CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 14, 1994
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9053
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9056
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9057
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9057
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9057
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9057
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9057
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9058
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9058
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9058
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9058
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9059
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9059
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9060
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9060
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9060
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9061
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9062
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9062
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9064
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9064
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9066
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9067
Bill C-65. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9068
Bill C-298. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9068
Division on the motion deferred. 9072
Bill C-53. Report stage (with amendments) 9072
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9073
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9073
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 9073
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9073
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9073
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 9073
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9073
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9074
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9074
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9074
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9074
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9075
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9076
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9080
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 9086
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9086
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9086
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9086
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 9087
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9087
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16 9087
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9087
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9087
Motions Nos. 18 and 19 9087
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 9088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9088
Motions Nos. 20 and 23 9088
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 9088
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9088
Division on Motion No. 22 deferred 9088
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9088
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 9088
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 9088
Consideration resumed of motion 9089
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9091
9053
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 14, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
'Twas the eve of Christmas recess,
And all through the House,
Not a member of the rat pack was stirring, not even a mouse.
The statements were chosen by the Speaker with care,
In hopes that all House members would be fair.
The MPs were nestled all snug in their seats,
In hopes of receiving some Christmas treats.
I rose from my chair to see what was near,
When, what to my wandering eyes should appear,
But the Minister of Transport with no VIA,
But eight tiny reindeer.
With a little driver, so young-like and slick,
I knew in a moment it must not be Saint Nick,
More rapid than a Challenger the cuts they came,
And he snorted and he stomped while shouting,
No train! No train!
But I heard the good people of Saint John exclaim,
Don't worry, Elsie, the PCers will return,
And we will have the VIA train once again.
Merry Christmas everyone.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the holiday season is drawing near and I would like to extend to
Canadians my very best wishes for a very happy holiday season.
[Translation]
Next year might bring the separation of Quebec, and this is
why I would like to take this opportunity to tell Quebecers that
Canada is a great country and that their presence in
Confederation is extremely important because of the cultural
dimension Quebec brings, and especially because of what the
Quebec people mean to Canada.
I hope that next year will bring the welcome news that Canada
will remain united and that this unity will not be challenged
again.
[English]
Canada must remain united. Anglophones, francophones and
allophones must all work together in a harmonious country as
Canadians. We cannot erase years of history and camaraderie
between provinces. Canada must keep its state of Confederation
with its ten provinces and two territories. Our strength is in
unity, not in separation.
Today we are also celebrating the 30th anniversary of the
Canadian flag. May it continue to be our symbol of unity and
harmony.
[Translation]
Happy New Year to all.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after 10
successive weekly increases, the central bank rate set by the
Bank of Canada went up 71 basis points yesterday. With this
decision, the Bank of Canada will slow consumption and
investment, and will paralyze the housing market, a sector
crucial for the creation of jobs, especially at a time when the
reduction of unemployment is a major concern of Canadians and
Quebecers.
Unfortunately the employment crisis is not a priority in
Ottawa. The government does not have the courage to seriously
tackle government spending in order to reduce the deficit and
the debt which are responsible for these pressures on interest
rates. There is no job creation policy and the Bank of Canada is
allowed to maintain an anti-inflationary monetary policy which
undermines the economic recovery.
Meanwhile interest rates are going up and the unemployed
remain without jobs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a couple of months ago I watched in amazement as the
government caved in to pressure from the Bloc and Parti
Quebecois when it agreed to pay $34 million to Quebec for the
1993 referendum. The decision was based almost solely on the
word of the most distrusted Prime Minister in Canadian history.
For the past month I have been even more amazed as the Bloc
and its PQ allies try to force the renegotiation of a signed deal on
the military college at Saint-Jean. This is not some vague
verbal guarantee from a former politician; it is a signed agree-
9054
ment. The Bloc and PQ are being totally hypocritical in their
demand. The government must not acquiesce to this absurd
request.
The government has finally agreed to Reform's request that
British Columbia be treated equally as regards Royal Roads. Let
us hope that we have now seen the end of this charade.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as consumers many Canadians believe that their home
cable rates are set by the CRTC.
Due to the complexities of the cable companies' sales
vocabulary, the truth is that basic cable rates are controlled but
that extended cable rates float at whatever the local supplier
demands. Certainly I am not opposed to open market pricing if
the market is truly open.
Let me invite all present or who are watching today to call
their local cable companies to request the basic cable service as
defined by the CRTC and not extended cable service as defined
by their local cable companies. Next, try to find another cable
carrier in your neighbourhood to give a competing bid.
After you have realized that the marketplace limits that type
of competition, get out your chequebook because you are about
to pay for six new channels that have been authorized by the
CRTC. This is an open market with no choice. Pay up or look for
the rabbit ears.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during this Christmas season my thoughts are with the families
and friends of those who perished in the tragic bombing of the
Air India flight 182 on June 23, 1985.
This will be the 10th Christmas since that tragic day on which
329 passengers and crew lost their lives as a result of the bomb
blast aboard the airliner just 120 miles west of Ireland. Although
some arrests have been made, this terrible crime remains
shrouded in mystery.
As the families and loved ones of those who perished aboard
Air India flight 182 face their 10th Christmas since this tragedy,
I ask all members to join with me in expressing our deep sorrow
at their loss which continues today.
Christmas is a time when we are sharing love. We should
make them feel warm.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the former Yugoslav republic, FYROM, in Skopje
seeks international recognition as the republic of Macedonia.
Only thirteen states, seven from the former Soviet Union and
east Europe and three Asian communist states have recognized
the Skopje republic as that. Twenty-six other states have
recognized Skopje only as FYROM and another twenty-two
have recognized Skopje as FYROM but without diplomatic
relations. The remaining 124 members of the United Nations
including Canada have not recognized Skopje in any form or
opened diplomatic relations.
(1405)
Canada's position is in full accord with the international law
on recognition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the former ruling party, which is left with only two
members in this House and 53 senators, has managed to make
the government backtrack on the issue of the Pearson airport
privatization cancellation. Both parties, which have mutual
friends working for the Pearson Development Corporation,
agreed to let the consortium sue for up to $80 million in possible
compensation.
But worse still, we did not get to the bottom of this scandal
and taxpayers will never know why the government is getting
ready to squeeze all this money out of them for the benefit of its
cronies. In view of the vast amount of public funds wasted in this
ugly mess, the government must get to the bottom of it and set up
a royal commission of inquiry to examine all the aspects of the
deal which are still unclear.
The way this government is handling this issue reveals quite
clearly the strange kind of ethics which can be found in both the
Liberal Party and the cabinet.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to present my first instalment of the
Liberals copy Reform awards.
Just when we thought the only two types of Liberals in Ottawa
were the appointed and the disappointed, the hon. member for
Durham restored our faith in the political process. In a letter to
9055
the Ottawa Citizen the member supported Reform common
sense policies when he proposed two solutions for Governor
General appointments.
Remember our leader was booed in the House when he
suggested this very idea. The first was to submit a list of names
to the House of Commons to allow all Canadians through their
MPs to have a voice in the selection. The second solution was a
vote by all people of Canada in a general election.
It gives all Reformers a feeling of great pride when we hear
Liberals choosing to quote the PM from Calgary Southwest and
not the PM of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, racism breeds intolerance in society.
One would think educational institutions in our multicultural
society would be the last place where racism would exist. This is
not the case.
Three weeks ago Mahendra Gupta, a teacher at Toronto's
Humberside Collegiate, was deliberately pushed down a flight
of stairs at the school. He was later found unconscious at the
bottom of a concrete stairwell.
It was a cold and calculated attack. School officials were
aware of racist correspondence sent to five non-white teachers
but chose not to inform students and staff.
Racism still permeates the Toronto school board. According
to Rick Kollins, a Toronto board superintendent, the attack was
``not a good news story but a sign of moving in the right
direction''.
Years of inaction and window dressing by the Toronto school
board have resulted in a teacher being racially attacked and the
attack is perceived as a positive development by senior officials.
It is not.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Stratford Festival,
Canada's national English language theatre, on the conclusion
of its 1994 season. All 10 plays enjoyed outstanding critical
reviews and for the first time since 1990 the season was a
financial success.
The festival realized in excess of $17 million in box office
receipts, $3.5 million through fund raising and received only
$900,000 in federal grants. In return, the theatre generates $150
million worth of business in the community and generates $25
million in taxes.
I wish all those associated with the Stratford Festival another
successful season. I encourage all members of the House to join
with us in 1995 when, in the words of the festival's artistic
director Richard Monette, the Stratford adventure continues.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand to recognize a jewel in the crown of western Canada,
situated in part in my riding: the port of Vancouver.
Vancouver stands as the gateway to the Asia-Pacific. The port
of Vancouver is the guardian of that gateway, serving the
western regions as a point of entry and departure of all goods to
the Pacific.
The port of Vancouver is the largest port on the west coast of
North America. Its annual throughput is approximately 70
million tonnes.
As a fully self-supporting crown corporation the port serves
all of B.C. and western Canada. It supports 9,000 jobs in the
lower mainland as well as another 62,000 employees from the
rest of Canada who produce, transport and process the goods
that move through the port. The port's cargoes exceed $38
billion annually.
(1410)
As the sleeping tiger of Asia awakens, the port of Vancouver
has the unique opportunity to become the hub of trade for the
northwest. The U.S. ports of Oregon and Seattle vie for the
prize. Perhaps all western Canadian provinces should claim
ownership and mould it to become the Pacific jewel that it can
be.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
government must be committed to assisting innovative small
and medium sized enterprises. An industry which may help us to
meet our objectives is the venture capital industry which
searches out businesses that are young, innovative and operating
in a growth market.
The FBDB recently concluded a baseline survey of 259
companies which secured venture capital financing. Despite the
effects of the recent recession these venture backed companies
still increased the number of people they employed at an annual
compounded rate of 40 per cent.
The global economy is becoming increasingly specialized.
High tech firms once considered the wave of the future are here
today. In order that Canada not be left behind it is essential that
the government assist in creating a positive environment for the
venture capital industry to support small and medium sized
businesses which will have a positive impact on our economy as
a whole. The venture capital investment industry is an important
9056
means by which we can support young companies while
ensuring that Canada remains competitive in the global market.
Clearly the venture capital industry provides a great potential.
As our government is committed to rejuvenating the economy
this is one vehicle that should lead the way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage gave
us another demonstration of his now infamous lack of courage.
Following the decision by Rogers Cable to change access to its
French-language channels TV5 and Météo Média, and to cancel
Musique Plus, as of tomorrow, the minister avoided his
responsibilities.
Obviously, the heritage minister understood nothing
yesterday, neither the question he was asked, nor what is at
stake. Francophones in several regions are outraged by Rogers'
decision. These channels are an important part of their cultural
environment, especially among young people.
We hope that the Pontius Pilate of cable television and
francophones outside Quebec will emerge from his torpor and
take action so that Rogers and all the other cable television
companies do not reduce their services in French.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-22, a bill denying the rights of Canadians to due
process before the courts, is coming back again. This time it is
the Liberals in the other place who are trying to find an eleventh
hour solution to the mess which the Liberals in the House now
find themselves in.
Our Liberals are in trouble due to their insistence on using the
Pearson airport as a smoke screen to hide the real issue: the rule
of law. They are trying to rewrite the rules of this land to suit
their own purposes. This is a precedent we cannot allow to
occur. If it does, what can we expect next? Expropriations
without compensation, a change in the basic concept of innocent
until proven guilty?
The government needs a conscience. This is often portrayed
as a small person sitting on a shoulder. In the case of the Liberals
their conscience is sitting on this side of the House.
I offered the Minister of Transport a solution to this mess back
in October but he did not even respond to it.
The Reform Party has been consistent on the issue. It is nice to
see the Liberals finally agreeing not only with us, but the
respected legal opinions throughout this country.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government to maintain its
presence in rural Canada through the operation and ownership of
federal buildings in these small communities.
In my own constituency at least three communities, the town
of Wilke, the town of St. Walberg and the village of Loon Lake,
have federal buildings on their main streets that currently house
the post office. On several occasions over the last four years
these buildings have been offered for sale by the department of
public works but no buyers have been found.
It appears that the federal government wishes to jeopardize
postal services in these small communities by selling off the
buildings that house those post offices giving Canada Post the
opportunity to relocate into retail franchises.
The public works department and Canada Post have the same
minister. I call on him to support rural Canada.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is committed to the elimination of all forms of
violence in our society.
(1415)
In particular, members on this side of the House are truly
concerned about the incidence of violence against women which
has often been dismissed as unsubstantiated and exaggerated.
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada admitting
drunkenness as an allowable defence for a man accused of
sexually assaulting a 65-year old woman is an indication of the
insensitivity that currently exists in the country.
Furthermore, as recently as last week in reference to the
incidence of male violence against women the member for
Lisgar-Marquette stated they were always taught at home as
kids that when they went to get the cattle out of the pasture not to
wear red because it would infuriate the bull in the pasture.
I fail to see the connection between violence against women
and the herding techniques of the Reform Party member
opposite.
It is my hope we will all work toward eliminating this type of
insensitivity in our society.
9057
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 30 years ago tomorrow, members of the House of
Commons adopted the Canadian flag.
[English]
The final date of debate was December 14, 1964 and the final
vote was held on December 15.
[Translation]
Her Majesty the Queen gave royal assent in February 1965.
[English]
On this historic day I recite my pledge of allegiance to the
Canadian flag as authored by Alexandre Cyr: ``To my flag and to
the country it represents I pledge respect and loyalty''.
[Translation]
Wave with pride, From sea to sea, And within your folds,
Keep us ever united. God keep our flag. God protect our Canada.
I am proud to be Canadian. Long live a united Canada.
[English]
Long live a united Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would hope that as much as possible we would
abstain from using any props. One usually goes with the other,
but I would be hard pressed in any way to say that we should not
be proud of our flag.
_____________________________________________
9057
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
past 14 months the Minister of Finance has promised he will
reduce the deficit. We are still waiting.
Disappointed by his failure to act, the financial community
and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about the
government's failure to reduce the deficit. In fact, in a situation
where we can expect the U.S. economy to start overheating,
failure to reduce the deficit will always cause interest rates to
rise in Canada.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his weak-kneed
approach to fighting the deficit and the miscalculations in his
own budget plan are increasing concern in the financial
community and among foreign investors, and that his failure to
act is largely responsible for the rise in interest rates in this
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly
prepared to admit that this year, we will reach our goals as far as
the deficit is concerned, the first time in ten years the federal
government has done so.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is a deficit expert. Everybody knows that. We all know
the figures.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Would the minister agree that scepticism in
the financial community has increased considerably since
Liberal members announced that the government would
probably be unable to reach its goal of 3 per cent of GDP, which
they feel justifies a general tax increase, ostensibly temporary, a
proposal the Minister of Finance is still considering?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is any
scepticism on the financial markets about a government that
refuses to deal with its problems, it most certainly concerns the
provincial government in Quebec, the PQ, the Bloc Quebecois
headquarters. Ever since they came to power, they have refused
to admit that they have a financial problem and that both levels
of government will have to work together to deal with that
problem.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe what we just heard. For the past 14 months, the Minister
of Finance has been talking about the Government of Quebec.
With a $40 billion deficit, rising interest rates and his policies
that have been a complete failure, he talks to us about the
Government of Quebec. I cannot believe it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Wake up.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, look at them carrying on. And
they talk about the Government of Quebec.
The Speaker: Wonderful Wednesday. The hon. member will
please put his carefully wrought question.
Mr. Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this advance
appreciation of my question. Would the Minister of Finance
admit that by merely coasting along on our economic recovery
instead of stimulating job creation as he should have done, he
has heightened the lack of confidence in the financial
community which no longer believes his promises to reduce the
deficit?
9058
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last quarter,
we experienced 4.6 per cent growth, and in the quarter before
that, 6.4 per cent. This year, 400,000 jobs were created. Last
month, 95,000 jobs were created in Canada, a record for this
country. Congratulations to my colleagues.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that one month
after he tabled his first budget, Canada's rating was
downgraded, while, so far, Goldman Sachs and Moody's say that
Quebec's credit rating will be maintained.
Some hon. members: There.
Mr. Loubier: The Minister of Finance continues to ignore the
proposals and recommendations made by various stakeholders,
including the official opposition, to reduce the deficit. His
inaction has earned him very poor marks in the eyes of the
financial community as this session ends.
Will the Minister of Finance not recognize that before
contemplating further tax increases, he should make it a priority
to recover the bulk of the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes owed to the
federal treasury?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Roberval asked us to make cuts. Now, I will ask the Bloc
Quebecois finance critic for the fifteenth time, where does the
Bloc suggest that we cut? We have yet to receive a single note or
suggestion. Really! Family trusts? I am waiting for the finance
committee report. I think that you submitted your opposition
yesterday. But where, where really, should we cut? Make
suggestions. Be constructive.
As for Goldman Sachs, the firm has made a favourable report
because its people have said that the people of Quebec were
obviously going to vote to remain within a united Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we did submit proposals to the minister. As a matter of
fact, when will he admit that, had he put a stop to unjustified tax
shelters as we suggested, collected outstanding tax accounts as
we suggested, stimulated employment as we suggested, in a
word, had he taken aggressive action to cut spending over the
past year-a year wasted-he would not now be facing a
credibility gap, this confidence crisis, and an upward swing in
interest rates that will affect everyone in Canada.
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are now
enjoying the highest economic growth of any of the G-7
countries. We are enjoying the highest economic growth of
almost any of the OECD countries. We are creating jobs. We are
reinvesting in the economy. We have the best productivity
record of almost any of the industrial countries. Our exports are
up. I have been told about 10 times that our exports are up.
Let it be very clear that this has been a very good year for the
Canadian economy.
Interest rates are up. They are up because of inflation in the
United States. They are up for a number of reasons. The single
most important reason for the increase in interest rates this week
is the international financial community has said that one of the
major provinces of the country, Quebec, refuses to face up to its
deficit problems.
I call upon it to do its job.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bank of Canada rate rose three quarters of a per
cent yesterday to over 7 per cent, driving up consumer loan
rates. Since April the interest rate increases have added about
$200 a month to payments on a mortgage of $100,000.
As the finance minister knows, our national house is
mortgaged to the tune of $542 billion, on which we make
payments of approximately $3.3 billion a month in interest
alone.
Could the minister tell us what impact these interest rate
increases over the past year are having on the national
mortgage? Could he give us a precise dollar figure on how much
these interest rate increases are costing the federal treasury
since the government took office?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of
public record and was set out in the House of Commons finance
committee. Each one per cent increase in interest rates costs the
nation $1.7 billion on an annual basis.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the average Canadian is faced with a $200 a
month increase in mortgage payments, he or she has only one
real option and that is to cut spending in other areas of
expenditure. When it comes to meeting increased mortgage
payments on the national house we hear, to our dismay, that the
ministry is now considering getting the money from tax
increases on gasoline, on personal incomes and on corporate
incomes.
9059
Will the minister please tell us that these rumours are utterly
unfounded, that there is no truth to the fact, and that he has no
intention of taking more money out of taxpayers' pockets in
order to meet his increased mortgage payments?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have responded
to this question on numerous occasions by simply saying that the
government will make its position known in the budget. We are
in the consultation process. We are waiting for constructive
suggestions from Canadians and from the two opposition
parties.
We are waiting for the Reform Party to complete its
suggestions for areas in which we should make cuts. For
instance, the person in the Reform Party who was concerned
with social policy-that is an oxymoron-the member for
Calgary North, said she would cut some $16 billion or $17
billion out of social policy spending.
We are waiting for the Reform Party to give us its constructive
suggestions. We will make our position known in the budget.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the blunt truth of the matter is if the minister cuts
spending the way he should, special interests in the country will
squeal like stuck pigs. If he tries to fix the deficit with tax
increases he will injure the economic interests and prospects of
every man, woman and child in the country. He is going to take
heat either way.
(1430 )
Why does he not take the political heat for doing the right
thing rather than the wrong thing and declare that he will fight
the deficit only through spending reductions? Why do you not
take the heat, through you, Mr. Speaker, for doing the right thing
rather than the wrong thing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): We are prepared to take the
heat, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin: (LaSalle-Émard): In fact we would much
prefer to do it that way.
We understand the bulk of the actions that have to be taken
must be taken on the spending side. We understand that
Canadians have to live within their means and that they expect
their governments to do the same. We are going to do that.
We also have had the benefit of a very well thought out report
by the House of Commons finance committee in which members
on all sides of the House participated. That is an important part
of the consultation process. We intend to take that into account
and we will give our answer when we bring down the budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
With just 10 days before Christmas, time is running out on the
issue of the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean for the
teachers, their families and the whole Saint-Jean community.
All stakeholders have agreed to discuss the merits of the
proposal from the mayor of Saint-Jean, which provides for the
gradual conversion of the military college into a civilian
educational institution. The only holdout is the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Can the minister promise today in this House to resume
discussions on the basis of the proposal from the mayor of
Saint-Jean, which provides for a three-year transition period?
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 spoke to the mayor of Saint-Jean yesterday at
lunchtime and it is clear that we can come to an agreement. The
only obstacle is that the Parti Quebecois has not yet agreed on
the basis of negotiations. I hope to be notified in the coming
days. As soon as I am notified, we will resume negotiations.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acceded
yesterday to the minister's objective of demilitarizing the
college. As the minister said to us yesterday, let us stop fooling
around.
Will the minister, in the interest of the Saint-Jean community,
resume negotiations on the basis of the proposal from the mayor
of Saint-Jean, yes or no?
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, we must indeed stop fooling around, so the Quebec
minister, who says one thing on Monday and another thing on
Tuesday, should confirm her position to me in writing before I
can take action.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been more than five days since the
Solicitor General received SIRC's report on the Bristow affair.
Despite the fact that SIRC insists that it wrote the report for
9060
public consumption, the minister has withheld it not only from
the public but from the members of the national security
subcommittee.
Could the minister advise the House the nature of the problem
that is causing the delay and provide us with a definite time for
the release of the document?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my objective is to have the material available to
members of the House tomorrow.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while I am delighted to learn that the report
is finally being released, I would like to ask the minister about
his response to a question yesterday when he responded that it
was his responsibility to decide on the best way to release the
report.
Does the minister believe that the best way to release the
report is to delay its release so that he does not have to face
scrutiny on the contents of the report until February?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised at the tone of my hon. friend's question.
(1435 )
I thought she would be delighted to learn that my objective is
to have the material available for her and all members of the
House tomorrow. I thought she would give me some applause for
that. Again I am very surprised at her question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Eastern Quebec's main social, community and labour
organizations have asked the federal government to take
seasonal workers into consideration, rather than let them down,
in its social program reform. According to the minister's
estimates, close to two thirds of unemployed people who would
be considered frequent UI users are seasonal workers.
Will the minister recognize that, since seasonal workers
represent close to two thirds of those whom he defines as
frequent users, his project to implement a two-tier UI system
would essentially target these workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about two months ago I
established a special working group to look at the way seasonal
workers could be impacted by the various proposals.
The member knows that in the green book we do not just
present one proposal; we present a variety of proposals about
how we can change the unemployment insurance form.
The special working group has been going across the country.
It has met with several hundred representatives of various
working groups, union groups and business groups. I have met
with its representatives and they are doing a very effective job of
making a proper assessment of how we can be very considerate
and very sensitive to the issue of seasonal workers.
Ten years ago only about 14 per cent of unemployment
insurance funds were drawn down by those who were frequent
users. Today it is over 40 per cent. It shows a very fundamental
change in the way unemployment insurance is being used. It is
time Canadians have the honesty and the responsibility for
taking a look at those changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister recognize that regions which depend on industries such
as forestry, fishing and tourism, such as eastern Quebec, will be
the main victims of his reform and will become second class
regions with second class jobless?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses
words like victim and so on. It shows that he has not read the
proposals.
One of the most serious issues facing Canadians is helping
those who are affected by frequent unemployment or affected by
long periods of unemployment to have better training, better
support, better off season adjustment programs so they can get
longer term employment.
The whole thrust of the green paper is employability. Get
more work for longer periods for more people. That is the whole
point of the reform.
By using that kind of provocative language all the member is
doing is stirring up reaction as opposed to helping Canadians
understand the kinds of choices they can make. I would suggest
that he stop doing it.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is choosing inaction on Bosnia now, but while
Parliament is in recess over Christmas what will it do?
9061
While Reform accepts NATO's protective role for the UN,
will the foreign affairs minister stick to his commitment of
recalling Parliament for a full debate before Canada considers
giving NATO permission to enter into the war in an expanded
way?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that we do not intend to
change the mandate of our troops in Bosnia.
Canada has accepted participation in the UN peacekeeping
mission. That is the mandate our soldiers are fulfilling there. We
know that under very difficult circumstances they are
performing remarkable jobs, saving the lives of civilians
affected by this war, helping humanitarian convoys to get
through, and assisting in probably the most difficult UN
peacekeeping mission ever under the responsibility of the
United Nations.
(1440 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did not get an
answer to my question.
It is interesting that in opposition the Liberal Party had lots to
say about foreign affairs policy decisions being made without
consulting Parliament. How can it change so dramatically by
simply changing the side of the House that it is on?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that there have been
three debates in the House of Commons on the subject.
I assure the hon. member that when the decision is taken to
renew or to change our mandate we will again consult
Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
To comply with the new regulation that takes effect on
January 16, 145 of the 269 customs brokers who operate in
Canada have applied to Reed Stenhouse, a Toronto company, for
the surety bond required by Revenue Canada. As of today, 32 of
these customs brokers have been denied bonds, in other words,
they have been put out of business. Another twenty or so have
yet to receive a reply.
Does the minister realize that this new policy of requiring
customs brokers to obtain high surety bonds has already resulted
in the loss of at least 250 jobs, and that the losses will be much
more substantial if he persists on this course?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view the figures provided by the hon.
member are not accurate. Certainly his projections for the future
are inaccurate.
Over the last four years there have been 15 failures of customs
brokers leading to very substantial problems for their clients.
Their clients of course are the ordinary importers of Canada.
The problem that arises under these circumstances is that the
clients are liable for a second time for money they paid to the
customs broker. It is vital that we deal with this problem. We
must create a fair system of mutual insurance so that the client
of the customs broker can be protected. This is what we are
attempting to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, should the
minister not demonstrate the most elementary common sense
and reconsider this decision, if he wishes to see these businesses
and the hundreds of jobs they represent survive?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly accept the representation of
the hon. member to review it. It is not a policy which is yet
finally determined. We are examining it at the present time and
we will make a decision shortly.
I should point out that the concern I expressed in the House a
moment or two ago is a very real one. We must make sure that
the customs system in Canada does not result in some importers
paying double the amount because of the failure of the agent that
they employ as a customs broker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Recently, it came to our attention that Rogers Cable television
will no longer provide its suscribers with access to three French
language channels.
What is the government's position on access to French
language programming for all Canadians?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his question. Canada's policy is to
promote shows
9062
and programs in both official languages, French and English, in
the distribution and presentation of television programming.
Furthermore, I must say that cable operators are free to decide
what they will distribute. The market rules, the market decides.
Subscribers are free to contact their cable company to let it know
how they feel about it. Also, they can always file a complaint
with the CRTC.
* * *
(1445 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal red book said that the Tory government
``made a practice of choosing political friends'' in making
appointments. It went on to say that the Prime Minister would
fill positions ``on the basis of competence''. My question is for
the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs.
Could the minister explain to the House the criteria for
appointments to the Veterans Appeal Board?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, competence.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the answer.
The answer did not include that several of the 1994
appointments to the Veterans Appeal Board have been long time
friends of the Liberal Party, including failed Liberal candidates
and former Liberal MPs including René Cousineau, Patricia
Landers and Una MacLean Evans who supported the Prime
Minister in his bid for the Liberal leadership race in 1990. The
Liberal list goes on and on. The major criteria appear to be that
one must be a Liberal to get these $86,000 a year plums.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. When
will the government live up to its red book promise and put an
end to these blatant partisan patronage appointments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have looked at the list of order in council
appointments. We have made more than 650. I checked and I do
not know more than 40 of them. I have not done very well
regarding Liberals because I know only 40 of them.
The others I did not know but they were recommended and
chosen. I hope that the day has not come in Canada where
because some day one has the good fortune of offering one's
services to serve Canada as a member of Parliament that one will
disqualify oneself forever to serve on a board anywhere in the
land.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Several decisions by the National Transportation Agency
allowing CN and CP to abandon lines in Quebec will be
implemented in 1995. The Quebec economic development
professionals' association is concerned about the devastating
impact of these decisions on regional development in Quebec
and urges the minister to review these decisions by the agency.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we understand very well the concerns expressed by my
hon. colleague. However, he certainly understands that a
minister cannot easily bypass the decisions made by a
quasi-judicial agency. That would not be acceptable.
In response to these concerns, we asked CN and CP, whenever
the National Transportation Agency allows them to abandon rail
lines, not to remove this infrastructure because we want to look
for ways to maintain services in these regions. It is important not
only in Quebec but across the country. We will try to maintain a
moratorium on rail line removal until a national policy is in
place.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister not agree that he should review the
National Transportation Agency's decisions on the basis not
only of cost effectiveness but also of the impact of line
abandonment on regional economic development? Should he
not facilitate the takeover of some segments by local or regional
organizations?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question posed and even the suggestions contained
in the remarks of my hon. colleague are very valid. I believe it is
very important to make sure that we all understand the
contribution that rail makes to regional development. The work
of the Nault commission in looking at the commercialization of
CN, the decision of the government to reject the unsolicited bid
from CP, and our commitment to announce a national rail policy
in 1995 reflects the kinds of concerns that were raised by the
hon. member.
(1450)
We will attempt to make sure that by encouraging CN and CP
to leave the rail infrastructure in place, even though they have
had the right to abandon it on the basis of a decision from the
National Transportation Agency, it will help to address the
concerns that were raised.
I expect that all members on both sides of the House will want
to make a contribution to the exercise that is under way now,
9063
being led by the member for Kenora-Rainy River, looking at
the future of CN, particularly commercialization with
employee participation.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, automated weather observation systems are being
installed at airports across the country to replace human
observers. This is the same technology that is being used with
automated lighthouses. I would have no problem with this as a
cost saving measure if the system worked, but it does not.
Why is the Minister of Transport prepared to jeopardize
aviation and marine safety with unreliable technology that is
being asked to do a job it was never designed for?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not unusual for the hon. member to mix apples and
oranges but the fact is that the destaffing of lighthouses is based
on technology that has been used around the world. For
example, in the United States of America there is one staffed
lighthouse remaining and it is a historic site at Boston harbour.
With respect to the AWOS concern, which is a very legitimate
concern, I reassure the member, members of the House, and the
travelling public in general that Transport Canada has reacted to
the concerns raised by the aviation community. We are making
certain that services are adequate. We have to deal in the light of
the fact that the Air Transportation Association of Canada, the
Canadian Professional Airline Association, the airlines
themselves, would never fly into airports where there was not an
adequate level of safety available to them.
As important as the question is, I would not want to leave the
impression raised by the hon. member's question that somehow
there is an unsafe situation in the aviation industry in Canada.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it happens that several airlines now refuse to fly into
airports as alternates that use the AWOS system.
Transport Canada recently agreed to put human weather
observers back into Dorval and Edmonton municipal airports.
This causes one to wonder why the safety of Canadians using
those airports are more important than the safety of those using
one of the 48 other AWOS sites and those of the coastal marine
and aviation users.
Will the minister agree to cancel destaffing of aviation
weather observers and light stations until AWOS systems can be
proven to work and are accepted by marine and aviation users?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the best measure is the support being provided by the
aviation industry to the initiatives we are taking. I take
exception to the hon. member's comment that some airlines are
refusing to fly into specific areas where there are AWOS
installations.
I hear the hon. member saying ``speak to Canadian Airlines''.
The hon. member used to be an air traffic controller so we know
the system is already working better because he is here.
The representative from Canadian Airlines who made the
complaint about the AWOS happens to be a meteorologist.
Again, we are trying to do the very best we can. I do not think it
helps the situation in any way to suggest that the system in
Canada is unsafe. We have the safest navigation system in the
world.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
Almost daily there are rumours about thousands of cuts in the
public service. These speculative reports leave the impression
more of a demolition derby than a renewal of the public service.
What exactly is the minister doing to keep our government's
commitments to improving moral in the public service, to
treating the public service with respect, and to treating federal
employees fairly? What is he doing for public service renewal?
(1455 )
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, the hon. member and myself would agree that we
had and we still have one of the finest public services in the
world and that we have to maintain its quality in order for it to be
able to perform well in the future.
The government has given a pledge that it would reduce
involuntary layoffs to an absolute minimum and it will keep that
pledge.
In the program review we are looking at all the programs to
make government more efficient in order to cut costs. There is
no doubt that government will have to be downsized. However
in that process we are always keeping in mind that the public
service has to be kept efficient and able to perform its job. It has
to be kept in a spirit that will permit it to respond to the
challenges that it faces. We will do that.
9064
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. In his recent
report, the Auditor General mentions that after spending $26.6
million, the federal government has still not solved an issue
related to unproductive rent payments, this after 20 years. Those
payments concern a Vancouver lot rented by the federal
government, and more specifically by the Department of
Environment, where an environmental centre was to be built.
However, the project was abandoned in 1976.
Can the minister tell us what action plan her department has to
solve this issue, since this useless lot costs taxpayers $4.4
million a year?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the
member has asked this question because on taking over the
ministry I made arrangements to inform the band that future
payments after this fiscal year should cease and desist.
We have begun negotiations and in fact expect to conclude an
agreement very shortly where in fact there will be no further
federal payments made for this land. In a year we have solved
the problem.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On November 29 he produced four orders in council
concerning prohibited weapons. Two court decisions should
require the minister to lay these orders before the House at least
30 sitting days before their effective date. His date of January 1
would not even be close.
Will the minister explain to the House why he has not
complied with the law, section 116 of the Criminal Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the orders in council to
which the hon. member refers were made not under section 116
of the code, which does indeed require the procedure he has
described, but rather under section 84 of the code which does
not.
Although there is a judicial decision of a trial court which
holds that it is necessary even under section 84 to lay the
regulations before the House, that decision is under appeal to the
appellate division of the court in Alberta. We have every
confidence that judgment was wrong in that respect and that we
will succeed in the appeal.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the
very unwelcome Christmas present that Canadians got with an
increase in interest rates.
Increasing interest rates have affected, as the minister himself
said today, charges on the debt and deficit. They influence
consumer confidence, farmers and small business. The
government has been telling Canadians what they must cut back
on. Would the minister consider a public review of monetary
policy in the country and a review of the mandate of the Bank of
Canada?
Would the minister commit to undertaking such a public
review before the budget of that mandate of the Bank of Canada
and the interest rate policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approximately
one to two months after we first took office, the Government of
Canada and the Bank of Canada entered into an agreement
whereby we set the inflation targets which is very important in
terms of monetary policy in the country and in terms of keeping
inflation low.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, keeping inflation low is a major
asset toward the economic recovery of the country. What is
crucial, if we are going to get interest rates low, is that we get the
fundamentals right and that is job creation, investment in
productivity, low inflation and the kinds of things we are now
seeing within the Canadian economy.
(1500 )
We live in an interdependent world. No country is isolated
from the effects of that. Getting the fundamentals right and the
economy strong and cleaning up the finances of the country are
by far the best ways of keeping interest rates low.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Every year on the job accidents cost the
government and the economy about $10 billion. In these times
of fiscal restraint it is important to find ways to cut costs.
What action is the minister taking to eliminate waste and cut
on the job accidents which currently total about $10 billion a
year?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for a question which I think is both important and timely. We
have noticed over the last several years there has been a trend
line downward in the level of occupational accidents and the
level of compensation claims. We recognize that with a whole
new series
9065
and new kinds of industrial and office based hazards growing,
we are going to have to do more.
One thing we did immediately was establish a 1-800 number
that works out of the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
in the city of Hamilton to provide instantaneous information for
all users of industrial kinds so they can find out what kinds of
solutions and programs are necessary.
One of the most important initiatives under the new labour
side agreement under NAFTA is that we have now started a
series of major conferences on occupational safety dealing with
petrochemicals, construction and electronics so we can begin to
share the knowledge and information of the three countries and
begin to provide new standards.
It is important, especially when we get into new office space
hazards, ergonomics and other areas, that we begin to enlist the
co-operation of business, labour and all levels of government to
provide a new regime of occupational safety in the country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during his reply, at which time I expected a lot of
rhetoric, the Minister of Transport made a particular remark
stating that the air traffic control system was safer because I no
longer work for it, because I am here in the House.
I would ask the minister to clarify this point. Is the air traffic
control system safer because I am here in the House fighting
against his unreasonable measures, or was it a direct personal
attack on my abilities, in which case he must withdraw-
The Speaker: I see where we might get into a little more
repartee here. I wonder if the hon. member would give me a day
to look at the blues to see precisely what was said. I will try to
figure out what was meant. I will get back to the House if
necessary.
_____________________________________________
9065
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
nomination which was recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is
deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
* * *
[
Translation]
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 a
petition.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour today
to present to the House, in both official languages, a letter
conveying the government's position and decision on redress.
* * *
(1505 )
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just tabled the letter I sent to the following groups: the
Chinese Canadian National Council, the German Canadian
Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National
Association of Canadians of Origins in India, the National
Congress of Chinese Canadians, the National Congress of
Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the
Canadian Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association.
The letter conveys the government's decision on redress. This
is not a decision the government has taken easily, but it is one
that after much discussion reflects a commitment to building a
more fair and equitable society.
In the letter I wrote that as Canadians we are proud that our
citizens trace their origins to every part of the world. Together
we have built this country on the principles of fairness,
generosity and compassion. Our history records the remarkable
success we have achieved by applying those principles.
Our history also records that at times we have strayed from
them. There have been episodes that have caused suffering to
people.
9066
[Translation]
In the crisis atmosphere of war, some Canadian ethnocultural
communities found their loyalty questioned, their freedom
restrained and their lives disrupted.
[English]
In the past Canada enforced some immigration practices that
were at odds with our shared commitment to human justice.
Canadians wish those episodes had never happened. We wish
those practices had never occurred. We wish we could rewrite
history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot.
[Translation]
We can and we must learn from the past. We must ensure that
future generations do not repeat the errors of the past.
[English]
Seeking to heal the wounds caused by the actions of previous
governments, six ethnocultural communities have requested
redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of
dollars. The government understands the strong feelings
underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those
wounds.
The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to
address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only
choice lies in using limited government resources to create a
more equitable society now and a better future for generations to
come.
Therefore the government will not grant financial
compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation
lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring. The
government will continue to take concrete measures to
strengthen the fabric of Canadian life by combating racism,
prejudice and discrimination through education, information
and the promotion of the values of fairness.
[Translation]
We have already made progress. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms now guarantees equal protection and
benefit of the law without discrimination. Through the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act, we are committed to the full and equitable
participation of individuals and communities of all origins in
shaping Canada's destiny.
By passing the Canadian Human Rights Act and upholding the
international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination, we have taken another step in entrenching the
principle of equality.
[English]
The letter goes on to say a further major step forward is the
establishment of the Canadian race relations foundation. The
government will proclaim the act establishing the foundation in
the spring of 1995. The foundation, first proposed a decade ago,
will play a fundamental role in moving toward the elimination
of racial discrimination in Canada.
[Translation]
We honour the contribution of all those communities whose
members, often in the face of hardship, persevered in building
our country.
[English]
Together we must ensure that all Canadians can face the future
with pride in Canada, in our values and in their own heritage. We
are a nation of inclusion. Our task is to strive together to
guarantee that the actions of the country match the principles of
its people.
(1510)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to point out to the secretary of state that we
received a copy of her statement barely an hour and a half ago.
We think that is unreasonably short notice and the government
has a strange way of proceeding, to say the least.
Be that as it may, I am pleased to speak today on this
important matter. Indeed, it is wrong to minimize the suffering
of several Canadian cultural communities caused by Canada's
reprehensible behaviour towards them, as was the case in the
climate of crisis due to the war.
Canada shamefully deviated from the principles of justice,
compassion and generosity which always guided its behaviour
towards all its citizens from all over the world who have
contributed greatly to its enrichment.
The government's decision not to pay financial compensation
to the cultural communities that asked for redress is totally
irresponsible. Instead of excusing the past, the government must
face the truth. Some members of these communities were
incarcerated in makeshift camps, the property of some was
seized, others lost their jobs; in short, their most basic rights
were literally violated.
What is the government's response to them? We are sorry for
the past and we must now get on with the future. What a
response.
Does the government realize that many people still live today
with the scars from what happened then? What message is the
government giving all those affected by what Canada did? That
the country does not face up to its responsibilities and hides
behind pious platitudes.
On the contrary, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that there should
be fair financial compensation for all those citizens who were
considered to be outright enemies of Canada. The government
must make fair financial restitution to these people and
communities. The desire of the leaders of these communities for
real
9067
restitution must be respected. The government must
immediately go back on its decision.
On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
repeat how important we consider the cultural communities in
Canada and Quebec to be; their contribution to our societies
points the way to the collective development of us all.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this fall I had the privilege of speaking at a symposium in Banff
hosted by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Members of the association were asking the government to
recognize injustices that had been taken against their group
during World War I.
In the early 1900s thousands of people came to Canada from
all over the world. Many of these settlers had come from
Austria-Hungary, fleeing their oppressive government. When
the first world war broke out these people were declared aliens
and were made to report weekly to the government. Failure to do
so resulted in arrest and deportation to labour camps.
Unfortunately this treatment was not limited to people from
Austria-Hungary. As the minister explained, people from
various ethnic backgrounds were treated in a similar fashion and
the only reason they were treated so poorly was their
membership in a group, in these cases an ethnic group.
I am elated to see the Liberals following the lead established
by the Reform Party. They recognize as we do that Canada has
never entered a war spontaneously or without great
consideration. Canadians prefer peace and mediation to the
horrors and atrocities of war. Further, Canadians cherish the
equal rights of all individuals in society and recognize that they
should not be compromised.
It is not possible to determine who has been negatively
affected by these government decisions or exactly by how much.
Giving money to these groups to redress the mistakes of the past
would not fix those mistakes. We do need to look to today and to
the future to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not unjustly
compromised. The secretary of state has suggested that she will
proclaim the Canadian race relations foundation in order for the
government to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Unfortunately the Canadian race relations foundation will not
meet this noble goal. The Canadian race relations foundation
will cost $24 million just in an initial capital output and it is
suggested that its yearly operating costs will be several millions
of dollars.
(1515 )
However it is not just because of costs alone that we oppose
the foundation. We have some of the same concerns expressed
by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Let me remind the
House of some of their earlier criticisms.
The member for Winnipeg North suggested that the
foundation should not exist because the responsibility for the
program could be accomplished elsewhere. He stated: ``Social
harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary
contests or even by co-operation between business and
government or direct government action. The real challenge is
in the hearts and minds of each of us as individuals''.
This foundation will have over 30 GIC appointments; yet
another opportunity for patronage at its worst.
The member for Eglinton-Lawrence stated: ``One of the
most important questions is: How do we finance some of the
philosophies the minister says this foundation addresses?''
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt when in opposition
also criticized the foundation. He said the foundation ``gives the
minister a great impact on the direction taken by this
organization and could lead to it becoming nothing more than a
mouthpiece for government policy. It could lead to the
assumption that the foundation is more of a political
organization than one of a proactive association for the needs of
the furtherance of race relations''. He continued to say that ``the
funds available for this foundation will act only as a vehicle for
the government of the day to put out its policies and to place into
position people who are supporting it. Probably it will be the
president of the foundation, somebody who has raised funds for
the government''.
This foundation is required by law to be housed in Toronto.
The Liberals criticized this fact as well. Winnipeg is the most
multicultural city in Canada yet it has been given no
consideration as a possible site.
The motherhood ideology of multiculturalism and
anti-racism is noble. However support for the programs caring
for the policies is already in place. Consider the efforts and
positive results accomplished by the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. This in conjunction with programs in the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms has taken Canada a long way toward
reaching the goals of a tolerant society.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 55th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order
92.
9068
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and
dissolve certain federal agencies.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today
and introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to amend
the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).
The bill proposes that subject to subsection (2) there may be
deducted in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year
an amount equal to the interest paid by the taxpayer in the year to
a mortgage lender on the first $100,000 of a mortgage secured
by an individual's qualifying home. Some conditions apply as
outlined in this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1520 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That no Private Members' Business shall be considered on Thursday,
December 15, 1994, providing that the item set down for consideration that
day shall retain its position first on the order of precedence.
In other words, in order to obtain unanimous consent for
private members' hour not to be held tomorrow afternoon, the
member in whose name the private member's item is on the
order retains his place on the order of precedence when we come
back in February.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present this petition signed by 1,200 students of a
secondary school in my riding. It asks one thing only: that the
government keep its promise. And I am keeping my promise to
the students of this school to present their petition in the House
and to read it.
I will be brief. These students tell us that every day on earth
40,000 children die of starvation and illness, and that at the
world summit for children the leaders of this country promised
to reduce the number of children who leave this earth
prematurely. These students also ask the government-
The Deputy Speaker: As the member knows I of course
accept his good faith, but has the petition been deemed
admissible?
Mr. Sauvageau: It has been accepted and approved.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine.
Mr. Sauvageau: Our whip taught us well Mr. Speaker, and we
respect the rules on tabling documents in this House.
The students also told us that every year, on this planet earth,
countless numbers of women die giving birth to children. The
government undertook to reduce the number of such mortalities.
The government also undertook to help children in war-torn
countries, to help children who wanted a normal education, and
to respect the work done by children.
For all these promises made by the government, I present this
petition, signed by 1,200 students of the École polyvalente
Paul-Arseneau.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a first petition signed by 852 residents of the
riding of Châteauguay, which I have the honour to represent.
These petitioners from 28 organizations object to the use of
voice mail in serving seniors. This much criticized technolohy is
definitely not suited to seniors.
Indeed, seniors are entitled to proper service, especially when
they have inquiries to make about income security. I agree with
them and together, we call upon Parliament to kindly ask the
government to abandon the plan to implement voice mail for
seniors.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of over 10,000
residents of the riding of Chicoutimi, I would like to present a
petition on the military base in Bagotville, which is one of the
main employers
9069
in the region, providing work to more than 1,500 military and
250 civilian employees. The strategic function of the base is air
defence and airspace control in eastern Canada, international
contingencies and support for land and sea forces.
The base's responsibilities extend beyond its confines, as it
also provides support for local recruiting centres and militia
units. Finally, over the summer, the base hosted the air cadet
camp attended by some 3,000 young men and women. CFB
Bagotville has been a major player in our region, both socially
and economically, for over 50 years.
(1525 )
[English]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition
in support of keeping mining in Canada.
In this age of technological transformation, we often forget
that mining and natural resources are and continue to be some of
the economic forces that sustain our great nation, a nation that is
judged to be the best place in the world to live.
The petition asks the government to do all it can to improve
the slumping mining investment climate in Canada so that
mining will continue to provide jobs for Canadians, continue to
be a significant exporter and continue to contribute to Canada's
economic prosperity.
I fully concur with the petition.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to place petitions before the House today on behalf of
the member for Parliament for Welland-St.
Catharines-Thorold.
The petitions are signed by residents of St. Catharines,
Thorold, Welland, Niagara Falls and surrounding areas.
I join the petitioners in speaking out against the serial killer
cards and call on Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
killer cards and to advise producers of killer cards that their
products, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present three petitions
on behalf of my constituents from the Ontario riding.
The first petition calls on Parliament to act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code of Canada to extend the same protection already enjoyed
by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition requests Parliament to 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. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): My final petition, Mr.
Speaker, calls on Parliament not to amend 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, including amending the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include the prohibited ground of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation, which I concur with.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
today to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present three
petitions from Elk Island and the surrounding area.
The first petition asks that the Young Offenders Act, because
it is not stringent enough, be amended to lower the protected age
to 12, to provide harsher penalties for those convicted of violent
crimes and the release of the names of offenders.
The petition is signed by 1,296 petitioners.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the next two
petitions are essentially the same. They request 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 homosexuality and not to amend the human
rights code to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Together the two petitions contain 1,058 signatures.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first
petition contains almost 200 signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament refuse to accept the
anti-firearms proposal of the Minister of Justice and insist that
he brings forward legislation to convict and punish criminals
rather than persecute the innocent. I gladly present that today.
9070
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my riding of
Port Moody-Coquitlam.
These residents of Canada request that Parliament ensure that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
I certainly support these petitions today.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition signed by the residents of the city of Fort McMurray in
my riding of Athabasca.
The petition requests 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. I present and support the petitioners.
(1530)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to table a petition signed by 704 Canadians who want
the government to continue subsidizing VIA Rail.
Grouped together in Rural Dignity of Canada, these residents
of Canada and Quebec demand that the Government of Canada
hold public hearings and consultations before making any
decision on VIA Rail's proposed service cuts and line
abandonments. The people of Quebec and Canada also call for
an immediate one-year moratorium to be placed on any line
closure.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
tabling today a petition on the introduction of voice mail service
at Income Security. This petition was signed by 157 residents of
Brossard, Candiac and La Prairie and members of the following
seniors' groups: AFEAS La Nativité de La Prairie, AFEAS
Notre-Dame-du-Sacré-Coeur de Brossard, Club de l'âge d'or
de La Prairie, Joie de vivre de l'âge d'or de Brossard.
Whereas seniors are naturally more at a loss when faced with
voice mail technology; whereas seniors are entitled to adequate
service, particularly with regard to their income security
enquiries; therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to ask the government to abandon its plan to
introduce voice mail systems for seniors.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present two petitions today which have been signed
by over 200 Canadians.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians is an
everyday reality in all regions of the country. This kind of
discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its
commitment to human rights, equality and dignity.
The petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
I am pleased to support these petitions.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present three
petitions signed by well over 100 people.
The first petition asks Parliament to act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition asks Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change in the law which would sanction the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition requests that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of
rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate
societal approval for same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition
bearing the signatures of 371 people from Edmonton and other
areas in Alberta on the issue of euthanasia. It is a very difficult
subject and has much interest to the citizens of Edmonton.
Along with recent correspondence and meetings with
individuals and organizations, such as the Ukrainian Catholic
Women's League who organized this petition, about their views
on the topic, we are planning to hold a policy forum on January
20, in
9071
Edmonton East. We will bring together individuals well versed
in legal, medical and ethical aspects of assisted suicide.
It is our hope that this discussion will be informative and
broad in scope because I really feel the need for the wise counsel
of my constituents on this issue before I can make a final
decision on how to vote in the House.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of 48 citizens
of my riding.
The petitioners request that Parliament ensure 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.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
present petitions on behalf of my constituents and other British
Columbians.
The petitioners ask the government to amend the Divorce Act
to include a provision which will give grandparents standing
before the courts to ask for access to see their grandchildren.
Perhaps no time is more heartbreaking and empty than
Christmas when grandchildren and grandparents cannot see or
speak to each other.
* * *
(1535 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos.
97, 98 and 100.
[Text]
*Question No. 97-Mr. Godin:
With respect to the Kahnawake Band Council (a) what is the breakdown
of the $1,619,076 in grants awarded to it from 1989 to 1994 to help it
negotiate self-government and (b) what legal counsel were paid with this
money?
*Question No. 98-
Mr. Godin:
What is the breakdown of the $2,063,470 awarded the Kahnawake Band
Council from 1989 to 1993 for purposes of economic development,
economic growth and self-sufficiency?
*Question No. 100-
Mr. Godin:
What is the justification for the average annual increase from 1989 to
1993 of 13.6 per cent in federal investment in the Kahnawake Reserve?
[
English]
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
September 28 I put a question on the Order Paper to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the possible conflict of
interest of members appointed to the Fraser River Sockeye
Review Board. The board has started public hearings and I have
yet to receive a reply.
The chair of the review board is a public servant who serves at
the sufferance of the government. At least two board members
have proposals before government departments. One board
member is actively promoting his proposal in the hearings. At
least two board members sit on various department of fisheries
advisory boards.
It is vital for the minister to respond to this question on the
independence of his inquiry. My question deserves an
immediate answer.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there are many deserving
questions on the Order Paper and I know that ministers are
working assiduously to provide competent accurate and full
answers to all the questions.
I know that the minister of fisheries will have heard the
representations of the hon. member today and I am optimistic
that soon we will have an answer for him.
Perhaps we could go back to my original point on Starred
Questions Nos. 97, 98, and 100, please. The answers are as
follows.
The information held by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development on the band council's expenditures is
contained in the financial statements supplied by the band. The
information is confidential financial information from a third
party and as such cannot be disclosed without the band's consent
under the terms of section 20 of the Access to Information Act.
With respect to Starred Question No. 98, I should advise that
the answer is identical to that in No. 97.
With respect to Starred Question No. 100 the answer is as
follows.
It is not possible for us to verify the percentage of 13.6 per
cent. The band's budget increased in part as a result of the
introduction in 1991 of the new funding formula for the
economic development program.
The band's funding for social assistance also increased as a
result of the band taking over the delivery of social assistance to
all beneficiaries on reserve in 1992. Moreover the funding for
the post-secondary program has also increased.
I ask that the remaining questions stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9072
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask you to call Motion No. P-3.
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the December 9, 1994,
report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee entitled ``The Heritage
Front Affair'', subject only to the removal of that information relating to the
amount and management of payments to sources which, if disclosed, could,
in the opinion of the Solicitor General, impair the ability of the Canadian
Security and Intelligence Service to obtain information from sources that is
strictly necessary to its duties and functions, and having regard to subsection
18(2) of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act and paragraph
8(2)(c) of the Privacy Act.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. P-3 in the name of the hon. member
for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo is acceptable to the
government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Notice of Motion No. P-3 for the production of papers be
deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find unanimous
consent that the vote now before the House be deferred until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to defer the
vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, the vote is deferred until 10
a.m. tomorrow.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the other notices of motions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be
extended today by 13 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order
33(2).
(1540 )
[English]
Because of the notice provision the House would require the
unanimous consent of all members to proceed now with Bill
C-53. I wonder if there is unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9072
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act
to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend
and repeal certain other acts, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. In viewing the motions on the Order Paper this
morning I noticed a misprint in Motion No. 12. It should have
read: ``That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 7'' and not clause 4
as it is reported. I would like the assurance that this will be
corrected in Hansard.
The Deputy Speaker: So done, and I thank the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: This is a long ruling and I understand
copies will be available for anyone who wishes to have it in
writing, almost instantly if not already. There are 27 motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-53.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 21 will be grouped
for debate but voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 8
applies to Motion No. 10; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No.
9073
8 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 21; (c) on the other hand, a negative
vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; (i) a vote on Motion No. 1
applies to Motion No. 9; and (ii) a vote on Motion No. 5 applies
to Motion No. 21.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 will be grouped for debate but
voted on as follows:
(a) Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately.
(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the
necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 13.
(c) On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 12
necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 13.
[English]
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 will be grouped for
debate but voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 14
applies to Motions Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19; (b) an affirmative
vote on Motion No. 14 obviates the necessity of the question
being put on Motion No. 17; (c) on the other hand, a negative
vote on Motion No. 14 necessitates the question being put on
Motion No. 17.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 20 and 23 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 20 applies to Motion No. 23.
[English]
Motion No. 22 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 will be grouped for debate. A
vote on Motion No. 24 applies to Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27.
[English]
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and
21 to the House.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 24, on
page 1, and lines 1 and 2, on page 2, with the following:
``4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the powers, duties and functions of the
Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency
of the Government of Canada, relating
(a) to Canadian identity and the identity of Quebec;
(b) to the values, cultural development and heritage of Canada and of Quebec;
and
(c) to areas of natural or historical significance to Canada or Quebec.
(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and
functions assigned to the Minister by the Act, unless the Minister has
received the approval of the government of every province where
(a) the government of the province has enacted legislation or established a
provincial program in a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction under
subsection (1); or
(b) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its
intention to enact such legislation or to establish such a program.''
(1545)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8, on page
2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 9, on page 2.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 11, on page
2, the following:
``(c.1) copyrights;''.
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 16 to 18, on page
2, with the following:
``(e) national historic sites, national battlefields, heritage''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 23 to 27, on page
2, with the following:
``(g) the promotion of language policies centred
(i) on freedom of speech,
(ii) on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in
the other provinces,
(iii) on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as the
Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, and
(iv) on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to
warrant the provision to them of services in both official languages;''.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing new paragraph
(2)(j), with the following:
``(j) the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment;''.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
moved:
Motion No. 8
9074
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-53, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 43, on
page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:
``5.(1) Subject to subsection (2), in exercising the powers and performing
the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by section 4, the Minister
shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national
policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and the
identity of Quebec, Canadian values, cultural development and heritage and
the values, cultural development and heritage of Quebec and areas of natural
or historical significance to Canada or to Quebec.''
(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and
functions referred to in subsection (1), unless the Minister has received the
approval of the government of every province where
(a) the government of the province has implemented in the province a policy,
project or program referred to in subsection (1); or
(b) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its
intention to implement a policy, project or program referred to in subsection
(1).''
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-53, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8, on
page 8.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the
amendments moved by my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata and myself concerning Bill C-53, on
the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I do so with pleasure, because the amendments proposed by
the official opposition well reflect one of Quebec's traditional
demands from the government in Ottawa. Indeed, the very
essence of the proposed amendments-and we make no mystery
of it-is the recognition of Quebec's cultural specificity and
identity.
(1550)
In so doing, we propose that the federal government and the
House of Commons at the very least recognize the fields in
which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. Once it has recognized
them, we ask that it respect them.
Bill C-53 as written is seriously deficient, first of all, because
it fails to recognize the existence of more than one national
identity on Canadian territory. We refer in particular to clauses
4 and 5 concerning Canadian identity, Canadian values,
Canadian culture and Canadian heritage.
I have already had the opportunity several times in this House
to express my opinion that no unified Canadian culture exists,
since efforts are still being made to define, discover and grasp it.
We also note a glaring omission in the bill. Indeed, no mention is
made of the Quebec and native cultures and identities. Why? For
what secret reason is the government systematically ignoring
those very real and important cultures? Is it to eliminate them?
Is it to better promote a new product, as though this was a mere
marketing strategy? There has to be a reason. Maybe some day
we, mere mortals, will be worthy of that knowledge.
The vast majority of Quebecers do not agree with this
legislation. Let me quote some testimony heard by the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I will quote officials from Quebec organizations which
represent a very large number of people, because their opinions
carry more weight. I will start with the Mouvement Québec
français, whose members are the Montreal Teachers Alliance,
the Association québécoise des professeurs de français, the
Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Confederation of
National Trade Unions, the Fédération des travailleurs du
Québec, the Mouvement national des Québécois, the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the Union des artistes, the
Union des écrivains québécois and, last but not least, the Union
des producteurs agricoles.
Together, these groups represent a very large segment of the
Quebec population. Here is what their spokesman, Guy
Bouthillier, had to say:
``In this bill, everything related to culture is labelled under the
heading Canadian identity. Indeed, nowhere is there any
reference to Quebec and its culture. From the federal
government's point of view, there are only one culture and one
identity: the Canadian ones. This will come as a surprise only to
those who still believed that there was some basis-as well as
some honesty on the part of those who oppose that notion-for
the concept of a distinct society. This bill will at least have the
merit of dissipating any lingering illusion. Beyond the fine
rhetoric, there is the written word, the legislation, which will
prevail in the end''.
Needless to say, the Mouvement Québec français rejects this
legislation.
François Rocher, an associate professor of political science at
Carleton University in Ontario, said this: ``The government's
approach is part of an unfinished process to build a national
identity by denying existing realities in Canada''.
He went on to say that the only option that would be both
acceptable to Quebec and potentially beneficial to the other
9075
provinces of Canada would be to revert to the duality
concept-at least in the case of Quebec-and to accept the
political consequences of such a decision.
I may add that Professor Rocher submitted his analysis of the
bill in his professional capacity and not as someone representing
a nationalist organization from Quebec.
On the other hand, one of the best known organizations in
Quebec is the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal, also a
member of the Mouvement Québec français, as I mentioned
earlier.
In their brief, they said, among other things, that they were
firmly opposed to Canadian multiculturalism and to legislation
that would enshrine intrusions by the Government of Canada
into Quebec's cultural life. The culture of the people of Quebec
must not be subordinated to the priorities of the culture of
another people, the people of Canada. This bill is centralist in
design and a threat to Quebec's distinct identity. It was a bill that
would be forced down people's throats, over the almost
unanimous objections of Quebecers to a concentration of
authority over cultural matters in Ottawa and to a view of
national identity that was designed to submerge Quebec's
identity, according to the brief. It is all there, Mr. Speaker.
(1555)
It is clear that all intervenors from Quebec who examined this
bill condemned the centralist vision underlying the federal
government's intentions. The problem is not new. It has been
with us for a long time. What surprises me is that these people
are still willing to come to Ottawa to express their views as
Quebecers. After years of struggle, one would expect them to
stop trying. However, they are anxious for their friends in
Canada to understand the differences that make Quebec distinct,
a distinctness that will soon be expressed in a new status for
Quebec, that of a sovereign state.
I want to take this opportunity to thank these people for
spending all this time and effort to attend the committee's
hearings. I want them to know their efforts were greatly
appreciated.
I also want to mention the entirely unacceptable attitude of
some committee members who consistently stayed away when
witnesses from Quebec testified before the committee, which
merely confirms the general lack of interest for Quebec's
concerns. This attitude is reflected in the wording of the bill and
has always been present in relations between Quebec and
Ottawa. It is not just a lack of courtesy. It reflects a complete
lack of interest and consideration. This is very sad.
Members from Canada had a chance to become better
acquainted with their future neighbour. They did not take
advantage of this opportunity and as a result may not understand
that the purpose of our amendments is the very basis of our
determined opposition on this bill. Another perfect example of
the two solitudes, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage
denied this when he appeared before our committee.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak at report stage to Bill C-53. I have proposed
14 amendments and present these as common sense changes. We
are told the bill is a simple housekeeping matter, but I suggest
this is not the case. The bill should not be passed in its present
form and the amendments suggested will improve it.
The first glaring omission is the requirement by the
department to submit an annual report. We have heard all the
rhetoric from the Liberal side of the House on how accountable
it is to Canadians, yet despite this it has neglected to include a
clause requiring the department to explain its actions to
Canadians.
The Auditor General has made it clear that Canadians and
members of Parliament require more access to information
about the operations of government than what was presently
received. In light of this it is hard to understand why the
government has chosen to move in a direction away from
reporting of this kind.
We have heard in response to our concerns on this issue that
information on the departments may be included in the
estimates. However, this is unacceptable for a number of
reasons. First, the estimates are prepared to outline in general
terms the proposed spending priorities of the department,
whereas an annual report provides information about how the
money was spent. This is an important difference.
Second, an annual report will include a description of the
plans and priorities for the future and an evaluation of whether
former plans and priorities have been met. Such information is
not contained in the estimates.
Third, the only assurance the House has that information
which was formerly contained in the annual reports will be
included in the estimates is a promise from the
government-cold comfort indeed.
The bill is meant to streamline government and to get rid of
bureaucratic redundancies. However consider the following.
The inclusion of parks, natural marine conservation areas,
historic canals and copyright create an array of confusion and
wasted money.
During the review of the bill at committee we heard testimony
regarding parks. The managing director of the association for
mountain parks protection and enjoyment provided for the
committee a balanced review of parks. His presentation did not
promote a vision from either of the extremes on the issue. He did
not promote a tree hugger approach to parks, which advocates a
zero usage mandate for parks. Nor did he promote an
industrialist approach, which advocates unsustainable parks
use. The position suggested was one of compromise between
industry and sustainability. He said: ``Many Canadians have
questioned why the government moved Parks Canada from the
Department
9076
of the Environment to a new and seemingly unfocused
Department of Canadian Heritage. Over the previous 14 years
Parks Canada had established a firm position within the DOE as
the leader and innovator in matters affecting the environment. I
have proposed an amendment which will delete from the bill all
references to Parks Canada. This will allow us to move it to DOE
where it belongs''.
(1600)
The same arguments can be made for natural marine
conservation areas. Why should the Department of Canadian
Heritage be responsible for natural marine conservation areas?
It makes no sense. Presently transport looks after historic
canals. I fail to understand why we are going to pass a bill that
will add jurisdictional headaches, in this case specifically to
canals. Again this is needless, wasteful duplication.
I have also proposed amendments which would have the effect
of deleting from the bill the references to copyright which it now
contains. As the American model demonstrates, the last thing
that artists need is a bloated bureaucracy which fights over
jurisdiction for copyright responsibilities. The most effective
assistance to artists is to take the responsibility for copyright
and to lay it squarely within one department. In this instance I
believe that department to be industry.
Bill C-53 gives the minister jurisdictional powers over the
promotion of greater understanding of human rights,
fundamental freedoms, related values and multiculturalism. No
one would disagree with the nobility of the intent behind these
statements, just as no one would disagree with the statement that
racism is bad.
However, our concern remains with the number of ministers
responsible for these programs. Presently they are covered by
immigration, justice, health, heritage and who knows how many
others. This kind of administrative overlap is wasteful and
needless.
We have proposed an amendment which would transfer to the
regions responsibility for national languages. When reviewing
the bill at committee we heard a number of witnesses who
criticized the federal government's language policy. The
Liberals did not call a single witness to defend the policy. This
can only be because it is so hard to find someone to defend it.
Regarding language policy, we recommend the bill include a
clause which would read the minister has jurisdiction over the
promotion of language policies centred first on freedom of
speech, second on recognition of the French language in Quebec
and the English language in other provinces; third on
recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions such as
the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada; and
fourth, on recognition of bilingualism where the number of
citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision of services in both
official languages.
The Prime Minister has stated that in order to help bring the
deficit down he wishes to replace duplication within the
provinces. The amendment will do just that. It recognizes that
the primary responsibility for languages should remain in the
regions and the provinces.
Members of my party have been pointing out the wasteful
spending of special interest grants since we arrived in this House
and for seven years before our arrival. Clause 7(a) of the bill
gives the minister the authority to issue grants, contributions
and endowments.
The amendment I present finally puts an end to the special
interest funding that Canadians have come to resent. The only
people who defend these grants are those who receive them.
Surely their opinions should be questionable because of an
obvious conflict of interest. When we ask Canadians who do not
receive these grants how they feel about them their answers are
always the same. They do not understand why their tax dollars
should be spent on small groups of people with narrow agendas,
especially when that money could be spent in better ways like
reducing the deficit and debt and to help protect programs such
as health care.
Finally, the government has put in the bill clause 8 which will
give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the unilateral authority
to raise revenues by arbitrarily raising fees for services or
facilities. According to the Financial Administration Act, the
minister must take such decisions to cabinet. Such a
requirement is the minimal process to be followed for the
accountability and transparency of fee increases. Now with
clause 8 of the bill, the minister will be able to raise any fees he
chooses. He must only consult with the relevant party. What
does that mean?
Our amendments bring a nominal level of accountability to
government. I seek the support of the House to the changes we
recommend.
(1605)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): If
we are proposing this many amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is
chiefly because the bill, as it stands, is really unacceptable to us.
I would like to address in particular the amendment we have
proposed on copyrights, as we would like to have copyright
throughout federal jurisdiction brought under the Department of
Canadian Heritage. We feel this amendment is essential for the
following reason: shared responsibility for copyright by the two
departments causes undue delay in reviewing the Copyright Act.
9077
When they testified before us last Monday, representatives
of the artists' union told us that they have been waiting for
politicians to get around to amending the Copyright Act for
eight years.
On December 22, 1993, the director general of the Montreal
artists' union, Mr. Demers, wrote the Prime Minister to tell him
that this sharing of responsibility by two departments has led to
a two-headed vision, which has resulted in objectives that were
more often than not contradictory. The Copyright Act is the only
legislation protecting the rights of creative artists. We believe
that it should be designed around this priority. Since it is in the
interest of creative artists that consumers have unrestricted
access to their works, the Department of Canadian Heritage will
certainly not lose sight of their unique interests. We need only
review existing legislation in other countries to see that
protecting the rights of creative artists in no way impedes the
circulation of their works, quite the contrary.
Another reason for presenting this amendment is that the
Department of Industry is mandated to look after the interests of
consumers and corporations, a responsibility that interferes
with the interests of creative artists. The cultural industry is like
any other industry, according to the Department of Industry.
During the proceedings of the industry committee, the
director general of corporate governance at the Department of
Industry, David Tobin, testified as follows:
Our view, of course, is that cultural groups are exactly that. They are a
cultural industry and we recognize them as that. There are employment and
financial considerations. They are adding value to it. When you ask whether
we treat them differently, I would argue that we consult with them, we share
information with them, and we discuss their concerns. I do not think we
treat them any differently.
This raises a doubt in my mind: what will happen in the next
rounds of negotiations if we are unable to really defend our
cultural industries, if we do not see them at the outset as clearly
different from other industries? What will happen then with the
GATT agreements we had such a hard time securing, at the very
last minute this time around.
Another reason is that the industry minister does have legal
responsibility for copyright matters. They tried several times to
convince us that the responsibility was shared between the two
departments, that the two ministers would address the issue, and
that the Department of Industry works with the Department of
Canadian Heritage. The deputy minister who testified on behalf
of the Department of Canadian Heritage said that they were 100
per cent responsible for drafting the bills.
Some responsible individuals with the same mandate at the
Department of Industry told the industry committee that their
goal-as Mr. Finckenstein stated-was to consolidate the four
old departments into a single one and to combine the four old
laws into a single one. That was to create the Department of
Industry. This bill reflects the situation that prevailed under the
old legislation.
The old legislation included the Copyright Act, which came
under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs;
responsibility for it has now been given to the Department of
Industry. Let me say that the old Department of
Communications Act does not contain a single reference to
copyright. The only law which refers to it is the Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act. We now find this same
reference in the Department of Industry Act.
This clearly suggests that the Department of Canadian
Heritage will have no jurisdiction over copyright, despite what
we may have been told and what the Minister of Canadian
Heritage himself may have said.
(1610)
Another reason is that the heritage department's mandate is to
promote cultural development. We saw that very clearly in the
brief from the Union des artistes, which said: ``Since the role of
this department is to look after identity, values, cultural
development and heritage, we think that it is logical, fitting and
obvious that this department defends and promotes the rights of
those without whom the above concepts are meaningless''.
Surprisingly, during the election campaign which brought it
to power, the Liberal Party answered a questionnaire from the
Canadian Conference of the Arts, dated October 4. Two
questions drew my attention because the answers were
particularly interesting.
The Liberal Party was asked if it would make it a priority to
revise the Copyright Act so that this law would really defend the
financial and moral rights of writers. The Liberal Party
answered that revising the Copyright Act would be a priority for
it. ``We will ensure above all that writers reap the just rewards of
their work at the same time as we facilitate access to material
protected by copyright. Liberals understand the importance of
copyright. That is why, when we reorganize the administrative
structure'', which we are now doing with this bill, ``we will
review the Conservatives' decision to divide jurisdiction over
copyright between two departments''.
I am really sad to see the Liberal Party, which had made a
formal commitment to establish a single department and to
correct the mistake made by the Conservatives, perpetuate that
mistake through Bill C-53. I am sad to see that it gives priority
to the industry rather than to creators. Soon, Canada will no
longer be a place for creators, because the industry will have
taken precedence over creativity.
Another reason why the government should accept the
amendment which we propose is expressed, once again, by the
Canadian Conference of the Arts: ``The cultural sector has a
long experience of the paralysis resulting from the sharing of
responsibility in key sectors. Suffice it to mention the dead end
in
9078
which the copyright legislation is stuck, precisely because of
this fragmentation of jurisdiction''.
As recently as yesterday, we saw an example of the difference
between two departments can be and perhaps what a minister
with clout can do. When we pressured the heritage minister on
broadcasting and cable television companies, he said: ``I cannot
intervene''. However, when major companies asked the
government to order the CRTC to review the decision to approve
a $2 increase, the government said: ``Yes, that decision will be
reviewed''. Not because that decision is costly for the poor, but
because it affects major companies. That is the problem: When
it comes to defending real causes, the Liberal Party does not
deliver. It does not fulfill the promises it made on cultural
development and copyrights.
I deplore this situation and I hope that, before the end of the
debate, the government will have the courage to postpone the
passing of this bill, which really does not benefit Canadian
culture and creative artists. I also hope that the minister, who
probably hears our plea somewhere, will take these factors into
consideration for the future of Canada.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was surprised and even disappointed to hear the
motions presented by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast,
who calls herself a Canadian first but, at the first opportunity, is
not averse to lashing out at French Canadian minorities.
(1615)
Bill C-53, an Act to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts, says in
clause 4(g), which the hon. member for Calgary Southeast
would like to redraft in her image, that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage wants to see ``the advancement of the equality of status
and use of English and French and the enhancement and
development of English and French linguistic minority
communities in Canada''.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast proposes that lines 23
to 27 be replaced with the following: ``(g) the promotion of
language policies centred: (i) on freedom of speech''. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Calgary Southeast realizes what
she is saying. Freedom of speech is not about the language you
speak but the ideas you want to share with others. She does not
even understand the principle of the freedom of speech to which
people are entitled in Canada.
Second, she recommends the following: ``on recognition of
the French language in Quebec and the English language in the
other provinces''. This is horrifying, coming from a person who
calls herself a Canadian but would like to see only Quebec as
French speaking and the other provinces, and I say the other
provinces and not the rest of Canada, as English-speaking.
As a French speaking member from Ontario, a fourth
generation franco Ontarian, I say to the hon. member, through
the Chair, that her proposals are an affront and an insult. As a
French Canadian and a francophone, do I not have the right to
speak my own language and receive services in that language?
You would take away these rights. It is utterly despicable to want
to take away those rights, and to tell anglophones in Quebec:
From now on, you will have to speak French if you want services
or whatever.
I would ask the hon. member's colleague to repeat what he
just said. Was that a racist comment, sir? Would you repeat what
you said?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the remarks. Dear
colleagues, this is a very important debate. If all members could
just keep their cool and their comments to themselves, this
would benefit us all, as Canadians.
I give the floor back to the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this reminder. I
can assure you that it is rather difficult to keep your cool when
your language rights are violated, when you are told that you
will no longer be allowed to speak your language, except in the
stables or in the privacy of your own home, in the shed or while
mowing the lawn. From now on, I would not be allowed to speak
French in my province of Ontario that is so dear to me or to
request certain services in French when travelling to Calgary. I
regret to say that the hon. member is far from kind.
Her third suggestion deals with ``recognition of bilingualism
in key federal institutions, such as the Parliament of Canada and
the Supreme Court of Canada''. She and her colleagues from the
Reform Party, whom I have observed, especially on the official
languages committee, do not understand the first thing about the
Official Languages Act, nor do they understand what
bilingualism is about.
(1620)
They do not understand what bilingualism is about. They
confuse official languages and bilingualism. They are under the
impression that laws are made here to force anglophones to
speak French for example. That is not it. The hon. member, on
the other hand, would like to force me to become, if possible,
unilingual and speak English only. There is nothing wrong with
being a unilingual English speaking member of Parliament, but
personally, as a franco Ontarian, I would rather be francophone,
9079
franco Ontarian and bilingual, and have respect for English
Canadians as well as French Canadians.
Bilingualism, dear lady, is for people who put themselves at
the service of others.
The Deputy Speaker: I think it was pointed out at least five
times that members should address their remarks to the chair.
We would then avoid problems like this. I would ask the hon.
member to address his comments to the chair, please.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, you are right, I will address my
remarks to you, but I will refer to the hon. member. I know that
to the hon. member, who probably does not understand French
and certainly does not speak it, the word ``madam'' may sound
very negative and even derogatory. I wanted to pay her a
compliment, but she does not want me to. Perhaps she is not a
lady. I do not know, but I do know that she is an elected member.
So from now on I will refer to her as the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast, who is against bilingualism and against
francophones outside Quebec. Bilingualism is for those who
want to serve the country. Bilingualism is for those who want to
serve the people of their country. Bilingualism is for those who
want to do business with other countries, English speaking
countries and French-speaking countries alike.
There are about one billion anglophones and francophones
around the globe. One billion. People who become bilingual are
an asset to Canada, but dear lady-excuse me, the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast-is not interested in principles or in
Canadian history. I am sure that she does not spend her evenings
reading about Jacques Cartier, Champlain or Montcalm. She
thinks that Canadian history started when she was born and that
regulations should always be based on financial considerations.
She does not give a hoot about anglophone minorities in Quebec
and francophone minorities outside Quebec. I find her remarks
totally deplorable and un-Canadian.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before the House and discuss
the report stage of Bill C-53.
Bill C-53, as I mentioned during the first and second reading,
is riddled with problems which are quite evident if we look at the
number of motions that have been put forward by the Reform
Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Because of time constraints, I
will attempt to keep my comments extremely brief and focus
solely on the motions before us.
Motion No. 2 deals with the removal of clause 4 in section
2(a). While I am in no way against ``the promotion of the greater
understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and
related values''. I am against the idea of having more than one
minister responsible for these issues. In fact I wholeheartedly
believe that the Department of Justice is better suited to ensure
the noble intentions of this clause.
(1625 )
Passage of Motion No. 3 would result in the elimination of
multiculturalism from the bill. I believe that the continued
funding of programs like this will ensure a Liberal defeat in the
next election. Canadians want less government, not more. They
want to see the government manage its allocation of revenues
and stop running up astronomical debts and deficits.
In short, what they are looking for is a government to priorize
its spending programs to ensure that everyone is maximizing the
benefits from his or her tax dollars.
Government funded multiculturalism programs do nothing to
address this fundamental attitude toward government spending
and programs. In fact, the Liberals seem more content to raise
Canadian taxes than they are to control spending. We have a
spending problem in Canada, not a revenue problem. Therefore
not only is multiculturalism financially unsound but in fact it is
politically unsound as well.
As a member of the standing committee on heritage I have had
the pleasure of listening to witnesses describe the multicultural
funded programs as a poor way to promote culture. Moreover, I
have heard and talked to many Canadians who believe that
multiculturalism does nothing but make us all hyphenated
Canadians focusing on what separates and not what binds us
together. Its day has come and gone and it is time that the
Liberals face up to this fact.
Motions 5 and 21 deal with an issue that is also of great
concern to the Reform Party. I am speaking of overlap and
duplication. Why should one department oversee areas which
should be under another portfolio such as national parks and
marine conservation areas, or even historical canals. It should
be our goal as parliamentarians to do everything in our power to
decrease the amount of bureaucracy and administer services in
each department by themselves.
Motions 5 and 21 will be a step in the right direction. They
will allow parks and conservation to go back to the Department
of the Environment and historic canals to return to
transportation.
Historical canals belong to the department of transportation
for the simple reason that they are administered by and are
subject to the regulations of the department of transportation. A
perfect example would be the Ottawa canal. It is a historical
canal yet it is still in use and therefore subject to the rules and
regulations of the department of transportation. Therefore why
is it in the department of heritage?
Motion No. 6 has been clearly stated and illustrated in the
Reform Party's blue book policies. Essentially we believe that
there is no need for the official bilingualism policy. We feel
there should be a policy based on territorial bilingualism where
bilingual services will be maintained and supported where
numbers warrant. That is the reason we have recognized the
need for bilingualism especially in key federal institutions such
9080
as Parliament and the Supreme Court which are explicitly
outlined in Motion No. 6.
Clause 7(a) of Bill C-53 is of extreme concern to me as it
allows the ministers to facilitate the implementation of any
program and the minister also to provide financial assistance in
the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person.
The concern arises from the idea that the minister may at his or
her discretion provide financial assistance in the form of grants,
contributions and endowments. Where are the checks and
balances? Where is the accountability? Where is the financial
control? Where is the openness and transparency?
Another concern relates to the fact that the minister could be
allowed to implement other programs, such as multicultural
programs, unilaterally. This would not only be unacceptable to
me, to the Reform Party, my constituents, but also to a majority
of Canadians.
Motion No. 12 would alleviate this concern as far as it relates
to clause 7. Directly related to clause 7(a), clause 8 should be
eliminated. Clause 8 deals directly with the notion that the
minister can fix fees and charges which the minister considers
appropriate. Again, what happened to accountability and
openness or checks and balances?
(1630)
Prior to the bill the minister was responsible and subject to
any regulations that Treasury Board made. After Bill C-53, the
minister may or may not be subject to these regulations as set
out by Treasury Board. It is unclear and therefore it should be
removed.
Although for the most part Treasury Board is no more than a
rubber stamp in terms of approval for rate increases or fees or
changes, there is still an institutional check on the powers of the
ministry.
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 alleviate the concerns
which the Reform Party has outlined in clause 8 regarding the
accountability and powers of a minister.
The last motion I would like to discuss briefly is Motion No.
20. It deals with the inclusion of an annual report which would
be brought before Parliament outlining the expenditures and
revenues of the department of heritage. I speak in support of this
motion because I believe in accountability, openness and
fairness.
An annual report would help not only parliamentarians but
also Canadians to understand where, why and how much funding
was allocated to ensure the best accountability possible.
Although I have heard that part III of the estimates will be
improved to accommodate the lack of an annual report, I believe
it is still in the best interests of Canadians to have an annual
report simply because it would be more accessible and clearer
than the estimates.
I appreciate this opportunity and I hope that all members of
the House listened carefully to why these motions should be
supported. I look for them to support these motions when the
time comes for a vote.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to voice my concern and to basically state that I do
not believe this motion should be adopted.
The main reason is, as we have discussed in committee, that
the Multiculturalism Act is really a Canadian reality. What we
are dealing with here is an opportunity for us as an institution, as
a government to ensure that Canadians and those coming from
abroad continue to understand the differences that make up this
country.
I think multiculturalism helps on the basis of trying to reduce
the barriers that exist between us. There are many aspects to
multiculturalism that are a new reality in the global sense. That
is from an entrepreneurial perspective and business
opportunities. I think that when we take into account that the
world is becoming smaller with satellites and
telecommunications, faxes et cetera, there is an opportunity to
encourage our businesses to do more trade which is the
fundamental aspect of growth that we in this country are looking
forward to.
This act and the Minister of Heritage will continue to increase
the understanding of our realism, the Canadian identity as it
exists today. We also have to continue to strengthen the cohesion
that exists in this country and reduce the lack of understanding
that sometimes exists in different regions.
If we take into account the rich human resources and the
opportunities that exist for increasing that trade, we will see
more Canadians working and we will reduce our deficit
problems as the member across stated.
I also believe that multiculturalism policy is an eloquent
testimony to our commitment to uphold the values of equity and
fairness. It is a visionary statement about the kind of society we
are all working to achieve, one in which each Canadian can
realize his or her potential, economically, socially, politically
and culturally. Multiculturalism is appropriately part of the
department of heritage because it is a fundamental characteristic
of our Canadian identity.
(1635)
Therefore I believe the motion should not be adopted.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 3, I spoke on Bill C-53 in this House and I rise today to
denounce the mandate which the Department of Canadian
Heritage is about to give itself. It is unacceptable for me and for
9081
all Quebecers that this new department's mandate makes no
reference to Quebec as a society or to its cultural and linguistic
specificity.
Why does the Liberal government again stubbornly persist in
wanting to deny the existence of Quebec, its language rights and
its cultural specificity? How can the federal government claim
that it wants to promote Canadian identity and intentionally
omit from its bill any reference to Quebec culture?
Therefore I will support the amendments moved by my
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to include in Bill C-53
references to the specific nature of Quebec's culture, language
and identity.
I will continue in the same vein by demonstrating to this
House that this new department's mandate is to assimilate
Quebec culture, no more or less.
Let us take the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a
specific case in point supporting my argument.
The Broadcasting Act says that the CBC's programming
should seek to be of equivalent quality in French and in English.
On this subject the law is clear: French and English must be
treated as equivalent.
Let me give you another quotation, this time from part of
CRTC decision 87-140, in connection with a public hearing of
the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission on January 21, 1994 concerning the licence
renewals of the English and French networks.
Among the long term objectives which the CRTC set for the
CBC is the following: to achieve a fair and equitable balance in
production, distribution and scheduling of regional and network
programs on both networks, English and French.
The CBC's mandate is clear since it is dictated by the CRTC's
directives and the Broadcasting Act. The French and English
networks must be equally productive and have the same rate of
programming.
The two quotes which I just read to you clearly show the
federal government's apparent intentions. These views are
clearly reflected in the act, as well as in the guidelines published
by the Crown corporation responsible for the monitoring and
renewal of licences for television and broadcasting in Canada.
The federal government says that it seeks to promote the use
of French in Canada. However, the daily reality does not support
that claim; in fact, it shows just the opposite.
The government cannot merely tell us about its good
intentions: It must also act. It is nice to claim equal status for
French and English, but that claim must be supported. These are
mere statements of intention with no real basis.
On July 27, 1994, the CRTC approved the budget allocation of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in an internal
document entitled CRTC Decision 94-437. That document
clearly indicates that the CBC allocates 63 per cent of its TV
network budget to the English language network, and only 37
per cent to the French language network, this for the term of its
next licence.
(1640)
Moreover, the CRTC feels that the CBC is in the best position
to decide how to allocate its funds. Thus, the CRTC is satisfied
that the corporation's decisions do not violate the legislation.
If you look at the overall programming costs for the two
networks, you will see that the proportion for the French
language network is now below 40 per cent, its level of six years
ago.
Furthermore, in 1970, there was no difference at all between
the two networks. I think this proves that the federal government
is gradually limiting the scope of its duties and obligations to
accommodate a not so subtle policy of assimilation.
The Broadcasting Act and the CRTC required the corporation
to give equal treatment to both networks. Furthermore, both the
legislation and the CRTC specify that production of
programming should be equivalent for the English and French
networks.
However, when it is time to share financial resources, the
French network gets half the funding that goes to the English
network.
This reduction in financing for the French network reflects
Ottawa's lack of vision, which has been very harmful to the
development and vitality of the country's francophone
communities. This is a typical example of the federal
government's policy of ignoring reality.
In fact it reflects the policy of cultural and linguistic
assimilation favoured by the federal government: legislate fair
and equal treatment for English and French, while this is not
followed through in the allocation of financial resources.
I will give a few examples of the corporation's
disproportionate allocation of financing.
In 1992 the average investment per hour of programming was
$37,496 on the English network and $18,390 on the French
network. In other words, half as much.
The average cost of news bulletins was $18,000 on the
English network and $7,000 on the French network. Less than
half.
The average cost of drama programs was $90,000 on the
English network and $68,800 on the French network.
9082
I realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
President of the CBC, Mr. Manera, will try to justify what is
being done by his crown corporation by saying that Canada has
three times as many anglophones as francophones. However,
the tv ratings for the French network are three times as high
as for the English network.
In fact, ratings for the English network vary from 11 per cent
to 13 per cent during prime time. The Chairman of the CRTC,
Keith Spicer, even referred to recent figures below 10 per cent.
Ratings for the French network, however vary between 30 per
cent and 38 per cent.
In other words, the French network reaches the same number
of Canadians as the English network. So why are financial
resources not allocated accordingly? Why is the French network
at such a disadvantage when it manages to reach the same
number of viewers as the English network?
(1645)
I would like the heritage minister to be able to reply to these
questions, because this looks like a policy of assimilation
designed to bring about the death of Canada's other cultural
community.
Is it the goal of the federal government to destroy the
stronghold of the French language in North America? In any
event, that is what I think and what the assimilation rate that
grows from one census to the next would seem to indicate. Is this
the federal government's covert policy of ignoring reality?
This is an unacceptable situation, especially when Canadian
legislation stipulates clearly that the treatment must be
equivalent. Not more, not less, but equivalent.
How, then, can the federal government continue to claim that
it guarantees the equal treatment and use of French in its federal
institutions when there are examples such as those of the CBC
and the CRTC?
These facts reinforce the findings of the Official Languages
Committee. The annual report on official languages
demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Canadian
heritage organizations are in fact agents for assimilating rather
than protecting the French speaking citizens of this country.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage must deliver the goods to
the French speaking community in Quebec and elsewhere in this
country. The federal Liberal government has the responsibility
to guarantee the rights of the cultural minority in this country,
especially when they are clearly enshrined in its legislation.
I would like to take the opportunity available to me today to
denounce the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation and the CRTC. This department and
these crown corporations are giving credence to decisions that
are contrary to the rights of French-speaking communities in
Quebec and elsewhere in this country. The federal government
has no right to sanction these decisions by the CBC and the
CRTC.
The federal government and this new Department of Canadian
Heritage deny the cultural identity of Quebec and work against
it.
I therefore salute this democratic exercise to which we have
been called by the Government of Quebec, in the form of the
draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.
This draft bill sets out the political plan that the Government
of Quebec recommends in order to resolve, for once and for all,
the constitutional problem in which Quebec has been mired for
too many years. I think that it is the only way we have left to
promote the full development of the people of Quebec.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans-MIL Davie
Shipyard; the hon. member for Gaspé-Fisheries; the hon.
member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for
Châteauguay-MIL Davie Shipyard; the hon. member for
Chambly-Customs Brokers.
[English]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am rising to discuss Motion No. 5, which deals with national
parks. According to the amendment the effect would be to drop
all references in the legislation to national parks, historic canals
and national marine areas.
I suppose the question arises: Why should we include national
parks under Canadian heritage? For those of us who have been
interested in the park system it is interesting to note that over the
years national parks have been located in different ministries.
The first place they were to be found after their creation in the
1880s was in what might be described as the predecessor to the
Ministry of Natural Resources. This indicates that parks in those
days were seen to have not only a natural component but also an
economic component. They were seen as part of Canada's
natural resources.
A subsequent reorganization of government meant that parks
found themselves suddenly with Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. This new vision of parks suggested that they were
to be seen somehow as up there, out there, out of sight, out of
mind to some degree. That was because they were in remote
places often in the north, often in places where the aboriginal
populations could be found. Of course that ignored the reality
that there were parks close to centres of habitation, such as the
Rocky Mountain parks.
9083
(1650)
After that the parks structures found themselves in the
Minister of the Environment which seemed to make sense. The
theme there was one of protection rather than human use. It put
the stress on not interfering with the parks which took away the
notion of an economic connection with parks.
Now finally with Canadian heritage the circle is to some
extent complete. This latest reorganization of government
recognizes that parks have different characteristics all of which
have to be recognized. They are natural preserves and need
protection, but they are also cultural sites. They are also
economic sites for activity, for tourism for example.
By putting them into a new ministry this bill tries to recognize
the complex way in which we now look at parks. In this bill we
recognize that history, culture and nature are intertwined in
some fundamental way. This is simply to pick up on what is
happening internationally under conventions such as that of
UNESCO concerning the protection of the world cultural and
natural heritage. In UNESCO's eyes cultural and natural
heritage are inevitably linked and so they are in ours.
Parks are also a crucial element of our national identity. They
go with the vision that Canadians have of themselves wherever
they live, of being in some close harmony with nature, some
respect of nature and some awe of nature. It was Margaret
Atwood who once described the common theme of Canadian
literature, si c'était en anglais ou en français, as survival in the
face of nature, survival in the face of difficult forces.
Those who are concerned that by having parks taken away
from the Department of the Environment should rest assured
that the environmental concerns will not be diminished by
having them in Canadian heritage. They will continue to be
respected. It will continue to be the case in our international
agreements, such as under UNESCO that parks will be fully
protected.
The reason that parks are being put in Canadian heritage is to
respect their role as part of our system of values, part of our
history, part of our culture, part of what it is to be a Canadian.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an appropriate return to where
we first saw parks because there are economic reasons as well to
link together national parks and national historic sites. That is
because tourism of all sorts is of continuing and indeed growing
importance for this government. As members of this House will
recall, we have a major $7 billion tourist deficit and parks have
their role to play in correcting that, as do national historic sites.
These are terrific assets, our parks and historic sites. It makes
sense for them to be kept together. We think that indeed for those
who worry about the environment having parks located in the
Department of Canadian Heritage simply means there is one
more environmental voice at the cabinet table.
It is also the case that it is a commitment of this government to
complete the national parks system, that system which was so
much expanded in the 1970s by our present Prime Minister. To
this we are adding a new kind of park under water parks, the
national marine conservation areas which this amendment
would have us locate in some other place. These are the parks of
the future; these are the parks which respect our complex marine
life. They too belong in the same package with the national
parks and national historic sites.
Finally, it seems to us that having subjected the national parks
system to so many reorganizations and having had it put in so
many different places over time that Parks Canada has done well
in the new Department of Canadian Heritage. It has found a new
place to call home. It would be both counterproductive and
extraordinarily disruptive to move it yet again after a mere year
and a half.
For those reasons we are opposed to this amendment. We
think that national parks and indeed canals and national marine
conservation areas belong properly with the Department of
Canadian Heritage.
(1655 )
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That 15 members, three staff and three interpreters from the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be allowed to hold hearings in
relation to the committee's study on the future of Canadian agriculture in St.
Hyacinthe, Victoriaville, Quebec City, Florenceville, Halifax and
Charlottetown from January 22 to January 28, 1995; in Kelowna, Camrose,
Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, St. Catharines, Brockville and
Alfred from February 5 to February 15, 1995.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Hermanson: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not give unanimous
consent. I believe there is some disagreement among the
committee as to the benefit of this trip.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House to speak on Bill C-53. Before
getting to my opening remarks, I would like to start by giving a
definition of bilingualism. This is my own personal definition
but one that I believe is shared by many Quebecers. This is for
the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester who talked about
bilingualism and its importance. He has used this term over and
over.
I think that, for a Quebecer, bilingualism simply means that a
French-speaking Quebecer learns English. We are not so sure
that it works both ways. As far as we are concerned, for us, it
means learning English, and for the English, being able to
understand us. There are of course exceptions, colleagues whom
9084
I wish to congratulate, in this House, on our committee and
around us.
The importance of the multicultural dimension of Canadian
unity has been mentioned. Not so long ago, we had the
opportunity to travel to western Canada with the environment
committee. Much to my surprise, be it in Winnipeg,
Edmonton-and I call this to the attention of the hon. member
for St. Boniface, champion of the French fact-or Vancouver,
we were unable to find French-language newspapers in the
hotel, airport or convenience store. Nowhere in Edmonton,
Winnipeg and Vancouver was I able to buy Le Devoir or La
Presse. But you could get USA Today and magazines from New
York City. There were all sorts of magazines and newspapers but
none in French. And we are told that the French fact is very well
championed just about everywhere. I have my doubts about that.
The amendment to clause 4, presented by my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata, would simply recognize Quebec's
identity in Bill C-53. It is an essential clause. It is indeed
essential to recognize that Canada was built by two founding
peoples, a fact that this bill denies. That is why we cannot
support it. These two founding peoples are the francophones and
anglophones of this country.
I do not think that a single Liberal member would knowingly
contest the fact that Canada was built by two founding peoples.
This is what the Minister of Canadian Heritage is simply
denying with this bill. That is why we are opposed to it.
I therefore urge the minister to recognize the two founding
nations and to accept every amendment proposed by the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, which recognizes
Quebec's identity, so that every motion should include the word
``Quebec'' or ``the identity of Quebec''. Otherwise, we cannot
approve Bill C-53, as it denies an obvious reality in this country.
If I may, I would like to read from the report of a Canadian
royal commission that was written a number of years ago. This
is a rather long excerpt, but I will tell you afterwards when it was
written and by which royal commission, and you will see that the
problem goes back a long way.
(1700)
Here is the excerpt. The dominant majority in politics-like
the federal government and the anglophones-often takes its
advantages for granted and does not appreciate the
disadvantages suffered by the minority, especially when this
minority enjoys or appears to enjoy some degree of cultural
freedom. However, the minority, as long as it regards its
collective life as an entity, may want control over it and look
beyond cultural freedom. It then questions its political status. It
feels that its future and cultural development are somewhat
precarious and perhaps limited in a political environment
dominated by the other group forming the majority. As a result,
it leans towards greater constitutional autonomy. Ideally, the
minority wants this autonomy for the whole community but,
when this objective cannot be reached, it may focus its efforts on
a narrower political stage where it would be in the majority.
We think about sovereignty. It is personal. This excerpt is
from the 1967 Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and
biculturalism.
The recognition of the French fact, of francophone minority
rights goes back to at least 1967. One francophone and one
anglophone on the same royal commission signed this report
recognizing minority rights. It is therefore imperative to
recognize these rights.
According to the brief submitted by the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste, it is important to see how this conclusion
has evolved over the years, how political parties have learned to
live with the findings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism
and Biculturalism. I am talking about biculturalism and not
multiculturalism.
Twenty-five years later, in 1991, another look at this issue of
culture and the French fact in Quebec and Canada led to the
following conclusion: The two levels of government also
compete on the last element of the analysis, culture, resulting in
overspending, conflict and inefficiency.
An hon. member: Come on.
Mr. Sauvageau: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, for going on and on
about the French fact, but it is important to us, although you may
be tired of hearing about it.
The federal government has played a major role in cultural
life through several institutions: the National Archives,
National Gallery, CBC, Canada Council for arts and research,
National Film Board. Some fields of exclusive federal
jurisdiction have major repercussions on Quebec's cultural
sector, for example, in communications. Given the importance
of culture to the development of Quebec's identity, we could not
overemphasize the urgency of taking back jurisdiction in this
field. Quebec must exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all areas
related to culture and communications.
This conclusion comes from the report of the constitutional
committee of the Liberal Party of Quebec, not the Parti
Quebecois, but the Liberal Party of Quebec, in 1991, on page 32
of the report entitled ``a Quebec that is free to make its own
choices''.
Twenty-five years later, we in Quebec have not deviated very
far from the position that Quebec culture, to be well defended,
must first of all exist and second be managed solely and
exclusively in Quebec.
Does this date from 1967? No. Long before that, royal
institutions recognized this distinction between the French fact
and the English fact in North America. Let us review some
constitutional history. In 1791, the Constitution Act recognized
Upper and Lower Canada. Since 1791, a distinct society of
French-speaking people in North America has been recognized.
9085
Why did the crown agree to divide the territory then? To
please the Loyalists? Why were the Napoleonic Code, the
seigneurial system, the French fact and the Catholic religion
recognized? Quite simply, because there was a distinct society
in North America then. It still exists and it is found mainly in
Quebec.
(1705)
Later, in 1840, they tried to bury that minority with the Union
Act. They tried to bury it when anglophones formed a majority.
Following the Durham report, they thought that if the two
colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, were joined, francophones
would be in a minority situation and would quickly disappear.
Therefore the problem of the French fact would be solved.
Luckily for us, we are still here to take care of ourselves. In
1867, we managed to create a province, Quebec, primarily to
protect our rights. However, this bill would eliminate
everything for which we fought in the past.
Throughout their history, francophones have preserved their
distinct society in North America, and that must be clearly
recognized. As my colleague mentioned earlier, a member of a
group represented by the Société nationale des Québécois de
l'Outaouais came to talk to us. He gave examples of how
francophones were treated unfairly, here in this country. The
financing of Radio-Canada is one such example.
As the Société nationale des Québécois de l'Outaouais said,
``Radio-Canada is another example of cultural discrimination
by the federal government. If the two languages and the two
cultures are truly on an equal footing, and if Canada is bilingual
and bicultural, the two networks should receive equal financing.
Yet, the French language network receives 37 per cent,
compared to 63 per cent for the English language network. To
justify this discrepancy, the CRTC said, on January 21, 1994,
when the TV licences of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
were renewed, that if the allocation of money were based on
demographics, the ratio would be three to one in favour of the
English language network''.
The figures support the CRTC decision to allocate 63 and 37
per cent respectively to the two networks. However, if you take
the ratings into consideration, you will see that they are
comparable. Radio-Canada is indeed treated unfairly.
I conclude with a quote from a great Quebec historian, Denis
Monière, who submitted a brief to the committee. I trust I can
quote him verbatim in the House. He said: ``The establishment
of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is the most
thorough and perverse Canadian imposture, follows the
numerous attempts made since 1867 to deny the existence of a
people which is distinct from the Canadian people and which
refuses to be integrated into an alienating entity. This project
reflects a Canadian cultural imperialism bent on eradicating
Quebec's national identity and following a long tradition
inspired by the Durham report. Since that report, all those who
believed in a bicultural Canada were proven wrong by Canadian
history, and misled French Canadians besides''.
For all the reasons which I have tried to express without being
put off, we oppose Bill C-53.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier this afternoon the member for Calgary Southeast stated:
``We have some of the same concerns expressed by the Liberals
when they were in opposition. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker,
of some of their earlier criticisms. The member for Winnipeg
North suggested that the foundation, referring to the Canadian
Race Relations Foundation''-
The Deputy Speaker: This is a perfectly legitimate debate
and there is time for the member to debate. From what I have
heard thus far it is not a point of order. If the member wishes to
debate he is perfectly free to sit down and rise again on debate. Is
the hon. member for Winnipeg North on debate?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker. The member for Calgary Southeast said: ``The member
for Winnipeg North suggested that the foundation'', referring to
the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, ``should not exist
because the responsibility for the program should be
accomplished elsewhere''.
(1710)
For the record of the House I would like to state that on May
29, 1990, to which the member was referring, I stated on page
12020 of Hansard with reference to the Canadian Race
Relations Foundation:
I support this bill, which is to contribute to the elimination of racism and
all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.
On the following page I said again:
I support this Canadian Race Relations Foundation based on the preamble
that we will support and reaffirm our support for the international
convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; that we
will henceforth reaffirm our belief and support in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms; that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would assume
greater and greater meaning.
The record speaks for itself. What the member for Calgary
Southeast did was not only take my statement out of context but
misrepresented my statements. Therefore to me it was a
dishonourable thing.
9086
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is having great difficulty.
Having ruled that the member was not speaking on a point of
order but on debate, the Chair therefore is hoisted on the same
petard.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has already spoken
on this matter and does not therefore have the right to speak
further.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North called my colleague a
dishonourable member. I would ask that he withdraw that
statement from the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to the hon. member
for Winnipeg North and I think the member said that what was
done was a dishonourable thing. The thing was dishonourable,
not the member. Perhaps the member for Winnipeg North would
like to clarify that.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, if I said dishonourable
member, I would withdraw it. What she did in her speech was
dishonourable.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what the
hon. member for Winnipeg North is insinuating is that the hon.
member is dishonourable, and that is wrong. He can couch it in
different words but he is actually referring to the member. I
would ask that he withdraw that statement.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, never in my mind is the
member dishonourable. I regret that she said it but the statement
was made and it is with pain that I received the statement.
Therefore, to that extent I would like you to consider that the
statement lacks honour.
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the hon. whip of the
government wishes to make any intervention on this matter.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know that in the cut and thrust of
debate we sometimes make references to one another which are
unfortunate. I do believe that the hon. member meant that the
statements were unacceptable. I hope it was not a reflection on
the hon. member. I am sure she is most honourable, as all other
members are.
The Deputy Speaker: It is virtually Christmas Eve. I am
sorry we are reduced to this. We are obliged to call each other
hon. members every time we refer to each other. Because that
particular word is used so often in this House, I would invite the
hon. member for Winnipeg North to reflect on what the effects
of his comments here this afternoon have amounted to.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the member
for Calgary Southeast is honourable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. House leader of the
Reform Party have any further intervention?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Winnipeg North for clarifying that for us. I appreciate it.
(1715 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
All those in favour of the notion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please day nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1) a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded
division will also apply to Motion No. 10.
Before proposing group No. 2, I must remind you that:
Motions Nos. 11, 12, and 13 will be grouped for debate and
voted on as follows: Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the necessity of a
question on Motion No. 13. A negative vote on Motion No. 12
necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 13.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-53, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 13, on
page 3.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
9087
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 12.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a
recorded division on the Motion No. 12 stands deferred.
[Translation]
I will now propose the third group of motions.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we are
voting on Motion No. 13 or Motion No. 14, because you started
off saying it was Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mrs.
Tremblay, and now you mentioned Motion No. 14. Could we
have some clarification?
The Deputy Speaker: It is pretty complicated, because in
some cases we need to divide on one motion to apply the results
to another.
(1720)
[English]
When we get the result of Motion No. 12, we will then know
what happens to Motion No. 13.
[Translation]
We will now proceed with the vote on Motion No. 14. I am
sorry, but this is complicated for the Chair as well.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but when do we vote on Motion No. 13?
The Deputy Speaker: After the vote on Motion No. 12.
Mr. Laurin: I see.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now proceed with the vote on
Motion No. 14.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.1.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.2.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-53 be amended by adding after new subclause 8.3(1) with the
following:
``(1.1) The Minister shall, at least 60 days before the date on which the
Minister fixes or increases a fee under section 8, 8.1 or 8.2, cause to be
published in the Canada Gazette by such appropriate electronic or other
means that the Treasury Board may authorize by regulation and in no fewer
than two leading newspapers in each province a notice clearly indicating
(a) the products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals
or use of facilities provided under these sections; and
(b) the fees to be fixed or increased pursuant to these sections.''
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata on a point of order.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we were given a piece of paper
which says: votes on Bill C-53. It says that after Motion No. 14,
we would go on to Motion No. 20. You mentioned Motions Nos.
15, 16 and 17. According to this paper, we were supposed to go
from Motion No. 14 to Motion No. 20.
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 have
all been discussed. We will now vote on Motion No. 14. The
results of the vote on Motion No. 14 will apply to Motions Nos.
15, 16, 18 and 19. Is that clear? Does the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata agree?
Mrs. Tremblay: Yes.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.3.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.4.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 14
which will also apply to Motions Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
9088
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a
recorded division of the motion stands deferred.
(1725 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-53 be amended by adding after new Clause 8.4 the following
new Clause:
``8.5 The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament,
not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next
following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the
Department for that fiscal year.''
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
The Deputy Speaker:The question is on Motion No. 20. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-53, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13, on
page 9, with the following:
``by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or estab-''.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a
recorded division stands deferred.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-53, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 11,
with the following:
``with the government of each province and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, shall''.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-53, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 11,
with the following:
``Minister after consultation with the government of each province and the
Minister''.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-53, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 38, on page
11, with the following:
``ter after consultation with the government of each province and the Minister
of''.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-53, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 8, on page
12, with the following:
``government of each province and the Minister, shall undertake a review of the
pro-''.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 24.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
9089
[English]
and the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The government whip has requested
the matter be deferred until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9089
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is gratifying to know that the spirit of
Christmas has fallen upon this House. It was interesting
listening to the debate this afternoon.
Earlier this year Information Commissioner John Grace
included in his annual report 43 recommendations to close
loopholes in the 10 year old Access to Information Act. Mr.
Grace stated: ``The first decade has shown that the government
bent on secrecy can certainly diminish the effectiveness of the
access law''.
Mr. Grace goes on to say that he wants the new government to
have the self-confidence to be scrutinized and the fortitude to be
forthright.
Motion No. 304 gives the Liberal government that golden
opportunity to take this first crucial step toward restoring
Canada's faith. At the top of page 92 of the red book which starts
by talking of initiatives to ``restore the confidence in the
institutions of government'', it certainly seems like the Liberal
government in the spirit of this motion would have to agree with
Motion No. 304.
The information commissioner's recommendation No. 43
states that the access act be extended to all federal government
institutions including special operating agencies, crown
corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries, any institutions to
which the federal government appoints a majority of governing
body members, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library
of Parliament and all officers of Parliament.
During debate on motion 304 of November 17, I was listening
very carefully to the member for St. Paul's. He made a couple of
comments in his address to the House that I would like to repeat.
He said: ``At the time of the act''-it was passed in
1982-``there was careful consideration to which institutions
should be included in the coverage of the act and which should
not''. Later in his address he went on to say: ``We cannot assume
that these were frivolous decisions as to who was included and
who was excluded''. I thought to myself it was worthy of doing
some research on. Was it carefully thought out?
We went to the Library of Parliament to see if we could find
out some information about those debates and the reasons why
some corporations were excluded and some were not. An article
from the Hill Times printed March 17, 1994 is headed:
``Parliament's exemption from information access act
perplexing''.
The reporter went back to the key people who were involved
in the drafting of the act in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
Strangely enough, all of the people who were contacted said that
they could not recall an actual reason for the exclusions. Then
the reporter went back to the person who should really have all
the information on this, the man responsible for drafting Bill
C-43, Liberal minister Francis Fox. He was posed the question,
why were these exemptions made? How did he respond? ``You
got me''. That is what he said. He did not know.
We wanted to dig a little deeper into this. We went to Robert
Auger, the Privy Council adviser to Mr. Fox and posed the same
question. What was the reason for these exemptions? He said:
``It is some kind of philosophical assumption that nobody
questioned''. Nobody has ever questioned this. That comes back
to the debate of November 17 and the comments from the
member for St. Paul's. I am certain that he did not intend to
mislead this House.
Certainly the testimony I have presented today would indicate
that there was not careful consideration at the time. At least we
should ask questions and maybe even assume that some of these
decisions were frivolous and without basis.
Crown corporations have not been open to public scrutiny and
this continues to fuel the fire of voter cynicism. Canadians are
demanding accountability. They want open government. Is there
anything wrong with accountability and open government? It is
high time that the government takes action.
Why are crown corporations exempt from the Access to
Information Act? Let us look at a couple of them. In the case of
the CBC and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, there are
concerns that competitors would be able to gain an advantage in
their respective markets through access requests.
These crown corporations continue to exist because they are
financed by the Canadian taxpayer, not because they are profit
making players in the competitive marketplace. This is a pretty
strong argument for wanting accountability and access to
information on how these corporations are operated. The
taxpayers want to know how their hard earned dollars are being
spent. Provisions could be made that could protect
commercially viable information. Therefore that argument is
also put to rest.
9090
(1735)
There have been numerous examples of the need for public
access to information on crown corporations. Earlier this year
the National Arts Centre spent $250,000 on a proposal to submit
an application for a performing arts television network. If it had
not been for the Auditor General's report, Canadians would have
been kept in the dark about this ridiculously expensive
proposition. The Auditor General said: ``The activities of and
the expenses incurred for this broadcasting project are beyond
the objects and powers of this corporation''.
In addition the Auditor General obtained legal opinions
supporting the view that a performing arts network was outside
the NAC's mandate. If the National Arts Centre had not been
exempt from access to information, a private citizen might have
been able to come forward with this information, an elected
official of the House, or maybe even a journalist would have
easily exposed this ludicrous proposal before some $250,000
taxpayer dollars were spent needlessly.
Canadians currently pay for half of the NAC's annual
operating budget of $40 million. Do they not have the right to
ask certain questions about the operations? The Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation is financed by Canadians to the tune
of $1.1 billion, and yet it operates under the same veil of secrecy
as the other crown corporations. Access to information would
allow Canadians to question just how that $1.1 billion is spent.
Canadians have the right to know.
Again I would remind the House that provisions could be
made to protect the commercially viable information that needs
to be protected.
According to CBC staffers, costs of production are kept
secret, even within its own organization, to avoid jealousies
among producers whose shows are given different budgets and
to keep writers and others from knowing how little of the pie
they actually receive. It is a shame.
Instead of going to Parliament the Auditor General's report on
the CBC will be submitted to the CBC's board of directors and
made public if and when the board sees fit. The true owners are
being deprived of this information on the CBC. Who would they
be? The people of Canada.
Access to information would eliminate this cat and mouse
game. Again I would like to reiterate this because it is
important. Provisions could be made to ensure commercially
viable and valuable information would be protected.
Perhaps a crown corporation should file an access to
information request just to find out for themselves what access
to information really means. When information is kept secret,
bureaucrats and politicians could be tempted to do things that
they would not do if they were made public. The more
information available to Canadians the better off the country
will be.
I will give some more examples of the kinds of abuses that I
am talking about. There have been abuses throughout history.
Perhaps the most famous was that of the Aberdeen Marina, the
Hong Kong club where Canada's foreign offices spent some
$773,000 on memberships for 34 diplomats and family
members. That was back in the early 1980s. Or maybe it was the
so-called bridge to nowhere. Members may recall the $2.1
million structure erected in the riding of a federal Conservative
cabinet minister. The only problem with the project was that the
bridge when built was not connected to any road.
A more recent example, and we may never have the answer to
this one, is much taxpayers paid to chauffeur, entertain and put
Haitian leader Jean Bertrand Aristide in hotels during his recent
six day visit to Ottawa in January.
(1740 )
A local Ottawa newspaper reported that it requested the
information under access to information. It was refused by
foreign affairs which claimed Aristide's hotel bill was too
sensitive and could lead to squabbling among other foreign
visitors because they may receive lesser treatment. Do the
taxpayers of Canada not have the right to know this
information? I think they do.
The Liberal government red book talks of initiatives to restore
confidence in the institutions of government. Gosh, that sounds
good. According to my research, the government should do so
soon. It has an opportunity right now. Freedom of information
builds faith like few other policies build faith in the Government
of Canada. It slows the build-up of dirty laundry that a future
government will only be too happy to wash.
My Liberal colleagues could well learn from the information
commissioner's scathing criticism of the Mulroney
government's attempt to put roadblocks in the way of citizens
trying to find out about how the government made decisions and
what those were.
The final piece of evidence that I have today is from a
gentleman by the name of John G. McCamus who was involved
as a witness in the second reading of Bill C-43 in 1980. He said:
``As many critics of the bill have observed, there is one highly
visible category of federal agencies which have not been
included in the schedule-the federal crown corporations
engaged in the supply of goods and services. The exclusion of
commercial crown corporations from the access scheme is, in a
word, indefensible''.
In closing, Motion No. 304 is about openness and
accountability. The government owes it to all Canadians to have
the self-confidence to be scrutinized and the fortitude to be
forth-
9091
right. The passage of Motion No. 304 will help to regain the
public confidence in this institution.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a privilege and an honour for me to represent the people
in my riding of Shefford, who elected me in the last federal
election and who expect a high degree of integrity from us.
It is my opinion that the Access to Information Act should be
extended to all government institutions, as tabled in Motion No.
304 by the member for Red Deer. The purpose of this motion is
to make the whole Canadian federal administration more
accessible and open.
This transparency is necessary if we are to win back the
confidence of the taxpayers, particularly in this period of
economic austerity, when the federal government is preparing to
make cuts in a multitude of social programs, when, at the same
time, the heads of Crown agencies are getting rich on taxpayers'
money and enjoying privileges beyond the reach of the average
Canadian, and when this same government is making thousands
of partisan appointments, with no public control.
Nevertheless, in his Speech from the Throne last January 18,
the Prime Minister stated that integrity and public trust in the
institutions of government were essential. In addition, he said,
and I quote: ``The Government is committed to enhancing the
credibility of Parliament. Changes will be proposed to the rules
of the House of Commons to provide Members of Parliament a
greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public
policy and legislation''.
The time has now come for the federal government to table
legislation designed to ensure that its institutions and Crown
agencies excluded from the Access to Information Act are more
transparent.
(1745)
The Bloc Quebecois particularly wants to stress the need for
federal institutions such as the Senate and Crown corporations
to be transparent. The public should be able to scrutinize the
actions of these bodies which are undemocratic because
non-elected and more likely than not using taxpayers money.
For the sake of democracy and to make the current system
more transparent, the Bloc Quebecois can only concur in the
March 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the
Solicitor General, which recommended that the Access to
Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including
administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.
This committee recommended at the time that the Access to
Information Act and the Privacy Act apply to all 53 parent
Crown corporations and their 127 wholly owned subsidiaries.
These corporations and their subsidiaries had assets tens of
billions of dollars in assets over which the public has absolutely
no control.
On the other hand, these recommendations did not apply to
other corporations, including 140 subsidiaries that were not
wholly owned by Crown corporations and 26 joint ventures and
mixed enterprises, of which the capital stock is jointly held by
the federal government and other levels of government or
organizations.
The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the
Solicitor General states that there are certainly other entities
with no capital stock for which the federal government has the
right to appoint, directly or through a Crown corporation, one or
more persons to the board of directors or similar body, with the
public being systematically excluded from the process, except
to foot the bill.
Canadians pay for all that. Therefore, they have a right to
know. Since these are theoretically Crown corporations, the
taxpayers of Quebec and Canada are entitled to and should know
how these corporations are administered. That is why they must
be subject to public scrutiny.
I would like to ask a question in this House: Why are some
Crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act
while others are not, when they all receive public funds?
The burden of proof rests on the federal government. The
Liberals-yes, the Liberals-must keep their word and restore
trust in public institutions.
You will tell me that we all want to see positive changes and
ensure that our political institutions and Crown corporations
operate with honesty and integrity.
I know for a fact that these issues were raised by the Liberals
when they were in opposition. Now that they are in power, I hope
that some of them will remember the importance of making
public institutions more open, accountable and honest.
Quebecers and Canadians have never been so disillusioned
with federal institutions, public administration, politicians and
the public sector.
The people must be able to trust those in power. Obviously,
they have little confidence in the federal government, while the
credibility of public institutions is steadily eroding.
This disaffection may be attributable to several factors: some
elected officials committed indiscretions while others governed
arrogantly, it must be said.
(1750)
Citizens are unhappy because they are not really consulted,
because their views are ignored, because public affairs are dealt
with behind closed doors as soon as they become crucial.
9092
Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada are
disappointed and unhappy with the poor quality of many public
services, given government overspending and the tax burden
imposed on them.
Although Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada
attach great importance to social programs and our democratic
heritage, they are annoyed by the apparent confusion among the
various public powers. Likewise, duplication in federal
government services is unacceptable to all our taxpayers.
I agree with the essential part of the motion proposed by my
colleague from Red Deer, that all publicly financed government
institutions should be subject to the Access to Information Act.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everything to
my hon. colleagues in the opposition, particularly in the third
party, seems simple and very easily fixed. I suggest that this
shows a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of the
complexity and sensitivity of much that we in government have
to deal with.
My hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
leaves the impression that everything that is secret is somehow
evil, that nothing which is personal or concerns individual
Canadians is or should be confidential.
I would remind him that even public boards like boards of
education and municipal councils at the local level deal with
personnel, legal and property matters in camera and not in
public.
However, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Red Deer for putting this motion forward at a time when
Canadians are losing trust in their political institutions, or were.
All of us must be active in finding ways to promote more open
and accountable government.
However, in searching out these various ways to promote
more open and accountable government, we must recognize that
our institutions face a variety of other challenges equally
important to Canadians.
For example, Canadians want government to cost less, to be
more efficient and to operate in a more business like manner. In
come cases it may be necessary to balance the value of openness
with these other values.
Although I find the objectives behind this motion laudable I
cannot support this motion for three reasons. First, we must be
concerned about the impact this motion will have on the
competitive position of crown corporations. I do not say the
impact is great or small, merely that before adopting this motion
I would want to hear directly from those crown corporations on
this issue.
Second, in times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask what
will this motion cost the taxpayers? How will those costs be
paid? The fact is that processing access requests requires an
access to information bureaucracy and costs money.
The third reason I cannot support this motion is that it fails to
distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and
different institutions of Parliament.
The motion is too broadly worded and as such disagrees with
the findings of the 1986 parliamentary committee report ``Open
and Shut'' and with the most recent report of the information
commissioner.
Returning to my first reason for opposing this motion, I am
not convinced it has struck the proper balance between the
competing values of open and accountable government on the
one hand and smaller, more efficient government on the other.
The motion asks that crown agencies be subject to the scrutiny
of the Access to Information Act. There are presently more than
130 crown agencies subject to the act. I assume that the hon.
member means by crown agencies those crown agencies not yet
subject to the act. In particular, I assume he is referring at least
in part to crown corporations.
(1755)
It is with respect, particularly to crown corporations, that the
balance between efficient, competitive business like crown
agencies and open, accountable enterprises becomes most
important.
The basic question is whether crown corporations which have
mandates to operate in a business like fashion, sometimes in
competition with the private sector, should have to work under
different rules than their competitors. If you believe that crown
corporations should act like businesses, why would you impose
a different set of rules on them?
If you believe crown corporations should not be competing
with the private sector at all, that is a completely different
question. Subjecting crown corporations to the scrutiny of the
Access to Information Act will not terminate the crown
corporations if that is your goal. It will simply make them less
competitive, more expensive and less efficient.
I would not want to make a decision on the motion before the
House until I know more about the implications. I am not
prepared to support the motion at this time.
Another reason why I do not support this motion is that we do
not have enough information about what the potential cost to the
taxpayer will be. The fact is processing access requests costs
taxpayers money. The most recent report of the information
commissioner says that the annual cost of processing access
requests is $20 million and that the current fees are not designed
to recover costs, but merely to deter trivial requests.
9093
Adding institutions to be covered by the Access to
Information Act is saying that the government needs to spend
more money. Where will this money come from? How much
will it cost? Whatever it costs we know that it is a cost that
private business does not have to incur and therefore will make
crown corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of
the cost of processing access requests.
I do not say that the cost of processing access requests cannot
be justified. The information commissioner says that $20
million is a bargain for such an essential tool of public
accountability. He may be right. All I am saying is that we
should not adopt motions based on good intentions without first
asking the basic questions of how much will it cost and who will
pay.
Also, I am reluctant to support this motion because of the
report of the parliamentary committee that examined the Access
to Information Act in 1986. Its report is called ``Open and
Shut''. That committee considered a broad range of entities
which might be made subject to the Access to Information Act.
It concluded that it would not be appropriate for all crown
agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a definition of
crown corporation should be developed and should be limited to
corporations in which the crown has a controlling interest and
which provide goods or services to the public on a commercial
basis. It thought there should be special exemptions for the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, mentioned significantly by
my hon. colleague, in relation to program material.
With respect to Parliament, the parliamentary committee was
of the view that the offices of senators and members of the
House of Commons should be excluded from scrutiny of the act.
It said the relationship between such elected and appointed
officials and the electorate is sometimes described as akin to
solicitor-client privilege, and parliamentary privilege is
involved. Therefore, the committee suggests their continued
exclusion from the scope of the act.
The committee thought that the Access to Information Act
should not apply to the judicial branch of government and
therefore not to the Federal Court, tax court, Supreme Court of
Canada. Perhaps surprisingly, the committee thought the act
should apply to administrative tribunals which perform
quasi-judicial functions.
The committee recognized that the federal government is
involved in joint ventures with others, notably the provinces,
and in those cases thought it would be best if there were
negotiations with the provinces before making such joint
ventures subject to the Access to Information Act.
Here we have a parliamentary committee that studied the
issues very carefully.
(1800 )
The considered conclusion was that it would go too far to
include all crown agencies and at least in the case of the CBC it
saw merit in examining the special circumstances of crown
corporations that would become subject to the act. It saw merit
in excluding courts, MPs' offices and federal-provincial joint
organizations.
I am not prepared to say that parliamentary committee was
wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in
a sweeping statement that all of Parliament and all crown
agencies should be subject to the Access to Information Act.
In conclusion, I support a comprehensive, careful review of
the Access to Information Act and I will support amendments
aimed at improving access to government information. I may
well support extending the application of the Access to
Information Act to crown agencies not yet covered by the act,
but I cannot in all conscience support a motion that fails to
distinguish between various kinds of crown agencies that might
make the correspondence I receive from my constituents
automatically subject to the act and that is voted on without
hearing from executives of crown agencies not presently subject
to the act.
I think the better approach is to take the Minister of Justice at
his word that it is time for a review of the Access to Information
Act. Let him draw upon all of the expertise we can acquire and
use the full parliamentary procedures, including committee
hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin my remarks by saying that committee would
decide many of those things which the hon. member has just
talked about.
I am sure he, as a fine parliamentarian, is also aware that a
private member cannot initiate a motion or a private member's
bill which is going to cost the government more money.
Therefore, I think it would be appropriate for the member to
make sure that he gets on the record at some point that he well
knows what the purpose, plan and policy of private member's
motions and bills is.
I would like to make a few comments about Motion M-304
which my friend from Red Deer brought in. I think it is
excellent, quite frankly, because the government has said it was
going to do all kinds of things with access to information but
here we are well over the one year birthday and precious little
has happened again in that vein.
Let me just refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker. I do not know
where you were on July 11 but I was in the bush in Beaver River
having a wonderful time getting some rest and relaxation. I do
not get the Ottawa Citizen out there nor do I get Canada's
national newspaper, the Globe and Mail. Nonetheless, let me
9094
look at some of the things that were going on while you and I
were away from these hallowed halls on July 11.
The Ottawa Citizen, July 11 stated: ``Justice Minister Allan
Rock is promising an overhaul of the federal Access to
Information Act so it is more in line with public expectations of
openness in government''. We have read about openness in
government in the red book and in any number of places. He
thinks it is now out of date, very much in need of an overhaul.
My friend just suggested that it certainly is in need of an
overhaul, but when? When are we going to see any changes in
this thing? We have been promised all kinds of legislation. We
have had take note debates on just about every subject we could
dream of and yet there is no action.
We have been in the House now almost a year in this new
session and we have seen precious little come forward in terms
of tangible, get your teeth into it kind of legislation.
Mrs. Brushett: You cannot keep up with the action.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across might be
surprised at how I could keep up to the action.
The justice minister says the present act reflects the state of
the art as of the mid-1970s. We are not in the 1990s. Before he
gets it together, dear knows, we will be into the next century and
into the 2000s, I am not sure how we will say that. However, he
says people's expectations of government are different. There is
a need for more openness. For heaven's sake, that is absolutely
right, the Ottawa Citizen is bang on.
There is a word here that is going to go through my comments
over and over again, a motif, and that is the word secrecy. If
anything would disgust the Canadian public it is a government
that sits in here and does not talk about secrecy but acts secrecy.
That is really frustrating for people.
(1805)
Members of this House are all aware of the need for accurate,
complete and timely information. The Access to Information
Act which was brought in on July 1, 1983 talked about openness
and making sure that people had access to some information if
they really needed it, not just for fun. It is time consuming for
people to dig up information as well as expensive because you
are paying people to dig up that information. The bottom line on
that is what is the cost if we do not do it?
If we ignore access to information, if we do not go ahead and
process people's requests and have them accessible to the
information that they really need, that people are demanding,
what is the cost if we do not do it?
I think there are some long term costs there that the hon.
member might think about, especially when he is campaigning
in the next election.
We take this as a right of the Canadian people. Along with
rights that we all have come responsibilities. We as
parliamentarians have responsibilities to the Canadian public,
after all it is paying our cheques.
Many companies, crown corporations, the Gentleman Usher
of the Black Rod, cabinet ministers' expenses, if the public is
paying the bills, why should it not have some of this information
at its fingertips? It seems ludicrous to me that we would say
sorry, there are certain parts of the act that are exempt and so we
do not have to tell you.
If anything is going to frustrate people-and on a school
board as well, as my hon. friend mentioned earlier-if anything
frustrates the parent teacher association it is going to a meeting
and demanding that they look at the minutes, because they are
paying those bills too. When I was participating with school
boards in my teaching career it would be ridiculous for people
involved in the school system to say we do not think you should
have access to that information.
I taught in a small school in a small town and nothing would
run you out of town faster than a parent teacher association or
the parent advisory council saying ``what do you mean, you are
not going to tell us? We are paying your salary and you had
better let us know some of this information''.
There should be few state secrets at any level.
Speaking of secrecy, in the Times Colonist from November
17, 1994, very fresh, a few weeks ago, the title of an article was
``Weak Government's Lapse into Secrecy''. Freedom of
information works great when things are going well for
government but it is a different story when the going gets tough.
That is for sure.
This person says government information in the electronic
age should be preserved as a national resource. Government
should help people gain access to it and should be held in easily
obtainable form. In other words, people should be able to have
access to this with computers and the electronic highway and
everything else that we have. There should be absolutely no
reason for secrecy.
The Ottawa Citizen on January 22, 1994 said that not only is it
so secretive but that once you do crack through on that on access
to information, if you are going to get any information out of it,
it is slower than molasses in January, when this article was
written. This person says that one of the most common
complaints about access to information is that it is slow and
getting slower. If there is anything we need in this bureaucracy it
is not slow and getting slower. That is for sure.
Ten years ago almost 79 per cent of requests were completed
in 30 days or less, while 6.3 per cent took more than 60 days.
Now only 57.5 per cent are completed in 30 days and 21.4 per
cent take longer than 60 days. This looks vaguely familiar, what
9095
I see every day across the way, a government that says it is
bringing in legislation on this and that and the next thing.
I have been tallying what was an actual government
sponsored, initiated, carried through to fruition bill in this
House. It was not something from Kim Campbell that was held
over and was going to be updated and change the name of
departments and move ahead with this and that. The Tobacco
Smuggling Act was something that this government could take
credit for because it started it, carried through and finished it,
whether it was good or bad is immaterial. Everything else was
something left over.
``Public information, political property'', from the Globe and
Mail, Canada's national newspaper, July 5, 1994, when we were
out of the House again. Public information, should it be public
property? Of course. Is it? No. It belongs to the government and
it keeps its claws and talons right into it. Heaven help anyone
who tries to find out anything. From Toronto Star last January
29: ``This law errs on the side of secrecy. When you get into
thorny areas, it gets very cumbersome''.
(1810)
If there are people who are finding this tedious, perhaps they
could mention this to the hon. justice minister and he could
perhaps get something through here. I would hate to think we
were keeping anyone up.
In 1983 the Liberals were the government and I was not here.
The Toronto Star says: ``When the act was passed 33 statutes
were exempted, cabinet discussions and tax information, for
example, under section 24''.
Under the Conservative government in 1986 the Liberals were
here too: ``In 1986 a parliamentary justice committee said
section 24 should be repealed because it was undemocratic''.
Imagine such a thing in this institution.
Let me finish by reading an article from November 18, just a
few weeks ago. This was from the Ottawa Citizen: ``Canadians
don't enjoy an open and accountable federal government''. It
could not have been a Liberal that wrote that article surely,
because they have told us for months now that they have an open
and accountable government: ``Instead they are saddled with a
bureaucratic culture only marginally less secretive than a
decade ago'', we know who was in power a decade ago, ``when
the principle of access to information held by government was
first enshrined in a new federal law''.
I do not want anyone to think we are making light of this,
surely. Only some of the faces are a little different over there and
you and I looked at them all in the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately it seems many of those faces are the same. The
names have changed. If anything shrouds this piece of
legislation which has been in place for years now, if anything is
going to send us on our Christmas recess and make it look like
this place has not changed a bit, it is if this government is not
really committed to changing the Access to Information Act.
We welcome real, substantive changes to that. We look
forward to 1995 and hope that we have far more substantive
legislation in place that we can support.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak on the motion from the member for Red
Deer, since the very essence of this motion is in line with what
the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for and I should say that it is
also what my constituents in Chicoutimi expect.
The objectives of the Bloc and the official opposition are clear
and precise. We want greater transparency and openness in the
management of public affairs and respect for the taxpayers'
acquired right to know what the government is doing with public
funds.
This motion says that Parliament and crown agencies should
be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. At
present, the Access to Information Act, passed in 1982, gives
access only to federal government documents. Under this law,
therefore, government institutions must make their documents
available.
Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Some of the 112 federal
crown corporations and several government agencies, including
the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament
and officers of Parliament are not subject to this law.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Access to Information
Act must be extended to any government institution financed
with public funds. In a democratic system like ours, public
affairs must be run as openly as possible. That is what our
constituents want. Openness, yes, but it is a word which
frightens my colleagues opposite.
(1815)
We see it in the way they have run the affairs of state for a
little over a year. Need we mind you of their reticence and great
lack of openness on many issues? First, on Bill C-52,
concerning the Department of Public Works and Government
Services, the Liberal government persists in blocking any
amendment which would make this department's awarding of
government contracts more open. It is hard for members of this
Parliament to obtain relevant information on their riding from
this department.
Members of Parliament are the last to find out about the
reorganizations going on in their riding. In Chicoutimi, a
reorganization of post offices was announced to the public after
the fact. Moreover, firms of consulting engineers or architects
were never told why they could not bid on certain contracts.
9096
A public inquiry might shed some light on how these
contracts are awarded, but I imagine they are reserved for
friends of the regime. You will also remember this whole
episode when the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the
CRTC about an application. Some said it was a lack of ethics,
others talked about a lack of transparency, while others
concluded that it was patronage. The government did not follow
the principle of transparency, and was caught in the act. It is
Bloc Quebecois members who dared to reveal that the Minister
of Canadian Heritage got personally involved in issuing a
broadcasting licence.
And the Prime Minister did not even take any sanction against
that minister, who had intervened. The Prime Minister even had
the nerve to excuse his minister by saying that other Cabinet
members had also been involved in similar patronage activities.
The government also objected to the bill on public financing for
political parties. That speaks volumes about their desire to
ensure transparency. Past experience tells us that the main
financial backers of political parties are usually the ones who
get lucrative government contracts. These people are called
friends of the regime.
Then there are the reports of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, which are submitted to the Solicitor General.
However, the solicitor refuses to let the parliamentary
subcommittee on national security have access to these
documents. Why was that subcommittee set up if it cannot have
access to the reports tabled by the agency responsible for
monitoring intelligence activity?
Given this lack of transparency, which is becoming more and
more prevalent, the Access to Information Act remains one of
the only means for elected members of this House, and Canadian
taxpayers, to obtain information on the operations of
departments and government agencies, including crown
corporations.
Thanks to that act, MPs were able to have access to the
findings contained in a SIRC report. SIRC concluded that the
inquiries conducted by one of the branches of CSIS are not
related to threats to Canada's security, as defined in the act but,
rather, to threats to the security of private businesses. In
conducting such inquiries, CSIS duplicates the operations of the
federal and provincial police forces.
(1820)
As my colleague from Bellechasse pointed out a few days ago
in this House, it is unfortunate that parliamentarians are the last
ones to be informed of such allegations. Without the Access to
Information Act, this government would not reveal anything,
either to the official opposition or the citizens of this country.
This time around, the government cannot deny the public its
right to scrutinize the management of public affairs, which are
financed in large part through the taxes it pays.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of making the
whole federal administration accessible and transparent, for the
sake of fairness and equity.
We have been elected by our fellow citizens; our mandate is to
report to them on the activities and functions of the public
administration.
Moreover, the Access to Information Act should also apply to
the Senate, an institution which is appointed, not elected.
However, the act should not apply to government agencies
and crown corporations which hold confidential information for
the purpose of competition, insofar as that information is
concerned, but the act should apply to them in the case of
general information such as expenditures, budgets, trade
practices and personnel management.
In view of the many examples I have just listed, the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion since it promotes
more transparency. Let us hope that our friends opposite will
know enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion in the
name of the hon. member for Red Deer which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown Agencies
should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
This is a timely motion. Yesterday afternoon I attended the
public accounts committee of which I am a member and
regularly attend. We have been having problems getting some
information from the government regarding a $2 billion loss this
country has suffered. The taxpayers are out $2 billion and we
have been trying to find out who actually caused the loss. Was it
the Ministry of National Revenue? Was it the Minister of
Finance, or was it the Department of Justice?
Officials were in front of the committee and we were trying to
determine who was responsible. Was it bad advice from
lawyers? Was it bad decision making by revenue and finance?
When the Minister of National Revenue was in front of the
committee he gave a complete and detailed report. He said that
the public accounts committee had every right to read the legal
opinions which had been obtained from the Solicitor General's
department on a particular case but we were not getting them. He
was prepared to say we had every right to have them but as far as
he was concerned we were not getting them.
Now we are debating access to information. I think access to
information is a fundamental part which goes to the very heart of
democracy. We on behalf of the taxpayers should know and have
every right to know. When the taxpayers lose $2 billion they
have every right to know who made the mistake. Therefore,
9097
access to information is more fundamental than most people
think.
Think of other situations. A couple of months ago we were all
distressed to find out that the Commissioner of Official
Languages was driving back and forth between Ottawa and
Montreal in a chauffeured limousine courtesy of the federal
government, just because he would rather live in Montreal than
in Ottawa.
Access to information would help us to find those things out
earlier. It is the taxpayers' money. Not only is he being driven in
a chauffeured limousine between Ottawa and Montreal because
he likes to live in Montreal but works in Ottawa, but we have
also given him an apartment that I think costs $15,600. We are
paying that because he likes to live in Montreal but his job is in
Ottawa and he needs a place to hang his hat while he is here. We
find these things out.
(1825)
The chairman of CN Rail needed a place to hang his hat too so
he got a $300,000 interest free loan from CN. Who owns CN?
The taxpayers. Does CN make a big profit? CN is subsidized.
There is a major loss of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money
but the chairman said: ``I am worth it. I do a good job for this
organization. I need and should have a $300,000 interest free
loan in order for me to do my job better''.
I am sure many taxpayers would agree with the idea that they
could do their job better if they had an interest free loan of
$300,000 but they cannot have it. There is a Liberal member
over there who suggests that perhaps he could also do his job
better if he had a $300,000 interest free loan. Only one, his
seatmate, disagrees but that is by the way.
The point we are trying to make is that if we had the
information, people would be a lot more careful about the way
they spend taxpayers' money than they do. If it is secret they do
not have to answer to anybody; just keep it under the table and
everything will be fine.
I looked at the Access to Information Act. I opened it up and
looked at section 13. The subject in subsection 2 is that the head
of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record.
This is the Access to Information Act. I thought that must be an
aberration. Section 13 deals with information obtained in
confidence, but that is okay. He could perhaps refuse that one.
How about federal-provincial affairs under section 14? The
head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any
record requested under this act. How about section 15,
international affairs and defence? The head of a government
institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under
this act.
On it goes. Under section 16 on law enforcement and
investigation, the head of a government institution may refuse to
disclose any record requested under the act. In section 17
concerning the safety of individuals, again may refuse to
disclose.
By the time we get through to section 24 we get to statutory
prohibitions. Virtually every document is protected and not
open to information, to scrutiny, nor to the taxpayers who pay
millions of dollars for this organization. The House of
Commons has a budget of $243 million. That does not include
the Senate. That is for here. Think of the mountains of paper we
produce, all secret.
The Reform Party in the last election said to cut $300 million
or $400 million out of subsidies to crown corporations. That
gives an idea of how much money they are losing. It is in the
billions every year and nobody has the right to find out how they
are losing the money, what kind of service they are producing, or
anything along those lines.
Surely the taxpayer who is footing the bill has the right to
know. That is all we are asking. It is not very much. They are
forking out about 40 per cent of their income every year in
income taxes and it is all secret. The government denies them
access. It does not get back to them to say what it is doing with
their money.
The honourable thing to do would be for the government to
support the motion. The member for Red Deer put this motion
forward seriously thinking that we would take note of the fact
that Canadians need to know and want to know and government
will work a lot better if they do know.
(1830)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for Private
Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9097
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, do you want
me to start right now? It is not on MIL Davie but on fisheries.
Excuse my English. I was just trying to maintain a good
relationship with my colleagues. I hope the people will forgive
me. I want to reassure French speaking Canadians, I am not
9098
being assimilated. I was just practising my English. After all, at
least 15 per cent of my constituents are English.
I am pleased to rise this evening to address a question I have
asked in this House concerning the repatriation of fisheries
management. This question was put to the Minister of Fisheries
on December 6. As usual, I was not satisfied with the answer
and, therefore, intend to ask the question again this evening.
On November 16, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans whether or not he intended to make changes to
administrative responsibilities regarding fisheries, as requested
by the Quebec fisheries minister at the federal-provincial
conference of fisheries ministers held in Victoria on November
1.
I also asked the minister if he intended do comply to this
request along the lines of what Quebec is asking for.
The minister's answer was very clear. On November 16, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he had been
asked this question by several provinces weeks or even months
earlier.
The minister understood the demands made by the provinces
in order to improve administration of this resource and to
eliminate unnecessary overlap in the fisheries sector.
Indeed, Quebec had reached this conclusion several decades
earlier. Unfortunately, since another Liberal government was in
power at the time, in 1983-84, it decided to repatriate
management. Today, in 1994, we still have to enter into
negotiations merely to recover what was taken from us.
The minister went on to say that he intended to respond
directly to reorganizing the fisheries sector and that he looked
forward to continued good dialogue and discussion with all of
the provinces. He even added, ``including Quebec''. You will
understand why I was anxious. Finally, we had someone who
was willing to take action.
I raised the matter again on December 6. At that time, I asked
the minister why he had not responded to the request from the
Quebec government, because the Quebec government had
expressed, through a letter, its desire to make official the claims
that had been made at the federal-provincial conference.
The minister responded to me in a way that I would qualify as
boastful. I expected something else from a minister. He said that
it was a shocking thing that fully 35 days had passed. But when a
minister is getting ready to table a fisheries plan that will affect
all the Atlantic provinces, I think that 35 days is a long wait.
Thirty-five days of silence, it is a long time, when Quebec is
putting forward a serious and important proposal, asking the
minister to start the negotiations.
My message is: Does the minister intend to table in this House
a planned schedule for meeting with his provincial counterparts,
and to inform the population of Quebec and Canada of it?
He has been a minister for 14 months now, and nothing is
happening. All I am asking him is: Does he have a plan, an
agenda to meet with his counterparts from Newfoundland,
Quebec and British Columbia?
(1835)
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member for Gaspé that the issues raised by Minister Landry are
serious and require careful consideration.
He should also know that the whole question of federal and
provincial roles and responsibilities and the management of
marine fisheries is of key concern to the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans.
Far from ignoring the Quebec government's proposal I can
assure my hon. colleague that the questions raised by Quebec are
being carefully analysed. I do not believe that the hon. member
would expect an immediate response to a proposal that calls for
a fundamental restructuring of federal and provincial roles and
responsibilities in the marine fishery.
I understand that the Quebec government is seeking increased
responsibilities in marine fisheries management and has
devoted a great deal of energy to formulate its proposal.
However, given the multilateral nature of the Atlantic fishery
and the federal government's responsibility to ensure the
conservation of the resource, I believe that his request needs to
be addressed in the context of multilateral discussions of
fisheries.
For example, it is essential that we strive to reach a
federal-provincial consensus on historic shares that will meet
the needs of all stakeholders before we can move on to consider
specific proposals.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also indicated that
in order to consolidate the views of all stakeholders on licensing
reform and processing capacity reduction he will be launching
an Atlantic round table in early 1995.
I trust that this series of round table consultations will offer an
opportunity to the Quebec government as well as to the other
Atlantic provinces to play a constructive role in the design of the
fishery of the future.
Finally, I would like to respond to the comments made to the
Quebec government regarding overlap and duplication in
federal and provincial programs and services. As part of the
government wide program review exercised, the Department of
9099
Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken a thorough review of its
programs with a view to maximizing efficiencies and
eliminating costly duplications.
Extensive consultations have led to the establishment of
important co-operative agreements in the fisheries sector which
demonstrate that federal and provincial fisheries programs can
harmonize without putting at risk local interests with tangible
benefits to taxpayers and clients.
The Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans remains firmly
committed to the path we embarked on some months ago which
is designed to achieve new efficiencies and forge new and
productive partnerships of all the stakeholders in the fishery.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 24, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration a question on an order to deport Mrs. Thérèse
Sabadin and her two children to the Seychelles. Mrs. Sabadin
had suffered physical violence and had received death threats
from her husband, who was convicted and subsequently
deported to the Seychelles.
Although this was a very sad case, Mrs. Sabadin was deported
with her two children to Barbados and then sent back to Canada.
This involuntary trip was very expensive for Mrs. Sabadin.
Finally, as a result of numerous representations by the Bloc
Quebecois and several women's organizations, the minister
agreed to allow Mrs. Sabadin's application for permanent
residence to be processed in Canada.
Mrs. Sabadin now has to wait several months before she can
get a ministerial permit. Until then, she will have no status in
this country and will not be able to work. Without official
papers, she will also have trouble obtaining social assistance
and will have to wait at least a year before she can get permanent
residence status. To apply, Mrs. Sabadin had to pay $700, which
she did not have, in administrative costs. She had already paid
$650 for her initial application. Action réfugiés Montréal, a
community organization, paid the fee on her behalf.
In this House, I have often criticized these fees as arbitrary
and unfair. Recently, even the Liberal member for Winnipeg
North was critical of this abuse of people in need by the
Department of Immigration.
I would ask the minister to be more sensitive to the plight of
women who claim refugee status on the grounds of fear of
persecution because of their gender.
It is now ten days until Christmas and two weeks before the
end of 1994, and I want to take this opportunity to send my best
wishes to my constituents in Montreal North, especially those of
ethnic origin, the Italians, Haitians, Arabs, Latin Americans,
and so forth.
(1840)
I also want to send my best wishes for health, happiness and
peace to all new Quebecers and new Canadians. Despite the
feelings of hostility that are apparent in some sectors of public
opinion, I believe that most people still support immigration and
opening our doors to refugees fleeing persecution. To the
thousands of immigrants and refugees in Canada and Quebec, I
want to send a message of support, understanding, solidarity and
hope.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration confirmed for the hon. member on
November 24 in this House that this case was being reviewed by
immigration officials.
The minister had previously advised a colleague of the hon.
member on November 17 that immigration officials conduct an
additional review in cases where there may be new information
that may or might alter a decision to remove a person.
Such reviews may be conducted when in keeping with the
authority delegated by the minister to managers, a manager of a
Canada immigration centre determines that there might be
additional information.
In this particular case a manager in the CIC in Montreal
granted a two week reprieve in this case to give the individual an
opportunity for further review.
I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the additional
review has been completed and immigration officials have
determined that the individual and her children should be
allowed to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The individual and her counsel have been advised of this
decision.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since the hon. member for
Châteauguay has to leave immediately, we will hear the hon.
member for Chambly.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in reply to
two questions I recently asked in this House about the new
regulations increasing bonds to be posted by customs brokers,
the Minister of National Revenue referred me to the Canadian
Association of Customs Brokers which seemingly supported his
approach in this matter.
First of all, let me say to the minister that the picture is
somewhat different from what he told us then. On November 24,
the association held a meeting where 883 members gave their
opinion on the advisability of these new regulations. The results
of the vote were 803 against the regulations, 74 in favour and 6
abstentions. Because larger brokerage firms have multiple vot-
9100
ing rights, the final result was 135 against the regulations, 141 in
favour and 7 abstentions.
A study conducted by Brian Hull and Associates, a
well-known economist from Ottawa, for the coalition of small
and medium size brokers, shows that the new regulations unduly
favour the larger brokerage firms. If they were to be subjected to
the same standards as smaller brokers, they would see their
security bill jump $1 million in one case, and between $150,000
and $180,000 in other cases, while they now pay only $30,000
for a maximum security of $10 million.
We can see the advantage given to these larger brokerage
firms by this new administrative policy. Does the minister know
that small and medium size brokers, those who broker 20,000
imports or less per year create 2,500 direct jobs in Canada and
that their disappearance by a stroke of his pen would have a
dramatic effect?
Does the minister know that with these new standards only 19
brokers would remain in Canada thanks to the privilege he
would be giving them by instituting a ceiling of $10 million for
the security they must post.
Let me quote the conclusions of Mr. Hull's study.
[English]
The effect of this new ruling by Revenue Canada for account
security and the disproportionate burden of its impact as
between large and small firms is to place the Government of
Canada in violation of the basic principles of conduct on which
the Competition Act of Canada is founded.
(1845 )
The effect of the new formula is to, first, impede the
efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy; second,
restrict opportunities for Canadian competition in global
markets, while discriminating on behalf of foreign competition;
third, seriously impede the opportunity for small and medium
sized enterprises to participate in the Canadian economy; and,
fourth, to reduce the choice of competitive prices and services
available to Canadians.
[Translation]
A $10 million security on a monthly invoice of $250 million is
only 4 per cent, while a $1.8 million security for smaller brokers
is 100 per cent of their monthly invoice.
Does the minister, who is trying so hard to protect importers,
realize that large brokerage firms are just as likely as small ones
to go bankrupt? I would even go so far as to say that large
diversified companies, with interests in transportation, storage,
handling, run a higher risk. Take real estate development, for
example, Campeau Corporation, the Reichman brothers and
others went under before all the smaller companies disappeared.
In the insurance business, did some large companies not go
bankrupt before many small ones?
If the minister is really committed to protecting the public,
here is my suggestion: First, he should go back to the formula
where everyone had ten days to pay duties and taxes, the way it
is in the United States and the way it was in Canada before these
interim payments, which are at the root of all our problems, were
instituted. He should keep security at 100 per cent of monthly
billings and make all brokers, large and small, equally
responsible.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department is
considering increasing the security requirement for obtaining
release prior to payment of duties and taxes to 100 per cent of the
average monthly invoice up to a maximum of $10 million. This
action is being considered in direct response to the number of
cases where brokers fail to deliver to Revenue Canada funds
received from their clients, the importers.
Since importers remain liable, they have had to pay a second
time to the department. As most brokers' clients are small
businesses the department needs to ensure increased security to
protect them and the jobs of the more than one million
Canadians they employ.
Extensive consultations have been undertaken with the
Canadian Society of Customs Brokers that negotiated a master
bond program to make it easier for their members to meet the
new security requirements. Discussions have also been
undertaken with the Canadian Importers Association. Whatever
is decided I do not believe any financially viable broker will be
forced out of business.
Brokers are already provided with the flexibility to arrange
for some of their clients to post their own security or to deliver
interim payments to the department. Although many brokers
have few assets in their companies they may also restructure
their financial arrangements by using personal assets to obtain
security.
A recent enhancement has been discussed that would assist
both brokers and importers in obtaining security. The
requirements for importers posting their own security, whether
or not they use a broker, would be based on an amount equivalent
to the duties and taxes payable on a monthly basis, less the goods
and services tax.
This enhancement could make it easier for brokers to arrange
for some clients to obtain security and enable them to protect the
remainder of their clients from the consequences of default. As
well, the cost of doing business for most of the 8,000 importers
who deal directly with the department would not increase.
9101
In conclusion, this enhancement is being discussed with the
Canadian Importers Association and the Canadian Society of
Customs Brokers, both of whom are contributing positively to
resolving this issue.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before we adjourn this evening, I
would like to say a few words on a more personal note.
[English]
Chief senior page, André Frechette, has now worked most
capably in the House for forty-two and a half years. Imagine,
forty-two and a half years of putting up with members of
Parliament.
Tomorrow our Speaker will, I believe, pay tribute to Mr.
Frechette and his long years of capable service to the House.
Unfortunately I cannot be here and I would like to do so now.
Can you imagine how many thousands of services Mr. Frechette
has done for so many hundreds of members over those many
years? We are all deeply in your debt, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, all of us in the Bloc Quebecois
wish to join you in extending our best wishes to Mr. Fréchette on
his retirement and say how much we have appreciated his work
here in the House. I have had that privilege for the past ten years,
and I want to say that although we will miss you very much, you
truly deserve a wonderful retirement.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)