TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, October 17, 1994
Bill C-220. Motion for second reading 6749
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.31 a.m.) 6753
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 6753
Bill C-49. Report stage 6753
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 6753
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6755
Division on motion deferred 6758
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Kerpan) 6758
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6759
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading, amendment and amendment to
amendment 6761
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6763
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6766
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6767
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6772
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6773
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6773
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6773
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6773
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6774
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6774
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6775
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6775
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6775
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6776
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6776
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6776
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6776
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6777
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6777
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6777
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6778
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6778
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6778
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6779
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6779
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6780
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6781
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6783
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6783
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6783
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6783
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading, amendment and amendment to
the amendment 6784
Division on amendment deferred 6796
Bill C-48. Motion for second reading 6796
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6804
Division on amendment deferred 6805
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 6805
Division on motion deferred 6812
6749
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 17, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.) moved that Bill C-220, an
act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great hope that I rise today to
lead off Private Members' Business on Bill C-220, an act to
amend the Hazardous Products Act.
I first introduced this bill in June 1993 and reintroduced it on
March 7, 1994. The bill is in direct response to a tragic accident
in my riding which claimed the life of the 6-year old son of
constituents of mine, Robert and Maria Weese of Wallaceburg. I
am pleased to say that they will be in the gallery this morning
with their children, son Craig, daughters Paula and Kelly.
On June 15, 1992 their son Mark was killed by a poorly
designed, poorly maintained portable soccer net. The bill's sole
intention is to prevent further tragedies, because the incident in
my riding was only one of many. Bill C-220 would oblige users
of soccer goals, handball goals and field hockey goals to fix
them to the ground so that they do not easily tip over, causing
injury or death.
I acknowledge that the bill as specifically written needs
additional measures to make it more effective. Today in private
members' hour I believe that by raising awareness of this issue
and this concern, the rationale and intent of the bill will be
established and proven.
I have met with staff and officials from the office of the hon.
Minister of Health and I want to thank the minister for her
guidance and assistance in this matter. We will all work together
to increase the safety of our children. I look forward to pursuing
this issue with the minister in the months ahead.
As well, I want to take this opportunity to commend Robert
and Maria Weese for their important and heartfelt efforts. They
have sent over a thousand letters to soccer associations all
across Canada and internationally outlining the dangers of
portable nets. The Weeses have compiled some disturbing
examples about accidents involving portable equipment.
Since 1979 there have been 15 deaths and five serious injuries
in the U.S., but unfortunately there are no Canadian figures, as
no one group compiles them, not school boards, not recreation
associations.
(1105 )
We have a hodge-podge, a patchwork of information across
Canada. One of our main goals must be to increase the amount of
information available to users of portable nets.
Bill C-220 is based on recommendations of the coroner's jury
inquest in October 1992 after a 14-year old boy was killed by a
portable net. This needless death occurred fully four months
before Mark Weese's. Why were the recommendations of the
inquest not followed?
I was just informed that there was another regrettable death in
New Brunswick last month and on October 3 a 12-year old boy
died in Detroit, Michigan as a result of a portable soccer goal
falling on his chest. Three years ago there was an incident in
Newfoundland.
I would like to read into the record the eight recommendations
of the Wallaceburg inquest. Before I do I want to suggest that
these statements are totally logical and apply common sense.
They should have already been in practice before tragedy called
attention to this issue.
One, portable goals for indoor use should be made of
lightweight materials and either counterweighted with sandbags
or anchored with a flexible anchoring system which allows the
goal to move in a lateral direction but not tip over.
Two, portable goals for outdoor use should have an anchoring
device to allow for stability during the game and which will
allow the goal to be stored.
Three, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
should amend the Hazardous Products Act to include the
equipment and to acquire a standards program from the
Canadian Standards Association in order to ensure that
manufacturers' products meet minimum safety standards.
Four, suppliers should ensure that all of this equipment meets
CSA standards before shipping to purchaser.
6750
Five, consumer and corporate affairs should be notified by
coroners' offices, hospitals and police departments immediately
of death or catastrophic injuries resulting from accidents
involving sports equipment, and they in turn should use their
computer system which can have the capacity to highlight
incidents and advise the ministry of education, boards of
education, the ministry of tourism and recreation,
municipalities, associations, suppliers and distributors.
Six, permanent manufacturers' labels should be clearly
displayed indicating manufacturer, address and year of
manufacture.
Seven, any cautionary advice regarding equipment use and
handling should be clearly displayed separately and in a
contrasting colour. It should also appear prominently on all
product documentation.
Eight, qualified independent safety inspections should be
conducted on an annual basis and following repairs or
modifications inspection records should be kept on file by the
user.
Those are the eight recommendations from October 1992 and
yet they are still to be fully implemented. I want to draw
attention to this fact by bringing this bill to the House for
discussion.
Injury accidents are now the number one killer of children
nationwide. In the U.S. they take about 7,200 lives a year.
Another 50,000 children suffer permanent injury. The U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission warned in September
1992 that movable soccer goals can tip over and kill children
who climb on them or pull up on the cross bar. In some cases an
unanchored goal gets blown down by a gust of wind.
There was a meeting last week of the safety commission in
Washington, D.C. It was attended by Canadian representatives
who are working with our American colleagues to increase the
level of information available and create policies to revamp
needless tragedies in the future.
(1110)
Currently the U.S. safety commission has published a
handbook for public playground safety. In chapter 5, subsection
1.1 it notes that secure anchoring is the key factor to stable
installation. When properly installed, equipment should
withstand the maximum anticipated forces generated by active
youth which might cause it to overturn, tip, slide or move in any
way.
The Canadian Standards Association has issued guidelines for
preventing playground accidents to ensure that equipment is
safe. The CSA emphasizes that the base of equipment should be
anchored firmly below the ground.
It suggests that parents ask their local municipality or school
board how often it inspects equipment. The CSA recommends a
daily visual inspection, a more detailed monthly inspection and
a comprehensive inspection handling.
Distribution of safety information is the key to all of this but it
must get to everyone. There was a fatal net accident in Toronto
in 1992. A month later, the net manufacturer, Sports Equipment
of Toronto Limited, a national supplier of institutional sporting
goods and gymnasium equipment, issued a notice stating that
soccers goals, handball goals and field hockey goals be
anchored securely to the floor or playing field when in use and
stored in such a manner that they will not fall over when not in
use.
I commend the company for the urgent notice but it was only
sent to school boards in Ontario. It did not extend its warning to
municipalities, parks or recreation departments.
In the U.S. officials are coming up with a variety of methods
to increase the safety of nets.
According to an article in the Detroit News of April 18, 1993
the Fairfax county, Virginia public school system has become a
national leader in implementing the two safeguards that experts
consider essential: anchors and warning labels.
Every portable soccer goal in the district has warning labels,
black, red and bright yellow. The labels warn that climbing on
goals or failing to anchor goals can cause serious injury or death.
The Virginia School Board even purchased a corkscrew type
anchor about 12 inches long. It is easy to put in and hard to take
out.
The institute for the study of youth at the University of
Michigan says that no games should be played on fields where
goals have not been anchored. The institute wants a local bylaw
passed to make the home team coach responsible for anchoring
both soccer goals before the start of the scheduled match. If this
is not complied with, the match is forfeited.
It is worthwhile to point out that some manufacturers are
forming a coalition for safe soccer goals and have begun making
models that collapse when not in use. I hope that in Canada we
are going in the same direction.
Again, I commend the Weeses for their commitment and
dedication and their dogged pursuit of safety during what must
be trying times. They have formed a volunteer group in
Wallaceburg called PARCS, Parents Assuming Responsibility
for Children's Safety. As well, the town of Wallaceburg has
undertaken a comprehensive review of park equipment. I
applaud it for that but it is not universal. On a recent trip around
southern Ontario the Weeses found potentially dangerous and
unsafe equipment in Woodstock, St. Thomas and Goderich.
They have written letters to the communities and want the
posts fixed. This grassroots, local, neighbour to neighbour effort
is to be encouraged, praised and honoured. We need the power of
government to lend a helping hand. We must manufacture safer
nets and then inform all users of the standards for safety. We
6751
cannot leave it up to the goodwill and good thoughts but to
concrete action on the part of regulatory bodies and standards
associations.
(1115)
I welcome the comments of my colleagues on this bill, but
more important is the issue symbolized by Bill C-220. If we can
prevent one death or tragedy through our discussion this
morning then it is all to the good.
Second, it is the purpose of Private Members' Business to
allow any member from any party to raise awareness on an issue.
It is important to our ridings and to the country at large. In the
short time we have this morning I believe we will succeed on
both counts.
I am honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents regarding
Bill C-220 because it is due to their initiative that this member
of Parliament gets the privilege to discuss the bill in the first
place.
On a personal note, two years ago I bought a gym set for our
grandchildren. The little people are one step ahead of us all the
time. It was two swings, a sway bar and a slide. The youngest is
three and the other two are four. They found by swinging in
unison, they could bring the tripods that held this playstand off
the ground. I was in a state of shock.
We have to watch the little people. I think they are more
intelligent than we are. They were able to bring the stand two
feet off the ground on either side as they were swinging. I made
them stop. I was able to get bars that would latch on to the
stands, which were 24 inches in depth. I drove them into the
ground to support the stand.
The company that built these stands should have included
stakes to make them more safe. If 10 or 12-year old children had
been on that swing they would have flipped it over quite easily.
These little ones at the ages of three and four were certainly
working their way up to flipping it over when I made them stop.
We are not aware of the dangers unless we are there to see
what can happen even in our own yards. We should support this
bill. It lets people know exactly what is happening throughout
the country. Children at schools and playgrounds are being
killed when they can easily be saved for very few pennies.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the time to
speak on the bill this morning. I await hearing other speakers.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak, on behalf of the Official
Opposition, to Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Hazardous
Products Act.
It is always useful to read the explanatory note: ``The purpose
of this bill is to make the Hazardous Products Act applicable to
soccer goals, handball goals and field hockey goals as
`restricted products`''.
At this stage I would like to commend the hon. member for
Kent on his perseverance, since the hon. member introduced this
bill during the previous Parliament and had to go through the
whole process again when the new Parliament convened. I also
want to commend him on his sensitivity, in the light of the tragic
experience in his riding of Robert and Maria Weese, who lost
their son Mark at the age of six.
(1120)
Personally, I am very sensitive to such matters because I have
a son the same age, and I can imagine the intense grief suffered
by these parents after such a tragic event.
The bill would make it compulsory to equip soccer, handball
and field hockey goals with an anchoring device that would
prevent the goals from tipping over and falling on children
playing nearby. I should explain that in most cases, these
accidents did not happen during games but when children were
playing with the goals on playgrounds and the goals tipped over,
or when the goals were tipped over by a gust of wind and fell on a
child, causing either serious injury or death.
Finally, it is also the intent of this bill, in accordance with the
coroner's recommendation we will look at later on, that nets and
goals shall be portable and can be put away after games in order
to prevent this kind of accident.
The Mark Weese case is not unique. In fact, it is unfortunate
there are so few statistics in Canada on the subject, and it seems
neither hospitals nor schools have any obligation to provide
information on such cases to any authorities whatsoever.
Fortunately, this is not the case in the United States, where the
U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission monitors this kind
of thing. From 1979 to 1992, according to the Commission,
many accidents occurred, five causing major injuries, in other
words, very serious-you can imagine what that means-and
fifteen causing the deaths of individuals, I cannot really say
children, ranging in age from three to twenty-two. So that is an
indication of the importance of this proposal.
The bill was directly inspired by the coroner's report that was
released at the time and to which the hon. member for Kent
referred earlier. What struck me particularly was
recommendation No. 2, which reads as follows in English:
[English]
Portable goals for outdoor use should have an anchoring
device to allow for stability during the game and which allows
the goal to be stored away.
6752
[Translation]
We therefore support this amendment to the Hazardous
Products Act. If the amendment saves only one life, it will have
served its purpose.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to be able to support my colleague.
Together with my colleague from the Bloc, I commend him for
his tenacity in bringing to our attention again something that is
very important.
The Weese family took seriously an accident that happened to
them and the suffering they went through. They made us all
aware of a problem to which I personally was not paying very
much attention. When I read the details of the story I was
unaware that these goal posts were causing this much trouble,
that people actually were being killed. I have now become aware
of the problem. That is the negative part.
Here is a family who suffered. A child died and some of us
were still unaware of the cause. They took it upon themselves to
write thousands of letters to people to make them aware, to make
school boards aware, to make parks and recreation departments
aware so that out of an accident something good came. I want to
thank this family for that.
I want to thank my colleague for drawing this tragedy into the
public arena and into the highest court of the land, the
Parliament of Canada.
(1125 )
It is easy for us to blame manufacturers for not putting the
right signs on equipment and not supplying enough information.
It is important that they be charged with that responsibility.
School boards and parks and recreation departments should be
made aware of this fault so they can anchor the goal posts and
make them more safe.
However, I want to emphasize another aspect of this as well. It
is the responsibility that we as parents and adults have in our
respective communities.
I was impressed to hear the member say that he and the Weese
family had travelled around southern Ontario only to discover
that there are still places where the safety features are not being
observed. They are exercising a responsibility that goes well
beyond that of parents by going into the community and
extending their care to other people's children. It is a highly
commendable action on their part.
In particular, I want to recognize the establishment of the the
PARCS, Parents Assuming Responsibility for Children's Safety.
It is through their efforts that the hon. member brings this bill to
the House to amend the Hazardous Products Act. Through their
efforts school boards are now aware of a problem that they were
not aware of before. Through their efforts I have become more
sensitive to this problem.
My two boys are now grown men. They do not have children
but when they do I want them to be able to feel comfortable that
their children are safe as far as playground equipment is
concerned.
Also I want us to recognize that regardless of whether the goal
posts are fixed or movable, or movable ones that are anchored,
there is still in the heat and activity of play the tendency to forget
that one could be hurt rather badly on these goal posts. We have a
responsibility to recognize that our children when they play can
be in some danger.
There is no better way to ensure that our children are safe than
for us as parents to accept responsibility for our children. In the
larger community we as adults should recognize that in a way we
are parents to all children and to accept the responsibility that
has been demonstrated by the Weeses to make others aware of
the danger. We need to alert the Minister of Industry to bring
forward legislation to amend the corporate act so that the
purpose of the bill can be realized.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. I am
going to support the effort, the spirit and the intent of the bill. I
hope that all of us will become more aware and accept
responsibility to make our playgrounds safer both on school
grounds as well as parks and other recreational facilities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are no further
speakers. I do not want to surprise the member for Kent. I want
all colleagues in the House to understand that under the right of
reply, if the member for Kent chooses to have a closing remark
on the business that no one else can speak. In fact, he will close
the debate at this time.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and
congratulate members opposite who have spoken in support of
the bill. It means a lot to me and it certainly means a lot to the
Weese family, who were sitting above us, that people are
becoming involved in the issue of the safety hazard of these goal
posts.
The hon. member stated he was not aware of it. I was not
aware of it either until this came about. I related the situation
with my grandchildren who were trying to upset the swings and
unfortunately they would have had I not brought an end to it and
stabilized the equipment.
I live on the border of Michigan. In the United States soccer is
becoming a great sport today. Because of baseball strikes and
hockey strikes and one thing and another soccer has taken over.
We have a gentleman in Wallaceburg who started soccer many
years ago. This gentleman was to be in the Olympics for Italy.
6753
Through his efforts Wallaceburg has some of the best soccer
teams not only in Kent but in Ontario and Canada.
In the United States it has become great. They are involved in
the safety of these nets. We are so close we can see what they are
doing across the border from us. We as Canadians should have
been leading the way but again we will be following our
American neighbours in more safety.
Once again I thank the hon. members who spoke in support of
this bill. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you
very much for all the work you have done in trying to make
everyone aware of the safety of field goal netting whether it is
soccer, field hockey, or any other sport. I certainly commend
you and wish you the very best.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated
as a votable item the time provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House
suspend until noon in order to resume government business at
that time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall I suspend the sitting
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will suspend
until twelve o'clock noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.31 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
_____________________________________________
6753
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act
to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or
repeal certain other acts, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order, of which I believe you are aware, to draw to your
attention a matter which has prevented an amendment to Bill
C-49 from appearing on today's Order Paper as it should have.
According to the rules of the House it was required that if an
amendment to Bill C-49 was to have appeared on today's Order
Paper, thus giving all members the appropriate advance
knowledge of the amendment, the amendment was to have been
delivered to the Journals branch no later than 2 p.m. on October
7, the last sitting day of the House.
On Thursday, October 13, my office was notified that the
amendment I had submitted on time would not be appearing on
the Order Paper for today due to the fact that it was not received
by the Journals branch until Tuesday, October 11.
Realizing an error had been made, my office contacted the
messenger service to seek verification of the time the
amendment was picked up and delivered to the Journals branch.
According to the messenger service-and I can table that as
evidence if you require it, Mr. Speaker-our amendment was
picked up by messenger at 10.26 a.m. on Friday, October 7, and
was in fact delivered at 10.55 a.m.
I believe I complied as best I could with the conditions set out
in the rules to ensure an amendment is provided to the Journals
branch within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I would respectfully request that given the unusual
situation I have found myself in, you would consider accepting
the amendment put forward as having met the requirements of
the rules and that the House proceed with debating the
amendment to Bill C-49 as if it had in fact appeared on today's
Order Paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Malpeque for his representation.
The hon. member raises a point of order in which he argues
that he should not be penalized for an envelope leaving his office
and not being received at the appropriate time at the other end, at
the Journals branch.
The Speaker has verified that the information just given by
the member for Malpeque is accurate. However it still places the
Chair in a very delicate and unusual situation. Having verified
those facts, as related once again by the member for Malpeque, I
will allow the member for Malpeque to move his motion.
I would also take the opportunity to prevail on all hon.
members to pay particular attention to the notice requirement
for items to be placed on the notice paper. It is the responsibility
of each individual member to ensure that items are not only sent
but are actually received by the Journals branch by the deadline.
(1205)
When members find themselves in the precarious situation of
submitting items very close to the deadline, they may wish
either to forewarn the Journals branch or table the items with
table officers in the House.
Once again I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his
presentation.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent in the House, at report stage of this bill, for me to
6754
propose an amendment to clause 7 of Bill C-49, an act to amend
the Department of Agriculture Act.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some
discussions between the parties. In light of the fact that there
was some problem with respect to notice and this bill, we are
prepared to give consent to the hon. member to move an
amendment at report stage. I understand there will be two
amendments before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I say to the member for
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that unanimous consent has been
given by the House. While we verify that the amendment is in
order, I will begin with the amendment from the member for
Malpeque and get back to his shortly thereafter.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-49, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 2, with
the following:
``before it are replaced by the following:
ANNUAL REPORT WITH ESTIMATES
6. The minister shall cause to be prepared a report showing the operation of
the department for every fiscal year and shall include it with the Estimates for
the Department for the second fiscal year following the fiscal year covered by
the report, when the Estimates are laid before Parliament''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could we get a
written copy of the amendment put forward by the hon. member
for Malpeque?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, I understand. This
document will be distributed as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I have moved this amendment to
Bill C-49 because I believe there is a need for direct
accountability by the line department to the House of Commons
and MPs by legislation. I do not believe that guidelines
established under another act, in this case the Financial
Administration Act, are enough. There must be direct
responsibility from the line department itself.
There is involved here the principle of accountability and the
principle that departments know they are directly, via
legislation, responsible and accountable to MPs in the Chamber,
not only in some roundabout way through the minister of a
department, then to the minister of another department which
may be Treasury Board, and then to the House. That is not a
direct line of accountability.
(1210)
When questioned by myself before the standing committee on
agriculture Mr. Loken, special adviser to the assistant deputy
minister, policy branch, had the following to say:
The estimates are governed by specific Treasury Board guidelines, not
legislation, that each department has to adhere to in deciding exactly what goes
into the main estimates.
As I have indicated, I believe guidelines are not enough
because guidelines can be changed easily. There has to be direct
responsibility from the line department.
Another problem with the procedure is that without
presenting an annual report the focus is on the estimates.
Estimates are an intent to spend. I have seen it happen this year
before the standing committee in terms of the estimates, part III.
The report of the past spending of the department is there, but as
members we tend to focus on where the future expenditures are
to be. As a result there has not been enough discussion on the
actual expenditures as compared to previous estimates.
As a former farm leader I have extensively used annual
reports of departments and of agencies of departments. It is a
good way for people in the community to find out what is going
on, to see the structure of the department and basically to
understand how things work. They were accessible.
People in the community relate to annual reports more so than
estimates. As a result of that experience they ask for and receive
annual reports and therefore can get into discussions on
recommended changes in terms of policy surrounding the
department based on the annual report.
There were one or two arguments put to the committee when it
was dealing with the issue. The recommendation by the
department to remove annual reports was based on the premise
that they cost money and were irrelevant. If annual reports are
irrelevant it is because we in the Chamber do not make them
relevant. I believe we should make them so.
The other point put forward was that the information was
already contained in the estimates, part III. I agree with that
point to an extent. The department has argued that if they are in
part III the department will be saved money by not requiring
annual reports.
My amendment will not cost the department or the treasury of
Canada any more money. My amendment ensures by legislation
that the department through the minister is directly responsible
to the House. The estimates now established in guidelines will
be tabled before members of the House so that we can assume
our responsibilities as good members of Parliament and ensure
the departments we are in charge of administering in a
roundabout way are accountable and responsible directly
through us to the people of the country.
6755
The purpose of my amendment to this clause is to ensure the
line department is directly responsible to members of the House
as a result. It should not cost any more money. It can be
accomplished through the estimates in that way but it includes in
this way the principle of direct accountability to the House.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): I remember
clearly, Mr. Speaker, that, in committee, my colleague the hon.
member for Lotbinière, here, behind me, had indeed suggested
an amendment to Bill C-49 that went exactly along the lines of
the one put forth by my hon. colleague from Malpeque. I can tell
you that, if the government wants to show any degree of
transparency, it must table an annual report in due course instead
of hiding behind the pretext that it is going to increase costs by a
few dollars. Producers are entitled to know where the money
allocated to the Department of Agriculture is going.
As my colleague from Lotbinière indicated at the time, any
company, however small, has to file an annual report with its
shareholders. Non-profit organizations are bound by their
charters to convene all their members and submit an annual
report. In my municipality, not only does the Caisse populaire
table an annual report, but it also seeks the widest participation
possible from its members, organizing a great buffet and even
drawing a cash door prize that keeps growing and growing to
promote attendance.
I never understood why the Department of Agriculture keeps
refusing so obstinately to officially table its annual report. This
way, the entire Canadian agricultural community could see and
check where the focus of the department is, where exactly the
major part of its budget is going. Will one region be favoured at
the expense of another? Will Quebec get-because in Quebec,
agriculture is very diversified-its fair share in each of the areas
that have been mentioned?
Will farming activities be fairly and equitably represented
within the budget? Will most of the department's research and
development funds be spent exclusively on studies on wheat,
barley or corn with hardly any going to the dairy industry or
maple syrup?
For all these reasons, I think that the department should listen,
that the government should listen carefully to my hon. colleague
from Malpeque and adopt this amendment to Bill C-49. I am
convinced that studying this annual report will enable farm
organization officials to identify future trends and could prove a
most interesting forecasting tool for their members.
Therefore, my hon. colleague, who chairs the agriculture joint
committee with me, can count on the support of the Bloc
Quebecois on his amendment.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to give my full support to the amendment
put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque. When I first saw
Bill C-49, that clause was certainly one of my big concerns.
Since we Reformers have come to Ottawa, we have talked a
lot about accountability. Any move away from accountability
would in my opinion be a mistake.
If you look at the costs of annual reports, certainly there is
some increased cost. However any time you have the
opportunity to hold any department, minister or any government
for that matter accountable, as members of the House we should
take that opportunity. We have discussed this among ourselves
at the committee level. It is an amendment that we are pleased to
support at this time.
(1220)
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments on the amendment of the member for
Malpeque.
First, to be very clear, I do not feel that the amendment is
necessary. We certainly accept and understand the concerns of
the member. I understand the concerns of members opposite.
There is no question that in part III of the main estimates all of
this is done.
The Financial Administration Act requires that Parliament
authorize all payments out of the consolidated revenue fund. If
Parliament is not satisfied with the information that is provided
to support the spending estimates of departments, it can refuse
to appropriate funds on request. This gives Parliament effective
control over public spending and information used to justify that
spending.
As we know the standing committee has a major impact on the
information provided in part III of the main estimates which for
all departments has replaced annual reports.
We must remember that the soonest annual reports come out
after the completion of a fiscal year is eight to ten months. The
legislation requires them and it is eight to ten months after the
fact. By that time the estimates are also in progress. The
estimates include everything that has always been in an annual
report. I think the challenge for the committees, whether it be
agriculture or other standing committees, is to do a better job
and better understand the main estimates when they are
discussed. After reading part III of the main estimates, we have
a chance to talk about what has happened, what the estimates are
for this year and what is the direction for years to come.
The member for Frontenac said that organizations in the
province of Quebec have an annual report. I do not question that
they have an annual report. However, I question whether they
6756
have main estimates and the progression of a document like that
available to us here.
The question is whether it is necessary to retain a reference to
the reporting requirement and when it would not be feasible. It
would not be feasible to legislate under an annual report. If what
is in an annual report is legislated, every time somebody wanted
to change the types of things that were in an annual report there
would have to be changes in legislation. That is certainly not
feasible and not in the interests of time when we already have all
of this available.
I think we have an opportunity here to do an even better job
than has been done in the past. We can do it and save money and
avoid duplication.
I recommend that we leave the bill as it is and suggest that the
amendment of my hon. colleague is not necessary.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a few comments on the difference of opinion
between the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for
Malpeque. In this case I clearly support the hon. member for
Malpeque. He is looking for more accountability from the
government. I do not believe that anybody in the House should
be opposed to that.
In terms of what the parliamentary secretary said with regard
to part III of the estimates providing all the information that is
necessary to make the government accountable, I disagree fully
with that. I challenge any member on the other side of the House
to sit with me and answer my questions about part III of the
estimates, especially when it comes to connecting part III of the
estimates with part II. There is a big gap there. You cannot make
the connection with the information that is given.
(1225 )
I challenge any of those members to answer the questions I
put to them with regard to connecting part II and part III of the
estimates. I believe that the parliamentary secretary and the
party opposite should allow this amendment to go ahead. It will
improve accountability. The argument of the parliamentary
secretary that these reports are not available for eight to ten
months, or have not been in the past, does not carry any weight
with me.
If they have not been done quickly enough in the past let us
change the rules. Let us make the report available at the same
time as the estimates, very quickly. I would hope the report
would be much more complete than reports have been in the
past. I would hope it would include enough information to make
that connection between part II and part III of the estimates so
that we in the House and people across the country can truly
understand how the department is spending the money. Now it is
certainly unclear no matter how much study you do in this area.
I strongly support the hon. member for Malpeque in his
amendment. I hope the government will not refuse the
accountability we need in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to give my opinion on the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, in view of the amendment proposed by the hon.
member for Malpeque.
Just a moment ago, it was pointed out that organizations, too,
prepare estimates, and that they also must give an annual
accounting. I would point out that the vast machinery of
government includes committees, such as the Standing
Committee on Agriculture, and that it is very important that this
committee submit a report to members of Parliament once a year
so that farm producers can see where the money has been spent.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary is afraid of
transparency. I say give us all the facts so that we may examine
them and understand them. I agree that an annual report should
be tabled here in Parliament, because this is where decisions
originate, and as Members of Parliament we have the right to an
annual report.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is fair that the hon. member for Malpeque is
putting this amendment before the House. He has sought to draw
attention to a very significant problem that he perceives in the
legislation.
I want to say at the outset that the notion of accountability to
Parliament is one that is central to everyone's thinking in this
House and rightly so. It is a very important concept and a very
important principle that ought to be upheld on all occasions.
I want to draw on the following experience if the member
opposite will not take it in an insulting way. I do not intend it
that way. Since my election in 1988 there has been a change in
the reporting requirements for various departments to
Parliament.
These changes were implemented by the last government. As
the hon. member knows, I opposed most of its policies. In the
case of the changes with respect to the annual reports I was
supportive. The reason was because in my view they were a
waste of the taxpayers' dollars.
Parliament was receiving in part III of the estimates not just
spending plans but detailed reports on the way the department
was spending the money that it had to account for during the past
year.
I cannot speak for the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food because I do not pretend to have read part III of the
estimates for the department of agriculture. Most of the depart-
6757
ments deliberately beefed up or improved their part IIIs. The
hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food tells me that agriculture led the way. Great. I am
unfamiliar with those particular estimates. Most of them and
the ones that I dealt with beefed up their part IIIs to make them
better so there was full accounting given in part III of the
estimates. Therefore the necessity for an annual report simply
disappeared.
Annual reports, interesting as they may be and impressive as
they may look with lots of glossy pictures of the minister
handing out money or congratulating some group, as many of
them used to do, had their place but frankly they were expensive.
It cost a great deal to produce and to print them. The previous
government eliminated them by order in council for those
departments that did not have a statutory requirement to produce
an annual report to Parliament.
(1230 )
In the case of the agriculture department, the requirement was
in the statute. We are seeking in the amendments today, not the
amendment moved by the hon. member but in the amendments
to the act, to delete the requirement that the department provide
an annual report to Parliament. Most other departments have
eliminated that requirement. All we are doing is bringing
agriculture in line with the other departments by this bill.
Given that, it is reasonable to propose to Parliament that we
are providing the information in part III so why reprint it in a
different format and pay people to redraft it and reprint at public
expense for no good reason. The information is in part III.
Parliament gets the information when the estimates are tabled
annually and we have to approve those estimates in committee
and in the House.
Therefore members get an opportunity to review the draft.
They can see the part IIIs. There is a draft supply bill where they
can move amendments and so on. I know hon. members may
argue that perhaps our control over supply is not what it could
be, but that is a separate argument for another day. The fact is the
material is being provided to Parliament in the part IIIs. If there
are specific inadequacies in those part IIIs the information can
be elicited in committee. The agriculture committee has the
power to call witnesses before it from the department at will,
including the minister, and demand additional information.
The intent of the amendment to uphold the integrity of the
House and its primacy in terms of reporting requirements for
departments is a good one. Frankly however I think it is
unnecessary for the reasons given by the parliamentary
secretary in his very able argument and because of what I
believe to have been the experience members who have been
here a little longer have had. That is we have not lost the
accountability process or diminished it in any way by relying on
part IIIs instead of on annual reports.
I invite members to consider that as we come to a vote on this
matter. I would ask when the question is put that it be negatived
on division. I believe you will find there is agreement that that
be so.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I, too, would like to support the hon. member's motion calling
for the annual report on agriculture to be submitted to
Parliament. I think that this practice is totally appropriate and
should be maintained.
Of course, part III of the Estimates on agriculture may contain
data which is repeated in the annual report, but the information
in the annual report is more detailed and more accessible to the
people concerned by agricultural issues. It is an additional tool
available to those who wish to know more about economic
agricultural issues.
So I think it is quite appropriate to continue publishing the
annual report, especially for this department with rather
significant expenditures. This desire to stop issuing the annual
report on agriculture reminds me of how reluctant this Liberal
government is to show openness. An example of this can be
found in the Department of Public Works where it is very
difficult to access information. Of course, the minister will tell
us that the information exists, that it is published somewhere,
but it is very difficult to access it.
I also fear that this desire to stop publishing the Department of
Agriculture's annual report is somewhat consistent with this
government's lack of openness. I think that all the actions taken
by the government to make information more accessible to the
general public and the stakeholders must not be seen as a waste
of money.
In conclusion, I think that the government should continue
publishing its annual report on the Department of Agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with some
interest, particularly the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader's rather lengthy argument against the
need for more accountability in this House.
(1235 )
He mentioned there were a number of new members in the
House and perhaps their lack of experience was the reason they
might support more accountability. I assure you that for those of
us who are new to the House, we have found the review of the
estimates to be a very frustrating process. Of course, very little
6758
occurs out of the review of the estimates. Anyway, if changes do
occur in committee it is all reverted when it comes back to the
House and the government has its way.
Another concern is that while the estimates are being
reviewed by committee that issue is not open for debate in the
Chamber itself. However, a report could actually be tabled much
earlier and could give us more time to prepare for the estimates.
If a report is tabled it certainly is open for debate and may hold
the government more accountable for the actions of that
department.
I hope that in light of the communication members of the
Liberal Party sent to Canadians through their red book that they
wanted to open this place up, make it more accountable and
rebuild the trust with Canadians that they will support any
measure which will make us the elected representatives of the
people more accountable to them. I support the amendment
moved by the hon. member for Malpeque.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to speak in support of this amendment.
The amendment by the hon. member for Malpeque speaks to
something Canadians find increasingly frustrating in dealing
with governments. It is this idea of a lack of accountability or
the lack of the proper procedure. All members have a huge
volume of estimate literature in their offices which, except
perhaps for the people who wrote the documents, is hard to
understand.
The motion is straightforward. It is a very sound idea which
has a good deal of common sense. It just asks that a report be
filed from the department to address the very concerns people
have about the estimates and the fact that they are so difficult to
understand.
At the Reform Party convention this past weekend we passed
a motion that we would like the government also to follow up on
this whole idea of a standardized accounting practice as
recommended by the Auditor General. That would make this
whole effort more understandable in its entirety. As a first step,
this amendment is plausible, very realistic. It should receive
support from all sides of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I
would like a recorded vote on this motion to amend Bill C-49.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred.
(1240 )
We will now proceed to the amendment by the member for
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The amendment has been ruled in
order. I would ask the member to read his amendment.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to place an amendment before the House
regarding Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of
Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts. I
move:
Motion No. 2
That clause 6 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 2 and substituting
the following:
``any inspection powers, duties or functions''.
This amendment is necessary for a very simple but important
reason. The bill must clearly indicate in layman's terms what the
inspection powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
really are. Clause 6 now reads:
The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of
providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the
enforcement of any act in respect of which the minister has any powers, duties
or functions.
The problem I have with this particular wording is that there is
a potential conflict between the intent and the interpretation of
the clause. As it stands it could be interpreted to give the
minister the power to appoint inspectors for the enforcement of
any act for which he is responsible. The wording is not precise or
exacting enough to limit the appointment of inspectors by the
minister to those acts which already have inspection clauses in
them. I know this is the intent of the clause and this has been
explained to us by the minister's officials.
However, the open ended and loose wording gives rise to
another possible interpretation which follows. I believe there
are some 35 acts under the minister's jurisdiction right now.
Some have asked me if this clause gives the power to the
minister to appoint inspectors at his whim and fancy for all of
those acts. If so it is hard to visualize any support for this clause.
We do not need or want the minister to have such powers. We
already have officials in our society who are responsible to
6759
enforce regulations, laws, standards and to provide inspection
services.
Therefore the intent and the interpretation of the clause could
and should be harmonized, in my view, for the satisfaction of
both legal minds and lay people. I suggest that my amendment
would accomplish this.
All I am asking is that we put the word inspection into the
clause one more time. My amendment to clause 6 has been
carefully stated in the House. This amended wording makes
sense because it clarifies what the intent of the clause is and
eliminates any possibility, in my mind at least, of potential
expansion of the minister's powers to appoint inspectors to any
act under his jurisdiction. Such appointments would be
needless, redundant and dangerous.
I therefore ask the House for its support of this amendment.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments on the hon. member's amendment to
clause 6 of Bill C-49.
The minister already has the power to designate inspectors
under other legislation the minister administers. This change,
taken in conjunction with clause 18 in Bill C-49, merely allows
the minister to designate inspectors under the Food and Drugs
Act. The Minister of Health can also appoint inspectors as well
as the Minister of Industry with whom the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food shares the responsibility for the
administration of the Food and Drugs Act.
The authority to inspect comes from individual acts, not from
the minister. That is what we need to point out here. The
amendment gets very restrictive and does not state what it is
possible to do under the act. The minister can appoint an
inspector. The minister cannot be as specific and restrictive as
this amendment states. The authority to inspect comes in the
individual acts that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
administers, such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Canadian Agriculture Products Act. The
inspection powers that are given to the minister must be done in
general terms in order to ensure that it applies to the inspection
provisions of such acts as the Food and Drugs Act.
(1245)
I must remind the members that if it is made this restrictive it
can be costly, it can be absolutely too restrictive. An inspector's
duties are outlined in other acts and we must remember that
inspectors have many more duties than inspect because they
might have to make recommendations and determinations on
what further action goes on from there.
We must be very careful that we do not tie the activities of
inspectors or the activities of the minister. The bill allows the
minister appointments through other acts which give the
inspectors their jurisdictions and their activities from there.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
clause 6 of Bill C-49 has only six lines. If you allow me, I shall
read them:
6. The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of
providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the
enforcement of any act in respect of which the minister has any powers, duties or
functions.
What my Reform Party colleague is asking the Joint
Committee on Agriculture and, in fact, what he is suggesting is
pretty much the same, except that instead of any powers, duties
or functions, it specifies inspection powers, duties or functions.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose that because it specifies the
role of inspectors and their powers and duties, as well as the
amount of leeway they will have in the performance of their
duties. In closing, the only thing I would wish is to avoid
duplication, like sending two inspectors to check more or less
the same thing, as we can see now in the Department of
Agriculture or other similar departments.
So I can assure my colleague in the Reform Party that for the
good of agriculture, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform
Party's amendment.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the amendment
to the bill by my hon. colleague, the member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre. It only makes common sense that we clarify
what is the role of the inspectors in relation to their being
appointed and given a task by the minister of agriculture. That
only makes sense.
My argument was reinforced by the hon. parliamentary
secretary for the minister of agriculture who indicated that in
other pieces of legislation, other acts, these powers are already
specified.
Why should they not be specified in this act as well? It only
makes sense. It is logical. It harmonizes with existing
legislation that is already in place. The disconcerting part of it is
that if we pass such a broadly worded clause in this act it may
apply to future acts in which the minister has no business
appointing any inspectors to deal and meddle around in the
affairs of producers.
I am really concerned about the open endedness of this act. I
am also concerned that the department of agriculture is already
rather large, perhaps one bureaucrat to every three to five
producers who are out there working. It looks to me like perhaps
this is a make work project for more inspectors where they are
perhaps not needed, crossing from one act to another.
6760
It only makes sense. I would appeal to the government to
respect the wisdom that comes from this side of the House and
let us not make a fuss, let us simply adopt a good common sense
amendment to the bill.
(1250 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a very brief comment in support of my colleague's
amendment to this piece of legislation and I would really like to
express a concern that I have with regard to the government's
resistance to accountability and its resistance to clarification in
this act.
I am really upset that it is not willing to accept better
accountability and in the case of this amendment clarification
which is clearly justified and which the parliamentary secretary
has said is there in other acts. I hope this amendment will be
accepted by those on both sides of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank you as well as the hon. member. I have to say that I
appreciate it when things are clear and precise, and I think that
the amendment tabled by the Reform Party will help us have a
better idea of what is involved and, consequently, help us review
and manage more efficiently. Therefore, I think this is a very
good amendment and I will support it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
again it is a pleasure to rise on debate and for a change it seems
we have a real debate in the House. We have reasoned proposals,
in this case from both sides of the House. We get to debate back
and forth with a give and take that I had hoped would be more
common in the House of Commons. It has been a good exercise
and I hope the government is listening attentively.
We should realize the intent of this amendment is to clarify
and to specify the powers that the minister would have. It is not
an effort to take away or make the minister ineffective. It is only
an effort to clarify the powers that he would have.
I would like to point out the necessity of this. We think back
even just a few weeks ago of a case where a producer had his
records seized. Someone came right into his home, seized his
records and used what in essence was another department or
another agency as an excuse to enter someone's home,
confiscate their records on the chance there might be something
in there and really indirectly get at a producer who is trying to
get some work done, get some sales done.
Whenever we have inspection services or other intrusive
government policies, some of which we all admit are necessary,
they need to be very specific because if they are not they can be
used in a roundabout way to affect producers in a negative
fashion.
I would hope that the government and the members on the
government side would realize that this amendment is not an
effort to take away all the powers of the minister. It is merely an
effort to specify those powers so that producers, people within
the department of agriculture covered by these 35 acts that were
spoken of earlier will all know what those powers are. I would
support this motion. I think it is an excellent one and I have
enjoyed the debate. I hope the government side has been
listening closely.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: On division.
(1255 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The Chair wants to
be perfectly clear that the motion is agreed to on division.
Mr. Boudria: Defeated on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Defeated on division. The
hon. government whip is very alert after this one week of recess.
(Motion No. 2 negatived.)
Is the House ready to proceed to the deferred division?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In an
effort of co-operation I wonder if the House would agree to
deem the first motion to have been negatived on division as well,
notwithstanding the request of earlier this day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will ask the opposite
side of the House to give its own indication as to whether it
accepts the proposal of the hon. government whip or wants the
deferred division to be taken at a later time.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think we can defer the division
until tomorrow. I propose that the division be deferred until
tomorrow; however, there is no going back to the decision made
a little earlier during the day.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote will be deferred
until tomorrow. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6761
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That is to the amendment
by the member for Malpeque. The motion will be deferred until
tomorrow.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if we are not proceeding to the
bells at this moment, I have to request a specific time for
tomorrow, which I will now do; the vote to be at the ordinary
time of adjournment of government orders tomorrow, in other
words approximately 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; of the amendment; and
of the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When Bill C-46 was last
before the House, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine had 10 minutes remaining
in the questions and comments period.
Should anyone wish to direct comments or ask questions to
the hon. parliamentary secretary, he is in the House. If not we
will resume debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
discuss the amendment to the amendment tabled by the hon.
member for Edmonton Northwest and say that I oppose it. This
new amendment nullifies the amendment proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois member for Trois-Rivières to oppose second reading
of this bill in order to emphasize the provinces' exclusive
jurisdiction regarding regional development.
As we have said many times, duplication and overlapping
within the federal administration as well as between the two
levels of government result in useless and costly spending for
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. We seriously doubt that this
bill will reduce this waste since the main principles underlying
this legislation aim at maintaining the status quo between the
respective mandates of the various departments, while
regrouping them.
If we go through the exercise of creating a new department,
then why not ensure unity and harmony among the various
measures taken by this new department, so as to make them
more efficient and cost effective. We are under the impression
that this exercise is only done for cosmetic reasons and that
there is no will to make true changes.
During the election campaign, the Liberal government
bragged about implementing a single-window concept to
improve its services and to reduce waste in the public service.
The government had a unique opportunity to restructure its
various departments, make savings in the process, and keep the
largest possible number of civil servants to provide a better
service to its clientele. Now, this government will have to
demonstrate that such a structure does indeed result in savings.
For example, in this context, an information centre for
businesses has been set up in Montreal. This centre will of
course improve customer services, but was there not already a
provincial structure which could have agreed to give the
business community in Quebec relevant information without
any duplication? We are once again creating a parallel structure
and we doubt whether this will generate any savings within the
federal government machinery.
(1300)
If we want to rationalize government expenditures, we must
review our structures within the context of all existing tools
provided for by the provinces and target only areas of federal
jurisdiction. In my opinion, the Auditor General of Canada
would be the very person to make suggestions since, year after
year, he has been highlighting changes that could be made in
some of the departments in order that public funds be spent more
efficiently.
I believe we are entitled to require that any further
restructuring of the federal machinery proposed by the Liberal
government here in this House results in savings for Canadians
and Quebecers.
As Bill C-46 also extends the powers of the Minister to
regional development areas, I would like to take this
opportunity to touch on a point of crucial importance in my
view. As Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development,
Western Quebec, I object to Bill C-46 as it reads now because it
contains no provision that would put an end to duplication and
overlapping in regional development and allow Quebec and
Ontario to take full and exclusive responsibility for their own
regional economic development.
First, why is Ontario and Quebec development not governed
by a specific bill such as the one on the Department of Western
Economic Diversification or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency?
If the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec
were to be established pursuant to specific legislation, it would
be easier to see the powers, duties and functions of the minister
in charge and the related objectives.
Regional development agencies were a way for the federal
government to compensate for the effects of uneven economic
growth in various areas of the country, while it looked at
improving the most competitive sectors or strengthening the
most efficient, in particular those focused on export markets. In
many cases the program was solely a band-aid solution for areas
with non-performing economies. In short, the regional
development program was designed to limit damage in remote
areas
6762
where investment was scarce or to try to generate new growth
dynamics.
Part II of the bill contains nice and sound objectives that the
minister should achieve, as we can see on page 4:
(a) promote economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec where low
incomes and slow economic growth are prevalent or where opportunities for
productive employment are inadequate;
(b) emphasize long-term economic development and sustainable
employment and income creation; and
(c) focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and the development and
enhancement of entrepreneurial talent.
I think that it would be an achievement if, over the next ten
years, the Federal Office of Regional Development which, under
this bill, is to come under the authority of the Minister of
Industry were to reach and maintain these objectives in our
regions. The truth is they were never really achieved efficiently
and the effectiveness of the program has been declining in the
last few years. For example, regions like mine are short of
investment money, the main tool to influence the development
in a given area. It is important to make available enough money
to provide investors and business people with the necessary
levers.
With reduced budgets-which will be further reduced with
the new reform-and a decision-making structure that does not
permit the targetting of priorities defined by the regions, how
can the FORD(Q) be taken seriously?
Second, why is the minister not taking the opportunity to
include in the bill the will to harmonize his regional
development programs with those of the provinces? In Quebec,
policies aimed at shifting decision-making powers to regional
development councils, which were initiated under the Liberal
government and pursued by the Quebec Premier, Mr. Parizeau,
who recently announced the appointment of regional delegates
whith a mandate to receive the regions' specific requests, are
examples of how research, and awareness of grassroot concerns
can lead to greater efficiency and better use of the money still
available.
(1305)
People in the regions know full well that the federal and
provincial governments have no money to waste. Therefore, the
desire on the part of the minister to harmonize his programs with
those of the provinces would be for him a step toward making
every development dollar count and, eventually, to realize that
numbers show that the best way would be to transfer these sums
to the provinces, thus eliminating duplication and overlapping.
Depending on where they live, Quebecers have a different
vision of what regional development should be.
Whenever decision-makers and entrepreneurs are able to
channel their efforts in the same direction, they achieve great
success. The Beauce area is often given as an example of this.
This area has benefited from the presence of risk-taking
entrepreneurs and from a lot of investments. Not all regions
have access to the same amount of capital to allow developers to
stimulate the economy. The situation in my riding illustrates
perfectly how financial needs can vary.
The main economic activities in the riding of Abitibi are
forestry and mining. In the forestry area, while saw-mills, paper
mills and finished products industries are keeping up with the
new technology and are able to finance it, reforestation and
tree-growing companies are having a hard time and would
deserve to be helped.
All these businesses are interconnected and must co-ordinate
their activities if they are to develop harmoniously. There are
the big companies which, tomorrow, will need the timber which
the forestry industry has had to grow and develop at an
increasingly quicker pace as the industry unfortunately has to
cope with an extremely meager timber stock. Forest
management, needless to say, was not always a priority in the
past.
I think this shows that regional development is not easy if
priorities are not in line with the region's economy.
Another example of regional development, which concerns
my own riding and probably many ridings in Northern Ontario
and this applies to my previous example as well-is developing
the mining industry.
Mining is, in fact, restricted to certain regions in Quebec and
Ontario, so that regional development in this sector follows the
same pattern. It is said, for instance, that mining and forestry are
specific to the northern regions of Quebec and Ontario. These
industries give a very good return on investment, but the
problem is that exploration requires vast amounts of capital.
My point is that regional development in my riding could
focus on the mining industry, for instance, but to be successful,
there would have to be a consensus among the parties concerned,
to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available.
Finally, to prove my point that action must be focussed and
that the provinces should be responsible for regional
development, I would like to read what former Quebec Premier
Jean Lesage had to say here in Ottawa at the federal-provincial
conference from July 19 to 22, 1965. That was quite a few years
ago.
Mr. Lesage said that to be effective, regional development
policies had to meet three conditions: be adapted to the specific
needs of the regions; be implemented by the government in the
best position to do so; and reflect the general economic and
social policy of the government of the province where the
regions are located. Adapting such policies to Quebec's regional
needs would seem difficult to achieve at the federal level.
6763
This was 1965, and things may not have changed much since
then.
Mr. Lesage also said that the Government of Quebec was in
the best position-I may recall this was said by a Liberal
Premier-to implement a truly effective regional policy.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon.
member, who once again dismisses the achievements of the
Government of Canada with respect to regional economic
development. No amounts were given, no reference made to
what has been done in his sector.
When I hear the mining industry mentioned, I ask myself how
many millions Noranda, to take an example, has received from
the federal government in regional development incentives.
(1310)
Forestry also comes to mind, companies like Tembeck, Stone
Consolidated, Abitibi Price. We could also mention the famous
33 per cent investment tax credit given to companies who invest
in the regions. You invest $10 million and the government of
Canada gives you a 33 per cent tax break. This is taxpayers'
money being used to encourage regional economic development
that the opposition unfortunately refuses to recognize.
I can give you an example. I have just come from
Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where there is a company called Les
entreprises Léo A. Leblanc in which the Federal Office of
Regional Development has invested $79,600. This is a grant, not
a loan. It must be pointed out, however, that thanks to the
intervention of the Canadian government, a new job-creation
project has come to fruition, that will see this company's
activities focus on the export market. Now, the company is even
taking small vessels from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for
repair in Îles-de-la-Madeleine. In fact, the company owner told
me that, because of the investment by the government of Canada
in this project, he has been able to expand.
I could mention all sorts of projects. There is, of course, the
off-set program for fishermen and factory workers, whereby the
government of Canada is going to invest close to $5 million in
new fishing technologies, including aquiculture.
There is also the last report, the Eastern Quebec Forestry
Development Program. Forgive me, I realize that I am not
supposed to show documents as part of a debate. Nevertheless,
the government aided forestry workers in 1983 and has
continued to do so to this day, although the program is currently
under review. But I dare the opposition to find one of the 6,000
affected workers to speak out against the federal investment
program for reforestation and providing support to forestry
professionals in either construction start or silviculture. I would
say that the government of Canada has taken its responsibilities.
In fact, more and more of these forestry workers are asking
that the federal government remain involved. Apparently, this
would be the only program suited to forestry workers. No one
has come out and said that the government of Canada should
back out of its responsibilities. The federal government is here.
We are there for these 6,000 workers.
There is also the Federal Business Development Bank. On the
subject of Quebec institutions, did you know that we have the
Caisse populaire Desjardins in the Gaspé Peninsula, with a $500
million reserve made up of the savings of the Gaspé people, but
very little of this money is actually invested back in the
community. So, it is thanks to loan guarantees given by the
government of Canada that financial institutions like this one
re-invest in the community.
I think that, instead of telling stories of overlapping, the hon.
member should review the matter thoroughly, looking at every
investment we have made these past few years. Take my word
for it, Mr. Speaker, we have the federal investments to thank,
because this government listens to the community and decided
to invest not only in these particular industries but also in the
future of the regions.
This government's objective-and my reason for
representing the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
here, as the only government member east of Trois-Rivières-is
to maintain a federal presence because this presence is welcome
and indeed desirable in terms of regional economic
development.
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
making a few points I may have omitted, but I would like to
point out that my remarks apply to the new Bill C-46, through
which the Department of Industry will take over, so to speak, the
Federal Office of Regional Development. I said in my little
speech that I would have liked the bill to contain clauses
underscoring the advantages of letting each province, Ontario
and Quebec in particular in this case, choose where and how to
invest federal government funds.
(1315)
It is true that in the past, the work done by the Federal Office
of Regional Development was highly regarded in various
regions including mine, but when the hon. member indicates
that the forestry people were very happy with the federal
government's role in reforestation efforts, I would like to say
that my region benefited very little from this project.
We hear that, with the upcoming cutbacks, the Federal Office
will not inject any more money into private industries. The new
policies do not provide any money for the tourism industry for
one thing. I wonder how the amounts will be set to help a region
like mine when it needs money precisely for forestry, while
forest resources are already scarce. If we do not have enough
money for tourist facilities-and we are told this is not a
6764
government priority- how can we help my region-and not the
Lac-Saint-Jean region where they may not need as much money
for tourism because they already have good facilities? How can
we be address specific needs when the government sets
priorities for us?
The federal government's goal is to help the regions but this
approach, instead of showing good will, simply hampers
development. I do not know whether I should say something else
on this subject for the hon. member's benefit, but I think that if
this bill had let the provinces and especially the regions choose
how to achieve their own development, I think we would have
been much more likely to support this bill. However, given the
bill's current wording, because it does not say anything about
the need to adapt to specific regional needs, as Mr. Lesage used
to say, I think that we cannot support it.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I hear the member from the official opposition
describe his riding, it sounds very similar to mine in British
Columbia.
In lieu of the previous speaker's comments regarding regional
programs being run by the provinces and his stated view that that
was the way to go, can the hon. member please explain why the
Bloc amendment is specific to Quebec as opposed to being
applicable to all of the provinces in Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this
question as well as I can. Instead of limiting my colleague's
amendment to Quebec, it could be limited to Quebec and
Ontario, since in Bill C-46, the Federal Office of Regional
Development applies only to Ontario and Quebec.
Also in your question, you said that your riding was like mine.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I just want
to remind you to address your comments and statements to the
Chair and not directly to each other.
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to point
out to the Chair that the hon. member asked me why the Bloc
Quebecois's amendment was limited to Quebec when it could
have applied to Ontario as well and even to all the provinces of
Canada.
Why? Because Bill C-46 is applied by the Federal Office of
Regional Development only in Quebec and Ontario. Also, I
would like to say to the hon. member, who lives in a region like
mine, that they may be better served if they have a different
development agency covered by a different law. The
development projects in his riding may be better run; in my
riding, the Federal Office of Regional Development has some
good initiatives, of course, but through Bill C-46, we want the
Department of Industry to decentralize and blend its ideas with
those of the provincial agency, especially for regional
initiatives, to make better use of the money invested.
(1320 )
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to contribute to second reading debate
on Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry.
The bill will establish in law the new Department of Industry
that was created in June 1993 by the former administration.
While always a powerful ministry historically run by a powerful
minister, this new Department of Industry is an amalgamation of
the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology
Canada, the former Department of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs, the telecommunication side of the Department of
Communications and Investment Canada.
The Reform Party has two major objections, beginning with
clause 13(1), part I, of the bill. This clause gives the minister
full rein over shaping industries to suit special needs of certain
industrial or commercial establishments, organizations or
persons who are members of a particular category of persons
defined by order of the governor in council. I will develop our
concerns regarding this issue a little later.
Our second area of concern surrounds part II of the
legislation, regional economic development in Ontario and
Quebec. The bill places responsibility for Quebec and Ontario
under the Minister of Industry. This should be interesting.
Would I like to be at the cabinet table listening to deliberations?
In any event before I focus more directly on these two major
concerns with the legislation I would like to put this exercise of
departmental chair shuffling into an historical framework. I
think this is a worthwhile exercise in view of this latest attempt
via Bill C-46 to bring some continuity and focus to the disparate
nature of this department, in particular its responsibilities, focus
and scope of activity.
The industry responsibilities within the Canadian government
really date back, for the sake of our examination, to the late C.D.
Howe and the department of trade and commerce and its main
operating division of the department of defence production.
Those were the days of the dollar a year people, the C.D. Howe
recruitments who kept Canada's materiel infrastructure running
during World War II. C.D. was a powerful minister who ran a
clearly powerful department with tentacles of influence, not
only during World War II but up until the 1960s in many other
departments.
6765
The department of trade and commerce not only held sway in
Ottawa but also controlled the regional development side. By
the 1960s the industrial and commercial dynamics were
changing in Canada and the beginning of constant change in the
industry portfolio was taking hold.
In the early 1960s the government created the Department of
Industry. The then deputy minister, Simon Reisman, began
recruiting advocates for industry from the business community.
Some of these business people were competent, some were not
as we hear. Terrible infighting ensued between these new young
business types in the existing career civil service within the
department. The department meandered around looking for
stability, purpose and reason for approximately eight years.
In 1968 because of this constant bickering over what the focus
should be, either an advocate for business or a policy maker, the
then administration created the Department of Industry, Trade
and Commerce. The operative word and function in this new
arrangement was obviously the inclusion of trade in this new
dynamic. Now we have the career commerce people, the
business advocates from industry and the traders. This is quite
an arrangement of personalities, agendas and egos.
(1325)
In most of the disagreements that ensued over what the
department was supposed to do, the industry advocates usually
won. However, another merger was on the horizon. That was the
advent of DREE. In the early seventies the department of
regional economic expansion became a hotbed of politics,
largesse, monument building and subsequent turf wars.
This new department focused on regional development first in
the Atlantic provinces, soon after in Quebec and slowly through
Ontario and as far west as Saskatchewan. That is where the
DREE gravy train stopped. Alberta and B.C. were considered
too rich to participate in these economic expansion schemes.
The politicians representing those two provinces had no clout in
the Commons or at the cabinet table.
Two interesting twists within DREE were two programs,
ARDA and special ARDA. The former ARDA, agricultural and
rural development agency, dealt with regional development
opportunities and special ARDA was responsible for native
economic development opportunities and employment
initiatives.
To many, DREE was more than a series of questionable
funding projects, from Michelin Corp. in Nova Scotia to
Bricklin Inc. cars and Mitel switching equipment, all funded by
DREE. Again turf wars ensued but the money flowed like water
to the project of the month.
After the DREE period we had another merger. This new
department known as DRIE, the department of regional
industrial expansion, again had lots of money to throw around
mostly through a program known as the industrial research
development program. At the same time the trade component
was moved to external affairs to complicate it more. It was a
time of good old style patronage with a tinge of legitimate
cutting edge technological development.
Some time in the mid to late 1980s, with the science envelope
evoking worldwide opportunities, the department was renamed
industry, science and technology. At this time the agriculture,
fish and food component was transferred to Agriculture Canada.
The department was becoming fragmented, faced with
constant change and constantly eroding capabilities. Forces
were scattered and the usual turf wars continued. In the wisdom
of the former administration, another change was made and the
government created the department of industry. That is why we
are here today continuing the revolving door instability and
constant quest for change in the hope of getting it right.
We have come full circle and returned to the early paragraphs
of my address.
I would like to focus now on our objections to Bill C-46. Let
me look first at the always troublesome regional development
side. Bill C-46 clearly indicates that the minister will look after
Ontario and Quebec. Currently no one is sure who looks after
Ontario, but make no mistake about it. The Minister of Finance,
not industry, looks after Quebec at this time.
We have no problem with the Minister of Industry assuming
responsibility for Quebec and Ontario, but what about the rest of
Canada? This bill continues the balkanization of the rest of the
country. The squeaking wheel continues to get the grease. I
wonder which of the three ministers responsible for regional
development really holds the grease: the Minister of Human
Resources Development for the Western Diversification Office,
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for
ACOA, the Allan MacEachen of the 1990s, or the Minister of
Industry now responsible for Quebec and Ontario.
(1330)
What a mess: a department for Ontario and Quebec, a
department for the west in WDO, and a corporation acting like a
department at ACOA. It may not be a department for the
minister of public works at ACOA but I am told that the minister
of public works will expunge the name Allan MacEachen from
the lexicon of the east coast largesse dictionary. He is on a roll
and this mishmash arrangement is sure to cause more regional
strife.
The position of the Reform Party on regional development is
that it should be eliminated so that all areas of Canada are
treated equally. We want to get rid of a system where conflicts
rise between ministers who are supposed to choose in the
6766
interests of the country nationally but choose regionally due to
their regional development responsibilities.
The legislation ensures that bias and regionalism continues.
In part IV of the bill powers are granted under subclause 13(1) to
the Minister of Industry, which could be construed to mean that
the minister and the department can engage in central planning
of the economy, far beyond the more sensible approach of
letting industry choose the equilibrium and letting experts run
their own affairs. State run involvement, as subclause 13(1)
seems to indicate, is anathema to good business management
and we oppose it.
The Reform Party values initiatives and enterprise. We do not
see the government role as being responsible for fostering and
protecting an environment in which initiative and enterprise can
be exercised by individuals and groups.
In most reorganizations and rationalizations in the private
sector, which is the real world, business makes these changes to
downsize, to save money and to improve profit margins. In the
case of government and Bill C-46 we have amalgamated four
departments. One could realistically expect staff reductions.
From a total of 6,000 employees we will see a reduction of 230
staff members, probably through attrition. What level of public
servant are we talking about?
Another dynamic of rationalization, as I have said, is cost
saving. Out of a $3 billion budget it is estimated that department
spending will be reduced by $26 million or less than 1 per cent.
The bill lacks any coherent vision of industrial strategy. It
fosters regional economic development initiatives against a
backdrop of vague national strategies.
The bill continues the saga of reorganization for the sake of
reorganization in a constant quest to get it right. It confirms that
the Minister of Industry and the government share a Tory vision
of industrial strategy. After all, it is a Tory initiative.
The bill continues the interventionist role of government, the
flawed notion that government sets the course and business
steers it. Free market principles and fairness for all should be the
hallmark of our industrial strategy.
I hear the infighting has already started at the new
department. It has even spilled over to the Department of
National Resources, whose employees are looking for
something to do and are sticking their noses into the new
department's business. It is business as usual at the C. D. Howe
building. Too bad C. D. Howe is not around.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that
the Reform Party member could find nothing positive in this
piece of legislation. He did not comment on the fact that it was a
major effort in streamlining a department of government.
The Reform Party is always talking about making sure we
eliminate duplication and making sure we eliminate waste. The
reorganization of the department of industry goes a long way
toward meeting those objectives.
(1335)
There is absolutely no infighting going on. In fact most people
in the department of industry are very excited about the ongoing
reorganization. We are especially excited that through the
department of industry we will be giving the Federal Business
Development Bank added support over the next while, which is
something most Reform members support. We have also given
the tourism section of the department an added boost.
The member is not being balanced in his remarks when he
claims that the reorganization is not meeting any of the
objectives. However I am sure in time the member will see that
we are on the right path.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my view of the bill is obviously
very different from that of the member who just spoke. This is a
cosmetic, housekeeping bill, and there is nothing substantial in
it.
I explained the minor savings associated with the bill. The
only thing I can say about the excitement level in these
departments is that it is obvious I am talking to different
personnel than the member opposite.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his earlier
comments the hon. member spoke about the lack of an industrial
strategy in the bill. I am curious. Does this mean the member
believes we should have an industrial strategy for Canada?
The hon. member talked about C. D. Howe and the war period
and about how C. D. Howe kept the industrial structures in
Canada working. Does he not recognize it was C. D. Howe in
co-operation with the private sector, that is the state in
co-operation with the private sector, that created the modern
Canadian industrial structure which lasted to the 1960s. In fact
the state played an important part in that period?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in regard to an
industrial strategy, the lead cannot be taken by government at
this point because government has proven itself to be
incompetent in terms of dealing with spending priorities and
with fiscal responsibility.
In terms of relating that point to the C. D. Howe era, we had a
balanced budget then. Essentially we had a balanced budget up
to 1972. I know there was a period after World War II when we
were in a state of tremendous growth and we paid down a lot of
debt, but those circumstances are completely alien to where we
are now.
6767
The government is carrying on unsustainable programs,
institutions and projects at this time, and this is one of them. It is
probably more discretionary to make radical change to this one
than to many others which affect transfers to the individuals and
so on.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest once again to the contradictory remarks of the hon.
member.
In the first instance they are telling us that any federal
government intervention in rural areas, which is where I am
from, is contradictory to what the Government of Canada should
be doing in helping rural areas. However I find it curious that
they are trying to bring in a centralized model where all regions
of Canada would be treated in the same way. In other words, we
should say that the little town of Bonaventure and the little town
of Old-Harry on the Madeleine Islands are the same as Bay
Street, that they have the same economy as Toronto.
(1340)
They do not seem to recognize the other side. The opposition
benches like to pride themselves as representing rural Canada
and rural interests, but they want to take rural Canadians and put
them in the same boat as urban Canadians. Many members
opposite actually represent areas with only one industry: a
mining town, a pulp and paper town or a government town.
Whereas in other urban areas of Canada such as Vancouver,
Toronto and Montreal there are various choices, various
industries, a concentration of populations, a concentration of
schools and a concentration of services.
We do not have that in the regions. That is why in order to
encourage regional economic development the Government of
Canada has to make it easier for corporations and companies,
which it always likes to defend, to invest more in our areas. It
should make sure that there is equitable expenditure across
Canada. It should also recognize that rural areas also have
taxpayers; they have interests that are important to them.
Members opposite should go back to their constituents and ask
them if they think the Government of Canada should remove
itself from regional economic development. I am sure they are
not going to last past the next election.
I go back to my constituency as a rural Quebecer, a rural
Canadian, with examples of where the Government of Canada
intervened. Thanks to that intervention we managed to create
jobs. We managed to create income. We managed to develop the
local economy for the benefit of all Canadians and for the
benefit of regional areas such as those represented by the
Reform Party.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed I am opposed to
regional economic programs, as is our party. I live in and
represent a rural riding. The government does not have the
resources to keep DFO offices functioning for an important west
coast resource in very remote areas where we need that
presence.
The government is taking essential services like light stations
and threatening them. For you to be talking about us not
supporting rural areas is blatant misrepresentation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know this is the place of
vigorous debate and we even encourage it. However I remind all
members to direct their interventions through the Chair and not
directly to one another.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to make a
couple of other references to the way these priorities have been
placed in jeopardy.
We have an infrastructure program that has been
gerrymandered. We have an urban focus. We are building boccie
courts in Toronto and swimming pools. At the same time some
of our essential rural services are being defunded. This is
unacceptable.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise in my place today to enter the debate on
Bill C-46 respecting the establishment of the Department of
Industry.
I notice part of the bill deals with the abolition of Investment
Canada. I would like to address that point to some extent.
Investment Canada in the new establishment will be basically a
directorate within the Department of Industry. Investment
Canada goes back to the original FIRA or the Foreign
Investment Review Agency.
(1345 )
Unfortunately over our history Canadians have taken the fast
track to economic prosperity. By this I mean we have borrowed
capital from outside our borders. In fact, we have even allowed
industry to come into our country and take over various sections
of our economy. We have done that rather than develop our
economy in our own sense. In other words, we have developed
the aspect of letting others do it.
The problems which existed with FIRA and go back to the
1970s are really no different today. I question those who are in
attendance today. The cars we drive, the televisions we watch
and the household appliances we use are either purchased
outside of our borders, manufactured outside of our borders or
they are made by companies within our borders but which are
not headquartered here.
This higher standard of living we have tried to attract has
come with a price for all Canadians. There is a greater and
greater dependency on foreign capital, much like a drug user
who cannot kick the habit. With respect to our governments, 25
per cent of the financing of our federal debt is outside of our
borders and 40 per cent of the financing of provincial
government debts is outside of our borders.
6768
This has created a dependency relationship. We are beholden
to the people who own and control this money. We have a
tendency to service the markets of our creditors. In fact we
service the market of our major creditor, the United States, with
raw materials and raw resources.
Canada has a trade surplus which is very attractive when one
looks at it initially. In reality Canada has a trade surplus with
only one country in the world and a trade deficit with almost all
other nations. Canada has a trade surplus with the United States
and trade deficits, especially with southeast Asia for those
television sets and appliances we use every day.
This concept of letting others do it has caused a great
retardation of our research and development. Why do I say that?
Well why should we have laboratories in Canada? Why should
we do research in Canada when there are laboratories south of
the border in Seattle and North Carolina? In other words, there
seems to be no real desire in Canada to do genuine research and
development.
I do not have to tell anyone that statistics on the Canadian
economy indicate our research and development is one of the
lowest in the world. This has had a tremendous impact on the
creation of high paying, high skilled jobs in Canada. The partial
result of some of this is that some of our best brains have had to
go south in order to utilize their talents. Do we want to continue
with this kind of process where our smarter people have to
leave?
I do not have to tell you that research and development has a
tremendous importance on the new economy. The economy is
changing before our very eyes. The world and global economies
are changing before our very eyes. Another impact of foreign
investment and foreign ownership and control in Canada has
been job training.
Canada has one of the poorest records on in house training in
the world. I question why this should be. Why is this unique to
Canada? I suspect we can trace it back to that original problem,
foreign ownership and foreign control. Why train high echelon
management type jobs when we already have a set up to do that
south of the border? This has worked against the best interests of
Canadian workers.
The ultimate price of letting others do it has been that
decisions are not made within our borders, decisions that affect
our economy on a day to day basis, decisions that affect industry
and industry formation. It continues to this day. Directions and
suggestions of local managers are routinely overridden by
corporate headquarters often located to the south but in other
countries as well. This stifles innovation in our economy. It
stifles the ability of people to progress in this society. It does not
matter whether you are in Quebec or any other part of the
country, the story is still the same.
(1350)
This brings us to where we are today. Today the economy is
changing. Like the devastation that wrenched Japan in the
second world war, or the industrial revolution that swept across
Britain, things have changed. We have wiped the slate clear. A
new economy is before us. We have changed the way we do
business.
The integrated multinational is no longer the productive
engine of the economy. Smokestacks in industrial areas in the
United States and other countries are slowly going dormant. A
whole section of the northern United States is now referred to as
the rust belt. These industries are no longer viable. These are
industries which for whatever reason are not part of the new
technology. States like New York face outward migration;
people are actually leaving some of these huge engines of
production.
Now is the chance for Canada to regain its ability to make its
own decisions. This is an opportunity to actually make a change
to the new economy without forfeiting our standard of living. In
other words, we have to start being smarter. We have to start
doing our own research and development. We are all equals now
in the world. Canada has an opportune chance to be part of a new
and evolving economy.
The concepts in previous years of why Canada could not be an
effective industrial power-which, of course, it is to some
extent, but not nearly as much as it could be-has been that we
have a huge land mass and a small population base. I do not have
to tell you that with the technology before us this is no longer
important. All of Canada can be connected in one room through
the information highway. In other words, it is possible to service
our domestic markets and create industries that will be effective
in competing with others throughout the world. We need to grab
on to that technology.
We need to service our own markets effectively and also
attack those which exist around the world. To do this we need a
new partnership with government, business and labour. These
three sectors must rethink their traditional roles. Government
must be the one which steers. By that I mean it must be an
adjudicator of the marketplace. It ensures that competition
continues. It keeps taxes low and fosters this new competition. It
gives incentives to new training and job creation. It also must
assist us in attacking those new and evolving markets, like
southeast Asia.
We need a national education standard. This is also part of the
federal government's obligation. Business has been too slow in
this country to adapt to the new technology. Some of our
business practices are outmoded and parochial.
We need to do more business networking. We need to create
strategic alliances within our business sector so they will go out
and attack those new markets. They must be unified to spike the
market share. Labour must end its adversarial attitude toward
business and government. It must see itself as a true partner. It
must realize that new jobs and the creation of new jobs will rely
6769
on those who do not feel alienated from the process, to those
who will make a contribution to the process of industrialization.
In other words, we need a new and genuine partnership of the
three engines of the economy: government, business and labour.
These are the challenges; to seize the opportunities before us
to control our destiny and to march into the 21st century certain
of our future.
(1355 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the member's speech and particularly in response to
some of the comments which have been made by the Liberals, I
wonder if they are aware that this morning their Minister of
Finance made some public statements about the fact that they
have a new economic philosophy.
Their new economic philosophy seems to relate a little more
to reality than the things we have been hearing in the House
since we came here. It somewhat relates to some of the
comments which have been coming from this corner of the
House.
Perhaps the member might like to comment on the fact that in
quoting from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, the finance minister this morning said that the
OECD agrees. Let me quote from their recent job study:
``Subsidies tend to operate in exactly the opposite way from
what is needed. They slow rather than stimulate adjustments.
They discourage rather than encourage innovation and they tend
to become permanent''.
Would the member care to comment on this new economic
direction his finance minister has finally discovered?
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall discussing
subsidies in my dissertation. I talked about creating a new
industrial climate in Canada. I did not talk about subsidizing
industries that go out and compete in the international
marketplace. It was just the reverse. I talked about government's
role to steer, that it had to create an environment in which
businesses would flourish. I did not talk about subsidies but I
agree that in some instances subsidies do not work.
In some ways, our government is realizing some of those and
has realized that in the past. That is a new orientation for our
governmental system. I was not talking about any of these things
as a matter of fact. I was talking very simply that we must create
a new independent wave of how we are going to deal with
business in the future and how we are going to build a new
Canadian economy.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being almost 2 p.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6769
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the caucus task force on ethanol supported a resolution
urging the Minister of the Environment to initiate a moratorium
on the use of MMT as an octane enhancer in Canadian gasolines.
MMT was banned in the United States in 1978 due to the
widely recognized potential for negative health effects. Canada
has continued to use MMT since it replaced lead as an
anti-knock agent in 1977.
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
of Canada has stated its opposition to the use of MMT on the
grounds that the chemical degrades the effectiveness of vehicle
emission control devices.
Ethanol represents an ideal alternative octane enhancer which
is 100 per cent renewable. We strongly urge the minister to take
swift action on eliminating the use of MMT and replace it with
renewable, domestically produced fuel additives such as
ethanol.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has
finally returned home. October 15, 1994 will remain a historic
day for Haiti and for us all and a great day for democracy.
Haitians are finally proud of their country again. During the
three long years of dictatorship, we shared the despair of the
Haitian people and of all our fellow citizens of Haitian origin,
but today, we are tremendously glad to celebrate with them the
hope that a fresh start brings.
In calling for national reconciliation, President Aristide is
throwing open the door to economic development, social justice
and lasting peace. Quebecers and Canadians want to continue
giving their unfailing support to the Haitian people and their
struggle to restore democracy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past number of days I have received letters from my
6770
constituents demanding that this government not tax dental
benefits. Geraldine Auger, Dr. Arthur Filyk, Christina Fuller,
Ken Gaudin and Brian Mullally are but a few of my constituents
who have expressed concern that this government will tax
health care to gain control of Canada's horrible fiscal problems.
I am asking this government not to make such band-aid
decisions as taxing Canada's working class even more to reduce
Canada's deficit and debt. We are taxed upon our birth. We are
taxed upon our death. Now we are threatening with taxes on
health care in between.
Canadians are taxed to the limit. The solution is to cut
government spending, not to increase taxes. Make real systemic
changes that will not result in a bigger tax grab on the middle
class Canadian worker.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with real pleasure and pride that I rise to congratulate
Colleen Miller, a resident of Matlock, Manitoba and a
constituent from the wonderful riding of Selkirk-Red River.
Colleen and her partner Wendy Wiebe won their gold medal in
the world rowing championships, lightweight double skulls
event in Indianapolis, Indiana on September 17, 1994.
I would like to point out that Colleen and Wendy also won a
gold medal at last year's event in Czechoslovakia and another
gold medal performance in the Commonwealth regatta in
London, Ontario just a few weeks ago. One newspaper put it so
well: ``On top of the world again''.
Once more I would like to express my sincere congratulations
to Colleen Miller and Wendy Wiebe. Canadians across this great
country of ours congratulate them and are very proud of them.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the Reform Party hinted that
Liberal women candidates for the last federal election were
picked just because they were women. The fact is these women
won their nominations due to their intelligence, vigour and their
selfless commitment to Canadians.
This morning I had the privilege of attending the International
Development Week 1995 calendar festival award presentation
hosted by the Canadian Teachers Federation to honour Ms.
Jenna Bowring, nine years of age and a grade four student at
Random Island Integrated School, daughter of Cynthia and
David Bowring of Brittania, Newfoundland.
Jenna's art work has been chosen out of 850 submissions from
across Canada to provide the cover of Canada's International
Development Week 1995 calendar. This young lady was chosen
as a winner for her competence, her talent, energy and her
enthusiasm.
I am sure that all members of this House will join me in
congratulating this remarkable young Newfoundlander-who is
in the gallery with her parents today-in winning this
prestigious national award.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a historic event occurred in the town of Collingwood in my
riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe on August 27.
On that day Canada and Ontario received a report which showed
that the Collingwood harbour area of concern had met its
restoration goals. That means that Collingwood harbour is on its
way to becoming the first of 43 Great Lakes areas of concern in
Canada and the United States to be delisted.
Its water, shorelines and wetlands have been restored and
rehabilitated for the benefit of the people, the fish and the
wildlife. This represents an important first step toward meeting
the targets of the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The Government of Canada has made a strong commitment to
the environment. It also recognizes that the success depends on
effective working partnerships. Collingwood, through its public
advisory committee, its remedial action plan team and the
community at large-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, our friend Gérald Godin has died. He leaves behind his
companion, his circle of close friends and everyone who loved
him as he loved them, in a simple, straightforward way.
As a politician, Gérald led the way in showing tolerance and
openness to citizens from other lands. Guided by a nationalism
that is open to the world, he embodied the deep-rooted values of
Quebecers, for whom freedom of thought is priceless.
His legacy to all is his compassion, his courage in the face of
illness and his determination in the face of adversity. We will
remember Gérald Godin as a man of conviction, a man of
courage and a man of freedom. Farewell, Gérald.
6771
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
outraged after reading an article that appeared in the Ottawa
Citizen written by a victim of violence.
While we stand in this House asking the Minister of Justice
day after day when he plans to get tough with criminals in this
country, a convicted offender is freely wandering the streets of
Ottawa just blocks from here stalking the man upon whom he
launched not one but two unprovoked, vicious attacks.
While Bill Glaister still suffers from pain and humiliation and
fears for his safety, his assailant is free to attack again. Why?
Because an Ottawa judge thought a stern lecture and five weeks
in jail was a sufficient sentence for one count of assault, three
counts of theft, one charge of fleeing a court commitment and
one charge of misleading a police officer with false identity.
This criminal did not even serve his lenient sentence of five
weeks. Our bleeding heart justice system turned him loose in
three and a half weeks. That same system has left Mr. Glaister
living in fear of this man and it will be responsible for the next
victim who falls prey to this criminal.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I address this House today in response to the
statements by the hon. member for Beaver River asserting that
some women are not legitimate members of this Parliament.
I was duly elected in the beautiful riding of
Cumberland-Colchester with a solid majority of nearly 3,000
votes more than the next closest candidate. I thank my electorate
for placing its confidence in me and this Liberal government.
I have reason to believe that every person of female gender
was duly elected to this Parliament on the same day last October
by the same process under the same rules of the Government of
Canada's elections act.
Could it be the Reform women members were elected by some
other process or could it be they are doubting the integrity of the
electorate?
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw to the attention of the House that at the recent
annual meeting of the prestigious Economic Development
Association of Canada, two groups from my riding of Algoma
were given national awards recognizing their tremendous
efforts in the economic development and diversification of our
part of northern Ontario.
I am especially pleased that the North Channel Marine
Tourism Council won an award for its promotional video,
``Shores to Discover''. It displays the wonders of the
magnificent north channel of Lake Huron which is ranked with
the Greek islands as a premier recreational boating area. This
video will go a long way to help communities in the north shore
and Manitoulin area to tap into northern Ontario's growing
tourism market.
I am also proud to say that the city of Elliot Lake took home
top honours in the positive program category as a result of its
very successful retirement living program which was started
after the major downsizing of the city's uranium mining
industry a few years ago. The city is to be congratulated on its
efforts and ingenuity in attracting over 3,000 new senior citizens
to the city which has created economic spin-offs-
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to allegations made at the Reform Party convention
that Liberal women MPs were not selected fairly and are
somehow illegitimate, I would like to set the record straight for
Edmonton East.
In Edmonton East there were five candidates who sought the
Liberal nomination, four of whom were women. The nomination
process was fairly established and strongly contested with
active participation by more than 1,000 Liberal members,
women and men, in Edmonton East.
Residents of Edmonton East, no one else, chose the Liberal
candidate and the residents of Edmonton East chose the Liberal
plan as the best one for them.
If the Reform Party is honest it will acknowledge the real
reason why there are more women Liberal MPs. It is because
Liberal policies are attractive to women because they respond to
the reality of Canadian women. They will create more
opportunities for women to participate fully in the life of our
country. That is why the residents of Edmonton East chose-
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government recently threatened to stop making
provincial payroll taxes deductible, a move which would cost
Quebec companies $200 million.
6772
With a mixture of satisfaction and concern, we learned this
weekend that this measure has been postponed by one year. The
Bloc Quebecois is pleased that the federal government has
yielded to its arguments and to those of Quebec's finance
minister, Jean Campeau.
However, it is only a postponement, because a sword of
Damocles still hangs over Quebec companies. Nothing says that
the federal government will not try next year to reduce its deficit
at the expense of Quebec companies by eliminating this
perfectly justified deduction.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
might say that we were all elected to the House of Commons.
Some of us were elected to be candidates for the House of
Commons.
On Thursday, 1,450 Reform delegates from every province
and territory in Canada converged on the nation's capital for our
assembly. In just two short days Reform delegates discussed,
debated and passed 27 resolutions that would eliminate the
deficit, make the streets safe for our children, salvage our shaky
social safety net and put more money in the hands of taxpayers.
That is quite an accomplishment.
The delegates told us again and again that Canadians were
tired of the everything is under control attitude of the present
government. Canadians want real change, real options, real
discussions, real hope and real reform.
While the Liberals were obviously watching our assembly the
debt has risen to $534,611,591-
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today and salute another
example of excellence by workers in my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario.
Fleetwood Canada Limited, which manufactures travel
trailers in my home town of Lindsay, has won for the third year
in a row the customer satisfaction championship of Fleetwood
Incorporated.
It now employs about 285 people and was judged by an
independent survey of product owners to have produced the best
travel trailers of the 10 Fleetwood plants in North America. It
has also won the production team of the year award within
Fleetwood. This award which is based on quality, efficiency,
safety, warranty and overhead cost control is another testament
to its ability.
I commend the workers at Fleetwood Canada Limited in
Lindsay for their diligent work and perseverance over the years
which have brought the plant such acclaimed recognition.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today close to the one-year
anniversary of the last federal election to thank the hundreds of
grassroot volunteers who worked tirelessly to ensure I could
represent Mississauga West here in Ottawa.
I particularly want to express my deep gratitude to a small
core of people. Through their hard work and dedication over a
nine-month period I was able to win an incredible nomination
battle against five other Liberals and the largest democratic
nomination in the history of Canadian politics.
I want to sincerely thank George Carlson, Elias Hazineh,
Denise LaParairie, Maggie Mavromatis, Arlette Neufeld, Louis
Robitaille, my husband David, my two daughters, my mother
Helen Janozeski and my late father Edward Janozeski. These are
the real heroes behind my nomination victory.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Royal Canadian
Mint recently issued a set of coins commemorating milestone
aircraft in Canadian aviation history.
To my surprise missing from this series is the Avro Arrow. As
we all know, the Arrow was an aircraft decades ahead of its time
and its cancellation resulted in a setback to the Canadian
aviation industry from which it has yet to recover.
Most of the talented Canadians who worked on its
development were forced to move to the United States where a
great many were snapped up by NASA to work on the Apollo
space program.
In 1958 the Arrow achieved speeds nearly twice that of sound
and altitudes approaching 60,000 feet. Despite this the
government of the day cancelled the project and ordered all
tooling, plans and aircraft destroyed.
By allowing the exclusion of the Arrow from the series this
government has effectively reinforced the shameful decision of
a previous Conservative administration.
_____________________________________________
6772
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the discussion paper released this morning by the
Minister of Finance has proved once again that the Liberals have
very little to show for all the promises they made. The govern-
6773
ment is full of good intentions but has failed to provide any
solutions that will reduce government spending and create jobs.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the
minister agree that what we need is not a diagnosis but a cure, as
far as reducing the deficit is concerned? How can he expect to be
taken seriously when his paper contains no measures to reduce
the level of federal operating expenditures or eliminate the
many instances of duplication that exist? What is he waiting for?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
Leader of the Opposition should have been here this morning.
Obviously, those who interpreted what was said this morning
did not do a good job. We introduced a framework of new
economic policies in order to increase significantly the
productivity of our country, which, it must be said, has been
dropping for quite some time.
If we want to create jobs, we can do that only if we are able to
increase productivity in this country. And as far as action is
concerned, if the hon. member would look at the last budget, we
introduced some very important fiscal measures. In fact, it was
after this budget was brought down that Canada started creating
jobs. I am proud to say today that last week, it was announced
that since January, 327,000 jobs were created in this country.
That is practically a record.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, words, words, words, but never any action or
decisions from this government!
Does this mean that since the Liberal government refuses to
do anything now about government spending, wasteful
duplication and tax inequities, it is going to go back to its old
habit of spending its way out of this mess and depending on the
impact of economic recovery to reduce the deficit? Is it the same
old Liberal dogma?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition may think 327,000 jobs are just words, but that is not
the case for the people who got these jobs as a result of our
measures and who are no longer listed as unemployed. It is
important to create jobs, and we have done it since we came to
power: 327,000.
Meanwhile, if you want to know what we have done, I suggest
you listen to the IMF which said that this year, next year and the
year after, Canada will have the best levels of growth and job
creation of any G-7 country. We are proud of what we have
done.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little more matter-of-fact, to make
the minister less inclined to indulge in political rhetoric. The
minister knows perfectly well that if we are to raise employment
levels to what they were in 1990, before the recession, we will
have to create 800,000 jobs in Canada. When he talks about
327,000 jobs, he knows perfectly well he is well below that
level.
We read the paper that was released this morning. It includes a
paragraph that implies that social security reform will stimulate
job creation.
How can the Minister of Finance expect social security
reform to produce the spending cuts that will help him create
jobs, since this reform merely turns the unemployed into
scapegoats by putting them on the welfare rolls, so that fairness
and any hope for the future no longer exist?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must correct the
Leader of the Opposition. When we look at job creation, we have
now outstripped the level of job creation we had before the
recession. We did it. Second, when we take a careful look at the
diagnosis, when we consider what the Minister of Human
Resources Development is doing, we are in fact implementing
the OECD's analysis. Is that wrong? Are France, Germany and
the OECD countries wrong or is the Leader of the Opposition the
only one who is right? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
(1420)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
In a statement made this morning on the state of the economy
and government finance, the minister discussed at length the
need to make additional budget cuts in order to meet his
1996-97 objective regarding the deficit.
Does the Minister of Finance still deny that, in order to
achieve his objective, he will make additional cuts of $7.5
billion in social assistance and post-secondary education, on
top of the $7.4 billion cuts already made in his last budget in the
UI program and transfers to provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote the
Leader of the Opposition, who asked this question on June 20:
Does the Minister of Finance intend to table a supplementary
budget in the fall to reduce government spending by at least $3
billion?
Mr. Speaker, I find it very hard to understand why the Leader
of the Opposition wants us to make cuts, while his finance critic
refuses to accept the fact that we have to improve government
finance.
6774
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we agree with making cuts, but these must be targeted
at operating expenditures, inefficiencies and overlapping, not at
the unemployed and the poor in our society.
How can the public trust the minister and his government
when in just one year, they have failed to protect the
unemployed and welfare recipients, they have not abolished the
GST and they are now talking about increasing taxes, in spite of
all the promises made? What kind of trust does the minister
think he will instill among Quebecers and Canadians?
An hon. member: None.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not the only
one who gets excited.
[English]
It is incredible to watch members of the opposition at work.
They say we must cut, yet every time we talk about an area they
say: ``You can't cut that''. They have never made one suggestion
as to an area where we should cut. They have never brought
forward anything constructive. They sit there and they make
huge rhetorical speeches about the future of the world. Never
once are they prepared to get down to work and make this
country work. That is the problem with the opposition.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the finance minister repeated in graphic terms
what Reformers have been saying for years. He said we are in
hock up to our eyeballs and that the debt and the deficit are
unsustainable.
Just this weekend it was reported that the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Public Works are
still reluctant to attack the deficit while the Ministers of
Finance, Transport and International Trade want to attack the
deficit more vigorously. The cabinet is divided.
Will the finance minister tell the House whose position
represents the position of the government, that of the Deputy
Prime Minister and her free-spending friends or the finance
minister and his deficit reduction?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears
to hear the leader of the third party stating that reports in the
media are automatically true. I am glad to see the vote of
confidence that he and his party have given to the media.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, deficit reduction is intimately related to social reform.
The hardheads in the cabinet are looking for $7 billion to $10
billion of savings through social reform. The softheads in the
cabinet think the best they can get is $1 billion to $3 billion.
Will the finance minister show some leadership right now by
stating how much money he wants to save through these social
reform programs?
(1425 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for
certain. The Prime Minister laid down a target of 3 per cent of
GDP to be achieved by this government and this cabinet in the
1996-97 fiscal year. We intend to deliver. Every single member
of cabinet is committed to delivering on our red book promise.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, top heads got the chance to answer the question.
The finance minister also knows that given the current
economic situation, any suspicion at all of federal tax increases
will further damage private sector expansion and job creation.
Will the finance minister show some leadership today by
giving an unequivocal guarantee right now that tax increases are
not the option for solving the deficit problem?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the
absolute hypocrisy of the Reform Party that on the one hand tells
Canadians that it wants to take $15 billion out of the pockets of
senior citizens as well as health care, education and other
programs and on the other hand wants to tie the hands of the
Minister of Finance in advance of a budget that is going to have a
number of difficult choices.
The Minister of Finance and this side of the House want a full
public discussion on all aspects of a federal budget and we want
the debate to begin.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Last Friday, in Toronto,
during the Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers,
he proposed a national sales tax of 12 per cent on goods and
services, to replace the GST that his party had promised to
abolish. That proposal was rejected by Ontario, Quebec, B.C.
and Alberta.
Given the opposition of several provinces to such a national
sales tax of 12 per cent, does the Minister of Finance not
recognize that his proposal is doomed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that our
discussions on Friday in Toronto were quite fruitful. Several
provinces supported our proposal. I could add that two other
proposals are
6775
on the table, one from Ontario and one from Manitoba. Quebec
has been very constructive.
Indeed, far from rejecting our proposal offhand, Quebec said
there were some problems, but that something could perhaps be
worked out based on our proposal. Everything went very well. It
might be that the headquarters in Quebec City are more
constructive than the branch plant here.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to remind the Minister of Finance that the position taken by
the Government of Quebec is the same as the position of the
Bloc Quebecois in the Finance Committee report.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us what other scenario he
intends to propose to the provinces in order to fulfil his
commitment to abolish the GST before January 1996?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment
during the campaign, which was stated in the red book and that
the hon. member should read again, is very clear. We said that
the GST would have to be replaced with a taxation system which
would be fairer for consumers, harmonized with the provinces
and set up in the shortest possible timeframe. However it is far
more important to do it well than to do it before a set deadline.
(1430)
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's lilac book today committed the
government to the previously announced and easily achievable
deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP in two years. However he did
not provide a time frame for the total elimination of the deficit
by saying simply: ``Our ultimate goal is the elimination of the
budget deficit''.
This is not enough. The world financial community is
anxious. Will the minister commit the government to a definite
time frame for the complete elimination of the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if
lilac is the right colour; perhaps the opposition critic is looking
at it through rose coloured glasses. That actually came from the
Deputy Prime Minister, not bad.
The position I took in committee this morning is entirely
consistent and in fact finds its birthplace within the red book. In
the red book we said unequivocally that we were going to reduce
the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 and that our ultimate
goal was to balance the books, to eliminate the deficit. That is
the position we took in the red book. That is the position I took
this morning in the purple book.
Our goal is to set milestones so that Canadians can judge what
the government is doing. We are not going to set targets out
there. We are going to hit our 3 per cent target. Canadians better
understand that and the Leader of the Opposition better
understand that as well.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada have heard these vague promises
about some time in the future they will balance the budget, just
rely on them, for too long.
Financial experts agree the deficit cannot be eliminated
without reform and cuts to the social program. The lilac book
does not make that point and the financial community is
anxious, especially if Deputy Prime Minister is answering the
question.
Will the minister stop tiptoeing through the lilacs and promise
major cuts in social program spending?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely
because the previous government kept setting targets too far
down the way of no great significance and then kept missing
them that we as a government decided that we would set up very
clear milestones-that is what Canadians asked us to do in the
consultations last year-within a relatively short time period so
that we would keep everybody's focus on that and then we would
hit our targets.
It is very important for the credibility of government that we
do not set out a multitude of targets but that the government
focuses on one issue and that it does what it says, and that is
what we are going to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Liberal government was quick to cancel the EH-101
helicopter contract and has maintained on numerous occasions
that it would wait for the next white book to announce its
intention to buy on-board helicopters for the navy fleet. On
August 12, the minister even said that no decision would be
taken regarding the purchase of any equipment for the Canadian
Forces as long as the defence policy review was still under way.
How can the minister explain his about-turn and the fact that
he has announced his intention to buy on-board helicopters
when the defence policy review is still under way?
6776
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we rolled out the new tactical helicopter on Friday at
Mirabel there was a press conference where obviously my
comments were somewhat misconstrued. We have not changed
our position.
We cancelled the HE-101 not because of the fact that it was
not a good helicopter but that it was too expensive and too rich
for our needs. We now have a defence review under way and the
government is absolutely adamant that there will be no decision
taken. Cabinet will not be seized of the issue until the defence
review takes place. The hon. member is a member of that
defence committee. No decision will take place until we know
the priorities the defence review will set down.
(1435)
In dealing with our helicopter needs, we have a search and
rescue capability and an airborne ship capability that have to be
fulfilled. We are looking to the guidance of the parliamentary
committee and consultations that I am having before we go to
cabinet with a specific recommendation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
just as with the finance minister, journalists must have
misinterpreted what the minister said.
Knowing that the cancellation of the EH-101 deal heavily
penalized Quebec, can the defence minister promise right now
that Quebec will benefit from the same level of spin-offs as with
the previous contract?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have said on a number of occasions that we will have to replace
the Sea Kings and the Labradors, which have a lifecycle up to
the year 2000, but we would like to look at what kind of
replacements will be required as soon as the defence review is
out of the way.
As with all major government procurement, we try to have the
industrial benefits accrue to all regions of the country. I am sure
this will apply in any future defence contracts that are let.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development when we could expect to see legislation. Now we
read that the minister has reassured Atlantic premiers that
proposed changes to unemployment insurance would not be
implemented for five to seven years.
Why did the minister not clearly tell Canadians that with his
no action plan changes would take five to seven years?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon.
member is still reasonably new to the House, but he should
understand that the timetable we have set would be for
legislation in the spring of 1995 or perhaps in the fall, depending
on how consultations with the provinces go. We would have new
legislation in 1995.
That would mean, therefore, that any new implementation of
the unemployment insurance system would take until January 1,
1996 to take effect. If there was a frequency test, as proposed in
the green paper, it would take three years for that test to work its
way through the system. That is what I was referring to.
I understand it may not be understood by the hon. member
because he has not been through how government works before,
and thank goodness he never will.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister should have put his proposals in a
yellow book. If he is talking about targets, everybody knows that
if he does not have anything to aim at he is not going to miss.
Canadians have been waiting for six months for this no action
plan and now everybody knows what it is full of: limited
options, no price tags, no time lines, and no hope.
Are there any other major surprises coming on social program
reform, or should Canadians just throw the discussion paper
away and keep an eye on the newspapers to hear about his plans?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon.
member was very busy this weekend trying to protect some
remnant of sanity in his own party against the members of his
convention. If he had been spending time in his own
constituency and out talking to Canadians, as I have been doing
for the last 10 days, he would realize there is widespread interest
in every part of the country in terms of having a major debate,
discussion and dialogue.
Canadians are being heard. They are being listened to. They
want to put their own signatures to the program. It constantly
amazes me why the Reform Party is so authoritarian and
anti-democratic that it does not want to have a public discussion
on social policy.
6777
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The National Forum on Health will open on Thursday in
Ottawa. The federal government and the provinces are still
deadlocked as, according to a spokesperson for the Minister of
Health, not one of the provinces has accepted her invitation to
participate in the Forum under the terms set by the government,
that is to say only in an advisory capacity.
(1440)
Does the Minister of Health not recognize that, without the
provinces, which where invited by Ottawa only out of courtesy,
her National Forum on Health will be nothing more than a
masquerade to justify interfering further in an area of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): As you
know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the health forum on Thursday
is to advise and help the federal government to examine
long-term issues regarding the health of all Canadians. This
being said, I have always worked very well with my provincial
counterparts and I intend to continue to do so.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
another question for the minister and I hope to get a clear answer
this time. Does the Minister of Health not realize that, if the
provinces refuse to participate in her forum, it is because they
will not be able to participate fully and because they have
uncovered the true intentions of the federal government, namely
to cut provincial transfer payments for health care?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been working very closely with my colleagues at
the provincial level, so much so that a large number of the many
knowledgeable Canadians who are members of the forum have
had their names put forward by the ministers of health from the
provinces.
I look forward to working with the forum members but I will
continue to work with the decision making body, the conference
of federal-provincial ministers of health.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Older
workers in my riding who were formerly employed by
Koehring-Waterous Timberjack are now in desperate need of
support under the program for older workers adjustment.
Since the closing of their plant in the fall of 1992, most of
these older workers have been unable to find alternate
employment and many face losing their homes in order to make
ends meet.
Could the minister comment on why we are experiencing
these frustrating delays on the approval of this
federal-provincial program and tell us what he could do to
mitigate the problems?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the
program for older workers is a joint program, federal and
provincial. It depends on joint administration and decisions on
designations.
Last March I wrote a letter to all the provinces indicating a
willingness to sign a new agreement. Unfortunately the province
of Ontario came back with a counter offer for a new benefit
arrangement. Therefore it has yet to sign the new program for
older workers adjustment. We cannot go ahead with
designations until the Government of Ontario approves.
I understand it is soon to go to its cabinet and as soon as it
approves the new agreement on older workers we can go ahead
with designations. I urge the hon. member and others to put
whatever kindly persuasion on the Ontario government they can
to go ahead with these designations.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Prime Minister was quoted as saying: ``A Prime
Minister of Canada has a Constitution he must respect and there
is no mechanism in the Constitution permitting the separation of
any part of Canadian territory''.
We know that separatism would require substantial
constitutional amendment. Will the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs commit to the House, on behalf of the
government, that it is the position of the Government of Canada
that any change to the constitutional status of a province would
have to be done legally and would require, under the amending
formula, the consent of all provinces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question on which the Prime
Minister commented in general. I certainly do not intend to go
any further than that.
6778
(1445 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 17 the minister declined to respond for similar hypothetical
reasons saying that the Quebec Liberals would win the
provincial election.
My supplementary question concerns an article written
recently by the member for Vancouver Quadra. The hon.
member said that the federal government today retains its full
constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum
vote, to control the content and wording of any referendum
question, to control the actual timing of any vote and to launch
its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding
any Quebec vote.
This is not a hypothetical situation. I ask the minister to
indicate whether or not this reflects the constitutional position
of the Government of Canada.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I could answer that we also intend to win the
referendum. In the question of the provincial election we came
much closer than was predicted for the Liberal Party to win. In
this case there is no doubt the referendum will be won, so it is
still a hypothetical question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Although the Minister of Human Resources Development has
just launched a wide-ranging consultation on the possible
reform of social programs, a reform which, among other things,
would emphasize community resources to help unemployed
youth, he has just ended the subsidy for Carrefour-Jeunesse
Emploi de l'Outaouais, which has effectively helped young
unemployed people in that region for ten years.
My question is this: How can the minister reconcile his
decision to end financial assistance for Carrefour-Jeunesse
Emploi with his discussion paper, which intends to put more
emphasis on community organizations? How can he reconcile
the contradiction between deeds and words?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out before, one
of the basic elements of decentralizing federal programming is
to allow decision making to take place at the local level and to
allow that level to set priorities and determine where the best
allocation would go.
If the hon. member would look at this case in point she would
recognize that the recommendation as to where the funding
should go for that particular program in that area was made in
the local community.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): By the local CEC.
[Translation]
For his part, how can the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs go along with those who ended the subsidy for
Carrefour-Jeunesse Emploi, when at the same time he paid
$130,000 to set up an employment centre in Hull, but for
immigrants this time?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat for the hon.
member that she should look carefully at what investments on
human resources the federal government is making in the
Outaouais area. This year alone we are putting about $17 million
into that region. Of that, $3.5 million directly relates to youth
employment and training services.
By the decision that was made in that area for the particular
program we will be able to handle several hundred additional
people through the new centre. That is the reason for the
reorganization that was recommended in that area.
As to trying to make a case that we should spend on one group
and not the other, the government tries to provide services for a
wide variety of Canadians and not make the kind of choices of
setting one group against the other which the hon. member is
obviously trying to do.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 4 at four o'clock in the
afternoon 16-year old Pamela Cameron was walking on one of
the busiest streets in Surrey, B.C. She never made it to her
destination. She was murdered and her body was left in a brush
covered lot. The man charged in her murder is a convicted sex
offender. The court called this man a walking time bomb. When
he was released Corrections Canada advised that he was a high
risk offender.
Will the Solicitor General advise the House what steps the
government will take to protect innocent children from sexual
predators?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I join with the hon. member in regretting very much
this tragedy and extend sympathies to the family of the young
6779
girl in question. At the time of the murder the individual the hon.
member mentioned was neither on parole nor on conditional
release. There was no law in place that permitted any control
over the individual.
(1450)
I want to add that we are working with a federal-provincial
task force on measures to deal with issues of post-sentence
detention. We look forward to receiving a report very soon so
that we can move ahead in dealing with these kinds of situations.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are debating my private member's bill in
the House now and it deals with this issue.
The Liberal red book states that as a government it would
introduce measures to protect women and children. This
government failed to protect Pamela Cameron. It failed to
protect Sarah Kelly in The Pas and it failed to protect Mindy
Tran in Kelowna.
Will the minister advise the House when the government will
live up to the red book promises and its commitment to protect
this country's children?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice with my support is working
actively to develop measures. When they come forward I hope
the hon. member and her party will give them full support. In
this way we will make real progress very soon.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last May I asked the minister to inquire into the problem of
human rights violations in Albania. Since that time there have
been serious developments including the imprisonment and
sentencing of five ethnic Greek members of the Omonia
organization.
[Translation]
Could the minister tell us what Canada has done to ensure
respect for human rights in Albania?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada believes that the CSCE is the best
organization to try to lead the parties concerned to an
agreement.
Of course, both Greece and Albania, which are members of
the CSCE, should use the CSCE's good offices to try to get out of
the difficult situation there. Canada encourages these two
countries to use the CSCE's mediation.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On September 27, in a totally inaccurate statement to the
Japanese Association for Canadian Studies in Sapporo, an
employee of the Canadian embassy in Japan, Patricia
Bader-Johnson, denigrated Hydro-Québec by saying that the
Quebec Crown corporation was fuelling racial tensions between
Natives and other Quebecers. Without checking things out, this
employee attributed to Hydro-Québec a dubious advertisement
that originated in fact from an oil heating company.
Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware of this and does he
admit that it is totally unacceptable for one of his employees
abroad to denigrate in this way a Quebec Crown corporation
such as Hydro-Québec?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that Canada's Department of
Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development
Agency very often call on Hydro-Quebec's expertise and skills
for overseas projects.
The remarks made by an employee do not represent the
Canadian government's position. I think that the hon. member
should not make a big deal out of one person's comments, when
the Government of Canada often works in close co-operation
with Hydro-Québec on very important projects that create jobs
in Quebec and enable Hydro-Québec to play an international
role.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
that the minister has not answered the question and I ask him:
Does he not think that it is necessary to set the record straight
with the Japanese and can he tell us exactly what he intends to
do?
(1455)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that he makes too
much of one person's remarks which, I am sure, did not change
Japan's very high opinion of an institution as important as
Hydro-Québec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been in this House for a year. In that entire year the
Solicitor General has rambled on with his rhetoric about his task
force, his studies, his reviews, all those wonderful things he is
going to do to make this country safe and those hon. members
laugh. They should laugh in the faces of the victims and see if
they think it is funny. It is time to take some action.
6780
While the minister rambles, hundreds and hundreds of
victims have felt the sting of these guys who have been released
when they ought to have been left in jail. Would the minister be
willing to show the intestinal fortitude and political will to
announce a moratorium that no more dangerous violent
offenders will be released until this is settled?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concerns about these
kinds of situations. I share his concerns but I have to apply the
law adopted by this Parliament. This Parliament has not given
me the authority to suspend the law on my own volition. We
want to move forward on changes in the law. In view of the hon.
member's rhetoric I look forward to having his support of our
measures when we bring them forward.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I for
one would be more than pleased to support something that would
save the lives of future victims.
Are fellows by the names of Thom, Sparklingeyes, Jerabek,
Toner or Foulston familiar to the minister? Will the minister be
responsible for any offences these violent offenders who are
now being sought by the RCMP-
The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member could rephrase his
question.
I see that the members in the gallery are speaking again.
Would the hon. member like to rephrase his memory, rephrase
his question.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my memory is hopeless.
Five dangerous violent offenders are strolling the streets,
having escaped custody. These people were on parole or day
passes. They have been named by the RCMP to be highly
dangerous and are on the most wanted list.
Is the Solicitor General prepared to accept responsibility for
what these five people do within the next few days before they
are caught?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the police authorities are actively seeking these people
to bring them back into custody. I hope the hon. member and all
Canadians will support the police in these efforts.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister of human resources stated in Montreal last week
that his proposals are part of a larger package the Minister of
Finance is due to release to the finance committee. Yet today
with the release of the paper ``The New Framework for
Economic Policy'' we still have no specific costing on the
proposals outlined in the social security review paper.
Will the minister come clean with Canadians and say exactly
how much the Minister of Finance sees cutting from social
programs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning we
set out a basic framework as to how we feel the Canadian
economy can deal with what is its single greatest problem which
is the failure to create jobs in sufficient numbers to substantially
reduce the unemployment rate.
(1500 )
We basically said that the focus must be on productivity and
we set out the key elements of how we would generate that
productivity. We also stated in there that as far as we are
concerned-I am now repeating the words of the Minister of
Human Resources Development-the best social policy is a
good job.
I must say that complementing certainly that framework are
the tremendous efforts by the minister to basically make it
possible for Canadians to develop the skills and the talents they
need to face up to a very different world. It is very clear that the
government has its act together and Canadians are going to
benefit from it.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the
Republic of South Africa led by Mr. Govan Mbeki, Deputy
President of the Senate.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the
member for Calgary West asked two questions of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. One was on the constitutional
position of the government on the legality of cessation. The
other was on the question of whether the Government of Canada
had the competence to allow or disallow a referendum on
secession. Neither was hypothetical.
The minister declined to answer these questions on the
grounds that they were hypothetical. We believe neither was.
6781
The Speaker: I would point out that in question period
questions may be asked but should not be of a hypothetical
nature. Members will note at that time the Chair did not
intervene and did not rule on whether it was a hypothetical
question.
We all accept in this House that ministers have the right to
answer a question or not to answer a question and take whatever
form when they do answer a question to do so. In this case, if a
question is posed it is up to a minister or a member of the
government to answer as he or she sees fit.
If I judge a question to be hypothetical, as your Speaker I will
intervene. I cannot control the response and for the most part I
cannot control the question.
_____________________________________________
6781
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments which were made by
the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
20 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members
the activities organized to commemorate World Food Day,
today, in Canada and around the world.
(1505)
The World Food Day reminds us that we have not yet found a
sustainable solution to the problem of hunger in the world.
Today, the Canadian Association for the World Food Day is
organizing various activities and, in particular, workshops in all
provinces and both territories, and the theme this year is: Water,
source of life.
Canada, richly endowed in this regard, has contributed
through its expertise in agriculture and irrigation to the
improvement of water supplies for families in rural areas around
the world.
[English]
On October 16, 1945 the food and agriculture organization of
the United Nations, the FAO, was founded in Quebec City. I
think it is only fitting that the House be reminded of the historic
role of a great Canadian, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
chairman and one of the principal architects of the founding
conference of the FAO.
[Translation]
Next year, Canada, Quebec and Quebec City, will be hosting
events to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the creation
of the FAO.
[English]
In the last 50 years we have experienced dramatic increases in
agricultural production. At the same time the world is faced with
daunting population growth. If we are to succeed into the next
millennium our efforts will have to be based on truly sustainable
agriculture. This will be one of the challenges that ministers of
agriculture of the 170 member countries of the FAO, their
officials, industry representatives and non-government
organizations from Canada and abroad will address when they
meet in Quebec City next year.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I have the pleasure of joining
our voice to that of the hon. member for Beauséjour, the
Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and
Oceans. Water is the source of life. Everyday, on our blue planet,
a third of the population goes hungry and every day, four out of
ten people go thirsty or do not have access to proper drinking
water.
It is said that human beings can go without food for around 40
days as long they can drink. But without food or water, they die
within four days. We cannot live without water and if we
compare the Earth to a grapefruit, a pinhead would represent our
water supply, 98 per cent of which is made up of salt water,
which leaves us with only two per cent considered freshwater.
We are not taking very good care of this two per cent found in
lakes, rivers, streams, clouds, glaciers, and underground
springs.
No later than yesterday I saw someone putting out a cigarette
butt by throwing it in a toilet bowl and flushing it out. What a
shameful waste of water! Here in Quebec and Canada,
groundwater, the water table, is getting deeper and deeper and is
often of questionable quality. One must keep in mind that one
litre of
6782
gasoline, diesel fuel or oil is enough to pollute one million litres
of groundwater.
(1510)
I am very happy to see that Quebec City will be host to the 170
FAO member countries for a convention, next October.
I would also like to take this opportunity to stress the
importance of the work carried out by the many organizations
involved in finding lasting solutions to world hunger. Despite
our collective wealth, hunger is a problem we know at home in
Montreal and other major Canadian cities.
I want to congratulate the World Food Day Association of
Canada which, through its numerous activities, helps raise the
awareness of Canadians and Quebecers regarding world hunger.
I would also like to encourage farmers to share their
experience by participating in joint projects with other
countries. The Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec has
set up projects of this kind, showing a sense of solidarity which I
believe augurs very well.
Finally, 18 months or two years ago, I was shocked by a piece
of news coming out of the home province of the secretary of
state, which is the potato capital of the country. As he will no
doubt remember, there was an overabundance of potatoes and to
keep prices up, both governments had found an ingenious trick. I
must specify that it was the previous government. Anyway, they
decided to buy the potatoes and bury them in a dump. I wonder if
the member recalls this incident. It did not happen on the other
side of our planet, but in New Brunswick, 18 months or two
years ago.
I cannot forget the photosynthesis formula I was taught in
grade school; you too will remember that we were told that on
Earth there are three life-giving elements: water, air and earth. I
will remind you that without water for three to four days, it is the
end of this world for us.
Therefore, it with pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois joins the
hon. member for Beauséjour in saluting the World Food Day
Association of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
October 16 marks the 14th celebration of World Food Day.
Governments got together and said they were in favour of food.
This is ridiculous. What do governments have to do with food?
Farmers produce food, other business people process and
market food.
In Canada every day is food day. In this country for the most
part at least, with a few notable exceptions, markets operate as
they should. Prices tell farmers what customers want. Prices tell
farmers what should be grown. Prices tell stores what to sell and
customers what to buy.
I am not saying things are perfect here in Canada. There is still
far too much government involvement in our industry, there is
no doubt about that. Governments have too much say in
marketing boards. There are too many interprovincial trade
barriers and too many bureaucratic hoops for farmers to jump
through in order to make a decent living.
Here where people are free food is abundant. Throughout the
world there is a large discrepancy between what is being
produced and what is needed. Unfair trade practices, for
example the export enhancement program in the United States
and the common agriculture policies in the European Union,
prevent free markets from operating as they should.
(1515 )
Why are the countries of the former Soviet Union suffering
from hunger? It is because they are still suffering from the
effects of a centrally planned economy.
When governments stay out of the way, people co-operate to
produce plenty. When governments get involved things go
wrong; supply is short, prices are too high and markets are
skewed. Would you let the post office feed you? World Food Day
is not a recognition of what governments have done. It
recognizes what governments have failed to do. Government
involvement in agriculture should be reduced to a minimum.
This is essential to the growth of the future of the agriculture
industry in Canada and indeed around the world.
If governments would get out of the way we would be well on
the way toward minimizing world hunger.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the
House for the following motion:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize the
Subcommittee on national security of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs to televise the meeting of Tuesday, October 18, 1994, in
accordance with the guidelines pertaining to televising Committee proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
6783
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition duly
certified by the clerk of petitions containing 60 signatures from
residents of the town of Assiniboia and district in my
constituency.
Whereas the library book postal subsidy is necessary for the
continued operation of interlending services among libraries
and plays a vital role in the distribution of cultural and technical
information and whereas cancellation of the subsidy or changes
in the amount of subsidy would result in severely hampering the
public's access to information housed in libraries, wherefore the
undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to continue the library book postal subsidy and to
ensure that there will be no further erosion in the resulting
library book postal rate.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition signed by 105
constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area
which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to ensure
that the Victoria Commonwealth Games shooting facilities will
be completely removed from Heal's rifle range by October 31,
1994.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a
petition from constituents in Horsefly, Williams Lake and 150
Mile House, British Columbia.
My constituents call on the government to refrain from
passing any legislation that results in additional gun control
laws. My constituents also request that under existing laws
Parliament act to increase penalties for the illegal possession of
a firearm or for criminal use of any firearm.
(1520)
This petition is presented with my concurrence.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present two petitions.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reject any proposals
which might add to the existing regulatory restrictions for
firearms. These restrictions clearly punish law-abiding gun
owners and do not address the real problem in Canada which is a
crime problem.
The petitioners go on to urge government to provide strict
sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentences for anyone
convicted of a crime while in possession of a weapon or a
firearm. Their message is get tough on criminals, not on
law-abiding citizens.
I agree with these proposals.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
under Standing Order 36 I wish to present two petitions on
behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre. The first is on the
issue of euthanasia. These petitioners request that the current
laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): The second petition
requests that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The
petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals
receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married
people.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to present two petitions, the first one asking that
Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): The second
petition asks that Parliament not amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of 1,252 Albertans, many of whom are my
constituents.
These petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would in any way
indicate the societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality. These petitioners also ask that Parliament not
amend the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexualorientation.
6784
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but I endorse the
petition as well.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): This petition is
about young people. My constituents see our young Canadians
as our greatest asset. They point out that youth today has many
challenges, for example the breakdown of the traditional family
which has caused certain problems. They see increasing
violence in our society. These petitioners want the government
to continue to ensure that training, retraining and jobs are a
priority for all Canadians and certainly our young men and
women.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Question No. 79 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 79-Mr. Morrison:
With regard to the Department of Industry, has federal funding been provided
to Para-Ordnance located in Scarborough, Ontario, If so, how much, for what
purpose and for how long?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): A search of the
department's corporate database has indicated that there is no
record of financial assistance having been provided to
``Para-Ordnance Mfg Inc.'' located in Scarborough, Ontario
under programs administered by Industry Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I suggest that all other
remaining questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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
12 minutes.
6784
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment; and of the
amendment to the amendment.
(1525 )
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-46. I want to talk about
some positive aspects of the government's policy direction
because economic indicators in Canada are indeed positive.
It is not a complete coincidence that the Canadian government
has introduced new restructuring such as the Department of
Industry. At the same time, to be frank and forthright, there are
still unsatisfactory economic conditions which need to be
addressed. It is my hope that logical steps, including the new
Industry Canada format, will lead to sustainable economic
recovery in Canada.
The approach of fiscal responsibility with sensible spending
reductions while maintaining integral support for business and
industry is a reasonable policy for today's economic climate.
The reorganization and creation of the new Department of
Industry is probably most often associated with business
operations in cities such as high tech and sophisticated science
based companies. However, I would like to comment on the new
Industry Canada from a different perspective, that of a rural
setting. Canada's rural regions also depend on industrial
development.
My riding of Kenora-Rainy River is in northern Ontario
where most people automatically think of resource industries
like mining and forestry. While that is true, we do depend on the
resource sector to provide us with an economic foundation but
the realities of a new market order dictate that economies across
Canada diversify.
Industry Canada is tailored to accommodate diversity in all
regions of the country. In northern Ontario diversification has
been ongoing for many years, out of necessity I might add.
Changing market conditions and economic downturns in the
major resource sectors have forced regional economies to
develop new markets and new strategies.
Diversified industrial sectors play a vital role in northern
Ontario's economy. The focus of tourism has expanded to
include non-traditional and non-consumptive vacation
packages which complement the more common products of
fishing
6785
and hunting lodges. This new brand of ecotourism is not
replacing the traditional tourism market but rather diversifying
a strong sector.
In the past our resource sector consisted of pulp and paper
mills and gold mines only. These mills and mines are still the
backbone of the northern Ontario economy but now we realize
there must be a concerted effort to diversify.
Companies are now concentrating on secondary industry by
manufacturing wood and mineral products instead of exporting
raw materials. The production of wood furniture and mineral
products such as granite headstones is indicative of a diversified
economy taking shape in northern Ontario.
Secondary manufacturing such as printing products and
packaging and, yes, leading edge technology in a vast array of
fields from computers to agriculture and telecommunications is
the new wave of economics in northern Ontario and rural
regions across the country. This is why Industry Canada
profoundly affects rural Canada as well as urban Canada. This is
why northern Ontario is keenly interested in the structures
within a new department of Industry Canada.
Although I have just cited fairly large resource sectors, there
is another area important to my riding and the rest of the country
which Industry Canada must service efficiently to promote
economic growth and that is a topic that I have raised many
times in the House, the area of small and medium sized
businesses.
The initiatives and new mandate of Industry Canada are
essential tools for small business growth. In order to become
more efficient and gain access to large markets, small business
across the country must be provided with a network of services
and information so that skills can be acquired to start new
innovative operations as well as expanding traditional
businesses.
Federal developments important to the success of the small
business sector include the Canadian Technology Network,
Canada Investment Fund, engineers and scientists programs and
the much talked about information highway.
(1530 )
Networking and sharing of market information are absolutely
crucial to building competitive companies in the global
marketplace. Organizations such as economic development
offices, centres of excellence, and the new local training boards
must develop networks so that business can access the tools they
need to remain competitive. Industry Canada is actively
promoting such a network with its new initiatives.
New changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Federal
Business Development Bank and the formation of a new
relationship between financial institutions and small business
are also areas important to business and industrial progress. I
took part in a task force hearing in Ontario with my colleagues
examining a new code of conduct for banks and small business.
Granted, changes will not take place overnight. It is this type of
initiative that small business will need to survive in the new
marketplace.
Gaining reasonable access to capital dollars has been a
distinct problem for small and medium sized businesses
attempting to expand or establish new ventures. We need these
companies to create new jobs and fire the economic engine.
Industry Canada is one of the federal departments working to
enhance financial conditions for Canadian companies. Industry
Canada will also work toward other objectives to strengthen our
potential for economic growth. Eliminating duplication of
business services and regulations between federal and
provincial governments is an important step in making it easier
for our industrial sectors to flourish.
Industry Canada is vigorously pursuing new and practical
partnerships with different levels of government. Combine this
action with programs that are developed in co-operation with
the private sector and we hope to have a new industrial structure
in Canada that promotes growth and prosperity. I acknowledge
that the private business community will lead Canada's
economic recovery, but we in government on this side of the
House strongly feel there is a constructive role to play for
departments like the Department of Industry.
Specifically I do not blame the industrial sector in northern
Ontario if it feels the previous government left it out in the cold
during tough economic times. Unfortunately it was the attitude
of the federal government to feed struggling companies to the
dogs. Liberals, I might add, do not think that is the way we
should go. We do not want to throw good money after bad
money, but far too often companies needing only a small amount
of support to get over the hump were ignored and died a very
quiet death.
In the past I have suffered alongside business people in my
riding who were unable to access appropriate government
services and funding programs. Business proposals with
excellent promise were often ignored because of patronage
attitudes, a lack of vision within the federal government and
plain old bungling. I hope we can eliminate that in the future.
Programs and services being developed by Industry Canada
are designed to identify struggling companies with a potential
worth saving. That is the Liberal way of building a strong
economy.
In conclusion, I return to the resource sector in northern
Ontario and the rest of Canada. Primary resource industries not
only provide revenues, jobs and valuable exports, but they also
spark secondary industry. This economic process is vital to my
riding and all of northern Ontario.
6786
Secondary industries, or clusters as they are known in the
current terminology of new age economics, spin off from a
strong resource sector and form all sorts of companies providing
jobs and stability. It is of the utmost urgency that Industry
Canada follow through with the promising initiatives created by
this new federal department. The new and revitalized role of
Industry Canada truly has the potential to forge a solid economic
framework in the country. The new mandate of federal
departments like Industry Canada is to nurture co-operative
partnerships on which we can build an effective national
economy.
I am confident that regions such as northern Ontario will now
at least have a fighting chance to take advantage of a healthy
business environment, due in large part to the development of
practical effective federal programs.
(1535 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
constituency happens to be virtually a mirror reflection of the
hon. member's constituency. I understand the whole business of
resource base and the business of having to diversify.
I was very encouraged this morning when the finance minister
said: ``Equally we believe that regional economic assistance
should focus on genuine opportunities that have the potential to
be self-sustaining. We intend to concentrate, for example, more
on tourism and on the creation of a positive environment for
small and medium sized businesses, the multinationals of
tomorrow. At the individual level, as our social security reform
proposals make clear, we also believe there is a need to change
unemployment insurance, building on reforms begun in last
February's budget''.
Using exactly the same context in the very next paragraph that
follows he said: ``The current system is outdated social policy.
While it has worked well for a lot of people, for too many others
the UI system does little or nothing for their self-esteem or
success. But the current UI system is outdated economic policy
too. It encourages chronic use and repeat use of the program by
businesses and individuals. It is a barrier that prevents people
from adapting to changes that are unavoidable and opportunities
that are present. Therefore we intend to take measures that will
bring UI back closer to what the term says, insurance''.
I would like to ask the hon. member two questions. First,
during the course of the last election I am sure the hon. member
will have run into a Reform candidate somewhere along the line.
I would rather suspect that Reform candidate said exactly what
the Minister of Finance said this morning, that unemployment
insurance should be returned to its original purpose, insurance.
I would be curious. What did the hon. member say in those
particular situations? I would suspect that his constituents might
be interested to see if what he is saying today, reflecting on what
the minister who is a leader in his party is saying, is actually
parallel to what he was saying during the course of the
campaign.
Was he like other Liberal members attacking Reform Party
people who were saying unemployment insurance should be
returned to its original purpose, insurance, or was he agreeing
with the minister? Is there a consistency in his position?
Mr. Nault: Madam Speaker, yes, I did run into Reform
candidates in the last election, which I found to be quite
interesting. The member should know two things. I very much
followed the platform of the Reform Party, simply because if I
was going to run against somebody I should know what my
opposition was saying.
Reform Party members did not say that they were just in
favour of bringing UI back to its original intent of insurance.
They were saying they wanted the government to get out of UI
completely, to privatize UI and put it in the hands of the
employers and the employees or, more important, in the hands of
the business sector and let it run the whole show.
The member has to be a little more frank and open when he
says that what the minister said today in his paper is identical to
what the Reform Party said. There is a very significant
difference between what was said in the paper today and what
the Reform Party said during the last election campaign.
During the campaign I said-and we have said it continually
in the House and I will say it again-that the UI system as it is
presently working is ineffective for people in regions like mine
because it puts them on a treadmill. Because of the problem
created by the regulations as they now exist, businesses use UI
as a means of augmenting their business and their existing
revenues within the company structure.
I am a railroader. I have three railway terminals in my riding.
At the height of the transportation of grains and other
commodities at a certain time of the year there are hundreds
more employees working in the railway industry than in winter
months. As soon as they get enough weeks the railway lays them
off. The industry is compensated by having individuals who are
technically sound come back into the business when business
picks up. Who pays for that?
(1540)
An hon. member: They get a subsidy.
Mr. Nault: Obviously, it is a subsidy. I have questioned that
for a number of years and it is only one example. Those are
things the minister and the government are trying to change so
that people will be able to improve their lot without being on a
treadmill.
In conclusion, this morning the minister referred to
diversifying northern Ontario and having regional development
programs that do two things. They access dollars for the
6787
diversification of regions like mine. We continue to say that. We
still say that and the minister has said that.
We have also said that we want to focus on a business
relationship more than subsidies, wherein we will give loans and
encourage businesses to succeed by having a fair regional
development program. That is very consistent with what we all
have said in the past.
By taking the criticisms of the finance minister out of context
the member is suggesting that somehow we have changed. In
fact we have not; we are still saying what we said all along.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are now in a period
when all speakers can speak for 10 minutes and there are no
questions or answers.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am not sure if I am hearing a drum roll over there or something
more serious is happening; it is a bit disconcerting.
Mr. Abbott: A drum roll for your speech.
Mr. Penson: Yes, that is what it is.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-46.
The bill clearly demonstrates the government's vision of how
business should be carried out in Canada, with a ball and chain
tied to one leg.
As far as business is concerned the bill is taking industry in
exactly the wrong direction. Business is not crying out for
regional development grants. In most cases, when such money is
withdrawn the enterprise that was initially helped by
government money fails.
Business is not crying out for more programs and more
bureaucrats to administer them. In fact the opposite is the case.
It should be government's role to provide an environment where
business can operate freely and do what it does best: creating
competitive goods, creating services on one hand and
sustainable employment on the other.
Instead Bill C-46 gives the minister wide-ranging powers to
create an environment in which government is the central tool of
economic development and where government establishes
policies and programs for specific groups and industries. Surely
we must learn from the lesson of the former east bloc countries:
government intervention does not work.
If taxpayers had all the details of how their hard earned money
was spent in the past in the so-called national interest, they
would be outside picketing right now. The cabinet should have
no right to alter significantly any industry or company in favour
of another. Companies and industries must be able to enter and
exit the market on the basis of their financial viability. All
industries and organizations must face a level playing field and
evenhanded policies that facilitate and improve on trade and
commerce within Canada.
Governments must learn to let industry stand on its own and
die on its own. In the west we have seen the national energy
policy and we have seen Petro-Canada. We know the results of
government interference and excess of ministerial direction.
It is time to rein in an overbearing government and let
Canadian businesses push the country forward. Instead the
government insists on having its nose in the workings of the
Canadian economy through micromanagement of industry. It is
an unacceptable intrusion in all sectors of the economy. The
government must devise national policies and stay out of
influencing Canadian industry, organizations, regions and
provinces in a piecemeal manner.
The Hibernias, Novotels and Lloydminster upgraders of the
country should be things of the past. Unfortunately they
continue to place a heavy burden on Canadian taxpayers and
distort allocation of Canadian human and physical resources.
Successive governments, including this one, have still not
learned that these projects do not work.
The bill gives a blank cheque to the Minister of Industry to
fund projects at will. Canadians remember the individual
projects awarded to Shawinigan and Baie Comeau. That was
done by the past government, but we seem to be following the
same road here. They remember the millions of dollars
funnelled into projects of no economic benefit, starting with
changes to the mandate of the Department of Industry and
responsible to the minister. Reform believes these kinds of
projects should be eliminated.
(1545)
No less out of date is part II of this bill which relates to
regional economic development. At one time regional economic
development was perceived as a means of reducing regional
disparities. Regional economic policy has been in existence for
a long time and is widely condemned by economists as a means
of creating economic dependence, not economic development.
Since its inception regional development policy has been about
pork barrelling and perpetuating dying industries. In their heart
of hearts I am sure everyone in this Chamber knows or at least
suspects this.
The government should admit that regional development
starts and ends in the regions themselves. The purpose of the
government in the Department of Industry should be to develop
national policies and facilitate trade and commerce within
Canada, not to provide goods or services that the private sector
should and could provide for itself and not to try to manage
Canadian industry.
Let me mention some of the things businesses are asking of
the government. I take these items directly from the task force
6788
paper released in September 1994 and prepared for the Business
Council on National Issues.
Industry wants balanced government budgets with low levels
of public indebtedness. Industry wants competitive levels of
taxation that encourage savings and investment, things that
other countries such as China has. Industry wants international
economic policies that promote aggressive trade development
and diversification. Industry wants a federation characterized
by free trade internally and smaller and more efficient
governments working more closely together.
The Department of Industry cannot give businesses balanced
budgets, competitive taxation levels and internal free trade by
distributing grants or delivering programs. I cannot help but
wonder if the government is at odds with itself in the design of
this bill.
Today, in this very Chamber we heard the member for
Kootenay East refer to the Minister of Finance and his press
release, explicitly stating and I quote: ``That the private sector is
the core of the economy and that government's role requires a
fundamental redesign''. I quote the Minister of Finance as well:
``If Canada is to become more productive, government must
become more productive too. We must shift from trying to fix
every problem ourselves. And if government activities still do
not serve a significant public purpose they should not be
continued. I say let us go to it and eliminate grant giving and
regional development programs altogether''. The Minister of
Finance has more to say on the subject: ``Restoring the fiscal
health is essential. If we do not do that job we will fail at
everything else''. He is absolutely right.
Here is an opportunity to create enormous savings. One
department is being created out of four: the department of
industry, science and technology; the broadcasting side of the
department of communications; Investment Canada; and the
department of consumer and corporate affairs. These changes
were put in place under the previous short-lived government
before it became apparent how Canada's fiscal situation really
was.
Could not more have been done to bring fiscal sanity to bear
here? Out of 6,000 positions within these four departments only
230 are being eliminated. That is less than 4 per cent. Out of a
budget of $3 billion only $26 million is being eliminated. That is
less than 1 per cent. I suggest that the proponents of this bill get
hold of the press release of the Minister of Finance and study it.
The government does require a fundamental redesign, as the
finance minister puts it. In the area of industry a whole new
model is required. The federal government's goal in the industry
department should be to establish and maintain a culture that
rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research, and which
ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace.
(1550 )
Hand in hand with this approach should be government
policies that encourage free markets, enhance competition and
treat all individuals and groups equally. Such policies will see
too that business can trade fairly within Canada and that tax
rates allow business to be competitive.
These are the kinds of changes industry requires for the 21st
century. I hope the government is listening and will make the
required changes so Canadian industry can compete and be
healthy in the future.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity this
afternoon to discuss Bill C-46, a reorganization of the industry
department. It is an important piece of legislation. A large
number of activities which are going to affect the business
community are being brought together into one department:
small business support; tourism; economic development;
telecommunications; trade and commerce; science; and
consumer affairs.
The thrust of the legislation in what it is trying to accomplish
is very positive. We are trying to make the department more
efficient. We are going to give the small business sector and the
business community in general one stop, the Department of
Industry, in which to interface with government rather than
having to go through a paper chase every time.
It is going to be a more efficient process. We are going to have
a number of consolidations. The member opposite mentioned
some of the savings that are beginning. Those will be
accelerated as time goes on. We are going to have a more
productive department. We are going to have centralized
planning and direction for our government's industry policy.
This consolidated department will give us the opportunity to do
that.
There are three specific areas I would like to talk about: small
business support; tourism; and regional economic development.
Small business support by the Department of Industry is
absolutely critical to the Canadian economy. It is the fastest
growing component of our economy. In the first three years of
this decade during one of the worst recessions we have ever
experienced, 73,000 new small businesses were created. Eight
of ten new jobs in the country come from the small business
sector. It employs 4.2 million Canadians and accounts for 37 per
cent of the country's employment. This new Department of
Industry is undertaking a number of important initiatives to help
this sector grow, to help it expand, to help it employ more
Canadians.
One of the most important initiatives which I have had some
direct input on and one which my colleague for Kenora-Rainy
River mentioned was access to capital. It is absolutely essential
that the small business sector be able to access both debt and
equity capital if it is going to have an opportunity to expand or
an opportunity to establish new businesses. The department has
already moved in this area. A private sector committee estab-
6789
lished last winter has been studying this issue. It is about to
make a report with some very specific recommendations on how
an environment can be created within which small business can
access capital.
The department is working with the chartered banks, with this
committee and others on a code of conduct. It will establish the
relationship that will exist between the small business sector
and the banking community to help ensure there is better access
to capital.
There is an ongoing review of the Federal Business
Development Bank to make it more effective and more
responsive to the needs of the small business sector. An all party
committee of this House, the industry committee, will table
within a couple of days its report with some very thorough and
sound recommendations on how this process can be taken even
further.
I had an opportunity earlier this year to chair an access to
capital task force. It toured the province of Ontario and
discussed with the small business sector some of the things that
can be done to help them access capital.
Beyond that the department is doing other things. It is helping
formulate business networks to help individual small businesses
combine their strengths so they can compete globally. They are
working on establishing a Canada investment fund to help
innovative firms access venture capital, to operate not as a
replacement for capital from the private sector but as a stimulus
for entry into those markets.
(1555 )
There should be better access to government programming
through business service centres. This is an important initiative.
Small business people do not have the time to go through reams
and reams of paper trying to access information. They need it to
be given concisely and in one location. This is an important
initiative that is being undertaken co-operatively with the
provinces.
There is a private sector committee working under the
auspices of the industry department looking at the business
environment, including the regulatory and paper burden that
small businesses have to operate under today. We have to relieve
the small business people from spending more time on
paperwork than doing their jobs and more time on trying to
adhere to regulations than trying to earn profits and employing
people.
The second area is tourism, a critical industry in Canada and a
critical industry in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Representing 10 per cent of the Canadian labour force, 1.2
million jobs depend on this sector. In Canada 60,000 businesses
are directly employed in the tourism industry. It generates $12.9
billion in tax revenue which can be used for the betterment of all
Canadians. Locally in my riding 52 per cent of all employed
individuals are directly affected by the tourism industry. For
each million dollars that we are able to increase tourism in my
riding we can create 39 person-years of employment.
Industry Canada through Tourism Canada is working hard on
making that a bigger and better industry in this country. It is
helping to formulate partnerships with the private sector so that
we can market ourselves internationally as a country and attract
more visitors to Canada. They are concentrating on the
development of new products such as a winter experience
product including snowmobiling and cross-country skiing,
areas of vital concern in my riding where people are able to earn
their livings.
This is not going to be the end. It is the beginning. As the
Minister of Finance said today in his statement, the area of
tourism is one the government will concentrate on in the months
ahead. As well, the Prime Minister appointed his special advisor
to recommend further action. Tourism will be looked at by this
government. It will be pursued and will become an even more
important industrial tool in Canada.
The last area I would like to touch on very briefly is the area of
economic development. Something that is often forgotten in all
of the plans is that in northern Ontario we are a resource based
economy which has experienced great financial difficulties over
the years.
The economic development agency FEDNOR operates in
northern Ontario. I agree with the Minister of Finance and
several other comments in the House that we cannot subsidize a
losing proposition and expect it is going to have any meaningful
impact. However, economic development agencies can invest in
the future winners. It can help lever investment from the private
sector. In fact FEDNOR has committed $53 million directly but
by doing so it has been able to lever $186 million in additional
funds. That is what economic development agencies are all
about. That is what they do.
FEDNOR has participated in 843 projects since its inception
and it has helped create or maintain over 3,600 jobs. FEDNOR is
an important initiative for northern Ontario. It is one under the
auspices of the Minister of Industry and I am pleased to see it
will continue under the reorganized department.
In summary, this bill is committed to creating a department
which will create an environment in which business can prosper.
The reorganization of the department will help this happen. It
will make it more efficient, more effective and more productive.
I would like to congratulate the minister, his assistants and the
people of his department on a job well done in formulating this
piece of legislation.
6790
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-46, the Department of Industry
Act.
Our nation faces many challenges. Canada can no longer rely
solely on its natural resources. The demands of the future cannot
be met by supplies of the past. We must develop in ourselves and
in our industries the skills needed to challenge the conventional
ways of competing at home and abroad.
(1600 )
The competition we face abroad requires us to create new
skills among our workforce and a new vision in our industry. A
country that solves its own problems and competes successfully
with others stays strong and independent. We must begin
competing as a team against our international competitors.
This bill will allow the formation of a framework with which
we can begin to build Canada's industrial strategy.
The newly created Department of Industry will work with all
sectors of the economy to facilitate partnerships between
government, business, research centres and labour. An
industrial strategy will enable us to better compete in the global
marketplace.
We must also foster a climate to encourage Canadians to
develop an entrepreneurial spirit that harnesses their skills and
creativity. As we know, small and medium sized businesses are
the engine of our economy and that is why they must be an
integral part of a national industrial strategy.
The small and medium sized businesses of today with the
right climate can become tomorrow's multinationals. In order
for us to achieve economic growth we must use our limited
resources more effectively to encourage entrepreneurs to create
the wealth by becoming innovative and helping to expand our
export economy.
Canada's exports account for about 40 per cent of the total
output of the private sector. One in five Canadian jobs is directly
dependent on exports. One billion dollars of exports translates
into 15,000 new jobs. That is why the government is
aggressively pursuing international trade opportunities.
The creation of this department will help set the framework of
achieving the government's objectives, the creation of jobs and
economic growth by encouraging businesses, labour and
institutions to work together in setting goals and striving to
achieve them.
This will enable us to achieve a stronger economy and a better
standard of living for all Canadians. Canada already is home to
companies that are at the leading edge in their field such as
telecommunications, biotechnology, environment and health
care, et cetera.
What we must do is facilitate the greater success of these
industries in an ever competitive international climate by
ensuring that the environment here at home is conducive to the
continued achievement of excellence.
Through business networks our government has initiated the
sharing of information among diverse sectors of the economy,
enabling them to compete internationally, such as the business
corporation network which enables Canadian firms to access
thousands of partnering opportunities in 36 countries.
Another example is the advisory council made up of diverse
business interests working together on the development of the
information superhighway, not only for internal use but also for
the export market.
We must also improve the efficiency of our industries by
allowing them to compete more effectively within our borders.
Canada is hampered by many internal trade barriers. The cost of
these barriers to Canadians is as high as $6 billion annually.
The Minister of Industry, working in co-operation with his
provincial counterparts, has already begun and continues to
reduce these barriers to assist the free mobility of goods and
services.
Without the innovations of basic research industry will
stagnate. Countries such as Japan, Germany and the U.S. spend a
far greater proportion of their GDP on research and development
than does Canada. To compete internationally we must use our
limited resources by working smarter in partnership with
existing institutions in the private sector to find new
technologies that can be applied and marketed both internally
and abroad.
With this bill we will fulfil our responsibility as co-ordinators
of the vital relationship between research and industry and
promote the fullest use of science and technology from the
conception of an idea to its fruition in the international
marketplace.
In order for the government to continue to strengthen its
support of basic research and its industrial applications we must
be able to obtain royalties from research that succeed in being
used in the industrial applications in order that these moneys can
be reinvested in future research.
(1605 )
Small and medium sized enterprises must be in a position to
obtain and capitalize on the innovations of Canadians as they
develop these new technologies. Our government will continue
to streamline programs to assist the small and medium sized
enterprises to foster these new technologies.
In order for these small and medium sized enterprises to
succeed access to capital is vital. Along with the reduction of red
tape and the burden of the GST our government has already
begun the process of streamlining programs and eliminating
6791
some of these obstacles that impede the growth of small and
medium sized enterprises.
We must encourage competition among financial institutions
to ensure that we give our SMEs as much access to capital as
possible. Along with these initiatives our government has
increased funding to and the role of the FBDB which will play a
more active role in aiding our small and medium sizes
enterprises.
As a member of the industry committee I studied the issue
most critical to the SMEs which is their inability to access
capital. We will putting forward our recommendations
tomorrow. Along with those recommendations that will be
tabled tomorrow I will be making an additional recommendation
to my caucus and colleagues which is to encourage the chartered
banks to achieve a target of lending to small and medium sized
enterprises of 33 per cent of the total corporate loans, a ratio of
one to two; that is, for every two dollars lent to large businesses
one dollar should be lent to small and medium sized enterprises.
If the banks comply with this recommendation the capital
available to the small and medium sized enterprises will
increase from $30 billion to $45 billion, an increase of 50 per
cent. Two banks are already achieving this target on their own.
The industry act will help our business become more
innovative, efficient and be armed with enough capital to
compete internationally. We must take advantage also of our
well established international reputation to take Canadian
business to the world and also to bring the world to Canada.
Our tourist industry already accounts for more than 500,000
full time jobs and more than 60,000 enterprises. Last year
visitors to Canada contributed $9 billion in foreign exchange to
our economy and Canadians added a further $18 billion while
travelling within the country.
A national tourism strategy will be undertaken with the public
and private sectors to restructure and improve Canada's
tourism. A comprehensive marketing program both
domestically and abroad will help reduce the $8.2 billion travel
account deficit as well as improve industry competitiveness.
My constituents of Trinity-Spadina are looking forward to
this revitalization of tourism. We must market Canada to the
people of the world with pride and invite them here so that they
can share with us the beauty our country has to offer. I believe
this bill will enhance the streamlining required to make
Canada's industries competitive in the global marketplace.
The framework is set to establish a comprehensive industrial
strategy which will allow our governments to be the catalysts in
achieving our common goals. By helping to co-ordinate these
partnerships we will stimulate economic growth and at the same
time reduce the deficit and increase the standard of living for all
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke-Pearson
International Airport.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to address my remarks with regard to Bill C-46
starting with the explanation of why the Reform Party had a
subamendment which my colleague presented to the House to
include that not only should Quebec be recognized but that
rather all the provinces should be recognized. We put this into
the framework of the Reform's vision for the department.
I would like to now recognize some of the remarks that have
been made by my colleagues opposite. If all of those things that
they are talking about, the industrial development that is going
to take place, the research and development, the integration of
research with industrial development, take place it will take
place not because of this bill but in spite of the bill.
We believe the department needs, like all governments, a set
of guiding principles and policies, a mission if you will. I would
like to state that once again. We believe the role of the
Department of Industry is to establish and maintain a culture
which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research, and
ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace.
(1610)
To achieve that means to decentralize, not to centralize
control. We need to emphasize the reduction of the ability to
interfere in the marketplace, and this bill does exactly the
opposite. What this bill does is allow the minister and the
cabinet in particular to interfere in the marketplace. There must
be an emphasis on improving the ability of the marketplace to
self-regulate, as was so clearly demonstrated by my colleague.
Serious intervention by the government and by the minister in
particular should be in emergency cases only.
The national interest must be clearly defined by the people of
Canada through Parliament, and in extraordinary circumstances
by a national referendum, and not be left in the hands of the
cabinet as this bill does.
Regional development is in particular the focus of our
amendment. Many fundamental problems that exist in the
marketplace today arise not because of the fact that the
marketplace was allowed to operate but because there was
intervention in the marketplace. Many scholars and former
senior mandarins of this and related departments have noted that
a national industrial strategy and regional development
strategies are mutually incompatible. They fight against one
another. We heard my
6792
colleague mention that with regard to subsidies and grants in
particular.
The federal government should treat all regions of Canada
equally and provide a level field so that people can compete on
an equal footing. Fair treatment would eliminate the need for a
minister to decide between the national interest on the one hand
and the regional interest on the other.
Regional political patronage and, just as important, the
temptation to engage in it would be removed to a great extent if
the instrument of regional development were done away with.
Better efficiency within the department should be realized.
The history of the department coupled with this proposed
reorganization shows that this minister has chosen not to
exercise leadership, but rather to accept as a fait accompli what
was there with the previous government which was a
Progressive Conservative government. This government in this
bill is perpetuating the confusion and lack of solid direction that
existed before.
I want to draw particular attention to some of the things that
have happened with regional development. They are an excuse
very often for the pork barrelling patronage that goes on. They
have represented slush funds in the history of Canada.
Let us talk in particular about Shawinigan for a moment.
Shawinigan turned into a canoe specialist area, with the federal
government's infrastructure contribution to the canoe hall of
fame this year. The canoe hall of fame may be portrayed as
regional development but it is certainly not an infrastructure
program as Canadians understand it.
When Canadians voted this government in last fall they
expected two things from the red book: integrity in government
and sound fiscal management. I contend that the record thus far
has shown they did not get either.
Projects across this country similar to the Shawinigan one
may be noted and we need to look at some of the ways that
money has been spent. It does not matter whether the projects
are under the infrastructure program or the regional
development agencies, it is a pork barrel at its worst.
Let me give a few examples. The list is long but I will refrain
from going through the whole list.
Twenty thousand dollars was given to a Quebec fashion
industry gala at Montreal's Olympic Stadium; $500,000 for the
Upper Humber Golf Club in Deer Lake, Newfoundland; $89,434
for an Acadian wax museum in Caraquet, New Brunswick;
$150,000 to develop a program to educate teachers in Cape
Breton about economic development; over $500,000 for boccie
courts in Toronto; $5 million to help Peter Pocklington improve
Northlands Coliseum and Ducey Park in Edmonton; $25,000 to
study the possibility of hosting the International Pan-Celtic
Festival; and $224,000 for Rita McNeil's tea room and gift shop.
It is all too sad that these types of projects are the norm and not
the exception. There are some noted good projects as well, but
these are the kinds of examples that should not exist at all.
(1615)
A new parity is needed, one where the free market is allowed
to operate freely with competition and let the best one win, not
the government deciding who wins and who loses.
I conclude with these words. We should establish a
marketplace, an industry department that establishes and
maintains a culture and rewards entrepreneurship, innovation
and research and ensures a level, competitive and honest
marketplace. Hand in hand with this approach are government
policies encouraging free markets, enhancing competition and
treating all individuals and groups equally. They are the kinds of
policies that will make Canada strong and prosperous in the 21st
century. These are the kinds of policies we support.
[Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the
debate on this bill to establish the new Department of Industry.
As you know, the department is given wide powers including
not only functions previously assigned to the former
Department of Industry, Science and Technology, but also
certain functions of the Department of Communications and the
former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The Department of Industry is responsible for the
administration of government programs in support of the
industry, including small businesses, tourism, science and
technology. All government activities relating to science and
technology come under the Department of Industry, including
those carried out by agencies like the National Research
Council, the Canadian Space Agency and the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council, just to name a few.
Telecommunications policy, consumer protection and
corporate affairs in Canada come under the Department of
Industry. This is a very wide mandate.
Naturally, this bill deals with government organization. And
while organization is important, it is the policy set forth by the
department that is the essential factor. The department
objectives are stated in Section 5 of the bill:
(a) strengthen the national economy and promote sustainable development;
(b) promote the mobility of goods, services and factors of production, [-]and of
trade and commerce in Canada;
6793
(c) increase the international competitiveness of Canadian industry, goods and
services[. . .]
And the list goes on. My point in quoting these examples is
that this government's action is in fact based on Chapter 3 of the
famous red book, the Liberal electoral platform. This chapter is
entitled ``An Innovative Economy''. I would say that this
document, the red book, was innovative in that it emphasizes the
importance of the small- and medium-sized businesses in the
modern economy.
Let me quote briefly from page 47 in Chapter 3 on an
innovative economy, where we read that a ``Liberal government
will focus on small- and medium-sized businesses because they
can and must be the determining factor in turning around what
has so far been a jobless recovery''. Small- and medium-sized
businesses employ 36.7 percent-almost 37 percent-of the
labour force and account for roughly 40 percent of our gross
domestic product. They have recently-in the 1980s-been
responsible for up to 85 percent of new job creation in Canada.
(1620)
In its electoral platform, the government undertook to
improve access to capital for small- and medium-sized
businesses. The industry committee has spent the past six or
seven months reviewing this issue and will be tabling its report
tomorrow. The government also promised to establish a
Canada-wide technology network. Plans to that effect have
already been announced. Here is another example. The
government promised to promote technology partnerships
between universities, research institutions and businesses, with
a view to focussing on commercial applications of research and
development.
Since coming to power, the government has embarked upon
widespread consultations on the expansion of science and
technology. Such consultations are carried out under the
direction of the Minister of Industry, Mr. Manley, and the
Secretary of State to Science, Research and Development, Mr.
Gerrard.
[English]
I do not think members would find it surprising for me to say
that I believe the industry committee has a particularly
important role to play in policy development. Being the
chairman of the committee, I suppose it is only normal that I
would say that. Committee work may not always appear to be
glamorous but it is in committees that the nuts and bolts of
government policy become reality.
Tomorrow we will table our report on small business
financing. The report deals with financing but it also tries to
provide a context. We try to address the significance of small-
and medium sized businesses in today's economy.
I referred earlier to the off-sided statistic that small- and
medium sized business accounted for 85 per cent of the jobs that
were created in the 1980s. Small businesses are important to job
creation and community cohesion but there is more to it than
that.
Not all small businesses have the potential to become medium
sized businesses or big businesses. We need policies that
address the needs of small businesses with strong growth
potential. We also need to concern ourselves with the
interactions between small and large businesses.
We need to be conscious of the competitive environment in
which all Canadian businesses operate. We address these
questions in the report that we will be tabling tomorrow. I hope
the report will contribute to the debate and lead to policies that
respond to the needs of Canadian businesses, small, medium
sized and large.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-46, an Act to establish the
Department of Industry. The year 2000 is drawing near. With
technology, the global village has become a reality. All sectors
of activity are interconnected. It has become impossible to work
in isolation.
At the same time, the difficult economic times we are going
through force us to streamline, to be creative, to do more with
less. This is exactly what the government is doing. It is
integrating two key sectors under one department. It recognizes
the major links that exist between the various sectors,
particularly between science, research and technology,
communications and industry. It is streamlining the government
administration, making it leaner, thus producing substantial
savings.
(1625)
This bill puts into action the recovery plan announced by the
Prime Minister last month in Quebec City, to improve the
business climate for entrepreneurs, help businesses gain access
to new technologies, seek expanding markets and promote
tourism.
The Department of Industry is ideally suited as the focal point
for the efforts put forth by all the economic development
stakeholders, and this is very important in the province of
Quebec.
There is no doubt that Quebec entrepreneurs are dynamic,
imaginative and competitive. The success of what we call
``Quebec Inc.'' is envied and copied far beyond the ``belle
province''. But there is no doubt either that the federal
government has provided precious and beneficial support to
many businesses in Quebec.
A study by professor Gérald Bernier, of the University of
Montreal, shows that, between 1970 and 1989, the federal
government paid $3.9 billion in grants and loans to Quebec
businesses.
6794
We will also recall that it is thanks to export credits that
Bombardier was able to secure the contract to manufacture
subway cars for the New York subway system. That is how
Bombardier broke into the international market of
transportation. A few years later, the aerospace division of
Bombardier bought Canadair from the government of Canada.
Of course, you know this company well, Madam Speaker, since
it is based in your riding. Bombardier took advantage of
extremely easy conditions for the purchase of Canadair. It was
also awarded a contract worth over $1 billion to maintain F-18
fighter aircraft, which is how Bombardier penetrated the
aerospace market.
Same thing for Bell Helicopter. The Canadian government
invested $165 million to convince the Texas company to settle in
Quebec. The list of striking examples could go on and on and
take up hours of this debate. What is most striking is that the
government helps Quebec businesses in high-tech sectors, in
sectors with good, permanent, well-paid jobs.
It must also be realized that the industry with a capital ``I'' is
not limited to what it used to mean in the past. It goes beyond
heavy industry and manufacturing. It represents the sector of
society which generates wealth and promotes well-being. It
covers financial aspects such as investments, human aspects
such as consumers, as well as economic aspects such as the
small- and medium-sized businesses my colleague eloquently
talked about earlier.
This single name, Department of Industry, includes all the key
factors that will enable Canada to set an innovative economic
policy for one purpose only: to promote
employment-generating growth. That is our goal. Putting
consumers and businesses under the same departmental roof is
an innovative idea.
Government officials and business people increasingly
realize that industrial growth is a result of the interaction
between them. This interaction allows businesses to design
better products, develop sound corporate strategies and face
global competition. We reinforce this principle of interaction by
ensuring that consumers can be heard whenever policies
affecting Canadian markets are put in place. In an ever changing
market, it is essential to listen to consumers right from the start
of the production process. This avoids costly adjustments
afterwards.
The same goes for science and technology, regional
development, small- and medium-sized businesses, and
Aboriginal economic development. All these voices will be
heard when policies are developed, agreements negotiated and
decisions made. Science and technology will then have the
impact needed to create an innovative economy. The $6 billion
injected into this sector will thus yield the highest returns
possible.
In the age of the information highway, adding
telecommunications to the Department of Industry's
responsibilities shows the increasingly important role of this
sector as an engine of the Canadian economy.
(1630)
In addition, small- and medium-sized businesses will remain
among our priorities because this sector is the best source of
long-term jobs. Initiatives such as the recent agreement on
internal trade are another important step toward more open
markets.
By eliminating over 700 barriers to the free movement of
people, goods, services and investments, we will be more
efficient and competitive. This is a concrete example of
federalism in action.
We can never say loudly enough or often enough how
important it is for everyone to co-operate in ensuring our
economic and industrial development. Each fight, each
confrontation, even each moment of hesitation, is costing us
dearly in terms of lost investments and jobs that are not created.
That is why I am happy that the Prime Minister of Canada has
asked the leader of the Quebec government to reconsider his
decision not to participate in our major trade mission to China in
two weeks.
We all understand that the Premier of Quebec is very busy
forming his government and preparing for the next
parliamentary session. This is certainly a very important and
demanding stage, but it should not exclude everything else. In
fact, the leader of our government faced exactly the same
conflict soon after we were elected last year. He even described
this experience in a letter he sent to the Premier of Quebec last
week. The Prime Minister wrote this: ``I remember the difficult
decision I made to participate in the first Asia-Pacific Summit
in November 1993, only a few days after my government was
sworn in''.
As the old saying goes, when there is a will, there is a way.
The Quebec premier could concentrate on the most important
days of the trade mission if his schedule does not allow for any
more time. The important thing is that Quebec be represented by
its premier, putting it at the same level as the other provinces. We want to show our trading partners that we are serious, consistent and well organized. All that is important to help Canadian businesses establish themselves on the new Asian markets.
That is why, as the Prime Minister so logically explained, we
have asked Mr. Parizeau to reconsider his decision and
participate personally in the Canadian mission to China.
Quebecers from all regions and of all political stripes will be
grateful to him.
I know that my time is up.
6795
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am happy to
participate in this debate on the bill to reorganize the
Department of Industry. The red book foreshadowed this bill.
Like this bill its main focus was on small and medium sized
businesses as a determining factor in turning around the
Canadian economy. It acknowledged that the growth of these
firms is essential to creating jobs for all Canadians.
Several initiatives have been announced as part of the small
and medium enterprise agenda. A new fund has been established
to help expand existing businesses through the Federal Business
Development Bank. As well, the Canada Community
Investment Fund has been announced to ensure equity financing
for smaller firms.
Part of the role of this bill is to focus on the importance of
tourism to the Canadian economy. It must be recognized that the
money government puts into tourism we get back within 90
days. We get this money back not tenfold but many times that
rate.
In 1992 as an example, tourism generated $28 billion in sales
revenue for Canada. In the same period the federal government
through Industry Canada had a tourism budget of $23.2 million.
Every federal dollar spent on tourism contributed $1,201 in
sales revenue in Canada in 1992.
Canada's tourism industry also had a significant impact on
our current account, contributing $8 billion a year. Tourism
employs more than half a million Canadians directly and
generated jobs faster than the economy as a whole over the past
decade. It is an industry to be recognized. As well, the analysis
shows that tourism affords solid opportunities for income and
employment generation in all regions of Canada. Current
favourable economic conditions offer an excellent opportunity
to exploit more fully Canada's international competitive
advantage, its clean, safe, natural environment and support
industry efforts to attract more international tourists, thus
increasing revenue for Canada.
(1635)
It is my belief that the tourism industry affords an opportunity
to provide entry level work and job experience for young
Canadians and for groups that traditionally have had more
difficulty obtaining employment. Almost 40 per cent of the
people working in tourism are under the age of 25, nearly double
the proportion of young people in the general labour force.
The tourism industry is also an important provider of jobs to
the unemployed. It is a stepping stone for back to work after
unemployment, particularly for the young. Sixty per cent of the
people who get work in tourism get that work after a period of
not working and are under the age of 25.
This government recognizes the importance of this industry
and we support it accordingly. The support is shown by the
Prime Minister's initiative and appointment of the Hon. Judd
Buchanan to work with the government and the private sector to
make recommendations on how to increase Canadian tourism
and revenues.
I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Buchanan to discuss
tourism concerns in my area of the country and I look forward to
Mr. Buchanan's recommendations which I understand are to be
made public soon.
In my riding we have the basis for creating an excellent
tourism industry. Essex county and the city of Windsor have a
wide degree of tourism oriented businesses. We have such
historical sites as the Park House, Fort Malden, the North
American Black Museum and additional historical sites that are
being developed such as the Gordon House and HMS Detroit. As
well everyone has heard about the opening of the casino in
Windsor. It was expected and is bringing hundreds of thousands
of new visitors to the area so far and will continue to do so we
hope every year.
As well the recent acquisition of Boblo Island by a local
developer who is interested in working with the community to
create a year round tourism facility with year round employment
opportunities should provide excellent opportunities for the
area. Most important our area is bordered on three sides by
natural waterways affording numerous recreational
opportunities including one of Canada's most beautiful national
parks, Point Pelee.
What is needed to create a sustainable tourism industry in our
area is a strategic plan. The reorganized Department of Industry
will be well positioned to create such an over-reaching strategic
plan. I look forward to the announcement of measures in this
area.
It has been my privilege to have the opportunity to participate
in this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
6796
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(1640)
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the Chief Government Whip and the Chief
opposition whip have asked me to defer the division.
Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) the
division on the questions now before the House is deferred until
tomorrow at 5:30 p.m., at which time the bells will be sounded
for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
The House resumed from September 27, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-48, an Act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
representative of the riding of Abitibi, in Quebec. As many
members know, it is possibly the largest riding in Canada
outside the Northwest Territories, with an area of 500,000
square kilometres. In my riding, natural resources are most
important, be they forests, mines or hydroelectricity. It is my
duty to support the amendment proposed on September 27 by my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois:
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, An Act to
establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related Acts, given
that the principle of the Bill does not provide for empowering the minister to
compensate Quebec financially if it chooses to exercise its exclusive
jurisdiction over natural resources itself, pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867
and the Constitution Act, 1982.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin, a strong defender of the federal
system, would surely share this opinion since, in an essay he
wrote on the sharing of powers and entitled
Partage des
compétences: c'est comme un vêtement sur mesure, he
recognized the limits of the spending powers of the federal
government and the right of a province to ``opt out'' with
financial compensation whenever the federal authority creates a
new jointly funded, national program, provided the dissident
province creates a similar program consistent with the national
interests.
This bill brings nothing new, it is solely the creation of a new
department, as part of a government reorganisation started in
1993 by the former Conservative prime minister, Ms. Kim
Campbell. If the sole purpose of this bill was to merge two
departments into one, with a view to saving money, improving
efficiency and correcting the shortcomings found in the two
previous bills creating the former departments, it would be easy,
on the face of it, to accept it and even to support it.
However, it is rather obvious that with Bill C-48, the federal
government is assuming powers and rights which are going to
infringe upon an exclusive area of authority belonging to the
provinces. It is totally unacceptable. As we, from the Bloc
Quebecois, have been saying over and over again, this intrusion
of the federal government leads to wasteful duplication and
overlapping between the two levels of government, at great
expense to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
We doubt that this bill is aimed at reducing this waste since its
founding principles maintain the status quo and, even though
departments are merged, they retain their mandate. If you go to
the trouble of creating a new department, why not make sure at
the same time that its operations are efficient and harmonized
with the priorities of the provinces which, I remind you, are the
leaders in the field and have exclusive jurisdiction over their
own natural resources. Nothing in this bill gives the provinces
exclusive jurisdiction over their natural resources, and no
alternatives are suggested.
(1645)
In 1982, during the negotiations on patriating the
Constitution, and also during the negotiations on the Meech
Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, Quebec asked for
the right to opt out-with compensation-of federal programs
where it knew it could do a better job. Many of the parties
concerned agree with this concept, which is even more
appropriate when we are talking about natural resources, an area
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I am sure many federalists will agree, and as I already pointed
out, in certain publications Senator Beaudoin has referred to this
as a beneficial alternative, reducing duplication and overlap.
For the time being, the only real change the average Quebec or
Canadian citizen can see is that, instead of two ministers, we
will have only one. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but
the structure has not changed. Operating expenditures remain
the same. There are no cuts. However, it is time to streamline
operations for maximum efficiency, since all taxpayers are
paying for the federal government's poor management.
One way to streamline the federal administration and make it
more efficient would have been to redefine the role of the
federal government in relation to the provinces, clarify the
concept of provincial jurisdiction and opportunities for the
provinces to manage their federal programs.
6797
The federal government does not abide by its own
Constitution, and all the provinces have paid dearly and will
continue to do so for Ottawa's interventionism and centralist
approach. Hon. members will recall the Trudeau government's
energy policy that caused oil companies to be nationalized at an
exorbitant price, only to be sold off a few years later.
The Athabasca tar sands project is anything but a financial
success. As for Hibernia, it is an even bigger money gobbler. We
will have to invest another billion dollars or more to support a
project that was never essential to Canada's energy
self-sufficiency, and no one knows whether further technical or
financial problems will add even more to a bill that is already
astronomical.
Western Canadians and my colleagues here in the House may
wish to tell me later on whether they received as much money to
search for new oil wells in Western Canada. In any case, Quebec
never received any subsidies for its hydro dams.
The total bill for Hibernia, which will be several billion
dollars, could have been channelled into research on new energy
sources like hydrogen, while supporting the economies of the
Maritimes, since the excuse for Hibernia was to create jobs for
Eastern Canada. The government could have supported job
creation in the Maritimes and used this money to give Canada a
technological edge in this field on international markets instead
of trying to look for new oil in difficult conditions at the cost of
human lives, on drilling platforms off-shore-new oil at well
above the price on world markets.
In the light of this unjustified spending, with no regard for the
priorities of the provinces, one wonders whether the federal
government knows what it is doing when it decides how to spend
money in the provinces, especially in areas over which the
provinces have jurisdiction.
Canadians are sometimes surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois
here in this House. Perhaps today they will start to understand
our long-standing demands, especially concerning natural
resources. We are justified in demanding our rights, the rights of
our province. This is also legitimate for the other provinces.
When the Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a
member, studied clear cutting, the conclusions it came to were
again to centralize authority for the sake of better performance.
In opposition, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to show that
co-operation would have been more effective because the
initiative for reform must not come from the federal government
but from the provinces themselves, since as I have said many
times, they alone have the mandate to manage their resources.
The committee report would surely have been the same, but at
the same time it would respect the provinces' powers.
Section 92-A of the Constitution Act, 1867, clearly states that
mines and forests are exclusively in provincial jurisdiction. Is it
right that the provinces cannot make their own decisions?
Unfortunately, federal intervention is too often to be
expected.
(1650)
The federal government starts with good intentions and ends
up using its co-ordination role to become the one in charge. The
usual scenario goes something like this: the federal government
wants to be there to help co-ordinate, which, in itself, is good in
such a big country, but as it co-ordinates, it decides that it
should also run things. While it is at it, why not set the direction
for the program and while it is doing that, why not be in charge?
Each time it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the federal
government comes along with its dollars and sets the mandate.
Spending the money of Canadians and Quebecers does not
give the government the right to meddle in fields of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. A down-to-earth example in natural
resources is the program to encourage mining exploration
investment in Quebec. The Mining Association of Canada and
the Canadian Prospectors Association think that this program is
excellent. If this bill recognized the provinces' exclusive
jurisdiction over natural resources and opting out with federal
compensation to make Quebec's program more effective, this
incentive program could really grow and create many well-paid
jobs.
This co-operative attitude already existed in the 1980s and
yielded excellent results. For example, the Aur Resources Mine
opened near Val-d'Or with an investment of some $300 million,
creating 150 direct jobs and at least twice as many indirectly.
To end my speech in this debate, I would like to quote again
what Jean Lesage, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, said in
an address to the Empire and Canadian Club in Toronto in 1964.
His words were eloquent: ``Quebec seeks to obtain all the
powers needed to assert itself economically, socially and
politically. If the provinces do not pursue the same objective,
Quebec will necessarily move towards a special status reflecting
both the particular characteristics of its people and the more
extensive role that they want to give their government''.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to take the
opportunity afforded by this debate on Bill C-48 to say that this
is another important step towards streamlining government.
As you know, natural resources play a major role in Canada's
economy. In 1992, net trade in these products amounted to $40.5
billion. These impressive figures illustrate the impact of the
natural resources sector on our economy as a whole. However,
6798
we must also consider the direct impact of this industry on the
lives of thousands of Canadians.
First of all, one in every thirteen members of Canada's
workforce is employed in the energy sector, at all levels. What
makes this a very special group is that workers and their families
are often located in remote areas. I am thinking of the forests
around Lac-Saint-Jean, the mines in Abitibi or Northern
Ontario and Alberta's oil fields. Altogether, over 500
communities across the country depend on natural resource
activity.
The fact that this industry operates in remote areas creates
some very specific problems. I am thinking of towns built
around a mine or a factory. If demand for the product declines
and the factory has to close temporarily, the whole town suffers.
And as we saw in Schefferville and elsewhere, in some cases the
factory or the mine closes for good.
It then becomes necessary to either find a new focus for the
town or relocate the community. Neither option is easy to
implement and both are hard on the community.
(1655)
It is therefore very important to ensure that the natural
resources sector remains a vital element of the economy and the
job market. This can only be done through new technology, as
the industry and government are fully aware. We are fortunate
that Canada is a world leader in the development of technology
to improve the productivity and competitiveness of our mining,
forestry and energy industries.
Only last week, a large European delegation, mostly from
Germany, visited construction sites in New Brunswick. In
Quebec, they went to Saint-Félicien, in the riding of the Leader
of the Opposition. They also went to British Columbia. They
came to look at our modern forest management methods, and I
must say they were all very impressed.
This is another example of concrete, active federalism. Our
friends opposite are always quick to claim jurisdiction for
Quebec. However, when the Government of Canada brings
investors or journalists to the province, they are reluctant to
admit that they benefit from Canadian initiatives.
Our government agrees that natural resources are a matter of
provincial jurisdiction. However, we have a duty and a mandate
to ensure that the sector contributes its fair share to economic
growth and job creation across the country.
Of course, we must do this in co-operation, in a partnership
with the provinces, and we are doing so without any hesitation
whatsoever. In fact, streamlining the department provides a
national perspective on mining, energy and forestry issues and
provides a leading edge and expertise in research and
development to help the industry meet current and future
challenges.
One of those challenges is Canada's progress towards
sustainable development. For many years, the industry seriously
damaged the environment, not because it was intent on being
destructive but because people were not aware of the impact
certain procedures had on our environment.
It is essential to reconcile our economic and environmental
objectives at all resource management levels. We have made a
lot of progress, but we still have a long way to go.
The modernization of the Department of Natural Resources
goes precisely along these lines. We must commend the
government for taking this initiative and including at the very
beginning of Bill C-48, in clause 2, an excellent definition of
sustainable development.
This shows how serious our commitment to sustainable
development is. This is particularly important in the area of
natural resources where we must promote rational development
and the protection of the environment.
The new department wants to co-operate with the provinces,
the industry, the environmental groups, the natives as well as
other stakeholders so that the natural resources sector can
continue to grow in the short and medium term.
The department will also act increasingly as an intermediary
between the industry and environmental activists in order to
reconcile their concerns.
The Department of Natural Resources also has an important
role to play in the area of research and technology. In fact, its
reputation in this field is excellent. Its scientific and
technological know-how cover all aspects of the industry
management. Very often, the department can act as a leader and
does so. Nevertheless, particularly where the protection of the
environment is concerned, we need the co-operation of all the
stakeholders to achieve our goals.
(1700)
I am thinking among other things of improving energy
efficiency. It is widely recognized that improving energy
efficiency is an essential element helping us, in the short term,
to achieve the goal of sustainable development. Many
businesses have discovered that energy efficiency pays off.
Related technologies also contribute to economic development
and job creation.
Each of us can contribute to Canada's energy efficiency, thus
helping the government meet its greenhouse effect reduction
goal. Innovative technologies developed in Canada can also be
exported to the expanding global market. It is forecast that by
the year 2000, the global pollution control market will reach
$600 billion US.
6799
Canada certainly intends to get its share of this global market,
a large part of which has to do with resource development
technologies.
[English]
This is an important bill. It is a technical bill because we are
trying to reorganize the Department of Natural Resources to put
all the resources of two departments into one so we can have
more efficient administration of the policies. Almost a year ago
this government was elected under the auspices of the red book,
making sure we develop and improve the economy, create jobs
and also reduce the deficit and be more efficient.
With the reorganization on November 4, 1993 the Prime
Minister presented the new cabinet to all Canadians and the rest
of the world. We proved we were going in that direction, that we
intend to keep our promise. That is what we are doing. We are
putting into law what we promised in the red book and what the
Prime Minister announced on November 4, 1993.
At this stage with this global economy the protection of the
environment is very important, not only in terms of protection
but also in terms of developing the technique, the necessary
technology to protect the environment. Canada has the know
how and the tools to be a leader in the world in this field. We can
create thousands of jobs if we put all our resources together. We
are going in the right direction in organizing the Department of
Natural Resources in this fashion.
[Translation]
Natural Resources Canada has a very important role to play in
assuring us that exporting our resources helps us to prosper and
to create jobs while applying the principles of sustainable
development. It is the way of the future, the voice of reason, and
that is why I am pleased today to support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the words of the secretary of state and also to the
previous debater from the Bloc Quebecois. I read Bill C-48 in
great detail.
I am having difficulty understanding the concerns of the
speaker from the official opposition about the federal
government infringing on provincial jurisdictions. The
secretary of state also represents a riding in that province. I am
wondering whether he could clarify if the federal government is
infringing on provincial jurisdiction or is the bill truly a bill
which has as its goal sustainable development in which not only
Canada will benefit but this entire planet will benefit?
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague,
the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The bill is very clear and we have been saying all along that we
recognize and know that natural resources is a provincial
jurisdiction. What we should do with Bill C-48 is to reorganize
the department. We had two departments and now we have one.
We are being more efficient and we are putting our resources
together to compete out there.
(1705)
It is a global market in which we have to compete. I said in my
speech that in recognizing the jurisdiction of the provinces,
recognizing that we have to work together, and we are working
together, we are trying very hard and working together as a
province, it is the role of the federal government to make sure in
every sector that we create jobs because that is what Canadians
want.
Therefore we are not interfering with the jurisdiction
problem. In every bill that we present to this House, it seems that
we have a jurisdiction problem. We realize that this is a
federation. There are provincial matters and there are federal
matters. Also, there is a spirit of co-operation.
In this bill or in natural resources or in industry or in other
departments, respecting the provincial jurisdiction, respecting
the federal role of being a leader of economic development,
there is praise for both the provincial government and the
federal government.
Instead of fighting about who has jurisdiction, if we would
work together and co-operate we would achieve both results of
the goal of the provincial government and the goal of the federal
government.
For all citizens who get elected to serve Canadians, our most
important role is to make sure not only who does what but also to
make sure that Canadians get the service they need, the jobs they
want. That is where the objective should be. We should not try to
fight each other and lose time and energy instead of creating
jobs which is what people want. This bill creates jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to ask the hon. secretary of state why, with this bill, the
government did not take the opportunity to clearly spell out the
fact that provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources and
did not define major thrusts for optimum co-operation and
development of natural resources to promote job creation.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, Bill C-48 is an act which
legally establishes the new Department of Natural Resources
created when the new Liberal government was sworn in on
November 4, 1993.
The purpose of this legislation is to create the legal
framework for a department which already exists and is in
operation. Just a half hour ago we had a debate on the bill to
establish the
6800
Department of Industry and now we are discussing the
Department of Natural Resources. Two weeks ago, other bills
were being debated, and I imagine that there soon will be other
redeployments affecting departments. Indeed, we try to create a
legal framework for the new departments which have been
established.
As regards the government's action plan, I believe that the
Minister of Natural Resources has already explained that plan
on various occasions to the committee. Also, negotiations will
take place with various provinces, including Quebec. All these
initiatives are in progress and the hon. member should not
expect an action plan in a piece of legislation such as this one,
which establishes a department.
(1710)
The purpose of this legislation is to establish a department, it
is to define its role and to explain the new structure. I believe the
hon. member said earlier that he agreed with the principle of
having one minister and one department instead of two
departments and two ministers as was the case before. So, this
initiative will improve efficiency, but it will also ensure better
discussions and better co-operation between the provinces and
the federal government. We have always maintained that natural
resources fall under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal
government must ensure that these natural resources benefit all
Canadians.
In short, this bill is about the structure of a new Department of
Natural Resources. I am sure that the hon. member will find
either in the budget or in other policy statements the federal
government's action plan concerning the development of
natural resources as well as sustainable development.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak in support of the principles of Bill C-48, a
bill to create the Department of Natural Resources.
The Reform Party has long supported the downsizing of the
federal cabinet and the reduction of bureaucracy. This initiative
makes good sense particularly in the areas of provincial
jurisdiction such as natural resources.
Having said that, however, I am disappointed to see another
Tory bill brought before the House by the new Liberal
government that promised to govern differently. There are no
promises in the red book to finish Kim Campbell's agenda. All
this bill does is formalize what has long been happening and has
long been the case. Instead of seizing this opportunity to
substantially downsize government and duplication, getting this
government off the backs of Canadians, it takes half measures as
we have seen in almost every piece of legislation the
government has introduced into this House.
While I believe there is an opportunity in the reorganization
of this department to realize substantial economic savings, it
appears from my analysis of this bill that it will effect very little
economic savings or the downsizing of the bureaucracy.
My colleagues who have spoken previously have addressed a
number of areas of concern we have with this new super
ministry. I will concentrate on yet another area that we believe
could have and should have been included in this initiative to
effect an economic benefit in the streamlining of these
departments.
The area I refer to is the completion of the privatization of
Petro-Canada. The creation of Petro-Canada with billions of
dollars of tax money was part of the greatest fraud ever
perpetrated on the energy producing regions of this country.
This fraud through government interference and regulation
deprived the energy producing provinces of billions of dollars
that should have accrued to them during the oil price shock of
1973-74 when OPEC cut off the oil to the west during the Yom
Kippur war, causing a tripling of oil prices within weeks. The
producing provinces were never allowed to benefit from this oil
price surge because of the interference and regulation from the
federal government.
Because of this false fear of its future energy security, the
federal government created with tax dollars a national oil
company. The mandate of this crown owned oil company was
through an aggressive acquisition and exploration program to
provide for Canada's oil self-sufficiency. In spite of the reckless
spending of the tax dollar to acquire grossly overpriced foreign
multinational oil company holdings such as Atlantic Richfield
Pacific Petroleum, Petrofina, British Petroleum and Gulf
Petroleum, creating one of the largest oil companies in Canada,
this bureaucratic boondoggle was never able in any substantial
way to fulfil the mandate.
I well recall the early days of Petro-Canada's intrusion into
the energy field with bureaucrats flying around in private jets
and helicopters awarding extravagant cost plus contracts like
the money would never run out. All this was sold to the Canadian
taxpayer as necessary to reduce our dependency, or was it the
U.S. dependency, on mid-east oil reserves.
We were told in Canada that we had less than 20 years
recoverable oil reserves and that a high gasoline tax burden was
justifiable to guarantee our future energy needs and pay for this
spending binge. Now, 20 years later, we know that it was so
much Liberal hogwash, a simple money grab and a flagrant
breach of the principles of Confederation by the federal
government, a Liberal federal government. We have 20 years
later proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy needs
for the next several centuries, almost 400 years of recoverable
reserves in the tar sands of northern Alberta alone.
6801
(1715)
The past Tory government, knowing the moral dishonesty of
these policies, moved with much foot dragging and
procrastination to end this fraud by cutting taxpayer
subsidization and even moved to partial privatization, turning
our state owned oil company into a simple commercial
enterprise no different than any other large oil company
operating in Canada. I ask the question, why would the Canadian
taxpayers want to own just another oil company? Is this oil
company returning some benefit to the taxpayers in return for
their billions of dollars in the form of lower gasoline prices or
providing cheap clean burning natural gas to the homes in
Atlantic Canada? No, it is not.
The fact is MPs on both sides of this House have been made
aware of the unethical tactics of our state owned oil company
harassing small independent gasoline retailers in an effort to
remove competition, hardly what we might expect from our own
taxpayer owned oil company.
It is engaged in the same export frenzy as all the other
multinationals. Is it engaged in an aggressive Canadian frontier
exploration program? No more so than any other multinational.
In fact, Petro-Canada is competing with other multinational
companies in the far flung corners of the globe.
Again the Reform Party questions why the Canadian taxpayer
would want to own a national oil company. Why would this
government not sell off this national oil company while the
industry is strong and recoup some of those billions of
taxpayers' dollars that were used to create this Liberal
boondoggle? Why not use this opportunity when we are
supposed to be downsizing and streamlining government to do
something really significant and use revenue from the sale of
Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden?
Could it be that we are about to become the victims of yet
another Liberal fraud. This government, instead of behaving
like a fresh new government with new innovative ideas that
would stop this fatal spiral of debt and deficit we find ourselves
in, continues to bring in this stale, tired Tory initiative that
destroyed the PC Party, or it reaches back and resurrects the
obsolete Liberal ideas of the Trudeau era.
In conclusion, as I said at the outset, we support the
amalgamation and reduction of government ministries but let us
take some new and innovative steps. Let us get government out
of private enterprise and let private enterprise do what it can do
better. Let us get government spending under control and reduce
the necessity of this desperate sell-off of Canada's natural
resources to support an unsustainable level of government
spending.
Let us create technology to track the movement of profits of
multinational corporations that move around the world at the
speed of light and often escape the taxman. At the same time let
us not tax to the point where we destroy the incentive to reinvest
those profits in Canada's resource industries as we did in the
case of the national energy program, particularly in value added
manufacturing so we might escape the dependency on the
exports of raw natural resource products.
Simply put, let us not continue on the same policies that in the
last 25 years have plunged us into the position as one of the most
indebted nations in the world at the same time that many of our
natural resources that this country was built upon are in serious
decline.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for
Athabasca as he went through some of the problems we have had
in the industry and particularly in the natural resources industry.
He raised a couple of interesting points on the indebtedness
that has been caused by the government intrusion into what
should have been a private market decision on oil reserves and
on a national policy to get into the oil business. I see in the paper
that a two cent a gallon tax on this industry is being considered
again, this time at the pumps apparently to make one industry
pay for an environmental program that is going to try and fix the
problems.
(1720)
Would the member comment on the fact that again one
particular industry and one province is being targeted to pay for
what in essence is a national problem. I would like his
comments.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, in spite of the fact that this
government continues to tell us that a carbon tax or a green tax is
not a consideration, it continues to come up in the news almost
daily. Therefore, it continues to be of concern to us who come
from those resource producing regions. Not only do we come
from the regions that produce the oil and gas, we are also from a
region of Canada that is very sparsely populated and has great
distances.
This tactic of taxing the resource to force people to use less of
the resource or to reduce CO2 emissions is the same kind of
fraud I talked about in my presentation. In fact, Canada only
produces some 2 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions. If every
vehicle in Canada was parked and ran no more we would reduce
CO2 emissions in the world by less than 1 per cent.
I say it is a fraud. If we really want to do something about CO2
emissions, let us look at some of the other countries in the world,
like China that produces 20 per cent of the CO2 emissions,
where doing something about it would have some effect.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do
not know how much time we have. I was interested in a couple of
6802
the comments the hon. member for Athabasca made. One was
the question of bringing in and passing a Tory bill.
I would like to remind him of the story of Senator Hayakawa
of the United States who was asked if the government of the
United States should keep the Panama Canal after its term
expired. He said: ``Of course we should. We stole it fair and
square''.
The other thing I would like to talk about is fraud. The hon.
member mentioned that the tar sands contain enough oil
potential for several hundred years. I think he mentioned 400
years. What is his information base for that? Is that 400 years of
Canada remaining at 29 million population or is that 400 years
of witnessing the exponential curve in population growth and
subsequent energy demand around the world? Is that 400 years
of a population decline in Canada? Four hundred years of what?
When one makes a blanket statement like that, one has to follow
through with some kind of qualification to make the thing
legitimate.
Since predictions like that were made years ago, the
population of the world every year has increased at the rate of
about 95 million people. I do not know whether he wants to keep
those other people from having any of that energy and if he
would prefer that, but that is not the way it is going to be.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, the statistics I presented were
provided to me by the Alberta Energy National Resource
Conservation Board. In fact, the figures I quoted were based on
Canada's current consumption of energy. Certainly they are
statistically correct today, but 50 years from now who is to say
what that might be.
(1725 )
It has more truth to it than the fraud that was perpetrated in the
creation of Petro-Canada whereby we were running out of
conventional crude oil and had to move immediately to spend $6
billion of taxpayers' dollars to create Petro-Canada. Today, 25
years later, our conventional crude oil production has not even
begun to decline. Given the technology advancements, who is to
say that 20 years from now we will not continue to produce the
same level of conventional crude oil, not even taking into
consideration the synthetic crude oil production?
I think my figures are quite valid and quite honest.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, a
very few minutes ago I was given the honour of addressing this
bill. I appreciated very much being a member of the natural
resources committee and watching history being made.
One of the significant aspects of this bill is the tying of the
forestry industry with the rest of the resource industry. In this
day of information accessibility, the information highway, the
move toward high tech and all those wonderful things that will
present miracles to our children and grandchildren in the future,
our country does and will in the future rely on its natural
resources providing that we provide a sustainable base for the
continuing preservation and enhancement of those natural
resources.
The other reason why it is significant is that in the future,
maybe 400 years in the future if my hon. friend is correct, I think
with the acceleration in population on a global basis and the
increasing demand for energy the future for renewable energy
will be upon us in the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, because
Canada produces probably more, if you will pardon the $25
word, biomass than perhaps any other country on the face of the
earth, it is only natural that the forest industry and the
production of cellulose and energy become inexorably tied
under the wing of one ministry.
We are not very many years away from when we will be able
to produce motor fuel from cellulose in a very competitive and
environmentally sustainable way. I think the connection that has
been made with the creation of this new ministry is very
positive.
I should point out to my friends in the Bloc who from time to
time worry about the jurisdiction that there is no change in
jurisdiction in this bill. In other words, it is recognized that the
provinces have jurisdiction over those industries.
Our nation has a requirement to provide a voice
internationally, particularly at the present time, to overcome
some of the negative feedback that we have been getting from
places like Europe and so on which were prompted to worry
about the forest practices in Canada.
I must go on record, having sat on the committee studying
forestry practices in this country, as saying that we are perhaps a
model for the whole world in the advancements that our
industries have made. Our government must now through
various mechanisms take those advances and take that standard
that has been set and point out to our friends who buy our raw
materials, our resources or processed materials around the
world that we are indeed doing a good job. Perhaps in the future
we will be able to share our technology and some of the things
we have learned with people around the world. We must not
forget there are countries on this earth today that have virtually
denuded their lands of forest cover. Is it not Madagascar that is
sliding into the Indian Ocean? Countries in the Caribbean were
stripped bare for their logs before the turn of the century. Only
now some of those countries are very concerned about
rejuvenating their forests, understanding the value of that kind
of forest cover.
(1730)
Canada has taken the lead role and we will continue.
Admittedly we have an economic challenge. The combining of
the department of forestry with what was known as energy,
mines
6803
and resources has already effected a savings of some $16 million
we are told. That is only the beginning and it will go on from
there. It is efficiency at its best. It is the kind of efficiency all
levels of governments have to introduce and effect in the very
near future. It is a pleasure to be part of that and bear witness to
that change.
I would also like to mention that my friends in the Reform
Party are concerned about oil consumption. They seem to think
that oil consumption is somehow at risk. The member for
Athabasca made some comment about the 400 years and so on.
Let me draw a scenario regarding the consumption of energy.
One of the main domestic sources of oil for the United States is
now in decline. That is Prudhoe Bay, which has been supplying
about 25 per cent of the domestic requirement of the United
States. The rest of the oil patch in the United States has been in
decline for many years.
The Americans have a few choices. One of the choices of
course is to buy more Canadian natural gas, another
non-renewable resource and take it in increased quantities.
Another choice of course is to effect more conservation through
one means or another. The cheapest barrel of oil is the barrel of
oil you do not use. Another is to exploit as much renewable
energy as is possible which the United States is presently doing
with quite large efforts. Of course the other option is to buy more
offshore oil.
If anyone imagines for one minute that Canada can somehow
put a fence around itself and say that we have enough for all
these years and we are going to save it and keep it for ourselves,
I have news for them. The world is not like that.
China presently has the largest growing economy on earth. It
is double digit growth. By and large they still are riding bicycles
in China but with increased communication and witnessing
lifestyles based on energy consumption in other parts of the
world, it will not be long before that nation will require more
and more oil. They will be off their bicycles and into
automobiles before we know it. If petroleum is the only option,
imagine the demand if China were to expect half of the
consumption that North America presently consumes per capita.
The bravado about the long term availability of petroleum is
rather questionable to say the least.
(1735)
Another thing that should be said is that in 1979 Sheik Yamani
who was the Saudi Arabian oil minister went on Canadian
television and said that oil was too precious a resource to simply
combust. That was a prophetic statement if ever there was one.
If we look at the amount of petroleum that is now used as a
feedstock in the petrochemical industry for polymers and so on,
we can easily see where that precious commodity may
ultimately belong.
We are now bearing witness to the very beginnings of a move
from non-renewable energy consumption, which has been kind
of a blip in recent history as we did not have this before coal was
discovered, and it will ultimately be used up. We do not know
how much is in the barrel, whether it is two-thirds empty,
one-third empty, or whatever. However we do know there are
some compelling reasons why we should be making this move.
It is only fitting and rather prophetic that energy and these
other forms of resources are now tied together. Hopefully the
development of renewables can now go on with less hindrance
than there has been in the past. Perhaps instead of two ministries
not communicating with each other as well as they should have,
now we will have one ministry that can communicate within
itself.
I am very pleased to support this bill. It is a new era for
Canada. As I said initially, it will be more efficient for the
process of governing but it will also bring together some of
those factors we have outlined and will set a new pathway for the
future of energy and the other resources in this country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I would like
him to clarify a couple of things he mentioned.
One was the jurisdiction of natural resources being primarily
a provincial concern. That is a constitutional matter I am much
in favour of. I am trying to get at the direction in which the
Liberal government is heading.
The other is another leaked report from this government that
has found its way into the media. This time it is the
consideration of a two cent a litre tax on gasoline to pay for the
stabilization of greenhouse gases. The minister herself admits
that is one of the proposals so this is not an obscure report. This
report exists and it just happens that it was leaked to the media
six months in advance.
Also, I was at the United Nations a little while ago and we
were discussing proposals for UN reform. This report should be
very interesting to the Liberals who can read. If members look
halfway through the booklet on Canadian proposals for UN
reform, it says that Canada proposes a tax on hydrocarbons to
pay for the United Nations.
I am not sure how many members have read that report but I
urge them to dig it up. They should especially have regard to the
constitutionality of who should control the taxation on
hydrocarbons, what should be the priorities of the federal
government and what the plans are. This is not pie in the sky
theory or scare tactics but it is in a little book, this time a blue
one, supported by the Liberal Party proposing a hydrocarbon tax
to support the UN this time. Last time it was another crisis.
6804
(1740 )
I would like to have the member's thoughts on exactly whose
jurisdiction this is and what he thinks of hydrocarbon taxes
specifically to fund everything, in this case from the United
Nations to greenhouse gases. Which jurisdiction should that fall
under? Who should we send this warning flag to, the provinces
or the oil companies?
Mr. Reed: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the
hon. member. I should point out to him that in any function of
government when questions are being asked as to how we tackle
a situation and what areas we consider in a situation, all sorts of
proposals are made. Whether they are adopted or rejected is yet
another thing.
At this stage I certainly do not know that any consideration
would be given to such a tax. However I think it is valid to
debate the subject and to look at it as being on the table and
worthy of debate, not in a dissimilar way to what the minister of
finance tried to initiate before the budget last February.
Remember, we all participated in a prebudget debate. There was
consultation, albeit too brief at that time, to try and bring in the
business and corporate sector.
Public consultation is something that has not been generally
practised in this country in the past. More is the pity because
now when we enter into public consultation and try to glean
from it ideas and concepts that will guide us, cynics say that it is
a bit of window dressing and the government will go on and do
whatever it wants anyway.
As the member knows, the gun control issue was another one
where public consultation was undertaken by the ministry.
People travelled across Canada all summer long and talked to
Canadians. I point out that in the previous firearms acquisition
bill the former minister would not even entertain a written brief,
not one written brief.
This is a new exercise for Canadians. If the government treats
this process with respect, then we all gain.
The member talks about a two cents a litre tax. I also read the
newspaper article and I have no knowledge that any such thing is
contemplated, but I certainly would welcome a debate on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member, who is also a member of the
Natural Resources Committee, a question further to his speech
on ecology. My question is quite specific. Do you not think that
we could have put all the billions of dollars that are going to be
invested in the Hibernia project into projects other than
petroleum projects, into renewable energy projects such as
hydrogen, for example? What the Bloc quebecois is saying is
that the federal government's interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction is not merely constitutional in nature, but involves
amounts of money that Canadians, and therefore Quebecers, are
paying for projects that are not viable financially or
ecologically. Do you not think that better choices could have
been made?
[English]
Mr. Reed: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that
question.
I can remember sitting on the Ontario Hydro select committee
during 1976 to 1980 when the debate raged over the construction
of the Darlington nuclear plant. I remember that from our
perspective Darlington was too expensive to contemplate. After
the debate we realized that the utility had gone ahead and
committed something like $500 million toward Darlington, a
facility that has now cost about $15 billion, which is absolutely
ludicrous.
(1745)
I remember being quoted in the paper as saying that
sometimes when we get so far into something it is very hard to
get out. I expect that one could say something similar. We
inherited the Hibernia project. We did get out of the
Lloydminster heavy oil issue. We were able to extract ourselves
from it. We are living with what is reality at the present time.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I used to
sound like the hon. member through the seventies and early
eighties when I believed the lies we had at that time about
consumption and about available resources.
I come from a place where we have world scale petrochemical
programs that we were told would only last another five years.
We have now extended them for twenty years and there is no
foreseeable end to our ability to produce.
The member referred to China. What about the alternate
energy that will in fact come about such as coal gasification?
China has huge resources of coal. What about some of the
alternate energy forms that are there just waiting to be taken
over? What about all those?
Mr. Reed: Madam Speaker, China is a very interesting
country. The last time I checked it was installing hydro units at
the rate of 15,000 a year. China is the world's largest producer of
hydraulic turbines. It builds good stuff, incidentally.
There is a pent up demand for energy in countries like China
that far exceeds our ability to comprehend. We should be able to
turn it to our advantage. Whether it is petroleum export or
whatever, I do not see forms of energy competing against one
another per se. As a matter of fact I see them complementing one
another.
In terms of petroleum I would suggest that Sheikh Yamani
was right. The commodity itself is probably too precious to
combust. We can look at the clean air targets. The business of
6805
coal combustion, for instance, is something we are probably
shying away from because it is a direct contributor to
greenhouse gas.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I am sorry but the
hon. member's time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the motion now before the House stands deferred
until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow, at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
(1750)
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
deferral motion you just read stated 5.30 p.m. tomorrow. It
should be after the conclusion of government business which
may or may not be as early as 5.30.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is certainly my pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill
C-52, a bill to consolidate the government services department.
Over the last number of years we note there have been
paradigm shifts in terms of how business is done. When we on
this side of the House were elected the Prime Minister decided
that we were to operate with fewer cabinet ministers. We were to
work in every department to make sure, if there were any
savings to be made, savings would be made for the Canadian
people. We were to deploy our manpower to make sure it worked
in the most efficient manner possible to get the best bang for the
dollar.
Recently scientists watched a set of Canada geese flying and
they found out that they flew in a particular v formation. When
they studied it they found that one wing was slightly longer than
the other. They also found out that if the one bird in front led for
quite a while it created a vacuum which made it easier for the
following birds to fly. As that bird got tired it would pull back
and another bird would take its place. As a result the birds could
travel 70 per cent farther than they otherwise could.
I hope all members of the House try to stretch the dollar that
much further so that Canadians could get the best possible dollar
value from us. It is up to all members to look for ways to save. I
do not think it is incumbent on us always to be critical. We need
to make sure that people working for governments know they are
working for people who work very hard and honestly to get their
salaries. They in turn expect a fair return on their dollar.
I am really pleased today to speak on behalf of the
consolidation of the department. Since we started debating Bill
C-52 my Bloc colleagues have repeatedly asked that the
government produce regular statements, monthly reports, and
open up the federal government contracting process. According
to them the purpose of the monthly reports would be threefold:
to keep taxpayers informed, to stimulate competitiveness, and
to ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.
There is no doubt that these are worthy goals.
However I assure the Bloc members and the House that the
government has already taken many steps to do just that. From
6806
the very onset of its mandate the government has been
committed to fairness and openness in government contracting.
Public Works and Government Services is Canada's largest
purchasing organization. As the principal purchasing agency for
the federal government it has responsibility for approximately
65 per cent of total government purchasing. The rest is spread
over about 100 other federal organizations. The department
buys some $10 billion worth of products and services each year.
Taking into account the procurement activities of the agencies
under its purview, Public Works and Government Services
issues approximately 1,000 contract transactions each day. It
goes without saying that administering such a large volume of
transactions is a huge undertaking. However there are cost
effective systems in place at Public Works and Government
Services Canada which allow the Canadian public to be
effectively and fairly served while having unfettered access to
information about government contracting.
(1755)
There is no need to waste time, energy and taxpayers' money
tabling reports on contracting activity, given the fact that the
information is readily available and accessible to the Canadian
public.
The issues raised by the Bloc members, namely access to
contracting information, competitiveness and the integrity of
the procurement process, have been and continue to be priorities
of the government.
We did as promised in the red book and have taken a series of
initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of
government. As one of Canada's largest buyers of goods and
services and a major real property manager, the Department of
Public Works and Government Services is committed to
providing the nuts and bolts information which helps all
companies across Canada to do business with the federal
government.
One tool is the open bidding service. It is also known as OBS.
It is an electronic bulletin board that gives fast and equal access
to opportunities to bid for government contracts. It provides
information about upcoming requirements and the documents
companies need to bid on them. It provides equal access to
public works and government services, opportunities valued at
$60,000 or more for construction and maintenance services and
$25,000 or more for other types of government procurement.
With OBS anyone anywhere in Canada has access to the same
information at the same time.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services
also produces the government business opportunities or GBO
publication. It lists the same opportunities as OBS. It is printed
three times a week and provides very timely information. In
addition to advertising contract opportunities with the federal
government, the OBS gives notices of contracts the government
intends to award on a sole source basis. In this way companies
have the opportunity to challenge the government's rationale for
single tendering.
If in response to a sole source notice another supplier can
demonstrate that it can meet the government's requirements for
a particular contract, a competition will be held. It is another
way by which the government stimulates competitiveness.
Not only does the government already make information
available on proposed business opportunities to all Canadians,
but it also provides information on contracts that have been
awarded. The information is posted regularly on the OBS as well
as published in the GBO. A contract history data base is
available on OBS which provides information on any contract
awarded on open bidding service since 1989. It allows anyone
anywhere in Canada to see which companies have been awarded
open bidding contracts, for what goods or services and for what
value.
The open bidding system is designed to allow easy and
equitable access to information on government procurement
opportunities both in process and historical. The system
effectively addresses access, competition and accountability.
All MPs have been invited to subscribe to the OBS. By getting
onboard they would certainly have access to all the information
they need on contracts being awarded in their ridings. Easy
access to information on contract opportunities is the key to
ensuring fairness and openness to suppliers.
(1800 )
However, this government also believes in independent
redress for suppliers who may believe that the government's
actions have not met their commitment to openness and fairness,
and suppliers who believe that they have not been treated
equitably are able to appeal to the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal. It is an independent board to which suppliers can seek
quick and inexpensive redress for procurement subject to the
NAFTA.
If successful, the supplier may be awarded payment of
compensation or recompetition of the procurement. This is yet
another mechanism through which the integrity of the
procurement process is maintained.
More generally, each department is accountable to
Parliament, suppliers, and therefore every Canadian for its
activities including procurement through the annual tabling of
the Main Estimates and the report of the Auditor General.
The public sector is under intense scrutiny today. Canadians
are demanding that the government not only control the costs of
services and administration but also that it acts in a fair and open
fashion. Clearly, with all these mechanisms currently in place,
the Department of Public Works and Government Services is
providing equal access to the federal market, fairness in
awarding contracts and ensuring that the information on
contracts to
6807
be awarded or that have been awarded is available and
accessible to all Canadians.
There are policies and systems in place to ensure that the
government procurement is open, fair and transparent, and that
means no political influence. All contracts are subject to the
requirements of the Treasury Board contracting policy whose
principles and procedures I again emphasize ensure an open,
transparent and competitive contracting process.
Up to date information on contracts awarded is currently
available every day to any Canadian anywhere across Canada on
the OBS. This information is very time sensitive to suppliers.
With the information currently available and accessible
suppliers know right away about the approach, for example, for
subcontracting activity. A monthly report is not only a
duplication of the information already available, but of very
limited benefit to suppliers as it is only an historic record.
The OBS makes the system better and fairer for the
government, for Canadian business and, most important, for the
taxpayer.
Several other federal departments and crown corporations as
well as the provincial governments of Alberta and Ontario have
chosen to use the OBS to advertise their procurement needs,
giving potential suppliers a window on a multi-billion dollar
market. It also saves the government money, some $3.5 million
annually, in document printing and advertising costs.
The tabling of monthly reports of contracts awarded is a
duplication of effort. The Bloc members have condemned that
kind of attitude in this House: ``Nobody in this House can
support ridiculous or useless spending''. That was the member
for Laurentides, February 10, 1994.
With their demands Bloc members are asking this government
to do just that, more ridiculous and useless spending.
As the member for Laurentides has said in this House, we
must try to eliminate duplication in order to reduce costs, to save
money, to become more efficient.
This government is streamlining and eliminating waste. It is
not the intention of this government to spend taxpayers' dollars
producing reports that no one will read when there are effective
and proven means of accessing the same information.
As a member of this government, I strongly believe that there
is a compelling need, especially in these days of strict fiscal
restraint, to ensure that each dollar spent by this government is a
necessary expense and that it represents the best value that can
be achieved in the use of that scarce resource; every dollar
counts.
(1805 )
This government's commitment to the integrity if the
procurement process has been made very clear with the
increased use of OBS and the recent release of the new
guidelines for public opinion research and advertising contracts.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has
also introduced a new clause aimed at eliminating contingency
fees. Bidders are now required to certify that they have not hired
a lobbyist to solicit award of a contract where any part of the
payment to the lobbyist depends on the client obtaining that
contract.
In conclusion, I will once again state that Canadians already
have access to up to date information anywhere in Canada on the
government's procurement activities. That is the key to a truly
competitive process.
This government believes strongly in the importance and the
integrity of the procurement process. Canadians have a right to
know that their government does business in an honest and open
way and who it does business with. They also require that their
government not waste money by duplicating its efforts.
This government will continue to serve the Canadian public
by ensuring that an open and fair procurement process is
maintained in the most cost effective way possible.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is appropriate following my colleague's speech on
the importance of our fiscal resources and using them well that I
speak about those other resources which are perhaps even more
important in delivering services to Canadians and ensuring good
government for Canada and those are the people who are also a
valuable resource.
Bill C-52 will give legislative force to the amalgamation of
the former departments of public works and supply and services
as well as the translation bureau and the government
telecommunications agency. This is clearly in line with our
government's commitment to make federal government
operations more efficient and less costly to the Canadian
taxpayer.
Madam Speaker, I will inform you and the House that I will be
sharing my time with my colleague, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in this debate.
[Translation]
This merger will significantly reduce the administrative and
other costs involved in providing most of the central services
required by federal agencies and departments.
[English]
The overall staff requirement will be reduced by more than 20
per cent from 18,000 at the time of amalgamation to about
6808
14,000 by 1998. Clearly such a reduction will substantially
reduce the salary budget of the department-by more than $1
billion over the next decade.
Our government also recognizes that there is a very important
human dimension to this downsizing, necessary though it may
be.
[Translation]
We realize that the savings which we intend to achieve will
inevitably affect the lives and careers of many public servants.
That is why we are now taking all necessary measures to make
this transition the least disruptive possible for those directly
concerned.
[English]
The need to streamline operations and reduce the cost of
government is by no means unique to Canada. It is a problem
being faced by the provinces, by our municipalities, in the
United States, in Europe and throughout the industrialized
world.
I believe that the program of support and assistance being
introduced by our government is one of the most enlightened of
its kind and is recognized as a leader in the field. Unlike the
previous government which regrettably was inclined to
downgrade the public service and treat it as a scapegoat for its
own failures, our government recognizes that the quality of our
people is our most important strength.
(1810 )
We will work closely with our public servants and the unions
that represent them to minimize the impact of these difficult but
necessary staff reductions. The broad strategy will be to retain to
the greatest degree possible the skills, the experience and the
loyalties of the affected employees within the public service and
to give the greatest possible assistance to those who cannot be
retained in finding suitable employment elsewhere.
Specifically, each affected employee will be assigned a
workforce adjustment adviser to provide job search, marketing
assistance and other services on a regular basis.
All surplus employees will be offered a one-week course
developed with union participation dealing with such issues as
stress management, financial counselling and job search
techniques. Surplus employees will be provided with links to
specialized services as required, such as the employee
assistance program, because we recognize that not only are
people going through a career change but they are going through
a significant life change.
Extensive training, advice and support will be provided to
managers in planning and implementing reductions with special
emphasis on communication with all employees. We recognize
that the manager has a key role to play in ensuring that
downsizing is implemented fairly and with maximum
consideration for our employees.
[Translation]
We will fully apply the directive on reassignment for
employees declared surplus.
Among other things, this means a guaranteed position in the
federal Public Service to the extent that the employee can be
retrained or is ready to consider relocation. It also means that
employees will receive six months' notice if they are declared
surplus and will be entitled to retraining courses for up to two
years.
Under the work force adjustment directive, surplus
employees will be entitled to salary protection if they are
appointed to a lower position. If they wish to resign, they will be
entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to six months of salary.
Also, employees who are over 50 years old and have more than
five years of service will receive up to 15 weeks of salary as
severance pay as well.
Our government intends to work as closely as possible with
the various public service unions in implementing these
changes.
[English]
The unions and employees are understandably not entirely
happy with the reductions in government staffing levels that are
taking place throughout the country but they recognize the
reality of the times and they know that we want to work with
them to co-operate in ensuring that these lay-offs are conducted
fairly and in accordance with government policy and directives.
In this regard, workforce adjustment committees are already
in place at the national and regional levels of the former
departments. The government is continuing to discuss and
examine with the unions the most effective way to consult and
co-operate on the reshaping of the new department.
In this exercise departmental managers are being encouraged
to consider innovative strategies and the voluntary use of
flexible work arrangements such as part time work and job
sharing as a means of minimizing the impact of these changes.
The process of downsizing has already begun and there are
currently some 250 surplus employees in the inventory of the
department. It is encouraging to note that to date the majority of
surplus employees have been dealt with through retraining and
redeployment with very few involuntary lay-offs.
The components of this department in particular have an
excellent record in treating their employees fairly.
(1815 )
I think hon. members will agree that our government has gone
to extraordinary lengths to try to minimize the negative effects
of departmental restructuring on the workforce. This is a clear
demonstration of our commitment to build a new and stronger
6809
relationship with the public service and to demonstrate that we
both respect it and value its work.
The morale in the federal public service took a rather severe
battering during the Tory years in power. We are determined to
re-establish a new and better relationship based on mutual trust
and mutual respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address the House this
afternoon. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I get to
participate in a debate since the Prime Minister appointed me
Chief Government Whip.
I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister publicly, in
front of my constituents, for appointing me and to tell all my
hon. colleagues in this House that I will do my very best not to
disappoint them. I will try to carry out my duties as whip in such
a way as to keep the caucus united under the excellent direction
of the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Perhaps there is a symbolism in the fact that my first speech
following my appointment is a speech on the contract award
process. Why? Because this whole issue of contracting is one
that I, as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
consider very important.
We have before us today a bill introduced by the Hon.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, with an
amendment moved by a Bloc Quebecois member, namely the
hon. member for Québec-Est, seconded by the hon. member for
Charlevoix.
Listen carefully to what the Bloc Quebecois member is
proposing. His amendment reads as follows:
[That] this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52-
Listen to this. He would have us decline to give second
reading to a bill to amalgamate federal departments. What is the
purpose of this bill? To prevent duplication. Where have we
heard this before: to prevent duplication? Who has been
advocating such action in this House? Madam Speaker, our
colleagues opposite.
I can see the hon. member for Drummond smiling. She knows
full well that her party claimed to be the champion of the use of
government funds by stating that duplication must be prevented.
With all due respect to their sovereignty, I must tell the hon.
members opposite that today, a Bloc Quebecois member has
actually asked this House to refuse to pass this bill to prevent
duplication.
The reasons the Bloc Quebecois member does not want
consent to be given are known. They are stated on page 6529 of
Hansard for Tuesday, October 4, 1994. Let me read them to you,
Madam Speaker. As a fair, non partisan member of this House,
you can see clearly how the hon. member is mistaken. He says,
and I quote the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois:
Bill C-52 should have more teeth.
He is asking that consent be refused because he would want
the bill to have more teeth. He may have some trouble with these
subtleties but, not to worry, it will all become very clear, I think,
when you hear what the member of the Bloc Quebecois said, and
I quote:
This is the Bloc Quebecois's proposal: We ask that a public review board be
created under the bill to scrutinize contracts awarded by the Department of Public
Works and Government Services and to ensure openness.
There is the Comptroller General of Canada. Then, after
public funds have been spent, there is also the Auditor General
of Canada, at the risk of surprising the members opposite.
(1820)
There are audit mechanisms in place before and after
contracts are awarded. So the Bloc's first proposal does not hold
up.
Second, said the member for Charlevoix, we ask that a
contracting-out code be clearly defined in this bill. Again, at the
risk of surprising the hon. member, there is a mechanism in
place for all contracts awarded by the Department of Public
Works and Government Services. I must say that I handled such
matters in the past. Suppliers must fill out statutory declarations
assuring the government that subcontractors have been paid
before they can receive benefits from the government. This
practice is now in effect. So the Bloc's second request does not
hold up either.
Now listen closely, Madam Speaker, to the Bloc Quebecois
member's third request: ``Third, we demand that members of
Parliament of all political stripes be consulted about and kept
informed of the government contract awarding process
involving the ridings they represent.'' Well, well, well! This
sounds a lot like patronage. Is it because the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois used to belong to a political party that was partial to
patronage? Is that the reason? Is it a leftover from the Tory era?
Probably not. It is probably just a coincidence.
Another funny coincidence, if I remember correctly, is that
the former leader of the Conservative Party used to represent the
riding of Charlevoix, did he not? The current member for
Charlevoix was on the executive of his association, before he
switched parties, of course. I am not referring to the days before
the Bloc Quebecois leader switched parties: I am referring to the
days before the member for Charlevoix switched parties.
Indeed, as you know, these people have had a tendency to switch
parties. During his career, the Bloc Quebecois leader switched
parties five times; he will likely do it two or three more times
again.
Mr. Bonin: It will not be long!
6810
Mr. Boudria: ``It will not be long'', says the hon. member for
Nickel Belt. I congratulate him for being so eloquent, as he
usually is, and also for being so perceptive.
My colleagues from the Liberal Party do not see the use of
setting up a patronage system as demanded today by the Bloc
Quebecois. No, Madam Speaker. We, Liberal Party members, do
not agree at all with that suggestion.
I was just referring to politicians who have switched parties
and I see that the member for Richelieu just came into this
House. I am convinced that he is interested in this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Richelieu, on a point of order.
Mr. Plamondon: Madam Speaker, my grandfather used to say
that only fools do not change opinion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but this is not
a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, it all depends on how foolish
the original idea is.
So, these are the proposals made by Bloc Quebecois members
today. They are saying that we should not go ahead with Bill
C-52.
The Liberal Party dealt with this issue in a document called
the red book-and members opposite must surely have heard
about it-and I would like to quote excerpts from the part of that
document on how to put an end to waste.
Billions of dollars are spent indiscriminately on useless
programs. It is time the government spent public money as
carefully as Canadians do with their own money. A Liberal
government will review government spending and cancel the
extravagant helicopter contract approved by Kim Campbell. The
document then lists the rest of the useless expenditures.
Those are the priorities established by our party during the
election campaign, and we remain committed to fulfilling our
election promises. We still intend to serve Canadians well.
Finally, I want to refer to a document on ethics and morals in
the public sector, which was released by the Liberal Party when
we formed the opposition and when I was the critic on
government administration. Recommendation No. 4 in this
document states that the Liberal Party wants to merge the
Department of Supply and Services and the Department of
Public Works into a single department, the Department of
Government Services.
(1825)
There you are, Madam Speaker. In 1992, we consulted
Canadians and defined our program. In 1993, we presented that
program to Canadians in the red book. And in 1994, we are
fulfilling our commitments. That is the difference between the
Liberals and the members opposite. We have said the same thing
before, during and after the election campaign, and we will
continue to provide a good government to Canadians, in spite of
the efforts of some members opposite.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, I do
not think the hon. member's appointment has made him any
smarter. His speeches have not changed.
In fact, I did not move this amendment, I merely seconded it,
because you will recall, if the hon. member would read the text
of the motion, that the amendment was moved by the hon.
member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, and seconded by
the hon. member for Charlevoix.
The bill amalgamates the departments of Public Works,
Supply and Services, Procurement and Communications and
Translation. We wanted the government to use this bill to
provide some transparency in government procedures. People
often say it is time the government stopped wasting money.
If we consider contracting out alone, between 1984-85 and
1992-93 there was a 56 per cent increase in this area at Public
Works. There was an increase of 114.2 per cent in National
Defence. There was an increase of 207 per cent at Health and
Welfare. There was an increase of 247 per cent at Supply and
Services. There was an increase of 628 per cent at Customs and
Excise.
Although the Auditor General does a very good job, in his
report he said he had been unable to assess whether the
government had received its money's worth for the amounts
spent on contracting out. How many people in the Public Service
have been put on the shelf, while the government decides to have
their work done on contract? What we want is a monitoring
committee, consisting of public servants, elected
representatives and people working for the Auditor General.
It also says in our amendment that members from each riding
should be consulted, and I would like to explain that this was put
in because of a statement by a Liberal member on the
committee, who I think deserves all the credit. He said that he
read a public notice in his riding that the government was
preparing to make some changes in the post office there. He
saved the government a million dollars. We moved the
amendment simply in the interests of transparency.
My question is directed to the Chief Whip. Does he agree that
the government should include elements in its bills that would
reflect great transparency?
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought the
hon. member was making a speech, because he had been going
on for quite a while. The hon. member wants to know whether
we favour more openness. I am sorely tempted to answer with
the following question: How could the creation of a structure
6811
which could increase patronage be an instrument of greater
openness?
(1830)
The member opposite totally missed the boat regarding this
bill. We have the tools to ensure transparency. The member said
that it takes a committee to go along with the Auditor General.
We already have one, it is called the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts. Once the Auditor General's report is tabled in
the House, it is automatically referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts without even a motion from this
House.
Under the present Standing Orders, it is automatic. All
government contracts the Auditor General wants to comment on
are included in his report if he believes that it is in the interest of
this House; consequently, they are automatically referred to this
parliamentary committee. Therefore, once again, the member's
arguments are flawed. Yes, we need greater transparency, more
accountability, and yes, all parliamentarians agree that we need
to cut costs. This bill is going to accomplish all that and we
already have all the other necessary structures.
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on second
reading of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services Act.
I have listened to the debate on this bill with great interest and
have noticed once again how the members of the opposite side
will stretch logic to the breaking point in order to turn
discussion to their pet subjects.
I have also noticed that no argument, no matter how sound,
will steer them away from these pet subjects with the result that
we who support the passage of Bill C-50 must repeat dozens of
variations on the same factual themes. They are indeed factual
themes which no amount of political rhetoric can dismiss.
Bill C-52 is a clear instance of sound legislation to improve
the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. It eliminates
overlap and duplication. It provides for consolidation and
coherence in government purchasing and contracting. It
generates vast savings and taxpayers' dollars thus contributing
to deficit reduction and helping restore public faith in
government.
It eliminates antiquated, redundant legislation and regulation,
bringing administrative practices into the electronic age. It
permits single window access to information for clients,
suppliers and taxpayers. Despite the declarations of members of
the opposite side, there has been a great deal of talk about
transparency.
Despite that fact, it has been clear from the outset that this
government is committed to fairness and openness in
government contracting. This government is determined to
ensure that all contracting is undertaken in a manner that keeps
the Canadian taxpayers informed, stimulates competitiveness
and ensures that the process is open and fair.
Treasury Board promulgates policies that are aimed
specifically at these objectives. It clearly bears repeating that
the information on the magnitude of the government contracting
already exists and this government is making improvements to
ensure even greater openness.
In the meantime, the government encourages all suppliers and
all members of Parliament to use the open bidding service that
advertises upcoming opportunities to supply goods and
services.
With this system, information on current as well as past
purchases is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to
anyone and everyone who is interested. Suppliers no longer need
to be included on a government source list. They no longer have
to await an invitation to bid. They can review available
opportunities in their product or service areas and order the
required bid documents for those that they are interested in.
Documents are forwarded immediately by fax, mail or courier.
At the same time as we take measures to ensure open access to
contracting information, every practical means must be brought
to bear to reduce expenditures and ensure maximum value for
each dollar spent. Members on both sides of the House have
acknowledged the magnitude of the task of government
purchasing. The federal government is Canada's largest user of
private sector suppliers with more than 200,000 transactions per
year. It buys everything from stationery to military equipment.
(1835)
Members should bear in mind that by relying on program
experts in the various departments the number of contracts that
require the review of ministers is very small, consisting of large,
risky or sensitive purchases. It is the task of Public Works and
Government Services Canada to make many of these purchases
on behalf of other departments. Nonetheless, close to half of all
the contracts are awarded under the authority of individual
departments.
Yet despite this diversity of sources and despite the massive
information already or shortly to be in the public domain,
members opposite insist that the government should compile
and publish separate detailed information. The additional cost
of gathering and publishing such information would be a glaring
extravagance that flies in the face of fiscal restraint.
One hon. member has said that if research is necessary to
compile the information, and I quote directly: ``Goodness,
gracious, hire some researchers to do the job''. Another member
has argued that since the cost would be such a small percentage
of the total cost of government purchasing, it is reallynegligible.
6812
Is that responsible opposition and criticism? I do not think so.
Is that legitimate concern for sound administration of public
funds? Or is it perhaps the very kind of thinking, the very lack of
respect for taxpayers' money that got us into our deficit
difficulties in the first place?
A good example of an inaccurate picture is the case of Saint
John Shipbuilding and the patrol frigate program. A listing of
contracts by constituency would show that contract in a New
Brunswick riding but no less than $1.2 billion of the work will
actually go to Quebec suppliers.
An excellent example of misleading information is the case of
the petroleum companies which bill all their government sales
through their Ottawa offices. It represents hundreds of millions
of dollars of business per year, none of which is supplied by
Ottawa.
In the end the government has to serve its clients and the
public purse in the most effective and least expensive manner.
Members on both sides of the House quite rightly insist that
wherever feasible contracts should be competitive and should
go to the lowest quality bidder.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the deputy government
whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question
now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at the end
of Government Orders and following the other deferred votes, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for
not more than 15 minutes.
(1840 )
Does the House agree to proceed with adjournment
proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6812
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have asked a question of the Minister of Transport, in
fact the entire side, a number of times. I have asked the minister,
I have asked the parliamentary secretary, I have even asked the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. My question
has been regarding the Pearson airport contract. If they think
this is a bad deal we wanted to know what they thought was a
good deal.
In spite of asking all these different people, I have never
received an answer. What I want to do for a moment is take a
look at what is good and what is bad about this deal; first what is
good, from my perspective, of course.
It would have involved $740 million of private enterprise
money going into the rebuilding of terminals 1 and 2 without
any cost to the taxpayer. It would have created world class
terminals at competitive and comparable rents for airlines. It
would have had blended use of terminal 3 during the
construction period, minimizing public disruption. There would
have been a tremendous advantage to Air Canada and perhaps
even Canadian Airlines.
It would have created a new world class air terminal and
would have provided enhanced economic and tourism benefits
for central Canada without cost to the air industry in other parts
of the country or the Canadian taxpayer.
Then there is the matter of jobs, jobs, jobs-the Liberal Party
election cry. The Pearson development contract would have
created 14,000 person years of construction employment and
another 1,200 permanent new jobs in the new facilities.
What is bad about this contract? According to the Liberals,
this contract had no cancellation clause. What is interesting is
that there was no cancellation clause for Terminal 3, for Vista
6813
cargo terminals or for the Vancouver local airport authority.
They claimed that it had limited bidding. The reality is that
hundreds of contracts or requests for proposals were printed,
dozens were picked up, and the fact that only a few were
qualified to bid on it can hardly be deemed the responsibility or
problem of the Pearson consortium.
They claimed that the rate of return on investment was too
high; the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce did not think so.
It was one of the original investors but they dropped out because
the rate of return dropped to less than 14 per cent, which they
thought was too low for the degree of risk involved.
They complained that the contract was signed during the
election campaign. Most legal opinions agree that the actual
binding date of the deal was August of 1993, before the election
was called.
A very selective censored review of terminals 1 and 2
provided to Robert Nixon by the associate deputy minister and
classified as secret, indicates the following: rate of return too
high? The Pearson Development Corporation return on
investment was endorsed as reasonable by both the Department
of Finance and a government hired independent consultant.
They claimed the crown was not getting a good return but the
reality is this report said the crown's rate of return was
considerably better than a crown construction option.
I have to provide at this provide an apology because in my
letter to the minister which I sent a week ago I claimed that his
action was unprecedented. In actual fact, the War Measures Act
in 1942 which saw the Japanese stripped of all their property,
legislated payment and denied the right of appeal, sounds rather
familiar.
They claim that $445 million is the compensation sought.
Court documents show no amount has been claimed, only the
right to an arbitration tribunal.
So far this is all my side. Is there a Liberal side? We do not
know. We keep asking the question and they keep refusing to
answer it. The question is, and I will ask it again for the fourth
time, if this is a bad deal, what is a good deal, what are your
alternatives?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am not sure that is the
question we are supposed to be debating tonight. I will try in my
short two minutes to respond to the member's addendum to his
question.
First, the Liberal government's position is pretty clear. We
cancelled the deal. Canadians obviously thought we made the
right decision because they elected us in majority numbers; in
fact 98 out of 99 Ontario seats, for the member's recollection.
The current Prime Minister had given ample notice during the
election that he wanted to review the deal to see where the public
interest was. Once we were elected we put the public interest
first and that was to cancel the deal as we had promised to do
before the election. There is no question where the Liberal
government stands. We think the deal was a bad deal for
Canadians. We cancelled the deal.
I find it incredible that the Reform Party is actually
supporting the deal. The member knows because he is the
transport critic that the standing committee held hearings on
Bill C-22 and brought forth witnesses to discuss the pros and
cons of the bill and the deal.
It is unquestionable that the highest court in the land,
Parliament, which is to determine public interest, has
determined this was a bad deal. Courts may decide on the value
of a contract cancelled or not; but the highest court in the land,
Parliament of which the Reform Party speaks so highly each and
every day, has the right to determine pubic interest.
We are not standing still. We are moving through our national
airports policy to make sure that Pearson is the flagship of our
Canadian Airport Authority. The municipalities have named
their representatives. The minister has announced the
completion of the north-south runway to be used for safety
reasons in inclement weather, not on a daily basis. We have been
waiting for the appointments of the other members of the CAA
so we can get on with building Pearson, spending the $740
million, creating jobs and making sure that Pearson remains the
world class facility it was supposed to be.
We are committed not to waiting until 1998 as the member
suggested in his original question but to getting on with building
Pearson in the public interest as a non-profit organization called
the Canadian Airport Authority. We would welcome the Reform
Party's support of Bill C-22 and not it being allies with
Conservative senators, which is also incredible.
We hope to get on with building Pearson and have the support
of the Reform Party in that regard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)