CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 31, 1995
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 13041
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13042
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13046
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13046
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 13047
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 13047
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13047
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13049
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13049
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13050
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13050
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13053
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13054
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 13054
Motion for concurrence in 79th report 13055
(Motion agreed to.) 13055
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13055
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13055
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13056
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 13056
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13056
Bill C-76. Report stage 13058
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13059
Motions Nos. 3 and 4 13059
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13059
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 13065
(Motion No. 2 negatived.) 13065
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 13065
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 13065
Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 13065
Motions Nos. 12 and 14 13065
Motions Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 74 13066
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 13071
Division on Motion No. 17 deferred 13071
Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 22 13071
Motions Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78 13071
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13071
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13074
13041
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 31, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks World No Tobacco Day. I wanted to take
this opportunity to offer my support to the call for reduced use of
tobacco products.
When I was in the riding last week I had the opportunity to
take part in a special event to acknowledge World No Tobacco
Day. I helped launch the Muskoka-Parry Sound health unit's
anti-smoking campaign to highlight the importance of
maintaining the momentum toward smoking reduction in
Canadian society.
The federal government initiated its own tobacco demand
reduction strategy not long ago as a major component of its
anti-tobacco smuggling action plan. This strategy includes
legislation, enforcement and public education.
A recent survey conducted by the health unit in my riding
indicates two of the high schools in our riding have over 30 per
cent usage of tobacco on a regular basis. This is much higher
than the provincial average and is a trend I would like to see
reversed.
I ask my colleagues to join with me today to encourage young
people to stop smoking.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question from the
hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, the Prime Minister
referred to Lise Thibault, who is currently president of the
Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, as the president of
an association for cripples-he used the French word
``infirme''-right in the middle of National Access Awareness
Week.
The use of the French word ``infirme'' by the Prime Minister
of Canada is a disgrace and an insult to all persons with
disabilities. This word perpetuates a stubborn prejudice
suggesting that a handicapped person is ill and must be taken
care of.
Although all persons with disabilities do have limitations, the
vast majority of them are not ill. The Prime Minister should
have the decency not to use disabled people for partisan
purposes, let alone refer to them in a patronizing way.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the month of May has been the month of the green
ribbon of hope campaign for our missing children. May 25 was
Missing Children's Day sponsored by Child Find Canada.
Every year over 55,000 Canadian children under the age of 18
are reported to the RCMP's missing children registry. Many of
these children leave their homes voluntarily because of harsh
and unbearable conditions. Others are abducted and disappear,
often becoming the victims of heinous criminal acts.
Child Find Canada is a charitable non-government funded
organization dedicated to the elimination of this problem
through its education and awareness programs such as its all
about me ID program. This is a program that works with parents
and local community organizations to document information
about a child's basic identity.
The problem of missing children is all too real. It reinforces a
need to pursue policies that strengthen our criminal justice
system and strengthen and protect the Canadian family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the seven person working group appointed by the
Government of Canada to study the safety of recombinant
bovine somatotropin for animal and human health should
release its report very soon, that is, before the moratorium
13042
imposed by the government on manufacturers expires on July
1st.
At present, this hormone provides only financial and
economic benefits and may be prejudicial to the health of all
Canadians.
I am therefore asking the authorities concerned, and
especially the Minister of Health, to ensure that all necessary
studies, including the one on insulin growth factor-1, a hormone
that may in some cases be linked to excessive limb and chin
development, are conducted.
If these studies do not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
BST is safe, the Minister of Health should seek an indefinite
extension of the moratorium.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the members of the House
and all Canadians that May has been Cystic Fibrosis Month.
Although significant scientific discoveries such as the
identification of the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis have
been made in recent years, the challenges of developing better
treatments and a cure remain.
(1405 )
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation of Canada is a national
voluntary health organization dedicated to improving the lives
of those who suffer from this disorder. It supports a
Canada-wide network of specialized clinics providing
diagnostic treatment and care as well as information to patients
and health care providers.
Please join me in congratulating the dedicated scientists and
volunteers who contribute to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation of
Canada for their excellent work and in wishing the foundation
and its volunteers a very successful future.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, records
fell as the port of Saint John reached new levels of throughput in
many of the major commodities handled at the port, such as
petroleum, potash, salt and sugar. Cruise ship passenger
volumes increased dramatically in 1994 due to calls by Carnival
and Princess cruise lines. Significant traffic gains and expanded
shipping services were realized at the port by shipping lines like
Star, Kent and National Shipping of Saudi Arabia.
Two million dollars has been spent on facilities development
at the port of Saint John. Its strengthened financial performance
has resulted in improved revenues.
The men and women who work at the port of Saint John look
forward to challenges and opportunities ahead. Working with its
stakeholders the port of Saint John has confidence in its
collective ability to take advantage of new opportunities.
As we celebrate Transportation Week, let us remember that
the port of Saint John continues to play a major role in
supporting Canada's international trade and making a
significant-
The Speaker: The hon. member for La Prairie.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is
World No Tobacco Day, and I would like to take this opportunity
to make parliamentarians as well as the people of Quebec and
Canada aware of the importance of this day. This year, the theme
of this annual event sponsored by the World Health Organization
is ``The cost of tobacco is higher than we think''.
It is worthwhile reminding people that smoking is one of the
main causes of potentially fatal respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases. And what about the effect of second-hand smoke, not
to mention the miscarriages suffered by mothers who smoke and
the low birth weight of children born to these women? The need
to educate the young and the not so young about the health
hazards associated with tobacco use is unquestionable.
Today more than ever, we must make everyone, old and
young, aware of the hazards of tobacco use. This campaign
should have significant and lasting results.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have yet another example of the Liberals shafting the west and
rigging a decision to favour Ottawa.
Last year the Minister of Canadian Heritage decided that
Canada would support a bid for Expo 2005. He appointed an
independent committee to recommend to him which city, either
Calgary or Ottawa, would represent Canada in the bidding
process. The process was completed and Calgary was the
unanimous choice recommended to the minister.
The minister promised to follow the recommendation of the
committee and he has failed to do so. He has tainted the process
13043
by allowing Ottawa to continue lobbying. It appears that the
minister is rigging the bid so that Ottawa gets the Expo. It
appears that the fix is in.
Calgary has the strongest of the bids. It has the financial
backing of the city of Calgary and the province of Alberta.
Calgary has a volunteer network which is the best in Canada and
which will make the Expo a tremendous success showcasing
Canada to the world.
The minister promised to make a hasty decision but has failed
to act for more than two months. I urge the minister to
immediately follow the recommendation of the committee and
give the Expo bid to Calgary.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
many constituents of mine are outraged at a recent mailing that
every home in the riding received advertising a package of
so-called erotic adult only films. The increased availability of
such films called original, uninhibited and sexually explicit in
the advertising brochure is openly attributed to the benefits of
free trade which, according to the same brochure, has led to such
films now not only being permitted but also encouraged.
The wonders of free trade never cease to astound me. Good
Canadian films still have a problem making it to market but
American porn is given new opportunities.
I share my constituents' feelings that this kind of junk mail
should not be handled by Canada Post. So-called erotica may
have its place but its availability should not be imposed on
people whether they like it or not through such universal
mailings.
I call on the minister responsible to speak to Canada Post
about this with a view to seeing what can be done to prevent
further such mailings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to give another example of what this government is doing to
promote business development and, thus, the economic
development of this country.
The minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development in Quebec told the Standing Committee on
Industry that he will intensify efforts to make small business
aware of how crucial innovation, design as well as research and
development are.
(1410)
He is mainly concerned with identifying new technologies
and integrating them into the daily operations of this industry.
FORD-Q will pay special attention to ensuring that knowledge
is shared and that the products and techniques developed in
high-tech projects are marketed.
In Canada, job creation has been spurred on by the vitality of
our small business industry since 1992. That is why FORD-Q is
committed to creating the conditions required for this industry
to remain the driving force of economic growth. In a word, we
can say-
The Speaker: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon.
member. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine has the
floor.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to remind members of the House that May
was Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Month.
Multiple sclerosis, or MS, is a degenerative disease that
affects the central nervous system. An estimated 50,000
Canadians suffer from this disease, one of the highest
prevalence rates in the world. There is presently no known cure.
Research into finding a cure and better treatments for patients
with MS is ongoing. Health Canada has contributed research
dollars to help improve the lives of MS sufferers. However,
there is still much work to be done.
During the month of May, volunteers from the Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Canada were out in our communities selling
fresh carnations to raise money for research and support
services for those affected by MS. As in previous years, the
Multiple Sclerosis Society hopes to raise $2 million throughout
the carnation campaign.
Of course the success of this campaign depends greatly on the
involvement of volunteers. To recognize their contribution this
year's campaign slogan was ``volunteers can work wonders''. I
salute the many Canadians who contributed their time.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec minister responsible for restructuring just released a
fifth study, this time on the human development index, its
concept and its use.
The author of the study tends to show that a sovereign Quebec
would have the required potential to develop further and that its
quality of life could even be better than that of Canada.
We really wonder how the minister can attach any value to a
study whose main conclusions, as the author himself admits,
13044
were reached by deliberately changing the criteria used
internationally to determine the human development index.
The PQ minister can release all the studies he wants;
Quebecers will never forget that Canada is still the best country
in the world.
The minister should stop wasting taxpayers' money on studies
which do not serve their interests at all.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the harassment campaign conducted by CSIS against
Pierre Laberge and his wife since Mr. Laberge declared his
support for Quebec's sovereignty is scandalous. Worse still is
the fact that the government and the Prime Minister condone
this witch hunt.
The reason the government is letting the situation with the
SIRC deteriorate is now clear. Indeed, the Security Intelligence
Review Committee currently has only two active members,
instead of the five provided for in the legislation.
The basic freedoms of Quebec sovereignists are jeopardized
by the actions of CSIS and the laxness of this government. The
Bloc Quebecois demands that the next SIRC appointment be
made in close co-operation with the official opposition, so as to
protect the freedom of speech of every citizen.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are talking about broken promises and one of them is
on page 92 of the red book which says: ``In the House of
Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in
drafting legislation through House of Commons committees''.
Is it true? Well, let us have a look.
On Bill C-68, the government invoked closure at second
reading, limited the number of witnesses and refused to give
time for legislative counsel to draft amendments.
On Bill C-64, only four witnesses out of the 50 who gave
testimony came from a list submitted by Reform. Reform MPs
were not allowed to submit amendments in the language of their
choice. They were refused the right to speak to some clauses due
to a time allocation of five minutes per clause.
On the MP pension bill, only expert witnesses are allowed to
testify. MPs and ordinary Canadians are shut out.
These arrogant actions by the Liberals make a sham of an
MP's role in drafting legislation. This is another example of how
the red book promises are being broken, one after the other.
* * *
(1415 )
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the people of Ontario prepare to vote next
Thursday they are discovering where their provincial leaders
stand on the issues.
Recently on employment equity and disabled persons
Conservative leader Mike Harris is quoted as saying:
Now here is a disabled person only 50 per cent as good as an able bodied
worker, but you must hire them and you must pay them as much as an able
bodied person.
To make such uninformed statements of the disabled person's
ability to compete is totally unacceptable.
Liberals have always brought out the best in every Canadian.
We have always celebrated and encouraged what every member
can contribute to society. People with disabilities deserve better
than this. The common sense revolution only appears to be for
the strong, the powerful and the fit, but above all it lacks
common sense.
_____________________________________________
13044
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, although he claims he will redefine the mandate of
our peacekeepers in Bosnia, the Prime Minister has clearly
indicated that his government does not intend to send additional
support in terms of logistics and equipment. Meanwhile, the
situation is deteriorating following a refusal by Bosnian Serbs to
allow the Red Cross to visit the hostages and now that the
Canadian government has no direct contact with Captain Ryan
Lapalm, who is being held in Sarajevo.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
How can the government expect to be taken seriously when it
says it wants to redefine the mandate of our peacekeepers in
Bosnia but at the same time refuses to send adequate equipment
like France and Great Britain?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first on
the question of Captain Lapalm, it is true that we have had no
13045
direct contact with him for the last number of days. We have
heard indirectly from our sources in Sarajevo that he is okay. We
are trying to confirm this and we are trying to work through third
parties such as the Red Cross to ascertain his true condition.
With respect to Captain Rechner, I dealt with that yesterday.
There has been no change. There has been no change with the
other people who have been detained and held hostage in Ilijas.
With respect to the question of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, I think we have made our position quite clear. There
is no requirement at this time to send additional Canadian
forces. None have been sought by the United Nations.
I should point out that the secretary-general of the UN a few
moments ago called for the gradual reduction or scaling down of
the UNPROFOR mandate so that it could be reprofiled in a way
to carry out those tasks that it could best be suited to carry out.
This mirrors the position that has been taken not only by Canada
but by many of our allies.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister just referred to an important statement
from UN headquarters. We know that Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali has proposed scaling down the number of troops
while at the same time redeploying on site resources.
I want to ask the minister what the Canadian government's
position is, and perhaps he could tell us, not about what other
countries think and do and the meetings that will take place but
about what the Canadian government thinks and what it intends
to do.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
secretary-general flatly rejected a withdrawal from Bosnia, as
has been advocated by some. He flatly rejected the status quo.
He is talking about a redefinition of the UNPROFOR mandate in
that country, and that is the position of Canada.
As to how we do it, that will become evident in the next few
days. As the House will know, my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, is meeting today with his counterparts. A
meeting has been called by the Prime Minister of France for
defence ministers on Saturday. I shall represent Canada there
with the chief of defence staff. We will try to see how we can
adapt our positions into a common front to deal with what I think
is the emerging consensus, one that we enunciated in the House
in the last few days, that the UNPROFOR mandate is still valid.
It can still work, but there has to be some reshaping or redefining
of the mandate to lessen the exposure for the troops that are
concerned.
(1420)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is of course the very delicate matter of
deciding whether to send more troops. I realize the government
wishes to tread very carefully in this respect. However, there is
also the matter of adequate equipment. We know that on a
number of occasions, Canadian soldiers have mentioned the
problems they had due to inadequate equipment.
I want to ask the minister whether he would agree that any
delay by the government in sending our troops adequate
equipment will expose them to further hostage taking?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot of
the charges about equipment are simply charges that no longer
bear reality. Whether it is helmets, reinforced flak jackets for
the very difficult situations, reinforced turrets of our M-113
armoured personnel carriers and other equipment including very
modern machine guns, we believe the troops in the last number
of months have been given additional resources that give them
better protection for more dangerous situations.
That does not mean to say that we cannot improve that
equipment. However, with respect to sending heavy armour,
artillery and all of the rest of the paraphernalia of a greater
entwining in a conflict over there, that is something that is not
part of the government's agenda at this time. It may very well be
part of the government's agenda should there be an eventual
withdrawal, but that withdrawal would have to be
all-encompassing, requested by the UN and discharged by
NATO. At that time we will be prepared to add additional
resources to effect the evacuation of Bosnia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A CBC program reported that, in addition to spending
donations from the public extravagantly, the $300,000 that Care
Canada raised in its campaign to relieve hunger in Somalia
never made it to its destination. Given the seriousness of the
allegations and Ottawa's financial support of Care Canada, the
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa has announced
the government's intention to investigate this agency.
Ottawa funded Care Canada to the tune of $28 million in
1993. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether
the federal government's grants to Care Canada, especially its
13046
contribution to the campaign for Somalia, were really used for
their intended purpose?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to my colleague's question.
The CBC program last night made very serious allegations
against Care Canada, but I should like to say at the beginning
that those are allegations and not facts. We have to make sure
that we make that distinction.
CIDA carries on a regular program of auditing of all agencies
that it has contracts with and which it funds. It has done that with
Care Canada and has found that all the funds provided to Care
Canada in whatever program were used properly as indicated
through contracts.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the federal government's financial commitments to
Care Canada, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to suspend
all federal grants to this agency until the announced
investigation gets to the bottom of the troubling allegations
against Care Canada?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA currently has ongoing
contracts with Care. As I said before, we have no reason
according to our audits to say that it is using its funds in any but
the best way.
On the other hand, we have very serious concerns about the
allegations that have been made. CIDA is immediately starting
its own investigation of the agency as an institution. That will
include a review of the allegations that have been made.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Canadian
peacekeepers were not in the former Yugoslavia to make war
with anybody. Unfortunately that view is not shared by the
Bosnian Serbs.
They have declared the 320 UN hostages, including 55
Canadians, to be prisoners of war. They have declared that all
agreements with the United Nations are null and void.
(1425 )
In response, NATO is calling on the UN to beef up its mandate
and the contact group is asking for the power to aggressively
attack the warring factions. The UN is at the brink of a
protracted war with the Bosnian Serbs.
Will the government today formally acknowledge that the
peacekeeping mission in Bosnia is over and that our soldiers are
now being asked to play an aggressive peacemaking role in that
region?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we
have here is a question of semantics. Peacekeeping in the
traditional sense has rarely been followed in both Croatia and
Bosnia. It was not followed in Somalia. These are not traditional
peacekeeping situations, but we all refer to them in the generic
sense as peacekeeping because that terminology developed by
former Prime Minister Pearson is an accepted role for the
international forces.
The Government of Canada does not accept the notion that the
mandate of the United Nations in Bosnia is invalid. We feel it
can still work and we feel it can work with a modification of the
mandate in a number of areas. I outlined them in a speech the
other night and the leader of the Reform Party heard them.
We feel that the United Nations, the world community, has so
much at stake that we should do all possible to ensure that a
reformulated, redirected mandate can be discharged.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not arguing about semantics but about the
substance of the situation.
The major NATO allies are deploying reinforcements in the
Balkans. The secretary-general of the United Nations is
proposing to change the mandate and UN soldiers are being
asked to play a more aggressive role in that part of the country.
Our peacekeepers have become peace enforcers, a role which
goes against the original mandate and for which they are not
properly equipped.
Given that our role is changing, no matter what words the
minister wishes to use to describe it, and that the lives of
Canadian soldiers are being placed at greater risk, will the
government now demand a place for Canada in the UN decision
making contact group?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
contact group is not a UN sponsored organization. It is a group
of nations largely European-it includes Russia and the United
States-that have come together and have tried to effect a
solution. We have made our position clear that we would have
preferred to have been part of that group.
As I said the other night, we have to look forward and not look
back. As a result of some of the comments that have been made
by our Prime Minister with respect to the specific issue, it has
been agreed over the last number of months to expand the
consultative process among troop contributors, of which Canada
is a significant player. That will mean we will have even more
13047
consultations, including the meeting I have just described that
will take place in Paris on Saturday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians do not just want to be consulted. Canadians
want to have a say in key decisions that affect the lives of the
forces in Bosnia. Canada invented peacekeeping. We have been
major players in every key UN peacekeeping mission. Our
soldiers have taken on some of the most dangerous assignments
in the former Yugoslavia.
The fact that Canada has no real decision making position in
actions that have a direct impact on our soldiers is completely
unacceptable to the House and the Canadian people.
If the government is insisting on staying in Bosnia, a decision
with which we profoundly disagree, will the minister at least
insist on membership in the contact group as a condition for
remaining?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without
getting too much involved, the answer to the specific question is
no.
We have a forum that has worked well in the last few months
and is expanding and will meet again on Saturday. It is the troop
contributing nations.
(1430 )
I have been at other meetings of this group in the past number
of months. It will be a decision making body; it is a decision
making body.
The hon. member quibbles about having a say not meaning
consultation. We will be having a say, we are having a say. He
obviously does not remember that when it came to the question
of application of NATO air power Canada was very much in the
forefront not just in consultation but as part of the decision
making process and withheld approval until many of our key
concerns were met. Those concerns were valid then, they are
valid now and they will be valid in the weeks to come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is also
responsible for regional development in Quebec.
The federal government is preparing to review all of its
regional development activities. In the future, the Federal
Office of Regional Development will concentrate its activities
on a single program focussed on small and medium businesses
cutting its aid budgets by 60 per cent at the same time. With Bill
C-91 on the federal bank, Ottawa intends to sign agreements
directly with agencies that are under Quebec's jurisdiction.
How can the minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec talk of harmonizing federal and provincial action, when
he is preparing, with Bill C-91 among others, to intervene,
indeed to act as the representative of Quebec regional
development agencies over the head of the Quebec government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member does not understand this bill at all. It
establishes a new mandate for the Federal Business
Development Bank, among other things.
I can tell the hon. member that the excellent co-operation
between the bank and the federal regional development agencies
will help small and medium businesses throughout Canada,
particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as I pointed out in this House, we can see that the real person
responsible for regional development in Quebec is the minister
from Ontario.
As Quebec is increasingly decentralizing and regionalizing,
are we to understand, with the establishment of a new mandate
linking the federal office and the Federal Business Development
Bank, that the minister, through the ever popular flexible
federalism the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred to
yesterday, is setting up a central Canadian agency to increase
overlap and duplication and to attack Quebec's regional
development policy head on?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that the
question of the hon. member, whom I hold in high regard, is
completely absurd.
Let me begin by saying that, when a question concerns the
Federal Business Development Bank, it is directed to the
minister, and this is why he responded. When a question
concerns regional development, that is the federal development
office, I am happy to reply.
First, I am pleased to say that we asked Quebec whether it
wanted to align itself with our policies, and we are awaiting its
reply. The ball is now in Quebec's court.
Second, we adjusted our operations to the requests of local
authorities.
Third, at the annual conference held by the Université de
Chicoutimi in Quebec City two weeks ago, the provincial
government was asked to do exactly what we are now doing at
the federal level. So the hon. member should listen to what his
fellow Quebecers are saying.
13048
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals in the red book promised to wipe out patronage
appointments and bring integrity to government. Word now
comes from British Columbia that at least three legal firms with
no previous prosecution experience have been awarded standing
contracts to act on behalf of the crown in putting criminals
behind bars.
(1435 )
Since the government is so fond of citing the merit principle
whenever it becomes clear we are really talking about the
patronage principle, could the Minister of Justice explain the
merit in handing over the responsibility for prosecuting
criminals to law firms with absolutely no experience in that
field?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer a question when we do
not know what the case was and we do not know who the law
firms were. All we know is there was work supplied by the
Department of Justice.
Contracts by the Department of Justice are given very
carefully with a great deal of forethought, and all the firms with
which the Department of Justice does business are very
competent in the field in which they are to be working.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary might be interested that all three law
firms in question have absolute Liberal pedigrees.
The law firm partner James Hutchison happens to be the
president of the revenue minister's Victoria riding association.
Another contract was given to David Mulroney who happens to
be the vice-president of the minister's Liberal association.
In light of the Liberals' promise to wipe out patronage
appointments and bring integrity to government, why has the
justice department failed to deliver on this important promise?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is saying that because the
Liberal Party was able to associate itself with very competent
people during the election campaign and so many throughout
Canada, as the popular vote would indicate, there will be quite a
few of them who are Liberals.
That person is a Liberal certainly does not discount them from
being a capable lawyer. If we were to discount all the capable
lawyers who are Liberals we would have a difficult time in
awarding contracts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In reply to the question I asked him on May 18, the minister
said that the sale of CN would be conducted in the best interests
of taxpayers. But, this morning, it has come to light that, in the
sole interest of reducing CN's debt, Ottawa will be sinking
anywhere from $400 to $600 million into the purchase of CN
buildings for which taxpayers have already paid.
How can the Minister of Transport claim that the government
is acting in the Canadian public's best interests by acquiring CN
property, when the sole purpose of this operation is to meet the
liquidator's condition that CN's debt be artificially reduced to
make its balance sheet more attractive, to-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I am finding today's
questions somewhat long and would ask you to be a little briefer.
The Minister of Transport has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of the commercialization of CN is very
complex.
I know the hon. member has had the opportunity to sit in
committee and listen to people we consider to be as expert in this
area as anyone in the country, who try to explain the need to
provide an opportunity for CN to be sold in a viable way, to elicit
enough investment interest to carry the issue to be put out this
fall, but also to allow it to continue to compete on an equitable
footing with Canadian Pacific.
The hon. member knows representatives of the competitor of
CN, CP, have gone before the committee and explained they
understand the need to have a reasonable debt-equity ratio, that
we have to qualify for a triple B bond rating in order to raise
funds on the investment market to operate CN and provide
money for the acquisition.
(1440)
I know it is a complex piece of business. I can only encourage
the hon. member to take the word of the Minister of Transport
and the government and also to listen to the people who
understand the business principles involved in the
commercialization of CN. It is in the best interest of taxpayers,
the best interest of shippers and the best interest of competition
that we are trying to do the best job we can.
13049
Even the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail agree that on
this one we are doing a fairly good job.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's answer in fact confirms that the
government is reducing CN's debt to lure buyers, American
buyers for example.
Now for my brief question. Will the minister acknowledge
that taxpayers are going to have to pay not between $400 to $600
million in the effort to privatize CN, but as much as $1 billion,
and that this public support of $1 billion is nothing less than an
indirect subsidy Ottawa will be offering to the future owners of
CN?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a fundamental question that has to be addressed by all
members of the House of Commons as we deal with the
commercialization of CN is whether members want to do it.
We can address all the theoretical questions. We can discuss
whether the deal is absolutely perfect or whether the taxpayers
of Canada will get an absolute best value on every aspect of the
deal.
The Bloc Quebecois will have to decide whether it wants to
support the commercialization and the privatization of CN. If it
does, we will listen to its recommendations as to how we can do
it well. However, if it does not want to do it, if it just wants to
carp about it, it should simply oppose it and not try to deal with
issues it obviously has no understanding of whatever.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1988
Georges Clermont, then vice-president responsible for real
estate at Canada Post and now the president of Canada Post, was
at the Hotel Ritz in Barcelona, Spain. His bill was paid for by
none other than José Perez, the developer of the Canada Post
headquarters complex in Ottawa. Mr. Clermont has admitted
this payment under oath.
Is this now sufficient evidence for the Prime Minister to
finally allow an ethics counsellor investigation or must we wait
until even more damning evidence is made public?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quite clearly
the government is not willing to face up to issues of ethics which
are hounding it.
It seems clear to me there is now considerable evidence there
is more than a casual acquaintance between Mr. Perez and Mr.
Clermont. Canadians have a right to know the extent of this
symbiotic relationship.
If there will not be an independent investigation, why not?
What is the explanation to the Canadian people?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
takes an allegation to the floor of the House of Commons.
The hon. member will be aware the subject matter is under
investigation. It would be most inappropriate for a minister of
the crown to comment on that.
The hon. member had an opportunity on a previous occasion
before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to
put questions he deemed appropriate and sufficiently important
to the president of Canada Post Corporation.
If the hon. member has evidence of those allegations, I would
be happy to forward those to the appropriate individuals. This
activity took place a considerable time ago and is presently
being investigated by the proper authorities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In an internal memo dated May 11 and addressed to
employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC
president Perrin Beatty announced that the McKinsey firm
would be asked to examine the operations of the CBC. The
memo also announced that as part of its planning strategy, the
CBC expected to cut a total of $350 million over three years,
although the reports of the Canadian Heritage committee and the
Juneau committee have not yet been released.
(1445)
Could the minister confirm whether the $350 million
mentioned in Mr. Beatty's memo is the same amount that was
announced by his deputy minister, Mr. Rochon, to former
president Manera before the last budget?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the president of the CBC made it very clear
that his budgetary framework was the same one established in
the government's latest budget. If the hon. member read what it
said in the budget, she would have the answer to her question.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister keep denying the extent of the cuts at the CBC
13050
over the next three years, when the board of directors of the
corporation is about to implement these cutbacks by hiring an
outside firm to find ways to cut and slash services at the CBC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely biased interpretation of
what is being done by the CBC board of directors. It is not the
first time we have heard such interpretations. The board of
directors of the CBC is looking for the best possible advice on
how the CBC can be made more efficient to deal with the
challenges of the information highway.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last summer, the Government of Canada announced that 26
departments and agencies would be required to prepare action
plans for promoting the development of Canada's minority
language communities in accordance with sections 41 and 42 of
the Official Languages Act.
Can the minister tell us today what measures he will take to
ensure that the 26 departments and agencies in question submit
their plans before the deadline, that is, before the end of next
month?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's very relevant question gives
me an opportunity to inform the members of this House-those
who are interested in getting information, of course-that the
Department of Canadian Heritage has already received half the
proposed action and business plans from these departments and
agencies and expects to officially receive all remaining plans by
June 30, as requested. Furthermore, the 26 organizations
concerned have designated co-ordinators in both Ottawa and
elsewhere in the country-for organizations represented outside
Ottawa-to ensure that plans are developed properly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first question about one of many, many
broken Liberal promises. It concerns the government's promise
to replace the GST with a system that, among other things, is
fairer to consumers. The Deputy Prime Minister promised to
resign if such a replacement was not completed within one year
after the election.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why has the
government failed to deliver on this promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
needs no incentive to repair the damage created by the GST, but
if we did I can think of no greater incentive than to keep the
Deputy Prime Minister in place.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers always knew that there exists no GST
replacement that quoting from the red book ``raises equivalent
revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business and
minimizes disruption to small business''. There is not one
replacement that could be created within one year.
(1450 )
My question is also to the Minister of Finance. Is this broken
promise symptomatic of Liberal incompetence, or is it a sign of
Liberal willingness to promise almost anything in order to get
elected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the
member's citation at the beginning, I will take that as a
representation from the Reform Party that we keep the GST as
is.
However, it is with profound regret that I say to my colleague
that as in many other things we are not going to accept the
Reform Party's representation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In another memo dated May 23, the CEO of the CBC informed
his employees that 1,000 positions would be cut by September
1995 and that 350 employees would be laid off in the short term.
Mr. Beatty added that the exact number of positions to be cut
in the various facilities remained to be determined, since
management plans had not yet been approved by the resources
planning and allocation committee.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize how anxious
the French network staff, particularly in Quebec, are about the
decisions this committee is about to make, given that
francophones are a very small minority on this committee?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained time and time again in this
House that we have several initiatives under way which should
lead to fundamental decisions being taken concerning the CBC.
13051
There is, for instance, the heritage committee, which will
hopefully table a report in a few days, a few weeks at most.
There is also a task force reviewing mandates. It is quite normal
for the president of the CBC to care about the restructuring that
his house, so to speak, is about to undergo in order to make it
more effective.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that the budget for the CBC's French network is 40 per cent
lower than that of the English network, in spite of similar
viewership, does the minister undertake to direct the board of
directors of the CBC to spare the French network?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will do much more than
issue directives. It will implement policy in due time, and I have
just said when that would be, when we have in hand the reports
we requested.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the President of the Treasury Board.
I want to first congratulate the minister and the leader of the
public service union on reaching an agreement to work together
on managing downsizing of the public service.
For all of us who are concerned about the future of the public
service and about the tens of thousands of employees who are
worried about their jobs, I wonder if the minister would explain
exactly how this agreement will help those affected by
downsizing and how it will improve relations with the
employees and unions.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I signed a joint agreement with union leaders
that will provide for joint adjustment committees to assist
employees who are leaving the public service as a result of the
downsizing that is taking place. This is in order to help them find
alternate jobs. This will provide transition support services. For
example, one such committee here in Ottawa next week is
providing a job fair for a number of people who will be leaving
the public service. So these joint management and union
committees right across the country will assist on a regional,
local, and departmental basis to help the people who are being
displaced by downsizing to find new jobs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
According to the auditor general, in the next 30 years, it will
cost $9 billion to safely dispose of the mountains of high-level
radioactive waste mainly caused by electric power companies
such as Ontario Hydro.
(1455)
The federal government has already subsidized the
development of these companies to the tune of $370 million,
without devising safe ways and sites to dispose of such waste.
How can the Minister of the Environment justify that
Canadian taxpayers are currently subsidizing Ontario Hydro to
get rid of its nuclear waste, which accounts for close to 90 per
cent of all such waste in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, The hon. member is right that the auditor
general quite rightly identified that we have a long term
radioactive waste disposal problem in the country.
The government is working on the problem. In March I went
to my cabinet colleagues with a long term strategy to deal with
the problem and I will return to cabinet in November with a
timetable and with cost estimates as to how we will proceed in
the future to deal with the nuclear waste problem in the country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
investing hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the construction
of Ontario Hydro's nuclear power plants, how can the Minister
of the Environment now guarantee that she will not ask
Canadians across the country to absorb the costs of an operation
which is Ontario Hydro's sole responsibility, while the federal
government never invested Canadian taxpayers' money in
Hydro-Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I should make something very plain
here. When I talk about developing a plan to deal with long term
costs for radioactive waste disposal, I am talking about historic
waste.
The hon. member is quite right that various utilities across the
country generate energy through nuclear power and they are
responsible for the disposal of those wastes. We operate on the
basis of a polluter pay principle and we as a government are
13052
working closely with those utilities to develop the safest and
most cost-effective disposal mechanisms.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 27, the Indians of the Upper
Nicola Band erected barricades and dug trenches on the Douglas
Lake Ranch road. The RCMP were met with threats of violence
when they served a court injunction to remove the illegal
blockade.
What action has the government taken to stop this illegal
roadblock?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the
off reserve nature of the dispute makes it a provincial matter. I
understand that it is being addressed by the relevant parties.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982
state in section 24 that the federal government has a statutory
responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
Clearly this is a federal government responsibility. These people
are breaking the law.
Will the government desert the people of my riding, as it has
done before, or will the government cut off the funding to the
Upper Nicola Band until it removes the roadblocks?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said that these people are
breaking the law. I did not get the first part of the question. I was
not sure whether he meant the people who own the Douglas Lake
cattle company are breaking the law or the aboriginal people are
breaking the law.
However, if requested by the First Nations and the province,
my departmental officials would be prepared to assist in
resolving the dispute.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, regarding the same
issue of the Upper Nicola Band.
(1500 )
The matter of grievance is definitely in the federal area of
responsibility. A major confrontation is taking place. Nearly
200 First Nations people are on site this afternoon. There is
bound to be violence on that blockade if action is not taken.
Will the parliamentary secretary ask the minister to involve
himself personally, go out to the site and attempt to resolve these
critical issues before violence occurs?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I just responded to the previous question. I am
sure we are all aware of the potential for an accident and that
cooler heads should prevail on this issue. If requested the
minister will be prepared to meet, but only if requested by the
First Nations, the province and the others involved.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As there is an upcoming NAFO meeting in Toronto, can the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provide the House with any
new information on the status of the enforcement and quota
measures that were agreed to in April? Could he also tell us what
Canada's position will be at this meeting?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and for
her interest in the NAFO meeting in Toronto next week.
At this meeting all of the NAFO member states will consider
the enforcement provisions contained within the Canada-EU
enforcement agreement. It is our hope, indeed our desire, that
the provisions contained in the agreement will be endorsed by
members of NAFO.
I spoke as recently as yesterday to the ministers of fisheries
from Norway and Iceland. My officials have spoken with
representatives of other countries to ensure good strong support
for these measures.
The current status of the agreement is that we have 100 per
cent observer coverage working quite well offshore.
13053
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
were two parts to the economic plan outlined in the red book.
The first was to get our finances under control and the second
was to stimulate job creation.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. We have been bold
in setting targets for reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP.
Why is there no target for a reduction in the level of
unemployment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member does
not ask easy questions.
Canada, like many other countries, is undergoing a
fundamental revolution in the job market. That is why the
government is acting as it is with its reforms in employability by
HRD, in research and development, in industry. It is why the
access to capital for small business is so important.
All of these are in the area where one sets the climate for the
private sector. Therefore the questions that arise are: Should
government be setting targets in areas where it does not have at
least as much control as it should over the public finances? What
about the kinds of jobs, part time or full time? What about the
problem of the working poor, which is almost as important?
These are questions I believe have to be addressed within the
context of the member's question.
The real answer is that no level of unemployment is
acceptable.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Baroness Brigstocke, the
Conservative whip of the House of Lords of Britain.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13053
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages
and pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's
response to four petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 81(4), I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee
on Industry concerning the order of reference dated Tuesday,
February 28, 1995 relating to the main estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1996.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and
the Status of Disabled Persons.
The committee has considered vote 15 under justice in the
main estimates ending the fiscal year March 31, 1996 and now
reports the same.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report
of the Standing Committee of Finance on votes 1, 5 and 10 under
national revenue in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1996.
May I thank the members from all parties for their splendid
co-operation and constructive suggestions in our report.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. During the examination of the estimates of
the Department of National Revenue, I pointed out department
estimates on vote 1 were about $10 million higher than the
amount specified in the federal budget submitted in February.
The transcript will show the motion that: ``We approve the
estimates in principle, reconciling them with the budget'' was
passed unanimously. The motion to reconcile was ruled out of
order and is not reflected in the minutes being tabled today.
Because the department estimates of all departments are
printed before the finance minister presents his budget, we have
noted there will be discrepancies between ministry estimates
and the finance minister's dollar allocation to these ministries.
The solution might include Your Honour recommending to
the Minister of National Revenue that he submit a
reconciliation, as unanimously requested by committee
members. If this was taken as precedent, your ruling would take
a giant step to putting the members in charge of expenditures of
taxpayers' dollars.
13054
In summary, as a standard procedure when there is a
difference between estimates and the budget, a reconciliation
should be tabled by the minister when department estimates are
tabled by a standing committee.
The Speaker: The Chair is in an in between position here. It is
not for the Chair to make specific suggestions, but I wonder if
the hon. member might recommend that this request be made
through the committee itself when bringing in its report.
Second, perhaps this question could be brought up later on
when supply is discussed. However I do not believe it is the
position or the prerogative of the Chair to intervene on this and I
would decline to do so at this time.
(1510 )
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on Health, pursuant to
Standing Order 81(4) and 81(7), following consideration of the
evidence heard over the past month from the Minister of Health
and a number of her officials, as well as representatives from the
Medical Research Council, the Patent Medicine Price Review
Board and Hazardous Materials Information Review
Commission.
We are pleased to report the votes for the main estimates for
the year 1995-96.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table the eleventh report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 28,
1995, our committee has considered the budgetary vote for the
office of the auditor general in the main estimates and has
agreed to issue a report. The public accounts committee has
analyzed vote 35 under finance in the main estimates for the
1995-96 fiscal year and gives its unanimous consent.
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 79th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of the Standing Committee on the Environment
and Sustainable Development. With leave of the House, I intend
to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 80th report of
the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs. The
committee considered Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the
continuation of a certain provision, and has agreed to report it
without amendment.
I may say that due to the very persuasive testimony given by
the President of the Treasury Board, the committee adopted
every clause in the bill without amendment unanimously.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
I bring to the attention of the House that unanimous
agreement on Bill C-85 includes only the Liberal and Bloc
Quebecois members. Reform members did not agree with the
one-day fast tracking of Bill C-85, and refused to participate in
the 12-minute clause by clause.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the second and
third reports of the Standing Committee of National Defence
and Veterans Affairs, concerning the main estimates for
1995-96.
The Speaker: Forgive me, were you presenting the second
and third reports together?
Mr. Proud: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, regarding the information under the
heading ``Human Resources Development'' in the main
estimates for 1995-96.
The committee reviewed the main estimates and submits its
report without amendment.
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth
report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
for unanimous consent to withdraw my private bill, Bill C-308.
13055
(1515)
This bill is similar to Bill C-313 which was debated in this
House on May 19.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the 79th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which
was presented to the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition
signed by over 3,000 people from Halifax West and other areas
of Nova Scotia. The petitioners believe that all those who
commit crimes of a serious nature regardless of age should be
tried before the adult court system.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition on the negative effects of tobacco was commenced
during national non-smoking week 1995. Over 25,000 young
people and 40 youth organizations from across the country have
signed on.
Four representatives of this group are in the gallery today I am
told. They have met with leaders and representatives of all
federal parties, including the Deputy Prime Minister. These
young people recognize that the tobacco industry is targeting
young people. They are calling on all legislators to begin to
target this industry as its product continues to addict and
ultimately kill thousands of young Canadians.
[Translation]
This petition will have a profound effect on the welfare of our
young people.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions before me. The first is signed by 236 members of
my riding. It calls for Parliament to oppose any attempt to
include sexual orientation in the human rights act or the charter
of rights and freedoms. The petitioners feel such inclusion
would infringe on the historical rights of Canadians and I share
their views.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 342 people from my riding. It
concerns the subject of high risk offenders who commit personal
injury crimes.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact Bill C-240 and
future legislation that permits detention of high risk offenders
after the completion of their sentence. This measure is
suggested by the petitioners to lower the occurrence of personal
injury crimes committed by these individuals. I agree with the
petitioners.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition I have before me is signed by 670 members of my
riding. It has to do with firearms control.
These individuals ask Parliament to support legislation that
severely punishes all criminals who use firearms and commit
criminal act, supports the Criminal Code provisions that protect
the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms, and supports the repeal of legislation regarding
firearms that has not lowered crime, has not been cost effective
or is overly complex, making it inefficient or unenforceable.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to present another petition in this course of action
undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early
release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
These petitioners urge the government to enact legislation in
order to make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens and the
families of victims of convicted murderers.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to present two petitions. One has been sent to
me from Frankfort, Ontario and the other is from constituents of
mine.
These petitions come from two different provinces yet they
request the very same thing, that Parliament refrain from
implementing a more restrictive control of firearms that will
affect only law-abiding citizens.
(1520 )
They request that more effective prosecution and tougher
sentencing of criminals be carried out. The target for gun control
13056
laws in the Criminal Code of Canada must be the criminals who
are either a danger to the safety of the public or those who have
criminal intent, not law-abiding responsible firearm owners.
I thank all of those who signed the petition. I concur with their
sentiments.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is signed by 1,042 people from my constituency who are
very concerned about the sexual orientation phrase being
included in the charter of rights and freedoms. I concur with
their concern.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in my capacity as a member of Parliament, I am presenting five
petitions dealing with objections to changing various pieces of
federal legislation involving the extension of criteria in those
pieces of legislation.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I present a sixth petition which calls on Parliament to make it
impossible to use extreme drunkenness as a defence in any
criminal case. I am very pleased to present this petition.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I rise today to present
several petitions as requested by constituents of
Essex-Windsor from Amherstburg, Maidstone and La Salle,
Ontario regarding their views on sexual orientation in the
Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition
signed by a number of constituents from
Fredericton-York-Sunbury. They call on Parliament to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by hundreds of residents from throughout British Columbia and
particularly from Vancouver Island.
The petition draws to the attention of the House the fact that
the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from
terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the code to ensure
the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people
with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of
their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse and to
ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and
voluntary.
[Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NPD): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. First, a petition from women
across Canada concerning breast cancer. More than 5,400
Canadian women will die of breast cancer this year and about
19,000 new cases will be diagnosed.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge
the government to co-operate with the provinces and territories
on establishing centres of excellence in each of the provinces
and territories, to establish a national information and telephone
support service, and to provide the requisite basic funding for
support groups that help breast cancer patients.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is from constituents of mine from all communities in
Yukon.
These petitioners state that whereas there is no connection
between gun control legislation and a decrease in occurrence of
criminal activity. Whereas all handguns in Canada are required
by law to be registered, they feel that implementing more
restrictive firearms controls will affect only law-abiding
citizens and is unjustifiable. They feel that responsible
governments should follow more effective prosecution and
tougher sentencing of criminals.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise today to
present 343 petitions signed by 9,144 concerned Canadians
primarily from the province of Saskatchewan.
The petitioners protest the following provisions of Bill C-68:
the universal registration of long guns; the replacement of the
firearms acquisition certificate by a firearms possession
certificate; restrictions and controls on the purchase of
ammunition; provisions to ban the purchase and use of .25 and
.32 calibre handguns and handguns with a barrel length of under
4.14 inches; and regulation by orders in council.
(1525 )
These petitioners call on Parliament to refrain from passing
Bill C-68 as it presently stands with the above mentioned
provisions.
I will not go through all of these petitions because of the great
number of them.
13057
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present four petitions on behalf of 162 citizens,
many of whom are members of my constituency of
Trinity-Spadina.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to protect individuals
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On behalf of my constituents I humbly submit these petitions.
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of
constituents.
The first petition deals with palliative care and the
decriminalization of assisted suicide.
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with the rights of
grandparents.
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition deals with returning convicted
persons to jail.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition which has
been circulating across Canada. This particular petition comes
from the Cold Lake, Alberta area.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide
care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill, or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to present a petition on behalf of a few hundred
residents from Kamloops, Logan Lake, Fraser Lake, Endako,
Salmon Arm, Sorrento, Burns Lake, Fort Fraser, Prince George,
Vanderhoof, Vernon and Barrière.
The petitioners point out that the mining industry is a
mainstay of employment in over 150 communities across
Canada and is an important contributor to our country's gross
domestic product. Its total exports are a cornerstone of our
economic future. The petitioners simply point out to Parliament
that the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation has proposed a
10-point plan of action. They are asking the Government of
Canada to take action on these recommendations to ensure that
we rebuild Canada's mineral reserves.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition to present which has been signed by a number of
residents of the central interior of British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that Canadians, mainly women and
children, are becoming increasingly fearful of walking on our
streets and in our neighbourhoods. They believe that many
violent and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely, are
being released without proper treatment and rehabilitation, and
a whole number of other issues.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons and the
Minister of Justice take whatever steps are necessary to amend
Canada's Criminal Code and parole system to ensure that safety
and peace return to our neighbourhoods.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 176 will be answered today and I would
ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Text]
Question No. 176-Mr. Harper (Calgary west):
With regard to the multiple cheques issued by the government to
individuals within a short period of time, for example OAS, CPP, civil and
military service pensions, (a) what consideration has been given to combining
all of the cheques sent in a month to an individual into a single payment, (b)
how much does it cost to issue and mail each individual cheque and (c) has the
possibility of issuing a single cheque to married couples been considered?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib): Public Works and Government
Services Canada is continuously looking at ways of improving
service delivery and reducing the costs of cheque production
and distribution, from the consolidation of cheque processing
sites from 11 to 4, which will save $4.8 million annually after
implementation, to increased use of direct deposit.
13058
Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC,
issues payments on behalf of other program departments in the
amounts and according to the schedules determined by those
departments. Program departments determine individual
entitlement to benefits in accordance with the policy and
legislation governing specific programs. This process precludes
PWGSC from adding up the benefits under various programs
and issuing a single payment to an individual.
Should the department decide to consolidate various benefits
paid monthly into a single payment, individual program
departments would require legislative and policy changes for
their specific programs. Major changes would also be required
to the computer systems of program departments and PWGSC.
Public Works and Government Services Canada issues
approximately 193 million payments annually. Approximately
34 per cent are currently delivered electronically in the form of
direct deposit.
The average cost to issue a cheque, including production
costs, banking fees and postage, is approximately one dollar.
With the use of direct deposit significant savings are realized
through reduced postage and banking fees as well as reduced
cheque production costs. Direct deposit costs the government
only one cent in banking fees compared with 10 cents for each
paper transaction.
As another important step to streamline operations and reduce
costs, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
recently announced that direct deposit will become the
government's standard method of payment. This expansion of
the use of direct deposit is expected to save the government $18
million to $20 million annually by 1998-1999.
Program departments accord benefits in accordance with their
legislation. In cases where individuals are entitled to payments
based on individual characteristics separate payments must be
issued as there is no authority to treat a married couple as a
single beneficiary.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I am very pleased to lay
upon the table a document entitled, ``Access Today, 1995'', a
review of the initiatives taken by the House of Commons to
serve Canadians with disabilities.
_____________________________________________
13058
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-76, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 27, 1995, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The form of the ruling on the report
stage of Bill C-76 will depart from the manner normally used in
the House. Following consultations with representatives of the
House leaders' offices, it has been decided that whenever the
nature of the ruling is complex we will use a more simplified
form to explain to the House how report stage amendments will
be grouped and how the voting will proceed. We are doing this
for the sole purpose of demystifying, hopefully, the process.
(1530)
[Translation]
I propose to deliver in the House a short form of the ruling,
giving only the groupings of amendments for debate. Of course,
the entire ruling, including the voting patterns, is available to
you at the table. The Chair will inform the House of the patterns
for each group at the time those motions are to be voted on.
[English]
There are 78 motions in amendment standing in the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-76, an act to implement
certain provisions of the 1995 budget.
Motions Nos. 13, 15 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Group No. 1 is Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
[Translation]
Group No. 2 is Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17,
18, 19, and 74.
[English]
Group No. 3 is Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 75, 76, 77 and 78.
Group No. 4 is Motions Nos. 23 to 45. Group No. 5 is Motions
Nos. 46 to 63. Group No. 6 is Motions Nos. 64 to 67.
13059
[Translation]
Group No. 7 is Motions Nos. 68 to 73.
[English]
I would now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to members of
the House.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-76, in Clause 3, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 10, on page 3, with the following: ``of the program,'';
and: (b) by replacing line 17, on page 3, with the following: ``able job
offer, and
(iii) shall in no circumstances make a payment to a suplus employee who has
not performed any work.''
[Translation]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Finance and
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec), Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-76, in Clause 7, be amended in the French version, by replacing
lines 8 and 9, on page 7, with the following:
«ou à toute personne appartenant à l'administration publicque fédérale.»
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-76, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27, on
page 7, with the following:
``the employee, under a closed competition exclusively open to employees
declared surplus within the meaning of the Workforce Adjustment Directive
under the Public Sector Compensation Act, to another''.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-76, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 37, on page 7,
the following:
``(6) Under no circumstance shall the Commission appoint a participant in a
program designated by the Treasury Board as an employment equity program
to a position that could be occupied by a surplus employee within the meaning
of the Work Force Adjustment Directive under the Public Sector
Compensation Act.''
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to point out to the House
that on page XVIII of today's Notice Paper, Motion No. 4 in
English should be read as standing in the name of Mr. Speaker
(Lethbridge) and amending clause 8.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I thank you very
much for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-76 and the
amendments thereto.
I want to make general comments then some specific
comments with regard to the amendments.
With regard to the amendments before us that deal with public
service measures, we generally support the government's
decision to suspend the workforce adjustment directive and
eliminate some 45,000 positions in the public service. However,
we feel there are some concerns and because of that we have
moved Motions 1, 3 and 4.
With regard to our first motion, on clause 3, we are concerned
that some employees will be declared surplus and be paid for a
period of six months without doing any work. Officials have
confirmed to us that this would be possible with the way the bill
is written at the present time.
With regard to clause 8, we have concerns that the legislation
gives the Public Service Commission too much flexibility in
appointing surplus workers to jobs in other departments. We
would prefer that the appointments be subject to the competitive
process in order to prevent any type of favouritism, cronyism, or
unfair competition. We think the commission should be given
the power to hold a closed competition confined to surplus
employees only.
With regard to clause 8, we are concerned the employment
equity programs will be used to further the goals of employment
equity during this period of downsizing. As I recall, earlier in
this session the minister responsible for the public service
mentioned that this would be one of the criteria taken into
consideration. We feel that this could happen as a result of
people being appointed without competition to jobs that would
otherwise be occupied by surplus workers.
(1535 )
Those are the motions that will be looked at with regard to
that. My colleague, the critic who is responsible for that in terms
of the public service, will be making further comments on those
amendments to the House.
I think we have to understand the broader picture and the
reason for Bill C-76. Bill C-76 has as its purpose to deal with
the fiscal circumstances of Canada. It is to deal with the deficit
in some way.
We have to recognize that we have a very serious
circumstance. We have said this many times in this House. My
hon. colleague from Vancouver points out to me often that every
day we have a deficit of some $100 million between the revenue
that is available for us to take our responsibilities as a federal
government and the expenditures that take place on a daily
basis. That is $100 million a day in terms of a deficit. If we put
that over a one-year period we have the accumulated deficit of
this country, as projected in the current budget for 1995-96, of
some $32.7 billion.
13060
If we look at what has happened with regard to the public debt
charges during that period of time from 1994-95 to the budget of
1995-96, our debt charges in this country have increased from
some $42 billion to $50 billion. They have increased for two
very basic reasons. First, the deficit is not being dealt with by
this government. It continues to add on to the accumulated debt
of the country of some $550 billion today. This is heading
toward a major sum. From the government's own figures, it
points out that the net public debt by the end of 1995-96 will be
some $578 billion and by 1996-97 it is projected to be over $600
billion.
Because of that increased accumulated debt, the interest costs
to the Government of Canada continue to increase. This has a
major effect on the budget of Canada and the revenue available
to administer and take care of the responsibilities that have been
delegated to the federal government in this country.
That is certainly one of the factors, the fact that the deficit
continues to add to the accumulated debt and that larger
accumulated debt creates a larger base on which the interest
costs are enormous.
The second factor, which is very obvious to all of us, is the
increased interest costs that have occurred during the past year.
For example, in the United States the Federal Reserve Bank has
increased the interest rates over the last year seven times, and
every time the interest rates have increased in the United States
it has had a direct effect on the interest rates here in Canada.
Over the year, we have had an increase of 3 per cent in interest
rates, which has again affected the amount of interest we pay as
a government annually.
It is seriously affecting the programs that are to be delivered
by the federal government. I have already mentioned that for
1994-95 the cost of our debt charges from the cost of interest
was in the $42 billion range. Now in 1995-96 it is projected to be
$50 billion. We have had an additional $8 billion of interest
costs because of that 3 per cent interest rate increase and also the
larger base of debt in this country.
What has that done? It means that in order to try to deal with
the deficit we must in some way eliminate expenditures of some
$8 billion just to cancel that out. Well, that is not that easy to do.
The government has come up with certain measures. For
example, it has increased tax revenue by $1.5 billion to $2
billion. Well, that is only 25 per cent of the increased interest
costs. Where does the other $6 billion come from?
(1540)
The government has attempted through other means to secure
that expenditure reduction and at the same time in its budget is
attempting to reduce the cost of program spending from $118
billion down to $114 billion, a reduction of $4 billion.
If we could have maintained at least the base from which
interest is calculated, if we could have stopped the accumulation
of debt by eliminating the deficit, we would have had more
money to reduce the expenditures of government. There would
have been more confidence in the Canadian economy and the
interest rates would have been lower because we were balancing
the budget or we had a plan to balance the budget.
Missing from the budget is the fact that the Liberal
government has not put in place a plan to reduce the deficit from
the projected deficit in 1996-97 of $24.3 billion down to zero. It
is afraid to take the next step and say to Canadians we are going
to take the deficit to zero by this plan. The government is afraid
to stick its neck out and make that commitment to Canadians.
That is costing us billions of dollars in higher interest rates.
If we had at least held our interest costs in 1995-96 at $42
billion, where they were in 1994-95, rather than the increase of
$8 billion I have talked about, we would not have had to reduce
our expenditures by $4 billion. We would have had an extra $4
billion to work with. That is what the government should have
been looking at.
We can go through all these amendments and all the items we
are going to deal with in Bill C-76, but we must get back to the
basic problem we are facing. That is, the Government of Canada
has not declared to the people that it will balance the budget
during the term of this Parliament. It has not clearly said that,
and it is incumbent upon them to do so.
Moody's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service have told the
Government of Canada clearly: ``In order for us to give you a
better credit rating, which reflects on interest rates, you must
commit to a plan''.
As we go through these amendments we must keep in mind the
very first item on the agenda, which is dealing with the deficit
and stopping the growth of debt, which is destroying the
country.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with each of
these four amendments in turn, because they hit on some of the
essentials of what we are trying to do as a government to deal
with the public service.
I extend my thanks to the critics from the official opposition
and from the third party for their work in the finance committee
under the chairmanship of the member for Willowdale. I thought
it was an outstanding collegial example of how to deal with a
very difficult and major piece of legislation. I describe the
treatment of witnesses as exemplary by all members of
Parliament.
With regard to the first motion, I would like to clarify what the
intent of the legislation is. The surplus period is a notice period
that the employee's job will end in six months. By definition the
surplus employee will have a job for six months. I do not want
the amendment to leave the impression that there is a system set
13061
up where people will be sitting around for six months. It has
always been the practice of departments to plan their surplus
declarations in this manner.
(1545 )
There are some exceptions to this rule which should be
clarified. I can give an example of a military base closing prior
to the six month period. We consider it costly for the
government to transfer surplus employees to find jobs which
may only last a month or two. It is more practical to leave them
where they are until the six months have run out. In that case the
legislation will have to build in these rare exceptions.
Motion No. 2 is a technical change dealing with the wording
the drafters have which now has to be changed.
[Translation]
The motion reads as follows: ``That Bill C-76, in Clause 7, be
amended in the French version, by replacing lines 8 and 9, on
page 7, with the following: «ou à toute personne appartenant à
l'administration publique fédérale».''
[English]
The third motion by the member for Lethbridge deals with
clause 8. It appears the purpose of the amendment is to ensure
competent employees are retained through the exercise of
priority for surplus employees. Surplus employees are generally
highly competent and their employment is in jeopardy for
reasons beyond their control. The priority accorded to them
ensures these competent people are retained in the public
service and that the investment made in their training and
development is not lost. A surplus person must be determined
qualified in order to be appointed. It is not necessary to hold
competitions to ensure competent employees are retained.
Section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act which
establishes that employments are to be based on merit does not
require that these appointments be made by competition.
The purpose of clause 8 is to make it possible for deputy heads
to place their own surplus employees before having to consider
priorities from other departments. The intent is to allow
departmental restructuring and downsizing in a humane and
efficient way.
The delays involved in holding competitions lead to a longer
period of uncertainty which is destructive to morale. Further,
there are significantly greater costs involved in running
competitions rather than considering people on a
non-competitive basis.
While competitive processes may be seen as being fairer and
more transparent there are a number of reasons why other
considerations may be overriding in certain situations. For some
surplus employees there is a very limited period during which
they can be considered for the positions. If a competition had to
be run, especially national in scope, this period could be
exhaustive while the longer processes that would have been
involved in that competition have gone through.
The amendment is also not consistent with the other
provisions for priority entitlements in the act which provide for
appointments without competition in priority situations.
As drafted, the amendment creates internal inconsistencies
within the clause that would require redrafting. In particular, the
need to hold a competition is in conflict with the discretion
given to the public service commission to formulate an opinion
as to whether an employee is qualified.
The fourth motion presented by the member for Lethbridge is
also an amendment to clause 8. The effect of this amendment is
to remove the commission's current discretion under paragraph
35(2)(d) of the Public Service Employment Act to exclude
appointments made under employment equity programs from
the operation of the various sections of the act which give
priority entitlement.
Parliament chose two years ago through the Public Service
Reform Act to give the commission the discretion it now enjoys.
It also is currently considering amendments to the Employment
Equity Act which would give employment equity programs
more rather than less precedence in the public service. It is the
government's place to decide what emphasis it wishes to put on
these areas.
Although the commission has chosen not to exclude these
programs from consideration of priorities, this does not mean
there would not be times when this would not be the right thing
to do. The amendment would prevent the commission from
exercising this discretion in future where it considers it
necessary to achieve employment equity objectives.
In reality the effect of this amendment is to defeat the effort
made by the government for disadvantaged groups. This would
be a setback in that it would allow surplus priorities to be placed
ahead of disadvantaged group members. I know that would not
be the objective of this member who has had a long public career
and has been involved with disadvantaged groups in his home
province before coming to the federal scene.
(1550)
It is still the objective of the government to have the public
service reflect the demographic configuration of our society.
This motion would stall the effort we have all been making.
13062
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number of
things have already been said about the amendments to Bill
C-76. However, much remains to be said, and we fully intend to
do so in the days to come. I would now like to comment on the
motions being presented by our Reform Party colleagues.
The first motion says that a surplus employee who has not
performed any work should not receive any money. I am afraid
that if this amendment is passed, employees who lose their jobs
would no longer be eligible for severance pay. That would be
unfortunate, since severance pay is not intended as a gift to the
employee who loses his job. It is meant to compensate him for
the fact that he is penalized by the loss of his job. Severance pay
is also a reminder to the employer that there is a price to pay for
getting rid of a certain number of employees.
It would be too easy for the employer to say: I am going to cut
my staff and get rid of 25, 50, 100 or 200 employees, depending
on the size of the company. It would be too easy to be able to do
this with impunity, without having to compensate people who,
after all, are human and, in most cases, have dedicated a good
part of their lives to their employer.
Severance pay must be included, and under no condition
should we pass amendments that would allow the employer to
dispense with severance pay.
Motion No. 2 says that the text is to be amended by replacing
it with «à l'administration publique fédérale». The wording of
the bill is as follows: ``Any person authorized pursuant to
subsections (1) or (2) to exercise and perform any of the powers
and functions of the governor in council or the Treasury Board
may, subject to and in accordance with the authorization,
authorize any other person. . . who is part of the Public Service
of Canada-''
There are certain distinctions in the public service, and I am
afraid that other agencies that are part of the public service
might be excluded if this kind of amendment is passed, because
one is not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the public service
when one is part of the public service. The government still has
certain obligations to those employees.
As for Motion No. 3, there would seem to be a better case for
this amendment because it would oblige the government, when
it wants to replace a surplus employee, to offer the position
``under a closed competition exclusively open to employees
declared surplus within the meaning of the Workforce
Adjustment Directive under the Public Sector Compensation
Act, to another''.
Still referring to clause 8 of the bill, according to its present
wording, the Commission could, before the layoff becomes
effective and if it is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of
the Public Service to do so, appoint the employee, without
competition and in priority over all other persons, to another
position under the jurisdiction of the deputy head for which, in
the opinion of the Commission, the employee is qualified.
We believe that this particular wording gives the Commission
too much discretionary power and that the Commission should
be more strictly regulated.
(1555)
I think that the purpose of Motion No. 3 tabled by the hon.
member from the Reform Party is to require the commission,
whenever such a situation arises, to replace the employee by
way of a closed competition, not by a competition that would
bring another person into the system so that the number of
employees would rise again. No.
I think that the amendment is justified because it is aimed at
restricting the competition to public service employees declared
surplus. Instead of leaving these people without protection, in
case other jobs are ever created, this amendment gives them a
kind of recall priority. It would allow those already declared
surplus to be called back to work-after a competition, of
course-because the goal is to put people in positions for which
they are qualified. We think that a closed competition would be
more equitable to surplus employees and give much less
discretionary power to the commission.
Motion No. 4, which is also part of the first group, would
prevent the commission from appointing a person already
participating in a program designated by the Treasury Board as
an employment equity program. In other words, the commission
would be prohibited from appointing a participant in an
employment equity program to a position that could be occupied
by a surplus employee within the meaning of the work force
adjustment directive.
I think that we would be replacing one form of discrimination
by another, for example, in favour of employees who are already
protected as members of what we call visible minorities. It has
been agreed that visible minorities would be those minorities
currently recognized, that is to say persons with a disabilities,
aboriginal people, people of a different ethnic background or
non-white in colour, in a word those visible minorities the
legislation was intended to protect. But with an amendment such
as this one, we would be giving even more prominence to these
minorities by saying in essence: ``You guys will get to take the
place of employees who have been declared surplus.'' It is bad
enough for employees to be declared surplus and lose their jobs,
without making matters worse by discriminating against them,
in favour of a visible minority group that is already afforded a
certain degree of protection. Women are also considered a
visible minority under certain agreements.
13063
When employment equity and fairness to all is the goal, it is
not by penalizing one group of employees that the goal will be
achieved. That has just not happened. An employer who wants to
achieve employment equity in his business does not start laying
people off, only to replace them with a larger number of people
from a group described as a visible minority. What he does is
take advantage of jobs opening up to make adjustments, to
restore balance within the organization and attain some
stability, a certain degree of equity between various groups,
gender equity, wage equity, racial equity and equity between
people with disabilities and those who do not have disabilities.
That is how an employer can manage to meet modern standards,
decent standards of employment equity.
He does not tell an employee already penalized by a layoff:
``What a shame. We have an opening, but instead of rehiring
you, we will give the preference to an employee who already
enjoys some degree of protection as a member of a visible
minority''.
(1600)
All employees should be on an equal footing. I think that there
should be no exceptions when the time comes to recall
employees who may have lost their jobs prematurely.
I do not know how much time I have remaining. Do I have
time for a few more comments? I gather that your silence means
that I do, Mr. Speaker.
Based on the foregoing, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4. On the other hand, Motion No. 3
appears to be much more reasonable, seeking a form of equity at
work that is in line with our standards of sound human resources
management. We will therefore support Motion No. 3.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given me your undivided
attention. For the time being, those are the comments I had on
this bill.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that you will be listening just as religiously to my
arguments as I talk about Bill C-76, the Budget Implementation
Act.
It is a little unfortunate that at this late date we are discussing
the implementation of February's budget some months later. It
seems that as time passes and we get away from the budget
process the government is hoping people will forget about some
of the fiscal crises the country will still have to go through
because of some decisions taken and some decisions not taken in
last February's budget.
It is interesting how we get taken up with other issues in
Parliament when this overriding fiscal issue will drive the
agenda in the months and years to come whether or not we like
it. It is good to get to the fiscal issues.
I would like to speak specifically to the first group of
amendments to Bill C-76. I am most interested in Motions Nos.
1, 3 and 4 within the group. I remind all members that the first 10
clauses of Bill C-76 contain changes to the way we address the
public service and changes to the workforce adjustment
directive brought in by the government in the February budget.
These changes mark a breach of a very clear and explicit
promise by the Liberal government upon implementation of the
budget. On July 22, 1994 the President of the Treasury Board
wrote to the public service union. I think members opposite will
be very interested in what he said. I quote from the letter to the
public service union:
This government has stated in the past, and remains committed to the
principle, that the employment protection provisions in the workforce
adjustment directive will only be changed through negotiations.
We all know what happened in the February budget. Like so
many other Liberal promises, the promise to negotiate changes
to the workforce adjustment directive went by the wayside. The
government is now legislating change and the promise made by
the President of the Treasury Board on July 22 is no longer being
upheld.
We in this party have always said we felt the workforce
adjustment directive would have to be changed. We said that
consistently. We said there would be some layoffs in the public
service. We said that consistently. We did not change the story
after the election. We kept the same story with the same truth
from start to finish. It is unfortunate that the double tongued
Liberals have decided to change the directive after they
promised not to do so.
(1605 )
They should never have promised it in the first place. If they
knew they would not keep it, that they would not be able to do it
and that they would legislate it, they should have been honest
enough to say that up front. At least the Reform Party has been
consistent in its belief of what would have to happen to the
workforce adjustment directive. I remind the public service
unions and members opposite that the government has backed
out on another promise.
Another firm promise was made by the President of the
Treasury Board in the House with respect to Motion No. 1. He
promised that no public servant would be paid if he or she was
not doing work. The promise was made in response to reports
that this was happening in the public service. We tried to find out
more particulars, but it seems there are no reporting
requirements from departments to the Public Service
Commission on how many people are being paid to stay at home
or paid not to work under the workforce adjustment directive.
Unfortunately we cannot get exact numbers, but we extracted a
promise from
13064
the President of the Treasury Board that no one would be paid if
he or she were not working.
However, from the briefing departmental officials gave us on
the bill, we learned that there may in fact be a six-month period
when a public servant's position might be declared surplus.
Then the public servant would be paid for six months without
having a job to do.
The first amendment simply calls on the government to fulfil
the promise it made in the House which basically said that if a
person is not working he or she will not be paid. That is
something Canadians want and expect. Even public servants
recognize that obviously they cannot be paid if there is no work
to do.
The second motion I would like to speak to amends clause 8. It
would give power to the Public Service Commission to appoint
employees without competition. The last part of clause 8 reads
as follows:
-the Commission may, before the lay off becomes effective and if it is of
the opinion that it is in the best interests of the Public Service to do so,
appoint the employee, without competition and in priority to all other
persons, to another position under the jurisdiction of the deputy head for
which, in the opinion of the Commission, the employee is qualified.
We have some real problems with the power that provision
would give to the government. It flies in the face of the whole
idea of competition and merit in the public sector. Western
democracies have always depended on a series of checks and
balances. This is born out of a basic mistrust of government, an
attitude that says: ``We might think you are nice right now, but
we do not know what you will do later on if there are not checks
and balances in place, so we need to put those checks in there
while things are still smooth''. One of the reasons we have
opposition parties in the House of Commons is to provide
checks and balances.
Checks and balances are vital to the health of the country.
When we see that an opposition party, for example in some third
world country, is being mistreated by the government, we see
that democracy and the country in general are in trouble.
There are checks and balances in the system in Canada. One
check against nepotism, bribery and other forms of corruption in
government is the competitive process developed in Canada for
public service jobs. This means that people get jobs through
merit, not because they are someone's friend or they contributed
to someone's campaign or happen to know someone in an inner
sanctum somewhere. The process is open. It is fair. It means that
we get the best person for the job. That is what competitions do.
The selection process within the federal government is quite fair
for the most part. That is why I felt such a concern when I read
clause 8 of Bill C-76.
I realize we are in a period of flux in Canada following the
Budget Implementation Act. Departments are downsizing and
things are a bit chaotic. During this time of downsizing and
readjustment within the priorities of the departments, controls
and vigilance on the merit principle are perhaps not as strong as
usual. The clause as it stands now would empower the Public
Service Commission at this chaotic and stormy time to:
-appoint the employee, without competition-to another position under
the jurisdiction of the deputy head for which, in the opinion of the
Commission, the employee is qualified.
(1610)
This is a dangerous trend to get away from the merit principle.
Reformers believe that a system of checks and balances is the
only way to ensure that corruption is weeded out of the system
and that the competitive process is the check on errors in hiring
in the public service. It is missing because of this clause.
All sorts of irrelevant qualifications could be used here from
good friends of decision makers to relatives, to political friends
and so on, if it is just in the opinion of the deputy head that a
person should be appointed. We think that is wrong. The way the
clause reads now, a manager could use it to settle a score with
someone. He or she could use the clause as a tool to get back at
someone who has not been co-operative in the downsizing. At
any rate people can be appointed without consideration of merit
by using the clause.
We agree with the idea that the commission should be able to
appoint surplus employees to different departments because
during this time the government needs the flexibility to preserve
the best of our human resources. However to do it outside the
competitive process is a big mistake.
Our amendment would ensure that the Public Service
Commission still has the power to appoint employees, but it
would require that a competition be held among surplus
employees for the jobs across the public service. This would
ensure that the merit principle is preserved and would be fair
therefore to surplus employees. Even government members
would be able to support the amendment.
I have another motion I would like to talk to. Perhaps in the
next round of motions I will speak to a very important motion
about how employment equity is affected by the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be
voted on separately. The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
13065
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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I
need some clarification. I know that like motions are grouped,
but do we vote per motion or do we vote for the group of
motions?
The Deputy Speaker: It is very confusing. The member is
quite right. As I indicated earlier, we would vote on the four
motions individually. We voted on the first one and it was
defeated. We are now voting on Motion No. 2.
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 yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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:
(1615 )
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),
the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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),
the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
We now move to group No. 2, which includes Motions Nos. 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 74.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-76, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 11, on page 9,
with the following:
``12. Paragraph 47(b) of the National Transportation Act, 1987 is replaced''.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-76, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22, on
page 10, with the following:
``branch line or a segment of it than to continue to make payments under''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-76, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 7, on page
12, with the following:
``20. The portion of sub-section 178(1) of the Act after subparagraph
(b)(iii) is repealed.''
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Finance and
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 12
13066
That Bill C-76, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page 14,
with the following:
``subsequent crop year shall be determined by''.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-76, in Clause 21, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 6, on page 16, with the following:
``181.18 (1) During 1999, the Minister shall, in''; and
(b) by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page 16, with the following:
``and on the sharing of efficiency gains as between shippers and railway
companies.
(2) The Minister shall, as part of this review, determine (a) whether the
repeal of this Division and Schedules I, II and III will have a significant
adverse impact on shippers; and (b) whether this Division and Schedules I, II
and III should be repealed.
181.19 If the Minister determines, pursuant to paragraph 181.18 (2) (b),
that this Division and Schedules I, II and III should be repealed, then this
Division and those Schedules shall be repealed on a day to be fixed by order
of the Governor in Council.''
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Schedule I, on pages 39 to 45.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this series of
amendments to Bill C-76, more specifically to the part of the
bill which repeals the Western Grain Transportation Act and
which transfers, at least as regards that part of Bill C-76, the
railway line regulations to the National Transportation Act,
1987.
These amendments are tabled for a simple reason. We feel it is
unfair to apply a double standard when it comes to streamlining
railway operations in western and in eastern Canada.
Indeed, several sections of Bill C-76 seek to maintain western
lines used for grain transportation, for reasons of public interest.
In other words, under Bill C-76, a western line will be
maintained if it is deemed to be of public interest, even if it is
not cost effective, as long as it is used to transport grain.
However, the rules are different in eastern Canada, and that is
why we speak of a double standard. Indeed, at least until the
Minister of Transport tables appropriate legislation, some
branch lines and main lines are being closed in the east,
particularly in Quebec, based only on cost effectiveness. This is
why we say there is a double standard. In the west, railway lines
are being protected.
(1620)
But the east is passed over because it is not cost effective. Just
look at the double standard regarding the west: a huge
compensation package, literally huge, will be paid to western
producers to offset the decision to abolish the Western Grain
Transportation Act.
And when the federal government commits to paying $1.6
billion in tax-free compensation over the next three years to
prairie farmers because it is going to phase out the Crow rate, a
preferential rate, over a period of six years, that $1.6 billion
tax-free is really worth $2.2 billion.
The federal government did not compensate Quebec
industrial milk producers when it reduced dairy subsidies.
Neither did it compensate them when it announced, after GATT
negotiations, that it will be opening up our borders more and
more to foreign competitors. Quebec farmers were not
compensated when federal subsidies were cut here and there.
They were told: ``We are cutting, so deal with it''.
The federal government is asking all Canadians, all
Quebecers, to tighten their belts while it hacks away at the
unemployment insurance fund, social assistance transfers to the
provinces, post-secondary education and health, tax benefits for
seniors. For example, when the Minister of Finance's first
budget abolished the old age tax credit, it took $500 million out
of seniors' pockets. There is also the threat of cuts to old age
security. But, at the same time, the federal government' old
double standard comes into play: it is greasing the palms of
western producers, the ``cattlemen'', to the tune of a $2.2 billion
package to compensate for the gradual phasing-out of the
preferential rate for western grain transportation, which was
already loathsome in itself. There was no uproar from Reform
members regarding that move.
When subsidies are paid to their constituents, there are no
shouts of protest. Not a peep from the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound, who merrily keeps hitting at the
neediest in our society, day in, day out, and who even suggested
abolishing all social programs in Canada. There were no
protests from him when it was about subsidizing the people in
western Canada, the people he represents. It is perfectly proper
to pay billions of dollars to grain producers in the Prairies.
Yes, a double standard, because by getting rid of the Crow rate
and paying a subsidy of $2.2 billion, the government is upsetting
the balance achieved at the end of the last century, in 1897, when
this rate structure was introduced. It upsets the competitive
balance that developed over time between western grain
producers and eastern producers who are mainly involved in
meat and dairy production.
Although the gradual phasing out of the Crow rate destroys
this balance, there is no mention of compensation for eastern
producers. Not a word about compensation for farm producers in
Quebec. However, destroying this competitive balance will
13067
result in losses estimated at from 24 to 40 million dollars
annually, losses that Quebec farm producers will have to absorb.
The federal government, which has always applied a double
standard in the case of eastern farm producers and farm
producers in Quebec is not providing any compensation for
Quebec producers.
Negotiations between the federal government and Quebec
producers have just ended. Last week, I was told that what the
federal government offered was peanuts, a small amount that
might be paid at some time in the future, provided Quebec
producers keep quiet and do not condemn the inequities of this
system.
A double standard, because abolishing the Crow rate means
that local grain prices in western Canada will go down-not the
international price but the local price. This provides an
incentive for animal production.
(1625)
As the preferential rate is phased out and ultimately abolished
in 2001, western beef and pork producers are being given a
considerable competitive edge over Quebec producers. And on
top of this, as I said before, they are getting $2.2 billion in
federal funds, part of which, in fact 23.8 per cent, is paid for by
Quebec taxpayers.
And so federal subsidies are being given to western farmers,
subsidies paid for in part by Quebecers' taxes, enabling western
pork and beef producers to come and compete with Quebec
producers in their own market.
If this is fair federalism, what can unfair federalism be like? If
flexible federalism means looking only at the collapse of a
balance in the west and not looking at the other part of the
country, which is affected by a decision such as the one to
eliminate the WGTA and then compensate western farmers,
there is a serious problem here.
We would have preferred, and this is the thrust of our
amendments, first, that the Crow's Nest rate, the preferential
Crow's Nest rate, be eliminated immediately and not over the
next six years. The debate on this issue has been going on in
Canada since 1978. I was present at the first, the second and the
third debate, in different positions. Quebec's position has
remained unchanged: if the preferential Crow's Nest rate, which
has no equivalent in the east, is to be abolished, let us get on with
it. As for the producers, and here I agree with the Reform Party
on certain points, when they talk about areas other than those
they serve, they should be made competitive right away.
Why gradually reduce the Crow's Nest subsidy and why
gradually get around to increasing railway transport rates, when,
according to the Reform Party, all of the west should operate as a
free market system, efficiency driven and subsidy free?
They are engaging in double talk. When it suits them, they
oppose subsidies. When it does not suit them, because the
pressure in their ridings is too great, they say nothing. Look at
them. They have no amendment to eliminate the $2.2 million in
compensation to western grain farmers.
We in the official opposition would have preferred this rate
structure and the compensation to be dropped immediately,
because Quebecers and Canadians everywhere else are being
asked to tighten their belts. They are not getting any
compensation. There is no transition.
When the Minister of Finance decided to withdraw $2.5
billion from the unemployment insurance fund, he did so in one
shot, all at once. He said nothing about transition. He said
nothing about transition for the poorest families either, for those
who are the most disadvantaged whom we have deprived of their
only way out, through public housing, for example. He made no
mention of transition, the Minister of Finance. There was no talk
of spreading these decisions over five or six years.
It is outrageous that, for election purposes, the Liberals, who,
as we know, are not strong in the west, are offering gifts to
western voters and forgetting about voters in Quebec and the
rest of Canada in general.
I find this double talk, this talk of the extreme right, from
those beside us really distasteful in the context of subsidies to
the most disadvantaged to ease their misery. The Reform Party's
attitude toward our society's most disadvantaged is of the
extreme right, but when it comes to paying out $2.2 billion to
western producers, it becomes most conciliatory, nearly
socialist.
The thrust of our amendments is: let us get rid of the Crow
rate.
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at 12 motions
in group 2. I will explain the government motions and the
reasons for them and then return if time permits to some of the
motions being presented by the other parties.
(1630 )
The two motions being presented by the government are
Motions Nos. 12 and 14. In Motion No. 12 the Minister of
Finance is proposing that subsection 181.12(2) of the National
Transportation Act, as contained in clause 21, be amended so
that the agency will establish maximum regulated rates from
and after the 1996-97 crop year.
This motion, together with Motion No. 14, which I will
explain in a minute, will amend the NTA so that the maximum
regulated rate provisions will be retained beyond July 31, 2000
13068
as currently provided in Bill C-76. The motion is a
consequential amendment required as a result of the proposed
amendments to sections 181.18 and 181.19 as set out in Motion
No. 6.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Prairie Pools Inc.
both proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that the
review to be conducted by the Minister of Transport be
expanded to include whether efficiency gains are shared
between shippers and railroad companies.
In proposing this amendment and the amendment to section
181.18, the government is being responsive to the concerns of
farmers, as expressed widely throughout western Canada and by
many industry spokespeople. I compliment the minister for the
number of hours he spent with groups across the country making
sure that the bill is absolutely correct.
Many of these farmers ask that the Minister of Transport
conduct a review of the grain handling and transportation
system and whether efficiencies of the grain transportation
system are being shared by shippers and railroad companies
before moving to a deregulated system.
In Motion No. 14, the Minister of Finance is proposing that
the review conducted by the Minister of Transport pursuant to
subsection 181.18(1) be broadened to include whether
efficiency gains are being shared between shippers and railroad
companies.
Under subsection 181.18(2), the Minister of Transport will
also consider whether the repeal of the maximum regulated rate
provisions will have a significant impact on shippers and if
those provisions should be repealed.
Section 181.19 will be amended so that if the Minister of
Transport in conducting his review determines that the
maximum regulated rate provisions should be repealed, those
provisions will be repealed as of a date fixed by order of the
governor in council.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Prairie Pools Inc.
both proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that the
review to be conducted by the Minister of Transport be
expanded to include whether efficiency gains are shared
between shippers and railroad companies.
In proposing this amendment to section 181.18 the
government is being responsive to the concerns of farmers who
asked that this review be done. In addition, the Minister of
Transport in conducting his review in 1999 will take into
account the interests of both the railroad companies and the
shippers in determining whether the maximum regulated rate
provisions should remain in place. Both the shippers and
railroad companies will have ample opportunity to make their
views known to the minister before he completes his review.
The motions being presented, first by the official opposition,
will completely undermine the efforts being made to modernize
the western Canadian grain transportation system. I do not have
to tell members that there is a lot of history in the legislation we
are presenting. It is one in which the farming community has
been back and forth on for one generation after the other.
This is that rare time when the major actors in the industry
have come together to support legislation that will be a giant
step forward in the reorganization of the grain industry. Like
others, there is lots of speculation on what these changes are
going to mean. Nevertheless people see many positive benefits
coming out for western Canadian agricultural producers.
Considering how much wealth they contribute to this whole
country, anything that benefits the farmers of western Canada
can very quickly benefit the rest of the country.
Motions Nos. 5 to 11, because of the nature of the official
opposition amendments, would result in the deletion of the
provisions that identify grain dependent branch lines and
exempt designated grain dependent branch lines from certain
provisions of the NTA, such as the notice of intention and
conveyance provisions with respect to abandonment of branch
lines. These motions would make it more difficult for rail
companies to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost to ship
grain from the prairies.
(1635)
In Motion No. 5, the financial critic for the opposition party is
proposing that clause 11, which amends section 4 of the
National Transportation Act, 1987 to add a definition of grain
dependent branch lines, be deleted.
The definition of grain dependent branch lines is necessary as
this and other provisions in Bill C-76, identify grain dependent
branch lines and exempts designated grain dependent branch
lines from certain provisions of the NTA, such as the notice of
intention and conveyance provisions with respect to
abandonment of branch lines.
This provision and other provisions in Bill C-76 will make it
easier for railway companies to abandon inefficient and costly
grain dependent branch lines.
The motion proposed by the official opposition would make it
much more difficult for railway companies to improve the
efficiency of the grain transportation system and to reduce the
cost to ship grain from the prairies.
Motion No. 6 proposes that the heading of clause 12 be
amended by replacing the words ``the act'' with the National
Transportation Act, 1987. This is a proposal which follows from
the changes and the refusal of the opposition to deal with the
changes we are proposing.
13069
The official opposition is proposing in Motion No. 7 that
clause 16, which exempts grain dependent branch lines from the
notice of intention provision under the NTA be deleted. As I
stated, this proposal would make it more difficult and
cumbersome for railroad companies to abandon inefficient and
costly grain dependent branch lines.
I will not take the time of the House to go through some of the
other motions. In these I have reviewed the major differences we
have with the official opposition. As I stated before, the changes
being proposed in Bill C-76 will be of great benefit to the
western Canadian agricultural community and that spills over to
the rest of the country. People in every province will see a much
stronger Canada as the western grain farmers and other
agriculture producers gain maximum advantage from changes in
our regulations and laws.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this group of proposed amendments. We
have some difficulties with some of the clauses of the budget
implementation act. Some of the clauses give arbitrary powers
to cabinet to make decisions.
I reminds me a little of earlier in the bill of some of the powers
given to the Public Service Commission, for example, where it
is allowed to appoint people without competition. Arbitrary
powers are never a good thing to give out.
Under the powers of the Public Service Commission,
members will know that over the next three years the
government will be spending some $41 million to, among other
things, recruit new public servants from designated groups
under the special measures initiatives run by the Public Service
Commission. At a time of substantial layoffs it is a huge amount
of power given to a commission to recruit people at the cost of
tens of millions of dollars, when we are laying off 45,000 others.
It seems a little ridiculous to me. It is obviously unfair to be
hiring new workers at a time when thousands of surplus ones are
eager and willing to work at any of the jobs.
It is particularly an insult to hard working civil servants who
have spent many years working in a position only to come to
work one day to find that their desk has been cleaned out and a
fresh new face is in the office doing their work and the job they
are fully qualified for, but they lost it because another person
was hired under the special measures initiative or the
employment equity program.
That is the kind of arbitrary power we do not think the Public
Service Commission should have. We believe that arbitrary
powers giving cabinet or in the case I am talking about, the
Public Service Commission, the ability to bypass merit or the
regular way of doing business, to hiring, promoting, firing and
so on, is not a good thing.
(1640 )
We need checks and balances on government. The bill gives
too much power to a select few people. The power I mentioned
the Public Service Commission has under the bill is typical of
that. Other clauses in this transportation area give the cabinet in
our opinion too much power but I will leave it at that.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-76, which is the continuation of the budget and deals with
the Work Force Adjustment Directive, is a rather important one.
It drew many comments, especially from the Reform Party and
the Bloc. I believe there are some fundamental elements we
should take into account in Parliament. For all intents and
purposes, we are the voice of our fellow citizens, and it is
important that they know exactly what is at stake here.
I listened to the Reform members talk about the deficit,
government spending, and the debt which is growing at the rate
of $100 million a day, and also to all their arguments to the effect
that the government must cut expenditures. As we know, it has
been proven, on many occasions, that at the present time, except
for the debt service, the regular operating expenditures of the
government do not exceed its revenue. The debt service is very
high in Canada because we have an accumulated debt of close to
$500 billion.
Members opposite keep on talking about government
spending. But we must not forget that expenditures are only one
of the elements of the deficit we are facing in this country. One
must not single out the expenditures of the Canadian
government as the only reason for our deficit.
In the past, deficits were very high, as compared to total
expenditures. Expenditures were high in the past, as we saw
under the previous government. I am not trying to say that we
were blameless in the past; in some instances, expenditures went
well beyond what should have been tolerable. In any case, what
is important now is to correct the situation. One must not lose
track of the fact that expenditures are but one element.
Second, we must recognize that our tax system being slightly
obsolete, the in-depth reform of our tax system is one of the
elements which is going to put our economy back on a level that
is acceptable to all Canadians, especially the middle class.
Third, and this is important, it is the monetary system of this
country which causes our interest rates to be too high. We must
recognize that the Bank of Canada has a role to play. In the past,
the Bank of Canada played a very important role in controlling
interests rates nationally. But, because of our deficit, we lost
this power. However, with good management, it should be
possible to get it back. We are trying. It will take several years,
but let us hope we will succeed within one mandate or one and a
half at the most. We want the Bank of Canada to really play an
13070
active role, we want complete fiscal reform, and we hope that
our monetary system, which is not working to our advantage,
will be modified.
So three different elements come into play.
Furthermore, the Minister of Finance proposed some
workforce adjustments. Since we are being told to reduce
spending, we tried to achieve this by streamlining of the public
service.
(1645)
When I hear that 45,000 employees will lose their jobs, I think
this is a bit of an exaggeration, because this will happen over a
three-year period, and most of these 45,000 people will either
take normal retirement or early retirement, or accept what we
call a buy-out.
In conclusion, therefore, I would like this House to
understand that our problems cannot be ascribed to one thing
only, that is spending alone. High interest rates, largely the
result of our monetary system of the last 15 to 20 years, made it
difficult for us to carry out reforms, especially the reform of the
tax system which is sorely needed because of the very heavy tax
burden on the middle class.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take the floor to talk about the amendments to Bill
C-76. When I heard the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre
talk about the monetary system and cuts in the public service,
when the subject is really amendments to the Crow's Nest Pass
policy and to the subsidy to Western grain farmers, I thought I
had got my day wrong.
Well, we cannot very well prevent him from talking about the
subjects dear to his heart, but I am happy to hear that he does not
share the views of his Minister of Finance, and I urge him to
point that out to the minister, who is following a monetary
policy basically similar, if not identical, to that of his
Conservative predecessors. I also urge him to mention it to his
constituents.
This is a good illustration of a policy which makes it difficult
to deal equitably with an issue. It happened in the past, and it
continues in the budget, which treats dairy producers from
Quebec and grain producers from the West differently. This is
the continuation of a long series of historical decisions
regarding agriculture and rail transport which, in both cases,
worked to the advantage of Western Canada.
I am quite pleased to point this out, because we still hear
Liberal and Reform members criticize the fact that Quebec
receives, in some areas, transfer payments or equalization
payments. They called them gifts to Quebec, but they do not
criticize this policy which, for a long time, has allowed the West
to develop. The development of the railway system cost billions
of dollars, and allowed a lot of farmers to grow and prosper in
Western Canada. However, we seem to forget all the money that
was poured into this because it is less visible nowadays, since it
was done over a period of time.
But now, with all the financial choices and spending cuts we
face, this resurfaces. A moment ago, my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot talked about that. When the
unemployed are victims of cuts, we do not say to them that we
are going to allow them transition, adjustment periods. Soon, we
will be making changes to the Canada pension plan or looking at
the income security program, and throughout this debate that
will be held in the fall, I am sure that these changes will not
provide for long transition periods for the persons affected.
But when we speak about capital gains, family trusts, and
other matters, then we have to have long transition periods to
give people a chance to adapt. However, when the ordinary
people, who are the most affected, are concerned, we forget
about that.
I talked briefly about the impact of this policy on the
development of the railway system. This has also encouraged
farmers. For years now, in Quebec, we have been told that every
rail section must be viable. When they are not, the tendency is to
privatise them, to get rid of them, to give them to anybody, and
not to keep them. Under the same policy out west, we have
always supported the maintenance of this system, because they
were very clearly linked to the development of the farming
industry.
Earlier, I tried to describe the situation in this way: if you are a
grain producer, it is not the dairy truck which goes by your
house, but the rail system, to help you, support you or allow you
to send your crop to the export points. Over the years, things
have evolved. At the beginning, almost 90 per cent of the
financial support came from the government.
(1650)
And now, financial choices have to be made. In its budget, the
federal government says that it must cut in that area, but it is
planning a $1.6 billion compensation package. An important
factor to consider is the fiscal side of the equation. When we talk
about non-taxable money, the amount is higher than that,
perhaps more than $2 billion.
In the same budget, we are told that tens of millions of dollars
will be cut for milk producers in Quebec, but no mention is made
of any compensation. So, we have the unfair treatment given by
the federal government which has supported the railway system
and supported Western Canada to the tune of hundreds of
millions of dollars, on the one hand, and has funded
development differently in Quebec, by giving it less support, on
the
13071
other hand. And now, this historical imbalance is being
perpetuated, under the pretext that market forces must now be
left to come into play.
In Quebec, there is no compensation package, no transition
measure. The federal government is saying to milk producers
that they can raise their prices, and that they have the flexibility
to do that. In other words, it is saying to Quebec consumers that
they will pay for that. We account for some 23.8 per cent of total
tax revenues, so we will also pay 23.8 per cent of the
compensation package given to Western producers.
In this bill, there are many examples of the federal
government's approach toward development in the different
regions, particularly those in Quebec. This is the same bill sets
up transfer payment negotiations which, for Quecbec, can only
lead to reduced transfer payments, and a smaller percentage than
what it is getting now. No matter what solution is found, I am
convinced that Quebec will not receive more than before.
The Ontario government will come to the negotiating table
with many huge claims. This has been going on for several
years, and just because Ontario changes government does not
mean that these claims will also change. Quebec is facing cuts
that will affect it more than the other provinces. It is said that
more than 40 per cent of the cuts will be made in Quebec. In the
same bill, dairy producers are also being hit harder, because they
will not get any compensation package.
There are many reasons why, once this bill is passed, the
federal government will be even less committed than before to
supporting Quebec's development. These people are the same
ones telling us that this system is cost effective, that it is good
for Quebecers.
I want to raise a point in response to what the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre said about federal public servants.
Whenever the issue of sovereignty comes up, the people across
the way are eager to tell us that it would spell disaster for the
Outaouais, although they are saying very little about the roughly
15,000 jobs they are cutting in the region. The hon. member was
very subdued in the House, probably because he has a carefully
crafted quote for his next householder. He does not criticize his
government's decisions in the newspapers or anywhere else. He
did not defend them in committee. Where was he? Where are
these great champions of the Outaouais who enjoy telling us that
we are very well served by the current system? This bill also
contains provisions affecting federal public servants.
The government whip did not rise either. Government
members make timid speeches to keep their constituents happy;
their remarks are never very searing. There are fiscal choices to
be made. If the Western Grain Transportation Act must indeed
be repealed, they should stop trying to provide indirect financial
support and incentives, and stop attempting to raise the Liberal
Party's profile in the West, as was recently done in Manitoba.
Although we understand why they want to improve Liberal
prospects in that region, $2.2 billion is a lot to pay just to buy
votes. We have serious reservations here. If this policy must be
scrapped, they should have the courage to do so now and to
respect the commitments made by the Bloc Quebecois.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on Motion No. 5. All those
in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
(1655)
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:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred. Accordingly
the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 18, 19 and 74.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. 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(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 75
13072
That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 47,
with following:
``criteria''.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended: (a) by replacing line 26, on
page 47, with the following: ``applicant after the payment is received;''; and
(b) by replacing lines 33 to 44, on page 46, and lines 1 to 4, on page 48, with
the following: ``respect of an outlay or an expense.''
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 35, on
page 48, with the following: ``transition payments; and (c) how interim and
final transition pay-''.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-76, be amended by deleting Schedule II, on pages 46 to 48.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
speak to this part of Bill C-76, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget that was tabled on February 27, 1995.
At the outset I want to say that while we are speaking on a
number of sections of the bill we find that this is one of the more
regressive pieces of budgetary legislation that this country has
ever seen in terms of moving Canada backward into a bygone
era. I had hoped that a budget would be brought in to advance the
economic, social and cultural agenda of the country. I do not
think anyone can say anything other than this will set us back. It
is like looking only in the rear view mirror while driving.
The provisions we are looking at under group 3 by and large
eliminate the Crow rate benefit from the legislation. It takes the
whole matter of the demise of the Crow outside of this piece of
legislation. Farmers in western Canada developed their grain
industry on the basis of three fundamental pillars and in close
partnership with the federal government.
One pillar was a grain transportation system built around the
Crow subsidy. I recognize that to compete particularly with the
United States which has a whole set of subsidy programs for its
western grain producers and the fact that our grain producers
were some distance from the coast where the grain would be
exported, having some kind of a grain subsidy built into the
transportation system made a lot of sense. It enabled us to
become a global bread basket as a result.
The second pillar was the orderly marketing system through
the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of equal delivery
opportunity and a price pooling system. We could say if people
were to evaluate this objectively that over the years this has
served this country well.
The third pillar was a grain handling system owned by the
farmers through a western Canadian co-operative system.
When I look at this particular initiative of the government,
which in a sense is abandoning the Crow rate, it reminds me of a
previous Prime Minister who spoke of certain sacred trusts. He
said that as a result of these trade deals we would not see any
diminution in the quality of our social programs. We know that
did not take place. We have seen the erosion of virtually every
social program. We have seen the disappearance of social
programs as we have moved our social programs to harmonize
more closely with those in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee
and east Texas. That is not the kind of Canada we expected.
(1700)
Prior to the government's taking office it said it did not agree
with the provisions of NAFTA either; that unless the provisions
of NAFTA were dramatically shifted, altered and amended it
would abrogate the deal. That did not take place at all. As soon
as it took office there were a couple of little tinkers; it has now
become a NAFTA cheerleader like we have never seen before.
I do not think the government has a mandate to proceed with
this section of the bill. On May 10, 1993 the present Prime
Minister said the following at a press conference he called to
unveil the party's election campaign farm policy platform: ``As
federal Liberal leader, our government would prefer to retain the
existing Crow rate benefit method of payment rather than
change it as the Conservative government is proposing''. That
was on May 13, 1993 from page 17 of the Western Producer.
In other words, heading into the election campaign the Prime
Minister, articulating the Liberal Party's agricultural policy, in a
sense said they want to retain the Crow rate; the Conservatives
do not, but they do as a political party. On that basis people,
particularly from the Canadian plains, voted Liberal in such
sufficient numbers that they were able to form the government.
Now they are doing exactly the opposite. They are abandoning
the Crow rate provision.
I do not think it take a rocket scientist to figure out if they say
their party policy is to maintain the Crow rate and as soon as
they become a government they decide to abandon the Crow
rate, they seem to be pulling a fast one on the electorate. They
seem to be saying one thing and doing another. I do not think it is
unreasonable for us to question whether the government
actually has a mandate to proceed with this. Strictly on the basis
of principle we are suggesting this section be abandoned.
There is another reason we are suggesting this section of the
bill should be abandoned. What are the implications of
abandoning the Crow system? I know we have differences of
views in the House of Commons. Some people feel this is a good
idea for all sorts of reasons; others feel this is a bad initiative.
Most people
13073
probably wonder about the implications of making this major
change to the way the western grain sector is supported.
To my friends on the government side and to my good friends
in the Reform Party and in the Bloc, I encourage those endorsing
this initiative to articulate what the implications would be of
this major change. How will this affect the future of western
grain farming?
Before we proceed as Parliament with agreement on this
provision we should have a clear understanding of whether this
will or will not cause difficulties. My colleagues and I believe
very strongly this will not be in the best interest of western grain
producers. We will be hearing some of the reasons in detail,
particularly from those who represent prairie constituencies.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring forward these
amendments in hopes of retaining what I think every grain
farmer felt was a sacred trust.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
the transportation of western grain.
Most of the amendments now being discussed concern the
compensation to be paid to western producers since, by the year
2001, the preferential Crow rate applied to the transportation of
western grain to the main points of export will be abolished, as
will the Crow rate itself.
(1705)
The government is trying to transform a grain transportation
policy which has been in effect since the end of the last century
into a western agriculture development and diversification
policy. The Crow rate has been an issue for many years. Many
attempts were made to abolish that tariff system dating back to
the 19th century, but no consensus was ever reached on how to
do it.
Eliminating the preferential rate has the effect of triggering a
decrease in the price of western grain. Consequently, abolishing
the preferential Crow rate on grain exports provides a
competitive advantage to western beef and pork producers.
According to various studies, that advantage is estimated at
somewhere between $8 and $15 per metric tonne of western
grain. So, by triggering this $8 to $15 decrease in the price of a
metric tonne of grain, the elimination of the Crow rate destroys
the competitive balance between the western and eastern
economies, which are respectively based on grain and livestock
production.
The abolition of this transportation tariff provides a
competitive advantage for western pork and beef producers,
who will be in a better position to compete with their Quebec,
Ontario and even international counterparts.
During the numerous debates that we have had in recent years
concerning the Crow rate farmers in Quebec, Ontario, the
maritimes and some in the prairies and British Columbia said
that they accepted this fact. The accepted the fact that abolishing
the preferential rate would have an impact on the local price of
grain in western Canada and that it would change the balance.
If my memory serves me well, even in Quebec, the Union des
producteurs agricoles was saying in 1982: ``Abolish the
preferential rate, stop paying hundreds of millions of dollars a
year to maintain this rate structure and we are prepared to accept
the fact that such a measure will lower the local price of grain
and will thereby help increase livestock production in Western
Canada''. And now, not only will the reduction in the local price
of grain help increase livestock production in the west to the
detriment of eastern producers, but the government is telling
western producers that it will compensate them for the
elimination of the Crow benefit, that it will give them $1.6
billion tax free in transition payments, which is more like $2.2
billion.
Not only has the government reduced local grain prices
thereby encouraging livestock production in the west, but it is
giving western producers $2.2 billion based on the farmland
they own, and that goes for grain producers as well as for beef
and pork producers. It is ridiculous to abolish a transportation
rate structure and, at the same time, to give compensation
payments that will serve to subsidize western economic
diversification and the development of livestock production.
It makes no sense that this part of the bill provides for the
payment to western producers of $2.2 billion, when 24 per cent
of this money, which is federal, comes from producers in
Quebec. It makes no sense that these subsidies are being handed
out so that western pork and beef producers can compete with
our producers in Quebec. In any event, there are many who say
that that is not how they see the federal regime. It makes no
sense at all.
Those who are sceptical about the effect of this approach on
the production of pork and beef in Quebec need only look at
what happened in Alberta in recent years with the Crow offset, a
policy that my Reform colleagues probably know all about. The
result was a 10 per cent annual increase in Alberta's pork
production with a policy that was almost identical, but that was
provincial in scope.
(1710)
So that is clear. We are saying that this policy is inequitable. It
is inequitable because it disrupts the balance between the east
and the west and, in addition, gives western businesses a
competitive edge over their eastern colleagues, particularly
those in Quebec.
If at least some thought had been given to the effects of this
subsidy on eastern producers and some sort of compensation
considered for eastern producers, had the funds been available,
that would already have been a slight improvement.
Furthermore, it has been estimated that just abolishing the Crow
rate
13074
would have an effect on Quebec's agricultural economy of
between $24 million and $46 million. So we were told by the
UPA president himself, Laurent Pellerin, when he appeared
before the finance committee two weeks ago.
Quebec is offered nothing, even though it is recognized that
there is an imbalance that goes back to the end of the last
century.
We find it deplorable that this second crop of Liberals are
doing exactly the same as the first crop. In 1982 a similar bill
was tabled, a bill that provided for compensation to the west.
The federal government was not in the financial situation that it
finds itself in today, compensation could perhaps have been
considered, but no thought was ever given to the negative effect
on Quebec producers.
Now, they come back, because that bill was put aside, when
Mr. Eugene Whelan was the Minister of Agriculture. At the
time, they said: ``Since we cannot come to an agreement, we will
put it aside''.
Today, they come back with this bill, at a time, moreover,
when the financial situation is far from rosy, and they want to
pay western producers $2.2 billion as compensation for the
elimination of the Crow rate, just like that.
The official opposition is strongly opposed to such a decision,
because at a time when the UI funds, the transfers for the
underprivileged and the transfers to the provinces are being
slashed, the government is able to come up with $2.2 billion to
meet the electoral needs of the few Liberals out west and to try
and win over the Reformers' supporters.
We support the elimination of the Crow rate, but it should be
eliminated immediately, without any compensation. We also
deplore the fact that the Reform members, who are usually so
eager to protest when the underprivileged are subsidized, are
keeping quiet, because this compensation is being granted to
their own constituents. I find that most deplorable.
What I also find deplorable is not only what the Liberals did,
but also what the Reformers did. They did not attend the sittings
of the finance committee when we talked about ways to improve
or to repeal some of the provisions found in Bill C-76. If I were
in their shoes today, I would be ashamed to put forward
amendments, since they refused to hear anyone, except for a few
witnesses from western Canada who are as far to the right as the
Reformers have been since the election.
This is totally unacceptable. The decisions of the government
concerning the western grain transportation sector are
unacceptable, and the attitude of the Reform members in this
House is unacceptable.
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 Burnaby-Kingsway, health; the hon. member for
Québec-Est, Agusta.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
speak to the group 3 amendments before us which affect the
Western Grain Transportation Act, the National Transportation
Act and the Crow rate for the future of western farmers.
(1715 )
Reformers said it very clearly during the election campaign.
We were not like the Bloc Quebecois or the Bloc finance critic
who stands up and says that they are going to cut certain things
in the House of Commons while back in Quebec they talk about
greater and more handouts for the people of Quebec.
There is a continual inconsistency. The hon. member has just
spoken as the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois. He talked
about not giving the western farmers anything, that the Crow
benefit and the Western Grain Transportation Act benefits
should be cut off as such. The Bloc wants to cut it off but not give
the western farmers any kind of transitional payment whereby
they will then take the responsibility of paying the full amount
for the freight rate.
Let us look at Quebec. Let us look at some of the tax
expenditures that never get raised in the general public. In
committee I raised the tax expenditures for the labour venture
capital fund, $360 million in terms of tax expenditures. Three
hundred million of that is to the people of Quebec. Other
Canadians do not benefit from that tax expenditure. In raising
the matter in the finance committee I asked the hon. member
what he had to say about that because other Canadians are not
getting a fair deal. There is a broad base of Quebecers benefiting
from this tax expenditure.
One day the hon. member is against tax expenditure when it
supposedly relates to the rich or those who are planning for their
estates; the next day when it is in their home political ground, it
is a great thing to do. The hon. member should think about that
when he talks about the benefits the western farmers are going to
get with regard to a payout on the Crow rate.
Let us look at that payout. Most likely, some $2.2 billion will
be paid out over a two year period. What does it amount to in
terms of the farmers of western Canada? It is not a major amount
of money. It will be a one time payout, most likely of $16 to $18
per acre. How much money does that really amount to? What
will that do for a farm operation? Not very much when putting
fertilizer on irrigated land costs $40 to $60 an acre.
13075
What is $18 an acre? The spray for crops costs $5 to $10 an
acre. What does that $18 really mean? In that portfolio farmers
will have to pick up the major cost of shipping their produce to
the coast by rail. They will pay 100 per cent of that in the future.
Within a year the farmers will not be dependent on the federal
government for the transportation allowance. Farmers are
willing to buy that and accept that responsibility but it does not
hurt government when phasing out a program like that to have
some type of transitional support system. It has done that and I
commend the Liberal government for taking that specific
position on this matter.
Although the Crow benefit, the Western Grain Transportation
Act, will have an effect on western Canada, we have to look at
transportation on a broader base. The government must give
some leadership there as well.
When the free market system goes into transportation, the
government will have to assure Canadians and assure the
western farmers that they have access to alternate routes by
which products can be shipped into a variety of markets in the
world. That must be looked at.
I raised the question with the minister of agriculture as to
whether there were any impediments that would prevent western
Canadian farmers from shipping their grain through the railway
system or the port system of the United States. I asked whether
we could use the Mississippi River to ship our grain if that were
a more expedient, more efficient and less costly way of doing it.
(1720 )
The minister has assured me there are no impediments and
that we will be able to do that kind of thing. I ask that the
government ensure that will happen because we farmers in
western Canada will look at innovative ways by which we can
market our produce. We will look at the means by which we can
come up with different crops. We will diversify our agriculture.
That is a spinoff benefit of terminating the western grain
transportation allowance and also the Crow benefit. That is a
spinoff benefit which will be there. It will restructure
agriculture.
It is unfair for a member of the House to say that western
farmers should not have any type of transitional compensation
to make the adjustment over the next year or two. It is certainly
unfair when that member sits in committee and talks about tax
expenditures of over $300 million which are specifically
targeted at a group within his province, when other Canadians do
not have access to those kinds of tax expenditures. It seems to be
an attempt to speak in two different arenas. There is one arena
here but there is another arena back home that wants to hear
those kinds of political words.
We cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for
Kamloops. It is a rather traditional approach to what has
happened in Canada with respect to transportation. We think
changes are needed and we are prepared to support them.
We also oppose vehemently the comments and the
amendment put forward by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot which ask the government to
terminate the benefits to western farmers.
That is where we stand. We believe that under those
circumstances we can clearly and with good conscience vote as
we feel is right.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put in my two cents worth on the
report stage motions. It is not a loonie, it is two cents worth
today.
An hon. member: A double loonie.
Mr. Taylor: The member wants to hear about the double
loonie. I am very pleased to have aroused some interest from
members opposite. It is a pleasure to know they are listening at
such an important time.
The report stage motions before us relate to Bill C-76, the
budget implementation bill. The amendment put forward by my
colleague from Kamloops, which was seconded by me, proposes
to eliminate those sections of Bill C-76 which deal with the
government's proposal to remove the Crow benefit. That is the
benefit that applies to western Canadian farmers for the
movement of their grain from farm gate to port.
I have been engaged in this debate for quite some time. The
constituency I represent is rural and relies heavily on
agricultural income to survive. The constituency which I have
represented for six years has been engaged in the debate over the
future of the Crow benefit for quite some time. My constituents
have advised me frequently and constantly of the need to retain
the Crow benefit.
Through the motion which is before the House today, I ask
members to consider eliminating these sections from the bill in
order that we can study in greater detail the future implications
of this very rash move which the government has undertaken.
(1725 )
The minister of agriculture will recall that at the beginning of
this debate I asked the minister to withhold the sections of the
bill, the intention to eliminate the Crow benefit, until such time
as we did investigate the full implications of this move on the
prairies.
I put forward that proposal before this debate began and here
we are at report stage, prior to third reading, and the government
has not indicated any understanding of the implications of what
the elimination of the Crow benefit will mean to the prairie
economy.
The argument comes down to the fact that for each elevator
point on the prairies those communities will lose $1 million in
income currently in those communities. I have previously used
Glaslyn, Saskatchewan, a community of about 350 people, a
13076
fairly large elevator market area with a very good, strong
delivery point.
Currently $1 million in that community will not be there after
August 1 when this bill comes into effect; $1 million from that
community, $4 million from the city of North Battleford and
millions more taken from rural Saskatchewan as a result of the
implications of this bill.
What does that mean in terms of the future of those
communities simply because they are growing wheat which is
demanded by countries all over the world, countries not paying
the freight on that product but expecting our farmers to pay the
freight to get it to port position so that it is competitive?
A presentation by the prairie pools to a committee in Ottawa
on April 27, 1995 concluded: ``The termination of government
transportation assistance and the resulting decrease in farm
incomes not only threaten the vision but the ability of the
Canadian industry to even maintain its current competitive
position in the world markets''.
These are people who deliver a product to that competitive
marketplace telling us very clearly in response to this move on
this bill the vision of agriculture as presented by the government
enhancing our competitive position is threatened and that our
ability to compete is threatened. We should pay heed to some of
these experts who have been commenting on this over the years.
I also quote from another presentation made before the
finance committee studying Bill C-76. The national farmers
union's report concluded that the cuts in the federal budget,
which are in addition to the elimination of the Crow benefit and
including it, will have an unprecedented impact-
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but the time has expired for this debate. Unless there is
unanimous consent, we will be into Private Members' Business.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the House would agree to
allowing the member to conclude his comments. I also think a
member of the Reform Party attempted to rise. If the House
would consent to adding 10 minutes or so to do that I would have
no objection. This would then enable us to finish that clause.
The Deputy Speaker: If members wish to do anything by
unanimous consent they can do exactly what they want. Is there
unanimous consent to extend the time?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party would be
happy for the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake
to complete his speech and then we should move on to private
members' business.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the official opposition's
opinion on this point. Do you agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Members are giving the hon. member two or three minutes to
finish his speech.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the largesse of the
government and opposition members on this matter. I did not
request the opportunity to finish my remarks, but I am very
happy to do so. I regret cutting into the time provided for private
members' business, because to me it is a very important time in
Parliament. I will wrap up my remarks very quickly.
When private members' time arrived I was quoting from the
conclusion of the presentation made by the National Farmers'
Union to the committee. I will start the quote again: ``The cuts
announced in the federal budget will have an unprecedented
impact upon Canada's agriculture sector. These cuts, from the
loss in transportation subsidies to the cuts to food inspection,
increase producers' costs of production, making us less
competitive''.
Members will recall that one of the red book promises of the
government was to reduce the input costs of farming. These
matters have increased the costs of farming. Therefore, the red
book promise on agriculture has certainly been broken.
I will finish the quote from the National Farmers' Union:
``The Canadian government has cut far beyond the requirements
of the GATT agreement, leaving farmers alone to fight the
European Union and the United States treasuries. The
government should reassess its policy of unilateral
disarmament, which leaves Canadians vulnerable in the
international marketplace''.
This is a very serious matter. We have long term implications
to communities on the prairies and to the future of Canadian
agriculture in the international marketplace. We should be
setting these provisions aside until we have had a full study of
everything that has been done. We should not be dealing with it
in terms of just balancing this year's budget.
[Translation]
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.
13077
13077
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-274, an act respecting a national grandparents day,
be now read the second time and referred to committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are many grandparents
in the gallery. I appreciate their presence and I thank them for
taking the time to join us in the debate.
It is an honour for me to stand today in the House to speak on
Bill C-274, a private member's bill that I introduced on
September 27, 1994. Bill C-274 is an act respecting a national
grandparents day in Canada. It would set aside the second
Sunday in September every year as a national day to honour
grandparents in Canada from coast to coast.
It is a pleasure for me to address a generation of individuals
who may be older but surely are wiser. They should not be
forgotten or left behind.
As I said earlier in the House, we have the honour of having 20
grandparents and members of the growth society, an
organization whose purpose is to safeguard the vital
grandchildren and grandparents relationship.
I have received numerous letters in support of Bill C-274. I
will read part of one letter I received: ``On behalf of our
grandparents group and all other grandparent groups in Canada,
I commend you for introducing Bill C-274, an act respecting a
national grandparents day. Many of us will be here in the
members' gallery for a debate on your bill. We sincerely hope
that you will have the full support of the House and that it will be
voted on favourably''.
(1735)
Another letter, sent by the vice-president of focus on the
family association of Canada, states: ``Thank you for your
request for the designation of grandparents day. Our calendar
printed by focus on the family U.S. has the second Sunday in
September marked as grandparents day. We applaud the effort
you have put in to recognize this day in Canada''.
I have received numerous letters of support from my riding
from seniors groups and organizations in favour of this day to be
celebrated in Canada. Ironically tomorrow, June 1, 1995, will
also mark the beginning of senior citizens month in Canada.
At this time Bill-C-274, has been deemed not votable by the
subcommittee on private members' business. I ask for
unanimous consent so that the order be discharged and the
subject matter of the bill be referred to the health committee for
further consideration.
I did not have the pleasure or the honour of having
grandparents. My grandmother passed away when I was very
young. I missed that link between a grandson and grandmother
or grandfather. I hope that no one will have to miss that link
between grandparents and grandchildren anywhere in the
country.
Grandparents day would give national recognition to the
growing number of grandparents in Canada. I will attempt to
raise the emotional conflict of interest drama that grandchildren
face when one parent assumes custody and they no longer have
the opportunity to see their grandparents. Many provinces and
municipalities have already recognized that grandparents do
contribute greatly to the family and they are a basic and
fundamental element of our society. It is time the federal
government recognized this fact as well.
The focus of Bill C-274 on grandparents day will serve a
child's best interest and show Canadians that grandparents are a
significant part of our family structure. Most important, without
grandparents a child will lose a valuable role model and
nurturing.
In the United States in many homes of the aged grandparents
day was celebrated as a national holiday as far back as 1961 and
was officially declared as grandparents day in the U.S. in 1977
by President Jimmy Carter. It is the second Sunday in September
every year.
Last year in the province of Quebec the Quebec senior citizens
federation urged Quebec families to mark the occasion of
grandparents day by getting the different generations together.
Obviously this is not possible in all cases, especially for those
grandchildren who do not live nearby. I am sure they could get
the long distance feeling by calling them on grandparents day.
The relationship between grandparents and grandchildren has
taken on even greater importance as the result of the number of
broken marriages. As we approach the 21st century we see more
and more single parent families. Single parent families would be
helped a great deal if we have grandparents' recognition and
grandparents' connection tied to the younger generations so we
can build for a stronger future and face it with more confidence.
Grandparents day was officially proclaimed in 1978. Since
then every year the United States observes the second Sunday in
September as grandparents day.
I call on my colleagues to accept the bill and refer it to the
House committee on health in order to adopt it as soon as we can
for the coming September. We have tremendous support. There
is no harm in doing it. There is no one who opposes it as far as I
13078
know. Let us go forward and have grandparents day, which will
give the proper recognition they deserve.
(1740 )
The Deputy Speaker: If I understood the hon. member
correctly, he has asked for unanimous consent that the order be
discharged and that the subject matter be referred to the
Standing Committee on Health. Is there unanimous consent
among the members present for this to happen?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There was an indication that one of the
members does not give unanimous consent to that happening.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Don
Valley North for his bill. Indeed, who could be against a bill
aimed at honouring the contribution grandparents make to
society by designating the second Sunday in September of each
year as ``National Grandparent's Day''?
Such bills always put us in the same dilemma. On the one
hand, there is the honourable intention of designating a
grandparent's day but, on the other hand, we wonder if the
government will go beyound good intentions and pay close
attention on a daily basis to these seniors who helped build our
society.
The old age pension plan is a case in point. As you may recall,
there have been previous government attempts to reduce
seniors' benefits, and a reform of old age pensions is planned for
this fall. In every golden age club, people like the directors in
my riding who have already retired or will do so in a few years
have a lot of questions about their future financial security.
While it is nice of the hon. member to ask that the second
Sunday in September be designated ``Grandparents' Day'', we
should be checking with his government to see if the member's
wishes will be acted on and whether these seniors will be
guaranteed fair and equitable treatment.
This bill also gives us an opportunity to look at the way
seniors are treated sometimes. Take for example the voice box
issue. Do we really show seniors respect when they need
information about a pension cheque that is late in coming or a in
different amount than usual, or any other matter, and we cannot
provide it to them? Having dealt myself with the voice box at the
Department of Human Resources Development, I can tell you
that there is cause for frustration, and serious frustration.
I think that we would show much greater respect for seniors
and grandparents by remedying this kind of situation effectively
than by simply dedicating one day out of the year to them. We
would be showing that we care year-round.
The other example I would like to give you is that of repeated
computer errors in recent months. I have received dozens of
calls at my office about computer errors, and the problem was
from coast to coast. Pensioners were no longer receiving the
income supplement they were entitled to. They were not always
provided with adequate information in this matter. Again, this is
a case where the really respectful thing to do would have been to
treat them fairly and with compassion.
At any rate, this bill on grandparents' day is very
commendable. We can all dig out an anecdote from our pasts.
My paternal grandfather has always been a model of honesty to
me. He was a man who wanted the matters he discussed with
others to be clear and to get settled. That is something that he
taught me and that is now part of my background. Each and
every one of us in this House could tell a similar story.
(1745)
The same is true of my maternal grandmother. I could tell you
about her strength of purpose and about how she inspired me
through my studies. We have to realize that we are definitely
influenced by such role models, and grandparents do make an
important contribution to their grandchildren's education. As
we get older, we realize the full significance of that
contribution, particularly when we know what grandparents
have gone through and what a source of wisdom they can be.
Who knows? Having a grandparents' day might trigger a
debate on how to better benefit from their experience. I
remember my grandfather telling me about voting on
conscription during the Second World War, and about the
political context of the fifties. The past is a treasure trove of
information to help us make decisions, now and in the future.
We often notice that young people lack a sound knowledge of
our history. One way to remedy that might be to rely more on the
experience of grandparents, who can bring us a lot, in a concrete
way, in our daily lives, rather than in terms of our formal history.
When we think about the grandparents' contribution, it should
not only be in terms of their role with grandchildren, but also
with the parents who are sandwiched between the two
generations.
In the daily grind of raising children, it is sometimes useful to
take time out to turn to grandparents, who have often raised
much larger families than those of today and have been through
all sorts of situations that have equipped them to give us useful
advice.
It seems to me that this bill is a good idea. It is recognition
that is only reasonable and which our grandparents deserve. But
this recognition should be given in the same spirit year round, it
should be reflected in government services for seniors, in our
13079
concern for their basic financial security, so that we are sure that
the way they are treated on Grandparents' Day is the way they
are treated every day.
I will conclude by saying that in addition to the idyllic images
of grandparents that we often see on television, the traditional
families, but there are also much more difficult situations.
Grandparents are often excluded from family life and live alone
in cramped quarters, and I think the setting aside of a national
grandparents' day, as with everything to do with the family,
would be an opportunity to recognize that there is no one model
of a family, any more than there is no one type of grandparent.
These seniors have contributed in a variety of ways to the
growth of our society.
I hope that by recognizing grandparents' day we will make it
possible for values to be transmitted from one generation to
another, that we will realize what the past has given us and what
we must still seek in order to attain our vision of the future, and
it is for these reasons that the members of the Bloc Quebecois
support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to second the bill on grandparents day, declaring the
second Sunday in September every year national grandparents
day.
(1750 )
Earlier this month I introduced a bill which would declare
1995 the year of the grandparent. I believe this is the third time
this year grandparents have been recognized by various parties
in the House. During the last debate, on May 2 of this year, there
was a unanimous endorsement of that private member's bill.
It was rather disappointing that the committee assessing the
bill considered it non-votable. Whether the arguments I put to
the committee were not convincing enough, I am not sure.
Perhaps I should bear some responsibility for that.
Nevertheless, the feelings in the House crossed all party lines, a
rare occurrence. I wonder whether in this, the third instance of
recognition of grandparents this year, the hackneyed phrase
family values has again risen to the fore in our society.
In the debate on May 2 there some statements registered very
strongly with me. One was that grandparents are a pillar of our
existence. I had the privilege of having one grandparent whose
strength and values were imparted to me as strongly as those of
my parents. He was a pillar of my existence.
I have underlined showing the way by example. Grandparents
do their very best in leading by way of example. They impart
those examples to their grandchildren. The word wisdom caught
my attention. Grandparents are most often much wiser than
parents because of the accumulation of experience and the way
they can interpret life for their grandchildren.
Another word which came up was tolerance. As we grow older
we tend to be either more tolerant or less tolerant. I have found
the grandparents of our children and my own grandfather had
tolerance. They set the standard for tolerance.
They provide strength and enrich the family. When things go
wrong, as they often do in family life, grandparents are often a
source of strength and security. Children need to feel secure on a
continuing basis. It cannot be a start and stop affair or catch as
catch can. Very often grandparents can fill the role of providing
security. That leads me to one of the great concerns all of us in
the House share. With the divorce rate and the break-up of
families very often grandparents at the present time find
themselves without access to their grandchildren.
(1755)
I will be doing everything I can to make sure that state is
changed so grandparents in future will be able to have proper
access to grandchildren especially at the time in their lives when
they need them so badly.
Other words I found are grace and dignity. I have talked about
family strength. The grandfather I had a great experience with
lived by a very strict code. He imposed a code of conduct on
himself, for which he was admired by so many in the small
community where we lived.
He did not always preach about it. He did not always try to
impose it, although sometimes he looked with wonderment at
the way the world seemed to change. We all agree the more
things change, the more they remain the same.
As I get older I find myself more appreciative of that code my
grandfather imparted to me. I hope some of that has by example
been shared with our children who did not know that
great-grandfather.
They also knew grandparents; they grew up with more
grandparents than I had. Those grandparents were wonderful
people in the way they helped our family, the graciousness with
which they accepted responsibility we often imposed on them
when they took care of our children, when we needed them.
Grandparents have a much stronger role to play in family life
than society has acknowledged to this point. The year 1995, with
the recognition and debate we have put forward in the House,
should set the stage for the years to come as recognizing the
importance of the family and the role grandparents have in it.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-274, proposing to
make the second Sunday of September every year national
grandparents day.
13080
When I arrived at the House I had some good feelings about
this bill and I was in a good mood. Then I watched as the member
for Don Valley North sought unanimous approval to have his bill
made votable. I understand the member for Don Valley North
first sought in committee to have his bill made votable and was
denied. I just wonder what kind of heartless minds exist in the
Liberal Party opposite. The member for Don Valley North
simply sought to have his bill recognized by a vote in the House,
hoping for a majority vote for a bill which would stir the
emotions of Canadians and was denied.
(1800)
I proudly support this bill. It was put forward by a member of
the Liberal Party and I am very pleased to support because it
does not cost the Canadian taxpayer one red cent. It is very
unusual for a bill to come forward from the Liberal Party that is
not going to cost the taxpayer some money. I congratulate the
member for Don Valley North for putting it forward because it is
something we have not been used to in the House.
In the past a number of bills have been forced through the
House by the Liberal Party. Bills C-33 and C-34 will cost the
taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. They were rammed
through the House using closure. The government tried to put
Bill C-22 through the House. It would take away the freedom of
private citizens to challenge the government in a court case.
We saw the Liberal government try to put through a budget in
the House last February that is going to increase our national
debt by $100 billion over a three-year term and add about $10
billion or $12 billion to our annual interest payments. The
government is trying to put through Bill C-68 which will cost
the Canadian taxpayers perhaps $500 million.
It is a great day in the House of Commons, a great day for the
Liberal Party and a great day for Canada to have a member of the
Liberal Party try to put through a bill in the House that is not
going to cost the taxpayers one red cent. I congratulate the
member for Don Valley North for this bill.
That is a celebration in itself, but I have another reason for
speaking to this bill. As a member of Parliament I get a special
perk today. I can stand up in the House of Commons of Canada
and on national television I can announce that yesterday I was
informed that I am going to be a grandfather before this year is
over. Therefore this is absolutely appropriate. This proves
beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not have to be old to be a
grandfather.
I am proud of my daughter, Lisa, in Vancouver. She will be a
mother some time later this year and she will make me a
grandfather. I am going to be able to realize some of the personal
satisfaction that you get from being a grandfather, particularly
when I get to babysit and the kids get cranky, I will know the
parents are coming home sooner or later that night.
In a more serious vein, it is very important to recognize a day
like grandparents day because it not only recognizes the
important role that grandparents play in the lives of families, but
it also recognizes the tremendous contribution that our
ancestors have played in the building of the country.
I am a firm believer that it is the family unit; the mother, the
father, the children, the grandparents, the aunts and the uncles
who built this country as strong as it is now. I also believe above
all else that this Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that
the family unit is not broken down any more than it is already.
Parliament has a responsibility to try and rebuild the family unit
as it was prior to the 1960s.
(1805 )
The taxation levels since the mid-sixties have risen to a point
where it is almost a demand that the mother of a family go out to
work in order for the household to have enough disposable
income to support the family. That is a tragedy and is one of the
things that has broken down the family unit.
Grandparents can and do play an important role when the two
spouses in a household are working. It is an absolutely critical
time in the lives of children who become, through no wish of
their own, latchkey kids. The parents of these kids, because of
their jobs, are too busy to spend time with them. This makes the
grandparents' role even more important.
I want Parliament to recognize that grandparents are part of
the formula for making a family unit strong. For that reason
alone, just that one reason, we should support this bill.
Another thing about grandparents that I find very important is
they tend to pass down family values and history from one
generation to another. Grandparents who spend a lot of time with
their grandchildren generally have more time to talk to the kids
about how their parents are working so hard to try to provide a
home for them, to try to provide an education for them,
something the parents often do not have time to do. This is a very
important role for grandparents and they should be recognized
for that as well.
A huge number of grandparents have also played an important
part in the protection of democracy. They fought in the wars.
They fought against fascism and communism in order to
preserve the democracy we hold in such high value. They should
be recognized for this as well.
I can speak from experience because I was a child in a one
parent home. My mother worked every day while we were being
brought up. Many times the only people I had to turn to for help
with problems were my grandparents. I am eternally grateful for
13081
the role they played in my life and the values they tried to instil
in me that became beneficial when I grew up and started a
career.
Grandparents day would provide an excellent opportunity for
all Canadians to recognize the very important role grandparents
play in a family.
I move that the House respond in a fashion that would come
from the heart and not from instructions received from a
committee and that unanimous consent could be given today that
Bill C-274 become a votable motion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, is there unanimous
consent for transforming the motion on Bill C-274 to make it a
votable motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister.
(1810 )
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address
the House on the private member's motion to establish a special
day in recognition of grandparents for their enormous
contribution to families and society. Liberals recognize this.
There is a process whereby private members' business gets to
the House. The procedure was followed by an all party
committee with the member across the way being a member of
that committee. Tonight I will address the private member's
motion on the recognition of grandparents.
Creating a special day for grandparents will afford Canadians
the opportunity to further demonstrate their continuing
commitment to the family. As Liberals we believe this. It is not
dollars and cents. It is a philosophy Liberals believe in and share
with members across the way.
I fondly remember my own grandmother. She was a wise
woman, though uneducated in a schooling sense. She affirmed
me with words like: ``Child, you can do it''. It is women like my
grandmother that most of us in this room do remember. Maybe
most of us are here as a result of the affirmation we received
from our grandparents.
In December 1991, Canada ratified the convention on the
rights of the child, a landmark in Canadian social history.
Countries agreed that children should grow up in an atmosphere
of happiness, love and understanding with the protection and
assistance required for the full development of their
personalities to better prepare them to become responsible
adults. One of the central truths of the convention is based on the
conviction that the family is a fundamental group of society and
the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all of
its members, particularly children.
The role of a grandparent is vital to the child. Grandparents
can be companions, becoming friends more than parents. The
relationship can be a major source of satisfaction to both the
grandparent and the grandchild. Other members have referred to
the fact that in today's society with marriage breakdown and
single parenting, some grandparents take on the role of
surrogate parents.
According to a study conducted by the British Columbia
council for the family, grandparenting provides the older adult
with a feeling of self-worth, a source of love, respect and
support. Being a grandparent is a potential source of giving and
receiving affection.
Grandparenting is also a means of establishing a link between
past and future generations. Continuity, together with
unconditional love, forms the cornerstone in the development of
a child's self esteem and sense of trust. Among the riches that
are passed down are language, culture and the wisdom that
comes from experience.
A recent television show characterized the role of
grandparents as one of providing both the roots and the wings of
a whole generation of people. This is an apt definition of
grandparenting.
Seniors, the majority of whom are grandparents, are a vital
part not only of their own families, but also of all aspects of
community life. They are active members of their communities.
Some continue to do paid work, as does the member across the
way. Some are members of churches, seniors organizations and
clubs. Fitness and sports groups and cultural organizations such
as art galleries, drama and musical groups all have the talent of
our seniors. Seniors are involved in social action. They are
teachers. They are board members. They are volunteers and they
are politicians.
(1815)
As we consider a grandparents day we should also
contemplate our collective Canadian family in which seniors
play a critical role. The uniqueness that grandparents bring to
the family is in my opinion and that of many others worthy of
being celebrated with a national grandparents day in Canada.
Grandparents and seniors in general deserve a day to
commemorate their extensive and important contributions. This
is why I support the private member's motion that is before us.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill
C-274, an Act respecting a national grandparent's day,
introduced on September 27 by the hon. member for Don Valley
North.
13082
I want to commend the hon. member on his praiseworthy
suggestion that throughout Canada, and each year, the second
Sunday in September shall be known as grandparent's day. He
can count on my full support and that of the Bloc Quebecois. I
have a special interest in this proposal, being myself a
grandfather and representing the riding of Bourassa in Montreal
North, where 15 per cent of the population is in the 65 and over
age group.
In 1994, the AQDR of Montreal North was founded as a
branch of the Association québécoise pour la défense des droits
des personnes retraitées et pré-retraitées, whose basic objective
is to improve the living conditions of this group: income, taxes,
health, accommodations, transportation, social policies and so
forth. The organization already has more than 300 members.
I would like to express in the House my profound gratitude
and best wishes to the members of the executive elected at the
annual meeting held on May 29, the day before yesterday:
Jean-Claude Potvin, president; Roger Lagacé, vice-president;
Pierrette Vallières, secretary; Martine Leduc, treasurer; and
advisers Umberto di Genova, Audette Thibault, Régine Daigle,
Guy Baril, Claude Ouimet, Pierre Grondin and Joseph Zara.
Like many other seniors, these people do a lot of volunteer work
and are known for their dedication and generosity.
Bill C-274 is justified in every respect. This day should have
been established long ago. Fortunately, a number of provinces
and municipalities as well as many organizations and seniors'
homes already unofficially celebrate a day known as
grandparent's day. I think the time has come to officially
recognize the second Sunday in September of each year as the
day on which we pay tribute to our seniors and especially to
grandparents.
In 1978, U.S. President Jimmy Carter decided that the first
Sunday after Labour Day would be set aside to pay tribute to
grandparents. A dynamic and remarkable grandmother from
West Virginia, Marion McQuade, had fought for years to have a
special day set aside for senior citizens in the United States. I
hope that Canada will be inspired by this example and act
accordingly.
The government, in particular the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, must take the lead on this issue. Grandparents are
extremely important for their grandchildren, especially until
they reach adolescence.
Seniors are becoming a proportionately larger sector of our
population. We estimate that their numbers will increase by 40
per cent in the next 15 years. Therefore, the government must
take real steps to recognize the important contribution they
make to society. Unfortunately, despite its many promises, the
Liberal government has done nothing to improve the situation of
seniors.
(1820)
On the contrary, they cut their tax credits, and, knowing this
government's philosophy and vision, it is quite likely that they
will take even more away from them, in particular in the area of
old age security benefits.
Furthermore, I would ask the government to stop reducing
grants for organizations which finance seniors, in particular
programs like New Horizons.
I have had the great joy of being a grandfather for two years
now. In fact, the wife of my oldest son gave birth to little Olivia
in 1993 when the election campaign was in full swing. My whole
family, including the child, was a great help to me during that
period. I regret that my work as a parliamentarian does not leave
me much time to play with and take care of my granddaughter
Olivia.
According to recent statistics, 90 per cent of all children have
at least one living grandparent. Unfortunately for me, my
grandparents all passed away before I was born. I even lost my
mother and father when I was 11 and 13 years old respectively.
Admittedly, one half a century ago in Chili, a developing
country, life expectancy was not very high.
The fact that I never knew my grandparents did not prevent
me from understanding and valuing their importance for
families and society, be it for children, adolescents or adults.
They convey stability, link the generations and transmit certain
fundamental values which must be preserved. And today, with
so many break-ups in couples, their role has become even more
important. In certain instances, they are the ones who raise their
grandchildren and care for them.
Three Canadians out of four 65 years of age or older are
grandparents. Naturally, you do not have to be 65 to be a
grandparent. Some grandparents today are even in their forties
or fifties.
I am proud to point out that Quebec has officially recognized
the role of grandparents in article 611 of the Civil Code, which
reads as follows: ``In no case may the father or mother, without a
grave reason, interfere with personal relations between the child
and his grandparents''.
This provision, therefore, accords grandparents the right to
visit and take their grandchildren out. Unless there is an
agreement between the parties, the terms of these relations are
decided by the court. In all cases, the judge will consider the
welfare of the children first and will consult them as need be.
Grandparents are very concerned about the happiness and
well-being of the children and do everything within their power
to improve their world.
For all these reasons, I enthusiastically support Bill C-274.
13083
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
realize that private members' hour is coming to an end, but I
want to take the opportunity to thank the member for Don Valley
North for raising his private member's initiative.
Private members' bills very rarely get selected to be votable
in the House and very rarely get passed. That does not mean they
are not important. They are extremely important. I assure all
members of the House and all the people of Don Valley North
that their member has worked extremely hard lobbying all
members of the House to support this important initiative.
I do not know anybody who does not like grandparents.
Everyone has stories. One of my grandfathers was a butcher and
the other was a carpenter. From one I learned how to do
carpentry work in my home along with other related home
improvements and from the other I learned about foods and
about eating. He had a grocery store as well. It was wonderful to
go there to see him work. He loved his grandchildren so much.
They are both gone now.
(1825)
The grandmothers, the matriarchs of all families, took care of
us and loved us as if they were our mothers. They took very good
care of us when we were young and learning. They were always
there when our parents had problems. They were always there to
provide the support and the love we all need. Obviously
grandparents play a very special role in our lives.
I want the hon. member for Don Valley North to have a couple
of minutes for his final rebuttal, but I simply reiterate that he has
worked hard to bring recognition to an important aspect of our
lives, our grandparents. I congratulate him and all members of
the House who have taken the time to thank the member for
raising it and to make special mention of their grandparents.
The Deputy Speaker: The mover of the motion will speak
last and will have the right to close the debate.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank all members who spoke in favour of the motion.
I notice that nobody spoke against it.
However I would like to set the record straight. The hon.
member for the Reform Party said that Liberal members did not
support the motion. The subcommittee on Private Members'
Business did not recognize the motion as being votable. Once
the subcommittee says no it is highly unlikely members of the
House will say yes because we respect the independence of the
subcommittee. On that subcommittee there are members of the
Reform Party, of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Liberal Party.
Once again I thank all members who supported the motion. As
the expression goes, he who runs away may live to fight another
day. We will come back to the issue at some other time. We will
ensure we pass the motion with the support of all parties before
this Parliament is dissolved in 1997 or 1998. We will ensure that
the grandparents of the country have a day to celebrate.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
_____________________________________________
13083
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the middle of March I asked a question of the
Minister of Health concerning the betrayal of budgetary
promises for federal funding for the community action program
for children, or CAPC, a program for vulnerable and at risk
children. At the time I urged the minister to reconsider the
drastic cuts in funding for the program and pointed out to her
that in effect she and her government were cutting the deficit on
the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable children.
In response the Minister of Health stated that the budget did
not dramatically cut CAPC. She said that it reduced the actual
growth of the program.
I have a memo written by the regional director for health
promotion and social development in the British Columbia
region who confirmed that in fiscal year 1996-97 there will be
an approximate 30 per cent reduction to the original allocation
and the following fiscal year, 1997-98, will see an approximate
50 per cent reduction to the original allocation. If that is not a
dramatic cut in funding for programs for poor, at risk, and
vulnerable children, I do not know what is. It is a shameful
betrayal of the promises that were made. Certainly groups such
as the B.C. coalition for children and individuals who are
working with poor children share that sense of concern. Minister
Joy MacPhail with the B.C. government has spoken out strongly
against these cuts.
(1830)
It is very clear that these cuts are part of a broader agenda of
the government. We see it in Bill C-76, enormously destructive
legislation, which this government is now ramming through the
House without even allowing the public to have hearings across
13084
the country, without even allowing the possibility of a
committee of eminent persons to review the destructive impact
of this bill.
We know that the bill will gut the Canada assistance plan of its
national standards. This will open the door to workfare and
cheap labour standards. We know as well that it will
dramatically cut funding for post-secondary education.
It is in the area of health care and medicare that I want to raise
a couple of very grave concerns as well. The implications of this
government's policies in the area of health care are very serious,
the implications of Bill C-76. There is no doubt that we are
going to see the possibility of a massive erosion in the quality of
health care. We will see two tier health care. It is a direct
consequence of the North American free trade agreement. We
know that once the provincial governments move to de-insure
any medical services it is open season for private insurance
companies. Under NAFTA this is considered to be a market
commodity. That is why the private insurance companies are
just waiting to get in and make money.
This legislation is enormously destructive for the social
fabric of the country. It was the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who said that these cuts will cause
considerable harm and pain to a segment of the population that
has already been hit very hard. He said: ``The cuts are not only
wrong in principle, but contrary to what we said in the red book,
contrary to what we did during nine years in opposition, and
completely junking all of the principles we stood for''.
I call on the government to reinstate the funding for the
community action program for children. I call on the
government to reverse Bill C-76, to recognize that the United
Nations committee on economic, social and cultural Rights has
been very critical of this legislation and recognized that we are
in breach of our international obligations under the international
covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
There are alternatives. The Prime Minister has suggested that
medicare was only intended to be temporary in terms of federal
involvement. He said it was only intended for catastrophic
illness. Well it is time for this government to look at
alternatives. It is time they rescind Bill C-91, which was a gift
to multinational drug companies. It is time they implement the
1995 alternative federal budget, which was a very different
approach. It is time in the area of health care that we place far
more resources into preventative health care, as was
recommended by the Canada health coalition, the Hospital
Employees Union in British Columbia, the National Federation
of Nurses Unions, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian
Labour Congress, and many others.
It is time that this government came to its senses and
recognized that the impact of Bill C-76 and of its budget and
budgetary policies is to shred the social safety net, is to mean
that poor kids are going to get even poorer, that the gap between
rich and poor will be greater, and that our health care system, the
Canada assistance plan, and post-secondary education will all
come under attack.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway's question of March 15, and
not really the last gospel that we just heard recited.
Children continue to be a priority for the Government of
Canada, especially those who currently live in conditions of risk
and poverty. As the House is aware, given the fiscal realities that
all Canadians face, the federal government has had to make
some very difficult choices.
The budget for the community action program for children,
CAPC, has not been reduced dramatically and is still quite
substantial. In the next two years over $92 million will be
available through the community action program for children.
Let me assure the hon. member that the reduction to the
community action program for children was applied in an
equitable manner. All jurisdictions, including British Columbia,
will continue to receive the percentage of total CAPC funds
originally agreed to in the respective protocols signed with all
provinces and territories.
(1835)
The community action program for children remains a model
of how different levels of government can work together with
community groups to address the health and social needs of at
risk children.
In addition to the children's action program, the government
is making significant investments in new programs. For
instance, the aboriginal head start and the Canada prenatal
nutrition programs also address the social and health needs of
children at risk and their families.
As stated in the red book, we must give our children the best
possible start in life. Investing resources in our children is
investing in the future of our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we have another instance of lobbying, patronage, and maybe
corruption with the Agusta affair involving an Italian firm,
Agusta S.p.A., a manufacturer for the EH-101 helicopter
contract which was cancelled and for which there was to be no
compensation.
The present Prime Minister said that there would be no
compensation. And I quote:
13085
[English]
``The program is cancelled and there isn't any compensation for
anybody''.
[Translation]
And yet, there has already been some compensation. The firm
Unysis has received $166 million in compensation. There are
ongoing negotiations with Agusta, and with Westland, regarding
compensation, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said that
there would be no compensation, despite the fact that some
ministers have already spoken against it and would have liked an
inquiry into this affair.
This is serious. As we know, Agusta was found guilty of
corruption in Belgium, and gave bribes in Italy. This firm has a
very bad reputation. Yet, the government is now reaching
agreements with lobbyists, some of whom, like James Deacey
and Daniel Despins, are well known Liberals with very close
connections to the party, are currently negotiating compensation
for a firm. At the same time this government is cutting social
programs. It has reduced the social housing program by some
$300 million in Canada. Of course, the poorest people arre
getting hit, but the government is about to give millions and
even hundreds of millions of dollars to a firm which does not
deserve it at all.
This is another example of the power lobbyists exert on the
federal government, as was seen in the case of Power DirecTv,
which was perhaps an even more serious example of nepotism.
As we know, the son-in-law of the Prime Minister had
succeeded in having a CRTC decision overturned, in favour of
his own company. This is yet another example of the power of
lobbyists and of the patronage which prevail with this
government.
The issue concerning Agusta is whether or not to provide
compensation. We asked the minister responsible and he seemed
to indicate that he was negotiating to that effect. But do we
compensate or not? I know that the government's answer will be
very vague. We will not know for sure. The government will tell
us: ``Well, we are negotiating, we are discussing, but this is not
really about compensation''.
We are suspicious because, in fact, the government will once
again try to find a few hundred millions and give that money to a
company which does not deserve it, all this at a time when it
makes cuts in social programs and social housing in this
country.
Can we say that the Prime Minister of Canada is keeping to his
word, since he said this regarding the EH-101 helicopter
program:
[English]
``The program is cancelled and there isn't any compensation for
anybody''.
[Translation]
Those are the Prime Minister's own words. Is this Prime
Minister keeping his word or not? We want to know if there is
any compensation. If there is, and if there are negotiations,
perhaps we should even have an inquiry into this case, because
Agusta, as I said earlier, has a very bad reputation, and has
already been convicted of corruption in Italy and in Belgium.
So, I ask the question, and I hope to get a clear answer from
the government.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never
been nebulous in my life.
Which word did my hon. friend not understand? I will do this
very slowly to make sure the member gets it. The Government of
Canada did not breach the contract with EH industries. The
government terminated the contract in accordance with the
termination clause and in accordance with our promise in the red
book which we kept on November 5, 1993 as soon as the Prime
Minister took office.
The Prime Minister did say absolutely that there is no
compensation for anybody. Furthermore, he said that ministers
involved would make sure we do not pay a cent more than that
we are obligated to pay. His statements are entirely correct. The
Government of Canada is not negotiating a compensation
settlement with EH industries.
I ask my hon. friend to read the contract. The contract was
arranged and signed by a previous government which had as a
member the hon. gentleman who sits in the front row and leads
my hon. friend's party. However, a mere bagatelle.
Contractors are being reimbursed only for costs legitimately
incurred up to the point of termination plus those costs arising
directly out of termination. No compensation is being paid; no
penalties and no lost profit for the cancellation of the contract.
Which word does the member not understand?
If people should choose to hire lobbyists when the
government goes forward in the purchase of other military
equipment, that is their prerogative. I make it very clear that no
firm requires the services of a lobbyist to do business with the
Government of Canada.
We might ask, however, who is lobbying the hon. member
across the way on this issue? As for the suggestion there are
backroom negotiations between members of the government
and lobbyists in this matter, it is simply untrue.
I am confident the errors being presented as fact by the Bloc
are the results of poor research and misunderstanding rather
13086
than a desire to mislead. Thankfully I have had the opportunity
to explain the real facts.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)