, development and use of resources specified in that
section and for related research. The word related has been
added and it adds a world of meaning to that clause.
I mentioned the woodland improvement act. Our forest
resources need protection, development and sustainable
development if we are to continue to be a world leader in these
things.
With respect to a carbon tax I have a few comments. If we
adopt green accounting in the resource industries, it might serve
the same purpose. It might put in the hands of the captains of
industry the kind of techniques, the kind of information that they
need in order to make the kind of decisions that will continue to
sustain us in the fields of forestry and mining.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the member for Oxford on his speech and the points
that he raised in his rather brief address. I realize he was trying
to give other hon. members an opportunity to speak.
I would like to ask him a couple of questions. First, what is his
opinion of the inclusion of a definition of sustainable
development in the legislation? Second, maybe he could
confirm the rather strong position taken by the Prime Minister
with respect to a carbon tax.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the definition of
sustainable development is in the bill. It would be very
shortsighted at this juncture not to include that definition in the
bill.
If we do not move wholeheartedly in that direction, and I
mean at this level of government as well as provincially and
municipally, we are going to be in a bad way.
I must apologize, I did not catch the hon. member's second
question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.50 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6241
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1750 )
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North) moved that Bill
C-229, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (registration
of political parties), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the House for
allowing me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-229. I also want
to say that I am a bit disappointed that this bill will only have
one hour of debate and will not have a chance to be voted on.
However, that is how the system works and that is what we have
to live with.
Before I speak about the changes I want to apply with Bill
C-229, I want to briefly describe to members of the House the
present situation existing in the Canada Elections Act.
The law reads that if 50 candidates are nominated in any
region of the country they qualify as a national party. That is a
very narrow definition of the law. It has to increase in order for
democracy to work.
The changes I would like applied to the act are the following:
first, to be a national party, that party should be running
candidates in seven provinces at least. Second, representation
should be from 50 per cent of the population of Canada. Third,
50 per cent of the candidates should be from each of the seven
provinces in order to qualify as a national party.
In last October's election we had 15 political parties running
for office. At the top of the list were the two national parties, the
Conservatives and the Liberals who had 295 candidates
nominated, next were the NDP, followed by the Natural Law
Party of Canada which nominated 231 candidates, and the
lowest party was the Marxist-Leninist Party which nominated
51 candidates.
Some people will argue that Bill C-229 restricts Canadians
from practising their right to become a candidate or to form a
political party. This is far from being true. In effect, what this
bill does is it allows people in all regions of the country to
participate in the change. For example let us take one of the
principles of this bill. It states that the party must run 50 per cent
of its candidates in seven provinces in accordance to population.
Today in the House we have an opposition party that ran 75
candidates in only one province. Out of the 75 candidates it won
54 seats and became the official opposition. By tradition the
official opposition is the government in waiting and the leader
of the official opposition is to be the Prime Minister in waiting.
Can you imagine this country and this House which has a
political party whose sole purpose is to break up this country and
a Prime Minister in waiting whose sole purpose is to implement
that break-up? That is not democracy.
I live in Ontario. I am the member for Don Valley North.
People in Don Valley North never had a chance to vote on who
the opposition is in this House. That is not democracy. We in
Ontario have the right to decide, as much as the people in
Quebec have the right to decide, who will be the opposition
party. People in B.C. have the same right as do the people on the
6242
east coast. The way it is, this right is denied to the citizens of
this land.
Two opposition parties is the way it is today. One of them is
headquartered in Quebec City claiming to be a national party.
The other party is headquartered in Calgary again claiming to be
a national party. If a national party is to be in this House of
Commons, their headquarters should be located in the nation's
capital in order to facilitate their activities.
Seventy-five per cent of Canadians did not participate in
choosing this opposition party. It is only fair that we would also
be asked. Twenty-five per cent of the population in this case
should not decide the opposition party of this House.
(1755 )
When I was campaigning in the 1993 election campaign I saw
a big sign, 4 by 8, in front of the Reform Party candidate's
headquarters which said: ``We will run the country the way we
run the campaign''. The Reform Party ran the campaign without
Quebec.
I am very happy that Reformers are thinking of expanding into
Quebec. This is very good and I commend them for it. I also
hope that with the changes I am proposing in this bill the Bloc
Quebecois will have a chance to run candidates in other
provinces, in other regions, next time around. I am sure they are
going to be here and I hope to be here so we can have
constructive discussion about the future of our country.
I return to the point I made about the 15 political parties that
ran in this election. One of the benefits of being a national party
is that you get reimbursement from the federal government.
For example the Conservative Party spent $10,398,101. They
received $2,339,752.72. The Canada Party had the lowest
expenditures in the last election campaign and had 56
candidates. They spent $172.72.
Surely today's opposition party spent more than $172. Surely
it can spend more than that in order to have a proper opposition,
a good opposition in this House, so the system can work and
function.
Without implementing these changes I think we will lose the
unity of this country.
I want to conclude my remarks for the time being, but pick up
again toward the end. If we intend to have strong central
government we have to change the law in order to achieve it.
When we change the law we can achieve a united, indivisible
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-229, which would amend the Canada
Elections Act with respect to registration of political parties.
This bill, which would oblige a political party to put forward
candidates in a minimum of seven Canadian provinces that
have, in the aggregate, 50 per cent of the population of all the
provinces, is, in our opinion, undemocratic and contrary to one
of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act.
The least that can be said about Bill C-229, introduced by the
hon. member for Don Valley North, is that it targets the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party, among others. In our opinion,
it is an insult to democracy, as it denies Quebec, a distinct
society, the right to its own representatives in the House of
Commons. It must be pointed out that the people of Quebec are
true believers in democracy.
The hon. member for Don Valley North, in introducing such a
bill, shows a very poor knowledge indeed of the Canadian
political scene and of its diversity. The social, economic and
cultural make-up of Toronto, where the member hails from,
does not apply to every part of Canada, to Quebec in particular.
It must be pointed out that Quebecers do not, any longer, feel
comfortable with the old national parties, the Conservative
Party and the Liberal Party, whose policies always sought to
champion the interests and pursue the objectives of a mythical
Canadian nation, with a total disregard for regional specificity.
Quebec chose to be represented by the Bloc Quebecois, and it
is certainly not a member from the Toronto region who is going
to stand in the way of the political representation of one fifth of
the citizens and taxpayers of Canada in the House of Commons.
(1800)
This bill is completely inconsistent and does not respect
Canadian political tradition. Since the passage of the new
Canada Elections Act in 1970, there has been provision for the
registration of political parties. However, the multi-party
system appeared in Canada well before then. As early as 1920,
members of other parties began to be elected to the House of
Commons in sufficient numbers and with sufficient support and
credibility to influence the system.
I would remind the members that, in the 1930s, Social Credit
and the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation represented
very special interests, with demands and hopes that were not at
all national in scope. They were movements formed by Western
producers to protest the excessive taxation authority of a highly
centralizing federal government. None of them were
represented in seven provinces or by a total of 50 per cent of the
population of Canada. This is an important point to remember.
6243
In the early 1960s, these movements, which evolved into
political parties, became important elements in Canadian party
politics, hence the inconsistency and irrelevance of Bill C-229.
In the past, a number of political parties that sprang up on the
Canadian scene were limited to a single province. Why then,
today, is there a wish to take extreme action and amend the
Canada Elections Act, except to stop the democratically elected
Bloc Quebecois from demonstrating its repudiation of the old
national parties and thus seeking to attain political autonomy.
Nothing in the existing elections act mentions the need for a
political party to nominate candidates in more than seven
provinces to qualify for registration.
The act mentions only that in order to be registered and thus
officially recognized nationally, a party must nominate more
than 50 candidates, whether in one province or in the whole
country, for the purposes of consistency, credibility and
visibility.
This bill is a flagrant contradiction of the Parliament of
Canada Act regarding the official status of political parties in
the House. May I remind the member for Don Valley North that
there is a rule whereby a political party must have at least 12
members elected to be recognized in this House.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member: How is it possible to
recognize, in the House of Commons, a party which might not
even be registered at the next general election? Even if the
Elections Act requires that a given party nominate at least fifty
candidates to be registered-which increases the probability of
it being present in at least seven provinces-we consider that
Bill C-229 is in net violation of the Parliament of Canada Act
and the Canada Elections Act. In 1990, although the House had
by then 295 seats, 12 members were still enough to be
recognized as a party. The New Democratic Party's current
status is a case in point: it wanted to be recognized, but it failed.
Let us be clear, the inclusion of such provisions in the
Elections Act would mean the end of the multiparty system
within the Canadian electoral system and the emergence of a
``one-way'' political system in which two parties, largely
dominated by two parliamentary executives, would alternate
serving the same interests and the same vision of a highly
centralized Canada.
I should add that this bill lends credence to the argument that
Canadian diversity is just a myth and that the distinctiveness of
the Quebec society is gradually eroding. This is what we read
recently in the Globe and Mail. That editorial said that Canadian
society was one of the most homogeneous in the world. This is
not what was reflected in the results of the last general election.
In fact, the real myth is the notion of Canadian nationhood; to
believe that one day there will be only one culture from coast to
coast is ludicrous.
(1805)
We could say that somehow the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois are the political arm of Quebec's culture, fighting to
protect its originality and distinctiveness.
We believe that Bill C-229 introduced by the member for Don
Valley North is a sham since it does not take into account
cultural diversity or the legitimate position of the party forming
the Official Opposition. I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that as
the opposition we have behaved in a responsible manner and
according to parliamentary rules. We have dealt with issues of
interest to Quebec and Canada and used question period with
efficiency and respect, no matter the issue. We have proven to be
efficient, transparent and respectful of fundamental democratic
principles.
Therefore, we strongly denounce the bill introduced by the
member for Don Valley North as being undemocratic in its very
intent.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, for
those who are watching the parliamentary channel instead of
Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy, the purpose of this private
member's bill is to change the Canada Elections Act so that a
party can only be a legitimate registered party here in Canada if
it is running candidates in at least seven of the ten provinces, one
of which has to be either Quebec or Ontario.
Of course, the purpose of this bill is very clear, and that is to
knock the Bloc. I suppose there would be a lot of Canadians who
would have a sneaking sympathy for the intent behind this bill.
A lot of Canadians I have talked to, a lot of Canadians all of us
have talked to are pretty ticked that we have in this House,
making laws for our country, deciding or helping to decide how
our money is spent, shaping the future of our country, a group of
people essentially intent on the destruction of Canada as we
know it.
A lot of people are asking is there not a way we can stop this.
They are particularly exercised, particularly angry, when a
group of people in this House who call themselves Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition have interests in mind, have an
agenda in mind, which again is adverse to the interests of the
national unity of our country.
A lot of Canadians would sympathize with the member for
Don Valley West and the intent behind this bill to try to stop
regional parties from forming and coming forward.
Sometimes the cure is a lot worse than the disease. Although
the disease is bad, this cure is a whole lot worse. It is kind of like
those ancient dragons. You cut off one head but two worse heads,
more fierce with larger teeth, spring up in its place.
6244
What this bill really does is abrogate a lot of democratic rights
in this country. Canadians should be aware that the reason a
party has to run 50 candidates somewhere in order to be
registered as a party is really designed to make sure that
taxpayers' money is not totally and frivolously spent. What
happens, as most of us know, is if a candidate is successful half
the candidate's election expenses are returned to them courtesy
of the taxpayer. A lot of people think that is an abuse of
taxpayers' money but it would be a lot more of an abuse if
anybody could run and expect to have half their expenses paid
by the rest of society.
The law was designed so that there had to be at least some
threshold of support for a group or a party before they could
expect to receive some funding from the taxpayer. That is the
real reason why the present act says that a party must run 50
candidates somewhere in Canada in order to qualify as a
registered party.
The law was not designed to limit the right to association of
Canadians and limit the right of Canadians to get together for
purposes of political activity.
(1810 )
I would suggest that it is very important that we not limit the
right of Canadians, not make it more difficult, not put onerous
requirements on Canadians who want to participate in the
political process. This is a subject that obviously is very near
and dear to my heart because for the last seven years of my
young life I have spent building a new political dynamic to
inject into a hidebound and reactionary system. We need change
sometimes in democratic society and democratic politics.
That change usually starts small. It starts with a vision and
support for it grows. It does not sort of arrive full blown from the
soil. I am here to tell members that because I have participated
in that kind of exercise.
If we insist that a political movement, a political dynamic,
only has legitimacy if somehow it has instant support so that it
can have registered candidates right across the country, and lots
of them, it simply is going to limit the change, the newness and
the renewal that we allow in our political system which is very
unacceptable in a democracy.
The hon. member for Don Valley North when he spoke made
two statements that I take very grave exception to. First of all, as
a westerner I am absolutely outraged that he would say that you
are only legitimate as a political party if you have an office in
Ontario.
Somehow the arrogance of certain assumptions just
overwhelms me. To say that only something rooted in Ontario
has legitimacy in our political system is outrageous. I would
suggest to the hon. member that the political renewal that has its
base in western Canada is every bit as useful to this country, is
every bit as positive a dynamic in our political system as a
political party that has its roots in Newfoundland, Montreal or in
Yukon. It does not matter where your head office is, it matters
where your head is and that is the important thing.
I also take exception to the continual distortion by members
opposite of the Reform Party and its policies. Here is another
example that we just heard a few minutes ago. The member for
Don Valley West said that the Reform Party signs during the
election campaign said this we will run the country the way we
run our campaign. Then he went on to say since we ran our
campaign without candidates in Quebec, obviously we would
run the country without Quebec.
What an abuse, what a distortion of what Reform really said.
For the record, the Reform signs said, and I hope everyone is
listening, that we will run the country the way we run our
campaign, debt free. I challenge the member to indicate whether
his party ran the campaign debt free. We sure know it is not
running the country debt free. It is running this country into debt
$110 million every single day. To it, success is placing a debt on
our shoulders of another at least $100 billion in its term of
office.
I would like to have less distortion and more facts from the
other side about what the Reform Party has to offer this country.
The real problem in this country is not political parties and
who they represent and where they have their head offices. The
real problem in this country is that the status quo, the old
system, the old thinking, the old way of approaching issues does
not work for us any more. We need renewal. We need change.
What we see in this House with a party which represents only
one province and whose agenda is to break up this wonderful
country is not something that should be corrected by
suppressing legitimate political concern and discontent, but by
addressing the root of the problem that caused this situation to
begin with. The root of the problem is that status quo federalism
does not work. We are faced with an opportunity staring us in the
face to fix this system, to acknowledge that changes are needed
for the benefit of all Canadians. It is not just the province
represented by the members beside us that are discontent with
the way this country has been run. There are people in all parts of
the country who are saying we need change.
(1815)
We need to serve notice that there has to be an honest debate
about renewing our federation so that it works better for all of
us. We do not need bills to suppress legitimate political
expressions and democratic involvement. We need a
government that will put ideas on the table to renew the way we
operate as a country.
We need solutions and we need a resolution of this problem,
not to hide it, not to suppress it, not to make it illegal, not to push
it under the rug but to say we need change and the kind of
changes we need.
6245
We need changes where governments live within their means.
Not only the province represented by the Bloc but all of us are
staggering under the load of a huge mortgage on our country
which is getting bigger every single day. We need a federal
system that lives within its means, where we pay for our
programs today and we do not offload our spending on to our
children. That is what is needed in this country.
We need a country where citizens are treated equally
regardless of race, language and culture or where they have their
head office. We need a system where all Canadians are treated
equally. It is very important that we get those kinds of systemic
changes.
I challenge the hon. member not to bring forward bills that
suppress legitimate democratic participation but really have
solid proposals to get to the root of the problem, fix the system,
renew our federation and let us go on together as a country.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I support my colleague from Don Valley North
wholeheartedly in this most welcome legislative initiative, Bill
C-229, a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.
We did not have a mechanism like C-229 in place last
October. Now we have a situation in this House where the
Official Opposition party is dedicated to a proposition which
can tear Canada asunder and whose agenda can monopolize this
Parliament and eventually paralyse this government.
The Bloc members have been given all of the privileges and
power that go with such a status. This party could
constitutionally be called upon to govern the entire nation. How
many nation states no matter how democratic or tolerant would
accept as their official opposition, even as a legitimate national
party, a party whose sole purpose is to rupture the country?
The answer of course is very few unless they have a collective
national death wish. Surely it is not too much to ask that any
party that aspires to represent Canadian citizens in this federal
Parliament should reach out beyond the narrow parochial
confines of its regional power base or of its own special
interests.
My voters in Nova Scotia elected me to represent the interests
of Cumberland-Colchester here in Canada's Parliament. They
also expect me to bring a perspective to this job that extends far
beyond the boundaries of my riding. After all, the voters of
Cumberland-Colchester realize that my salary is paid by all
taxpaying Canadians and that as their member of Parliament in
this national capital I also have to serve the larger national
interests.
In 1982 the former member of Parliament for Hull, Mr.
Gaston Isabelle, with incredible foresight introduced Bill C-661
that would have required any party to receive registration in
Canada to nominate at least 50 candidates in a majority of the
provinces.
The purpose of this bill was to, as he put it and I quote:
``remove any trace of ambiguity as to the national character of
political parties desiring to operate at the federal level''.
(1820 )
At second reading in March 1983 Mr. Isabelle noted:
It is easy to understand why a political party, if it wants to operate at the
national level, should be obliged to field candidates in a majority of the
provinces, that is in five out of six. These are candidates who will be working on
the federal scene- Without this obligation, regional or provincial groups, which
I prefer to qualify as local, will use Parliament as a platform for their own special
interests.
Unfortunately Mr. Isabelle's bill disappeared and died inside
a parliamentary committee and 11 years later what he
prophesied has come to pass.
We have a chance once again to redress the great deficiencies
he saw over a decade ago in the Canada Elections Act. The Bloc
Quebecois got its present pre-eminence in this Parliament
simply because it received 1.8 million votes that were
distributed across the electoral landscape of Quebec only.
It won 54 seats in this Parliament, 54 seats of Quebec's 75,
and yet the Bloc did not win the majority of the Quebec vote.
There were over 3.7 million valid ballots cast in Quebec and the
Bloc won less than 50 per cent, 49.3 per cent in one province
only, yet they form the official opposition to the Government of
Canada.
Compared to other parties in this House, the Reform Party
received over 2.5 million ballots from Canadians in 9 out of 10
provinces and yet won two fewer seats. The Progressive
Conservatives received more than 2.1 million votes across
Canada yet won only two seats. The Bloc Quebecois based
solely on the number of seats won has formed the official
opposition of the Government of Canada.
It seems to me that the Bloc's claim to pride of place in the
opposition benches based solely on the first past the post
outcome is far from secure in terms of either ideal democratic
practice or equitable electoral outcome.
No, I am not preaching for some kind of proportional
representation to elect our MPs. Given our expansive geography
and scattered population it is just not practical. Moreover it has
been tried in various forms in various places in Canada in the
past and each time has failed as too exotic a graft on the trunk of
the Canadian body politic.
My daughter who is a master of political science tells me I
must stress the importance of natural democracy rights. That is
that we do have rights of the individual to mobilize parties in
this country and to participate in government.
However, we must recognize the fact that Canada is very
regionally diverse. Extensive country breeds regional political
parties. At the last election we had 14 or 15 registered political
6246
parties and our tendency is to divide and distinguish ourselves
regionally.
This is not a trend we should encourage in a national
Parliament. Yet we have as our official opposition the regional
party the Bloc Quebecois whose sole purpose in being here is to
take its one province out of this Canadian family.
I believe we should also have the humility as parliamentarians
to recognize that many of us as individuals got to this place not
as a result of any sweeping mandate from the voters but, given
the multi-party nature of Canadian politics, through the grace of
plurality.
During the Liberal sweep of Canada I got 42 per cent of the
votes cast in Cumberland-Colchester and my next closest
opponent took 36 per cent. In the Reform heartland a member
from Calgary had a 44 per cent plurality. The list goes on across
the country.
There are many of us in the same situation. We are not only a
regionally diverse nation, our electorate is also very diverse. We
mislead ourselves and do them and this country a disservice
when we see our constituents as distinct little tribes.
There is no such thing as a homogenized Nova Scotian, nor is
one in Quebec where one size fits all. I take great pride and
satisfaction in knowing that there is unity, there is oneness in the
diversity that identifies Canadians.
We should recognize our duty as parliamentarians to provide a
focal point for Canada here in this House. We can best do that by
ensuring those who enjoy this House's privileges do so as
members of registered parties who reflect the entire Canadian
spectrum and not narrow regional interests.
(1825 )
This bill in no way impedes the right of any member of any
party to sit in this House now or in the future. What it does
ensure, however, is that if they want to sit in this House as a
member of a registered party enjoying the benefits that flow
from registration their party must nominate candidates in at
least seven provinces representing an aggregate of 50 per cent of
the population.
That is not an onerous requirement for any party that aspires
to run this country. As an Atlantic Canadian, I have a vested
interest in regional special interests. However, I feel that this
country and Atlantic Canada benefit from a strong national
government.
We are best served by a strong national Parliament and this
bill is intended to live up to the diversity and the
multiculturalism of Canada. It is intended to represent the
national character of Canada.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the intended purpose of this bill is to stop single interest parties
from being established.
The manner in which it is written could also stop multiple
interest regional parties from forming. There is a realistic
purpose in establishing a restriction on financial assistance in
the form of a rebate or a portion of the election expenses.
However, this restriction now exists by way of a requirement
to field at least 50 candidates in order to qualify for that election
expense rebate. On one hand, it is understandable to want to
prevent the emergence of political parties that advance the
interests of a single province. This bill, however, is not a very
democratic way to achieve that goal.
Many people have suggested that democracy really only
exists for about one minute every four years when one enters the
polling booth. That is not good enough. This country clearly
does have different regions and from time to time problems in
those regions give birth to new political movements.
Sometimes those regional parties disappear early in their
existence, such as the Progressive Party. At other times, a party
such as the Reform Party of Canada which saw its start in a
region grows to become a contender to form the next
Government of Canada.
I would point out to members that this can also work in
reverse as we saw in the last election when the Conservative
Party went from being the government to a non-party status in a
single election.
Forcing political bodies to run in areas where they have no
interest is more likely to create regional alienation than it is to
present it. A far better solution would be to create a more
responsive political system that would tend to address these
regional problems before they could spawn a new local interest
party.
Consider the problem created by a single issue like fiscal
responsibility. The have provinces are having their financial
resources stripped from them to finance irresponsible
government spending while the have not provinces are getting
less from the concept of wealth sharing because of that same
lack of federal financial responsibility.
In this case, provinces on either side of the equation could
spawn a regional party when the real solution should be found in
a new sense of financial responsibility on the part of the
government.
An issue could be much smaller, like the firearms legislation.
Ill conceived legislation such as that currently proposed by the
justice minister could conceivably result in the emergence of a
group from a particular area wishing to ensure that we focus on
control of criminals instead of persecution of law-abiding
citizens.
6247
A combination of issues could cause problems that might
cause non-federalists in a particular party or province to form a
party, such as what happened in Quebec.
My discussions with the Bloc Quebecois suggested that its
biggest issues are the financial ruin of this country and its desire
not to go down with the ship and the need for a province, the
Bloc's, to have more say over policies and issues that affect it in
a different way than it does other provinces.
Had the federal government addressed these genuine concerns
which affect all provinces and the people in them, the Bloc may
never have emerged. As members can see, it is not hard to create
an environment in which the emergence of a single interest or
regional party can happen.
There is another aspect to this bill that must also be examined.
If passed, this bill would tend to ensure that no new parties ever
got started again.
(1830)
Given that the emergence of the Reform Party wiped out one
old line party of the past and threatens to continue the existence
of the one remaining party of the past, it is not too difficult to see
the real reason for this bill. That is neither fair nor democratic.
At any time if the party of the day loses touch with the people it
is supposed to be serving, the capability of the system to give
birth to a new political movement to replace outdated ones must
not be suppressed.
There is yet another flaw in the drafting of this bill. The
requirements for registration of a party include the number of
provinces in which the party must nominate candidates, seven,
and the need for those provinces to comprise at least 50 per cent
of the Canadian population. It would be possible for a party to
run in Ontario and east, including one of the territories, without
any representation in any of the four western provinces. If that
did not create regional alienation I do not know what would.
The hon. member from the government side of the House
would be better to withdraw this bill. He should concentrate
instead on getting his government to get on with addressing the
real reasons for regional alienation and general dissatisfaction
with the way the old line parties of the past have run this country
into the ground.
The governments should deal with the pressing issues of
runaway spending, out of touch immigration policies, an out of
control criminal justice system, and social programs that are
facing financial ruin. If it does not know how to do this, we do,
and you know who we are. We are the party that started off as a
regional party and grew to our current national status because
the other regions were fed up with the old line parties just as the
west was.
If the real needs and desires of the people of Canada were met
there would be no reason for this bill to be discussed.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I want to pay special tribute to my colleague from Don
Valley North. I commend him in this House where we have
members opposite with simplistic answers to some very
difficult questions.
I hear the proposals they put forward, that there is no vision.
The people of Canada spoke in the last election and they elected
175 Liberals. They asked us on behalf of all of Canada to come
forth with a vision.
This private member's bill is there specifically to deal with
the problem that has arisen in this House. Never in the history of
Canada have we ever had the arrangement where the Leader of
the Opposition did not want to be Prime Minister of this country.
We are reviewing this bill today, a bill that puts forth a
challenge to our democratic process. However it does not
challenge the definition of what constitutes a party in a federal
election and the obligation that party carries to all Canadians.
Members opposite may say to be careful of regionalism. I say
that perhaps we should challenge the definition of a party in a
federal election. After all the taxpayers carry a heavy burden for
the election and the benefits the official parties are allowed.
Presently the system allocates a spending level for parties
which directly relates to the number of candidates in the field in
any given election. If that party spends more than 10 per cent of
its spending limit it is entitled to 22 per cent return.
Should the taxpayers pay for parties which either fail or refuse
to represent themselves on a national scale? How can we ask the
entire country to support a party that has no desire to represent
the views of Canadians from coast to coast? Our Parliament
assembled here in the House today strives to achieve the best for
all Canadians, or at least that is how it is supposed to work.
It leads us to ask the question: What is an effective
Parliament? Does an effective Parliament have an opposition
that fails to effectively scrutinize the government's actions in
the interests of the majority of Canadians? I would say no, no
indeed. There is an important role to be played by the opposition
to any government. The government needs to be asked tough
questions and be made to answer them.
(1835)
However what happens when the questions being asked are
continually only for the benefit of one interest group and not in
the interests of all Canadians? In that scenario I do not think the
Canadian people get a fair bang for their buck.
6248
In this proposed amendment a party or an individual can
certainly enter into the political process, which was mentioned a
minute ago as not being the case. The fact is that they can, but
they must be obliged to offer up their ideas to a majority of
Canadians if they wish to be supported by the taxpayers' money
as well as receive all the benefits of the House of Commons.
This bill proposes that if a group applies for party status in an
election and cannot fulfil the requirements as stipulated under
the amendment, then that said group cannot enter into the House
of Commons as an official party and subsequently will not
receive the rights and privileges normally ascribed to official
parties. That does not preclude the fact that parties can begin.
In summary, we have to ask: Can regional parties be permitted
to dominate a national Parliament? Can our country remain
united if the presence of single issue parties grows in size and
consequently further hinders the chance for effective
consensus? Finally, can the government continue to afford the
money it provides through political taxation deductions to those
parties which fail to provide a national platform?
I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak in favour of this
bill. I believe these are changes that will benefit our national
process and better the value of government to the people of
Canada.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I am rather amazed at some
of the commentary I have heard today and the great naivety of
some of the members opposite when they talk about starting off
with a full-blown political party that can go out and do battle
from sea yea unto shining sea.
I worked for seven years trying to build a party. We started
with a few hundred members and pulled it up to 120,000. If we
had the type of legislation that is proposed in this bill, the
Reform Party would not exist. It is just absolutely impossible. It
is not physically within the realm of possibility to do this.
I am also a little surprised at the rather tenuous grip on
Canadian history which is held by members opposite. All of the
parties in this country, save the two old parties, the
Conservatives and the Liberals, grew out of small beginnings,
usually because people felt disenfranchised and angry in small
areas of the country.
I could cite first the Progressive Party, which was at one time
by the way the official opposition here and was founded under
those principles. There are also the CCF, Social Credit and of
course Reform. None of this could ever possibly have happened
if this bill had been in place 40, 50, 60 years ago, depending on
the particular political movement we are looking at. It is
absolutely out of the question.
Finally, I am sorry that the hon. member for Souris-Moose
Mountain has left because I did want to comment specifically-
(1840 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I want to remind
colleagues of the practice of not mentioning the absence of
members. Each one of us recognizes the demands on our time, of
course, whether here on duty or from interest.
Given all the other demands on our time, we do not reflect or
make mention of the absence of members. I want to make sure
we are all cognizant of that.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I assure you there was no
pejorative intent. It is just that I wanted to speak to my
opponent, if you will.
One of the justifications for this bill, if I understand correctly,
is that taxpayers' money is handed out to officially recognized
political parties and candidates of officially recognized political
parties.
To me, the solution is quite obvious and quite simple. We do
not kill the democratic process. We do not do away with the
parties. We do away with the grants. We do not have to use
federal money to support politicians. Let each support his own.
Let 10,000 flowers bloom, if you will, but if a political party
does not have the stature to get people, to give them money to
pay for their election expenses, then it does not deserve to exist.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Not seeing other members
wishing to speak there has been an indication from the mover of
this private member's bill that he wishes to speak. I recognize
him to close off debate.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
want to take a few minutes to respond to some of the questions
and points put forward by the opposition members.
First of all, the member from the Bloc Quebecois says the bill
is not democratic. I do not understand what his definition of
democracy means. If he means democracy is decided by 25 per
cent of the population, certainly he is right. Democracy for me
means the majority of the population.
He also accuses this bill of being Draconian. I wonder which
is more Draconian, the bill itself or the intention of the
opposition party here today to separate Quebec from Canada.
The answer is very simple. All you have to do is walk around the
country and find out how Canadians feel.
My colleague from the Reform Party said that the bill restricts
individuals from running for any political office. That is not
true. You can run for a political party or a political office,
whatever you want. Nobody can take that away from you. That is
in the charter. What I am saying in this bill is you cannot be
recognized as an official party during the campaign.
6249
I never said the nation's capital must be in Ontario. I said this
nation has one capital. That capital happens to be Ottawa.
Ottawa happens to be in Ontario. So I invite the federal parties to
join us and other parties by bringing their headquarters to
Ottawa.
Recently there was a property for sale. The NDP was selling
its national headquarters. I hope one of the parties will take
advantage of that and purchase the property so it could be here.
I have one more point. If anybody is worried about our
representation to this House, we won election in October 1993
by 41 or 42 per cent. Today we are 60 per cent. Obviously we are
doing something right. People in the west, people in the east and
in central Canada approve of our position. We are very happy for
it. We thank them and will continue to provide the best
government we have ever had in the last 127 years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have closed debate on
this private members' bill. If there should be any doubt or
questions in your mind, we followed Standing Order 44(2) and
(3) giving the final word or the final reply to the mover of the
motion. Consequently the order is dropped from the Order
Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
_____________________________________________
6249
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1845)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, on
January 14, I denounced the fact that more than 300 employees
in my riding were locked out by a mining company which was
deliberately using overlapping federal and provincial
jurisdiction in Quebec on the issue of anti-scab legislation.
Quebec law forbids the use of strikebreakers, but federal law
does not cover this very important aspect of collective
bargaining and allows companies to hire strikebreakers to do the
work done by those with whom the companies do not want to
negotiate.
I have already referred to my statement on January 14.
However, on April 21, I asked the Prime Minister in this House
whether he agreed that the lack of federal anti-scab legislation
was the reason negotiations with the companies were
deteriorating, in particular with QNS & L at the time, which was
negotiating with the union in my riding. On April 21, I did not
get an answer.
However, on May 5, concerning the same question, the
parliamentary secretary responsible for the issue was kind
enough to answer me, but in his answer he said that more than 90
per cent of collective bargaining negotiations are settled without
a work stoppage, so a law was not really necessary.
An anti-scab law is not made for the 90 per cent of cases
where things go well but for the 10 per cent where things break
down and the danger in the negotiations rises enormously.
On April 29, the President of the Public Service Alliance, Mr.
Bean, wrote to me that he agreed. According to Mr. Bean, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada recognizes the importance of
this kind of legislation, and as it found in Quebec, which has
some people experienced in this area, it feels this bill will have a
beneficial impact on labour management relations in the federal
public service. That is quite a testimonial.
On June 17 at a regional meeting of the Steelworkers Union in
Sept-Îles, delegates demanded anti-strikebreaking provisions
that would apply to federal jobs. Regional co-ordinator
Jean-Claude Degrasse said that the harsh conflict to which his
members were exposed following the lock-out at QNS&L-I
referred to this in my first example, January 14 in
Sept-Îles-demonstrates the urgent need for
anti-strikebreaking legislation. The company's use of
strikebreakers disturbed the industrial peace that had lasted for
16 years, since 1978. The union's demand is supported by the
entire population of Sept-Îles.
Quebecers working under federal jurisdiction and all
Canadian workers are affected by this serious gap in the labour
code. The government has a national responsibility to provide
for healthy labour relations. It is in the regulations.
On June 21, I presented a petition signed by many people who
asked for the introduction of anti-strikebreaking legislation at
the federal level, in order to do something about labour relations
in the case of the 10 per cent where things do not always work
out.
Today, I repeat my question because I feel I was not given a
satisfactory answer. I hope to get one, however, and my question
is this: Does the minister intend to introduce in this House
amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service
Staff Relations Act that will bring employees under the
jurisdiction of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and
introduce anti-strikebreaking provisions at all federal levels, in
order to improve labour relations which are so important to the
well-being of this country.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the question of restricting the use of replacement workers during
legal work stoppages raises a number of complex issues, includ-
6250
ing the need to ensure that necessary services are provided to
the Canadian public.
Protecting the public interest is of particular relevance in the
federal jurisdiction, as the Canada Labour Code governs many
industries which are essentially public interest in nature.
Although the code does not prohibit the use of replacement
workers, it does provide protection for workers engaged in legal
work stoppages. The code prohibits an employer from
disciplining an employee for engaging in a legal work stoppage.
As well, an employer cannot discipline an employee for refusing
to perform the duties of another employee who is involved in a
legal work stoppage.
Once a work stoppage is terminated, employees are entitled to
return to their employment in preference to any persons hired to
replace them.
The existing system generally works as intended. Most
collective bargaining negotiations are settled by the parties in
direct negotiations. Of those that do require conciliation officer
assistance, more than 90 per cent are settled without a work
stoppage.
This said, the minister is currently reviewing all aspects of the
Canada Labour Code, including the issue of replacement
workers, with a view of modernizing and improving it so it can
better reflect today's realities. There are also ongoing
consultations with employee and employer groups to seek their
views.
With reference to the dispute between ADM Agri Industry
Limited, formerly Ogilvy Flour Mills Limited and the Syndicat
national des employés des minoteries Ogilvie Ltée, the minister
recently gave his consent for the union to file a complaint with
the Canada Labour Relations Board alleging that the company
has failed to bargain in good faith.
The minister also met last week with union representatives
from the company and will continue to closely monitor the
dispute so it can be resolved as quickly as possible.
The union and the company recently agreed to meet with the
assistance of the mediator on October 12 and 13, 1994. The
minister is encouraging both parties to take advantage of that
opportunity to settle their differences.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)