CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 20, 1995
Bill C-100. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14187
Bill C-101. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14188
Bill C-335. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14188
Bill C-336. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14188
Bill C-337. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14188
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 14189
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 14189
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14189
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14189
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14189
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14189
Bill C-86. Motion for third reading 14190
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 14191
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 14209
Bill C-89. Motion for third reading. 14209
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 14219
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 14219
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 14220
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 14223
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 14224
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14225
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14225
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14226
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14226
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14227
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14227
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14229
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14229
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14229
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14229
Bill C-89. Consideration resumed of motionfor third reading 14230
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14242
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14246
Division on motion deferred 14249
Bill C-275. Motion for second reading 14249
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 82 14258
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of Senate amendments 14260
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14286
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 34; Nays, 170 14294
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 92 14295
Bill C-89. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 14296
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 194; Nays, 53 14296
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 14297
14187
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 20, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian section of the Assemblée internationale des
parlementaires de langue française (AIPLF), as well as the
financial report concerning the meeting of that organization's
political and general administration committee, held in Beirut,
Lebanon, on March 20 and 21, 1995.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation to the 36th annual meeting of the Canada-United
States interparliamentary group which was held this past May.
The meeting, like many before, has once again demonstrated
the very valuable conference between Canada and the United
States and reflected those areas on which we agree and those on
which we disagree. I am happy to report the conference was very
successful once again.
(1005)
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report
of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development, on the statutory review of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
The report, entitled It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution
Prevention in English and Notre santé en dépend! Vers la
prévention de la pollution in French, contains 141
recommendations and is the result of 12 months of lengthy
hearings held in Ottawa and all parts of the country.
[English]
The report perhaps could be summarized as urging Parliament
and the government to adhere to the fact that the protection of
humans and ecosystems requires strong federal leadership,
including national standards and mirror legislation in close
co-operation with provinces and territories.
I thank the members of all parties for their co-operation and
full commitment in the production of this report. I thank the
witnesses who appeared before us and in particular the staff
which was very helpful during the entire procedure.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill
C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, without
amendment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (on behalf of the Minister of Finance
and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development- Quebec, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws
relating to financial institutions.
14188
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-101, an act to continue the National
Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency,
to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987
and the Railway Act, and to amend or repeal other acts as a
consequence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I move
for referral of the bill to committee before second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-335, an act respecting the use of social insurance
numbers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to introduce a private
member's bill entitled an act respecting social insurance
numbers.
In introducing this bill, I would like members of the House to
note the federal government has never placed controls on the use
of the social insurance numbers by other levels of government or
by the private sector. The private sector may currently deny a
service to an individual who refuses to divulge his or her social
insurance number.
This bill would require other levels of government and the
private sector to state exactly why this information is needed
and will give an individual an opportunity to refuse to divulge
his or her social insurance number unless required by federal
statute to do so.
The bill would also impose penalties on groups, individuals,
agencies or businesses which divulge another person's social
insurance number without that person's consent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1010 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-336, an act to appoint to a taxation ombudsman
and to amend the Income Tax Act to establish certain rights of
taxpayers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce
this private member's bill which I have called the taxpayers bill
of rights. The actions of Revenue Canada are often consistent
and fair but from time to time the administrative practices get
out of hand, so much so that one of my constituents actually
suffered a heart attack over some of the actions taken by
Revenue Canada. Things like rights of seizure without proper
notice and arbitrary change of collection arrangements are only
some of the aspects which the bill deals with.
Most important, it creates an ombudsman who will act as a
buffer between taxpayers and Revenue Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(warning on alcoholic beverage containers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the health of all
Canadians we often use warning labels on items such as
cigarettes, antihistamines, cleaners, bags and other items which
may affect the health of Canadians. This does not apply to
alcoholic beverages and this bill seeks to have a warning label,
particularly with relation to the problem of foetal alcohol
syndrome and the ability of all of us to operate machines and
cars while under the influence of alcohol.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to
present from residents of my riding, pursuant to Standing Order
36. It has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners state that since the Bloc Quebecois has
publicly dedicated itself to a disloyal objective, since it is
comprised solely of members elected from one province and
since the Reform Party represents constituencies in five
provinces and has constituency associations in every province
of Canada, the current situation is a travesty on the institution of
Parliament. The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to
preserve Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition and protect the
rights of all Canadians by prevailing on the Speaker of the
House to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official
opposition.
14189
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting today
petitions on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Peace
River.
The first petition asks Parliament to recognize the Reform
Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder
of the 35th Parliament. The petitioners feel the rights and
interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected
by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation.
(1015 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
four petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first petition concerns the use of the legal defence that has
become known as the drunk offence. The petitioners believe that
in committing the act of choosing to consume alcohol, the
individual must also accept all the responsibility for his or her
actions while under the influence.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): The second petition
is about the subject of the family.
The petitioners request that Parliament oppose any legislation
that would redefine family, including the provision of marriage
and family benefits to those who are not related by ties of blood,
marriage or adoption where marriage is defined as the legal
union between a man and a woman.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41. The
petitioners are extremely concerned about including the phrase
sexual orientation for the first time in federal legislation.
They believe that this sets a very dangerous precedent for
society.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition is on the subject of sexual orientation. The petitioners
request that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and privileges as
married people.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that is
circulating across Canada.
This petition comes from Alberta and also from Windsor,
Ontario. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of
the House that managing the family home and caring for
preschool children is an honourable profession that has not been
recognized for its value to society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
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 that decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions this morning. The first reads: ``We, the
undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House
of Commons to the following: That members of Parliament have
recently made hateful comments which contribute to a climate
of intolerance, fear and violence for the lesbian, gay and
bisexual community.
Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation''.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition indicates that the undersigned residents of
Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:
Whereas law-abiding citizens deserve protection, especially the
most vulnerable in our society, therefore we, the petitioners,
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize the public
threat of dangerous offenders and to amend the Criminal Code to
have such offenders detained indefinitely on warrant expiry
when it is believe that they may cause serious physical or
psychological harm or death to the person.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to present a petition from a number of young
Canadians, constituents of mine, students at the White Oaks
Public School in the riding of London-Middlesex.
These young petitioners call on Parliament to have the image
of Terry Fox running his marathon on the new $2 coin. I am very
pleased to present this petition to the House on their behalf.
14190
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that all
questions stand?
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14190
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-86, an act to amend the
Canadian Dairy Commission Act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take a few minutes this morning to add some final thoughts to
the consideration by the House to Bill C-86, an act to amend the
Canadian Dairy Commission Act, and reaffirm my support and
the support of the government for this industry driven initiative.
I am pleased to say that the bill reaffirms the support of the
House of an industry driven initiative.
(1020 )
As my colleagues from all sides of the House have
acknowledged, the Canadian dairy industry will not be
untouched by the global market transformation under way. The
Canadian dairy, egg and poultry industries or the supply
managed industries are evolving in ways that are necessary to
meet the global market transformation that is in progress. I am
proud and pleased in the way in which they are doing that. They
have shown in the past they can roll with the punches. They can
evolve as necessary to maintain economically viable industries
that provide safe food in sufficient quantities to the Canadian
consumer.
Major changes are now reverberating throughout the
economic sectors of the world's major trading nations. That is
not an exaggeration. Competition is and will be fierce. However,
opportunities for success are at hand. In order to take advantage
of those opportunities, changes will be required in the way we do
business.
Bill C-86 represents one of the best of these changes. The new
milk pricing and pooling of returns approach enabled by these
legislative amendments evolved from within the industry itself.
That is what it is all about.
The new system was developed as a result of intense
consultations with a good deal of give and take. These give and
take negotiations among the dairy stakeholders took place from
coast to coast. These discussions remain ongoing as the dairy
sector fine tunes and reshapes the way milk and milk
components are sold both within and outside of our borders over
the next five years and beyond.
The administration of pricing and the pooling of milk
marketing returns by the Canadian Dairy Commission and
provincial authorities offers significant advantages. It will
permit retention of the equity currently offered by levies while
allowing us to keep and possibly expand important domestic and
export markets in the face of strict new rules under GATT and
the World Trade Organization.
While the possibility of a trade challenge by the United States
can never be categorically ruled out, Canadian trade officials
have advised that as long as Canada does not use producer
financed assistance to support exports of Canadian dairy
products to the United States, as long as Canada does not use
levies beyond the levels of gradual reduction for export of
commodity specific groups, our system will then conform with
the provisions of the international agreements we have signed.
August 1 is the date of implementation of Canada's dairy
commitment under GATT and the WTO arrangements.
It is important to emphasize again that this is an industry
driven initiative which is shaping its future on this key issue.
While governments will continue to have an important role to
play, that role is facilitative. The shaping process is an ongoing
one and the passage of the amendments now before us will assist
the process. It will not define the process. It will not limit the
process nor will it hinder the process with over-regulation
This bill provides the necessary legislative authority to
permit the Canadian Dairy Commission, in close co-operation
with the provincial milk marketing authorities, to implement a
new milk pricing system with the pooling and market returns
from different classes of milk.
I wish to remind all members that under the pooling
arrangements, the Canadian Dairy Commission will simply be
administering a pool of producer moneys on behalf of the
producers. No government financing is involved.
Bill C-86 is enabling legislation which does not specifically
define the extent or timing of a particular milk pooling system or
systems. The dairy industry will do this for itself in the weeks
and the months ahead.
With the passage of the bill most aspects of the new dairy
approach will be implemented on a national basis within the
next two months. Negotiations remain ongoing in all nine
provinces. It is only nine provinces because Newfoundland is
14191
not part of the national milk supply management system as it
produces only a limited amount of industrial milk. The other
nine provinces have agreed to a national pooling of market
returns from special classes of milk as of August 1 of this year.
(1025)
These nine provinces have also agreed to a harmonized milk
classification system and all nine provinces have agreed to
implement uniform pricing for special classes of milk destined
for United States export and for certain domestic products
containing diary ingredients.
Six of the nine provinces, namely Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have
decided to proceed more immediately to the pooling of market
returns for all classes of milk. British Columbia may join this
broader pooling arrangement as well and it is still considering
the option.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have indicated that they wish to
implement pooling arrangements on a more limited scale. At the
outset nothing precludes their joining the all milk pool at any
point in the future.
Again, I urge my fellow members to fully support and
expedite the passage of Bill C-86. Such action will clearly
demonstrate our recognition of the dairy sector's commendable
initiatives. As well, it will demonstrate our willingness to
facilitate this industry driven means of successfully competing
in the post-GATT environment.
We look forward to the support of the House in expediting this
bill for the good of the industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege and an honour for me to speak this morning on a bill
that is extremely important to Quebec farmers, particularly
dairy producers.
It is also an honour to speak immediately after the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, who
really is quite familiar with agriculture.
As you know, Quebec alone produces 47.5 per cent of
industrial milk. Furthermore, Quebec has always played a
leading role in Canada's dairy industry. Quebec does a very
good job of carrying out its responsibility as a leader among the
other provinces where milk is still produced in Canada.
Canada's present dairy product supply management system
was initiated by Quebec residents. Without the determination of
Quebec dairy producers in the 1970s, we would not have supply
management in this industry and, let me tell you, it would be an
indescribable mess.
I am therefore especially pleased to note that the constituency
of Frontenac has over 15 per cent of farm producers, the vast
majority of whom are dairy producers.
Since we have been discussing Bill C-86 in this House, we
have addressed the possibility of changing the Canadian Dairy
Commission to a standing committee. Recently, on June 8, we
had a chance to hear people who have worked very hard to
ensure that this proposed change does benefit the dairy industry
in Quebec and Canada, particularly our dairy producers. So it
was that we met Claude Richard, president of the Fédération des
producteurs de lait du Québec; his counterpart from Ontario,
John Cor; and Richard Doyle of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
I also visited a great many dairy producers in the
Saint-Hyacinthe area: the Martins, the St Laurents, the Gouins,
the Vigneaults, the Barils, the Pellerins, the Lessards, the
Poulins and the Loiselles.
(1030)
These farmers explained to us once again the ins and outs of
Bill C-86 that will allow the six provinces to come to an
agreement.
In light of that information and the answers we have obtained
to our questions, I am able today to reiterate to my colleague
opposite that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-86.
Without rereading Bill C-86 in detail or clause by clause, I do
want to explain what the change consists of, and note that the
dairy industry has been required to adjust rapidly to the context
of the free trade agreements. The GATT negotiations in Geneva,
and the campaign to defend article XI, as well as the discussions
about the relevance of maintaining a supply management
system, have indicated major upheavals to come in the dairy
industry. Clearly, Canada's dairy producers had to find a
solution quickly if they were to be competitive in the context of
free trade and the globalization of markets. The challenge was a
big one.
Bill C-86 will make it possible to implement the agreement
signed by the six provinces-Prince Edward Island, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-,
which, I remind you, produce over 82 per cent of all milk in
Canada. This agreement is a solution that will maintain our
system and comply with the new requirements of the GATT and
NAFTA.
Pursuant to the GATT definition of an export subsidy, under
the free trade agreement, dairy producers must eliminate their
system of export levies by August 1. That is the problem Bill
C-86 solves by making changes to the Canadian Dairy
Commission Act.
At present, producers of industrial milk pay a levy of
approximately three dollars per hectolitre of industrial milk that
is to be exported, mainly in the form of butter and skim milk
powder. If we make a quick calculation, three dollars per
hectolitre is three cents per litre, which represents
approximately 7.5 per cent of the value of the milk and which
each producer of industrial milk used to pay in order to promote
exports.
14192
Even though it comes out of the producers' pockets, not out of
public funds, under the GATT and the free trade agreement, that
levy is an export subsidy and, as such, illegal. Starting on
August 1, GATT and our partners in the free trade agreement
would not have accepted our continuing to operate in that way.
More specifically, this bill implements a national system for
pooling market returns that will be used to support the export of
dairy products. The pooling permitted under Bill C-86 will
comply with the international agreements, while allowing
producers to maintain the advantages of the present system.
(1035)
However, we must be aware that there is a possibility that the
United States, which is challenging anything and everything
these days, may decide to challenge this two-price policy for
milk: one price for milk for the domestic market, and one price
for milk destined for export. In that case, the dairy industry in
Quebec and Canada could be accused of dumping.
In order to be successful, however, the United States or the
country that considered its interests harmed would have to prove
that exports from Canada were harming its market. Since our
exports are relatively small, and since we export an increasing
proportion of value-added processed products, that harm may
be very difficult to prove. Bill C-86, which we are discussing
today on third reading, is the solution that will enable producers
to face the upheavals in their industry resulting from the new
international context.
We, the MPs of the Bloc Quebecois, therefore support Bill
C-86, since it meets the needs of producers who want to adjust
to the requirements of the international trade agreements signed
by Canada. Of course there are certain shortcomings in this bill;
in-depth discussions are going on, in Quebec at least.
Apparently the bill is creating a bit of a problem for processors.
The discussions are not sticking on dozens of points, only on a
few specific ones, and in a few days there should be-at least we
hope there will be-an agreement between the Quebec
department of agriculture, the UPA, the federation, and the
Canadian Dairy Commission.
At present, the dairy industry is managed partly by the
provinces and partly by the federal government, as are many
industries that appear to have two heads. In these cases, of
course, two heads are often not better than one. At present, the
provinces have jurisdiction over fluid milk, and the Canadian
Dairy Commission has jurisdiction over industrial milk only.
The bill provides for a delegation of powers between the
Commission and the provinces in order to administer the pooled
market returns. If the agreement were not signed, the
Commission would administer the pooled market returns for
industrial milk only.
Those, then, are the technical changes made to the Canadian
Dairy Commission by Bill C-86; I call them technical changes
because they are regulations that will allow dairy producers to
achieve their objective of adjusting the system as we now know
it to the new standards of our international commitments, such
as the GATT and NAFTA.
Mainly, we must remember that six provinces have signed an
agreement in principle to pool their entire milk supply system.
The initiative comes from the dairy industry; that point must be
emphasized. The initative comes from the dairy industry, whose
producers decided that they had to take the necessary action in
order to make the most of the resources available to the dairy
industry. The distinction made between industrial milk and fluid
milk will be eliminated; the provinces' present quotas will not
be changed.
(1040)
I am particularly proud to state in this House that the concept
of single-price milk was initiated in my region, the Eastern
Townships, and that the then president of the federation in
Sherbrooke was Jacques Blais.
I remember very clearly indeed the initial meetings, at which
people wanted very serious discussion of a future single price
for fluid milk and industrial milk. Those discussions were
lively-and sometimes even physical. I attended one of those
meetings and I certainly was not at ease. Those farmers had
some powerful arguments. The Eastern Townships played a
pioneering role in this debate.
It should be noted that, at the time, there was a difference of
more than 10 per cent between the prices for fluid milk and
industrial milk. It was practically the same milk. At the time, the
farmers were told: streamline your operations; become more
productive and more competitive; lower your production costs.
And they did.
At the time, you could encounter three tank trucks on the same
concession road, which might have only three dairy producers
along it. You could see a truck for fluid milk, a second truck for
industrial milk belonging to the Coopérative fédérée, and a third
truck that might belong to an independent company like
Lactantia, for example.
Today on that concession road, there are still only three dairy
producers, but only one truck. So we have managed to reduce
transportation costs. Fluid milk, the price of which, as I was
saying, was 10 per cent higher, is now carried in the same truck.
I can even tell you that the same cows, the same milk, and the
same consumers are involved, and so, 13 or 14 months from
now, the price should be exactly the same.
I have here a document showing Quebec's dairy production,
from 1950 to 1994, in fact. In 1994, there were 11,763 dairy
producers in Quebec. These 11,000 dairy producers produce
pretty well the same volume of milk as was produced in 1970.
But wait a minute. In 1970 there were 43,669 dairy producers.
That means that, with one quarter of the number of dairy
producers, we are producing practically the same volume of
14193
milk. Better yet. If I take one cow as an example-I am sure the
member for Drummond will be pleased-, in 1970, the average
cow in our herds in Quebec produced 3,324 litres of milk per
year-and without hormomes, without being shot up, just
through improved breeding and better livestock feed. Look at
this: in 24 years, the average cow in Quebec has gone from
producing 3,324 litres of milk to producing 5,336 litres. The
figure has not doubled, but it is at least 75 per cent higher.
(1045)
I was reading in La terre de chez nous, the magazine for
Quebec farmers, that a 3 per cent production increase was
anticipated for the current year. So it is possible to up the
quantity of milk given by our dairy cows each year without
``boosting'' or shooting them up, without altering the milk,
without risking animal and human health.
I would remind you that the milk produced in Quebec and in
Canada is a credit to us. We have some of the cleanest, freshest
milk in the world. Within minutes of leaving the cow's udder it
has already been refrigerated to a temperature where it can be
properly kept. We are proud of that. Our facilities prove beyond
the shadow of a doubt that without exaggeration we can increase
milk production by 3 per cent without increasing the size of our
herds.
The farmers in my riding tell me that if their milk quotas
could be upped by 10 per cent per year, they could meet the
demand without having to struggle.
What would give me the greatest pleasure would be if all our
farmers in Quebec could have a chance to read the text, or a part
of the text, that we received a copy of on June 2, 1995, signed by
an Assistant Deputy Minister at the federal Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. It was a copy of a letter addressed to
the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Bob Speller; it is signed by J.B. Morrissey.
A question had been raised by my colleague, the honourable
member for Champlain, Réjean Lefebvre of the Bloc Quebecois,
and I'm going to read you a sentence from it: `` -with respect to
expenditures on primary agricultural research relative to
research into finished agrifood products, for a period going from
1990 to roughly 1998, the projections, as Table I shows-''
Quebec's farmers are responsible, in terms of Canada as a
whole, for about 18 to 19 per cent of agricultural production.
Quebec has about 24 per cent of the population and it pays
between 23 and 24 per cent of Canada's income taxes.
And at this point I would hope that the farmers in my riding
are listening closely, when I talk about the share that this
government-and when I say ``this government'' I do not
necessarily mean the party currently in power. Quebec
agriculture has always been shafted by the federal system and I
have another egregious case here, where Quebec has been
cheated year after year.
For instance, in terms of the resources allocated to full-time
equivalents in research and development, Quebec in 1990-91
received 12.4 per cent of the total research and development
budget allocated among all the provinces by Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada. In 1991-92 we got even less, and that was
under the Conservatives, which is why I say that it is not
necessarily the current government. In 1991-92 the
Conservatives gave us 12.04 per cent of the total, or let us say 12
per cent.
(1050)
I would remind you that Quebec's relative participation in this
Department's activities is from 17 to 19 per cent, so we are being
cheated out of 5 per cent every year. The pattern is the same right
up to 1995-96, the current year, where Quebec's share is 13 per
cent. At 13 per cent, we are still having a minimum of 4 per cent
in research and development resources stolen from us.
It is not the sovereignists, the Pequistes, the Bloquistes, who
are inventing these figures. This is an official document. I see
here the logo of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and it is
signed by an Assistant Deputy Minister of that department.
In October 1993, when I was campaigning during the last
election, I said to the people of my riding, ``Send us to Ottawa.
We will audit the books and we will come back and tell you what
we find. If they are giving us too much money, we will tell you
that and we will give it back to them. We will be honest with the
rest of the country''. This document from Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada that I have just read to you has its
equivalents in all the departments.
Quebec's farmers have to understand that the federal
government is not necessarily the modern Messiah. The federal
government serves western agriculture well, but when the time
comes for it to serve agriculture in Quebec and the Maritimes,
there is nothing left in the coffers.
Here is another example. In the Magdalen Islands, the UPA
arranged for a special quota so that the Islands could be
self-sufficient in egg production. A special quota was awarded
to an egg producer in Etang-du-Nord. Now that assistance to
eastern grain transportation is being abolished, the price that
this egg producer will have to pay for meal will shoot up by over
$50 a tonne. Is it going to be more cost-effective for the
Magdalen Islanders to import eggs from the mainland or to
continue to import meal?
Many more crazy situations like that can be found in Quebec.
No, the federal government is not a Messiah, and when
Quebecers want information or help they head first for the
Quebec Ministry of Agriculture. Last week I just asked a
number of farmers whether they knew the name of Quebec's
Minister of
14194
Agriculture. Eight out of ten of them could name him, but not
one out of ten could name the federal Minister-he is
completely unknown. When people do know his name, they
massacre it so that if you did not know it yourself you would not
be able to decipher it.
It is a pity to have two Ministers of Agriculture for the same
farmer, the same cows. One of those ministers is very expensive
to keep and never, ever, gives Quebec the share to which it is
entitled.
(1055)
Whether you look at it in terms of Quebec's proportion of the
population, which is 24 per cent of the Canadian total, or in
terms of the percentage of income tax we pay to Ottawa, or in
terms of GDP directly related to agriculture, Quebec is not
getting its fair share.
Worse still, it is the taxes Quebecers are paying to the federal
government that are paying, compensating, the western grain
producers so that they can diversify and compete against us in
our own province, and we are paying with our money for the
privilege of getting booted on the backside. You all know that 80
per cent of Quebec's farmers are in livestock production. When I
say livestock production, of course I include eggs and dairy
production, because to get eggs you have to raise hens.
The opposite holds true in the west. There it is grain
production that predominates. But diversification is changing
the stakes. Obviously it is easier to work six or seven months a
year and then to garage the machinery and wait for spring to start
work again, crops and seed-if you raise livestock, it is not five
days a week, it is seven out of seven, 365 days a year. It would be
unthinkable for any of our dairy farmers or egg producers in
Quebec to treat themselves to vacations in the south the way
some of those western grain farmers can, for two or three
months, you will agree with me on that.
So it is a choice, and the choice has been entirely decided by
successive governments in Ottawa. Eastern Canada, Quebec,
Ontario and the Maritimes, were directed into livestock
production while the west grew grain; that was the arrangement
and it was accepted. The building of the railway that tied the
country together was of course done to satisfy the farmers.
So the dairy farmers know what a fair deal is, and in the
budget and in Bill C-76, which passed a couple of days ago, we
identified unfairnesses and we criticized them in this House on
more than one occasion, such as the way the industrial milk
subsidy is being cut by 30 per cent, in two 15 per cent cuts. The
budget makes it clear that the remaining 70 per cent will be done
away with sooner or later. No compensation is provided for, no
$300 or $400 million is going into an adjustment fund for our
farmers, to help them change direction.
In August our farmers will be going on a pilgrimage to the
Canadian Dairy Commission to request an increase to
compensate for the subsidy cuts. The result will be that you the
consumers will be paying more for milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt,
ice cream. Just as with gasoline, the increase will be greater than
the increase in the cost of living. The government is washing its
hands of the whole affair and saying, ``Oh, we are not raising
taxes. The prices of butter and cheese and yogurt and ice cream
are going up, and gasoline taxes are pushing up the cost of
gasoline''. And it proudly announces, ``We have not raised
anything''. The consumer price index is going up by 2.9 per
cent. There has not been an increase like it in four years.
(1100)
We are very comfortably installed in this House or elsewhere
in Canada discussing the benefits of the pooling arrangement
agreement reached by six provinces, but the negotiations that
led to the agreement should not be left unmentioned. I want once
again to emphasize the hard work done by people from my
region, as Quebec had a strong voice in the negotiations,
particularly the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
and its president, Claude Rivard, its vice-president, Jean
Grégoire, and their senior economist, Guylaine Gosselin.
One question came up repeatedly during the committee's
hearings, and that was: why have only six provinces joined the
pooling agreement? We were told that certain provinces were
taking advantage of the opportunity to get the CDC to review the
way it treats them, that others did not operate the same way at
the provincial level and that the jump involved in pooling all
their milk with the other provinces was too great. But the most
interesting thing to emerge from the discussions was that these
six provinces are powerful enough without the rest, because they
represent, as I mentioned earlier, 82 per cent of total milk
production. So the other provinces can always join later, and
their abstaining, at the moment, will not jeopardize the success
of the agreement as it now stands.
This historic agreement will have a much more far-reaching
impact than appears at first glance. If we take the example of
Quebec, in 1996 the dairy producers should enjoy an increase in
income varying from 60 to 70 cents per hectolitre. And because
of GATT, Canada will have to accept imports of butter this year,
which will probably affect quotas.
Since the six provinces will be spreading out the market
variations over all the milk produced, the impact will not be felt
too strongly, because it will not be just one province that has to
absorb the costs. More clearly, if there were to be more butter or
cheese imported into Canada from other GATT members, each
of the provinces could see its quota drop by, say, 1 per cent. It
14195
would not be just one province that was affected. The same thing
would happen if, for example, consumption, or our exports,
went up: it would not be just one province that saw its quota
increase but all the provinces.
I could perhaps remind you that under this agreement dairy
quotas will no longer be confined to one province. A dairy
farmer in Quebec could buy an Ontario quota, or a Nova Scotia
quota, or he could sell his quota in Alberta. And if ever too great
a proportion of our quota were to go outside the province, the
province could withdraw for a year or for the current year, as
soon as 1 per cent was reached. So no province could have more
than 1 per cent of its quota siphoned off, unless it was willing to
sell its quota to other provinces.
(1105)
In conclusion, I want to recall the political context that
underlay the signing of this agreement. This kind of
arrangement may well turn out to be a prototype for similar
agreements in other sectors, since its basis is the one that is
likely to predominate in the years to come. Why? Because it is
an economic agreement.
The agreement banks on the advantages that all partners will
derive from working as a team. With a referendum coming up
this very year, the producers in many provinces have not
hesitated to enter into an association with Quebec, because it is
in their best interests. When it comes down to reality, not some
hypothetical disaster situation, it is clear that logic counts for
more than political considerations.
Rest assured that our prize cow in the Plessisville region will
still be a prize cow, even after a ``Yes'' vote in the referendum.
There are those who would like to frighten people by saying,
``Your quotas will not be worth anything, your cows will get
mastitis, they will injure themselves grazing, they will have
more trouble calving in the spring''. These are scare tactics, and
increasingly our dairy farmers realize this.
One scare tactic the federalists use a lot is saying that if
Quebec becomes sovereign, its producers will immediately lose
their sale quotas in Canada: that is not true.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois is
proud to be associated with Quebec's dairy producers and to
endorse Bill C-86 in this vote at third reading, for the good of all
dairy producers everywhere in Canada. And I hope that Canada
will give Quebec more of a share in research and development
funding. The people who will not go beyond 12 per cent and who
laugh at our farmers should be ashamed of themselves,
especially when they visit our farmers or turn up at auctions,
Encan Lafaille for example, and swagger around trying to
impress people and then come back here and make fun of them.
They laugh at them and will not go beyond a miserable 12 per
cent.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, toward the end
of the speech by the hon. member for Frontenac he made the
statement that in the 1995 budget the support to the industrial
milk producers was cut 30 per cent twice over. I wonder if the
hon. member would like to take the opportunity to correct the
record. It was 15 per cent each year for two years, not 30 per cent
twice over.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary will
know that was not a point of order as much as it was a question of
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, what I said was that
over the next two years 30 per cent is going to be cut from the
subsidies to industrial milk producers: 15 per cent in the
1995-96 budget and 15 per cent in next year's budget. Fifteen
plus fifteen equals thirty. The subsidies are being cut by 30 per
cent. If the honourable member can prove me wrong, I will
apologize to the House.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
certainly not pleased to be interrupting that interesting
exchange, but I am here today to speak on Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Dairy Commission Act.
This bill is significant. It provides for the replacement of the
existing system of levies with a system of pooling market
returns for different classes of milk.
(1110 )
The government claims the move to a pooling system will
maintain equity among producers and will be consistent with
Canada's international trade agreements, namely NAFTA and
the GATT. Changes are needed to supply management to
continue while meeting the requirements of our trade
agreements. Dairy farmers I have talked to and others in the
industry have told me they feel this legislation is necessary to
allow supply management to continue under the GATT and the
NAFTA. For this reason, I support the stated intent of this
legislation.
However, I do have a major concern with clause 2, which
affects section 9 of the Dairy Commission Act. The bill extends
the powers of the Canadian Dairy Commission and will diminish
the authority given to the provinces under the present act.
Therefore, to guard against this possible erosion I proposed an
amendment that would have affected section 9 of the Dairy
Commission Act. Last night my amendment was voted down in
this House, which is very unfortunate.
Once again the Liberal government has shown its desire to
intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This is one more
move of many we have seen over the years. It is a revolt against
this intrusion on the part of the federal government into areas of
provincial jurisdiction that led to the existence of the Bloc
14196
Quebecois in this Parliament. We need to move in the other
direction and return some of the powers that belong rightfully to
the provinces under our Constitution. This is one more move in
the opposite direction, the wrong direction. It is another
example of wrong thinking on the part of this Liberal
government.
I will take a few minutes to talk about what Bill C-86 is and
what it does. C-86 is an act to amend the Canadian Dairy
Commission Act. The purpose of the bill is to amend the
Canadian Dairy Commission Act to provide for the replacement
of the existing system of levies with a system of pooling market
returns from different classes of milk. The government claims
the switch to a pooling system will maintain equity among
producers and is consistent with Canada's international trade
agreements.
As part of Canada's system of supply management, the
Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee, which is
chaired by the Canadian Dairy Commission, oversees the
application of the national milk marketing plan. The Canadian
Milk Supply Management Committee sets national production
targets, establishes each province's share of the national quota,
and exports surplus milk through planned marketing programs.
The orderly export of surplus production is an essential element
of ensuring the integrity of the supply management system;
without it the system would falter.
Currently producers assume the cost of exporting dairy
products that are not consumed in Canada through a system of
levies collected by provincial marketing boards and agencies as
deductions from payments to milk producers. Once remitted to
the commission, these levies are used to finance special
programs intended to increase the domestic use of dairy
products and to cover the commission's administrative costs.
During the 1993-94 year a total of $141.5 million was collected
from the industrial and fluid milk sectors. Such levies, however,
are now considered to be a form of export subsidy under the new
GATT deal and must be reduced or modified.
I have a few observations on Bill C-86. Through this bill
Canada's dairy industry would abandon this established system
of producer levies on industrial milk. The levies would be
replaced by a system of national pooling, which allows all
stakeholders-the farmers, the processors, and the
commission-to equitably share the costs and benefits of
pooling revenues and the effects of fluctuations in market size
for both fluid and industrial milk.
Through a system of pooling the producers who export milk
into the U.S. would receive smaller returns for their milk, but
the burden would still be shared by all dairy farmers across the
country. Instead of a levy being taken off the farmers' cheques to
subsidize exports, a national pool would achieve the same end
since the net return to farmers would be identical. For its part,
the processing industry would still pay a lower price for
industrial milk than consumers pay for fluid milk.
(1115)
These amendments to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act
add a certain amount of new pricing and funding distribution
authority to the CDC, the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Although the new pricing and pooling approach for milk has
received agreement from all provinces in principle, negotiations
are ongoing as to whether there will actually be one national
pool, which at the moment appears very unlikely, or two
separate pools, one for B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan together
and the other for the other six provinces that are covered by the
act.
Ontario dairy farmers who supply most of the industrial milk
to further processors and Quebec farmers who are the biggest
exporters would receive less than other dairy farmers unless
there was some form of national pooling. On the other hand,
under a national pooling system, producers in the non-exporting
provinces subsidize those who are exporting. It really amounts
to a form of equalization payment from one sector of the
industry to the other or from one province to the other. This is
perhaps the biggest obstacle to achieving an agreement which
will include all provinces for the pooling regime for all classes
of milk.
I would like to speak briefly about the relationship between
Bill C-86 and the Reform Party policy and position on supply
management and various particulars.
Reform policy in this area has been and still is that all
producers should be able to structure and manage their
organizations in any manner which they believe will best serve
their interests. The matter of regulating production and setting
prices for products under the organization's jurisdiction is a
producer issue which should be dealt with by farmers.
Reformers acknowledge that the agriculture industry,
including the supply managed sector, is moving toward a more
competitive market driven system. We have proposed tough,
positive measures to ensure fair competition, such as tougher
anti-combines legislation which would help reduce the input
costs to farmers.
The anti-combines measures have been demonstrated in
agriculture over the years, particularly in the fertilizer industry
where there have been court challenges by farmers against
companies which appeared to be price fixing. Unfortunately
these cases drag on in court until they are eventually dropped. I
know the last case dragged on for about 10 years and then
eventually died.
That is not the kind of anti-combines legislation and fair trade
legislation we need. We need tougher action by government in
this area. We need tougher laws first and then we need tougher
enforcement. Canada has some of the weakest anti-combines
14197
legislation in the developed world. A stronger approach needs to
be taken and some new policies made in this area.
In terms of trying to reduce input costs we need fair trade
policies which would help protect against dumping by other
countries and which would guard against unfair subsidies in
other countries, for example, the United States. I will speak a
little more about this later in my presentation.
Too often when politicians and others involved in supply
managed industries talk about the fact that the industry is
moving toward a more competitive type of industry-by
competitive I mean more products will be coming in from other
countries to compete-we forget to say that it is absolutely
critical that the products coming in are under a fair trade
environment. This means that where there is unfair subsidy in
other countries, as there is in the United States in this industry,
our government must protect against these products coming into
our markets. Again, it is an area where government has to
strengthen its resolve and be tougher when it comes to unfair
trade, particularly dumping.
Another area of Reform policy regarding this industry relates
to general changes which will reduce government overspending
and which will lead to lower taxes and lower input costs in the
future. I am thinking in particular of a plan we presented in the
taxpayers budget. I will talk about that later.
(1120)
With respect to supply management, I believe change is
inevitable. The fact is dairy farmers will be forced to compete
more and more with American farmers. The odds are that this
competition will come sooner than this government is willing to
admit. I am not saying this is what I necessarily want, but it is
the way I see it. This is what is most likely to happen.
The rules are changing and dairy farmers will need transition
time in order to adapt to the more open trade of the future. This
bill will allow a supply managed system to continue for some
time but there is some doubt about the reality of border
protection continuing over the long run.
Members of the dairy commission claim this bill properly
reflects the changes affecting dairy farmers. What the bill
actually does is maintain the status quo. Given the fact that a
change to supply management is inevitable, I see this as a
problem over the long run.
The method this government has been presenting along with
this legislation is an area of real concern to me. Yesterday in
debate on report stage of this bill the parliamentary secretary to
the agriculture minister made some disparaging remarks about
my knowledge of the dairy industry.
I fully acknowledge that I am not a real expert in the dairy
industry, but I am starting to realize that maybe I know a lot
more than the parliamentary secretary does when it comes to
acknowledging that this industry will change and that there will
be more competition. It is important to acknowledge this so that
farmers do get a reasonable transition time from the protection
they have today to the reality of a more open market in the not
too distant future. While the parliamentary secretary made some
comments about my lack of knowledge, I believe his lack of
publicly acknowledging the move to more open competition is
wrong because farmers need forewarning of what is to come.
My main concerns regarding Bill C-86 do come from the
discussions surrounding the whole supply management area.
They revolve around talk I have heard from the minister of
agriculture, the parliamentary secretary, leaders of farm groups
and farmers themselves. This discussion has generally said that
this legislation will allow supply management in the dairy
industry to continue in a form quite similar to the present form
indefinitely into the future.
This legislation would allow that, it is true, but this does not
mean that supply management will continue in a form that is
similar to the present system well into the future. There are
several trade issues in particular which may lead to a lot more
direct competition from the United States by allowing more
access to dairy products from the Americans.
Before I start discussing these trade issues which will have a
substantial impact on our present supply management system I
would like to make one thing clear. I am not talking about these
issues because I want to see the demise of supply management or
because Reform wants to see the demise of supply management.
I will discuss these issues because they will have a dramatic
impact on the dairy industry in the future.
This discussion will provide an important service to dairy
farmers and others in the industry. Even though this is a difficult
message to deliver and the reaction is not always favourable,
especially the immediate reaction, it is something that should be
done. Reform will continue to do this and I hope this Liberal
government will start to do it.
Reformers have had the courage to talk about probable
change, while the minister, the parliamentary secretary and even
the leaders of some farm groups have publicly pretended that the
present system will exist indefinitely. This seems a dangerous
message to send to dairy farmers, that they will be protected
against further competition, in particular from the American
dairy farmers.
(1125)
Publicly they hide what they privately and in small groups
acknowledge. Change is inevitable; it is a question of how much
and when. That is what we have to talk about. I will take a little
14198
time now to talk about why I believe change is inevitable and
why it may be sooner rather than later.
The first reason is that the new GATT negotiations start in the
year 2000. That is only five years from now. In the agreement
there will be a lot of pressure from the Americans in particular to
allow their products more free access to the Canadian market.
There will be a lot of pressure, as there has been already, on our
government to accept the freer access on the part of the
American government. The GATT agreement and the
negotiations starting in the year 2000 certainly will put pressure
on the industry. Seven or eight years from now, considering the
GATT alone, we will see an industry which will be competing
against a lot more imported products, in particular from the
United States.
The more immediate threat comes from the NAFTA. The most
immediate concern under the NAFTA agreement has to do with
the panel decision which will be coming down within a year. If
the panel determines that the NAFTA takes precedence over the
GATT with respect to supply management and trade between
Canada and the United States, then the borders will be open
much sooner than they would be under the GATT agreement.
In two to three years if the panel rules that the NAFTA takes
precedence over the GATT, we could see a lot more free access
from the United States with respect to dairy products. That is a
much more immediate threat. It is very important for the
government to start acknowledging it publicly in order that
farmers get the proper transition time which they need to
prepare for the change.
Another possible threat under the NAFTA will come with the
inclusion of Chile in the NAFTA group. Our Prime Minister and
the President of the United States have said it will probably
happen within a year. That leads me to believe that there
probably will not be significant negotiations taking place which
would allow Chile into the NAFTA group. There just is not time
in a year to carry out meaningful negotiations. Therefore, I
believe that Chile will come in under the current agreement with
very little negotiation. Maybe that threat is not quite as
imminent as it was a few months ago.
There are several things which the government can do for the
sake of dairy farmers in the dairy industry. I will talk about five.
First, the government can acknowledge that there is a high
probability of more access from American products and
therefore a move to more competition. I have stated this many
times already in my presentation today and I will continue to
state it.
Second, the government can help to ease the dairy farmers'
legitimate fear that the Americans will not compete fairly unless
they are forced to by tough action on the part of the Canadian
government.
Third, the government should start working toward levelling
the playing field between Canada and the United States before
more competition occurs.
Fourth, the government must recognize that there are
different concerns about change to the supply management
system within different groups of dairy farmers. Each group
must be listened to and asked for its recommendations as to how
it can deal with its particular problems which will result from
the move to more competition from imported products.
Fifth, the government must talk about the positive side of
opening the borders. There is a huge American market there for
the taking and it will take a healthy attitude on the part of dairy
farmers to ensure they take full advantage of the available
market.
I would like to take a few minutes now to talk about each of
the different areas which government should be discussing with
dairy farmers.
(1130 )
First, they must acknowledge that there is a high probability
of more access for American dairy products and therefore a
move toward more competition. It is critical to allow or even
encourage dairy farmers to prepare for the change, because that
will be necessary. There will be a transition time that will be
necessary to allow dairy farmers to compete with the
Americans. There is no doubt that the Canadian dairy farmer can
compete very well with the American farmer if they are given a
level playing field to work within.
Second, help ease the dairy farmers' legitimate fear that the
Americans will not compete fairly unless they are forced to by
tough action. I hear this all the time. They are afraid that dairy
farmers who recognize-there are many now-that change is
coming are really quite concerned that the Americans will not
compete fairly. They say they can compete with anybody in the
world if they are given a fair chance, but Americans do not have
a good record of competing fairly. This is what dairy farmers tell
me. They tell me that the American industry is highly
subsidized, which it is, and that many of these subsidies are not
acknowledged by the Americans themselves as subsidies, which
is true. Some of these are the school milk program, the farm bill
set aside program, irrigation subsidies, and on and on. There are
an awful lot of subsidies that give the Americans an advantage,
or will in an open border situation between Canada and the
United States, and are not fair. These have to be dealt with.
Third, start working toward levelling the playing field
between Canada and the United States before more competition
occurs. An example of this is pesticides, which are used in all
sectors of agriculture. Over the past months, as I have been
travelling around in southern Ontario, there is a common theme
I have heard from farmers from the dairy industry and from
other industries. That theme is that if we are going to compete
we need access to pesticides and drugs very soon after the
14199
Americans have access, or even before the Americans have
access. To accommodate this, why can we not have a reciprocal
agreement? If a pesticide or drug is given approval through the
regulatory system of one country, then why can that not be all
that is necessary for this product to be used in the other country?
Both Canada and the United States have a very trusted
regulatory system. I see absolutely no practical reason we
cannot have an agreement between the two countries so that
when a product is approved in one country it can be approved
almost immediately in the other country when it is being used in
a similar environment and for the same purpose.
This is a common theme. This and other moves have to be
made to level the playing field so that the Americans do not have
access to these pesticides or drugs years before Canadian
farmers can take advantage of these products. In the agriculture
industry this is absolutely a critical area, which must be dealt
with.
Another way in which the playing field must be levelled has to
do with the broader economic considerations. I am talking
about, for example, tax levels. Tax levels in Canada are
substantially higher than tax levels in the United States. This
means that Canadian farmers are competing in an unfair way
with American farmers because of the higher tax component of
every dollar they earn.
The only way, of course, this can be dealt with, that taxes can
be lowered, is by lowering government spending and
eliminating completely government overspending.
(1135 )
Reform did present in February the taxpayers' budget, which
was a detailed three-year plan that would eliminate government
overspending. This plan is still a valid and sound plan. This
Liberal government has to move toward this plan, the taxpayers'
budget, or a similar budget over the next year so that we can
move over the next several years toward the lowering of taxes so
that tax levels become very similar in Canada and the United
States and so that labour costs come into line. One of the reasons
labour costs are higher in Canada than in the United States is
because the tax level is so high, such a large portion of the
paycheque goes to the taxman, the Government of Canada.
There are these broad economic considerations that must be
dealt with to level the playing field so that Americans are
competing fairly with Canadians.
The fourth area government must talk about and must deal
with is to recognize that there are different concerns about
change to the supply management system within different
groups of dairy farmers. Each group must be listened to and
asked for their recommendations.
I would like to spend a little time now to talk about these
different groups I have been able to identify as I met with dairy
farmers around southern Ontario, in Alberta, and other places
across the country. The first group I will call the older dairy
farmers, dairy farmers who are fairly close to retirement. They
want to hold on to their quotas. In many cases their retirement
fund is in quota value. They know that as soon as the border
starts to open and the Americans can send more of their product
into the Canadian market their quota values will start to decline
rapidly. They know that their quotas could be worth nothing in
the not too distant future. They are concerned about that.
I can understand that completely. Their retirement was built
in large part on quota value, which can so quickly disappear and
for which they have paid dearly throughout their expansion
phase in the industry. It is a problem that will be very difficult to
deal with, but it has to be dealt with and it has to be talked about.
The second group I will call the middle group. They are still
expanding in many cases. This group has in many cases
borrowed a lot of money to buy a quota. They have a couple of
concerns about the possible loss in quota value. The first is that
as quota value drops, while it does mean on the positive side that
any new expansion they bring into their business will be less
costly, it does mean that the value of quota they may have
financed right now will drop in value dramatically. Their
concern is that this will make them become insolvent in their
businesses. In some cases it will.
Will they be undersecured by lenders? Will they because of
lower equity levels not be able to borrow the money they need
for expansion? These are questions that have to be dealt with and
answered. Certainly it is different in every different dairy
farmer's operation, but this is a common concern I have heard
from this middle group.
As well, this middle group will be losing some of the value,
some of the equity they have been counting on to use in their
retirement and indeed to help with the transition of the farm
from this generation to the next. That concern is there with the
middle group as well.
In one of my past lives I worked as a farm economist. I worked
with farmers in the business management area. I worked with
100, 200 and 300 farmers who were in severe financial
difficulty. Each case is gutwrenching and very difficult to deal
with. I had to learn to separate myself from the emotional impact
this was having on each of those families.
14200
So often in the dairy industry the difficulty started with
paying a lot of money for quota, which provides nothing of
productive value. It just does not improve productivity in any
way. I saw so often where that led to the downfall of these
operations.
(1140)
I also worked in times when there was no value to quota. In
Alberta in the late seventies and early eighties quota had no
value. Farmers could get into the industry. They had to buy their
cows, their buildings, their feed, and everything else that goes
along with the industry, but at least they did not have to buy
quota.
I have presented that so dairy farmers can remember that
change has occurred in the past. Quota has lost and gained value
in the past. In most cases dairy farmers have been able to deal
with that, but in some cases they have not and it has led to their
downfall.
There is a third group of dairy farmers that is important for
government to work with or at least listen to: the people who are
just getting into the business. Many of them have told me they
would be all too happy to see the supply management system
completely disappear. In some cases the people that message is
coming from have quite shocked me. I have been surprised
because often their parents are in the industry and they are just
getting in. They know this quota is a very fragile thing in terms
of value. They know that in many cases they will not even be
able to get into the industry because lenders know there is a real
risk to them with a reduction in quota values.
These young producers have said they do not want to have to
pay for quota, something that may have no value in the not too
distant future, and ask how they can get around that. That is the
concern of the third group.
I do not pretend to know how we can ever deal with the
varying concerns of these three groups. We have to start talking
about it and it has to be dealt with. By ignoring the problem and
by pretending change is not going to come quickly, the
government is putting these farmers at an unnecessary
disadvantage. By acknowledging the problem and giving the
transition time they can deal with the change.
It is so important that the farmers in all three of these
groups-break the groups down any way you like-start talking
about some possible solutions to their problems. We need to
know from them how we as parliamentarians can facilitate their
solution, what we can do to help them accommodate the change
they will be facing. That is the fourth area politicians and the
government actually have to talk about and start dealing with.
The fifth area is to talk about the positive side of opening the
borders and opening competition. There is a huge American
market there for the taking. So seldom in this discussion is that
positive side talked about. We are always defensive. How is it
going to hurt us? We allow the Americans to bring their products
in to compete with ours. How are we ever going to deal with it?
We know the Americans are not fair traders. These are the
comments I hear from dairy farmers, and they are legitimate
concerns, but what about the opportunity that comes with this
change? There is an absolutely incredible opportunity and the
possibilities are mindboggling.
If members think that is just some talk that is not based on
what has happened in the past, let us talk a little about the beef
cattle industry in Alberta. When there were problems, as there
always are problems when moving cattle back and forth across
that border, the cattle industry went through some rough times.
With the signing of the first free trade agreement, western
Canadian farmers saw the opportunity and the cattlemen saw the
opportunity. The attitude they have is that they can compete with
the best. And they are absolutely right.
We have seen an industry grow in Alberta beyond what I
would even have believed would be in the realm of possibility 10
years ago. I would not have dreamed it. I was really concerned
about the future of the beef industry ten years ago. Cattlemen
said they have the opportunity, mostly it is fair trade but there
are still some things that have to be dealt with but they are doing
great.
(1145)
When we hear cattlemen say they are doing great, things are
going very well. One thing farmers are not very good at is
looking on the positive side. They like to talk about the negative
a little more. They are very positive people but they like to talk
and dwell a little more on the negative. I am also like that. It is
built into me by my life as a farmer.
I acknowledge that change is difficult. Very few people like
change especially when it affects them directly in their lives and
in their business. Change is a lot easier when it affects someone
else. The change in supply management will be particularly
difficult because it will reduce the protection that has been in the
industry for some years, protection which has been available to
very few businesses besides supply management.
In the whole supply management question and in the dairy
industry we have to talk a lot more about the positives of change
and how we can take advantage of change. We have to talk about
how farmers in different situations can deal with and prosper
from change. I know, as many dairy farmers know, if farmers are
given a fair chance to compete, which is all they ask, they will
compete successfully.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-86. I will use the
opportunity to pay tribute to the good dairy farmers of my own
region, Fraser Valley. I will talk about the bill and some of the
solutions the Reform Party sees to the ever changing and
14201
evolving world of supply managed agricultural industries in
Canada.
Farmers in the Fraser Valley are among the best in the world
not only in the diary industry but also in the poultry industry. We
now have an ever expanding greenhouse industry.
Instead of going into a decline as many people had predicted
some years ago, our agriculture industry has a very bright future
and has shown to be very innovative, creative and very willing to
change, which is what they must be in order to survive in the
1990s and into the next century.
If dairy farmers in what is probably richest growing area in all
of Canada, the Fraser Valley, are given an opportunity they will
continue to be a major milk producer for British Columbia and
in essence could be a major milk producer for areas around the
world.
I will state for the record what the bill will do. It is a change
that will allow Canada's dairy industry to abandon its
established system of producer levies on industrial milk. The
levies would be replaced with a system of national pooling
which will allow all stakeholders to equitably share the costs
and benefits of pooling revenues and the effects of fluctuations
in market size for both fluid and industrial milk.
It is an evolving system from what was once allowed and
acceptable, the idea of national levies, to a system more GATT
sensitive into a national pooling system. That is an inevitable
change and it can be a good thing.
It is important for producers to know what the Reform Party's
policy is because there has been a lot of misinformation
circulated about it.
(1150 )
The Reform policy, from our policy manual, states: ``All
producers should be able to structure and manage their
organizations in any manner which they believe will best serve
their interest. The matter of regulating production and setting
prices for products under the organization's jurisdiction is a
producer issue and should be dealt with by producers''.
The second part of our policy, which the previous speaker
elaborated on at considerable length and in great detail, states:
``Reformers acknowledge that the agricultural industry,
including the supply managed sector, is moving toward a more
competitive market driven system''.
Those are two truths I campaigned on during the 1993
election. We were up front with Canadian consumers and with
producers about what we saw as the inevitable changes that
would have to come to the milk production system in Canada.
For one farmer to produce a steady supply of milk takes a lot
of care and planning. It is not a quick fix way of going into
business. Cattle must be purchased, sheltered and fed and all the
machinery required is bought. Farmers need to make sure the
cows are impregnated at a certain cycle. They must have dry
cows at some part of the year and fresh cows at the same time so
that they have a steady supply of milk and so on. It takes all that
planning. That I would even have to go through the lactation
cycle of a cow shows the changing demographic face of Canada.
My father and a lot of our fathers grew up with dairy cows,
helped to milk cows and understood that whole system. That was
a big benefit for Canadian farmers. There is a residual
understanding, even in the House, about what it takes to be a
farmer, especially a dairy farmer.
It is unfortunate now, as our cities are growing and the number
of farmers is shrinking, that more and more in the future it will
be incumbent upon those of us who are concerned about the
agricultural industry to take the time to explain to school
children and to other politicians about the difficulties of farming
and why one cannot suddenly increase milk production by 20 per
cent or why one cannot be a miracle worker especially in the
dairy industry. It takes some planning.
The government has to play a role in allowing for steady and
incremental changes to occur so that cataclysmic changes do not
have to happen overnight. It is the role of government to provide
that. If it fails in that role, with the understanding in general
society, then it will have failed Canadian farmers. Therefore we
need to make sure the government does that.
I urge the government to not soft pedal inevitable change. It
has to come. Those of us familiar with the agricultural industry
want it to come in an organized fashion, not in a chaotic fashion.
I think of our call for a triple E Senate. People might ask how
that affects the agricultural industry. However, there is a reason
for that. One of the reasons is to give outlying and less populated
regions more clout in our national decision making. It will be all
too easy in the years to come, as more and more people move to
the mega cities and we get one big city after another along the
Great Lakes. Even in my area of Vancouver, which is now
expanding and pushing out to become one big city, it is
important we have the regions and agricultural producers
represented with some strength in Ottawa.
One of the ways that could be done is through an elected
Senate which would allow people from varied backgrounds to
represent different regions.
(1155 )
It would be a pleasure to know that after the bill left the House
it would go to an upper house where four or five members from
Saskatchewan, four or five from Manitoba, and so on, had a keen
interest in the agricultural future of the country. It would be a
pleasure to know the bill would be under the scrutiny of people
who want the best for agricultural producers. That is something I
hope the upper place will do. However, it is more difficult
because that area is not represented in the same way as it would
14202
be under a triple E Senate. If it were properly handled it could
give a better voice to Canadian agricultural producers.
It takes two years before a cow has a calf and freshens and
supplies milk. The farmers therefore need to know they will
have a market down the road for their product. A farmer can
grow a broiler chicken in a few weeks but it takes two years to
get the first bottle of milk in the dairy industry.
Fluctuating demand is a problem, especially in the period
following the second world war when producers and farmers
could not be sure of selling their milk. There was a problem with
a glut on the market and then a shortage. Consumers saw prices
going up and down. That resulted in unhappy producers and
consumers alike.
Supply management was introduced, a uniquely Canadian
version, and to its credit it has made the market very stable and
has helped producers to prosper all over Canada, including in
Quebec where 50 per cent of the industrial milk is produced. The
industry has done well under the supply management system. I
hope Bloc members are thinking of their dairy farmers when
they talk about cutting off the borders from Canada.
In any supply managed system there is a tendency to become
stuck in one group where it has worked. If it worked well in the
1960s and it has continued to work then it should stay the same.
However, it cannot stay the same.
During the election campaign I am sorry to say there were
candidates on the Liberal side who said that if Article XI 2.(c) of
the GATT went ahead without being strengthened and clarified
they would lay on the railroad tracks, they would resign their
seats if they were elected, and so on. They did not get elected in
my area. Weeks after the election the GATT was signed without
a strengthened and clarified Article XI 2.(c).
The change was inevitable, as was noted in the Reform Party
campaign. It was not an attack on the supply managed industry,
it was an acknowledgement that change must happen and could
be good. We went through the campaign and many of the
innovative farmers in my area understood they would have to
deal with the new trade realities of the 1990s.
Farmers still must be prepared for increasing market forces
against the traditional system of supply management. The bill
addresses that in a small way because it talks about why we must
change to the pooling system as opposed to keeping the old levy.
They will not be subjected to local pressures. They will not be
worried about an influx of cheap milk from Alberta or about
Washington state. We are now talking about a global shift in
trade laws which will bring global pressure on the dairy
industry. Fluctuations in demand and supply will mean stiff
competition down the road.
(1200 )
There are many examples of how this global change is going
to be a good one for the dairy industry. I envision a day when the
producers of the Fraser valley will no longer make the bulk of
their milk sales to the local consumer. However, I envision a day
when the bulk of sales will be offshore, to markets throughout
the developing world where our products can be marketed at a
profit. The milk industry will expand outside our borders and
take on the world.
There are many examples of that. In B.C. the grape growers
were afraid their industry would be swallowed up. Remember a
few years ago when the grape industry said that it was just a
matter of time before it would be swallowed up by the cheap
products from the states, the California wine makers and so on.
The growers grabbed the bull by the horns, if I can mix my
metaphors a little, and asked themselves why they could not be
innovative. They would be on the leading edge of the new
grapes, the new technology, the new way of making wine. Now
they are taking on the world.
Last year the wine producers from the Okanagan valley
produced the world's best wine. I know there are some other
good wines in Canada. I do not downplay them, but the B.C.
wine producers were able to produce by not being afraid of the
competition, the best wines in the world. My hat is off to them.
They did a good job. They took on the world. They can
compete both price wise and especially in quality. They are
among the best in the entire world. That is the way the
agricultural industry is moving.
My own area is not known as an apple growing area, but an
interesting phenomenon is happening. In British Columbia
apple growers have always come from the Okanagan. In the
Fraser valley an interesting thing has happened. The farmers are
not growing apples in an orchard any more. They grow apples in
straight rows four feet apart, with certain pruning techniques,
certain pollination techniques and so on. They can produce as
many apples on an acre as other growers do in 10 acres in a
conventional orchard.
They are able to do that with innovation, by taking on the
world, by exporting to Japan. They produce an excellent product
at a good price. That allows them to make a living even in the
Fraser valley where it was unheard of to even in a serious way
grow apples just a few short years ago.
Innovation is coming and producers know they must change.
There is evidence of that in my own riding. Recently the
producers have agreed to allow some of their potential profit to
go into the Agassiz Research Station as a joint venture project
14203
with the federal government, producers and industry in general
to find new and better ways to produce milk.
They are going to increase the herd size in Agassiz. The
University of British Columbia is bringing its herd out to
Agassiz. They will get them all together and have a good sized
herd, a real production herd of a couple of hundred cows.
They have huge new manure handling facilities there. They
are being innovative on how to handle manure storage,
composting, injection and all the things that we are going to
have to do. We cannot live in a society where the cities are
encroaching on the farms and think that the old honey wagon is
going to be able to do the same job it used to do just a few short
years ago.
It has to change and it is not bad that it changes. In fact,
farmers are finding as they change that not only can they handle
manure storage, for example, in a way that does not offend the
encroaching neighbours but also have a better yield and better
crop production by being more careful and more innovative on
how they handle manure.
Change is inevitable and it is not bad that change comes.
Another example, if I can use a local example, is the B.C. AI
centre, the artificial insemination centre. It has changed. It used
to be that cows and especially bulls were rated on how much
butterfat would be produced. Everything was rated on butterfat.
One wanted a cow that produced a lot of butterfat and one
wanted a bull whose offspring produced even more. Butterfat
was the key to the future.
(1205)
Times have changed. The AI centre now has realized that
people want a low fat product. Fat is not considered something
to be paid extra for. The centre is now tinkering with their next
crop of bulls whose offspring will produce milk that has more
protein and less butterfat. It is the wave of the future. There is no
use sitting and crying over spilt milk. The hon. member for
Vegreville enjoyed that comment.
Producers are saying that they have to plan. With a bull, it is
not just a couple of years to see how it checks out. It takes the
first crop of offspring, then the tests on those, making sure that
the protein count and the butterfat is trending the right way and
so on. It takes years and years to develop a good genetic
program.
BCAI is one of many groups that has realized that changes
must come. It does not look just to the lower Fraser valley, not to
British Columbia where its roots are. It looks around the world
to market its products, to market its bulls around the world. It
has been very successful in being a leading example of what it is
going to take to compete in the next century. It is not going to be
the status quo. It must change and this change will be good.
Through the free trade agreements which the government has
signed, both the GATT and the NAFTA agreements, tariffs will
be reduced over the next few years. American products will be
able to compete as time goes on more and more, head to head
with Canadian products.
We have had a period of grace where the low Canadian dollar
means that we have not had in the last year and a half to two
years a lot of cross border shopping. We have not had a large
influx from the United States as far as dairy products are
concerned. We cannot plan a long term agricultural policy based
on the fluctuations of the Canadian dollar. We must be
competitive. We have to be competitive and ready to go head to
head with the Americans over the next 10 years.
There is no sense saying that it is not going to happen. It will
happen. The low Canadian dollar best not lull us into
complacency. We have to be ready for the Americans when they
start aggressively challenging us. They are doing that as we
speak. They are challenging us hoping to prove to us that
NAFTA will supersede GATT.
We can take on the Americans. We can take on the world. We
will do it all if we are willing to change. This bill is a change. We
will support it because it shows that change is inevitable. It can
be a good thing and I am happy to support it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member. He
referred first to the length of my comments, by the way, which I
really appreciated. I think he wanted me to expand on them a bit.
Next time I will try to do that. As he was talking about being
raised on a farm that had dairy cattle, I would like to ask him
about the pastoral scene which must have surrounded milking
time.
In his constituency over these past couple of years as he hears
from dairy farmers, I would like him to relay some of the key
concerns which he has heard from them.
I have had correspondence from the Mainland Dairymen's
Association which is in the hon. member's riding. Its members
were concerned with some of our comments on supply
management. When I wrote them a letter responding to that they
published the whole letter in their newsletter. I think they
appreciated our point of view on it.
I would like to hear from the hon. member the comments he
has been hearing.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do that.
The hon. member would be right to call the Fraser valley area
one of the more pastoral scenes in all of Canada but we will not
get into that so much as we will to the comments that I hear from
farmers in the Fraser valley.
14204
(1210 )
I may have more milk producers in my riding than probably
anywhere west of Ontario. There is a huge concentration of
supply managed industries. Both poultry and dairy products are
concentrated in the lower Fraser Valley for good reason, because
of the weather and proximity to markets.
However, there are two or three things that farmers keep
raising as major concerns as they head into the next century and
try to plan their lives and plan for handing off the farm to the
next generation.
First, they say they are willing to go head to head with the
Americans or with anyone else as long as it is on a level playing
field. Farmers keeping telling me: ``If you make sure the
Americans do not subsidize their product, if you make sure we
have anti-combines legislation in place, if you can make sure
the health standards are the same and so on, then we will
compete with the Americans. But you have to help us in a couple
of ways. The help we need is not just from the federal
government but all levels of government, to make sure
governments get their own houses in order. They have to get
taxes down. They have to get regulation of bureaucracy in hand
so that we do not have to fight both with the federal and
provincial fisheries and the federal and the provincial
environment offices as we go about our business''.
They need to know that the changes coming are not just
dumped on them overnight. They are willing to change. If they
have to go bigger, they will go bigger. If they have to bring in
new technology, they are happy to do that. However they cannot
handle sudden cataclysmic change where they will wake up one
morning and find sudden change, as the Canadian wheat farmers
found that the Crow rate was gone. Government should have
warned them.
If we do not warn the Canadian farmers and help them plan
over the next few years during the reduction in tariffication they
will come back and curse this Parliament and the government
for not having raised the warning flags to show where they must
inevitably go.
There is no sense saying that things will stay the same.
Farmers want to change. They are, first of all, good business
people. They use technology. They are using computers and
innovative feed rations. They are using market analysis and
playing to the consumer's choices. They can do all of that.
Government must not pull the rug out from under them suddenly
down the road and tell them they should have been told that
something was coming.
The change that Bill C-86 proposes is good. It points the way
to something that is GATT friendly. But the government must be
honest with the farmers and say: This is the change and we must
move this way.
There are also other changes. Let us be honest. The changes
are here. Be forthright. The farmers just ask for the rules to the
game and they will play. Do not change the rules suddenly 10
years from now.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when we talk about dairy farmers I always have to take
my hat off to these people. I realize how dedicated they are to
their jobs. I grew up on a farm and my dad had about 20 milk
cows. I know what milking is all about. I did it for about 15 years
before I went out on my own.
I sometimes cursed those dairy cows. I did not know why God
invented them because He said: ``Work six days and rest one'',
but these dairy farmers never rest.
If we had a ball game planned for Saturday night or the middle
of the week we knew we milked first. Six o'clock was milking
time and the ball games were postponed. We also knew that if we
came in late after the ball game at 5.30 we would be off to the
pasture to fetch the cows and do the milking. There was no
fooling around.
That continues today. The dairy farmer is on schedule. He
cannot be five minutes late or five minutes early. Those cows
have to be milked at the right time.
(1215)
It sometimes amazes me when I look at another aspect of
government legislation. Where is the overtime? Where is the
triple time for working on holidays that these dairy farmers
deserve? Everybody wants to have at least two days of the week
off but the dairy farmer is dedicated. He is there seven days a
week and probably 24 hours a day.
It is a real credit to the dairy farmer to see the product he has
produced. There is no better product in the milk industry
worldwide. The American milk products cannot compete in
terms of quality. We as consumers must recognize that and
reward the farmer for it somehow.
Yesterday when I heard the parliamentary secretary to the
agriculture minister say we should give farmers the right to
make decisions, I was wondering whether he had bought a
Reform membership because that is exactly what we said
throughout the election. The farmer should have the right to
decide how to market his product and how it should be priced.
We have often been accused of being anti-marketing boards,
anti-supply management. We have always said the farmer has
the knowledge and expertise. He knows how to set the quotas,
how to set the prices and what has to be done to keep up with the
times.
During the election I experienced something surprising. I
went through some of the Liberal propaganda saying that they
would preserve article 11: ``That has to stay. There is no other
way. It will not be negotiated out of the World Trade
Organization. Vote for the Liberals''. The Conservatives said
much the same thing, that they would negotiate supply
management:
14205
``You will have your quotas''. I received a nice brochure in the
mail from the Canadian dairy farmers saying: ``Vote anything
but Reform. These guys do not know what they are talking about
when it comes to the dairy industry. Their saying we have to go
to tariffication is a bunch of beans''.
What has happened? Nobody in this House has taken off his or
her hat to the Reform to say that we were right. We have it in
black and white that we were right. We will say again to this
House that the dairy farmer has to be protected and his
livelihood has to be guaranteed. If we lose the dairy farmer we
lose one of the most precious things this country has.
I must give credit to the Bloc members. When it comes to
attending meetings where farm issues are being addressed they
seem to give credit where credit is due. They are always
concerned that agriculture is looked after, which is something
we have failed to do in the west. We sometimes think we are
independent and as farmers we will do everything on our own
but it means working together. That is why I think these dairy
farmers have to be complimented.
When I talk to dairy farmers now they are taking a different
view of what Reform policy is. During the spring break I had a
meeting with Manitoba's milk marketing board and a number of
farmers. I was pleasantly surprised when they started talking
about the problems of the high priced quotas. I was surprised
when I heard someone say that something had to be done.
A quota of $3,000 per cow cannot work. We have to start
realizing that financing a piece of paper at today's interest rates
cannot be done. It is hurting us and we have to change. I must
give the members on the Manitoba milk marketing board and the
farmers who were present credit that they finally acknowledge
this. Why do we have those huge quotas and the prices on those
quotas? Because of government regulations. Because provinces
tried to protect their territory. Innocently, without wanting to we
got into a situation where this thing crept up into the system and
the prices on these quotas became higher and higher.
Today we know that has to change. Consider a dairy quota of
$3,000 per cow. That is $300 of interest a year that new farmers
will have to pay. It is not feasible. They cannot do it and
therefore the change will come. We can depend on the dairy
farmers to make the right changes. They have the knowledge on
how to restructure and to be competitive.
(1220)
We are now in the 1990s but thinking back to the 1970s and
1980s, when it comes to dairy commissions, the government
really is a dairy commission. It has been milking the public for
so many years it has almost milked it dry. The consumers and
taxpayers are getting very thin. If somehow the government
does not use some of that BST on the taxpayers, they will all
disappear. The BST that needs to be injected into consumers and
taxpayers is that they have to pay less in taxes, produce a little
more and become a little more competitive than some of the
industries.
When talking of industries, I am talking about grain handling
which is probably one of the main ones. I was surprised the other
day when dairy farmers were before the subcommittee on
transportation. They told us that they cannot survive as dairy
farmers in Atlantic Canada because the feed costs are way too
high. One gentleman told me that they were paying over $4 for a
bushel of barley in Atlantic Canada. I asked how that could be
because as a farmer in Manitoba, I barely get $2. Something is
wrong somewhere.
Then I started to think about the hearings we had in Thunder
Bay. The taxation on the grain handling system, the terminals,
the property taxes alone are 25 times as high as down the road at
Duluth. These costs are added onto the cost of a bushel of barley.
I am wondering why the government does not realize this. When
the National Transportation Agency told the minister a year ago
that there should be no increase in pilotage fees, he overruled
that. He gave the pilotage authority another 9 per cent increase.
Why, when we know that we have to start making things more
efficient would that be done? Not only that but when the pilotage
authority heard about that, it started charging these fees two
months ahead of schedule. It ripped off the shippers another
million dollars or so.
There might be a court case over it. The shippers want that
money returned. What does the transportation minister say? The
government will change the legislation and make it retroactive.
The government will make the illegal thing legal. Is that the way
we are going to build efficiencies into our system? Is that the
way we want to run our country? If that is the way we are going
to do it, then I am very sorry that we will not be able to compete
with other countries. It is very important that the Liberal
government along with the opposition start realizing that and
keep on hammering with that.
It makes me wonder when I look at this bill whether everyone
read the fine print. I hope they did because I know a number of
red book promises were given to us during the election. One of
them was the barley plebiscite that was supposed to be held to let
farmers make decisions on how they wanted to market their
barley.
It astounds me today when I read quotes in the paper that there
will be a huge loss in the barley pool because we have been
selling our grain to other countries at prices below the cost of
production. When I see barley being shipped into the U.S. for
about $60 a tonne less than we can deliver it to Atlantic Canada,
I am wondering who it is we are really protecting. Are we doing
14206
what we say we will, protecting our supply management, or are
we really trying to destroy it?
If we are not going to look after our own producers, why
worry about the others? It is astounding that we do not start
realizing that we have to look at issues at home first before we
start to address the problems of the rest of the world.
Looking at unfairness, a level playing field, the taxation, it is
killing us. When I look at fuel taxes five miles away from where
I farm and I can buy gasoline for almost half the price that I can
in Canada and all of it is due to tax, something has to change.
(1225)
The government said in the budget that it would cut back.
What did it do? It put another 1.5 cents of tax on a litre of
gasoline, which amounts to 6 cents a gallon. We are supposed to
be having a level playing field. How can that be?
The issue which the Liberals do not seem to realize is that we
have to solve our problems at home first before we can point our
finger across the border at what the Americans are doing wrong.
It does not make sense when I can pick up a bottle of propane in
Hannah, North Dakota for half the price that I would pay two
miles away in Snowflake, Manitoba. It just does not make sense.
I do not know how the country will keep running with that kind
of discrepancy.
It is not the production units which are bringing on the costs,
it is taxation on taxation. When I look at the deficit and the fact
that by 1997 we are going to be paying $1 billion a week in
interest, how can we ever have a level playing field? Why has
this come about? Because of mismanagement by previous
governments and because previous governments would not
listen to the grassroots people. They always told the grassroots
people: ``Vote for me. Everything is in order. We will make it
better''. Now we have ourselves in a mess which we do not know
how to get out of, so we are starting to point fingers at other
areas saying: ``They are to blame''.
I was in Saskatoon at the beginning of February when the
dollar was plummeting. I talked to some financial people. That
little town has about 180,000 people. Seventy million dollars
went out of that little town into the U.S. for safe keeping because
of the fear of our dropping dollar. How can our economy survive
if that is the kind of fear we are instilling in the grassroots
people of our communities, in the entrepreneurs and the
developers? It just will not work. That is why I am concerned
about dairy farmers. If something does not happen to provide
them with a level playing field, whether it is supply management
or free enterprise, they will never survive the same as grain
farmers or other industries.
I met with some of the railway people during our
subcommittee hearings. I heard them say that they pay $654
million more in fuel taxes, property taxes and sales taxes than
their counterparts in the U.S. How can they compete? It all goes
back to the primary producer. Eventually that is where the cost
gets carried. That is why it is very important when we debate
this bill that we really mean what we say, that we want to provide
a level playing field. That is not to say that this farmer has to
have the advantage of producing more or that he has to receive
more for his product; it means that we have to bring the input
costs down to what the input costs are in the competing areas.
When the American farmer travels on roads that cost half the
taxation for fuel, when the American farmer has half the
property taxes to pay and when the American farmer's income
tax is 30 per cent lower than in Canada, how can we make a level
playing field? Cut back government spending. Bring the deficit
under control. Pay down the debt and let our farmers take
control of their industries. I have never seen a farmer who could
not handle his problems if he had a level playing field. That is
what we have to work on.
When I look at the barley producers today taking a loss in
their pool, if that is correct, how can we say we have a level
playing field for the grain farmers? How can we say that they
can produce a product for the dairy farmer so that he can
survive? One goes hand in hand with the other. That is why it is
so important that we provide a level playing field for the dairy
farmer and the grain farmer.
It must also be there for the machinery salesmen, related
industries and labour. Labour is a prime expense to everybody.
When labour gets taxed to a point where it takes until the end of
June to pay their income taxes and property taxes, they have to
have a price to do it. This adds into the cost of production. This
is what is creating an uneven playing field. I think that is what
we have to address.
(1230)
I am always amazed when we go to a store and pick up a
product and say it is too expensive, it is unaffordable. I think this
struck home to me a year or two ago when I was at an
agricultural conference in Winnipeg. The head honcho from
Cargill Grain was talking to us and he said: ``You know, I never
realized what is really going on in the food industry. I know what
corn costs in the United States and I know what some of the other
raw products cost. But my wife sent me shopping the other day
and I picked up a box of corn flakes and went home and priced
the corn that was in the box by the weight of it. Do you know
what the farmer should have got if he had got the price? $1,800 a
tonne. That was the price of the corn in the corn flakes box.
Where did all the costs go? Not to the farmer. He is getting
around $100. So eighteen times what the farmer got was added
to the cost of that box of corn flakes.''
14207
How can people survive with those types of costs, even if you
are a labourer? Something is wrong in our system. I look at the
dairy farmer today, who is getting about 30 per cent out of a litre
of milk for his costs. He has to produce a calf that has to grow for
at least two and a half years before it starts producing milk. He
has to build the barns, buy the equipment, do the work, and then
get one-third of his costs just to ship the milk to the processor
and to the shelf in the store.
Something is wrong and it has to be changed. I am wondering
how we can do it. I do not mean to say that it has to just be done
by the Liberal government. It also has to be pointed out by the
opposition people that there is something wrong. If we do not do
it we fail our commitment to this House. I am hoping we will
take it seriously, especially when we look at the food products.
I was on a phone-in show one day with one of the agriculture
people from Manitoba. They were complaining about a few
things like the cost of fuel, which they thought should be
brought down, and I agreed. One person said: ``Well, as long as
we have the production of fuel and hydro we will be all right''. I
asked the minister: ``How are you going to keep on producing,
Mr. Minister, if you do not have the farmer? How much oil can
you drink to sustain life? Will it help you much?'' I then asked
the manager who was there from the Royal Bank: ``How long
can you chew on your silver coins and stay alive?''
These are the things we are forgetting. We have to start
realizing where this country really comes from. It comes from
the agricultural sector. This is why people came here, to earn a
living, to raise a family, and to produce food for their
neighbours. It is important that we start realizing that we have to
supply our own needs and we have to be competitive on the
world export markets because we are an exporting country. Once
we can solve those problems and lower our cost of production,
the price itself will determine how successful we are in foreign
markets.
I appreciate this time to speak on these issues. I hope the hon.
members have been listening, because when we fail to put food
on our table we can see what happens in other countries. Two
prime examples are the Soviet Union and the African countries.
When agriculture gets abused and goes down the tubes, so does
the country. I do not want to see that happen to this country. I
hope this House can do something to provide level playing fields
for the primary producers, whether dairy, grain, or one of the
specialty products.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-86 today.
(1235 )
I certainly appreciated the comments from my seatmate, the
member for Lisgar-Marquette, about the need for a healthy
agricultural economy in Canada. Like him, I operate an active
grain farm and know that we contribute very much to the
economy of Canada in terms of providing a good food supply at
a very reasonable cost.
I want to premise my remarks today on Bill C-86 by saying
that what I am trying to do and our party is trying to do today is
to outline what we think is the need for leadership to provide the
environment for opportunities for those farm industries that
operate under supply management, how they can make the
change, how they can adapt to go into the 21st century and be
productive members of our society, keep their farms and operate
on a very sound economic basis.
Bill C-86 is an attempt by the government to change the
present levy system for industrial milk by implementing a
pooling system for all industrial milk among six provinces. This
bill's purpose is to enact the obligations of the Uruguay round of
the GATT.
The present levy system is considered an export subsidy under
GATT and is not permitted under the agreement. The new
system will pool all earnings for industrial milk and will take the
cost for exporting excess milk from those earnings. The
revenues the farmers receive will remain unchanged.
This bill simply keeps the present supply management system
in place. The government openly acknowledges that this is the
case. But supply management and free trade are very much
opposing systems.
The last time I checked, the trend in the world economy was in
the direction of a more open trade. Supply management is totally
out of step with the times. It is like a horsedrawn buggy and it
needs a redesign so we can move as quickly as the rest of the
world.
Recently our quotas for products made with industrial milk
ended due to GATT and were replaced with astronomically high
tariffs, 351 per cent in the case of butter, which is the highest.
They are all in that range of some 250 to 350 per cent.
Members will probably know that the United States is
presently challenging our sky high dairy tariffs. They are
viewed by the United States as a violation under NAFTA and the
United States has called for a NAFTA panel to hear arguments
on this issue during the summer. So the process has started.
A challenge under NAFTA takes between two and five years.
If Canada loses the transition time for the elimination of tariffs,
domestic quotas would have to be negotiated. The chances of
Canada winning the present challenge to the new dairy tariffs
are questionable, in my view. Our American sources are quite
confident they can win this one.
Even if Canada feels it has a good case, the future for the
pooling system cannot be ensured. Many would like to believe
that the pooling system can solve all of our problems in this
industry, that it can make supply management secure. That is not
realistic. What we need is some realism here. The future of an
14208
entire industry cannot be focused on such a weak system. The
time has come to move on and to move this industry beyond
supply management.
NAFTA negotiations to include Chile as a new partner have
already begun. These new negotiations will be an opportunity to
resolve old issues. Our partners in NAFTA want to finalize those
old issues before admitting a new member and signing a new
agreement. The supply management dairy issue is one of those.
The United States has good reason to push for an end to our
present supply management system. The Americans want to
have access to our markets for dairy products. On the other hand,
Canada has a chance to end the notorious back door subsidies the
U.S. hands out to its farmers. This is an opportunity, and I stress
it is an opportunity that cannot be lost, to push for an end to all
United States subsidies, which totalled over $10 billion U.S. per
year in 1993.
We can also shape the time period for phasing out our present
supply management system in Canada. We have to seize this
opportunity to do some hardball negotiations where Canada says
yes, we will give up some of our high tariffs on the supply
managed industries, but only in exchange for you reducing your
subsidies that you do through the back door. Then we would
have the level playing field my colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette spoke about, the need for this level playing
field.
I believe that our farmers can compete with anyone as long as
they have the same conditions. In fact, I believe that with the
high population base in the United States and with most of our
supply managed industry located within this 100-mile corridor
we can function very well. I believe we can make the most of
opportunities. We cannot lose this important opportunity that
has been presented with the United States challenge to NAFTA
to say yes, we are willing to give up something, but only in
exchange for your backing off your subsidies.
(1240)
I think we should work toward a continental free trade zone
for dairy products, a sectoral approach. One sector may be able
to move faster than others, and I believe this is one of them. This
will place all dairy farmers on an even footing. No one farmer
will have an unfair advantage based on the country in which he
lives or produces. I believe that is to the advantage of our dairy
farmers.
The world is moving to a new open market. There are 130
countries that signed the Uruguay round of the GATT agreement
and there are more countries that want to get in. Canada is part of
that free trade world. The time has come for government to
recognize that a transition to a free market in this hemisphere is
important to all of us. The government needs to help dairy
farmers to make the necessary transition, not hold them back.
The industry needs time to adjust. Dairy farmers have
invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their operations.
The government must negotiate a new deal for farmers or all
their hard work could be lost in the blink of an eye. I for one
know of the hard work that is involved in running any type of
farm operation, but in a dairy farm operation, as my colleague
has just said, seven days a week is the norm. We must take this
opportunity to give them some kind of a future, not one where
we have the blinkers on and pretend the system will always be in
place, but one where we can help them to move to this. Many of
these farms have been handed down from generation to
generation, and farmers want that to continue. It is a way of life
they enjoy.
This industry needs to develop an economy of scale to
compete with producers from other countries. The industry must
develop into a system that increases efficiencies and lowers the
cost of production. For example, the diversity of herd size and
yield in Canada is not set up to meet that need. The same holds
true for the United States. The average size of a cow herd in
Canada is 47, and in the United States it is 45. But in British
Columbia, the model province in the industry, the average herd
size is larger, at 78 milking cows. They are starting to make the
adjustment. As a result, the yield in B.C. is over 20 per cent
higher than that in the rest of Canada or the United States. The
industry in British Columbia is considered to be the most
advanced in North America. But under the present system the
industry cannot operate at full capacity. The B.C. quota is not
high enough.
I believe it is ludicrous that the provinces that are the most
efficient cannot benefit from this efficiency. The supply
management system is only coddling the inefficient producers
and hurting the industry as a whole.
The U.S. dairy industry is not making the transition to free
trade either. Farmers in the U.S. are paid to keep their herd sizes
down. This policy is meant to limit output. U.S. farmers receive
more subsidies from the government than their Canadian
counterparts. In fact, dairy farmers are the most highly
subsidized in the United States.
In Canada, subsidies for industrial milk were decreased in the
February budget by 30 per cent over two years. There is even a
possibility that the entire system of direct government subsidies
will end in the near future. The rebate to manufacturers using
Canadian dairy products will end in August. This is due to our
GATT commitments. We need to continue the trend.
I know that Canadian farmers need to stay one step ahead of
their American counterparts. The phasing out of internal quota
would be a next logical step. There has been discussion that one
possible option would be a partial buyout of the quota. Farmers
should be fully functioning members of a free enterprise system
and should stay ahead of the competition. They would not lose
all the time and money they have invested by taking this approach.
14209
With the negotiation of a new deal for NAFTA they would be
able to compete.
Canada needs to take this further in the next round of the
GATT as well, in five years. But first we must start with the new
opportunity I spoke of earlier that is presented by the NAFTA
talks and any possible expansion to include other countries.
(1245)
I understand the fear of the dairy industry and dairy farmers.
Grain farmers went through about 15 tough years when there
was a massive trade war on in agriculture. Trade rules have
really helped. The World Trade Organization and the GATT have
really helped. As long as we can phase down subsidies
worldwide we can compete with anybody.
A new system would be open and entirely different. There
would be no guaranteed price for their product but some farmers
would not be able to adjust. They would have to go. As a whole,
the industry would have to benefit.
The economy has changed and the way to do business must
change as well. If the dairy industry does not change, I fear it
will be harmed very substantially. This would hurt all Canadians
regardless of which province they live in, regardless of the level
of dairy production in their area.
We do have a very important example of an integrated
economy in agriculture, the beef industry. It is a North American
integrated market. The next logical step for Canada is to do the
same thing with the supply managed industries, specifically the
dairy industries.
If we can negotiate subsidies down in the United States and
our tariffs, Canadian dairy farmers can compete. Members of
Parliament have an obligation to ensure our dairy industry can
compete. We need to help the industry to survive and prosper.
The industry needs direction for the transition. If we do not lead
in the Chamber, who will? We need to give guidance to the
industry of intentions to negotiate a better solution.
To ignore the reality and lose it in the end makes no sense. The
time for change is now before it is forced on this industry. I want
to help dairy farmers make this adjustment for the future.
The government needs to broker a better deal during future
negotiations. I want to see them be a success. Governments
should want to see them succeed as well.
Let us not bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality. As a
farmer and a believer in the free market system, I call on the
government to lead dairy farmers and the supply managed
industry into the 21st century.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
moved that Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of
the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada
Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of
shares of the company to the public, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity today to speak in support of Bill C-89, an act to
commercialize Canadian National at the third and final stage.
This undertaking is an important element in ensuring the
continued success of the Canadian transportation system. The
geographic nature of the country means the efficient
transportation of goods is intrinsic to our producers and
manufacturers' being competitive in the global marketplace.
Specifically, our exporters who use rail transportation to get
their goods to market cannot compete on the global scale unless
railways are cost efficient and effective in delivering their
goods.
Commercialization of CN is one of the government's efforts
to ensure a competitive and viable rail system in Canada.
(1250 )
We are also moving to reform the regulatory framework
governing transportation to ensure it helps foster competition
and serve shippers well, which is what the Minister of Transport
did today. By putting CN on a level playing field and removing
the often costly public policy demands it has faced as a crown
corporation, the government is working to ensure we will have a
healthy national railway to serve Canadians throughout the
country into the future.
The bill before us aims to allow the government to sell all of
its equity in Canadian National as a public share offering. In
order to do so the government had to make sure enough capital
would be available to absorb this issue, expected to be the
largest initial public offering in Canadian history.
14210
Recognizing the Canadian equity market could not absorb all
the shares on its own, the government sought to structure the bill
to allow for the maximum number of Canadians to take part as
well as foreign investor participation. To this end we have not
limited foreign investor share purchases any more than those of
domestic investors. However, in trying to maximize the interest
in this share issue we also recognize the desire to ensure CN will
not be controlled by a single individual, whether Canadian or
otherwise.
Therefore in order to ensure a broad distribution of these
shares a limitation has been placed on the shares which any
individual or associated group of individuals may own at a 15
per cent level. This level of restriction is both low enough to
ensure no hostile takeover is possible and high enough to
provide investors with some influence on management actions
and decisions should they desire.
The government felt it was important to include this
restriction. However, let me assure the House that recognizing
the negative effect which restrictions could have on value, we
were very careful not to include any limitations which would
prevent us from maximizing the return to the taxpayers of
Canada in this share sale.
The obligation for CN to retain its head offices in Montreal
and to operate in both official languages will not affect the
value. We could not include any sort of operating restrictions on
CN's going forward because any sort of requirement in this
legislation for CN to maintain a specific operation would have
dampened investor interest in these shares given the possible
effect on the railway's revenues.
It can be tempting for some to ask CN to maintain certain of
its operations while it is still a crown corporation. However, CN
can no longer be used as a tool of public policy if it is to serve
Canadian shippers well. The government's objectives must be
met through transparent and direct means, not through entities
such as railways.
In committee Bloc members had originally indicated support
and exemption from the bill for the Quebec bridge. The
government has indicated in the past this is a perfect example of
the government and CN's being committed to the maintenance
of that bridge which is part of an important transportation
corridor for Quebec, Quebec City and the area. Obviously it
needs to have public participation by way of the provinces.
CN has already committed $1.5 million to the maintenance of
that bridge, key to its rail network. Seventy-five per cent of the
traffic on that Quebec bridge is vehicular traffic, which is the
responsibility of the provincial government. The president of
CN has invited the provincial government to participate more
fully in a equitable sharing of those expenses. Hopefully Bloc
Quebecois members will use their influence with the provincial
government to ensure it pays its part in maintaining that historic
bridge which serves Quebec City and its population and which
is also a monument to what we have built in Canada together.
CN has already sold its exploration division, the proceeds of
which will be applied to debt reduction. It is important that CN
be privatized in an attractive way to investors. It has extensive
real estate holdings and other non-rail assets, some of which
have considerable value.
(1255 )
However, the government has been advised that investors will
be looking for pure rail play and will not pay for CN's non-rail
assets. Accordingly, these assets which have considerable value
will be transferred to the government for subsequent sale.
Some of CN's property holdings are marketable in the near
term and will be sold to reduce the debt. The CN
commercialization act provides the Minister of Transport with
the authority to transfer selected properties from CN to the
government prior to the sale offering. CN will receive credit at
fair market value for these properties.
One of the difficult aspects of reducing CN's debt will be to
achieve a balance between what must be done to ensure the
shares of CN are marketable, what CN must have at a minimum
to start off on a financially viable footing and what impacts there
may be on other players in the industry, notably CP.
The railways are an important part of the transportation
system in Canada. Commercializing CN using the guidelines of
Bill C-89 will put CN on a level playing field with its
competitors. In conjunction with regulatory reform the
government has introduced today, we will ensure a viable rail
system up to the challenge of helping Canadian shippers
compete in global markets of the future.
The government supports the bill and we encourage members
on the other side to do likewise because it is an important
moment in Canadian history, allowing one of our crown
corporations to become a full player in the private sector and
give the country what it needs, efficient, affordable and reliable
rail service.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of the CN
Commercialization Act, and, in particular, we appreciate the
fact that provisions in it guarantee the bilingualism of the
institution and the maintenance of its head office in Montreal.
There are, however, six points on which we oppose the bill, and I
will first list them for you, before I go on to examine them in
detail point by point.
The six points are as follows. The first is the excessive power
the bill gives the minister to use public funds to pay off part of
14211
CN's debts and to give CN consideration for any assets outside
the railway system the minister wishes to transfer.
Second, we do not agree with the fact that the bill does not
protect the interests of CN workers once the company passes
into private hands.
In the same vein, we disapprove of the fact that the bill makes
no provision for the retirement fund of CN workers. We also
cannot accept the lack of provisions preventing foreign takeover
of the company.
Fifth, we object to the fact that, through clause 16, the SLRs,
because of their connection with CN, could, in the future, come
under federal jurisdiction, whereas they are generally under
provincial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the fact that there is no
guarantee CN's successors will carry out their obligations to
repair the Pont de Québec, which is an historical work and of
economic interest. There is, moreover, no guarantee that CN's
successors will do it any better than CN has done it itself since
its acquisition by the federal government.
Here, then are the six points one after another. First, the bill
accords the minister excessive power to use public funds in
order to pay off part of CN's debts in order to make the company
a more attractive buy and in order to give CN consideration for
portions of assets the minister would like transferred.
(1300)
We find these powers truly outrageous. They are to be found
under clauses 6 and 12. I will not quote the whole clause, but
only parts of it: ``The Minister may, at any time, while CN is a
Crown corporation, direct CN to transfer property, on such
terms and conditions, including consideration, if any, as the
Minister considers appropriate''-he is the one in
charge-``and CN shall forthwith comply with the direction''.
I will now read a short quote from clause 12, which goes along
the same lines: ``The Minister, with the approval of the Minister
of Finance, may enter into an agreement or other arrangement
with CN or any other person respecting the acquisition, holding,
service, disposal or discharge of or other dealing with any debt
or obligation incurred by CN'', this is somewhat excessive,
``and pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from the
proceeds of any sale of shares, amounts in respect of any
agreement or arrangement referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)''.
We were and are still very much opposed to these provisions,
but our proposed amendments were defeated. Motion No. 8,
which I drafted myself, was in opposition to them. It said that no
such agreement regarding the disposal of debt or the transfer of
property may be entered into unless the following conditions
were met, and here are a few of the most important ones: not
until the minister has laid before the House of Commons a
proposal that the agreement be entered into, and the House has
concurred in the committee report. This was aimed at giving the
House, rather than the minister, the authority to approve this
kind of transaction.
We also proposed that the transfer of assets be conditional on
either the approval of the House or the favourable opinion of the
auditor general to transfer to the minister assets with a value
exceeding one million dollars, or to transfer to a third party
assets with a value exceeding ten million dollars. These
amendments were voted down. Therefore, the minister retains
this outrageous power to use public funds as if they were his
own.
The second point we take issue with is that there is no
provision protecting the interests of workers in those
corporations that would be purchased by the minister, or
transferred to the minister to be sold later on. In the case of
companies that have formed an organic bond with CN and
receive orders from it in some cases, if that bond is severed, we
will have to make sure they remain viable and the jobs are
protected. Nothing of this sort is mentioned in the bill.
We do not want to presume the worst about buyers' intentions,
but someone could buy a company just to close it in order to
eliminate a competitor and then the jobs would be lost. To
prevent this, my colleague, the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans presented the following
motion which was defeated. Briefly it said that the minister
could not sell any subsidiary or part of the operations of CN,
unless CN and the purchaser had given the minister written
undertakings, in terms satisfactory to the minister, that all
reasonable steps had been taken to ensure that it would continue
for a reasonable period as a viable operation and that the
interests of the employees affected by the sale would, so far as is
practicable, be maintained after the sale. That motion was
defeated, therefore the workers have no protection whatsoever.
(1305)
Third, on a similar issue, we see nothing here that would
protect the CN employees' pension fund and on that point my
colleague, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
also presented Motion No. 11 which naturally was also defeated.
It said that the pension plan for employees of CN known as the
CN Pension Plan shall continue to exist and be funded and be
administered by the CN Pension Board in accordance with the
rules in existence immediately prior to the coming into force of
this act. This amendment to protect the pension fund was
defeated.
Fourth, we object to the fact that there are no provisions which
will really prevent foreign interests from acquiring the majority
of shares and therefore the control of CN. To support what I was
saying, I am referring to clause 8 of the bill, from which I will
quote.
14212
``8.(1)The articles of continuance of CN shall contain
(a)provisions imposing constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership,
[-]to prevent any one person, together with the associates of that person, from
holding, beneficially owning or controlling [-]more than fifteen per cent of
the votes-''
This provision is excellent, in principle, except that in the
laudable intention of not reducing unduly the number of
potential buyers in a market which is already rather limited,
there is a provision that allows various persons, individuals or
corporations, belonging to a group, to take less than 15 per cent
each, even if the total for the group is over 15 per cent, provided
that they submit a statutory declaration saying that they will not
act in concert with respect to their interest in CN.
This is a good provision and we agree with it as far as
Canadians are concerned. However, we disapprove of its
application to foreign interests, because we are not convinced
that CN directors will be able to make sure that foreign persons
will abide by their declaration. We proposed, in an amendment,
that this provision be restricted to Canadians. Of course our
amendment was defeated.
Fifth, clause 16 which I will quote provides, intentionally I
imagine, that a local railway created with a financial
contribution from a CN buyer would come under federal
jurisdiction, even though the others are under provincial
jurisdiction. Here is what clause 16 says:
``The railway and other transportation works in Canada of CN, of every
subsidiary of CN and of every corporation formed by any consolidation or
amalgamation of any two or more of those corporations are hereby declared to
be works for the general advantage of Canada.''
We do not accept the principle of federal jurisdiction over a
local railway created in partnership with CN. Against that we
proposed Motion No. 15 from which I will quote. This provision
concerning federal control does not apply to:
(a) any activity of CN within a province that operates under an agreement that
subjects the activity to the jurisdiction of that province, or
(b) any work, subsidiary or corporation owned by CN that is situated or operates
only within one province.
So, this provision putting short line railways under federal
control could only apply to short line railways operating in more
than one province. This amendment was rejected, just like the
others.
(1310)
The last provision concerns the Pont de Quebec, in Quebec
City. You know that when it was first built, this bridge was
considered the eighth wonder of the world and that it has not
only an economic value, but it is also very interesting in terms of
heritage. It seems to me that the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works
should show some concern. I saw photos of the bridge in its
present condition. In fact, it does not put people at risk, but it is
really regrettable to let an asset such as this one fall apart.
The federal government, which was the owner, was
responsible for it, and then it transferred it to CN which should
have taken all the necessary measures to repair this bridge as
quickly as possible. It did not do so.
We would have liked the bill to stipulate explicitly that the
buyer of the part of the assets of CN including this bridge would
have the obligation to repair it urgently within a specified time
frame. This is the purpose of motion No. 14 which says:
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 8, the following new
Clause:
``15.1 The Minister shall, no later than January 1, 1996, conclude an
agreement with CN providing for CN to repair, renovate and maintain the Pont de
Quebec in Quebec City and to commence work under the agreement no later than
May 1, 1996''.
It will come as no surprise that this amendment was rejected.
So they were all rejected, and we are left with legislation that
allows the minister to use federal funds as he likes, to have
assets transferred to him or to pay debts incurred by the CN.
The legislation does not protect the workers. It does not
protect the CN pension plan. It does not give any real and
verifiable protection against external control. It does not protect
the future short line railways from an eventual take over by the
federal government if ever there were joint ownership with the
CN. The legislation does not give any guarantee at all respecting
the Pont de Québec. It is an antisocial measure that totally
disregards the rights of this House; it is insensitive to the fate of
this historical bridge and would make short line railways come
under two jurisdictions, some being under provincial
jurisdiction and others, under federal jurisdiction.
In spite of what I mentioned earlier, in spite of the fact that it
does guarantee bilingualism and keeps corporate headquarters
in Montreal, we find that it is a bad bill and we will vote against
it enthusiastically.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Bill C-89 was first introduced, I stated that I
supported the intent but not the content. Since that time the bill
has been through committee, witnesses have appeared,
amendments have been offered but very little has changed.
Speaking first of some of the restrictions in the bill, I cannot
see any business reason for the insistence that CN's
headquarters remain forevermore in any one city. Contrary to
the Bloc's rhetoric, this is not a Quebec issue.
The concern on this clause is that a private company should
not be restricted to any one location no matter where the location
14213
is. I would have the exact same concern if the restricted location
were elsewhere. The issue is the restriction, not the location.
During debate at report stage the Liberals stated that the
headquarters are in Montreal, they have always been in
Montreal and it is reasonable that they remain Montreal.
Therefore, this is a good restriction. If the last part of the
statement is true, then I would ask why they need the restriction
placed into the legislation.
Likewise another restriction requires that CN maintain the
federal official languages policy as if it were still a crown
corporation. This is not necessary. Again, the Liberals used the
illogical approach that CN is already following the Official
Languages Act and therefore would continue to do so in any
event. If this is practical to do, CN will likely continue to do so.
If it is not, then it should not be required to continue it, at least
not indefinitely.
(1315)
An alternative which I offered on both of these clauses as well
as the clause dealing with share restrictions was to include a
sunset clause which would have provided that these restrictions
would have been in place when the new company was formed
initially but cancelled after a five-year period. CN would then
be guided by market needs instead of political needs. This seems
to me to be a reasonable compromise between Liberal needs and
marketplace common sense. Unfortunately the words
reasonable and compromise do not seem to be in the Liberal
vocabulary.
The third restriction in the legislation is restricting the
maximum number of shares in CN owned by any one person or
company to 15 per cent. Most committee stage interveners from
the financial sector stated that there was no particular advantage
to this restriction but it would not cause a problem in the short
term. The obvious implication is that this would cause problems
in the long term.
The 15 per cent restriction prohibits shareholders from
joining together to either ensure that directors will follow the
will of the shareholders or to remove certain directors who are
not acting in the best interests of the shareholders of that
company. For example if a significant number of CN employees
decided to buy into the company and the total number of shares
held by various employees totalled more than 15 per cent, at any
time they all voted the same way it could be ruled by the
directors as collusion and their votes would not count. This
serves to entrench management which hardly can be considered
good long term policy.
This also inhibits some company which wishes to bring a new
management style to what may be a very tired and inefficient
company from buying in. If this company is able to buy a
sufficient number of shares to ensure that its new management
policies can be utilized and brought forward it would hope not
only to get a return on its investment in terms of the share value
but also appreciation of the capital value of the company itself
through the innovative approach that it may be able to bring into
the company and through ensuring that this comes to fruition.
There are those who will argue that some other companies
have similar restrictions and therefore this one is okay. I would
answer that by pointing out that over time many mistakes are
made. For example we used to have autocratic Conservative
rulers in Ottawa. Voters, the shareholders of Canada, partially
corrected that mistake. Now we have autocratic Liberal rulers
who are a transitional mistake that we must put up with until the
next election. Only then will we have government
representatives who write legislation based on the people's
needs rather than political needs.
As in the case of the other two restrictions, I tried to find a
reasonable compromise by amending this section with a five
year sunset clause. Once again those words were not in the
Liberal vocabulary.
The next section deals with Canadian ownership. Bill C-89
does not provide any restriction to foreign ownership, nor in my
opinion should it. Financial experts have stated that it would
likely take an international share offering to find enough
investors for the CN shares. If that is the case, so be it.
What if there are enough investors in Canada who want to be
involved in the ownership of a sector of Canadian heritage that it
could in fact be sold here? Alternatively, what if there are a
number of Canadians who wish to buy some portion of the
shares but are scooped by foreign purchasers who are quicker off
the mark when the share sales begin? Do we not have some
obligation to Canadians?
I proposed a very simple solution which would have seen the
shares available to Canadians and Canadian corporations only
for the first 90 days. In terms of international sales all this would
have done is delay the sales to the rest of the world by 90 days.
This seemed to be a very reasonable approach to protect the
rights of the people we represent without unduly restricting
foreign sales. Of course I am again forgetting that the concept of
representation is just as foreign to the Liberals as the words
reasonable and compromise.
(1320)
The next problem in the legislation that I tried to deal with is
the period of continuation of the rail line to Atlantic Canada. I
proposed an amendment that would require CN not to sell or
abandon the rail line between Montreal and Halifax for a period
of 10 years.
The Halifax Port Corporation testified before the standing
committee pointing out that the new CN Sarnia tunnel gives
Atlantic Canada excellent access to the American midwest. As
such, it believes that by investing in upgraded port facilities it
will secure handling of new high capacity, deep draft freighters
14214
and thus the economic future of the marine industry in Atlantic
Canada.
The same transport committee that rejected my Atlantic
amendment recently tabled a marine study which recommends
that ports such as Halifax should be commercialized and must
obtain their financing on the open market without government
guarantees. I happen to agree with this but once again the word
reasonable comes into play.
For many years the government has interfered with the
marketplace through government ownership, subsidies and
regulations. It is obvious that the current government has looked
at Reform policies and the popularity that those policies have
generated. While anxious to try to adopt some of our ideas and
policies, the Liberals always try to change things enough so they
can call the ideas their own and in doing so lose much of the
common sense that our original policies contained. The Atlantic
Canada situation is a classic example.
If the Halifax Port Corporation goes to the private sector for
financing without government backing, the private sector is
going to want some assurance that the all important rail link to
central Canada and the American midwest will remain for at
least long enough to ensure a return on investment.
The purpose of the amendment is not to protect the rail line
forever but to ensure its operation for a transitional period of 10
years. This should give Atlantic Canada the opportunity to
develop its marine operations to a highly viable degree after
which normal private sector determinations of future CN
operations will rule. If nothing is done, Atlantic Canada will risk
losing new freighter business to the American east coast ports
and the cycle of Atlantic Canada's economic dependence on
Ottawa will continue. Perhaps that is the government's real
strategy.
I believe that this amendment is in keeping with my position
on the other restrictions in that I can live with the other
restrictions as long as they have a time limitation. My Atlantic
Canada amendment did have that time limitation.
The government does not seem to mind restrictions dealing
with shares, language and headquarters locations, so why this
sudden rejection of one that will promote economic
independence in Atlantic Canada? Perhaps consistency is yet
another word that is not in the Liberal vocabulary.
I raised at committee another point of concern by way of an
amendment. I tried to ensure that the sale of CN shares would
not be prone to problems from insider trading. The argument
from the Liberal side was that this was a wholly unnecessary
amendment because the securities act covers insider trading.
However, it only covers insider trading once the shares have
been transferred to the stock exchange. If the government chose
to sell any of those shares in advance of transferring all the
shares to the securities commission, this would not be covered
by the provincial regulations.
We do have an undertaking from the government that it does
in fact intend to transfer 100 per cent of the shares. Thus they
will be covered by the provincial securities regulations. We will
certainly monitor that closely and see that the government lives
up to its word on this.
The biggest concern I have about Bill C-89 is the minister's
unlimited power to reduce or even eliminate CN's debt. CN
currently owes $2.5 billion. Financial and industry experts have
testified that in order to be able to sell the shares of CN they
must have an investment grade bond rating of BBB. To ensure
this, the debt will have to be reduced to about $1.5 billion.
(1325 )
I introduced an amendment in committee to restrict the
amount of taxpayers' money that the minister could use for debt
reduction to only the amount necessary to reduce the debt to
$1.5 billion after first reducing it by all available CN funds on
hand and excessive cash flow requirements along with the
proceeds of sale of all non-rail real estate assets. The Liberals
rejected this as too restrictive in that the exact figure to provide
a BBB rating is not known for sure. Unlike the Liberals, the
words reasonable and compromise are in my vocabulary.
I changed and reintroduced my committee amendment at
report stage. This time instead of using the dollar amount of $1.5
billion that the Liberals had objected to, I restricted debt
reduction to the amount necessary to produce an investment
grade bond rating of BBB after following the other reduction
steps in the original amendment. Even though this amendment
followed the very line of logic offered by the Liberals, they
turned it down. It seems that the Liberals are still enamoured
with the concept of a blank cheque.
Bill C-89 is the first time I have been involved in the new
process of sending a bill directly to committee after first
reading. The rationale for this according to the Liberal
government was that if a bill was dealt with in committee before
real debate in the House, it would be much more amenable to
amendments.
This has clearly not been the case. The amendments I
proposed in committee were reasonable and had the support of
many of the interveners. One of my amendments dealing with
the preservation of the Atlantic Canada port viability even
received the support of one of the Atlantic Canada Liberal MPs
but was defeated in a tie breaking vote by the committee Chair.
One of the arguments I found really interesting was brought
forward by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport on this part of the Atlantic amendment that I offered.
It was the idea that what was I doing promoting a restriction on
14215
private enterprise, my being one of these infamous free
enterprise Reformers. As I stated earlier, I do not see this as a
long term problem. It is a transitional thing from where the
government has total manipulation of the marketplace through
intervention, through government ownership, through
subsidies, through special regulations.
I thought this was a very reasonable thing to bring forward. It
was asked for by Atlantic Canada. It had the support certainly of
the Atlantic members of Parliament I would think even on the
Liberal side. It is extremely unfortunate that in raising this in
committee I was not able to bring it up at report stage. It would
have been very interesting to see the compromise struck with the
Atlantic members of Parliament between serving their region or
following the dictates of the Prime Minister.
It seems that the only reason for moving to committee after
first reading, which is the new procedure that is now often being
used and pushed, is to fast track Liberal legislation by
eliminating much of the public debate. This is just another
example of the current system of autocratic rule. It certainly
does not seem to indicate that the new procedure really works
the way it was meant to work.
This now leaves me to consider whether or not to support the
overall intent of the legislation to privatize CN Rail, something I
have spoken in favour of since before the last election.
The open ended restrictions dealing with share sales, the
location of headquarters and language requirements are not
insurmountable problems. After all, we are only two years away
from the next election after which I am sure those problems can
speedily be cleared up. I can adequately deal with the Atlantic
port problem at that time also because we do not expect the
Liberals to be in a position to block that any longer.
This then only leaves the problem of debt reduction. In an
attempt to resolve this, I wrote to the Minister of Transport
through the transport committee. What actually happened is that
the minister appeared but he was only available for an hour and a
half. When I asked him a 30-second question I got a five-minute
answer which, very common to question period, did not answer
the question at all.
(1330)
I asked the minister if he would respond to written questions
submitted to the committee while it was still sitting. He
indicated that he would. I set out a list of 12 questions which I
submitted through the committee and I received the answers
while the bill was still under committee study. Therefore, those
questions and the subsequent answers have become part of the
record of the committee study on Bill C-89.
The response which I received from the minister indicates
that he intends to pay off no more debt than is necessary to
produce an investment grade bond rating of BBB. I do not know
why the minister is prepared to commit to this on paper but not
in legislation. I would have to guess that this is the Liberals'
method of accepting reasonable measures from Reform while
trying to hide what they are doing from the public.
On the basis of the minister's written, on record commitment I
am prepared to support Bill C-89.
I would like to quote an excerpt from a letter. It reads:
Without a doubt, Canada requires a first-rate transportation system that is able
to service every region. The federal government must play a role in maintaining
and developing that network, yet it remains to be seen whether the damage
wrought by the Conservative's policies of massive deregulation of the
transportation sector can be completely undone. Their continued tolerance of rail
line abandonments and consideration of proposals for the privatization of CN
Rail have done nothing to clean up this mess.
How these pre-election statements do keep coming back to
embarrass their authors. The author of that letter is the current
Prime Minister. He wrote it while he was Leader of the
Opposition. It was written to the hon. member for Moncton only
days before the last federal election.
Looking at some of the items which were in the letter, the
Prime Minister stated that Canada has to have a first rate
transportation system, able to serve every region of Canada. If
that was his intent only days before the election, why when he
walked across the floor did he suddenly decide that we did not
need to ensure the transitional preservation of the CN Rail line
to Atlantic Canada?
He also talked about the damage of the Conservative policies
of massive deregulation. This is particularly interesting on the
very day that we are having the introduction of a bill which will
see massive deregulation of the transportation sector. He talked
about the tolerance of rail line abandonments when the bill deals
with improving, enhancing, speeding up and simplifying rail
line abandonment.
It seems that the more reasonable position taken by the
Reform Party finally got through to the Liberals. We have been
on record since before the last election that privatization is not
only a good idea, it is essential. More recently I testified before
the all Liberal task force on CN Rail, reiterating that CN must be
privatized. I am glad they are finally listening.
I hope that if the Liberals intend to use more Reform policies
in the future that they come to us first so we can help them get it
right the first time. Bill C-89, for all its flaws, is still a big
change from the Liberal position at the beginning of this term of
Parliament and I am pleased that we were able to show them the
way.
14216
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-89, an act to
commercialize the Canadian National Railway. This proposal is
one part of the government's larger plan for ensuring a viable
and competitive transportation system in Canada. It is also part
of the government's intention to have the private sector operate
in areas where it can do the job better than government. As the
Minister of Finance said last February, our view is
straightforward. If government does not need to run something
it should not and in future it will not.
(1335)
Under Bill C-89 all of the government's current shares in CN
will be sold on the public market. All Canadians, including CN
employees, will have the opportunity to buy shares of the
railway.
During the hearings of the CN commercialization task force
and of the Standing Committee on Transportation, concern was
expressed by employees regarding their jobs and pensions. I am
pleased to confirm that CN employees will continue in their
current positions in the new CN and their pensions will be
protected under the Pensions Benefits Standards Act.
Employees will also have a special opportunity to take a stake
in CN through a standard stock savings plan which will be part
of the share sale.
While we hope that many Canadians will be interested in
buying a piece of CN to maintain its historical value, we cannot
believe that the Canadian market is large enough to absorb the
entire equity of CN. Therefore, recognizing the need for foreign
participation in the share offering to ensure success, we have not
limited the extent to which foreigners can participate any more
than we have restricted Canadians.
The 15 per cent individual ownership restriction, which is
included in the bill, treats all investors equally by limiting their
ability to take over CN by putting a ceiling on how much stock
they can own. This represents the balance between not
jeopardizing the government's ability to sell all its shares which
would be the case if foreigners could not buy the stock and
ensuring that no individual will be able to take over CN.
The bill strikes a balance between the objective of
maximizing return for the taxpayer by ensuring CN is viable into
the future and the operating obligations some may wish to
impose on the railway.
I am also pleased, contrary to the Reform Party, that the
headquarters of CN will remain in Montreal and the Official
Languages Act will continue to apply to CN employees. This is a
bilingual, bicultural country. However, these are not changes
from the way the railway currently operates and will not affect
the saleability or price which will be received for CN shares
because investors will expect CN to continue to operate in this
manner.
We cannot, however, impose any serious obligations on CN
that do not apply to its competitors if we are to ensure that CN
can compete on a level footing with the other transportation
sector players into the future, nor can we allow CN to become a
private company without addressing its capital structure.
CN must be able to finance itself in the public markets in the
future at a premium similar to what its competitors pay. For that
reason CN is doing all it can prior to the public offering to
reduce its debt. In addition, CN will transfer its real estate assets
to the government for a fair consideration which will also pay
down debts. Any further debt reduction will be the minimum
necessary and will be undertaken with the goals of fairness and
competitiveness in the rail industry and the transportation sector
in mind.
I believe that Bill C-89 will enable the government to sell 100
per cent of its equity in CN, maximizing the return to the
taxpayer and ensuring that CN can remain a viable, national
railway serving Canadians long into the future from the Atlantic
to the Pacific.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
for me a pleasure to rise at third reading on Bill C-89, an act to
privatize the Canadian National. We all know that transportation
is essential to the economic prosperity and quality of life of
Quebecers and Canadians.
Transportation networks are the lifeblood of industry in
Quebec and Canada. The existence of a transportation
infrastructure often is a critical factor in the prosperity of a
region and, as such, can be viewed as the foundation of all
regional economic development.
(1340)
So in that context I am happy to rise this afternoon, since
Canadian National has been, if we remember our Canadian
history, a decisive factor in the development of this country,
which is called Canada, from coast to coast.
The analogy of the lifeblood I just used can be applied as well
to any means of transportation, by air, rail or water. Any
infrastructure, whether it be a port, an airport or a railroad, must
be considered first of all as a means of regional economic
development.
14217
Obviously, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to know
that a serious shift in our rail policy is needed. The Canadian
government has had for too long a narrow vision of the country's
rail system and has sought no alternative to the abandonment of
short lines. Large railway companies are not well equipped to
operate short lines and do not possess the necessary flexibility to
do so in a cost effective way.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that many short lines can be
operated on a cost effective basis by local interest railroads
which are called CFIL in Quebec and short lines by our English
speaking colleagues.
The review of the railway regulations, as tabled this morning
by the Minister of Transport, should contain measures which
will pave the way for short line railroads to take over line
portions that large railway companies no longer want to operate.
The government should take measures to help the development
of short line railroads, such as giving loan guarantees, to save as
much as possible of Canadian railways, particularly in the
regions.
It is easy to understand that, once CN is privatized, the whole
matter may be called into question and the delicate balance that
had been reached in Canada and Quebec could also be destroyed
because a privatised CN would not have the same priorities in
terms of regional economic development as a crown
corporation. We know that in our capitalist system, the first
priority is money; corporations must make profits. This is why I
am not convinced that the new CN shareholders would be as
responsive to social needs. I am not saying that they will not
have any sensitivity, but you know what I mean. When a
corporation is run by the state, its corporate mission is to
promote regional economic development, whereas a private
company is not in business to promote regional development,
but to make profits. That is what the Americans call return on
investment.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with privatizing the
CN. However, it considers that it should remain under Canadian
control, since this company was built with the Canadian
taxpayers' money. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois believes that
the government is responsible for ensuring that CN subsidiaries,
that are not directly related to railway transportation and that
will be privatized, will be able to survive. To that effect, some
measures should have been provided to ease their transition.
Unfortunately, Bill C-89 does not respond to these expectations.
Our party submitted in committee a list of amendments that
were unfortunately-of course, this is the game of
democracy-defeated by the Liberal majority. Obviously, we
would have liked our amendments to be accepted. We remain
convinced that they were realistic, logical and not made with the
sole purpose of annoying the government or getting on its
nerves.
(1345)
We believed and are still deeply convinced, this afternoon,
just before the passing of this bill, that our amendments were
reasonable and serious. In the time that I have left, I would like
to look briefly at some of the amendments that were tabled and,
of course, defeated by the Liberal majority in front of us.
At the same time, I will look back on some amendments that
were moved by my colleague from
Kootenay-West-Revelstoke, because some of them are very
reasonable. I think they illustrate very well his concern with
respect for democracy. However, as a Quebecer, there are some
amendments there that I find totally absurd and, once again, this
is a demonstration of what we call Quebec bashing on the part of
some of our colleagues in the Reform Party.
I enjoy making comments like this, because it livens up the
House a little. I was under the impression that, after lunch, my
colleagues in front of me or beside me were sleeping. Deep
down, I must be a troublemaker. Under clause 8, the government
will leave the privatized CN's head office in the Montreal Urban
Community. Once again, just to show that I am open-minded, I
recognize that this is a good clause which reflects the strong
presence of the rail industry in Montreal for over a century. This
clause corresponds to other bills' provisions. For example,
when Air Canada was privatized, in 1988, its head office was to
remain in the Montreal Urban Community.
It is therefore unfortunate that my colleague from the Reform
Party, in his Motion No. 2, proposed to limit the effect of this
clause to five years, after which the matter could be
re-examined. I was anxious to make that comment to the House
about the Reform Party's amendment. We also proposed Motion
No. 4, stating that subsidiaries not directly related to the railway
sector, for example, CanCar, an engineering firm, could
continue to operate. This amendment mainly concerned AMF
Technotransport, a company located in Pointe-Saint-Charles, in
Montreal. There are 1,300 jobs involved. We wanted the federal
government to continue to assume its responsibilities, and to
take sensible measures so that the subsidiary could keep
operating for a while, long enough to recover its profitability
and financial viability. Unfortunately, this amendment has also
been defeated.
I also wanted to speak to amendment No. 8, proposed by my
colleague for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, and requiring the
minister to obtain the House's agreement before arrangements
are entered into in order to reduce CN's debt. As you know, there
were increasingly persistent rumours that the minister would
buy CN assets like the CN Tower or some other assets at a higher
price than their real market value, in order to help CN bring its
debt down to $1.5 billion. Obviously the Bloc Quebecois
opposed such a buyout, which would amount to a subsidy to
those buying CN.
14218
(1350)
In addition to Motion No. 8, dealing with operations
concerning the debt, Motion No. 9, also put forward by my
colleague for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, dealt with
operations concerning assets. In fact, with the latter
amendment, we were asking that operations concerning CN
assets be approved by the House.
As long as the government remains a majority shareholder in
CN, any transfer to the government of CN assets with a value
exceeding $1 million and any transaction between CN and a
private party with a value exceeding $10 million must be
approved by the House. This amendment would allow the House
to assess the validity of the transaction and determine whether it
is to the benefit of taxpayers.
It is first and foremost a matter of democracy. Unlike the
members of the other place who are political appointees-I do
not want to comment on people appointed by the previous
government to the other House-we have been elected
democratically and we do not have anything to learn from any
member of the other place. Since ours is a democratic assembly,
we are asking that the rules of democracy be adhered to and that
the government come before the elected members to have its
decision approved.
Another motion in amendment put forward by my colleague
for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, Motion No. 10, is an
alternate motion to Motion No. 9. It would require that
transactions with respect to assets be referred to the auditor
general, and that his report be tabled in the House.
Once again, the purpose of this amendment is not to annoy or
irritate anybody, but to have openness prevail, so that
everything can be above board and out in the open. That is why
we suggested that the Auditor General of Canada be involved,
because he is a trustworthy official whose mandate is to protect
public moneys, and because his credibility has never been
questioned.
Another of my amendments, Motion No. 11, was meant to
protect the CN employees' pension plan. Regrettably, Bill C-89
still does not contain provisions to prevent any changes in the
CN pension plan after privatization.
Our party has already shown its commitment to workers at the
time of the rail strike, when we sat over the weekend. We were
the only ones in this House who fought for the rights of the
workers. Therefore, it was important and crucial for us that CN
employees get assurances concerning their pension plan. What
will happen with this plan? Unfortunately, our amendment was
defeated. The government did not see fit to accept our
suggestion.
We also moved another amendment, Motion No. 14,
concerning the Pont de Québec, an issue which is very important
for me and my colleagues in the Quebec City area. Again, as I
said the other evening, during the second reading stage, it is a
shame that the Liberal members on the Standing Committee on
Transport made light of the whole issue of the Pont de Québec.
They really made it sound trivial.
I do not want to seem chauvinistic or presumptuous, but I am
convinced that the hon. members who have visited the
magnificent region of Quebec City and the surrounding area
were able to realize that the Pont de Québec is really a world
heritage jewel.
When the bridge was inaugurated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it
was obvious in the mind of Laurier that this fine example of
architectural engineering should be preserved so that future
generations would be able to admire it.
(1355)
It is unfortunate that, because of CN's carelessness, this
world-class jewel of architectural engineering is deteriorating.
It is unfortunate that, in order to maintain this infrastructure in a
safe and aesthetically pleasing manner, we need to invest
between $41 million and $45 million. The Liberal members of
the transport committee, as I said, made light of the whole issue.
Here are some examples of the comments they made during the
committee's hearings: ``As the federal government, we will not
start preserving just any old bridge at the end of some
concession, in some village in Canada. We will not start
preserving just any short line railway. We will not start
preserving every old rail station about to fall down''. We are
talking about the privatization of CN.
In making this comment, I do not mean to insult Canadians
and Quebecers who happen to have an old bridge at the end of
their concession road, but I do want to put things in perspective.
To compare the Pont de Québec to any part of a railroad line that
is no longer in use is to show a lack of knowledge of this
architectural jewel. What can I say? The bridge is located in
Quebec City and spans the St. Lawrence River. I know that, for
some people elsewhere in Canada, just thinking that this bridge
is located in Quebec City sets their teeth on edge, but there is
nothing we can do about it.
I see that my time is running out. I would just like to say that
this coalition to save the Pont de Québec has many members. In
other words, the member of the Bloc Quebecois is not the only
defender of the bridge. There is also that member's regional
caucus, the city of Quebec, the city of Sainte-Foy, the
Fédération des caisses populaires, RCMs, the Chambers of
Commerce, the Auto Club, and many more.
In conclusion, we are disappointed that Bill C-89 will be
adopted in its present form even though we have put forward
very realistic and feasible amendments.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
14219
14219
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we speak
communities large and small right across the country are
sprucing up, prettying up and greening up in hopes of being
selected the most beautiful in the first annual Canadian
communities in bloom competition.
The idea for a national beautification competition comes form
Canadians in Quebec who want to share and celebrate the beauty
of our towns and villages. Now with a board of directors and
sponsors like the national capital commission, the competition
is under way.
The city of Brantford in my riding has been selected to
participate in the category of communities with a population
under 100,000. The odds on favourite is Brantford because of
the quality of our parks board, the involvement of local
organizations and individual Brantfordtonians.
I know all hon. members will join with me in wishing all the
participants well. We will see them in Ottawa in September
when Canada's most beautiful bloom-in communities are
selected under the first annual Canadian communities in bloom
competition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, has the heritage minister been relieved of his duties or
has he resigned from his position without informing the public
and this House? There are several indications that this might be
the case.
The minister was unable to attend the joint convention of the
Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées
québécois at a time when the museums are waiting to hear about
federal museum policy. For reasons that are a complete mystery,
he did not delegate a replacement.
The cultural community is worried and offended by this
silence on the part of the federal government. As far as culture at
the federal level is concerned, it is the policy of the empty chair.
Left vacant by a minister in name only, this chair is now
occupied by the Minister for International Trade when it comes
to film distribution, and by the Minister of Industry in the case
of orders with respect to satellite broadcasting.
It is high time that the heritage minister handed the job over to
someone really able to stand up for cultural issues. When will he
be giving up his limousine?
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the small community of Chilanko Forks in my riding of
Cariboo-Chilcotin recently lost its general store and post
office in a terrible fire. For most small towns, this would mean
the end of mail service for weeks and even months, but not in
Chilanko Forks, thanks to the bravery and ingenuity of
postmistress Penny Chipman.
Mrs. Chipman entered the burning building four times to
retrieve essential items at the post office desk. Then after the
fire she went home and set up a new post office in her own travel
trailer. The next day the mail went out from the makeshift post
office without missing a beat, a letter, or a parcel.
For Mrs. Chipman's bravery and ingenuity, today here in
Ottawa she is being awarded the prestigious Golden Postmark
Award given to postal employees who make outstanding
contributions to Canada Post or their communities.
Congratulations, Penny. All of Cariboo-Chilcotin is proud
of you. As you receive this award, we salute your courageous
spirit. Thank you for your dedicated service.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the
provinces are increasingly asking for greater latitude in the
financing of health care. For example, they would like to be
allowed to impose user fees. Yet, studies show that such fees
would not help control health expenditures and could result in
underuse of services by those who are really sick.
However, costs can be reduced by improving the efficiency of
health care services. We all know that, all over the country, there
are drug consumers, as well as some health care professionals,
who abuse the system.
I hope that the government will launch an awareness
campaign to ensure that Canadians are responsible consumers of
the health services provided to them. Our health care system is
the most generous in the world, but some profiteers make it
extremely costly to the state. Moderation is the solution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Peterborough and District Sports Hall of Fame officially opens
this week as a major addition to the Memorial Centre, home of
14220
the Peterborough Petes. The new hall is the result of 16 years of
effort by many volunteers.
We already have over a hundred distinguished inductees and a
wall of fame, which has generated a great deal of interest and
pride, but until now we have lacked a real hall.
Since its earliest years Peterborough has been a major centre
for sports at all levels. It is a community known for a high level
of participation in sports, the quality of its athletes, and the
extraordinary variety of sports practised by its citizens.
Our hall of fame will be a showcase for sports and will house
the archives of sports history in the community. Since the
history of Peterborough and the history of sports are
inseparable, visitors to the new hall of fame, especially young
people, will leave with a stronger sense of community identity
and pride.
My thanks to all those who have given of their energy, talents,
and money to bring this project to fruition. I am delighted that
the Canada infrastructure program could help.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to inform the House that June is seniors month.
Seniors month offers an opportunity for Canadians to
acknowledge the contributions seniors make to their families,
their communities, and to society at large. It is also a time to
reflect on the diversity of Canada's seniors.
The majority of seniors are healthy, physically and mentally
active, involved in their communities, and are very satisfied
with their lives. There are, however, seniors who are frail, who
need support for daily living, or live in situations that put them
at risk for depression, loneliness, and dependence. These
seniors, who are most vulnerable for social, health, or economic
reasons, need to know that our society will support them in their
efforts to remain independent and contributing members of
society.
As Canada is experiencing a dramatic growth in elders, the
oldest seniors who require the most care and support are the
fastest growing. It is in this context that I invite all Canadians
and those seniors of tomorrow and today to take up the
challenge-
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaver River has written to
me and my Liberal colleagues on the issue of party discipline,
but there are some important Reform promises missing from her
letter.
The member for Beaver River has forgotten to invite Liberals
to support the 130 per cent raise suggested by their party whip.
She does not ask for support for the former justice critic
removed by the Reform leader because of comments he made.
She fails to ask for our support of a Reform suggestion that gun
owners should break the law and not register their guns.
(1405 )
The Calgary Herald recently said of Reformers: ``These
aren't, as a whole, real cheery, happy people''. Reformers enjoy
bad news. They celebrate doom and gloom. However, there was
something good to the letter: Liberal colleagues will not have to
pay a 1-900 service to respond.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is once again looking for
excuses to avoid assuming her responsibilities regarding new
reproductive technologies.
Indeed, in spite of the promises made by the health minister
and the justice minister, the government has still not deemed
appropriate to follow up on the recommendations contained in
the Baird report. Yet, last May, the health minister stated her
intention to table in this House, before the summer recess,
temporary measures to prohibit the sale of human embryos and
ova, and to also prohibit genetic manipulations for commercial
purposes.
However, the now legendary laxness and unconcern of the
minister leave Canadian and Quebec women puzzled as regards
the government's will to act as quickly as possible. The Minister
of Health is once again missing an opportunity to act in a timely
manner.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on April
26 my office submitted access to information requests to 21
federal departments. The law requires the response to an access
to information request within 30 days. Fifty-five days later, my
office has only received five responses to our requests. This is
barely a 20 per cent success rate.
In the red book the Liberals promised to do much better than
the Conservatives on issues such as openness. The President of
the Treasury Board himself has promised to initiate changes in
the public service culture in order that items such as access to
14221
information requests are not stonewalled. However, the annual
report of the information commissioner has proven that the
Liberals use words such as ``openness'' and ``transparency'' but
they do not abide by the meaning of these words.
The result: Canadians are left with another in the long list of
Liberal broken promises.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in spite
of red book promises to move our political leaders away from
questionable behaviour and arrogance, arrogant political
leaders are not a thing of the past, unhappily.
Case in point number one: Minister of Transport decides MPs
are not qualified to review a restructured deal to automate the air
traffic control system. Apparently the bureaucrats, who more
than doubled the original cost of the program, are qualified.
Case in point number two: Minister of Agriculture tells the
health committee that it does not know what it is doing when it
recommends continuing the moratorium on the use of
recombinant BST in milking herds due to consumer resistance
and concerns about legal liabilities and so on.
Case in point number three: The Prime Minister says integrity
and trust are needed in Canada. He tells western Canadians prior
to the election that he will protect the Crow benefit better than
the Conservatives. Instead of a Conservative cut of 10 per cent,
he cuts it 100 per cent.
That is integrity, that is honesty. That is ridiculous.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the key element of transparency and openness in
government is the public release of information. I rise today to
recognize steps taken by this administration to make the
government more open and accessible.
One of our key moves toward openness was to set new
guidelines on advertising and public opinion research
introduced by the Minister of Public Works last May. These
ensure that results of public opinion research studies
commissioned by the federal government are now accessible to
all Canadians through the Library of Parliament and the
National Library of Canada.
Under this government Canadians no longer need to go
through access to information to get this information. On June 1,
1994 the Minister of Public Works released approximately 200
reports covering past opinion research studies dating back to
1987.
Indeed, this government is delivering on its promises.
(1410 )
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Sunshine Foundation of Canada makes dreams
come true for special children who are challenged in Canada by
severe physical disabilities or life threatening illnesses.
The Sunshine Foundation is privately funded, it is run by
dedicated volunteers, its staff is the happiest I have ever seen,
and it does marvellous work.
Tomorrow, on June 21, the sunshiners embark on a
three-month caravan across Canada, starting in St. John's,
Newfoundland, and ending in Vancouver, British Columbia, on
September 21. Each community visited will have crowned a
special child who will be selected as that Sunshine Foundation
ambassador in that community.
It is symbolic that the Sunshine highway of dreams starts in
the east where the sun rises and finishes in the west where the
sun sets. In this long day of sunshine, the only goal of the
foundation is to fulfil the dreams of Canada's very special
children.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, when they are in Ottawa and in St.
Catharines, to attend when the caravan comes to those localities.
And I invite all my colleagues and members of the House of
Commons to attend when it comes to their communities.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
summer recess is just days away. Along with the students,
teachers, and parents from Massey Public School in the gallery
today, I want to take this opportunity to invite all members of the
House to visit the beautiful riding of Algoma during the next few
months.
Located in northern Ontario, in the northern area of Lake
Huron, Algoma riding offers a wide variety of recreational and
tourism opportunities, which will interest all kinds of visitors.
Whether you enjoy fishing, boating, canoeing, biking,
sightseeing, camping, or hiking, there is something for everyone
in Algoma.
Cruise the North Channel waterway along the north shore of
Lake Huron from Sault Ste. Marie and St. Joseph Island in the
west to Manitoulin Island and Killarney in the east. Stop along
the way in the many communities with docking facilities and
services for pleasure boaters. There are festivals and fairs,
pow-wows and people for all to appreciate.
On behalf of the over 50 municipalities and 15 First Nation
communities of Algoma riding, I invite all hon. members to
14222
spend some time in our beautiful area during the summer
months and experience Algoma's warm hospitality firsthand.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
questioned by the Bloc Quebecois, the Minister of the
Environment stated that officials of her department had
defended Canada's position on PCB exports before an American
panel, but on checking, this could not be ascertained.
Cornered, the Deputy Prime Minister went on to state
yesterday that she had written to the chief administrative officer
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner.
However, according to the chief of operations in charge of
relations between the agency and the Canadian government, no
letter was ever received for Mrs. Browner. Either the EPA does
not pay much attention to letters from the minister and
misplaces them or, contrary to what she said, the minister never
sent the letter in question.
The Bloc Quebecois defies the minister to produce within the
hour the letter she claims to have sent before June 9.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has shown its true colours, confirming its
position that stay at home parents are second class citizens in
Canada.
In response to an Alberta government proposal for tax relief
for stay at home families, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance answered no, stating that the aim of the tax
system is to help people work, not stay at home. What an insult.
This member obviously fails to recognize the contributions
made by stay at home parents, who make both personal and
professional sacrifices to raise their children.
The government is continuing with the policy that parents
who choose to stay at home are second class citizens and
contribute nothing to society. What hypocrisy. What a total lack
of understanding. What a total lack of vision.
Reformers offered the Liberals a tax deduction for stay at
home parents and they turned us down. The Alberta government
has just offered the Liberals a tax credit for stay at home parents
and they turned it down too.
The question that begs to be asked is what, if anything, have
the Liberals turned up to recognize the plight of stay at home
parents?
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec minister responsible for restructuring has not kept his
word. On March 19, 1995, on the RDI show ``Point de presse'',
he announced his plans concerning the release of his 40 studies
on separation.
He said basically the following: ``We were quite clear on the
scheduling. The time frame was between March 15 and
mid-June, approximately. The studies were released on March
13, so we met our deadline. I have no reason to believe at this
time that we will not remain on schedule.''
(1415)
This is June 20, yet only eight of the propaganda minister's 40
costly studies have been released to date. Are we to understand
that this costly partisan exercise is not producing the desired
results and that this is why the minister is taking so long to
publish the rest of the studies?
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
This past weekend the Prime Minister and German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl were in my riding of Nunatsiaq to visit three
beautiful communities: Iqaluit, Cape Dorset and Pangnirtung.
A warm and gracious welcome was extended to the Prime
Minister and Chancellor Kohl by both young and old. The
chancellor purchased local carvings and he saw firsthand that
fur and hunting were integral parts of the Inuit traditional
lifestyle and culture. He has returned home with a better
understanding of how closely we are tied to the land.
I thank Chancellor Kohl for his interest in the north and its
people. I thank as well the Prime Minister for defending the fur
economy and supporting our northern way of life. I also thank
my constituents for extending true northern hospitality to our
distinguished guests.
_____________________________________________
14222
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs announced a new strategy for Ottawa as the referendum
approaches. He said, and I quote: ``There is no doubt that the
14223
Parti Quebecois constitutes a threat to the country. And when
there is a threat to the country's unity, you have to spend money
to understand and respond to that threat''.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does
this sudden change in her government's strategy mean that the
federal government is about to do what it did in 1980: spend
millions of dollars and thus ignore the limits set by the Quebec
referendum act?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we said before, we intend to respect the spirit of
the referendum act. There is certainly no doubt about that.
The referendum campaign has yet to begin, and I must say
there are some very clear signs, because I have here a list of
referendum-related expenditures by the Parti Quebecois,
including, for instance, what they sent in the way of propaganda
to every household in Quebec, which cost $1.5 million; the
advertising campaign targeted to cultural communities, which
cost $1.2 million; and the commissions on the future of Quebec,
which cost $7.5 million.
Since the Government of Quebec used taxpayers money to
make these pre-referendum expenditures, it should look at the
beam in its own eye instead of the mote in ours.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister told us that he was unable to
estimate the cost of the referendum operation, an indication that
the federal government has exceeded its spending limit. We
have some concerns about the implications of the terms used
yesterday by the minister, when he stigmatized the Parti
Quebecois as a threat to Canada.
Since when can a country that calls itself a democracy be
threatened by a party that was founded according to democratic
rules and which intends to achieve its goal by purely democratic
means?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I said the Parti Quebecois was a threat to
the unity of the country, and I repeat that the Parti Quebecois and
the Bloc Quebecois are a threat to the unity of the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Massé: It is clear that when a party is elected by
democratic means and its purpose is to separate, that party is a
clear threat to the unity of the country. As the people responsible
for the unity of the country, it is our duty to explain what our
country is about, to defend it and to take all necessary steps to
show people the advantages of federalism, since both in Quebec
and here in Ottawa, we have a party that is trying to show only
the disadvantages.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may refer the minister to what he said
yesterday: ``The Parti Quebecois constitutes a threat to the
country''. Second, what he just said is not at all reassuring, since
he tells us this government has a duty to take all necessary steps,
which says it all.
Since the minister considers the Parti Quebecois to be a threat
to Canada, I wonder whether he could tell us whether his
intelligence service, CSIS, shares that opinion and, since CSIS
is the department's intelligence branch, whether CSIS intends to
treat the Government of Quebec as a threat and put the Quebec
government's ministers under special surveillance?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I see the Leader of the Opposition is again trying to
twist the meaning of what I said, although I made it quite clear
that the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois were a threat to
the unity of the country. In this country, the vast majority of
Canadians want to keep the country together, and in Quebec,
more than 60 per cent of the population wants to keep Quebec as
it is. In a democratic system, we have every right to defend the
will of the vast majority of voters who do not want separation
and want to stay in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has a short memory. The latest federal poll gave 54 per
cent to the sovereignists in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: It is just the beginning!
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is not even from the very
latest polls, that they have decided not to leak.
The Quebec Referendum Act limits each party's spending, in
order to uphold democracy. But, the Privy Council, which could
almost be considered the office of the Prime Minister, is not
governed by this act.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Given the way the Privy Council's budget works, will the
minister confirm what Jocelyne Bourgon told the Committee on
Government Operations at the end of May, which was that any
additional spending done by the Privy Council is approved after
the money has been spent, because it is impossible to forecast
what the total cost will actually be?
14224
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would like to point out that the poll to
which the hon. member for Roberval referred was conducted in
the month of March. In addition, the figure of 54 per cent is
being interpreted in a specific way by the Bloc Quebecois and
the Parti Quebecois. The statistic of 54 per cent refers to those
who are in favour of sovereignty association; according to the
latest poll, only 32 per cent of those polled are in favour of
independence. Consequently, it is obvious that this important
statistic has been distorted by the Bloc Quebecois to mislead
people.
Regarding the Privy Council's budget, clearly it will cost us
more to defend national unity if the referendum is delayed. This
is true for the Province of Quebec, it is true for the Parti
Quebecois and it is true for us. The figure approved in the
estimates truly was what we believed we would spend on a
referendum which we expected would be held in June. If the
Parti Quebecois had kept its word, that is what would have
happened.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would like to ask you to keep
both your questions and your answers brief.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the minister that never at any time did he, the
Prime Minister, or any of the ministers opposite have the
courage to clearly answer the question would they refuse an
economic association in the interest of the rest of Canada, yes or
no?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: I invite him to stand up and to answer that
question now.
The Speaker: The question please.
Mr. Gauthier: Since the spending of the Privy Council is
only approved after the fact, will the minister confirm that his
government could end up spending as much as it wants, without
any control whatsoever, and that we would only find out the real
cost several months after the referendum? In other words, will
the minister confirm that the Privy Council is an open bar-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated the Government of Quebec, the
Parti Quebecois, has already spent more than $11,130,000 on
propaganda, pure propaganda for sovereignty.
The opposition should remember that more than 60 per cent of
Quebecers are federalists and the great majority of them, more
than 90 per cent, like Canada and do not want to leave it.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while we wrangle about Canadian unity and the relative
safety of the Chamber, Canadian lives are at risk in the former
Yugoslavia.
We have learned directly from the Canadian camp at Visoko
that earlier today Bosnian Muslims placed five anti-tank mines
and two rocket propelled grenade launchers across the entrance
to our base there.
The Bosnian Muslims have reportedly told our forces that
they may not leave the camp and to attempt to do so would invite
military retaliation. This means that in effect 700 more
Canadian soldiers are now the hostages of yet another warring
faction in Bosnia.
Canadians are rightly concerned about the safety of our
peacekeepers and disturbed by the escalating nature of the
conflict.
Can the minister of defence confirm that this is the situation
facing our peacekeepers in Visoko and update the House on the
prospects for their release?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
confirm that for the past number of days access to our camp at
Visoko has been restricted. This is something we deem to be
totally unacceptable. We have conveyed our feelings to the
Bosnian government and there are discussions now under way
between the base commander and local military commanders.
I think all Canadians feel some anger at the fact that the base
in Visoko has operated for three years with the acquiescence of
the Muslim majority; the soldiers there have performed
incredibly good tasks in bringing medical and other
humanitarian aid to people largely of Muslim origin; and now,
three years after the fact, the Bosnian government denies access
to our camp. It is something that is unacceptable and is
something that we as Canadians will not tolerate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we share the minister's consternation but the question
is: What are we going to do about it? We have gone from a dozen
hostages to 700 and instead of delivering humanitarian aid our
troops are now in need of food, water and supplies.
(1430 )
It is our understanding that 20 Canadians stationed at the two
observation posts outside Visoko will run out of rations by
Friday and the 700 soldiers held at the base have only enough
food to last for two weeks.
14225
What steps is the government taking to ensure the safe
passage of supplies to our soldiers in and around Visoko and is
the government taking any direct leadership role in this matter
or merely leaving negotiations up to the local commander?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party and its leader seem to think solutions can be
instant in the very difficult situation in the former Yugoslavia.
During the 20 days we had members of our armed forces
detained all we heard from that party were not constructive
suggestions but ``why have you not done anything, why don't
you have any results?'' The way that situation turned out, the
calm diplomacy using the appropriate channels to gain the
release of our people at Ilijas and Captain Rechner and Captain
LaPalm was the right way to go about it.
If hon. members of the Reform Party were directing Canada's
defence policy, who knows what danger our troops would be in.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no one is advocating instant solutions to this problem.
We have been consistent on our position with respect to what
should be done in that part of the world for the last year.
Due to the absence of a coherent government policy on
peacekeeping in Yugoslavia, Canadians soldiers have been from
one hostage crisis to another.
Since November last year Reform has been calling on the
minister to consider the well-being of our peacekeepers and to
develop specific criteria for their involvement or their
disengagement in Bosnia. The government has steadfastly
refused.
Given the increased use of UN soldiers as hostages and
military pawns and their declining ability to fulfil their original
humanitarian mandate, will the government make a
commitment now to withdraw our soldiers from Bosnia as soon
as possible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
made our position quite clear on this and the Prime Minister has
stated the government's policy.
The hon. member from the Reform Party talks about the
consistency of their policy. Two weeks ago at the height of the
hostage crisis when Canadians were held in very precarious
situations we had talk from that side about Canada retreating
from the theatre. Then it said its policy was not one of retreat but
one of withdrawal. When pressed further, withdrawal meant
taking everybody out, only to go back in with even heavier
equipment, including F-18 fighter planes.
Talk about consistency; it is not there on that side of the
House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Yesterday, the government asked the CRTC for its comments
on the two draft orders relating to satellite broadcasting. The
CRTC has until tomorrow to respond, although the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage is still reviewing the matter.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage justify the fact
that the final versions of the orders have already been submitted
to the CRTC for consultation, when the heritage committee has
not finished discussing the recommendations it will make to the
government regarding these orders?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong, as she very often is when
making comments. We will continue to consult the CRTC about
these orders, as we are required to do under the Broadcasting
Act.
Furthermore, we already have before us the procedure
followed by Senate and House of Commons committees. The
order will not be final until cabinet makes a decision following
40 days of consultation with Parliament and the CRTC.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this is really confusing. The government is
consulting the CRTC, as it is required to do. Does this mean that
it will have to consult the commission a second time, once the
minister has taken into account the reports from the other House
and from the committee?
(1435)
Is this not ultimately some kind of masquerade trampling all
parliamentary rights because, according to the memo from
Power Corporation, this family business must be settled as
quickly as possible?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little difficult to take seriously the protestations
of the hon. member about wanting to be consulted when she
follows them up with ridiculous accusations such as she has.
We have followed to the letter the requirements of the
Broadcasting Act in order to consult with both Parliament and
the CRTC.
Although we have heard these accusations repeated over and
over, we have not once heard from the hon. member whether she
agrees with the panel of experts, whose recommendations we
14226
acted on in April, or whether she agrees with the Friends of
Canadian Broadcasting, the Consumers Association of Canada
or any of the groups that have supported the action the
government has taken. Instead she makes these accusations.
I would like to know, since it is clear the government stands
on behalf of competition and in favour of consumers, choice and
lower prices, what does the Bloc Quebecois stand for except to
stand with the proposed monopolies?
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we learned that in its haste to help out government
friends and relatives of Power Corp. the heritage minister
presented a draft final cabinet order on direct to home satellites
to the CRTC before the parliamentary process was completed.
The heritage minister has allowed the process to be tainted
from the outset. He had private meetings with Power Corp. and
he is letting the CRTC now run amok and again he has violated
procedure.
I respectfully request that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
respond to this question. Why is the cabinet sending draft final
orders which benefit Power Corp. to the CRTC before the
parliamentary process is complete?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would really like to see this draft final order. It must
be an interesting hybrid.
I call the member's attention to the provisions of the
Broadcasting Act-
The Speaker: I am sure we all want to listen to the answer. I
remind hon. members that questions are asked to the
government and the government may choose to answer any way
it likes.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made extreme
allegations concerning the respect for process. I refer her to
sections 7 and 8 of the Broadcasting Act. If she can identify in
those provisions anywhere the government has failed to follow
the provisions of the act, I would like to hear from her about that.
In the meantime I would also like to hear from her as to the
position of her party on the report the expert panel made to us
with respect to satellite broadcasting in Canada.
We know the senior political adviser to the leader of the
Reform Party has already admitted he has been retained by the
Expressvu consortium. We would like to know what role he has
played in deciding Reform Party policy on this issue?
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are focusing on this draft of final cabinet orders. That is the
focus of the question.
Keith Spicer's office at the CRTC today confirmed the orders
it received were the final orders.
The minister cannot hide behind the Broadcasting Act on this
one. What we have here is yet another example of how the
government and this minister are wishing to push aside
Parliament, ethical standards and the ethics counsellor in order
to further their own political agenda and benefit their own
political friends.
(1440 )
Why is the minister fast tracking this directive and ignoring
the parliamentary and Senate committees which he initially
asked to review the directives?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Frankly,
Mr. Speaker, the ethical question here is why the member
persists on standing in the House and making false accusations.
That is an ethical question.
The real question is where that party stands. We set in place
the process. The process has been transparent and is provided
for in the Broadcasting Act. We have followed it entirely,
completely, openly and honestly.
This is not a draft final order if such a hybrid thing could exist.
This is simply a process of consultation with the CRTC. We will
follow it to its conclusion. There is no final order until cabinet
makes a final order.
I can assure the hon. member that will only occur after the 40
days have been completed. If she has one, single, solitary,
substantive suggestion I would be delighted to hear it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to try and ask the Minister of Cultural Heritage a question
and I hope I will get an answer from him.
The Canadian Sport and Fitness Administration Centre has
indicated in its report that it was unable to publish a French
version of the summer edition of its guide to Canadian sports
because of a cut in funding.
This was the justification given by the paragovernmental
organization for publishing its guide in English only. I would
point out too that Biathlon Canada did the same thing recently
when it invited athletes to a training camp by letter in English
only.
How can the Minister allow an organization subsidized by his
department to so openly defy the provisions of the Official
Languages Act?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to
express my viewpoint on the very important issue he raised.
We have guidelines on awarding funds to sports and other
types of organizations. They require the recipients to provide
14227
documents on activities, projects and programs intended to
inform the public in both official languages.
These are important guidelines and I intend to apply them. My
office has already been in contact with the organization in
question to tell it about my concern and the possible
consequences of its action.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is
the minister sincerely aware that this incident is symptomatic of
a much deeper malaise: Canadian amateur sports organizations
have only one official language, and it is English. This situation
penalizes athletes from Quebec.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we definitely intend to have Canada's
official languages respected. I therefore consider this an
important matter and one we will act on.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
failure of the justice minister to face serious problems within the
justice system is readily known by all Canadians. The fact that
the justice minister is not capable of quickly solving problems
that could cause violent law breakers to go free is legend.
(1445 )
The issue of the legitimacy of a court ordered DNA test that
identified a positive match to DNA found when Tara Manning
was raped, smothered and stabbed 47 times is still at question.
Will the justice minister do something immediately to
legitimize court ordered DNA tests so Tara Manning's family
can see justice being done?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the case to which the
hon. member refers is before the courts. I think it is
inappropriate for him and certainly for me to comment on it and
I will not.
Let me address that part of the hon. member's question which
is related to the policy issue of DNA testing. As the hon. member
knows, we have said for some months that we have the intention
of introducing amendments to the Criminal Code to provide for
just such testing. Last September we produced an options paper
and examined the question very closely.
It is our intention to introduce legislation to provide for DNA
testing in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Tara
Manning has been dead since May 1994. We are prepared to pass
legislation submitted by the minister for DNA testing
immediately.
If the minister does nothing and the DNA evidence
identifying the positive match is not admissible in court, will the
justice minister accept personal responsibility for allowing a
murderer to go free?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a search warrant was
obtained in that case. I do not think the hon. member should
discuss that particular case. No one is suggesting that
procedures already invoked in the code are not capable of
producing admissible evidence.
On the question which the hon. member asks, I can tell him
that the government is quite prepared to introduce legislation
before the end of the session at the end of this week. If the hon.
member is prepared to co-operate and the other parties are as
well, I would be happy to discuss with hon. members opposite
later this afternoon circumstances under which such legislation
could be introduced before the end of the week for the purpose of
adding DNA testing to the Criminal Code.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. On February
14, the President of the Motion Picture Association of America,
Jack Valenti, wrote a letter to the Minister for International
Trade in which he called into question the policy of Canadian
programs and agencies favouring Canadian film distributors.
How can the Minister for International Trade guarantee that
his discussions with the American majors will not, even to a
small extent, lead to a loss of control over Canada's distribution
system?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not have in mind the correspondence to
which the hon. member refers. I will be glad to look into it and
respond to her, but I do not know to what she refers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage this time. How
can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain that his colleague
from international trade is the government's spokesperson
regarding film distribution in Canada, even though culture is the
cornerstone of his department?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question hardly merits a
reply, because the preamble would suggest that responsibility
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage was in the Minister for
14228
International Trade's hands. The Minister of Canadian Heritage
is responsible for all aspects of our cultural industries.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Last week Nortel announced the elimination of 580 positions
at its Brampton plant, bringing the total number of jobs lost
since 1994 to 1,300. Meanwhile Nortel has continued to expand
its global operations, most notably in China, where it will add
3,000 manufacturing jobs over the next three years.
How can the minister justify to Canadians that while he is
trying to support job creation in Canada, the government is
helping Nortel directly through export programs and indirectly
through export credits to China to finance job creation abroad at
the expense of Canadian jobs?
(1450 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure members share the hon. member's concern
for the individuals in her constituency who have been impacted
by this decision by Nortel and have lost their jobs. It is always an
unfortunate consequence when corporations take decisions with
respect to restructuring.
I would like to point out that there is some good news both for
Bramalea in this decision where the Nortel is consolidating its
head office functions. It will operate as the international head
office for the corporation as well as for Brockville, Ontario
where 400 new manufacturing jobs have been created.
On the broader question, I would like to point out this
important fact so we understand exactly where our future lies in
building international trade. Nortel's sales to Canadian
customers have declined by 45 per cent since 1990. At the same
time, its export sales are up from $784 million to $2.6 billion
and Canadian manufacturing jobs have increased by over 1,000
in that time.
Export sales are the way we are going to succeed in the future.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
why he is ignoring the Immigration Act by issuing minister's
permits to people who were refused entry to Canada.
This is no drop in the bucket. There were 7,000 last year.
Among them were 11 who had been previously deported from
Canada. First they are out and then the minister lets them back
in.
What is the point of deporting people if the minister is just
going to sneak them in again through the back door? Why has he
kept this all a secret until now?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the report of
ministerial permits is tabled in the House of Commons, I am not
sure that is keeping anything a secret. Obviously he was asleep
at the switch.
Second, the member failed to mention that out of the 7,000
ministerial permits only 141 were directed by this minister. He
failed to mentioned that he and members of his party regularly
approach me to ask for the issuance of ministerial permits for
individuals who they think merit them.
The member failed to mention that ministerial permits have
been used more judiciously. In 1990, 19,000 ministerial permits
were issued. Last year at my direction that number fell to 7,000.
The member has to be honest with the Canadian public and talk
about the reasons why ministerial permits are used.
The majority of the exceptions are made for individuals who
come to Canadian hospitals, pay for their medical treatment and
leave. Some are for individuals on behalf of whom members
have lobbied for family reunification. Some are for individuals
who are not criminals but who may have a criminal record for a
minor theft when they were 18. They have had a probation
period of 10 years and need a ministerial permit to get into the
country for the purposes of family reunification.
They are trying to paint an ugly picture that does not exist.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this minister refuses to use his authority to deport criminals but
is not afraid to use his power to let them in. That is incredible.
Yesterday CTV reported that Canada is home to several
confessed former members of death squads and the immigration
department has been fully aware of their presence for almost 10
years.
Did the minister have personal knowledge of the presence of
these death squad members? Is he going to give them minister's
permits so that they can stay forever too?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he talks about the 11 cases of
individuals who were deported. We deported over 6,000 people
last year.
14229
The 11 cases happen to be, for example, individuals who
failed refugee claims, left the country, subsequently married a
Canadian and the Canadian has the right to sponsor the person
in.
In other cases, people have overstayed their visits, then given
a departure notice that turned into a deportation, left the country
and then subsequently asked to come in on either a temporary
basis or permanently.
(1455 )
There were 11 cases of that type versus 6,000 individuals we
have deported and this member wants to base the record of
deportation on those 11 exceptions.
With respect to the four cases from Honduras, the difficulty is
those individuals came to Canada during the mid-1980s. It was
not until the late eighties and early nineties that information
about potential war criminal activity came to light. All four are
being investigated by the RCMP. All four are being pursued by
my department. One will come to an inquiry with respect to
deportation so there will not be any minister's permit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
From 1946 to 1964, the federal government was a trustee of
the pension fund set up for ex-employees of Singer. As trustee,
the government paid into the account of the employer, the Singer
Company, a total of $714,900 in 1964, which is the equivalent of
$5 million in today's dollars.
Does the minister admit that the federal government, which
was looking after the pension fund established for
ex-employees of Singer, was a party to the terrible injustice
done to them by unduly paying pension fund returns to the
employer rather than the workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's
concern about the ex-employees of Singer.
However, I remind him that the Quebec Superior Court has
already ruled the federal government is not a party to this
particular transaction. The matter is presently being seized by
the court. We expect to have a further ruling some time this
summer and early fall. Therefore it is not appropriate for me to
make a comment on the specific case until the courts have had an
opportunity to dispense with it in their normal good judgment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the case now before the courts has to do with Quebec pensions. The question I am asking the minister relates to government annuities, for which he is responsible.
Can the minister confirm to us that his government has in its
hands the legal opinions requested by his own department,
which clearly recognize his responsibility and his mistake in the
matter concerning the ex-employees of Singer?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon.
member's question. On May 2 I wrote to the hon. member and
indicated to him very clearly that if he or the ex-employees had
any information concerning federal involvement they would
like to present, I would be very pleased to receive it and review
the case. I have yet to hear from the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have asked before about the fact that the MPs' expense
allowances, travel expenses and salaries are all published in the
public accounts but MP pension beneficiaries are not.
In fulfilling the red book promise of more open government,
would the government agree to publish in the public accounts
the list of MP pension beneficiaries, yes or no?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
asks a very legitimate question. The unfortunate part is that
while the information commissioner suggests that we release
this information, the privacy commissioner informs me that we
should not.
The matter is presently under active consideration and is in
the courts. There are some real competing issues on both sides.
I have to respect the law and, more important, the intent of the
law.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
amazing how quickly the law can be changed when we want it to
be changed.
The information commissioner is taking this to court and the
government is going to court to have the court case held behind
closed doors.
14230
Would the government at least agree the court case should be
open to the public so we can find out the government's real
reasons for not wanting this information available?
(1500 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
opposite is a very articulate individual. I would have thought
that he would have had the courtesy of respecting the privacy
rights of Canadians all across this country.
I do not find anything fundamentally wrong with having the
matter adjudicated by the courts. When a decision is made in due
course the government will then be in a position to release it to
the hon. member.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development has reviewed the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act and has made 141 recommendations. In
congratulating the minister for launching such a review, I would
like to ask her when the government will act on the committee's
recommendations.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member who not only carried out his duties with great
intelligence but also worked with colleagues on the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to do
the kind of job I think really reflects well on the whole of
Parliament. In fact it is a very large task that he has undertaken
along with his colleagues.
Some of the preliminary recommendations are very exciting.
Bearing in mind that the usual time for responding to these
reports is 150 days, I hope to be able to do that in less than half
that time.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of two members of the Alberta
Legislative Assembly, Gary Dickson and Adam Germain.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, today we are honoured also to have
another Nobel laureate with us. I refer to the 1990 Nobel
laureate for physics, Dr. Richard Taylor.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
14230
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian
National Railway Company under the Canada Business
Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares of the
company to the public, be read the third time and passed.
(1505 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to discuss at third reading the bill
concerning the privatization of the Canadian National Railway.
Although Reform supports the government in this endeavour,
there are some problems with this legislation that I feel must be
addressed.
First, I would like to take a minute to look at the $96 billion
that CN has cost the Canadian taxpayer over 70 years in
combined losses and public subsidies in contrast to CP Rail
which has cost the Canadian taxpayers zero in direct
government subsidy.
Canada is $540 billion in debt, yet crown corporations like
this one continue to run in the red without repercussions. Where
can we find a deal like that in the private sector? We cannot.
Companies go bankrupt and it is game over. Therefore, we
support the government in getting out of the rail business.
Despite these massive losses, however, CN managed in the
past year to earn a $245 million profit which is a drop in the
bucket when we consider the overall picture. CN's debt is
currently about $2.5 billion. Industry representatives say that
the debt must be reduced to $1.5 billion to achieve a triple bond
rating and be able to sell it.
I found an interesting article in Alberta Report dated May 29,
1995 which states: ``CN's debt is unacceptable. Even if CN
dumped its non-rail assets, its debt to capitalization ratio would
be 45 per cent. The U.S. railway average is 30 per cent. In
addition, U.S. railways have improved operating cost to revenue
ratios from 90 per cent to as little as 75 per cent. CN is still at 90
per cent''.
The transport minister has the power to reduce CN's debt to
any amount he chooses which could mean an amount well below
the amount for which taxpayers would see a return. How this
debt is reduced is of great concern to companies like CP Rail, its
main competitor whose president stated before the transport
committee that CN would get an unfair advantage if Ottawa paid
off some of its debt.
14231
Moody's Investors Service issued a credit watch on CN's
large debt in early May. I cannot believe how much we keep
hearing the name Moody's these days in relation to finance with
respect to this government. As we all know, a downgraded debt
rating will make it more difficult and more expensive for CN to
borrow the $2.53 billion it wants to buy new equipment by 1999.
I am going to dwell on another issue for a little bit longer than
normal. It is an important issue. The bill requires that the
headquarters of CN be located in Montreal permanently. I could
understand placing a restriction to keep the headquarters in the
city of purchase for a period of time, say five years, to see if that
is the best place to keep it and the best place to run the business
out of, but no, this has to be in perpetuity which is not the way to
sell a company. In today's marketplace, the stipulation of the
permanent location of a head office is absurd and makes a
mockery of a bill that has a serious intent.
I respect the Minister of Transport. He has intestinal
fortitude. Only a short year and a half ago the Prime Minister
was against deregulation and privatization of the rail system but
the minister has convinced him otherwise. Having said that and
giving him that compliment, why is he placing this restriction on
the sale? It is political.
I was reading an interesting article that represents the view
from the west. It was written by Mr. Ted Byfield, the founder of
Western Report, Alberta Report and B.C. Report magazines. He
submitted the article to Saturday's Financial Post. I will quote
from what he wrote. I will use the technique the chief
government whip used all the time while in opposition of giving
lengthy quotes and testimonials of key and intelligent people
who add and shed some light on a subject. That is what Mr.
Byfield does. The article states in part:
Why, you have to ask, must the purchaser of Canadian National be required to
maintain the head office in Montreal?
Such is one of the conditions the federal government has attached to the sale
and the reason is purely political.
Something like 70 per cent of CN's business is done west of the lakehead and
the western share has been increasing for the last quarter century. CN is, in other
words, essentially a western Canadian company.
(1510)
I will skip a little piece and go down a couple of paragraphs:
Perhaps true, Ottawa would reply, yet from its inception 75 years ago CN has
been headquartered in Montreal, and such historical associations matter more
than where most of the business is actually done.
How different is this case to the one made when it was proposed to move
Trans-Canada Airlines, ancestor of Air Canada-
-a problem which the Prime Minister was very much involved
in-
-out of its traditional headquarters in Winnipeg.
At that time, westerners argued that by tradition TCA was a Winnipeg based
company, which indeed it was. Ah yes, said Ottawa, but we must face the fact that
more and more of TCA's business is in eastern Canada. So piece by piece the
company's head office operations were moved to Montreal.
When tradition favours the west, tradition does not matter; what counts is
where the business is done. But when tradition favours Quebec, where the
business is done does not matter; what counts is tradition.
It is just the opposite. Mr. Byfield goes on to say that Montreal
will not even be part of the same country in which CN does most
of its business if the separation issue is settled by a yes vote.
Based on what I just read by Mr. Byfield, is the Liberal
government forcing CN to stay in Montreal because it does not
want to be seen as promoting the loss of a major Montreal head
office on the eve of a vote on separation? Do the Liberals feel
that Quebecers and Canadians outside of Quebec are that naive
that they do not know it is a political move? Do they feel that
Canadians are so ill informed that they would not see what this
is?
Do the Liberals not see as a government that the best way to
sell a company is to allow the potential owners to do what they
want with that company once they make the capital investment
to buy it and take the risk to run it, a company that has lost $96
billion since its inception? Does that not make sense?
Why in heaven's name would they impose these restrictions in
light of the need to get out from under the continued government
subsidy of the crown corporation? What are the Alberta Liberals
doing to represent the interests of their constituents on this
matter? What are the the Liberal members from Edmonton
doing to exert any influence over the Minister of Transport, to
try and talk some sense into the minister who, other than in two
or three areas of the bill, is missing the boat? He is on the right
track but why not do it 100 per cent right? Why jeopardize the
potential sale of this asset which is so import to sell. In order to
sell it the right factors have to be in play.
Let me get back to another comment made by Mr. Byfield in
his article in the Financial Post:
Then, too, you wonder about that select set, the four Liberal MPs from
Alberta. All four are from Edmonton. And if the CN head office with maybe a
thousand jobs attached were to move out of Montreal, where would it go? Where
is the CN's centre of operations in the west? Edmonton, that is where. So why
haven't these four, at least within caucus, protested against that provision?
Maybe they have.
We do not know because we are not privy to the Liberal caucus
meetings except what gets leaked on integrity and cracking the
whip and voting the party line. We hear about those things. But
no such objections have been reported.
14232
And what about Edmonton city council members who tirelessly talk of their
diligent labours to bring industry into their city and who wail so piteously every
time another business departs for Calgary? What have they done? Delegation to
Ottawa, maybe? Nope. Pressure on the Liberal MPs, perhaps? Nothing. For
every buck CN makes in and around Montreal, it probably makes 20 in the
Edmonton region.
I submit for that reason and that reason alone the person who
will look at these assets and at the cash flow of this company is
going to look at where the revenue is derived, where the business
is. As I said earlier, I do not mind if they maintain the head office
in the city of Montreal for a minimum period of five years, but
after the owners should be given the flexibility to run the
business the way they want to. A permanent location for their
head office should not be imposed. That is completely ludicrous
and ridiculous. Any business person would agree with that
comment.
(1515)
There will be no restrictions on foreign ownership of CN
shares, but no individual shareholder either domestic or foreign
will be able to own more than 15 per cent of the shares
outstanding. Personally I think that is ridiculous.
I was in the business sector for about 25 years before I became
a politician. I have purchased a lot of companies and I have
looked at the assets of a lot of companies. One of the things that
business people look at, the people who want to run successful
corporations, is control. If they do not have control they cannot
run a successful company. A corporation run by people who do
not have a vested interest, a significant interest, and who do not
have a lot at risk, at times do not care enough to pay attention to
all the details to make proper decisions in the best interest of the
corporation.
I have a suggestion rather than limiting ownership to 15 per
cent. There are ways to help the Minister of Transport whom I
truly respect. I am trying to make it a better bill or a better way to
sell the company. This is serious. The corporation is for sale and
we need to raise $2 billion. We must have the right ingredients at
work or at play to achieve a quick and effective sale. The longer
it drags out the worse it gets and the more it hinders the
government and hurts Canadians, because we will have to
continue to subsidize the rail line.
Why not offer the shares to Canadians first? Why not set a
time limit of 60 days for an unlimited number of shares? Then
we could put them on the global market. If the majority of shares
are not picked up by Canadians or people from Canada, if less
than 60 per cent are sold, Canadians have no right to come back
on the government to complain.
I am giving the government a suggestion to satisfy Canadians,
Canadian content, the right to buy Canadian, and the right to
participate as Canadians. If Canadians do not step up to the
plate, if they do not want to take the risk and if they do not want
to invest, so be it. However they should be at least given the first
opportunity in return for the $96 billion they have subsidized
the company for over the last 70 years. They deserve at least that
much. Wherever the percentage falls it should then be offered to
the global market. If only 30 per cent or 40 per cent have been
sold to Canadians, we should let other people buy control or
control it. Canadians cannot then hold the government
responsible or accountable for doing that.
We need to have many people available to purchase the
corporation. We need to make it available to as many people as
possible, but I maintain Canadians first and a lifting of the 15
per cent limit.
In all cases sell or make control available. However, by
making the shares available and control available the
government can still impose restrictions on the competition for
making the shares available to the competition so a monopoly
cannot be achieved. That can be done through government
regulation.
That is what the purpose of government should be. It should
pass good regulations to ensure fairness and competitiveness in
the marketplace, to create an open and competitive marketplace,
to have regulations in place that do not allow monopolies to
exist in the business sector, and to allow the private sector to
operate openly, freely and competitively but not in a family
compact way where one corporation is allowed to buy up
everything and there is no competition.
Any government on that side of the House must always
protect the interest of all Canadians. It must always have
competition as its first priority.
(1520 )
I should like to touch upon the Official Languages Act as well.
It says in the bill that CN will remain subject to the Official
Languages Act as if it were still a government agency. Will the
people who want to buy the company, the eventual directors of
the company, not know where to advertise in two languages,
where to advertise in one language, or where to have people on
the rail lines who are bilingual or unilingual? These people have
enough intelligence, if they put that much money at risk, to
know what is in the best interest of the corporation and how to
increase sales and service.
To impose rules like these make it negative. The owners
should be given the option. They will not be people who have
never made a dollar before. They will not be people who do not
know how to market. Obviously they will be people who know
how to make a dollar and what it takes to make a dollar. They
will satisfy the needs of the people they serve. Be they
francophone or anglophone or a combination, they will be able
to project and present their rates, their trips and their packages
in the language they feel is necessary to offer the services. A rule
like this one is a restriction. It is not something that helps, aids
14233
and facilitates the sale. It restricts, hinders and hurts the
potential sale.
Reform Party policy on privatization and corporations is that
we support placing ownership and control in corporations in the
private or public sector that can perform their functions most
cost effectively with the greatest accountability to the owners
and the least likelihood of incurring public debt.
If it is a public corporation the taxpayers own it and they
entrust the government, the people they elect, to look after it.
But it does not. Most of the crown corporations we have end up
being arm's length, quasi-judicial or whatever claptrap they talk
about where ministers will not take responsibility.
The minister of heritage will not take responsibility for the
CRTC. The minister of immigration will not take responsibility
for the IRB. I will find something the Minister of Justice will not
take responsibility for; I have not thought of it yet. However I
am sure there is something on which he can stand and say that it
is not his fault because it is an arm's length body, and the
taxpayers are the ones who are paying for it.
We have a situation where we believe the sector that can look
after taxpayers' dollars the best and the sector that can achieve
the highest profit and run the business the best could be the
private sector. We believe 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the time it
will be the private sector but not necessarily. Therefore we need
some rules for crown corporations and some elements that
ensure taxpayers' dollars are looked after.
The Reform Party compliments the Minister of Transport for
recommending and convincing cabinet to go forward with Bill
C-89 and the privatization of CN Rail. However, as I have
outlined in my speech today, we would like to see some of the
roadblocks removed from the legislation, just as was wanted
with the bill of the Minister of Justice on gun control. We gave
him innumerable recommendations. He could have been the
most popular justice minister in the country if he had split the
bill. It was a very simple recommendation. There could have
been the bill on gun control, punishment for the criminal misuse
of firearms, and a discussion on a national registration system.
The Liberals never promised registration in their red book; they
promised gun control. The minister delivered on half of his
promise and introduced a completely brand new element.
I do not know how the minister drafted Bill C-89. Our
transport critic has already mentioned that when the Prime
Minister was on this side of the House he said that he was
astonished at the Conservative recommendation of deregulation
in the rail industry. How quickly they change colours. How
quickly red becomes blue. How quickly the little fish in the bowl
that are blue and red get together and suddenly become one
colour when they are on that side of the House. It does not matter
what they say on this side; they change when they go on that
side. Unfortunately it will come back to haunt the government.
(1525)
I wrap up by saying I compliment the government on its
attempt to privatize. I hope it listens to the abolishment of the
headquarters in Montreal and the 15 per cent rule. It should open
it up to real business people and entrepreneurs.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I should like to make a couple of quick comments and
then ask the member some questions.
I have one comment about the Prime Minister's decision to
allow CN to be privatized. It is pretty well known in this place,
and the Prime Minister has said it publicly many times, that he
does not always get his way. If cabinet makes a decision, like the
rest of us who believe in the party process he will support the
majority of opinion. That is difficult on that side over there
where they try to play the smoke and mirrors game of their
leader letting them do what they like when we all know he is
probably the most draconian person in the place when it comes
to not letting his members do what they want.
From a railroader's perspective and being the only railroader
in the House, I have a bit of an advantage over my colleague
from Calgary. He talked about the fact that there was problem
with having Montreal designated as the place to keep CN
headquarters.
Reformers continually tell us that they use the age old ability
to find out what people think by going out and consulting. I was
on the transport committee. My colleague opposite was also on
the committee. We listened to many people talk about the effects
of Montreal being the headquarters. We asked the investment
bankers what they thought. The gentleman opposite being a
business person would know that bankers are important people
to ask. What did they say? They said that there would be no
effect.
Let me tell the House why. What is in Montreal at head office?
There is a central calling bureau for railroaders. For people out
there who do not know, it is a huge enterprise where every
railroader who works for CN is called. It is a major undertaking
that cost CN some $30 million to put into place in the last few
years. To have that completely changed and transferred to
another system would cost millions of dollars. Also, at CN or CP
there is a central power bureau where every locomotive in the
country is designated for a particular train or a particular piece
of track. One would think it was outer space with all the
technology involved there. To move the whole process to
Edmonton or Calgary would cost the corporation literally
millions of dollars.
14234
It would not cost a cent of the sale of CN to maintain the
headquarters in Montreal. Quite frankly it is good business
practice to do so. Therefore the investment bankers have said to
us that there is no problem.
On the 15 per cent retention I want to comment that CP, a
privately owned company, does not have a restriction. In fact the
most of CP owned by an individual is 11 per cent.
Investment bankers are saying on the one hand that there is no
cost effect to having Montreal designated as the headquarters. In
fact it would be worse if we tried to leave it open and someone
suggested for political reasons because of the sovereignist and
separatist problems in Montreal that we should move it. It would
hurt the company if someone suggested it for political reasons.
Leaving it there for stability reasons is a much more appropriate
process.
CP is a private corporation. It has never had anyone purchase
more than 11 per cent of the company. Investment bankers do
not believe the 15 per cent limitation will have any effect on the
sale.
Why would the Reform Party be so adamant that they are
impediments to the sale and getting a good price for CN when
they are not by reason of sound investment bankers,
consultations the government has made and what we have heard
as a committee from witnesses? Is that not what the Reform
Party says it is all about: if people tell us it makes good sense
then do it? We have been told it makes good sense. Why is the
Reform Party not supporting that when everyone we have talked
to says that it makes good sense and it will not affect the sale
price?
(1530)
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
intervention and I respect what he said, because a lot of what he
says has a lot of merit. Possibly even there could be two
directors around the same table just having a difference of
opinion on how to approach a problem.
I heard another comment. I promised I would never have
rabbit ears, but there is a certain individual whose voice is so
loud that I just have to say that when they tell me I do not
understand, let me tell that hon. member that I do understand. I
have been in business for a long time. I know what it takes to buy
and sell businesses and how to make a profit and how to achieve
a bottom line.
We have a railroader here debating with a businessman.
Maybe he is the only railroader. I know I am not the only
businessman, but along with the Minister of Finance and the
member for Edmonton South I may be one of the few successful
businessmen here whose comments are made in sincerity, not
partisan politics. We are talking business here. We are talking
privatization and how it should be done. I submit these
suggestions on the basis that I feel that the government and the
Minister of Transport should reconsider these issues.
On the question of Montreal, I did agree that there was some
sense to keeping the headquarters in Montreal for the sake of
stability. I would agree with that member that stability is
important, that to allow a new purchaser to lift up, pull out, and
do what they wanted initially would be a mistake. But that
stability should have a time factor on it. It should not be in
perpetuity. It should be long enough that the people who are
running the company, the board of directors, can have five years.
It could be three, it could be eight, it could be ten. I do not care
about the number, but eliminate that forever clause.
They can try it and see whether leaving Montreal is in the best
interests of the corporation. They can choose then where to
move the corporation. Anybody who buys a company should
have that freedom and flexibility. I believe that will attract and
help those people who would be bothered by that and
handicapped by that. It would eliminate that, which in the long
run would be negative. In the short run it is a positive, but if you
really want to attract investors you have to look at the long term,
not the short term.
On the issue of control and the 15 per cent, I do not care what
CP did. It does not matter to me whether there is 11 per cent or
10 per cent or 9 per cent. It does not matter. What I am
suggesting here is that we have a quick and effective sale. The
way to do that is to give Canadians the first opportunity. We
know that the market is hot. The marketplace is hot right now.
There are people willing to part with billions of dollars. There
are investment funds, mutual funds, investors and dealers
looking for places to place pension moneys. There is lots of
money out there.
If there are individuals with an expertise in this area and they
feel they could buy control and that 16 per cent would give them
that control, let that sophisticated purchaser buy that 16 per
cent, or whatever amount would be control.
By the very nature of how CP operates, nobody is going to buy
51 per cent. Nobody is going to buy that much. If they can figure
out that by buying this amount they could get control, great. But
let us give it first to Canadian corporations and give them an
opportunity for a certain period of time and after that open it up.
I will submit that at the end, if these suggestions were at least
addressed and looked at, the sale would be quicker. The sale
would come about. It would not be a bastardized deal like some
of the other crown corporations we have tried to sell, where we
only end up selling off half of it and not all of it. We end up in
trouble and it lags there.
These are the things I am trying to recommend to the
government. With respect, I tried to answer this as a
businessman to a railroader who is also a businessman,
businessman to businessman, to try to achieve a consensus. I
still think we
14235
should go after the Minister of Transport and get him to change
his mind on a few of these issues.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a short question if I
could.
(1535 )
I respect this member as a business person too, but the effect
of what he is suggesting would cause the exact reverse. His
colleague put forward an amendment indicating that we should
offer it to Canadians first. We agree that in order to effectively
get the value of shares for Canadian taxpayers for CN we need to
have a broadly based offer in North America. We know there is
not enough capital in Canada. To suggest that Canadians are
lining up to buy 15 per cent, which is worth at least $200 million,
I do not know of many pension funds and individuals who can
afford to pay 15 per cent.
The second thing is that if in fact we want to achieve a 100 per
cent sale and maximum value for Canadians, we cannot impose
restrictions to say let us sell it to Canadians first and then let
somebody else buy the rest. It is impossible to achieve that. We
agree. And we want to achieve the maximum value.
The board of directors for CP, a private corporation, have
decided that Montreal should be its headquarters and 70 per cent
of its business is also out west. How does he rationalize that?
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, the only comment I would make
to the parliamentary secretary is that he underestimates the
wealth in Canada. He underestimates the willingness of
Canadians to take a risk and to invest. There is a lot of money in
Canadian pocketbooks. The oil and gas industry has seen that in
the past two years. Petro-Canada should be the next one on their
plate. It should be done quickly. It should not be waited upon.
The $1 billion or $2 billion that could get is all there-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the time has
expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, since I
represent the riding of Lévis, where 500 people work for CN in
Charny, and since one of the main assets to be privatized under
Bill C-89 is the Pont de Québec, one of whose supporting
structures is located in my riding, it is quite easy to understand
why I wish to participate in the third reading debate on this bill
to privatize CN.
When this bill was tabled in the House, my first reaction was
to consult with my constituents, with workers and their families,
with the people who live with CN workers in Charny, to find out
what they thought. The first comment I heard took me by
surprise. These people were not against privatizing CN for the
following reason: They thought it could not be any worse than
the way CN has been managed in the last 10 years. Although
they were not enthusiastic about privatization, they almost
preferred this option to the way CN has been managed,
especially in recent months.
In this context, the House will remember Bill C-77, which
forced CN, VIA Rail and CP employees back to work, and the
three unprecedented steps taken to cut off debate on this bill in
the House, while Ogilvie workers have been waiting for two
years for an anti-scab law that could speed up settlement of their
dispute.
The reason why workers faced with a bludgeon law, with
several years of mismanagement at CN, with CN management's
failure to listen to them, are not against privatization is
obviously because they figure that purgatory is better than hell.
(1540)
I would also like to recall a point which was not emphasized
much here. After the unprecedented promotional effort by CN's
president, Paul Tellier, during the last election campaign, which
took him to the U.S. for the World Congress of Railway
Companies held in Louisiana, a colour picture was published in
Le Soleil. I will never forget this, for Tellier had been advocating
selling CN at reduced price and at any cost. He was telling
everyone that the company was for sale because-what a great
selling feature-of lack of productivity and the fact that the
business was not doing well. It was so terrible; CN was
unprofitable. He said it carried losses of about $80 million a
year, adding that it was unacceptable and that CN should be sold
as soon as possible.
That was during the election campaign and, at the time, the
Liberals never said a word about privatizing CN. There is no
mention of this in their red book.
In this context, a few weeks after Bill C-77 was passed ``full
steam ahead''-I am using this expression deliberately since we
are dealing with railways-Bill C-89 was introduced. And this
morning, as we get ready to vote in third reading on Bill C-89,
there is a transport bill, whose number I do not know because I
think it has not been given one yet.
What does this piece of legislation say in essence? Having
attended the briefing session the officials delegated by the
minister gave while he was tabling his bill in this House, I can
tell you what it says. It says basically one thing: deregulation. In
the neo-Liberal mind, this means eliminate as many regulations
as possible and make things as easy as possible for the public
sector.
However, my review of the history of Canada and Quebec
shows that Canadian railways were almost at the origin of the
Canadian Confederation. We all recall the fine speeches made
by key political figures of the time, by Sir John A. Macdonald in
particular, who insisted that the vast country of Canada should
14236
have a public railway system linking every region and that
railways were almost sacrosanct to this country.
So what is Bill C-89 doing? It is taking away this sacred value
by privatizing the railway system. CN will become a private
company like any other. However, the purpose of Bill C-89, and
particularly that of the new transport legislation which was
before the House this morning, is to make life for private
companies even easier than was the case for Crown
corporations. Let me relate something quite pertinent.
When CN was a public corporation, under the 1987 and 1902
acts, all agreed that the legislation was limiting, that it was
harsh. However, we had a crown corporation under the control of
the Minister of Transport, and we had some influence in that we
could democratically express our dissatisfaction whenever an
election was held.
But now, at the same time as the decision to sell CN is made,
the government tables a bill to deregulate. Why? It is to be able
to face U.S. competition by allowing CN's new shareholders and
managers to compete with Americans.
(1545)
At first glance, that decision may seem to make sense, but
there is a danger. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois feels, as the
Reform Party pointed out, that Bill C-89 is dangerous because,
while the government is deregulating in American fashion, in a
free trade context, it leaves a former public corporation totally
in the hands of the private sector. Moreover, the government
gives Americans an opportunity to control that corporation. If
the Americans have that possibility, they will look after their
own interests, which is perfectly normal. This concerns us.
This is why, even using the approach proposed by the Reform
Party, Canadians from all regions, including Quebecers, should
have been given priority in terms of buying at least a majority of
the shares. But no, the Liberal argues that there is not enough
money, not enough assets, not enough people in the Canadian
private sector who are interested in buying the corporation and
that, consequently, it has to open the door to foreign investors.
We are told that the assets total some $2.5 billion. We are also
told by a company hired by CN to evaluate these assets that
Canadians represent a potential of only $750 million. So, the
government privatizes, but admits from the outset that the
former public corporation, which was set up to serve Canada's
economic interests from east to west at the time the Canadian
confederation was established, will now be under foreign
control.
Quite frankly, I find it very hard to get enthusiastic about this
change. Although I am a sovereignist, I cannot stand by and let
the rest of Canada be dispossessed of one of its main legacies,
the railways.
I cannot help but notice that Liberal members across the way
are giving up their turns and becoming strangely silent on the
subject of Canada's main railway company, which they want to
privatize and risk leaving in American or foreign hands.
Although their silence may be due to discomfort, I get the
impression that it is more likely caused by their desire to go on
holiday as soon as possible and by this government's
carelessness and lack of vision.
As I said at the beginning and as I reminded the House, the
Bloc Quebecois is not necessarily against the principle of
privatizing CN, but not under these conditions, which may lead
to possible majority control by foreigners. We were against this.
We expressed our position by tabling our amendment.
We also said that CN is evading its responsibilities by not
giving adequate guarantees to CN employees, who have faced
repeated cuts in recent years. These employees live in a climate
of insecurity in which the top manager, Paul Tellier, was paid a
huge salary-$345,000 per year, a home for which he received a
no-interest loan, and handsome perks-to travel around the
world promoting CN, although ``depromoting'' or demoting-if
I may use these words-would be more adequate terms since he
explained how terrible this company was.
(1550)
As far as Bill C-77 is concerned, we listen to and watch the
advertising, we read the CN report with its nice colours, and
everything seems to be fine. Although we cannot show it, it is
red but has nothing to do with the red book. It refers to a shift in
policy.
The 1994 CN report, which I saw this morning at the briefing,
says that everything is hunky-dory at CN. In a few months, we
made $279 million in profits. That is quite something. Yet, CN
must be sold as quickly as possible.
Can you imagine the effect of such an announcement on
employees, on Canadians, on Quebecers? It took the incredible
Mr. Tellier a year to accomplish the feat of making this
supposedly money-losing company profitable. But he wants to
sell it any way. I am trying to draw a parallel, in order to
understand.
When the Liberals came to office, the Conservatives had
decided to privatize Pearson airport in Toronto. The Liberals,
with the Prime Minister in the lead, said that they would not
stand for that. Why? For one thing, Pearson airport was said to
be one of the only, if not the only airport in Canada to turn a
profit. Not only was the main airport in terms of traffic, but it
was also profitable. Why privatize this airport then if it can
bring in revenue for the government?
14237
In his report, Mr. Tellier says that CN is now a profitable
business. After four or five years of making losses, now that the
company is making a profit, it should be sold. Let us look to the
future. This company must be sold at all costs as soon as
possible; so, let us pass a bludgeon bill.
Under the terms of the mediator's report released on June 14
or 15, CN employees have to accept the conditions set,
indirectly, by the government. There is this urgent need to sell
CN before the fall regardless of the profits that can be made. I
must confess that the Liberal government's logic eludes me at
times. It is hard to see.
At the same time, we must look at something else. Small
airports like the one in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, which while being
called international apparently are not profitable, are also to be
privatized. Unless the municipalities and regions take it over-I
took this example and, in this particular case, activities would
be commercialized without ownership being affected-but there
is also Rimouski, Mont-Joli, Baie Comeau, all those are not
turning profits.
The Minister of Transport is asking local communities to take
over the operation of these airports, otherwise, after a while,
they will be closed down. Where is the logic in that? You do not
turn a profit, we close you down. CN is turning a profit, yet it is
being sold. Why? It does not make any sense to me.
I am no expert in transport, but people ask me why this change
in policy, why sell CN now that business is good after several
bad years. They cannot understand this change, especially after
the Chrétien government prevented the privatization of Pearson
airport.
I do not know if I have much time remaining. Two minutes.
That is just enough time to tell you about the two pillars of the
Pont de Québec.
(1555)
The other night, between 1.30 and 2 a.m., the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert and myself raised the issue of the Pont de Québec
to try to influence the government regarding the privatization of
CN's assets. After all, this is a majority government and it can
make any decision it wants. We mentioned the fact that
Canadian railway companies are true symbols. The old Pont de
Québec is also a symbol of federalism in our region.
However, the bridge is falling into decay, just like federalism,
at least in the Quebec City region. The bridge is falling into
ruins. On a more serious note, Madam Speaker, do you think that
a private company will be interested in investing $40 million to
restore the old bridge? Or will that company say: the federal
government built the bridge, so it is its responsibility; if it wants
us to repair it in the medium term, then it has to give us the $40
million required.
We tabled in this House an amendment which essentially said:
we will support privatization, but will the government guarantee
that the $40 million will be paid to CN, so that work on the
bridge can start within a year? The government never gave us an
answer. No answer. In that context, and given the social
conditions of the employees, as well as the lack of respect shown
for Canada's railway heritage, the official opposition will
oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member indicated a
number of employees live in his riding. As well, in London,
Ontario there are a number of CN employees.
We have through the CN privatization bill encouraged them to
be involved in the ownership. We believe that will be good for
the new corporation. Each employee will be able to buy shares in
the company which will give them a more meaningful role in the
affairs of Canadian National.
We wanted to ensure the employees knew their pensions
would be protected in a number of ways. The Pensions Act and a
number of safeguards Parliament has passed over the years will
ensure each one of those pensioners and the people who work for
CN now and in the future will have guaranteed pensions.
The hon. member is right, the privatization of Canadian
National was not in our red book. What was in our red book was
to build an efficient, affordable and integrated transportation
system, be it in air, in marine or in rail.
We believe CN does not have to serve the public policy role.
That is for governments to deal with in terms of regional
economic development and so on. A railroad is a railroad and
should be allowed to function as a railroad so it can provide the
services it must to its customers.
We believe a privatized CN will be better for the country,
better for its employees and better obviously for its clients. It
will be stronger and able to manage a number of things without
the encumbrances of government.
Therefore the deregulation package we put forward in the
House today will ensure a viable rail industry for CP, CN and the
creation of short line industries. Unless the country can move its
goods and services in the most efficient and cost effective
manner, we will not be able to deliver or export our goods and
nobody will have a job. We need an efficient and affordable
transportation system. That is what CN privatization is all about
and that is what the deregulatory process is all about.
The member spent some time talking about the Quebec
bridge. If he had spoken to his colleague he would have known
CN has an obligation to maintain that bridge. A letter from Mr.
14238
Tellier to the Quebec transport minister indicates the bridge is
in need of repair, but there are studies which indicate it is safe.
It also has indicated that perhaps the province of Quebec
ought to pay its fair share for the maintenance of the bridge.
While it is very important for rail traffic, 75 per cent of the
traffic on the bridge is vehicular, which comes under the
jurisdiction of the provincial government.
(1600 )
We heard from people in committee who talked about the
historical significance of the Quebec bridge. We believe in that
as well. They are prepared to raise money. They are prepared to
look at ways of restoring its historical significance.
I wonder if the member has heard from the minister of
transport in Quebec as to whether Quebec is prepared to pay its
fair share for the bridge to ensure it is safe and properly
maintained for historical and transportation purposes. Has he
heard from the minister or will he undertake to the House that he
can use his good offices to talk to the PQ about paying its fair
share?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the
question put by the hon. member for London East.
First of all, regarding the Pont de Québec, since that is the
main thrust of his question, I think that basically, it all boils
down to the federal government's habit, inspired by Minister
Martin himself, of offloading its responsibilities onto the
provinces.
The bridge was built by the federal government and used by
CN. The Government of Quebec already pays an annual fee for
use of the paved section, but the bridge was built for Canadian
National. Quebec has already done its share under an agreement
which, I believe, was for forty years.
Quebec pays this fee under the agreement. However, the
federal government now claims that because of inflation,
although it certainly is not excessive these days, the Quebec
government should help the federal government meet its
obligations. This is fantastic.
I think that in Quebec like anywhere else, when you have a
tenant-landlord relationship, the tenant-and the Quebec
Minister of Transport made this quite clear-may be willing to
renegotiate the lease and pay more. This was in fact suggested in
a letter. The Quebec Minister of Transport said that once the
repairs had been made, he was prepared to pay for annual
maintenance, but because the federal government has been
cutting its maintenance budget for the past ten years, the bridge
is in a sorry state.
In his preamble, the hon. member said that employees in his
riding were interested in buying shares. Madam Speaker, I want
the hon. member to listen very carefully. In February of last
year, at the invitation of the minister, CN employees across
Canada submitted a purchase offer. A year later, they got
together with the actuaries and, using their pension fund, they
made the same offer, and the response they got from Mr. Tellier,
president of CN, and from the government, was the
back-to-work legislation passed in February. That was their
answer. ``No way''. That was the answer they got.
On June 1, the union made the same offer. It is an interesting
proposition because of the excellent working environment this
could create. Since the employees would run the company, they
would not want it to show a deficit. And they would save their
own jobs. All this was dismissed out of hand. No, they prefer
grandiose gestures; they prefer to call upon the international
community while ignoring two or three dimensions that I
wanted to stress in closing.
The railway companies in all of the big European countries,
France, Germany, etc, are public. Yes, in all of them. Why?
Because they feel that this public infrastructure is a building
block which is necessary for regional development. And what
are we doing in Canada? In addition to the things I said earlier,
the government is cutting transport subsidies for the regions.
The hon. member for Ontario and people from the Maritimes
know this. And why is the government doing this? It wants to
replace them with new road infrastructures. Some gift. While
the federal government would contribute to the cost of building
new roads, the provincial governments will end up having to
maintain them.
We know that during the spring thaw, a single tractor-trailor
wears down highways as much as more than 17,000 cars,
according to engineers.
(1605)
We know that all of our highway maintenance problems in
Quebec and Ontario, in Toronto where it is obvious, are caused
by trucking. And the upkeep of roads is the responsibility of the
provinces. The hon. member would like to see me encourage the
Liberal government to reply that, at a time when the federal
government is trying to offload its deficit to the provinces, the
Government of Quebec should help the federal government
meet these responsibilities, which it is no longer able to do
alone. No, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It is
important for me, representing Edmonton Southwest, to ensure
some views are put on the table that would reflect the views of
Canadians with regard to the privatization of CN.
The Reform Party is generally speaking in support of the bill.
We think the privatization of Canadian National makes a good
14239
deal of sense. If we think it is such a good idea and if the
government thinks it is such a good idea to privatize CN,
perhaps the next bill to be discussed will be the establishment of
another crown corporation, the Federal Business Development
Bank, which will be continued and greatly enlarged to compete
in the financial services sector.
The debate today concerns the privatization of Canadian
National. Whenever the name of a railroad is invoked sooner or
later taxpayers will have their hands in their pockets. That has
been the case ever since day one in the railroad industry in
Canada and nothing will likely change that.
Canadian National is the result of an amalgamation of a
number of smaller money losing operations which about 30 or
40 years ago were combined into Canadian National. The
wisdom of the day was a lot of small money losing operations
could be combined into one big money losing operation, and that
is exactly what happened.
Canadians have been throwing money at Canadian National
hand over fist ever since it was put together to compete with
Canadians Pacific. Canadian Pacific was established with a
great deal of government largesse. It received copious quantities
of land in return for building the railroad. It promptly sold off
the land and came cap in hand to the people of Canada saying it
needed subsidies or it will close this or that.
Thus is the story of big business in Canada. An hon. member
from the New Democratic Party many years ago coined the
phrase corporate welfare bums, and he is quite right. The larger
the business in Canada, the closer the tentacles of that business
are to the coffers of the country.
It is Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, people struggling to get buy, who
seem always to be dipping into their pockets to subsidize
somebody else. At least with this legislation there is half a
chance the subsidization to CN will come to an end, which begs
the question of who in their right mind would buy anything that
has been losing money since time began.
It was an amalgamation of money losing railroads turned into
one big money losing railroad and now carries a debt of about
$2.5 billion. Why would anyone in their right mind buy this
railroad? Privatizing will not make it profitable. If one takes a
historically unprofitable entity and privatizes it, that in itself
will not make it profitable.
(1610 )
Canadian National will have to be privatized in a manner
which will remove the shackles that have prevented it from
being profitable. That means whoever will be buying this
railroad, whether it is a zillion individuals or a half a dozen large
organizations and a lot of other individuals, these people will
need the ability to make the decisions necessary to turn this
railroad which has historically lost money into a profit making
venture.
That was the purpose and rationale behind some of the
amendments we offered to the bill. The Reform Party is by and
large in support of the bill. We think it is a good idea and we
respect the government for taking this initiative. It has not been
an easy chore over the last year or so for the Liberals to reverse
direction, as they have in many of the bits of legislation which
have come to the table. Who would have thought there would
ever be in this day a Liberal government bringing in legislation
to privatize a crown corporation? That has not been the Liberal
way over the past 30 or 40 years.
When the prodigal son comes home we should welcome him
and say: ``Well done. We are glad you are seeing the light. What
can we do to help?'' To dump all over the government because
there are some things about the bill we do not like would be
counterproductive.
As my colleague from Calgary Centre mentioned, when a
private corporation is looking at any venture, granted this is a
big venture, business principles are business principles. It is
really a question of adding a number of zeros once we get
started; it is a question of how many zeros are behind the
decimal point.
Canadian National in order to be palatable to future investors
must reduce some of its debt load. The debt load is $2.5 billion
and people have said it should be reduced to something in the
order of $1.5 billion.
A truism in the business world is the first hit you take is
always the easiest. Therefore if we are to sell this off we are far
better off taking the hit by reducing the the debt CN carries the
first time around rather than trying to drag it out. We are far
better off getting the price and the debt to a level attractive to
purchasers at one time than we are trying three or four different
levels.
There are a couple of ways this could be achieved. One is to
sell assets CN presently has. That is the way it should be done.
CN should not come to the public coffers of Canada, individual
taxpayers, and say: ``Dip into your pockets and pull out $5 or
$10. This is your contribution to getting this white elephant off
our backs, this albatross of our necks. Your contribution is
$100''.
We should be saying CN is in the transportation business, the
rail business, and had better sell off a whole lot of these assets.
This is exactly what we would do in the private sector; get down
to the bare bones, the core business. Once that is done and the
assets are sold we could look at how much we have to write down
on this debt in order to make it saleable.
CN is a national company. I believe I am accurate in saying
that something in the region of 70 per cent of the revenues of CN
are generated west of the lakehead. It is a national company but
the majority of the revenues of Canadian National are generated
14240
in the transport of raw materials such as coal, sulphur, grain and
parts of the resource industry.
(1615 )
That is why this is a reasonable question to ask. If the bulk of
the revenues are generated in western Canada and the company
is to be privatized, does it not necessarily follow that the
privatized Canadian National in order to become profitable will
accelerate in closing parts of the operation which are losing
money which would then inevitably be that part of the operation
probably east of the golden triangle or golden horseshoe of
central Canada? In order to be a viable entity CN must have
access to the country's industrial heartland. It may not have the
wherewithal to continue to operate money losing parts of its
operation elsewhere in Canada.
This brings into the debate where the head office should be.
We are not talking about where the various repair shops should
be. Earlier a member mentioned that a high tech operation in
Montreal keeps track of the locomotives and the trains. I always
wondered how on earth railroads kept track of their rolling
stock. That can stay in Montreal. We are talking about the head
office. The head office could be wherever the majority owners of
the new privatized Canadian National would want it to be.
There is quite a disparity in the number of employees working
across the country. Today, 29,541 people work for Canadian
National. Of those 29,541 individuals 2,526 live in British
Columbia; 3,567 live in Alberta; Saskatchewan has 1,380;
Manitoba has 4,498. Alberta has the western regional
headquarters. In Manitoba there is a major repair facility. It is a
major yard. Ontario has 7,165 employees and Quebec has 7,795
employees.
Perhaps the head office should be somewhere in Ontario.
There are the same number of employees. Perhaps the head
office should be in Prince Edward Island. There are five
employees in Prince Edward Island; Newfoundland, 167; Nova
Scotia, 393; New Brunswick, 1,903; and I mentioned that
Quebec has 7,795. With the exception of the maritimes where
there is not much of a presence of Canadian National, outside of
New Brunswick which did have a repair facility, most of the
employees of Canadian National are spread out pretty evenly
across the country.
The Liberals dictate that the head office should be
permanently in Montreal is because of the delicate nature of the
relationship between some people who live in Quebec and the
rest of Canada. The government just does not want to ruffle any
feathers right now. It does not want to add another ingredient
that could possibly be disturbing. It does not want to risk the
enmity and the ire of the Bloc Quebecois by saying that the head
office can be wherever the owners want it to be.
There are issues of principle that go beyond whether or not
members of the Bloc Quebecois get upset. Let them get upset.
Who cares? We are running a business here. We make business
decisions for business decisions. We could have the Holy
Mother here and the Bloc would find some reason for getting
upset. Let us just assume that the Bloc is going to be upset no
matter what we do.
The next thing then, when we are looking at some of the
suggestions that we have made, is the restriction of 15 per cent.
Earlier someone said it is not a big deal because the maximum
number of shares that anyone has of CP is 11 per cent. What
difference does that make? Who cares what the share structure
of CP is? What we are trying to do is sell CN provided that the
debt reduction on CN is not so much that it makes it an unfair
competitor to CP, which is, of course, the private entity
enterprise. We do not want to repeat the mistake we made with
Air Canada, which was to write off all the debt, throw a
competitor that has lots of cash into the marketplace to compete
with the private sector, which at the time was Canadian Airlines
or whatever its precursor was, and start a price war. That almost
put both of them out of business.
(1620)
In any event the situation is that no one owner may own more
than 15 per cent of the shares of the privatized CN. People
representing the government have said that it is a non-issue
because the maximum share ownership of CP is 11 per cent.
Surely it would not be a problem to take this restriction out of
the legislation. The government has said it is not a problem, so
why have it there?
It is important with Canadian National that if a group comes
to the table and is prepared to invest enough money to own more
than 15 per cent, then why on earth should it not? It may need to
have that control in order to make Canadian National a
competitive, profitable enterprise.
I have no reason to believe that this is the case but I am
thinking aloud that it could be because so much of the Canadian
National business is resource based, it is possible that a number
of resource based companies will come to the table in a
consortium wanting to buy Canadian National. Perhaps that
consortium will want to have more than 15 per cent. The
restriction of 15 per cent is artificial. It is not necessary and it
does nothing to move the legislation ahead.
Another sop to Canadianism in the legislation is the
requirement that Canadian National must remain bilingual just
as it is as a crown corporation or as a federal government entity.
There are institutions in Canada that are rightfully bilingual,
such as the House of Commons and law. Many of the institutions
across Canada that are bilingual should be bilingual because we
are a bilingual country. When those of us who have lived most of
our lives in other parts of Canada come to central Canada we see
just how bilingual the country is. Being bilingual, trilingual or
multilingual is to our benefit.
14241
What we are talking about now is privatizing an operation that
has been losing money for many years. There should be as few
strings attached as humanly possible. If the corporation is to
become a private corporation, then let it become a private
corporation without the strings attached. If it is in the interests
of the corporation to be bilingual or multilingual, we can be sure
it will remain so, as it should. It may well become multilingual
because there are parts of this country where the second
language is not English or French, but may well be Mandarin.
Another point I raise is if we are going to privatize CN, let us
honestly privatize it without all the strings attached in order to
make it more palatable to the people. I do not want ascribe
motive here, but it would seem to me that one aspect of the bill is
nothing more or less than a sop to the Bloc Quebecois so that it
will not get upset about it. If we are going to privatize it, let us
do it.
(1625 )
Another point has to do with the marine strategy, the railroads
in Canada and the fact that everything in Canada is
interconnected. There is not much point developing a port in
Halifax if there is no facility to move products from that port to
the rest of the country. To do that we will require rail lines.
As this is privatized it is wholly appropriate there be certain
restrictions on the new ownership to ensure that any transition is
done carefully and in the public interest.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I enjoyed my colleague's comments. I could agree with a fair
number of his concerns. I think all Canadians have concerns.
This is a massive move. He says that he could not imagine
Liberals taking this move but the ideologies are pretty fuzzy
these days. I would agree that 20 years ago to say that Liberals
were going to privatize CN would certainly be out of the
question. Privatization has been brought upon us because we
have not been able to make this thing work. We are in a new
league now. We are involved in world competition and we have
to forget about those old standbys we thought we could live
with.
The railroad has been doing much better recently than the past
50 or 75 years would indicate, which might make it somewhat
attractive to a new buyer. The member categorized three things
which I can see fitting together.
One was having the location of the head office dictated and I
agree with that. If I am going to own something I should be left
with that decision. That would make sense. As someone once
said, if you are going to do it, do it right. If we were privatizing
something else we would tell the owners that they owned it and
were free to put the head office where they wanted to.
The fact we have said CN should be bilingual fits in there too.
It was done for the same reason and Canadians realize that. It is
only being honest with Canadians. I could add the 15 per cent
ownership limit to the list. This is such a massive move and
nobody really knows where it is going to shake out. We avoided
destabilizing the company as much as possible. This affects all
Canadians, so we had to keep those things in mind.
This case is bigger than when TCA was privatized to become
Air Canada if we are just talking dollars and cents. With that in
mind and all of the uncertainties, what is the price going to be of
a share? I do not know but we have to depend on those we trust to
tell us. That would be the rationale for not moving any further
with it by throwing it completely open and saying: ``Have the
headquarters where you like. Do not be too concerned about
whether it should remain bilingual as it is now. Do not have any
limit on the 15 per cent share but let people buy whatever
portion they would like''.
I suppose it is not really privatization in a sense if we are
going to have those restrictions. On the other hand this has been
a Canadian owned company which is moving into the private
sector. The government was trying to avoid all kinds of pitfalls
by putting those riders on for now. There may be pitfalls even
with those riders.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, the central point I was
trying to make was that CN has had a record of losing money
ever since its incorporation. The fact that it is losing money at a
slower rate today is a blessing but it is like dying by inches, you
are still going to die sooner or later.
If this deal is going to be palatable in a private market, if it is
going to be saleable and if it can be privatized, it will only be
privatized because those who will invest in it see the opportunity
of making a dollar. That is the way our system works. That is the
way it should work.
(1630)
Concerning the restriction of 15 per cent, if a potential
purchaser had the resources to take 20 per cent of the shares, it
would ensure there would be a very strong hand at the helm. The
other 80 per cent of CN would be widely dispersed in pension
funds, in RRSPs, with people all over the country.
However, we had better make damn sure when we are doing
something like this that this business is not being run by a
committee. It had better be run by somebody who knows exactly
what he or she is doing, exactly how he or she is going to do it
and has one overriding ambition, to make a profit. There is no
other reason for CN to be purchased by any potential investor
anywhere.
That person must purchase it with the intent of making a
profit. It has nothing to do with the Canadian identity. It has
nothing to do with being a good Canadian. It has nothing to do
with how much money has already been lost. It is strictly
whether there will be a return on the investment when those
shares are purchased.
14242
That is the only consideration that anyone who buys a share in
this should have. If Bobby Gimby decides he is going to be the
head of Canadian National and this becomes part of the national
dream then we are sunk. We will end up with another B.C.
Resources Investment Corporation where thousands of widows
and orphans are going to buy shares in this creature. They are
going to see the share value plummet and be resentful beyond
words.
It is our responsibility to ensure that whoever buys this baby
has the opportunity to turn it into a profitable venture.
Otherwise we are going to wear that can around our necks and
we will deserve it.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I get
rather disillusioned when I hear my Reform colleagues,
particularly one who is considered more insightful than most of
his brothers and sisters in his party, make comments such as the
following: ``Bilingualism was given as a sop to the Bloc''.
Does my hon. colleague from the Reform Party who has just
spoken understand that the Bloc members do not believe in
bilingualism? They want unilingualism, they want French. I
cannot understand the lack of sensitivity and insight displayed
by such a comment. It shows the Reform Party in spite of its
attempts, does not understand the country.
A second comment: ``We have in this country, two official
languages''. To suggest that a business can ignore official
languages, in spite of the fact that it is une des pierres angulaires
de de pays, shows incredible lack of sensitivity.
They can ignore to run trains where it does not pay. They can
ignore to do anything except run them where there is the greatest
profit.
Is my hon. colleagues suggesting to heck with the city of
Montreal? To heck with responding in English or French, the
official languages of this country. To heck with everything else
that is going to cost money because we, the business community,
are going to skim off the richest of the cream. Is that what is
being suggested?
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, my colleague from
Winnipeg has a good point and he is absolutely right. I cannot
believe that I said that language was a sop to the Bloc. Obviously
it is not a sop to the Bloc and my hon. colleague opposite is quite
right.
It is a sop to Quebec perhaps in general terms but it is
certainly not a sop to the Bloc. Whatever it might be to the Bloc,
for sure it is not that.
The other point is about bilingualism and this needs to be
absolutely clear. I did not say that CN should not be bilingual. I
did not infer that it should not be bilingual. I said that it may be
multilingual.
(1635)
What I said was as CN is going to be privatized, take the
shackles off and let the management of the company make the
decision for themselves. That is a decision that rightfully
belongs to the new owners of CN. It is a not a decision which
should be made by the legislature of the country.
If we are going to sell it, then sell it with no strings attached.
The first hit we take will be the worst hit, so let us take the it, get
it off the books and get on with life. Good for the Liberals for
bringing the legislation to the table in the first place.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, what is the point of this debate? Why are we here? I
have been sitting here day after day. Are we wasting our time?
I have listened to the debate and the speeches which have been
made on both sides of the House. I know a heat wave is hitting
the country. I wonder if it has been caused by the intense debate
we have heard over the last week or so. I am not sure. Is the only
thing we are accomplishing the generation of a lot of hot air?
Last week I took a break and went down the hall to the other
place which is known as the Senate. I sat in there for a while and
listened to the debate. I heard some very good speeches on
euthanasia and other topics. I thought to myself, nobody is
listening to these speeches. Nobody in the country is looking at
what is happening here. These people have gone to a lot of work
and nobody is listening. Suggestions are being made and nobody
is listening.
Then I came back to this place. I thought to myself, it is no
different here. Nobody is listening. Nobody is paying attention.
The Reform Party has made suggestions. It has worked with
the government to fine tune the legislation to ensure it is
acceptable to all Canadians. We find that, by and large, our
efforts are useless. The speeches we make are falling on deaf
ears. Nobody is listening. What is the point of the debate?
During the election campaign my strongest opponent was the
NDP candidate who is now running for the leadership of that
party. He made a big point of the Senate being unelected and
unaccountable. He said that because it is appointed, the people
in the other place are not very effective, the balance which it
should provide between the regions is not there.
However, my hon. opponent in the election forgot to mention
that this place could really use some fixing. This place is not
democratic. This place is not doing what it should be doing. The
debate here is often very meaningless. The suggestions which
are made in good faith are completely disregarded. My feelings
about the other place are also the feelings I have toward this
place.
14243
People are frustrated because Parliament is not doing its job. I
want to use this bill to illustrate what I mean.
I have been here for almost two years now and that time has
shown me that this place is guilty of many of the same problems
of which we accuse the Senate. What is changing because of the
debate we are having here? This debate is coming to a close. In
fact, this session of Parliament will soon be over. We have been
debating day after day. I wonder if it is accomplishing anything
and whether the work we put into our speeches is really
effective.
For those who are watching on the parliamentary channel and
may not be aware of how legislation is created, very simply the
legislation is introduced in the House, generally by the
government, but there are private members' bills. It is
introduced and receives first reading. It goes through second
reading, goes to committee, is reported back to the House and
then goes through third reading. That does not mean it becomes
law. Then it goes to the Senate and it goes through the same
process. Then if the legislation has passed, it becomes law.
(1640)
As we go through all of these processes, as we work in
committees, there should be amendments proposed. There
should be open and free discussion. That has frustrated me. A lot
of what we do is hidden. It is behind the scenes. It is in the
committees. A lot of the work, the research, that is done and the
proposals that are made, Canadians are not aware of.
In order for democracy to work that process should be open.
Every member of Parliament should have input. By and large
that is not happening. The agenda is driven by only a few elected
people in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate.
When the debate on Bill C-89 first began, I suggested four
things. I was one of the first speakers on the bill. If we are going
to produce good laws these suggestions should have been dealt
with but by and large they have not. I have heard several reasons
why they have not.
If we look at the reasons we begin to realize that they do not
hold water. They are not acceptable. First I said that prohibiting
the government from arbitrarily cancelling all or part of CN's
debts prior to privatization should not take place. I also
mentioned that removing the requirement to leave CN's
headquarters in Montreal is something that the government
should take a serious second look at. We proposed amendments
for that. We thought perhaps a lot of politics was involved. What
I have seen today probably underscores that fact. I do not think it
is a wise business decision.
Another suggestion I made was to remove the requirement
that CN comply with the government's policy on official
bilingualism. It was pure politics. My hon. colleague has
pointed that out very well. I also said remove the 15 per cent
ownership restriction.
I heard the members arguing that we do not want to destabilize
the company. Any owners who would take over would not want
to do that. The arguments which have been presented on the
other side are superficial. They do not hold water.
That is why we have to do more in this place than simply
generate a lot of hot air. We have to begin to listen to each other
and do the fine tuning of legislation that would make it good
legislation.
We agree with the privatization of CN. It is a good thing. The
government has an opportunity to make it a great thing. I want to
suggest that the government use this, its first major attempt at
privatization, as a testing ground for the privatization of other
crown corporations.
Reformers do not want a lot of unnecessary regulations that
restrict companies in keeping down their costs. We do not want
that. Yet the government is tying their hands somewhat.
When Reformers ask why tie the hands of the new owners of
CN by stipulating that the headquarters remain in Montreal, the
Liberals answered and that they wanted to provide a level of
certainty that potential costs from relocation of the headquarters
will not ensue. Think about the absurdity of that answer. A
company would not relocate its headquarters if it would result in
some financial disadvantage.
On the other hand, what if there was an advantage financially
to moving the headquarters to Winnipeg or some other western
place or to the east? What if there was an advantage in doing that
because it might be more central to the bulk of the business?
Why should they not be allowed to do that? Would they make
decisions that were not wise for the company? They would not.
That is why the answer that I have heard to to this question is
absurd. Seventy per cent of CN's business is done in western
Canada. Why put in the stipulation that the CN headquarters
must stay in Montreal?
The Bloc says that we are Quebec bashing. We are not Quebec
bashing. Where is the consistency in the government's
reasoning? When the ancestor to Air Canada moved its
headquarters from Winnipeg to the east, westerners argued that
this was a Winnipeg based company. The government in its big
bubble here in Ottawa said ``Oh, no, most of the airline's
business is in the east, so we should move the headquarters to
Montreal''. When the shoe is on the other foot and CN's
business is mostly in the west, it has a completely different
argument. There is no consistency in what the government is
saying. By using the government's own reasoning, it should
allow the company, if it wishes, to move the headquarters out of
Montreal.
14244
(1645)
When history and tradition fail the west the Liberals say it
does not matter. However, when history and tradition favour the
east they write it into the law. Something is wrong. Why run a
company 2,000 miles away from its main operation?
In 1987 Madsen Pirie, who was president of the Adam Smith
Institution in London and a world renowned expert on
privatization, spoke at a Canadian symposium on privatization
organized by the Fraser Institute. He had this to say about the
fundamentals of privatizing a crown corporation:
When government engages in an activity such as privatization, it is speaking to
several audiences. Among the audiences the government speaks to are the
managers of the Crown corporations, the workers who are employed in them, the
members of the general public who are customers of the Crown corporations, the
general public who are taxpayers and who pay the subsidies to support the losses
of those corporations, potential investors who might buy shares in those
corporations, the financial and business community which takes an interest in
their performance, and the media commentators who observe this process and
comment on the results and declare it to be a success or a failure. Every act of
privatization speaks to all of these audiences and every act should be tailor-made
to maximize the support of each of these different groups.
When we review this bill we should test against Dr. Pirie's list
of vested interests or audiences, or stakeholders as the
government likes to call them. Bill C-89 must address each of
the groups affected by the privatization: the managers, the
workers, the customers, the taxpayers, and the investors. If Bill
C-89 does not specifically address each of the needs and
interests of these groups, then amendments will be necessary.
That is what we proposed.
This is what frustrates me as we come to the end of this
debate. I do not think one thing we have said here today is going
to change the government's mind. We are generating a lot of hot
air in the midst of a Canadian heat wave and it is doing us no
good.
Dr. Pirie also outlined three key principles of privatization.
His first principle was never cancel a benefit. If people are
deriving a benefit from the public activity of a crown
corporation, never cancel it, no matter how unjust it is. In his
second principle he said to make friends out of your enemies:
``Find out who the people are who might lose on the
privatization process and structure the policy to make sure they
gain instead''. The third principle he gave was disarm the
opposition: ``Identify all possible objections to privatization
and tailor the policies so that every single one of those
objections are dealt with in advance''.
Has the government done this? I brought this up months ago,
and nothing has been done. That is why I still maintain that a lot
of the debate here is not really effective. Has the government
done this? I doubt it. The government should ensure that it has
considered each of Dr. Pirie's three principles in planning for
this privatization.
Has the government explored the idea that came from one of
my constituents and which I presented to this government that
we could have two or more government objectives rolled into
one? For example, the government is giving landowners in the
west a one-time payout for the elimination of the WGTA
subsidy for the railways, which is commonly known as the Crow
rate. Would it be possible, I asked, to give western farmers the
choice to have their Crow rate buyout in the form of shares
rather than cash? It could be made fairly attractive and then
farmers would have a direct financial interest in the economic
performance of CN.
I heard one of the Liberal members opposite several hours ago
argue that we could never raise the capital in Canada to even
have someone grab hold of the major amount of shares in CN.
That is ridiculous. Does the member not realize that the crown
payout of approximately $1.6 billion is equal to the price the
government is asking for CN? What does he mean the capital is
not available? Right there is the capital. The main users of the
railway are the grain producers in this country, and they could
use it. It would give them the benefit. It would meet some of the
negative aspects that often come with privatization.
(1650)
That is why I am saying the government should have been
listening. As this idea is being picked up they could have floated
the idea. Maybe this is a bad idea, but they should have looked at
it. This idea comes from some of the constituents in my area, and
it should be dealt with.
Look at the recommendations of previous studies. The
government spends million and millions of dollars on royal
commissions and studies. One of the recommendations made
was that rolling stock could be privatized but the government
could continue to maintain the rail beds, maybe as a private
corporation eventually. They could maintain the rail beds just as
they do the highways in the country. It would allow small
entrepreneurs that do not have the capital resources to buy a
huge railroad to at least use the efficiency of the rail beds in
transporting their products.
The Economic Council of Canada published a report called
``Minding the Public's Business''. In chapter five, entitled
``Government Enterprise and Business'', the Economic Council
made the following recommendation: ``Entry into rail carriage
could be promoted in different ways. The provisions of the
proposed legislation could be expanded to make running rights
more easily available and to open entry into rail carriage to
anyone who can meet the basic requirements related to safety
and liability coverage. Instead of regulating the activities of CN
and CP in their capacity as providers of the rail bed, the
management of all track could be assigned to a new publicly
14245
owned track authority. This would require the nationalization of
CP's roadbed and the separation of CN's track from the other
components of its operation. Alternatively, a public track
authority could be created based exclusively on the
infrastructure of CN.''
We have put this to the government. It seems to ignore it. I do
not know why. Why does the government spend all these
millions on commission and studies? They come forth with
some sensible recommendations and the government promptly
dismisses them. This is an idea whose time has finally come and
the government should give serious consideration to
establishing a public track authority that would operate
similarly to our highway system. This would eliminate the tax
disadvantage placed on rail companies.
Rail companies are at a tax disadvantage. They pay fuel taxes
and they also have to maintain their rail beds. That is not fair. On
the other hand, trucks pay fuel taxes, but the highways, their
road bed, are maintained at public expense.
A public track authority could charge user fees to rail
companies based on the use they make of the tracks. As a result,
they would be self-financing. At some point in the future the
public track authority could even be privatized.
The Chamber of Commerce supports a fully user pay rail
infrastructure and had this to say in their 1994 submission to the
special joint committee reviewing Canada's foreign policy:
``Canadian businesses are increasingly pointing to an unlevel
playing field between the Canadian and U.S. commercial
environments. One tangible example among many can be found
in the Canadian transportation industry. Rail, for example,
provides the most economic mode of transportation for a large
part of Canada's freight and for many shippers is the only cost
effective mode. It is fundamental to Canada's trade, moving 40
per cent of Canada's exports, and provides a fully user pay
infrastructure not liable to ongoing public funding.''
Finally, I want to return to a point I have made repeatedly in
speeches before the House for the last couple of years. I would
like to comment on the importance of the port of Churchill to the
farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When I said that the
government should be looking at more than one initiative, this is
another thing it should have looked at.
The privatization of CN should be seen as an opportunity to
privatize, expand markets, modernize, increase exports and
imports through the port of Churchill. This will take more than
just the privatization of CN. It would take the cooperation and
likely the privatization of both VIA Rail and Ports Canada at
Churchill. It will take the cooperation of the federal
government, the government of the province of Manitoba, the
cooperation and support of every community and producer
whose future will be improved by taking advantage of the most
cost effective shipping route for bulk commodities to our
customers in Europe, Africa, and South America.
(1655)
I respectfully ask the government not to look at the Churchill
line and the port of Churchill as a liability but as an opportunity
requiring creative thinking and a cooperative and creative
privatization strategy. I have worked on this quite a bit, and that
is why I say one government department must work together
with the other one.
One of the main obstacles to making the Hudson Bay route
and the port of Churchill viable is the Canadian Wheat Board.
Unless the Canadian Wheat Board becomes more open and
accountable to grain producers, prairie producers will continue
to be routed through costly eastern ports.
Yoy cannot just look at the railroad in isolation. You have to
see how it all connects. Why is it that we have this problem?
Because the railroads and eastern interests benefit in having the
grain go through the traditional route rather than through the
port of Churchill.
Farmers are asking important questions that will not be
answered until the process of grain sales in routing is opened up.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the time has
totally expired. Questions and comments.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I really do not want to address the issue of the bill that
is currently before us. However, I did want to ask the member
about some comments he made.
He criticized the quality of the debate and suggested that
somehow government members were responsible for that
quality of debate. Throughout this day and throughout a good
part of last week the majority of speakers on any bill, by a
margin of four to one, sometimes nine to one, ten to one, have
been Reform Party members. If 90 per cent of the speakers on
the bill are Reform Party members and only 10 per cent are
government members, would this not suggest that it is the
Reform Party members who are responsible for the inadequacy
of the quality of debate?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I
wish the hon. member had been listening carefully to what I
said. The point of what I am saying is that those members are not
listening carefully to what we are saying.
We have made suggestions to the government. We were not
complaining about the quality of debate. We are coming up with
speeches, coming up with amendments, working on committees.
We are doing all of these things that a good parliamentarian
should be doing, but it is useless.
It is no different from what is happening in the Senate. These
people make these wonderful speeches and it is to no avail. We
come to this House and it is still to no avail because we do not
14246
have democracy built into the system. We debated gun control,
and when it came down to it we were not even allowed to vote
freely on the issue. Liberal members were told how to vote.
We made suggestions as to how to improve some of the
legislation in this House. My point was very clearly made that
the speeches we made and the work we did was by and large
ignored by the government.
I would like to conclude some of the other remarks I made in
regard to the Churchill route because they may be misconstrued
if I do not. Suspicion grows that the grain companies, the
government bureaucrats, the railroads, and the eastern interests
drive the agenda while the western farmer continues to be ripped
off, not realizing the full benefits of his labour and his
enterprise.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Point of order.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I will be delighted to ask the
member a question and to drop the point of order. The point was
to have been in fact that the member was entering into debate. If
I can continue with questions and comments, which is the
time-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have questions and
comments. Point of order?
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I was rising on questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I think the member is
well aware that when the opposition parties are speaking we
normally allow government to question the party.
(1700 )
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, contrary to the statement just
made by the member, I was listening very carefully. It was the
quality of debate he was criticizing. If he reviews his blues in
Hansard he will find out those were the words he used.
I can only say again that 90 per cent of the debate has come
from the Reform Party compared with government members and
therefore I know who to blame for the quality of debate.
On the point of listening, the member is well aware, and I am
surprised he has not said this in the House, there has been a great
deal of listening. There were over 40 amendments to the gun
control bill in committee. There were dozens more amendments
debated-
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Did the member not rise on a point of order?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): She retracted and went
back to questions and comments.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Would I not have a
chance to finish the remarks I was making? Is she allowed to
interrupt me?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am afraid the hon.
member was back on debate.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, would the member not
concede there were over 40 amendments in committee, that
there were dozens of amendments debated in the House last
night on the bill? We voted on over 30 motions last night.
Clearly amendments have been put forward with debate.
If the member were to be totally honest with the public he
would concede even some points brought forward by members
of the Reform Party in committee on the gun control legislation,
which he referred to, were incorporated in the gun control
legislation and that we have been listening. Listening is not the
same as agreeing with everything the Reform Party says;
otherwise we would both be on the same side of the House.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I was
involved with C-68, the gun control measure, and if the she
wants to debate that, I would be very willing to. I think that is not
what is-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I ask the hon. member
not to refer to other members in the House as ``she''. The hon.
member is the deputy government whip.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): In relation to Bill
C-68, the changes the government made that responded to
Reform suggestions were simply changes where a word may
have been clarified. Virtually no other changes were made by the
government. They were so minuscule as to be almost useless,
very small wording changes.
With regard to Bill C-89 when we asked about allowing a
company to move the headquarters from Montreal, the
government did virtually nothing to act on that. When we
questioned the government's official bilingualism policy being
applied to a private company, it remained virtually unanswered,
as did the question of the 15 per cent ownership restriction. All
of these things we raised were not properly addressed. The
answers we were given were superficial. They were not effective
answers.
We are talking about Bill C-89, not Bill C-68, a whole
different matter. I would gladly address that if we were debating
it. What about the cancelling of CN's debts prior to
privatization? In all fairness to the government, it addressed that
question somewhat. By and large a lot of the suggestions we
made fell on deaf ears. That is the problem with this place; that
is the problem with much of the debate that takes place here.
We can speak 90 per cent of the time but it makes no
difference. I wonder if Canadians realize we are acting as the
14247
official opposition, that we are examining this legislation in
minute detail. This is our job but by and large the government is
not responding to the positive suggestions we have.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to talk on third reading of the CN
privatization bill.
(1705 )
Railway politics in Canada take a prominent place in our
history. I know from growing up in this country and working on
the railways part time I have a great sense of history. The
member for Kenora-Rainy River is another part time
railroader. The ra ilways are very important historically to the
country.
I am reminded of the railway on Vancouver Island, E&N
Railway, very important in the development of the west coast.
There is an ongoing contractual commitment in this country to
keep that railway going despite some pressures the other way.
Those contractual commitments date back to prior to the turn of
the century.
In terms of our contemporary history, we are seeing great
changes, the stability of our railways, or the instability in the
beginning. It is a whole new ball game now. Why is it a whole
new ball game now? Government operations and crown
corporations can no longer function in the way they functioned
for the last several decades.
This is unavoidable because of our fiscal situation and I am
reminded of this every day. Two-thirds of government revenues
are derived from personal federal income taxes. One-third of
federal revenues are to service our national debt. It does not take
much of a mathematician to figure out 50 per cent of people's
personal federal income tax is going to service our debt.
This situation despite the last budget is getting worse because
part of our revenue dedicated to servicing debt is increasing over
the next couple of years. We are treading water and sinking
slowly. This message is slowly being accumulated by the
population at large. It is being expressed in a lot of different
programs of government and it is being expressed in how we
unavoidably must deal with our crown corporations.
The transport committee, the task force appointed by the
minister in September of 1994 which put its finding forth in
January of 1995, identified a number of things which I think
were largely known to most.
CN and CP are both facing very strong competition from other
industries and from the U.S., particularly on the north-south
routes, north-south markets. The railways are losing market
share to trucking. Deregulation of the U.S. railways is obviously
impacting a great deal on the Canadian railways. The eastern
routes are losing money and the western routes are declining in
profitability.
This same task force also identified that all major North
American railways were privately owned with the exception of
CN. One wonders why Canada would have such a different
contemporary situation. This bill is quite predictable. The
privatization was to occur. All the market pressures were there
and governments around the world are privatizing crown
corporations.
The task force also identified that as a crown corporation CN
had been subject to many politically motivated moves and that
much of this results from the president and the board basically
being patronage appointments. There is a message in all of this
for other crown corporations of government.
(1710)
The standard provisions of any privatization bill are
essentially the same no matter what crown corporation is being
privatized. What is different are the bells and whistles which
deal with investor attractiveness, some of the social
ramifications, how it deals with existing employees, how it
deals with the public interest and those kinds of things.
Essentially that is what most of the debate in the House and in
committee has been about. The amendments proposed by the
Bloc and by the Reform Party have largely been about the bells
and whistles of the bill.
In terms of investor attractiveness, the bells and whistles are a
very strong signal of what kind of regulatory environment the
new owner is to face when they try to run the railroad. The
signals we are sending out with this bill are all wrong. Most of
the amendments deal with the signals we are sending to potential
purchasers of the railway.
One amendment is the requirement that CN's headquarters
remains in Montreal. We have heard several times in the debate
that this requirement is absurd because the marketplace can
make that decision better than anyone else.
That it exists in Montreal today may have some social and
employment ramifications which is why a sunset clause is not a
bad idea. We have seen in the history of Canada that different
jurisdictions over time have different natural advantages. There
are population shifts and differences in trading patterns and all
kinds of rationale for which private investors would want to
retain the option to move their office to a different location.
Before I get into further amendments I will talk about the way
the bill was handled in the House. The bill went to committee
after first reading, which was a new process. Normally a bill
goes through first reading when the legislation is tabled and
through second reading debate and then the bill goes to
committee.
Conceptually there are some very nice things about sending
legislation to committee after first reading when in a
non-partisan way people can get all their points in before the
legislation becomes set in any way and then a better bill can
come before the House. The concern with respect to this bill was
that if the environment was not there after first reading when it
went to committee, to take all the best of everything people had
to say about the bill to make it the best legislation possible we
have really missed the opportunity of second reading debate. We
want to have a very close look at the process before we commit
14248
ourselves to a continuation of it whereby we essentially
eliminate debate at second reading.
(1715)
The next point I would like to speak to is about restricting the
percentage of shares that any one individual, corporation or
association may own. This has a very negative impact on
bringing in the kind of investor that would like to purchase a
major portion of the new company and bring in a management
style that would revitalize the whole company.
The chair of the transport committee, the member for
Kenora-Rainy River, said that this had been looked at. The 15
per cent restriction was quite plausible because CP had never
had more than 11 per cent single ownership. Surely our view of
the world extends beyond the gaze of Canadian Pacific. We have
to look at this on a global scale. We have to look at it from a
totally different perspective. Government once again is talking
about privatization yet government still wants to retain control.
There is an irony about this and it is inappropriate.
One investor said that the 15 per cent restriction
circumscribes the deal. It certainly does. It dampens investor
confidence. It freezes out many investors who would otherwise
look at this. It sends out all the wrong signals.
With respect to CN's debt, this is repetitive but CN currently
owes about $2.5 billion. It has been established by experts that
CN will never sell this debt level. It must be reduced to a level
which would allow access to a BBB credit rating. The general
concurrence is that amount would be about $1.5 billion.
CN currently has $300 million to $400 million on hand
through recent company sales such as CN Exploration, and
excess capital reserves. The market value of CN's non-rail
estate assets are $400 million to $600 million. In a perfect world
this alone would be sufficient to attain a BBB credit rating.
Clause 12 of the proposed legislation gives the minister the
power to reduce CN's debt to any amount he chooses. This is a
major problem. This is something the other place should look at
very closely if we cannot change anyone's mind in this place
because there are two major risks in this.
The minister may choose to reduce the CN debt well below the
amount at which the taxpayers can receive a return on the sale.
This would raise the cost of shares making it appear more
attractive but producing a lower yield for taxpayers. As well,
excessive reduction in the debt of CN would put CP at a
disadvantage which is all too familiar. This was done during the
privatization of Air Canada. The intent of the Reform
amendment was to limit the minister's power in reducing the
debt of CN.
(1720 )
Clause 15 provides for a permanent requirement that CN
retain the official languages policy and operates under both
official languages. Once again, this is another signal of a
regulatory atmosphere that is inappropriate when one is trying
to attract investors.
The government does not have official languages control over
the private sector. Privatization of CN removes the mandatory
compliance of the Official Languages Act. The Reform
amendment was to include a five year sunset clause on the
mandatory retention of operating under both official languages.
Unfortunately this was voted down.
Then we have the Canada clause. The bill does not provide
any restrictions of foreign ownership, nor should it. However,
the Reform amendment would have allowed a 90 day sale period
open to Canadian individuals and corporations before opening it
up to foreign markets. This provision would have allowed all
Canadians first crack at investing in a Canadian institution.
What could be more appropriate? This would have allowed a
win-win situation but once again it was voted down.
The marine strategy report proposes that all national ports
must become self-sustaining and that all loans must be obtained
from the private sector without government backing. Reform
agrees with that proposal.
The Sarnia tunnel is a viable access from Atlantic Canada to
the American midwest. The Halifax Port Corporation believes
that through upgrading the port facilities in Halifax it will
secure the handling of the new high capacity deep draft
freighters and thus the economic future of marine operations in
Atlantic Canada. In order to secure the financing, it needs to
ensure that CN connections will be there to connect the ports to
the rest of Canada.
The Reform amendment would have included a clause
ensuring rail service to the port of Halifax for a period of 10
years, thereby ensuring the development of the port facilities
allowing them to compete with U.S. ports on the eastern
seaboard and ensuring investor confidence once again. This
amendment was not allowed. We call that the Atlantic clause.
The Reform Party supports the bill although the provisions
laid out in it are too restrictive and involve too much
government interference in what should be a much more
complete move to the private sector.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Leeds-Grenville-Gun control.
14249
Questions and comments. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
motion for third reading of Bill C-89. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to a request
made by the deputy government whip, the division on the
motion is deferred until tonight at 11.15 p.m.
(1725 )
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I was watching the House
proceedings on television. I heard you ask: ``Is there further
debate'' and saying, ``no further debate'' you grabbed your
papers before a member had a chance to stand. I think that is
unfair.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am very sorry but no
one in the House stood up when I asked for questions and
comments. That was prior to calling for debate.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, if no one stood for
questions or comments, then you call for debate and you have to
recognize someone when they are prepared to stand for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I repeat, no one stood at
all.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, clearly a debate about a
ruling after it has been made is entirely out of order and a little
contemptuous of the role of the Speaker.
In addition, however, you very clearly said: ``Is the House
ready for the question?'' Nobody said no. You then asked as you
normally do for those in favour and those against.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, it is almost 5.30 p.m. If the
members are here we could go into private members' hour right
away.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall I call it 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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.
_____________________________________________
14249
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of
endangered and threatened species, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the debate taking place
this afternoon on the protection and rehabilitation of endangered
and threatened species. I would like to thank the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River and the member for Fraser Valley
West for their support in their respective committees when it
was decided that this bill should become a votable item.
In essence the reason for putting forward this private
members' bill is very simple. It emanates from one important
commitment made by Canada to the UN conference on
sustainable development and the environment in Rio in 1992.
When the convention on biodiversity was arrived at with the
consensus of some 150 nations, Canada was among the first, if
not the first nation to sign it, if I remember correctly. It was
among the first to ratify it. In other words, there was definitely a
very quick response on the part of Canada. There was an
understanding of the importance of the issue and the political
sentiments of the nation. The aspirations of Canadians were
expressed rapidly through these steps.
The signing or ratification of the convention has now reached
a fairly large number and has been put into motion by virtue of
the fact that a sufficient number of nations in the world have
ratified it to make it workable.
What does a bill on the rehabilitation of endangered and
threatened species mean? With this piece of legislation, which I
hope will be followed by a measure to be introduced soon by the
Minister of the Environment, we want to highlight the
importance of the ecosystem to which we belong and the
importance of protecting the richness that makes Canada so
unique in the family of nations.
If one compares the richness in biodiversity and the number of
species both in flora and fauna that exist today with what existed
a hundred years ago, one has to admit with regret that there have
been losses with respect to some species that may never be
recovered. In other words, we have lost ground as humans have
settled in the country and have adopted various agricultural and
industrial practices at the expense of nature. If one looks down
the road 100 years from now at the richness of fauna and flora
our grandchildren may be able to enjoy, unless we do something
14250
about it fairly soon we would suffer perhaps the equivalent or
even greater losses.
Therefore it is necessary to put on the political agenda and on
the agenda of Parliament, as well as those of the provincial and
territorial legislatures, something that coagulates or gels our
thinking on the subject matter. The bill before us attempts to do
exactly that. It is inspired by article VII of the convention, the
one I referred to earlier, which requires countries to:
-develop and maintain the necessary legislation and/or other regulatory
provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.
That is how it was put in the Rio convention which we have
signed and ratified. It is a very simple, straightforward concept.
I am sure that its application and implementation can be
achieved if there is adequate political will.
I am glad to report that four Canadian provinces have
endangered species legislation today. They are the provinces of
New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Close
co-operation with provincial and native governments is
necessary to protect endangered species. Preventing the
extinction of species becomes a method of national and even
international concern.
I am not claiming this private member's bill can achieve all
that, but it is at least an attempt to subject the matter to
parliamentary scrutiny, to encourage colleagues on all sides of
the House to think about the importance of the matter, and to
ensure that respective governments take the necessary steps.
There are 120 species that are either threatened or endangered
in Canada. Of those 120, 43 are under federal responsibility: 18
species of migratory birds and 25 fish and marine mammals. The
habitats of these threatened or endangered species are quickly
disappearing. According to Statistics Canada calculations the
wetlands have been reduced by 70 per cent to 80 per cent so far
and the old growth forests by as much as 85 per cent to 90 per
cent. These are considerable figures which I commend to the
attention of the House.
(1735)
The following commitment appeared in the red book of the
Liberal Party in 1993:
Managing economic development in human growth without destroying the
life systems on our planet and a vision of a society that protects the long term
health and diversity of all species on the planet are matters of concern.
In a study conducted in 1991 Statistics Canada concluded that
86 per cent of Canadians supported the protection of the
abundance of species we have today. Bill C-275 is simply aimed
at identifying, protecting and rehabilitating endangered and
threatened species both in the realm of flora and fauna and both
in the sense that they have become directly or indirectly
threatened or endangered. Why? It is as a result of human
activity.
The bill provides the Minister of the Environment with the
powers to develop and implement programs aimed at restoring
the populations of threatened and endangered species to
self-sustaining numbers. Time does not permit me to list the
names of the various species. There are too many. However, they
are attached to the bill by way of a schedule for any member who
would wish to examine it. The bill attempts to provide a context
for existing federal and provincial legislation in a
complementary and unifying sense that is concerned with
protecting threatened or endangered species.
The bill provides a legislative basis for two institutions:
COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada, and RNEW, the Recovery of National Endangered
Wildlife. For members who might not have heard the terms
before, they are two important committees in the protection of
endangered species. However they are not required by law and
the bill before us today would change the situation.
In addition the scientific expertise of Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada would continue to provide the
important first step in identifying threatened or endangered
species. In the recovery of nationally endangered wildlife
groups it would still be a required step in protecting endangered
species. However, Bill C-275 seeks to provide both COSEWIC
and RNEW with a common legislative framework to allow for a
more responsible, consistent and accountable approach to the
identification and recovery of threatened and endangered
species. It draws from the categorization prepared over the years
by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, COSEWIC. The bill contains two schedules which are
available to members. Schedule A lists endangered species and
schedule B lists threatened species.
(1740)
The listing of certain species and requiring the minister to
represent their interests have the purpose of allowing recovery
programs to be developed prior to species becoming
endangered. It is a good precautionary concept. The preventive
approach is more sensible and less expensive than simply
allowing threatened species to become endangered species and
then trying to recover them from the brink of endangerment and
to regain ground. In other words the present approach can be
subjected to improvements, and this is what Bill C-275 is all
about.
As to public accountability, Bill C-275 contains a provision
whereby any Canadian may make a representation to the
Minister of the Environment in writing requesting the minister
to add or delete a species from the threatened or endangered list.
I hope it will be used for adding rather than deleting.
14251
The minister must respond within 180 days, advising what
course of action will be taken and why. This will have the effect
of allowing for public knowledge and traditional knowledge
systems such as those offered by the aboriginal people to work
together with the scientific process represented by COSEWIC in
determining which species in Canada are identifiable as
endangered or threatened.
Every year the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife
group shall report to the minister on the effectiveness of the
recovery programs carried out in the previous year. The report is
to be tabled in Parliament not later than June 1 of the year the
report was submitted to the minister. This will be done to
address the criticism presently levelled at the Recovery of
Nationally Endangered Wildlife group that it lacks
accountability and is too slow in enacting recovery programs.
I am sure many members of Parliament and the public at large
would be fascinated, rather intrigued and quite attracted to
becoming involved if they were familiar with the work done by
both COSEWIC and RNEW.
To conclude very briefly, according to the bill the minister
shall table no later than June 1 of every a report of a list of every
species added to or removed from either the threatened or
endangered list. The report will include the summary of the
information that led to the species being removed or added to the
respective list.
In essence the bill would provide a more coherent approach
than we have at present to the protection of threatened and
endangered species in Canada, while recognizing the
importance of working in close co-operation with the provinces,
the territories, the municipalities, aboriginal people and so on,
so as to ensure recovery programs for endangered or threatened
species are successful.
Furthermore the bill builds on the established systems of
expertise represented by the people involved and presently
active in COSEWIC and RNEW, so as to ensure that sound
scientific principles are maintained when listing threatened or
endangered species while providing the opportunity-and this is
the main point of the bill to which I keep returning-and the
importance of public input and public accountability.
This ends my presentation on Bill C-275 which I commend to
the attention of my hon. colleagues. I hope they will find some
positive aspects and sufficient substance in the bill to warrant
having it sent to committee for necessary improvements and
reinforcements.
(1745 )
As I said at the outset, it is a measure that emanates from the
Rio de Janiero conference. It flows from Canada's fascination
and understandable pride in the richness of its wildlife and in the
desire to ensure that what we have inherited will remain for
generations to come because we all love our wildlife and we all
love nature.
Also as politicians we want to make a contribution to the work
that is being done outside the political ranks in the communities
at large in order to ensure that this richness remains one of the
great things that makes Canada known and admired and desired
by so many people abroad.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is with great interest that I rise to speak today to Bill C-275, a
bill tabled by the hon. member for Davenport.
For approximately one year now, I have had the good fortune
of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development chaired by the hon. member for
Davenport. He is so interested in the cause and devotes such
effort to it that he is undoubtedly a first rate environmentalist
and a true defender of our environment. However, the hon.
member is also a staunch federalist, which, in my opinion,
makes him lean dangerously towards centralization, which we
do not consider an option and which can only have nefarious
effects on the environment.
Centralization would burn bridges with the community;
centralization would distance us from the community;
centralization would make us more out of touch with the
community. Therefore, the environment would lose out under an
excessively centralized system, because the environment is very
much a hands-on field and the local and provincial governments
have a bigger presence in this field than the federal government.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to give
jurisdiction for the environment to the provinces and to the local
governments. Furthermore, I would like to stress that the hon.
member stated himself at a press conference this morning that
aboriginal peoples should be given full jurisdiction over the
area. He seemed to have really been caught off guard by a
question that a journalist asked, which was whether the federal
government was being hypocritical by denying the provinces the
jurisdiction which it wants to give to aboriginal people.
Obviously uncomfortable, he muttered that certain provinces
wanted national standards.
Therefore, I would ask him the following questions: Will he,
who is so big on democracy, impose his standards on the other
provinces which do not want national standards? Will he accept
that certain provinces refuse to adopt the standards? These are
questions which merit a reply and for which the hon. member for
Davenport is not very clear.
The summary of the bill indicates that it provides for: ``the
identification, protection and rehabilitation of flora and fauna in
14252
Canada threatened or endangered by human activity, to provide
for the protection of habitat and the restoration of population''.
Certainly, nobody can be against the protection of endangered
animal species and populations. As inhabitants of this planet, we
have the duty of respecting and protecting all species with which
we share the planet. Otherwise, we are opening the door to the
extinction of our own species. Too often, however, we remain
oblivious to the need to protect the environment. More and more
species are becoming extinct and more and more are threatened,
mainly because of human interference.
Recently, the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development sponsored a seminar on wildlife. This
very useful and interesting activity gave us an opportunity to
become more aware of all the threats to wildlife. Believe me, it
was not a pretty picture. Witnesses who were invited to speak on
the subject described an alarming situation that required prompt
and decisive action. They described the impact of poaching,
smuggling and destruction of natural habitat with a lot of
expertise and considerable emotion.
(1750)
They also pointed out the inadequacy of federal action in this
field. Not enough financial resources were available to provide
for more effective local control of the situations already
mentioned. It was clear to us in the Bloc Quebecois that once
again, the federal government was not up to the task in this area.
Canada is even incapable of complying with certain
international agreements in this sector. One example is the
CITES agreement to monitor and stop the trafficking in organs
or endangered species. At the seminar, intervenors made it
abundantly clear that the federal government failed to allocate
the resources to meet its commitments in this respect. As a result
we have considerable misgivings about the federal
government's desire to protect threatened wildlife and plants
and also about its ability to do so.
That is why we cannot allow the federal government to
intrude even further in provincial jurisdictions. Although the
bill presented by the hon. member for Davenport has its merits,
some of its clauses reflect a desire to encroach on provincial
jurisdictions, and that we cannot accept. For instance, in clause
8(2), the minister shall secure the carrying out of a recovery
program by agreement with the province or municipality
concerned. But, and this is the sticking point, the clause includes
the phrase: ``where possible''.
What does the hon. member think would happen if it were not
possible? And what about possible agreements with the
municipalities? As far as I know, they come under provincial
jurisdiction. This clause is typical of the attitude of government
members. The Liberals are very good at saying ``where
possible'', although they know perfectly well that very often it
would be impossible. If we consider current federal-provincial
harmonization agreements, it is clear there are quite a few
problems with these agreements.
The federal government has quite simply failed to get the
provinces to agree on quite a few issues. The authoritarian
approach of the Minister of the Environment has been one of the
main reasons why agreements have not been signed. According
to our information, the minister has even been challenged at
these federal-provincial sessions. I may point out to the hon.
member that Quebec, with whom Canada will soon have to
negotiate on an equal footing on these matters, recently
launched its policy on biodiversity and at the same time asked
Ottawa to mind its own business as far as provincial
jurisdictions were concerned.
In fact, the Quebec minister of wildlife and the environment,
Jacques Brassard, made public his proposed strategy for
preserving Quebec's biological diversity, on May 18. In
announcing it, he said: ``Its actual implementation will be
Quebec's responsibility in the end. This was the decision of the
Government of Quebec in 1992''. I close the quotes by pointing
out that the Government of Quebec in question was red and
federalist, like those opposite. It was not the wicked separatists.
Mr. Brassard went on to say: ``We will be the ones to act. This
is why the federal strategy contains no measures and ours has
over 200. I do not foresee any trouble, so long as the federal
government stays where it is''. Make no mistake: the Quebec
minister was talking on May 18 about the bill the federal
minister was to table, which has since vanished never to be
heard of again. To replace what the federal minister withdrew,
the government is proposing the bill of the member for
Davenport. It decided to give him a bit of rope and to untie his
hands. This is a good way to give Liberal members the
impression they are useful for something in Parliament.
Moreover, the minister has her hands full at the moment. With
all the mail she has to check and even her fictional mail and with
everything she says here and there, she and her acolytes have a
lot of salvaging to do and corrections to make. The minister has
become a great big surprise package. The same rabbit that pops
out of the magician's hat could pop out of her mouth. This is
farce, burlesque. I think the minister has really missed her
calling.
To finish up what I was saying about Mr. Brassard, he told the
federal government clearly to focus its actions on areas under its
jurisdiction and, more particularly, to regulate international and
interprovincial trade and to maintain a constant vigil to stop the
illegal traffic in endangered species.
14253
(1755)
Quebec's message is clear-no encroachment in areas under
Quebec's jurisdiction. We therefore oppose the bill proposed by
the member for Davenport. In our opinion, it will be the source
of confrontation with the provinces. Furthermore, for the
federalist provinces, this bill is no pledge of effectiveness in
species protection. As I mentioned, the federal government has
the unfortunate habit of not applying its environmental
legislation.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this
private member's bill put forward by my colleague from
Davenport.
Bill C-275 provides for the identification and rehabilitation
of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or endangered by human
activity and provides for the protection of habitat and
restoration of populations.
Endangered species is an important Canadian environmental
issue that should be carefully considered within a
comprehensive, biodiversity strategy. According to one
estimate, species are going extinct globally at the rate of several
species a day. Since the arrival of the Europeans, only nine
species have been rendered extinct in Canada.
Last April reports indicated that Canada had 263 species
listed at risk. Some of the endangered species include the
whooping crane, beluga whale and the peregrine falcon. The list
is growing steadily and only last April eight new species were
added. Once a species is lost, it is forever and the actions cannot
be reversed.
The Brundtland commission identified one of the
prerequisites to sustainable development as the protection of
species and ecosystems. The fundamental goal of endangered
species legislation must be to ensure that no further native
species go extinct and that already endangered species recover
to healthy, self-sustaining population levels using the most
efficient, effective, fair and balanced means possible.
In 1992 Canada signed the Convention on Biological
Diversity. This agreement calls on nations to retain a healthy
population of the many varied species in the wild and commits
signatories to introducing legislation to protect endangered
species. Japan, Australia and the United States all have federal
endangered species laws in place at the moment. The
development of comprehensive legal protection for endangered
species is a first step in meeting Canada's international
commitments.
The federal government has jurisdiction over the management
and preservation of wildlife on federal lands such as national
parks. Provinces have jurisdiction over the management of all
wildlife not falling within the federal jurisdiction. Only four
provinces, as my colleague has mentioned, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and New Brunswick have provincial endangered species
acts. These laws enable, but do not compel, governments to
develop a national list of endangered species and implement
recovery plans. The remaining provinces have no endangered
species legislation.
There are 12 pieces of federal legislation ranging from health
regulations to trade rules that address species protection. These
federal laws must be harmonized. Rather than developing a
weak and ineffective set of standards, the federal government
should work with the provinces to come up with a common set of
standards that will be agreeable to all parties right across the
country.
It is my hope that the federal environment minister will work
co-operatively with provincial and territorial governments to
develop such a strategy. I understand that harmonized
endangered species legislation is currently in the works.
Last November the environment minister stated in the House
that framework legislation would be introduced this spring.
Members have seen a discussion paper and working document
but there has been nothing concrete as yet. However, I suspect
we will see endangered species legislation in the fall.
With federal legislation already in the works, this private
member's bill may best serve as an example for discussion and
consideration by the standing committee and the environment
minister.
As part of the process, it is important that all interested parties
have the opportunity to take part in the consultation process.
The government should consult a broad cross section of
stakeholders, including rural and urban centres, and
consultation must be open to the public.
(1800)
It is important that when we develop endangered species
legislation we give serious consideration to the variety of
options available. Laws must be balanced in meeting both the
environmental and economic needs of the country.
Habitat protection will be a contentious and difficult issue
when dealing with endangered species protection and laws must
be fair and balanced. We need to encourage private land owners
to protect endangered species and their habitats as opposed to
heavy handed legislation that would penalize land owners.
Clearly we have to have the land owners on side.
Bill C-275 does not set out how far the minister can go in
taking action to protect endangered species and it is unlikely we
will see this clearly spelled out until the minister tables the bill
this fall.
Canadians do now want laws that will be economically
destructive. We recently saw the U.S. Endangered Species Act
shut down a large portion of the west coast logging to save the
14254
spotted owl, thus devastating entire communities. Endangered
species legislation must be fair and reasonable and not
draconian in approach.
Section 9 of Bill C-275 proposes to give the minister the
power to forbid or restrict use of, access to, activity on, or the
use of any substance on lands that directly threaten the success
of a recovery program. It is most important that we ensure
private property rights are respected when any activity or use of
lands is being restricted.
Section 11(1) of the bill empowers the minister to pay
compensation when actions to protect endangered or threatened
species affect a person's property or livelihood. This clause
merits serious consideration. When personal property or
restriction on the use of property are affected by government
action, compensation must be addressed. I am sure my colleague
will address this in detail when his turn comes up.
Another area of concern with the bill is section 5(2). This
section gives the minister power to implement a recovery
program if the minister is advised the cause or probable cause is
of human origin. I am concerned this section may be too open
ended as it allows the minister to take action before an
investigation has taken place. The minister is not required to
have proof that actions are warranted or justified. I feel this is
dangerous.
Section 5(2) must be tightened up to ensure individual rights
are protected. It is not good enough to take action because the
minister has been advised of probable cause; rather, cause must
be determined and action should, if necessary, be implemented.
In addition, endangered species legislation should apply
equally to all Canadian citizens regardless of race or ethnicity.
Two sections of the bill imply native Indians may be exempt
from legislation or subject to a separate set of rules and
regulations. This needs to be reviewed, as there can be only one
set of laws applied equally to everyone in Canada.
Whatever rules and regulations are drawn up regarding the
protection of endangered species they should be applied
nationwide and with equality. The minister should not be
negotiating private deals with one group and applying a set of
regulations to another.
I am concerned about the potential implications of this
section. Legislation should establish one comprehensive set of
rules to be applied equally to all Canadians.
I take the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the
trade in endangered species and animal parts. The bill addressed
endangered species but Canada is also faced with serious
problems regarding the trafficking of wildlife and animal parts
and continues to be used as a transit route for shipments of
illegal wildlife destined for other countries. This is particularly
so in my riding of Comox-Alberni on Vancouver Island.
Penalties must be severe enough to act as a deterrent
commensurate with the commercial value of endangered species
and their parts.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this private members'
bill forward in the House. Although I do not agree with all
sections of the bill, some of the proposals warrant serious
consideration and I hope the environment minister will look at
some of the ideas contained in the bill as she drafts her
legislation. I look forward to looking at the issue more closely
when the minister tables the legislation.
(1805 )
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-275 I congratulate the hon.
member for Davenport for his tireless work to bring the bill
before the House of Commons. More important, I congratulate
the hon. member for his tireless efforts to protect Canada's
endangered and threatened species.
The caribou, the sea otter, the wolverine, the burrowing owl,
the blue ash and the red mulberry are just a few of the more than
240 endangered, threatened or vulnerable species in Canada.
Human activity is putting those species at risk. It is up to us as
human beings to understand our failings and to work to reverse
those failings. When we kill or injure an endangered species we
are putting at risk a unique life form. When we buy or sell,
import or export an endangered species we are trafficking in the
extinction of a species.
All Canadians have a responsibility to prevent native wild
species from disappearing from the face of the globe as a result
of human activity. All Canadians have a responsibility to protect
endangered species to the full extent of our powers. All of us
must do what we can to help those species recover.
In Canada wetlands have been reduced by over 70 per cent.
We have lost 99 per cent of tall grass prairie. No single Canadian
is to blame. We are all to blame and it is up to all of us to act at
every level of government, in every occupation, in every
community and neighbourhood across the country.
Four provinces have acted to introduce endangered species
legislation; Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick
deserve credit for their actions. It is now clearly time for the
federal government to do its part in areas of federal jurisdiction.
It is also time for the federal government to push hard for
co-operative national and international action.
My colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, understands
that and the Minister of the Environment understands that. That
is why the minister last fall outlined the federal government's
intention to introduce endangered species legislation. It is why
she held the first ever public consultations on the basics of such
a law. It is why she has committed herself to bring such a law
before cabinet in the next few weeks and to allow Canadians to
14255
comment on the law before it receives detailed scrutiny by
Parliament.
I am very pleased the hon. member for Davenport and the
Minister of the Environment are working so closely together to
advance the cause of endangered species. Obviously as Liberals
we support their efforts and we are pleased to see real federal
leadership.
However, this is not a partisan cause and I regret some of the
comments I have heard in the House which clearly appeared to
be of a partisan nature. I know members of Parliament from
every party and every part of the country, including Quebec,
want to see Canada a true world leader in protecting endangered
species.
Canada was the first industrialized country to sign the United
Nations convention on biological diversity. We need to transfer
our goodwill and our signature on a piece of paper into real
action to preserve our country's biological diversity. We owe
that to future generations of human beings and we certainly owe
that to future generations of endangered species.
Canadians like to keep their word. In article 8K of the
convention on biological diversity, Canada promised to develop
or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory
provisions for the protection of threatened species and
populations. That is one good reason the hon. member and the
minister are pushing for action.
There is another good reason to take action. Canadian
children expect us to act. They have petitioned and written the
Minister of the Environment in unprecedented numbers to call
for the protection of endangered fish, marine mammals and
migratory birds.
I recently received many responses from my spring-summer
householder, something all members send out. Concern for the
environment was at the top of the list.
(1810 )
I have heard it described as a sexy issue that has now been
pushed to the background. That is nonsense. If we let this issue
be pushed to the background we will all pay a very heavy price.
Canadian children and all Canadians believe or should believe
that living organisms have the right to live. They do not
understand how someone could make a living by selling off the
parts of an endangered species. Canada's children are right.
Important scientific and financial issues must be addressed.
There are certainly important issues raised by provinces,
aboriginal peoples and farmers that must be addressed.
Legislation must be realistic and fair. Not all the issues are easy
but all of the issues must be resolved.
The biological foundation for our world depends on its
diversity of genes, species and ecosystems. We need each sphere
of our society to demonstrate both leadership and partnership in
protecting endangered species. We do not need overlap or
duplication or wasteful actions. We need swift action.
Conservation of endangered species is not the sole
responsibility of the federal government, nor of any
government. All elements of society have an interest in
protecting species and all elements of our society should be
intimately involved in planning, developing and implementing
conservation programs.
It is important for the federal government to pass legislation
that can be a model to the world, legislation that seeks to put an
end to the extinction of species as a result of human activity. The
federal government must do its part to make things right for
Canada's wild plants and animals.
That is the policy underlying the legislation introduced by my
friend and colleague from Davenport. That is the policy
underlying the actions taken by my friend and colleague the
Minister of the Environment. I believe it is the policy that must
guide Parliament in our work to protect endangered species, and
I am very pleased to have added some thoughts to today's
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my intention, in the next few
minutes, to demonstrate to those watching that Bill C-275,
which is before us today, is a typical example of inefficiency
resulting from the overlaps that are caused by poor
co-ordination between the federal government and Quebec.
This bill, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague, the
member for Laurentides, and I am going to repeat it because it is
important, provides for the identification, protection and
rehabilitation of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or
endangered by human activity-the hon. member for Davenport
has provided a fairly impressive list, I believe-to provide for
the protection of habitat and the restoration of population.
This is a laudable sentiment, and obviously this bill is
interesting because the government is limiting its legislation to
federally owned lands. After all, the government is perfectly
justified in taking environmental action on lands that belong to
it.
But the problem lies in the fact that fauna, understandably, do
not stay in one place, and sooner or later appear on sites where
the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction.
There is therefore a need for an agreement with the other
governments concerned, including the government of Quebec,
all the more so as the latter has already made known its
intentions in this regard in a letter sent to the attention of the
Minister of the Environment last March 28.
14256
In the circumstances, the least we could expect from the
federal government is that it would consult the government of
Quebec to find out its intentions and that it would table a bill
taking into account the potential conflicts of jurisdiction with
Quebec.
With respect to the environment, the distribution of powers is
not fully spelled out, adding to the risk of overlap,
overregulation and duplication. Let us look more specifically at
the somewhat ill defined distribution of powers.
With respect to terrestrial fauna, Quebec has full authority
over the species inhabiting the public or private lands held by
Quebec.
(1815)
It may also take steps to protect species and their habitat. The
federal government has jurisdiction over land animals on
federal land only.
As far as our feathered friends are concerned, the federal
government was responsible for implementing the 1916
convention on migratory birds. Since this was an international
agreement, the federal government at the time assumed
responsibility for protecting these birds.
Today, Quebec is responsible for all bird species, including
migratory birds, except on federal land. One wonders what
happens when birds are neither on provincial land nor on federal
land. Furthermore, following a number of administrative
agreements, Quebec is now responsible for enforcing Canadian
legislation on the 1916 convention on migratory birds.
Finally, as far as marine mammals and fish are
concerned-certain fish species are also on the endangered
list-the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government
exclusive jurisdiction over ocean and inland fisheries. As of
1922, however, an administrative agreement gives Quebec full
responsibility for fisheries management, without any regulatory
powers, however.
This delegation of authority has changed over the years, and
today, Quebec is responsible for managing freshwater resources
and the species they contain, while the federal government
manages salt water resources. The division of powers remains a
problem.
In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that agreements on the
division of powers in environmental matters will require a very
sensitive approach. Bill C-275, however, ignores the very
existence of this problem, which is why it merely increases the
likelihood of overlap and jurisdictional disputes between
Quebec and the federal government.
In fact, the Minister of the Environment is well aware of the
dangers of overlap and the potential for jurisdictional disputes.
In a letter dated March 28, her Quebec counterpart, and I
referred to this letter earlier, wrote that the federal bill on
endangered species constituted an intrusion into one of
Quebec's jurisdictions.
Not only does this government not consult Quebec but there is
no attempt to consult within the government itself. In his letter,
the Quebec Environment Minister suggested ways to regulate
this area, saying that the minister should focus federal action on
aspects that were obviously federal in scope, in other words,
regulating international and interprovincial trade and exercising
constant vigilance to prevent unlawful trafficking in endangered
species. The bill before us today, however, does not reflect these
suggestions, which means that the Liberal government's
spokespersons for environmental matters may not have bothered
to discuss the matter. Or even worse, they did and deliberately
decided to ``invade'' an area over which Quebec has specific
jurisdiction.
We certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for
Davenport, and I am sure, because I know him personally
through the Standing Committee on the Environment, that the
bill he introduced today is based on a genuine desire that is
found the world over to protect the environment.
However, despite this sincerity, there is a significant risk that
this bill will encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions. Even if the
hon. member's motions are sincere, this is something we cannot
accept.
I realize, and here I want to add a more personal note, that this
is not the first time we rise in the House to speak out against bills
or to say that there is a risk of encroaching on Quebec's
jurisdictions. Every time we do, we look like troublemakers. I
feel a bit like a troublemaker myself when I do this. Quite often,
the bills introduced in the House are, to all intents and purposes,
good bills.
From time to time, in committee, we draft dissenting opinions
on committee reports which, all things considered, were
excellent. However, we had to file our minority reports because
the majority reports contained some very serious threats to
Quebec's jurisdictions.
I think we should consider the demographic evolution of
Quebecers since the founding of Canada.
(1820)
When Canada was founded, the number of francophones and
anglophones was about even. Today, we represent only 23 per
cent of the population. We used to be one of four provinces.
Today, we are one of ten and may become one of 12 or 13, when
the territories gain provincial status. Quebecers are one of
Canada's endangered species.
That being said, I think we must protect the interests of
Quebecers. That is what we were elected to do. I know this bill is
sincere and relatively well drafted, but because it represents a
14257
serious threat to Quebec's jurisdictions, we intend to vote
against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this debate on the bill introduced by
the hon. member for Davenport.
First, I want to praise the hon. member for his unflagging
commitment to environmental issues. Second, I want to point
out how dedication to a cause can result in progress. Third, I
wish to talk about the importance of protecting and
rehabilitating endangered and threatened species.
My colleague from Davenport is well known for his
commitment to environmental issues through his work as chair
of the standing committee on the environment and sustainable
development.
[Translation]
The hon. member has devoted his political career to keeping
the environmental cause in the foreground in society and at the
centre of debates in the House of Commons. He knows that
sustainable development is the only way to secure our
generation's prosperity without endangering the prosperity of
generations to come.
[English]
He knows that preservation of the world's biodiversity is
central to the preservation of the world's environment and the
world's future success. He knows that taking an ecosystem
approach to environmental issues is critical. We have to look at
the big picture and understand that every action in any sphere of
the environment can have and does have implications for other
parts of the environment.
That brings me to my second point, that the dedication of the
hon. member has helped to ensure that the protection of
endangered species has become a national priority. Thanks to
forceful advocacy by the hon. member and others, our party
made protection of endangered species a core part of the Liberal
red book. We promised to introduce Canada's first
comprehensive federal law to protect endangered species, and
we are going to keep that promise to Canadians.
Bill C-275 received first reading in the House of Commons
last September. Since that time the Minister of the Environment
has called for wide-ranging public consultation on a law to
protect endangered species. A few weeks ago the minister
completed those hearings and outlined the fundamentals of the
new law to the last national consultation meeting.
[Translation]
As the minister herself said, she received over 5,000 very
articulate letters from grade school and high school students in
support of such a law. That is why she drafted the bill hand in
hand with representatives of the industry, the farming sector,
aboriginal organizations and the provinces and territories.
In addition, the Minister of the Environment and the hon.
member for Davenport joined forces to ensure that their wishes
for a law to protect threatened species became a reality. Their
determination reflects the determination of the Liberal Party
and our government. Their determination reflects the wishes of
the vast majority of the members of this House and, more
importantly, the desire of the vast majority of the Canadian
public to bring in such a law.
[English]
The law is coming very, very quickly thanks in large part to
many years of hard work and dedication by the chair of the
standing committee on environment and sustainable
development.
This brings me to the third point. The preservation of
endangered and threatened species is of vital importance to this
country. As the school children who mounted the campaign for
endangered species legislation said, ``There otter be a law''.
Mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, plants, and
other wild organisms all play a critical role in the environment
of our country. Endangered fish, endangered marine animals,
endangered waterfowl, and endangered migratory birds are all
an important federal matter.
(1825)
The species of the world contribute to the ecological wonders
of the world. Of course these species have the right to exist for
their own sake, but it is important to remember how much these
species matter to us. They provide us with learning
opportunities. They are part of our history. They offer artistic
and spiritual inspiration. They are part of our identity as a
country and as human beings. They help to sustain us
environmentally, culturally, and economically.
Consider the list of endangered or threatened species in
Canada and imagine how much poorer a country we would be
without them. The Vancouver Island marmot, the beluga whale,
the peregrine falcon, the leatherback turtle, the Acadian
whitefish, the prairie orchid, the wood poppy, the wood bison,
the harbour porpoise, the white-headed woodpecker, and the
trumpeter swan are some of the endangered, threatened, or
vulnerable species in Canada. These are some of the species that
need protection and restoration. They are species whose habitat
is disappearing or who have been victims of pollution or have
been
14258
slaughtered so that a few human beings may trade in their
precious products. That is clearly wrong. That is clearly foolish.
It is important to note the efforts undertaken by conservancy
organizations throughout the country to preserve and protect
some of our endangered species. I can think of no better example
than the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre in Midland, Ontario, which
is located in my riding of Simcoe North. A few weeks ago I had
the extreme honour of celebrating the 25th anniversary of the
official opening of the Wye Marsh centre with many of its
supporters. The centre is today a national example of leadership
and ecological awareness and understanding of the importance
of wetlands and wildlife in our world. In the past few years this
centre has been very active in its program to increase the
trumpeter swan population, which we know is very vulnerable.
It is now the time to assist Wye Marsh and similar
organizations with meaningful and effective legislation. In
addition to this private member's bill, the member for
Davenport went to great lengths to organize a forum on wildlife,
which was hosted last April by the standing committee on
environment and sustainable development. This was a great
opportunity for the members of the committee to discuss this
serious matter with a variety of experts and organizations
devoted to the protection of endangered species. I know that for
me personally it gave me a newfound understanding of the
consequences at hand and an appreciation of the urgency of this
type of legislation.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Davenport and the Minister of the
Environment are determined to put an end to these unfortunate
practices in the federal jurisdiction. They are determined to
have Parliament pass a law with teeth. They are also determined
to see Canada adopt a credible and co-ordinated action plan to
protect threatened and endangered species.
[English]
In our red book we committed the Liberal government to a
vision of society that protects the longterm health and diversity
of all species on the planet. The initiative we are debating today
is one important contribution by the hon. member for Davenport
to advance that vision and to advance that cause. We all ought to
join him in this worthwhile cause. His bill is proof that he
remains as committed as ever to providing good government for
this country and responsible policies for the world's
environment.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
14258
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion
regarding consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-69,
I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
(1830 )
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 315)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
14259
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-82
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
(1850)
[Translation]
After the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont has the floor
on a point of order.
Mr. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member for
Vaudreuil arrived long after the voting had started. Perhaps he
should be reminded of the rules.
Mr. Discepola: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I arrived when the vote
was already underway. I would point out to the House, however,
that members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party
arrived after I did.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, before we get into finger pointing
as to who did and did not come in, I would simply put it to all
hon. members that if you come in after the vote has started, then
you should not vote.
You know what you did. If you came in after it, you can inform
the Chair or at least not vote during the course of the regular
taking of the vote. If indeed there were some members who came
in, the Chair is not aware of it. If hon. members want to declare
that now, then let them.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I arrived late, but I relied on the
television broadcast.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, if there are some hon. members
who feel that they came in after the vote was started and who
want to have their names taken off of the vote, I want to do that
now. It should not take more than a minute. All you have to do is
if you came in after the vote and you were recorded as voting,
stand right now.
I put it to the hon. member for Vaudreuil. Did you come in
after the vote was started, yes or no, sir?
14260
Mr. Discepola: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Take his name off.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: I came in late, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: Take his name off.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: So did I, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: Take his name off.
[Translation]
As well as those of the hon. members for Québec-Est,
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead and Verdun-Saint-Paul.
(1855 )
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the television
broadcast within the House indicated a 30 minute vote. There
must be other members in this House who saw that. As a result it
started at 30 minutes.
The Speaker: The Clerk will give me the count unless there
are other members who want to declare now that they came in
after the vote started. This is the honour system. If there are not
any, I want to hear the results from the Clerk now.
I will hear your points of order after this.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of what
has happened here this evening and in the light of restoring some
decorum to the House of Commons and due to the confusion, I
would humbly request that you do a revote on this issue.
The Speaker: The vote will stand as it is.
* * *
(1900)
[Translation]
The House resumed from June 19, consideration of the motion
in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69,
an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries; and
of the amendment.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-69, an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
To start off, I would like to say that we proposed an
amendment to improve Bill C-69. As we were denied this
amendment, which was defeated in the House, we cannot
support this bill.
It was essential for us to ensure proportional representation
for Quebec in the unlikely event of other elections here in the
federal system involving Quebec. We think it would be very
surprising, but, if it did happen, we had to guarantee that Quebec
had at least 25 per cent representation. We were denied our
amendment; it was defeated democratically in the House and,
for this reason, essentially, we cannot support this bill.
I must also point out the importance of the readjustment
commissions, the commissions redefining electoral boundaries.
It should be said that there are some obvious points here. There
are ridings, like my own, with 110,000 constituents; there are
other ridings with 43,000 constituents. Representation is
therefore not proportional. In some regions, ridings are huge,
and the member of Parliament, even with the best of intentions,
is unable to serve the entire population.
Therefore the changes to the electoral maps planned for every
five years with the census and the readjustment are fundamental
and vital. In any decision to readjust boundaries, the primary
criterion should be proportional representation. Before
continuing, I would like to point out that it is unlikely that we
will be involved in any more elections in Ottawa, but I would
still like to speak to Bill C-69 because it directly affects my
riding.
The federal riding of Terrebonne would be split in two on the
new electoral maps. This is fine. As I said earlier, having
110,000 constituents can be a bit difficult, even though things
are going very well right now. But it is a bit much as far as
proportional representation is concerned, and they want to split
the riding in two, to create the ridings of Repentigny and
Blainville-Terrebonne.
This split will be the focus of my speech to the House. Briefly,
the riding of Terrebonne, as it now stands, the riding I represent,
has 110,000 voters, as I said earlier, and 160,000 inhabitants. It
is the most densely populated riding in Quebec, and if memory
serves, the sixth most densely populated in Canada. We
therefore agree on the need to readjust the riding's boundaries.
I would like to show in this House that it is in the interest of
the two groups of people concerned to examine the proposed
ridings of Blainville-Terrebonne and Repentigny. I believe
that a simple mathematical calculation was performed; 75
members divided by the number of people. As I will point out,
there are elementary rules to follow. But these rules have not
been followed by the electoral boundaries commissions.
14261
To do so, the commissions should go by the rules of
geographical size and population density. In my riding in
Lanaudière, the population increased 25 per cent in ten years.
This was the most significant demographic ``boom'' in Quebec.
So population density, community of interest, cultural identity
and the region's historic background-I believe the last two,
cultural identity and historical background of the region should
be included as criteria, but these are eliminated from the outset,
and you will see why.
After analysing the two proposed electoral districts, it is clear
that some of these principles were not considered at all by the
commission, as I said earlier, I am referring to community of
interest and historical background of the region.
(1905)
I started with the first riding the bill proposed, the riding of
Blainville-Terrebonne. In its proposal, the commission, which
visited my riding, suggested putting the following towns:
Blainville, Bois-des-Filion, Lorraine, Rosemère,
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and Terrebonne together in the riding
of Blainville-Terrebonne.
Although the first five towns met all the criteria, Terrebonne,
the most densely populated town in the proposed riding, would
be the big loser. In fact, Terrebonne had a population of 39,678
at the last census. These residents have no geographical,
economic or cultural affinity with the other towns in the
proposed riding.
They do not have the same administrative regions, MRCs,
school boards, economic development corporations,
employment centres, Quebec manpower development
corporations or CLSCs, but the commission still wanted to put
them into one riding, grafting together bits and pieces that have
nothing in common, and they think this will be a riding that
makes sense. However, it makes no sense at all to uproot entire
communities.
At a time when we are all working hard to eliminate costly
duplication and overlap, we think this should be an opportunity
to reinforce communities of interest instead of dividing them.
Considering that the riding of Terrebonne has existed since
the Constitution Act, 1867-I have already said this here, but I
want to repeat it in reference to the current bill-considering
that the commissions are probably going to circulate again, I
would like to ask the federal electoral boundaries commission to
reconsider the proposal regarding Blainville-Terrebonne, and
to decide to leave the riding as Terrebonne.
It meets the first criterion, which is historical development.
Under this criterion, the towns of Lachenaie, Mascouche,
Terrebonne and La Plaine could be grouped together to form the
new riding of Terrebonne.
According to the decennial census of 1991, the population of
this new riding would be approximately 91,156, which is within
1 per cent, or 800 persons, of the electoral quota set for Quebec,
which is 91,946.
In addition, in the next briefs to be presented in the next
hearings, the commission and Parliament will have to take into
consideration the fact that the four towns mentioned earlier are
already considered to form one entity for the purposes of the
administrative region of Lanaudière, the RCM of Les Moulins,
the des Manoirs school board, la Société de développement
économique des Moulins, the Terrebonne Canada Employment
Centre at Lachenaie, la Société québécoise de développement de
la main-d'oeuvre and the Lamazer local community health
centre.
Therefore, I believe that I have clearly demonstrated that
creating the riding of Blainville-Terrebonne would be totally
irresponsible and irrational. It is our duty to respect
communities of interest, economic communities, historical
development and thus to maintain the riding of Terrebonne with
the new towns as I just explained.
Regarding Repentigny, we were pleased to see that the
previous law created this riding. As I said earlier, with 110,000
voters, there is no reason for us to oppose the boundary as it
stands.
In fact, the creation of Repentigny corrects a historical
oversight. On April 16, 1647, Pierre Le Gardeur de Repentigny
was granted the seigniory of Repentigny. We can only praise this
acknowledgement of history which is one of the criteria in the
bill before us.
The commission aims to group the towns of Charlemagne,
Lachenaie, Mascouche, Repentigny and the part of the RCM of
Les Moulins which is included in the parish of La Plaine in this
new riding.
(1910)
In fact the cities of Charlemagne and Repentigny, on the one
hand, and Lachenaie, La Plaine and Mascouche, on the other,
have different RCMs, school boards, economic development
corporations, manpower development corporations and so on.
We can see the aim is to combine two ridings into one,
regardless of the economic, social and cultural realities of this
area. Here again, administrative overlap and duplication have
not been corrected.
In the light of the above, we are asking the federal Electoral
Boundaries Commission for Quebec to review its proposal as
follows.
The proposed electoral district would still be called
Repentigny. It would include the cities of Charlemagne,
L'Assomption, L'Épiphanie, Le Gardeur, Repentigny and part of
the regional county municipality of l'Assomption included in
the parishes of l'Épiphanie, Saint-Gérard-de-Magella and
Saint-Sulpice.
14262
According to the 1991 decennial census, the population of the
riding proposed, which we propose to improve, is 91,537, here
again, almost exactly the electoral quota established for
Quebec, which is, and I repeat, 91,946. Not even a difference of
300 people. It is therefore realistic.
In the new riding, under one administrative region, that of
Lanaudière; there would be one regional county municipality;
one school board, the Le Gardeur school board; a single
economic development corporation; a single employment
centre, the one in Repentigny; and a single Quebec manpower
development corporation.
In short, the two ridings we are proposing: Terrebonne, in
keeping with historical changes, and Repentigny, also in
keeping with these changes, are entirely in accordance with the
principles established by this same commission.
In the light of these facts, we are asking that, with Bill C-69,
there be a little flexibility when the commissions resume their
hearings in the regions. We therefore ask the federal Electoral
Boundaries Commission for Quebec to review its proposal,
which, we hope, is not cast in stone, and to understand the
simple, rational and fundamental arguments here for the greater
well-being of the people concerned by this readjustment. That
is, of course, in the unlikely event these people will require
representation in another federal election.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in discussion of Bill C-69, an act
to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
This bill comes back to us from the Senate and therefore my
remarks will address essentially the amendments proposed by
the Senate and our reactions to them.
One approaches this debate in a spirit of respect for a
co-ordinate institution and for the care that the Senate has
attempted to give for the fulfilment of its constitutional duty. I
would also say, however, that we are in a special area of the
constitutional law of Parliament where each Chamber, being
co-ordinate, must recognize that the histories and traditions of
the other are different.
The House of Commons and the model from which we
borrowed, the Parliament of Great Britain, separated
historically from the House of Lords. Therefore conventions as
to the role, for example, of the Speaker in the internal conduct of
Parliament are different for the two Houses.
That suggests as a principle of constitutional comity a certain
amount of self-restraint in the attitudes of one House to another.
For example, it would be improper for the Senate to offer
suggestions as to the conduct of the Speaker of the House or vice
versa, the House offering suggestions on the conduct of the
Speaker of the Senate, other than in a spirit of study and a
suggestion in the strict sense of the word. Comity enjoins a
certain respect for differences in traditions and differences in
historical evolution.
(1915 )
This having been said, I will note that some of the suggestions
made by the Senate seem to be valuable and the product of
reflection. Time always improves examination of a measure. I
believe on these points the House is in a mood to respond
positively.
The issue of the electoral quotient, the amount of permissible
variation from constituency to constituency, was much
discussed in the master committee of the House, the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which is really a de
facto Constitution committee of the House. It was much
discussed. On both sides there was considerable examination of
the issue of whether the maximum permissible variation should
be 15 or 25 per cent and with the Senate's suggestion the 15 per
cent.
I have no particular quarrel. I gather the feeling of the House
is very much positive in relation to this point. Similarly with the
suggestion in appointing members of the electoral commissions
that the members to be appointed or persons to be considered
should be residents of the province concerned, that seems to be
matter of ordinary common sense.
I see opposite an hon. member who made thoughtful
contributions to the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs. I suspect this is something we simply
overlooked, and it is good to be reminded of it. It makes sense. It
would not make sense to do it the other way.
Our suggestions in changing the procedure used over so many
years were directed toward taking the current development in
constitutional thinking, which is increasingly to
constitutionalize large discretionary offices that exercise
constitutional powers in a discretionary way, and to subject the
incumbents of the office to some degree of prior scrutiny by
Parliament of their qualifications. In an ideal sense this might
mean that all executive council appointments would be subject
to some sort of parliamentary examination.
It is not the function of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs to make a constitutional revolution all across
the board. It does not have that mandate. Nevertheless we will
notice a change here from a system where the appointment of the
commissioners was solely at the discretion of the Speaker of the
day and not subject to review.
There were attempts to establish a gloss on this practice made
by a distinguished speaker, Madam Sauvé, to consult informally
with people outside. In the early eighties the electoral commis-
14263
sions that were formed by Madam Speaker were done after
informal and private consultation with outside people. I believe
she consulted a current member of the Senate, Senator
Beaudoin, who was then a very distinguished constitutional
authority.
What we have here is a proposal to further constitutionalize
the process by establishing a duty of consultation with the House
of Parliament. It is obviously not the same as submitting to
Parliament the approval or ratification of that decision, but it
opens up the process and it takes us a considerable way along in
constitutional evolution. One of the good things in this
committee was the general enthusiasm with which this change
was recognized by the members of the committee. In responding
to the Senate's suggestion again, I see no particular problems
with it if they understand they are operating in the spirit of our
original intention.
I have more difficulties when we arrive at the more
substantive side of the Senate's suggestions. One problem is
increasingly directed to what was one of the key thrusts of the
recommendations of the procedure and House affairs
committee. The problem essentially in this area is that the
system of electoral boundaries, which purported to be private
and non-political, was inevitably subject to political pressures
which, because they were never out in the open, were not subject
to public scrutiny and review.
(1920 )
An ideal system of constitutionalizing electoral boundaries
commissions would recognize that it goes to constituent power,
which is prior to constitutional power and the ultimate source of
state authority. That is something, I think ideally, on which we
would have a set of very clear, concrete principles to be applied
by commissioners so that their discretion would not be, as was
once said of Lord Eldon when he was Lord High Chancellor, as
long as the chancellor's foot.
Outside people could refer to clear constitutional principles in
deciding whether the commissioners' discretion was exercised
rationally or was exercised merely arbitrarily and capriciously
and of course subject to review by the courts. The biggest gap in
the Canadian electoral system is that there is no developed
system of court jurisprudence.
If we examine the evolution, the democratization of electoral
law in the United States is essentially because they have clear
constitutional principles set out in the constitutional charter and
a perfected system of court challenge by test cases financed by
competing interest groups and clear court rulings. This
constitutionalization through clear enunciation of constitutional
principles and judicial review was borrowed by the German
constitutional system, the contemporary system, from the
United States. It goes even more along that road than the United
States does.
We have lagged behind in many respects perhaps because of
the timidity-self-restraint might be the kinder word-of the
Supreme Court and the absence of a disposition on the part of
persons affected and even political parties to approach the court
where boundaries are obviously gerrymandered or established
arbitrarily and capriciously without proper regard to local
conditions.
It can however be changed. The feeling of the committee was
very clear that the criteria for establishment of electoral
boundaries should be set out in the legislation, and that they
should be criteria to which what was done by the boundaries
commissions in the future would be referable and would
obviously be subject to scrutiny by citizens, political parties and
others affected, but subject to review by an ultimate authority.
This is why we approached the statement of principles.
Coming back to what the Senate has done, I have some
reservations in its striking out the provision intended to
safeguard against unnecessary revision. I also have some
difficulty with its touching the issue of community of interest. I
felt that within the committee ourselves we did not go quite far
enough in defining the criteria, but at least we made a beginning.
One thing we tried to establish was the respect for continuity,
which is one of our constitutional values. Members of
Parliament build up a special relationship with their
constituencies. There is a relationship of trust which subsists
during the mandate of the member. It should not idly be
changed. Unless there is a pressing consideration of sociology,
economics or something else set out in the criteria, there should
be a presumption of continuity. One does not indulge in changes
across the board just for the sake of making a professorial
exercise.
In looking at the last electoral boundaries commission-and
in an earlier pre-parliamentary capacity I served as an electoral
boundary commissioner-Madam Sauvé as Speaker approached
me and said that she wanted to depoliticize the process. She was
looking for people a bit outside the political arenas for that. One
of the principles we very clearly recognized was the principle of
continuity, the relationship between members and their
constituents. If we change a boundary dramatically halfway
through a term, what is the relationship of trust between
members and their existing constituents from whom the member
will be separated by the next boundary change? Obviously one
does one's best but it is not good for the relationship of trust
which one tries to build up through the municipal, provincial
and federal levels of government.
(1925)
We stressed, however, in community of interest that it should
be established in an evolutionary pattern. Constitutions are not
static instruments, laws are not and obviously society is not. It is
14264
a principle of the common law and I think of our constitutional
jurisprudence that laws should evolve as society evolves.
One regret I had in looking at the work of the latest electoral
boundaries commissions, the series of 11 reports that we had,
was that in a certain sense in the philosophy, because everybody
has a philosophy, we discovered that there had been no contact
by the electoral boundaries commission the last time with the
federal electoral commissioner who has a great deal of
experience. There was no mutual contact between them so there
were wide variations in approaches.
We discovered that essentially some of the commissions were
looking back to the future. The unique feature of Canadian
society today, which some have railed against, some have
viewed with despair and others have viewed with joy as an
opportunity for the future, is the fact that we have become a
community of communities. It is interesting certainly in large
cities that all the constituencies are plural in the sense of
representing many communities. It is something in some sense
that has been achieved accidentally over the years but is
consolidated.
One of my deep regrets in looking at the latest exercise is that
there is an attempt to turn the clock backward, seemingly, to
create uni-communities, uni-ethnic constituencies. This is a
false approach to building a Canadian society. It runs against all
the trends. This is why in spelling out the criteria we have tried
to stress two things: first, continuity unless there is a clear
reason for doing differently and, second, a balance of
characteristics, a balance of features in which sociology,
geography and commonalty of ties all operate together.
We must never forget the prime lesson of Canadian society
which will be the hallmark of our society as we enter the 21st
century. There is unity in the diversity because of the necessity
of co-operation and co-existence between the different
communities.
My suggestion to the Senate, and I do so in the full spirit of
respect for a co-ordinate institution, is that it should hew more
closely to the position adopted by the House. In our committee
we gave hours of work, hours of give and take, in discussion of
the particular clause and it should not be changed lightly. I
would suggest that the excision of our principle of continuity is
a step backward, particularly where continuity now by the happy
accidents of the evolution of our society adequately reflects the
diversity and in a sense the unity through diversity of our
society.
I am optimistic about the venture in the constitutionalism of
electoral laws. So far in society we have left the political parties
untouched. It is my view that constitutionally the political
parties as organs of our constitutional system are subject to the
same principles of constitutional review as the main
governmental institutions.
I would view it as a healthy situation if issues of the internal
processes of parties where they operate in such a way as to
negate the principles of representation are subject to court
challenges and court review as they are in Germany, France and
in all the countries that have borrowed from American
constitutionalism. We would not have the great
constitutionalism of the United States without it. In some senses
principles we have established only in terms of consideration of
electoral boundaries carry over to the political parties as prime
instruments of our constitutional system.
(1930 )
One thanks the Senate for the thoughtful suggestions among
which we can very easily accept the reduction of electoral
quotas from 25 to 15. "Thank you again for the suggestion of
residency. Please, in a spirit of comity, take another look at what
we have done with the substantive provisions. We would respect
your accommodation to our suggestions here.''
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say that I welcome the opportunity to speak on this
whole matter of electoral boundaries, in particular Bill C-69
and the amendments before us this evening.
It seems we have been dealing with this issue ever since I got
to this House, and in fact I guess that is the case. Bill C-18, the
Liberal government's attempt to disband the Electoral
Boundaries Commission, was one of the first bills brought
forward. In fact the first time I saw closure used in this House as
a new member was on that very bill. This evening we see closure
being used again to limit debate on Bill C-69.
The member for Vancouver Quadra talked about the changes
that were made at the Senate and the reason we are back here this
evening to debate those. Many of those amendments were ours.
The quotient that he talked about from plus or minus 25 to 15 I
think was a good one, but I think the thing that marks the whole
business of Bill C-69 and the electoral boundaries is the
mismanagement of this whole issue. We have been working on
this for a year and a half, and in fact it may now revert back to the
old boundaries commission if it does not get through this week.
That shows how badly mismanaged this whole issue has been. I
think it has been a tremendous waste of time in this House.
This is the government that was going to do things differently.
We have closure on Bill C-69 tonight so that we have to vote at
eleven o'clock. We had closure on Bill C-41 just this week on
the hate crimes bill. We have had closure being used or time
allocation on Bill C-68, gun control, and again on Bill C-85, the
MP pension plan. What is this all about? I know members want
to get back to their ridings, but it seems to me that this is not a
very reasonable approach to limit debate in this very important
Chamber.
14265
Bill C-69, should it receive royal assent by the end of this
week, will make some adjustments to the Electoral Boundaries
Adjustment Act, which was first enacted in 1964. As far as I am
concerned, this bill should not be passed. The changes being
proposed are not substantial enough to warrant the interruption
of a perfectly good process.
The process that was in place before was fine. It is a process
that was almost complete in any case. In fact the Canadian
taxpayers had already spent around $6 million on a process of
redrawing our electoral boundaries before the Liberal
government decided to change this through Bill C-18 and now
Bill C-69. In fact hearings were held in a lot of ridings in
Canada.
If this bill is not passed, we may go back to the original
boundaries commission and pick that whole process up. People
who have been waiting to make their case patiently are waiting
to see what this new boundaries commission is going to be. It
has been a year and a half, and I think time is of the essence
because we may be only two years away from the next election.
What is the process that was interrupted a year and a half ago?
It is a process that occurs every ten years or after each census.
But last year there was considerable concern by the new Liberal
MPs from Ontario that changes to their riding boundaries would
hurt their re-election chances. This was the party that was going
to be different. The member before me talked about what used to
happen in the old days with gerrymandering. This smacks of the
same type of thing.
If this government is unhappy with the results of the
boundaries commission when they were allowed to complete
their work, it should bring forward some substantive changes. In
fact it has not done that. By substantive change I mean true
representation by population in this House of Commons and true
representation by region in the Senate.
(1935 )
My riding of Peace River has been in place since 1925. It has a
population of almost 107,000 people. Of the 13 large ridings in
Canada, mostly northern ridings, that have areas of over
100,000 square kilometres, the Peace River riding rates up there
at about ninth.
What do we have in this country? Do we have representation
by population? We are not even close. The quotient the hon.
member before me talked about is going to bring it closer, and it
certainly needs to be. We have some constituencies that have
populations as low as just over 30,000 people. We have others in
downtown Toronto that are in the 230,000 range. This is too big
of a spread. I believe we need some substantive changes, not
tinkering in this House.
In our minority report to the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Suspension Act we called for changes that would
make sense in this House of Commons. The key change is that
we would like to see the number of seats reduced. Our proposal
would create a House with 265 seats based on the 1991 census.
This would be a decrease from the 301 that will come into effect
under the current formula.
One thing we have heard a fair amount of in the last couple of
years is that we are a country that is overgoverned. If we look at
the United States, which has a bigger population by far, they
have far fewer elected members. I believe we can never get to
the situation they have unless we make substantive changes, but
we can start the process in gear. The decrease would be spread
among the eight provinces and would maintain representation
by population as it is at present but with a fairer share for both
Ontario and British Columbia.
If this government would only care to listen to what the people
want, it would hear that Canadians want less government and
fewer politicians. Look at what happened just recently in the
Ontario election. Mike Harris promised that he would reduce the
number of seats in the Ontario legislature by 25 per cent. It was
one of the contributing factors to his election, I would think.
And of course he won against considerable odds.
An hon. member: Against the Liberals.
Mr. Penson: It was very interesting that we had a lot of
Liberal members in this House talking about the Ontario
election about a month ago, but they got fewer and fewer as the
weeks passed and it was obvious that the Conservatives were
going to win in Ontario.
Of course, to Mike Harris's credit, he did borrow some of our
ideas and policies. We applaud him for that.
Another Reform policy in this area is that government should
give careful consideration to filling vacancies as they occur in
the Senate with province-wide elections. These elections should
be conducted in the same manner as the one in which the late
Senator Stan Waters was elected, thereby having some popular
support in the province. In Quebec, where the senators actually
represent defined constituencies, the election would only have
to take place in that constituency.
The official Liberal position is that they support an elected
Senate. In our caucus we go even further. We believe in what we
call a triple-E Senate, one that is equal, effective, and elected. A
Senate where there is true representation by region would
provide the people of the less populous provinces with an
effective voice in the second chamber of Canada's Parliament. A
triple-E Senate would give an equal voice to the smaller, less
populous provinces and give them the clout in Parliament they
have sought for so long.
It is not as if Canada would be breaking any new ground here.
Other countries have two democratically elected chambers: the
United States, Germany, and Australia. I realize that creating
the kind of Senate of which I speak would require constitutional
reform, but in the interim this government could hold senatorial
14266
elections in the same way it did when it appointed Stan Waters as
a result of that election.
To date, the Prime Minister has ignored his own official
Liberal policy and has chosen to fill Senate vacancies with the
usual assortment of party hacks and cronies. This is in direct
conflict with the stated Liberal policy.
Since Bill C-69 does not bring about substantial change to the
redrawing of the boundaries and to the whole democratic
process of true representation, I say let us revert back to the old
process. Why would I say that? It is because we have already
spent $6 million on that process. Hearings have been held in a lot
of those ridings. They understood what was going to happen in
terms of what their new boundaries would be. It was well along
before it was interrupted a year and a half ago.
(1940)
I say let us change the whole kit and caboodle. Let us bring in
true representation by population and bring in true
representation by region or else leave the process alone and
revert to what it was before. We had quite a good process in
place, one that recognized that there are people who move in the
country from time to time, one that recognized growth in regions
and therefore recognized that the boundaries have to be redrawn
from time to time. That process is one we should revert to. The
Senate recognized it, with some minor changes. I believe we
would be wise to drop Bill C-69 and the mismanagement that
has followed it and revert to a process that has worked well for
us in the past.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, throughout Canada's history the issue of
electoral boundary redistribution has been contentious. The
hostility is derived from the very premise that those who have
power are never willing to relinquish their hold on it.
I want to make it clear from the outset that I am opposed to
Bill C-69, as it will attempt to fix a process that is not really
broken. The government wants to scrap an electoral boundaries
commission that has cost Canadians nearly $5 million and redo
that process at a cost of another $5 million to $6 million. My
question to the other side of the House is what happened to fiscal
responsibility?
I could see the need for Bill C-69 if the original report had in
some way been tainted by any type of political influence-in
other words, if there had been gerrymandering or if there had
been a large outcry from Canadians regarding the current
redistribution process. Neither of those events has occurred.
I think the idea of politicians redrawing their own boundaries
lies at the very core of a serious problem in Canada. The
problem is a lack of trust by the public regarding politicians. It is
evident therefore that this government does not see that
Canadians are unhappy with the entire process in which
politicians have been conducting their business.
Canadians want change. They want a new style of openness.
They want a new style of fairness. This type of legislation can
only be viewed as regressive. Even though the House was given
the absolute right to redraw the electoral boundaries at
Confederation, because of the contentious nature of electoral
redistribution Parliament agreed to share the responsibility of
redistribution with electoral boundaries commissions.
Since the creation of the electoral boundaries commissions in
1964, public perception that there is not a considerable amount
of political interference in the readjustment process has
diminished. The political interference that took place before the
creation of the electoral boundaries commissions was seen as an
attempt to ensure as far as possible that the members of the
governing party were re-elected. That is absolutely wrong.
I hope this government is not travelling down the same path of
earlier governments, where gerrymandering and the abuse of
power were seen as commonplace. It is important to note that
since 1964, while many politicians have been unhappy with the
outcome of redistribution, there has rarely been a complaint of
political interference. This is a direct result of one mitigating
factor. These commissions are non-partisan. The commissions
look primarily at the number of people in the province, not
political partisanship. They do not consider how the changes
will affect one party over another.
(1945)
The largest criticism of the commissions is they do not
consider enough non-political information. Many times they
overlook common community interests or community
identities. It is important to ensure redistributed boundaries
correspond as closely as possible to the national quotient while
also taking into account community interests and the historical
patterns of an electoral district.
These factors will enable the commissions to properly
manage the geographic sizes of districts with sparsely populated
areas. The commissions are allowed to deviate from the
provincial average by plus or minus 25 per cent, as the bill was
written.
This allows them to accommodate for human and geographic
factors. Another issue that causes me a great deal of concern and
which was not addressed by Bill C-69 is that because of a 1985
constitutional amendment no province can have fewer seats than
the 1985 level of representation regardless of the population of
that province.
The exception is P.E.I. which can have no fewer MPs than
Senators, not something we disagree with. We therefore have
done away with the premise of absolute representation by
population. It is clear that within the concept of representation
by population emerges the concept of equality of vote. Any
14267
notion of equality which rep by population may permit is
countered by the fact the current and historical development of
representation in Canada has only partially been based on the
notion of this concept.
Since Confederation Canada has developed a system with
respect to electoral representation whereby a heavily populated
province retains its majority of seats within the House of
Commons while the less populated provinces receive an
adequate number of seats to ensure appropriate representation.
By no means does the federal government reflect the notion of
true representation of population in its purest form. Rep by pop
has been altered in order to guarantee a minimum number of
seats within the House to the less populated provinces so they do
not become under represented if their population base
decreases.
Thus while the principle of representation by population may
be said to lie at the heart of the electoral apportionment, it has
from the beginning been altered by other factors. Due to
Canada's vast geographic size and regional differences a
modified version of representation by population has emerged.
It is therefore determined the equality of votes guaranteed by
Canadians is one of relative equality and not absolute equality.
Therefore we do not have equality of voting power but rather
relative equality of voting perception.
Canada has many regions and there probably are as many
definitions of regionalism as there are people defining it.
Regionalism is not some sort of disease to be stamped out.
Rather it is a healthy manifestation, lacking at present a healthy
constitutional outlet. The only true significant political failure
of the Canadian experience is its chronic inability to solve those
regional tensions.
The Senate was established to protect the interests of the
regions and the provinces, yet for too long western Canada has
felt its interests have not been adequately represented in this
federal Parliament. The Canadian Senate lacks legitimacy in the
eyes of many Canadians because it is an appointed body which
runs counter to the fundamental Canadian belief that democratic
governments should be conducted by an elected rather than an
appointed body.
(1950 )
What Canadians need and what Canadians in more and more
numbers want is an effective, elected and equal Senate. A
reformed Senate will not just benefit one province or one region,
it will help build a better and stronger Canada.
We should have an elected Parliament based solely on
representation by population with a constant number of
members. This concept will work only if we have an elected
Senate in which all of the regions of Canada have an equal
number of senators; this would ensure that Parliament reflects a
notion of one person, one vote and would allow the Senate to
recognize the regional interests of our nation.
Moving on to the specific recommendations from the Senate
on Bill C-69, I state for the record we support some of its
amendments. Amendment Nos. 1 and 6(a) will reduce the
allowable size of deviation from the provincial average to 15 per
cent from the current 25 per cent.
This should help to equalize some of the concerns I have
raised regarding the inequities of representation by population.
This will ensure the ratio between rural and urban dwellers in
that it will become smaller. It also allows for deviations of the
plus or minus 15 per cent in special circumstances, which is
totally acceptable to the Reform Party and is a point we as a
party have argued for throughout every stage of this debate.
Amendment No. 4(a) is for the most part a technical
amendment which simply states the two non-judicial
commission members reside in the province for which the
commission is established. The merits of this amendment speak
clearly for themselves. However, for those for whom it does not,
let me put it this way. Who better to understand the needs and
requirements of a particular province than someone from that
province?
Amendment No. 6(b)(i) eliminates the provision that a
commission will only recommend changing to existing electoral
district boundaries where the factors are set out and are to be
significant enough to warrant such a recommendation.
Again it is important that an independent body able to make
recommendations which could have boundary deviations which
may be necessary is also free from the notion of perception of
political interference. We must always remember it is simply
not enough to be free from gerrymandering; it must be perceived
to be free form gerrymandering.
I wish to make it clear that even with the three Senate
amendments with which we agree the bill does not improve on
the present process to warrant discarding the redistribution that
is almost complete.
Bill C-69 failed to address the size of the House by capping or
limiting the number of members of Parliament in the future. It
plans to increase number of members of the House from 295 to
301. My constituents in Edmonton-Strathcona do not want
more politicians; they want less government.
Bill C-69 will ultimately cost the Canadians $5 million to $6
million, as was already mentioned, to redo the distribution
process. For these reasons I am against Bill C-69 in principle.
14268
(1955)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is my pleasure to take the floor once again regarding Bill
C-69, this time at the consideration stage of Senate amendments
and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
The two speakers who preceded me, the hon. members for
Peace River and for Edmonton-Strathcona, spoke for several
minutes about their desire for an elected Senate, a triple-E
Senate, an efficient Senate, to use the words they used. In theory,
it could appear interesting to elect members to the other place on
a regional basis. Just imagine. I am merely asking a hypothetical
question because this is not at all what I want.
They would like to create a parliamentary Senate with 24
members from the Maritimes, which is what we have now, 24
from Quebec, 24 from Ontario, 24 from western Canada, 2 from
the territories and the 6 senators from Newfoundland in
accordance with the Newfoundland Act of 1949, for a total of
104, but they would like to have them elected. That could create
a balance of sorts. It is plain to see now that the Senate has
completely strayed from its original mandate which was to
protect the regions.
It is a House which speaks for itself and which, in the final
analysis, has no other voice than the one that it gives itself.
Except that the amendment proposed by the Reform Party will
probably have its day when the time comes to reorganize
Canada's political institutions, which will probably be in a few
months. In the meantime, we have other decisions to make and
we have work to do regarding the new partnership between
Quebec and Canada.
This having been said, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-69
at third reading for a very simple reason. Although we
recognized that Bill C-69 was a significant improvement over
the current law, we had no other option but to oppose Bill C-69
when this House refused to approve the motion in amendment
that I tabled in this House at the report stage, which aimed to
secure minimum representation for Quebec. This minimum
representation would have been set at 25 per cent, in other
words, would have guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of all seats
under the constitution.
I note with sadness that, apart from the Bloc Quebecois
members, the only other members who supported this
amendment at the report stage were the hon. member for Beauce
and the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. This tells all
about how isolated the Bloc, an hon. member from British
Columbia and the independent member for Beauce were in their
move to support this amendment.
It tells of just how isolated Quebec is and it tells the story of
just how things evolved until we arrived at this state of affairs.
While at the beginning of the federation we thought that we had
made a nation to nation pact and, overall, equality for
anglophones and francophones, 128 years later, we find
ourselves in a situation where we are even denied a minimum of
25 per cent. We find ourselves in a situation where Reform
members expound their theory in the House that Quebec is only
one province among ten and not a founding people. Canada has
reached the multicultural and multiethnic stage; it is no longer at
the biethnic and bicultural stage, as Quebec has always seen
Canada.
(2000)
There are two opposing visions. I think it is useless to prolong
these arguments about ideas, terminology and behaviour. This
fall in Quebec, we will have to make up our minds about what we
want. Do we want to be a people, a nation like other nations? Or
do we want to be a province like the other provinces? That is the
question we will have to answer this fall.
Later, together with our friends in English Canada, liberated
from the political structures that are strangling us today, once
we stop feeling like a minority group in a country where every
day we become more conscious of the fact, then we will be able
to create economic and political instruments that are far more
effective than what we know today, which makes this debate so
pointless.
I will not review everything that has been done since Bill
C-18 was passed last year in this House.
A few moments ago, I referred to the fact that Quebec failed to
obtain guarantees for 25 per cent of the seats, which was a
minimum if we were to support Bill C-69. That being said, our
support for Bill C-69 is not a foregone conclusion.
We have reached a theoretical stage in this debate. Tomorrow
we will know whether the Senate will be able to garner the
requisite unanimous consent to receive the bill from the House
as amended and possibly proceed with third reading.
If the bill is not passed by the Senate by midnight tomorrow
and has not received royal assent, the current legislation will
prevail. After this evening's vote, we will look forward to what
happens tomorrow in the Senate. Will there be unanimous
consent to proceed or not? We have no control over the process.
I must say the government did a very poor job of scheduling
this particular bill. Perhaps it did not expect such a strong
reaction from the Senate. That may be, but I think that as soon as
the bill was amended in the Senate, if the government had said
no and stuck to its guns instead of caving in after the first
negative vote in the Senate on this bill, the whole thing would
have been settled long ago.
The Senate is starting to make a habit of this procedure, as we
saw subsequently. It delayed Pearson, it delayed Bill C-68 to
create committees and so forth. However, those who were
responsible for these tactics were probably hesitant to use them,
and when they did they were rather clumsy about it, so that in
the end, the government no longer controls the agenda. We are at
14269
the mercy of a single person who could defeat this bill, as
happened in the case of Meech Lake.
However, this legislation would improve certain aspects of
determining electoral boundaries. You may recall that if C-69
comes into force, the commissioners will have to hear
submissions before starting on their work. This would give them
some idea of the situation they would have to deal with.
The commissioners would produce three maps instead of just
one, which is an improvement, as I have always said. I worked
on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on
this bill until quite recently. Basically, I agreed with all the
amendments except that when we were denied a guarantee of 25
per cent of the seats for Quebec, it was obvious we could no
longer support the bill.
As for the technical improvements, there were quite a few. I
see that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who also worked on this legislation, agrees with me in that
respect.
The fact that Bill C-69 obliges the commissions to consider
community of interest is certainly an improvement. Providing
for a readjustment every five years instead of every ten was
another improvement, because this prevents excessive
distortion due to the population shifts that occur in Canada.
(2005)
My colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, was speaking
earlier about the situation that is peculiar to the area he
represents, where population growth is quite incredible.
Adjustments every five years would mean avoiding redoing the
electoral maps that upset everybody, every ten years.
Bill C-69, the result of a compromise, maintained the
principle of the 25 per cent variation in the electoral quota. That
is, if the number of voters in a riding was set at 100,000, the
riding could have either 75,000 or 125,000 voters. The
compromise in Bill C-69 lay in the fact that a riding could no
longer have over 125 per cent, which is currently the case. One
riding can have 200 per cent of the voters so that others may
have 50 per cent fewer. In this regard, I think the bill is well
balanced.
It is unfortunate that we were denied the constitutional
guarantee for Quebec of 25 per cent of the seats, my own
proposal, the bare minimum, given that, in 1867, we had 65 of
the 181 seats, that is, two thirds of the members of Parliament
were from Quebec. Now, from 33 per cent, if the next election is
held using the new electoral map, we will have 75 seats out of
301. In other words, the fateful figure of 25 per cent will be
wiped out. This is how the francophones and Acadians outside
Quebec quietly became minorities. The same applies to the
people of Quebec, who are quietly becoming a minority without
a constitutional guarantee, either.
We are not lucky like the province of Prince-Edward-Island
to have a senatorial clause. We do not have the special protection
enjoyed by the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which is a
constitutional guarantee of one seat, regardless of their
population. We are not questioning this-it is a fine thing for
them. I am not questioning Prince-Edward-Island's
representation or the Northwest Territories' or the Yukon's
representation, but why not give the same representation to
Quebec?
Two members voted with the Bloc. I remind my colleague for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that they are the member for
Beauce and the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. No other
member considered it appropriate to support the proposal. Quite
the opposite, they all rose to vote against it. Obviously this is
their democratic right. I take the liberty, however, of drawing
my own conclusions, and Quebec voters can do the same.
Were there other good things? I will look in my notes, as it has
been a while since I have had occasion to speak about this. The
provisions in Bill C-69 struck a certain balance that made it
possible to function. We started over with new commissions and
new commissioners appointed by the Speaker of the House and
the provincial chief justices, and the Speaker's decisions could
be reviewed at the request of a minimum number of members in
this House.
Thus, members were involved more at the stage of appointing
the commissioners than at the stage of reviewing the map. It is
not work suited to MPs, who too often think that the riding
belongs to them and who always want to hang on to the same
boundaries so as not to lose a particular parish, because in the
world of politics, of course, friendships are formed, as are some
rather artificial boundaries, that become almost as important as
the borders between countries.
We are probably left with two scenarios: either Bill C-69 does
not receive Royal Assent tomorrow evening and we start all over
again, or Bill C-69 is not passed tomorrow evening and we are
left with the existing act. In either case, we will have a problem
because we still do not have the 25 per cent for Quebec. Nobody
is going to give it to us and that is that.
If the existing act is suspended until midnight tomorrow by
Bill C-18, we will have the bizarre and unfortunate situation
where commissions that have been suspended or that knew that
they were going to be suspended, have nonetheless continued to
do their work for quite some time.
14270
(2010)
And constituents, believing in good faith that the bill
presented in the House would pass, did not come before those
commissions which were obviously going to be disbanded.
However, through the Senate amendments, they were only
suspended, and they will be revived tomorrow night. They often
held their hearings before empty rooms.
If those commissions, created under the old act passed by the
previous government in another Parliament, are to be revived
tomorrow night, they should at the very least hold new hearings
to allow people to express their opinions on the electoral
boundaries that have already been proposed. We should make no
mistake about it, there are some members, particularly Liberal
members, who think that if Bill C-69 does not pass, we go back
to the 1993 electoral map.
On the contrary, I want to tell the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that this is not the case, he will
not get back his 1993 riding. We have to tell him that it will be
his riding as reviewed by the commission for Ontario. He does
not seem to understand it; I would like him to explain to all his
colleagues we can see here tonight that if Bill C-69 does not
pass, we do not go back to the status quo, but to the electoral
districts as they were established before Bill C-18 was passed.
In fact, if those commissions are revived tomorrow night,
they will resume their hearings to hear constituents across the
country.
Still, everything was not bad with the old act, particularly
with regard to the definition of special considerations allowing
the creation of electoral districts departing from the electoral
quota by more than 25 per cent. Right now, under Bill C-69, a
commission can deviate by more than 25 per cent below the
provincial quota, and always below-it cannot be 150 per cent
or even 126 per cent of the quota, but it could be 74, 65 or 50 per
cent-only in very exceptional cases like those isolated and very
hard to reach areas.
This is what Bill C-69 provides, but the former act was much
more flexible. Let me read it. The act as it stands now, if Bill
C-69 is not in force, says that a commission can deviate from the
provincial quotient by more than 25 per cent more or 25 per cent
less. Thus, it can go as high as 150 or 175 percent and as low as
40 per cent ``in any case where any special community or
diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the
province appear to the commission to render such a departure
necessary or desirable.''
Those guidelines are much more flexible than Bill C-69
where remote areas are concerned. The act we have now is more
flexible. It is by no means certain, but it is likely that ridings in
areas like the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé peninsula and
Lac-Saint-Jean would remain practically unchanged. With Bill
C-69, there is a real danger because the commissions cannot go
beyond 125 per cent and create a reservoir of voters to
compensate for another area.
The same holds true for Northern Ontario, where Bill C-69
will spell problems. I think that a certain balance was achieved
with C-69, but that it is far from perfect.
As to the motion moved by the government House leader
concerning Senate amendments, I am tempted to say that they
are good amendments to a flawed bill.
Since it is a flawed bill, I will vote against the amendments
later tonight, and I hope our colleagues in the other place will be
guided by the Providence when they make their decision
tomorrow on whether Bill C-69 will receive royal assent or the
former commissions will be revived.
(2015)
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
debate has been going on for quite a while. I remember it as one
of the first debates in the House. It was ferocious and motives
were attributed to the government that were not true, but what
else is new.
I recall vividly the first debate we entered into when we said
we wanted to update the electoral boundaries bill to better
reflect the communities of interest and also make some other
adjustments. I recall so well the member for Beaver River
commenting on the fact that what we were doing was
gerrymandering, trying to fix boundaries and trying to assure
our political futures.
Today I listened to one of my colleagues from Peace River
who was still using some of the same arguments. I thought it
would be useful to recount what happened in my community and
how the community came together. Instead of being divided by
various political alliances, the community put aside its various
partisan political representations and learned to cross political
boundaries to support the interests of the community of the
regional municipality of Waterloo, of which my riding is one
member. There are three ridings contained in that region:
Waterloo, the Kitchener riding and the Cambridge riding.
I recall when the commission came out with its proposal on
how it was going to divide up the regional municipality of
Waterloo. The consensus across the region was that the proposal
was not acceptable. It did not make any sense and that the
community, on which it would impact, had no representation.
Their wishes were ignored.
I underline that because it is important, particularly for our
colleagues in the Reform Party to understand this. What I as a
member and my colleagues from Kitchener and Cambridge were
reacting to was to the presentations made to members of
14271
Parliament by members of the community. Let us say that we
were representing the wishes of our constituents.
As I mentioned before, we are contained within the regional
municipality of Waterloo. It has three cities, Waterloo,
Kitchener and Cambridge. It also has four townships, North
Dumfries, Wolwich, Wilmont and Wellesley. We have seven
local municipal councils. Then we have the regional
municipality of Waterloo council.
If you looked at the partisan politics of these various councils,
we had Liberals, many Conservatives, some New Democrats
and even some Reformers. In the case of the riding of Waterloo,
which contains the township of Wolwich to the north, the city of
Waterloo and part of the city of Kitchener, I used to sit on the
Waterloo city council. When I was elected to come to the House
of Commons by the electors of the riding, the person who filled
my position on the council was a gentleman by the name of Mike
Connolly who was a candidate for the Reform Party in the 1993
elections.
When the Waterloo city council first heard about the proposal
that was put forward, it was Mr. Connolly, the former candidate
for the Reform Party, who moved the motion at the council that
the boundaries commission proposal was not acceptable. Is that
not rather interesting? You would think that the sincerity of
partisan politics would go from the grassroots up to this place
but it seems to remain at the grassroots. Mr. Connolly was quite
active in making sure the resolution was passed on to the other
six municipal councils as well as regional council.
(2020)
Mr. Connolly, who was appointed to fill my position on city
council, had the same kind of support for the government's
infrastructure program. Reformers in the House could not find
anything useful to say about what turned out to be a very
successful program.
Once the local councils talked about the issue they met with
my colleague from Kitchener and myself regarding the
boundaries. They were very concerned that the Waterloo region,
which has evolved over a period in excess of 100 years, have its
political integrity respected.
We went to the boundaries hearing. I was there, along with my
colleague from Kitchener and the mayor from Waterloo.
Representatives from the regional municipality of Waterloo
were there. We had representation from all the individual
councils. It was a community of interest that crossed partisan
political lines to push for something on behalf of the community
that made political sense. When one talks about community of
interest that is one of the things that I am very happy about in
terms of my community, the Waterloo region.
We were going to plead with boundaries commission to
change its mind because it had already said what it was going to
do. The response of the boundaries commission to our joint plea
was that it made a few very minor adjustments. Its members
could have told us they could have accommodated us within the
perimeter of the boundaries that they set up or they could have
accommodated us by drawing lines that made sense, some of
which would have coincided with the provincial boundaries but
they did not do that.
Once again I am very pleased with this bill. I am pleased with
a number of aspects of it. One is that the commissioners in the
future will listen to reports from communities before they make
up their minds. They will canvass the whole province and then
they will have an overall idea of what should take place. Before
they can do that they are going to have to hold hearings.
It is somewhat similar to what happens at the local council
level when a developer proposes to zone a piece of property. We
have in the province of Ontario and in other provinces a process
under the planning act that is known as the informal public
hearing where people in the community have an opportunity to
have their say before the commission makes up its mind or ties
itself down to some options.
The reason that is important is I believe that a community like
Waterloo region probably could have got the commission to
consider much more seriously what my community asked of the
boundaries commission. We are going to have minimal changes.
We are going to try to minimize the changes to boundaries. Let
me expand on that a bit. The boundaries commission took the
city of Waterloo, with a population of about 84,000, which is
well below the 100,000 or 105,000 people that are supposed to
be in a riding, and dismembered that city. It took a big chunk of
lakeshore on the north side of the city and then it drew an
imaginary line to the east and really did a hatchet job on the
municipality. The commission then took a big chunk out of
Kitchener and added it to the new Waterloo riding. That did not
make any sense.
(2025)
The commission also did the same thing to the riding of
Kitchener. It took away a big chunk of Kitchener and then it gave
it a bigger chunk.
It is important for the people in the communities of Waterloo,
Kitchener and Cambridge to have boundaries where they can
understand who their provincial representatives are and who
their federal representatives are. As much as possible those
boundaries should coincide. As well, we should have boundaries
whose names reflect the geographic location of the riding. In the
case of the Waterloo federal riding, the township of Woolwich is
included as well as the northern part of Kitchener. By calling the
riding Waterloo, that is hard for people to understand.
One of the proposals put forward in the bill is that there should
be a minimizing of the changes to the boundaries. The interests
of the community should be the dominant factor. The
commissions will listen to the input of the people living in the
districts before its members make up their minds. The
commissions will conduct informal public hearings where it
will hear the constituents. I believe that the end product will be
something with which
14272
my community, both in the Waterloo federal riding as well as in
the regional municipality of Waterloo, will be a lot happier.
Let me conclude by emphasizing that the partisan political
parties in my community came together and in my riding, the
city of Waterloo, the person who moved the motion expressing
grave disagreement with the proposed boundaries was the
candidate for the Reform Party in the last election campaign. He
stood for what the community wanted. My position, the position
of my colleague from Kitchener, as well as my colleague from
Cambridge, come from trying to represent what is best for our
community and what our community so articulately expressed
to us.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for Waterloo for his
remarks. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the former
candidate for the Reform Party. It will be nice after the next
election when we will get to enjoy reading his comments in
Hansard. I am sure those comments will be far more to the point
and much easier to digest.
It is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. In a sense the bill
encapsulates part of the problem with the democratic process, or
the choosing in this case of electoral boundaries. It deals with
the neutrality of that, the idea that we as politicians should not
be messing around in choosing the riding boundaries. We should
be leaving that to a neutral body which will ensure that fairness
is the key word in all boundary decisions.
(2030 )
It also gives me an opportunity to talk about the whole
legislative process by which we bring laws into being in the
House. On a late night sitting like this, it gives me cause for a
few moments to talk about the whole idea of debate, which again
is part of that democratic process. The flaws that I see in the
House and in this current parliamentary system.
I am often asked after being here for a year and a half what I
think of it now, if it is everything I thought it would be. Is it
everything I thought it would be? Is it everything I thought it
would be when I first got here? I have to say sadly with
considerable disappointment that no, it is not. This evening I
will give a 20-minute speech to a largely empty House. This is
my second speech of the day. I gave another 20-minute speech
on Bill C-86 earlier today. It was germane to my riding. It was
about the dairy commission.
A lot of work goes into the preparation of a speech. There is
the research, the time my staff and I commit, my resources, the
communication with my constituents and earlier today with my
dairy farming constituency, and so on. There is all that effort to
prepare a decent and hopefully cogent argument and then I
deliver it into an empty House. There has to be something wrong
when people back home are wondering what I think of it. I am
pleased to be here. I am proud to represent them, but they should
know that there is a systemic problem here.
When I see debate after debate and speaker after speaker
presenting arguments to themselves and not having someone to
debate with, it is rather discouraging. The very process of debate
presupposes that there is someone to debate with. We have to
suppose that we are going to talk to someone and try to
understand their point of view, debate them on the merits of that
point and then listen to their points. It goes back and forth until
we come to a resolution that maybe was wiser than either one of
us started out with.
Again, when I give another speech to a largely empty House, I
wonder sometimes about the value of it. Is it just killing time or
is it really debate where I hope to speak to someone's intellect
and challenge them in some ways?
Yesterday there was a vote on a private members' Bill C-295
that I initiated. It was defeated. I was not upset about the defeat
of the bill. What does annoy me is that early in the debate I had
misplaced a word in the text of the peacekeeping bill I brought
forward. I asked for and received unanimous consent of the
House to change the word command to operational control.
The word was changed and for the next three debates I
listened to the prepared speeches from the other side. Members
just went through their prepared speeches time and time again
saying that the word command should be changed to operational
control. It had been done at the outset but they did not listen.
They are not not listening and they do not care to enter logical
debate.
Instead, the government wants to come in with a legislative
agenda, crack the whip and tell people how to vote. The concern
for actually coming to a consensus is somewhere down there. I
referred to it earlier in my dairy speech as the spreadings of the
honey wagon.
An hon. member: Some people might not know what a honey
wagon is.
Mr. Strahl: I will leave the honey wagon explanation to
others.
In his intervention the member for Waterloo was speaking
about the need to represent the wishes of his constituents. I urge
the member to go back and check his speech. He may want to
check the blues to see if he can get that erased. Representing the
wishes of a constituency. What does that mean to Liberals
exactly? What is the purpose of representing their constituents?
14273
(2035 )
If the Liberals were to represent their constituents but it was
not the party line, I wonder what would happen. I am sure the
Liberal Party would shrug it off. It would say that probably the
member had a legitimate point of view having consulted with his
constituents and wanting to legitimately represent their
concerns even though they happen to be juxtaposed against the
Liberal Party. That would be fine, would it not?
We have seen in the last couple of weeks-and this comes
down again to the democratic process-what would happen if
Liberal members truly try to represent their constituents in the
Liberal Party. First they would get the mild reaction, the tongue
lashing. ``Mr. Member from wherever, if you do that again, if
you happen to be so brazen as to actually represent the people
who put you into power, we will make sure that you do not get a
voice on committees''. That would be the first step: Why do we
not just yank them from their role on committees? That is of
course a small thing, but when they are trying to do their job I
suppose those three or four Liberals would feel just a tad
chastized. What would happen if this continued? If the members
were so brazen as to vote a second time against the Liberal Party,
what would happen?
Suppose the member was a 30-year man having been on the
job for 30 years, never voting against or bucking the party line
but finally he did what he thought was the wishes of his
constituents. Perhaps the member was a former cabinet minister
who had bent the ear of several prime ministers. If he dared to
step out of line, what would happen? He would be threatened
with dismissal from the chairmanship of his committee, having
done nothing wrong, having done nothing but represent the
views of the people in his riding.
If it were to continue, what would then happen? The Prime
Minister would stand up and say words like this: ``You either do
as you are told or I will not sign your nomination papers next
time''.
It is incredible. That is the way the old line party seems to
think is a good way to run the country. It goes to the very heart of
what we are talking about tonight, this need to interfere in the
democratic process. The way it says that the party knows best,
the constituents know nothing, and the members know less. The
Liberals have come from a time when they used to be a coalition
of friends scratching other friends' backs to friends warning
other friends that if they step out of line, they will not be around
much longer. It is a sad, sad day.
I wondered even as I listened to the member from Waterloo
waxing eloquent as he said: ``We are going to make sure that
they are going to listen to us. We are going to make sure that they
observe the boundaries we want''. What kind of nonsense is
that? What kind of diatribe is that when we hear someone
saying: ``We will make sure the next group that sets the
boundaries does what we want''. It is nonsense.
The reason it is nonsense is that they do not seem to
understand the role of a neutral or fair minded boundary
commission. The role of a commission is to come in not to do the
wishes and the bidding of the member sitting in the riding. It is
to listen to witnesses, do what it can to have input from the
community, and then it has to make a decision.
The sad but ironic thing about what is happening here with
this bill is that the Liberal backbenchers who initiated this whole
gong show of a revisiting this whole thing have shot themselves
in the foot so to speak, maybe both feet. They said: ``We do not
like the boundaries that C-18 gave. We do not like the
boundaries and in fact the boundaries are so new, it will give us
so little time to adjust that what we are going to have to bring in a
new set of boundaries''.
By pushing it off until this late, we are going to end up with a
set of boundaries for Reformers and Liberals alike that no one
will know until probably a couple of months before the next
election. What a wise, wise move. Of course it will cost another
$5 million or $6 million to do it. I guess that is just pocket
change. The introduction of the $2 coin is only going to save $12
million a year and the Liberals had to move heaven and earth for
that. But for $6 million they will get another set of boundaries
that will not be any better than the ones they had before. They
will be slightly different and there will be slightly more of them.
I wonder if they are listening to their constituents.
(2040)
I repeat what the member for Waterloo said: ``It is important
that we represent the wishes of the constituency''. Well, what
would the constituency want? Maybe I should not speak for the
member from Waterloo. Maybe his constituents do want more
members of Parliament.
As a matter of fact if we could get 301 members in the House
we could start the renovations. Soon we will not have enough
room in the House. We could just push the walls back and add
more seats until the House becomes-
An hon. member: Tent meetings.
Mr. Strahl: Maybe that is what they would like, tent meetings
in order to handle more members of Parliament that are
inevitably going to come because of the way this bill has been
set up.
The Liberals refused to listen to the Reform Party. The
Reform Party said there should not be more than 265 members
of Parliament. They should not be looking to expand the
numbers of members of Parliament. They should be looking to
restrict them, to cut back on the size of government, not to
continually think of ways to expand it.
14274
If the Liberals would listen to the constituents in my riding
and I would think in Waterloo as well, they would not be adding
more seats and pushing the translators out into the boonies. They
would be saying: ``We have more than enough people here. We
have too many members of Parliament. Let us cut back the size
of the House of Commons to 265 members''. It would be a
manageable thing and would save money. If we are going to go
to the trouble of a boundary redistribution let us at least save the
taxpayers some bucks. Instead, that gets tossed out. It gets
shoved aside and the Liberals decide instead to keep expanding
it.
Also there have been comments from many members of the
Bloc on their supposed concern about the 25 per cent
representation. The firm figure they want is a 25 per cent
representation of all the seats in the House of Commons must be
from Quebec. I do not know where they are coming from. They
want out of Canada but they demand at least 25 per cent of the
seats in the House of Commons. They want to make sure they
have a referendum this year so they can leave Canada, but they
demand that they get their MP pensions. They sound confused.
A little bit like the Liberals, although granted in a different way.
Still I do not understand what they want.
In the bill we talked about earlier today Bloc members wanted
continued access to the Canadian dairy market, except that they
want to be a separate country. Quebec has 50 per cent of the
industrial milk in Canada already. What do they want? I do not
know and I do not think they know themselves. With the three
leaders getting together I suppose they just want everything.
That way they cover it with the three leaders. I am not sure what
else it could be.
It is in the best interests of the Liberal Party to let the bill die.
If the they would just let the bill die at least Liberal members
going into the next election would have some idea as to where
they are going to fight their next losing battle. It is in their own
best interests to at least set up their own Waterloo in such a way
that they could at least plan for their own demise.
There is no sense in being surprised by this. Why ask for a new
arbitrary boundary so that we can try to make political contacts,
media contacts in a riding where we do not know the boundaries.
It is far wiser to go ahead and make whatever changes are
necessary, and members opposite, if there were members
opposite, should listen to this. There will be and must be
changes. The boundaries cannot stay the same. There is no sense
in saying: ``I wish this town or this little area were included''. It
is not possible to stay the same. It has to change. It must change.
If it changes, and it will, let us change it now. We can all get on
with life and represent the ridings we have and we will go into
the next election knowing the boundaries of the ridings we are
going to represent. If some ridings need to be eliminated,
perhaps we can eliminate the riding of the hon. member who is
leaving the House now. If we have to eliminate some, let us
eliminate them now and get it over with so we can get on with
making our plans for the next election.
(2045 )
Based on the 1991 census the Reform plan originally tabled
with the committee would have created a House with a total of
273 members, 265 seats plus some constitutional requirements
to include some extras from certain provinces. There would
have been only slight future growth. That is the kind of thing our
constituents want. They do not want more government.
I will speak for a moment about the way the amendments
came back from the Senate. What an improvement it would be if
we let the House of Commons operate with representation by
population as close as we can work it. Then we move on to an
upper House that is as close as we can make it in
representational by region. What an improvement it would be if
we said we all have 100,000, or whatever the figure, constituents
to represent. Sometimes it is difficult because it is spread out;
sometimes it is concentrated in cities. Be that as it may, this is
rep by pop in the House of Commons.
When we wanted advice or a sober second thought we could
go to the Senate elected by the people, that had regional
representation so that for instance the farming community in
Saskatchewan would have people it could go to and say: ``This is
the region you represent; this is the job you have. Get with it and
represent my interests as a regional centre''. We could go to a
senator from Toronto and he could do his best to represent that
city and so on.
What a better system it would be if we had true rep by pop in a
smaller House of Commons and a triple E Senate. We could all
look forward to an election for that and the job it would do.
As I talk about this democratic process, the process of who
should choose our electoral boundaries, obviously it should not
be the members of Parliament but a neutral body. When we set
up cost saving measures we should be willing as members of
Parliament to pull in our vision of more seats and instead restrict
it to a more cost effective way of doing business in the House.
Think of the way we run things in the House where we should
be elected to represent our constituents, not just our parties.
Think of the changes required to make sure the House of
Commons allows freer votes without party discipline. Think of
the changes required in committees when a bill is referred to a
committee on first reading in the hope of obtaining ample input
from members of Parliament only to find out that in some
committees when it comes to a clause by clause debate debate
will be restricted to five minutes per clause; amendments will be
refused if they are in one official language only; clauses of a bill
14275
will be passed without having a vote; decisions will be reversed
on votes; witnesses will be refused.
In the case of the MP pension plan members of the committee
refused to hear from members of Parliament to be affected by it
or from ordinary citizens. They restrict the input into those
committees to maybe a single day. They did not allow enough
time on Bill C-68, one of the most controversial bills of the year,
to have legislative counsel draft the amendments properly.
We saw our Prime Minister saying do as you are told by the
party, not as you are told by your constituents or else. We see
motions to extend hours and voting until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. in order
to shove through legislation. We see what we are facing here
tonight, another example of closure where the government will
force the bill through without allowing all the debate members
want on it.
We see all of this compiled in only 20 months of the Liberals
in government. We wonder where their vaunted red book
promises are. Where is the promise of freer votes, more open
government, a chance to represent our constituents? It is gone.
In only 20 months of arrogant government that is being wrapped
up, shipped out in the fish wrappers of old. It is not a reality. The
time has come and gone when we could look to the Liberal Party
for reforming the House of Commons.
(2050)
It is becoming obvious that reform of the House of Commons
will take the Reform Party. That is why it is a pleasure to stand
here with many members of the Reform Party sitting in their
seats listening to the debate, entering into the debate with
government members who are willing to. We offer constructive
criticism, beg the members opposite to debate us in public on
issues such as closure, MP pensions and so on and we get no
response.
Still it is a pleasure to make known the concerns of my
constituents and the concerns of the Reform Party as we want to
make this place work better, more democratically. We want an
electoral boundaries system free from political interference.
That is why I will be voting against this bill and I am proud to do
it.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to
participate in this debate on Bill C-69.
[Translation]
First of all, I want to congratulate all the members who sat on
the parliamentary commission on Bill C-69. I want to point out
in particular that this bill was agreed on and approved by all the
members of the parliamentary committee. I can remember, for
instance, the rather significant contribution made by the hon.
member for Bellechasse and his support during the final vote in
committee. The hon. member enthusiastically agreed to support
this government bill.
However, he had to yield to the higher authorities within his
caucus, to the big shots in his caucus, and was unable to support
the bill in the House. His colleagues even forced him or
encouraged him to move an amendment. Even though we were
told that the amendment was in order, it was unconstitutional
because it would have changed the constitution of Canada.
As you know, the hon. members of the Bloc and others may
want to talk about the constitution, because they get a kick out of
it, but I for one do not want to address this issue and the right
hon. prime minister did say that he did not want to talk about it.
Mr. Speaker, you are totally objective and impartial; therefore,
you must have noticed that we have stayed away from the issue
of the constitution since we came into office.
I want to come back to the substance of Bill C-69, but I cannot
miss the opportunity to comment on the statements made by the
hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
[English]
A little earlier I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West. He was talking about the virtue within the
Reform Party. He was talking about the fact that the Reform
Party was so virtuous in his opinion, that the Reform Party could
do no harm.
As my colleague the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader said so eloquently, obviously if that
had been the case it would have been a very short speech because
the Reform Party is rather short on virtue.
Nevertheless, he referred to MPs' being able to in his own
party, so he said, vote the will of the people members represent
and that they were never disciplined for doing so within the
Reform Party. Surely some of us remember when the then
justice critic was bumped off his parliamentary committee. The
then justice critic, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby,
whom I see before us in the House right now, got the boot. He
was booted off his committee because he said something his
leader and many other people disagreed with.
(2055)
What happened? He got bumped off the committee. He was
unceremoniously demoted. That is what happened to a Reform
MP. What happened to another MP? I remember a certain speech
in the House on Bosnia.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the
statement the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made
is absolutely untrue. He has no basis to make that comment. I
ask him to retract it.
14276
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Arseneault): That is a matter of
debate and not a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker as usual has adjudicated in a
totally objective and non-partisan way.
Getting back to those people across the way in the Reform
Party, I signed the form that assisted in bumping the member off
the committee at the request of someone representing another
party. We will not mention the name of that party.
However, let us get back to other members of the Reform
Party and what happened to them. Do members remember the
debate on Bosnia in the House? I do very clearly. I remember a
speech from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. He
spoke very well on the issue. Do members know what happened
after that? The member never spoke again; weeks and weeks
without being able to speak in the House. I wonder why that
happened. He was silenced by the authorities within his party.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a seasoned
parliamentarian. He should certainly recognize his comments
have no relevancy to Bill C-69, absolutely none.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Over the years the
relevancy rule has had a tremendous amount of flexibility and
elasticity. I know within the confines of a 20-minute
intervention the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is probably just getting to the
very point of debate, which the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster was raising.
Mr. Boudria: Well put, Mr. Speaker. Not only is that true but
I was responding to the speech from the member for Fraser
Valley West and I know that he would not have made an
irrelevant speech.
I will stand up to defend the member for Fraser Valley West
against this vicious attack by the Reform Party House leader that
we just saw against the member for Fraser Valley West because
when he talked about free votes in the House we let him say it
because we knew it was relevant to this debate.
We all recognize it in the Liberal caucus. The Reform Party
House leader now tried to silence that member and to reprimand
him for what he said previously. We will not put up with that. We
will defend the member for Fraser Valley West.
Having discussed and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that
Reform Party senior big wigs have reprimanded most severely
the member for Fraser Valley West a moment ago by the
comments from the House leader, and also silenced the member
for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, forbidding him to speak in the
House for weeks and then bumping the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby off his committee unceremoniously,
now we can get back to the main topic of Bill C-69.
(2100)
My colleagues remind me about the hon. member for
Crowfoot who was demoted from the human rights committee,
but I shall not even mention the member for Crowfoot being
bumped off that committee. I am sure he was excellent, but the
authorities within the Reform Party saw fit to demote him.
Let us get back to the substance of Bill C-69, recognizing of
course that everything I have just said is totally germane to the
bill, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West so eloquently
pointed out earlier today.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This may be a
trivial matter, but he keeps talking about the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West and I am sure he means Fraser Valley East.
To avoid the necessity of having to change Hansard, maybe we
should correct the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Elk
Island is absolutely right. I am sure the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will now make that adjustment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that east met west. That
is correct, it is the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. But I
would gladly defend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West as
well, should that be necessary, against any attack by the
leadership of the Reform Party.
On the substance of Bill C-69, this bill was necessary. It was
tabled in the House by a parliamentary committee. This bill is
the only piece of legislation of its kind. It was produced by a
parliamentary committee. I am glad to say that I was a member
of that committee very ably chaired by the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands. Of course we had the distinguished
leadership and ability of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
[Translation]
Several other members, including Reform members, have
also helped to make this bill a rather unique piece of legislation,
having been entirely drafted by the parliamentary committee.
So, this bill was debated and passed in the House of
Commons. Then it was sent to the other place. The other place,
in its wisdom, decided to send the bill back to the House with
some amendments.
Despite all this shuffling back and forth, we are on the last day
of debate on this bill, or so we hope. The other place refuses to
adopt this bill, which is not a government bill, but a bill
produced by all parliamentarians, by all of us in this House of
Commons, who are the salt of the earth.
I do not want to show a lack of respect for the hon. persons in
the other place, but not being subject to electoral rules as
frequently as we are-and that is the least we can say since,
when they are appointed to the other place, they are there for a
good long time-they should not be lecturing us on how to get
14277
elected to this House. This bill is good and I am proud to support
it.
As a matter of fact, the member for Bellechasse praised this
bill a few moments ago, which certainly means that it must be
good. The member for Bellechasse spoke about the five-year
redistribution that we will have after this bill is adopted, and it
will be adopted. After that, there will be no need for the kind of
electoral redistribution we have now.
Some members of this House, such as the member for York
North, the member for Mississauga, the member for Ontario and
the member for Terrebonne, represent ridings that are often two
or three times more populated than other ridings across Canada.
This is not normal.
(2105)
This situation will prevail as long as we have a system where
electoral redistribution happens only every ten years following
the census.
But now, we have a new formula. We have a good bill, a bill
that will allow us to make smaller changes every five years,
changes that will ensure that the House continues to apply the
principle of proportional representation much more adequately
than it does now.
I am not convinced that a member who represents 250,000 or
275,000 constituents can take as good care of them as another
member whose riding is smaller, like mine for example, with
100,000 constituents, or yours, Mr. Speaker, with some 60,000
constituents. This is the sort of figures I am talking about.
There comes a time when, unless he has access to
considerable resources to help his constituents, a member can no
longer do his or her job as an MP alone at the riding level,
especially when the riding is very large or heavily populated.
This is the case of a number of ridings in the Toronto area and, of
course, in the Montreal area, the riding of Terrebonne, which is
certainly the best example I could come up with in Quebec and
stands to benefit from a bill like this one.
[English]
Some members have advocated that it is necessary in this bill
to put this business of the 25 per cent representation for the
province of Quebec. We know the House has already voted that
down, as it had to. This is not a constitutional amendment; this is
a bill having to do with electoral redistribution. There are right
now a series of thresholds in electoral redistribution and we
know what they are. There is what is commonly referred to as
the Senate floor: no province can have fewer MPs than it has
senators. There are a few other criteria in there as well. At
present provinces do not lose seats from what they had prior to
the last redistribution, and that is since 1988 or so. We must
respect what is in there now. We cannot unilaterally today make
those kinds of amendments to give that 25 per cent
representation.
[Translation]
We must also remember that the whole Canadian electoral
system is based on a specific province, when it comes to
allocating seats to the other provinces. As we all know-at least
those of us who, in the past, worked on redefining electoral
boundaries-, that province is Quebec. We take the province's
population and we divide it by its number of seats. The quotient
is then applied elsewhere in the country. It is as simple as that.
There is of course another factor, namely the fact that a province
cannot have fewer MPs than senators. This explains why, for
example, Prince Edward Island has four seats in the House.
[English]
In conclusion, I want to ask all members to support this bill. It
is a good bill. It is the only bill produced by a parliamentary
committee. It is unique and it is our bill. It is the bill of MPs for
electoral redistribution for those of us who got elected and for
future candidates who will be elected to replace MPs who will
not run again or who will be defeated in the next election and so
on. It is the bill for redistribution and it is a fair one for all
Canadians.
Without being disrespectful, those who do not get elected to
anything, after having made their representation to us once,
should recognize the second time that this is the will of the
House of Commons, democratically elected, and that the will of
the people is totally respected by a bill like this.
I say to the members across that they did not produce one
piece of evidence why this bill is unfair, nor do they have any
alternative to this electoral redistribution bill. Their members
who worked on the committee know better than the hon. member
who just heckled from across the way.
(2110)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
not a happy occasion, because just before the fall referendum in
Quebec, the Parliament of Canada has failed to recognize the
historic contribution of the people of Quebec and confirm that
Quebec will have 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.
I know the amendment was defeated, but I cannot help talking
about it because for us in the Bloc Quebecois, and, I suppose I
could say, in Quebec, the most important aspect of the bill is the
representation of the people of Quebec. This is a gesture the
Parliament of Canada could have made to Quebecers. It is a
gesture it refused to make, which sends the following message
to Quebecers: ``We do not recognize your position, your historic
contribution or what you are as a people and a distinct nation''.
I realize historic references are not always appreciated in this
House. But since I am speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, I will try
14278
and make a few. To know where you are going, you have to know
where you are from. We must remember that in 1837-38, we
had a rebellion in Lower Canada and Upper Canada, both of
which were put down. Upper Canada and Lower Canada were
forced to come together in a union. Canadians, and I am
referring to the ``Canayens'', the people who came over to
America from France and, before France was defeated by
England, had become sufficiently independent to start
criticizing France, the church over here quarrelling with the
church over there, so that if the colony had remained French,
after a while it would have become independent like all the
American colonies did after a while. These French men and
women, who became the ``Canayens'', are the ones who were
defeated. They were left here, about 60,000 of them, and here in
North America they continued to multiply, develop the land and
try in spite of everything to preserve their language, their
religion and identity.
(2115)
These ``Canayens'' who in 1791 obtained their national
assembly, these Canadiens who for years elected their members
and founded a party called the Patriote Party, who wanted to
negotiate the patriation of executive powers with England, and
finally, these ``Canayens'' who, according to the historians,
were provoked by the Doric Club in 1837, were defeated and
became a minority as a result of the forcible union of 1840.
I say became a minority because we should remember that in
1810 and later in 1822, the British Montrealers wanted to make
Montreal Island a part of what was not yet known as Ontario but
as Upper Canada. However, they were not successful because
the ``Canayens'' who had large families were not about to
become a minority.
After the rebellion was put down in 1837-38, when Lord
Durham came to conduct his investigation, he said the
following: ``I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single
state''. Lord Durham was anxious to put these ``Canayens'' in a
minority position, to ensure that the character of British North
America, come what may, would remain British.
At the time, there were about 450,000 ``Canayens'' in Lower
Canada, 150,000 anglophones and about 400,000 British or
people of British descent in Upper Canada. This means that
although the population was not the same within the union,
Upper Canada and Lower Canada were given the same number
of members, irrespective of population. There was a significant
difference between the number of people in Lower Canada and
in Upper Canada. At the time, it was important to maintain the
minority status of the ``Canayens''.
Once the union became official, it did not work very well.
According to the history books, many settlers came to Ontario,
to Upper Canada, and when the union did not work out, members
for Upper Canada, under the slogan ``Rep by Pop'', demanded a
new government. An alliance was formed between
representatives of Lower Canada and others, who did not seem
prepared to unite with them in Upper Canada to produce a
federation, when it became clear that the union was not going to
work and something new had to be found.
(2120)
But, in exchange, and this was clear, patriots like
George-Étienne Cartier who fired the first shots,
George-Étienne Cartier who was a member of the McDonald
government, could not accept a confederation proposal which
did not recognize Lower Canada, what it represented and its
importance.
Confederation was enacted in the British North America Act.
At Confederation, Quebec, because that was how it was then
known, became one of four regions. Quebec was granted 65 MPs
out of a total of 181.
Since then, Quebecers have steadily become a minority. This
situation led a large number of Quebecers to want sovereignty,
and it led us, the Bloc Quebecois, who are here in the Canadian
Parliament just a few months before the referendum, to say to
ourselves that the Canadian Parliament possibly would
recognize the right of Quebecers to 25 per cent of all seats
because of their status as a founding people.
Now, I will talk about the Quebecois people. This people has
long been recognized as Canada's francophone nation. The
francophone nation of Canada, the ``Canayens'' of whom I
spoke, held their hands out to the anglophone nation after 1840
in friendship so that those who called themselves English
Canadians could try with French Canadians to piece back
together the pieces of two shattered colonies.
For a long time, French Canadians in Quebec desperately
tried to find their niche within Canada. They were searching for
equality. I said for a long time and desperately because there is
something desperate in this repetitive quest over the years, we
can even say over the centuries, of the descendents of the first
francophones, the ``Canayens'' who became French Canadians
who, despite the circumstances, wanted to take their place
within Canada.
It is only after repeatedly failing to do so, after recognizing
the potential to develop to their fullest in Quebec, that in the
1960s or thereabouts, because history cannot be boxed in,
Quebecers saw events quietly transform reality. At a certain
moment, the situation changed: in the 1960s or thereabouts the
people who were referred to as the cradle of French in Canada
became the Quebecois people.
(2125)
I am always pleased to quote Daniel Johnson, the father, the
one who was Premier in 1966, whose father was Irish. Daniel
Johnson, the father, this leading Quebec politician, a French
14279
Canadian, the first to launch his party, the Union Nationale, the
party in power without a break from 1944, except for the period
between 1960 and 1966. He is the one who called an election on
a platform of ``Égalité ou indépendance''. He was thinking of
equality for the French-Canadian nation, but he said in his text:
``If French Canadians cannot achieve equality within Canada, it
will be legitimate, normal and natural for them to seek political
independence within their territory''.
The people known as Quebecers have a long and meandering
history, having moved from a French colonial identity to a North
American identity, from Cajun to conquered, to dominated, to
colonized by the British colony, to French Canadian in a colony
that gained its independence from Great Britain in 1931. The
French Canadians, who became Quebecers in the 1960s, are
having a hard time discovering their identity, some of them.
Some of them mock it.
Their history, although meandering, is one of courage. And
Parliament's recognition in acknowledging Quebecers'
entitlement to 25 per cent of the seats would have been a
minimum tribute to Quebecers' contribution to Canada.
I would add the following. The French Canadians, I saw it
earlier and I am repeating it, it hurts me but it is true, French
Canadians desperately wanted to find their place and grow
within Canada. Often they were the only ones wanting to. At the
same time, though, they developed the qualities that go into
making a people. They meet all the criteria of a nation:
language, different laws, the Civil Code, their religion, a culture
and a community spirit. Neither the people nor the nation is
closed, as some would claim.
I quoted Daniel Johnson senior earlier. He was the son of an
immigrant and became premier. I do not think I need to provide
many more examples in talking of this openness.
This people tried to find its place in Canada. After the
referendum when the people said ``no'' in 1980, because
Trudeau had promised change, federal reform, the people
followed Bourassa with his five basic conditions. Today, some
people have no other choice but to say: ``We will take charge
ourselves''.
They do not want an end to relations. For them, the only way
to grow in this country is to say yes to who they are and offer the
rest of Canada an economic and a political agreement.
(2130)
It would not have cost Parliament much to grant this status to
the people of Quebec, a status they have anyway, by recognizing
that they are a founding people of Canada and play a
fundamental role within Canada.
Personally, I would have liked to see such a sign. Instead,
what we saw was its failure to recognize this basic difference of
ours.
Some members addressed the technical requirements of the
rep. by pop. rule and we understand that this is important.
However, the message Parliament could have sent or still could
send Quebec is infinitely more important than setting the
allowable percentage of variance in determining the size of any
given riding. We are talking about having one country or two.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the comments made by the
hon. member for Mercier.
In his speech earlier tonight, the government whip suggested
that Bloc members disagreed on this bill. This is quite obvious
tonight as the hon. member for Bellechasse, who sits on the
committee, proposed in committee an amendment to the bill that
would have given Quebec at least 25 per cent of the seats in this
House.
The suggestion to amend the bill actually came from a senator
who testified as a witness before the committee. The committee
nonetheless decided that amendments to the Constitution of
Canada were not needed at this time and that, as everyone
agreed, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for
Bellechasse would involve amending the constitution.
Consequently, the committee rejected this amendment and
decided to preserve the constitutional relations now in effect
among all Canadian provinces, and especially the constitutional
provisions concerning representation in this House. We then
heard the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm deliver a long
speech in this House at second or third reading of this bill.
The hon. member for Bellechasse did not have anything to say
at that time, while his colleague from Berthier-Montcalm
called for major changes to this bill and proposed an
amendment. This amendment was rejected by the House. We
now hear all kinds of speeches dealing with the amendments
proposed by the Senate, which have nothing to do with the
constitution, nothing to do with the representation of any
province in this House, although all speeches by Bloc members
deal with this. This has nothing to do with the motion before the
House tonight. Perhaps they would like this to be the case, but it
is not.
(2135)
The motion before the House and the amendment concern
only the amendments proposed by the Senate. It is noteworthy
that the Senate did not propose the amendments requested by the
hon. members for Mercier and Bellechasse. Why? Because such
amendments would have also been rejected by the Senate.
14280
I am surprised. During her speech, the hon. member for
Mercier rewrote the history of Canada. It is very obvious that
our country was built by two partners, English Canadians and
French Canadians. That much is obvious to everybody. Canada
will continue to prosper because of these two partners. If we are
together, if we work together to continue to build this country,
there will always be enough wealth for everyone in Canada and
no one will be denied their rights. That is what created this great
country, Canada, and what will sustain it in the future.
I am certain that when the Bloc Quebecois will have the
courage to hold a referendum in the Province of Quebec,
Quebecers will tell all of the world that they want to remain in
Canada, that they want to remain part of this great country,
because they have always worked with all other Canadians to
create this country, not without difficulty, but ever hopeful for
the future of this great country, one of the world's greatest.
[English]
I want to leave that subject and speak instead tonight about the
Reform amendment, which is, after all, what we are supposed to
be discussing.
I am very surprised to see the Reform Party carrying on the
way it has been tonight. Again I have the little green book handy.
I was just browsing through it. I know we have heard hon.
members of the Reform Party almost speak disrespectfully of
the other place. I am shocked, to say the least. I am shocked
because here we have a spectacle of the Reform Party on the one
hand speaking disrespectfully of the other place and on the other
hand supporting the amendments it has made to this bill. I do not
think it is any accident that many of the amendments proposed
by the Reform Party members in the committee and rejected by
the House and the committee are now being supported by their
friends in the other place.
The other place has a constitutional right to suggest
amendments to this House and send bills back, as it has done in
this case, but I am surprised that a party that speaks so
disrespectfully of the other place would now support by its
amendment the amendments that have been proposed there.
I want to quote from their leader, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest, in the little green book. The book is called ``The
Gospel According to Preston Manning and the Reform Party''.
He said the following, although I want to say at the outset that I
do not agree with the statement: ``The three priorities of the
present Senate are, in order, protocol, alcohol and Geritol''.
Mr. Hermanson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Milliken: There is the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, who quoted this very statement in
his speech the other night, applauding it. Yet I note on the other
hand that he is supporting the Senate amendments to this bill.
We are not just asking him to vote for the one amendment the
government supports. He is saying we should support a whole
bunch of them and has proposed an amendment to do. We are
saying reject it because those amendments are not good
amendments to this bill and we are asking the Senate to
withdraw them. That is what the motion states. It is a sensible
bill.
What is the principal objection the Reform Party has? I
suggest there are two. One of them is not dealt with in any of
these Senate amendments and it was not dealt with in the bill,
but there are two. The first was that Reformers wanted the
possibility in a riding of moving away from the provincial
quotient to the variation permitted to be 15 per cent above or
below instead of 25 per cent above or below.
The result of such a change would be to ensure that the ridings
would be closer in size. In other words, there would be one
person equal to one vote a little more closely across the country
than is the case now. In fact it would only apply within a
province, but it would result in a substantial shift.
(2140)
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the
others who are hooting and hollering over there tonight know
perfectly well that it would result in changes so that large rural
ridings such as that occupied by the hon. member for
Bellechasse-I could name a whole host of others in this House,
but he is here, he was on the committee, he knows the
argument-would be enlarged enormously to fill it up with more
people to get it closer to the provincial quotient in numbers and
other ridings in big cities would be cut up and divided into
smaller units. More ridings would move to the cities than there
are now and there would be fewer rural ridings in Canada.
I am surprised that hon. members opposite, largely from rural
parts of the country themselves, are supporting this kind of
amendment. I know their hope lies in winning additional seats in
other parts of Canada, but I know perfectly well their hope lies
in rural Canada. If they cannot win seats there, they are going to
be in difficulty.
Mr. Duhamel: They are in difficulty.
Mr. Milliken: My hon. colleague says they are in difficulty,
and he is right on that score.
The second argument they had was that the House was getting
too big and they wanted to stop this House from getting any
bigger. They said 295 was ample. Some of them wanted to cut it
back. There was disagreement on how far it should be cut back,
but they wanted to cut it back.
14281
The government and the members of the committee agreed
that 301 was not too many and we have agreed to go along with
the existing law. So we have proposed no change in the
Constitution or in the rules relating to the size of the House and
we have left it at 301 members, which is what the number will be
after the next election, whether this act passes or not.
Let us see what their leader says about how you fix meetings.
He said this is one of the things you have to do to preserve party
dignity: ``If you think it's going to be that type of meeting, get as
many sane, sober people there as possible. Overwhelm the kook
element.'' We are only following his leader's advice. We are
going to try to expand this House to overcome the kook element.
That is the aim. We are going to try to create another five or six
seats, fill them with good Liberals, and overwhelm the kook
element in the opposition-and I do not mean the official
opposition.
That is just one of the things his leader said. He said more.
There is a lot more. This man is productive.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am very curious
as to whether the hon. member referring to us over here as the
kook element is denigrating our position and impunging our
honour. I would ask him to please retract that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Certainly any member
can retract anything upon the request of another member, but
respectfully I must say to the House that is not a point of order.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I did not think the member would
be offended; I was only quoting his leader.
I want to quote the hon. member for Calgary Southwest again.
He also said ``Every political party has a few bad apples''. I
think he was right, but I will not throw stones.
The member obviously holds politicians in very low esteem.
The hon. members opposite say they do not want to have 301
seats because it would increase the number of politicians, and
they say that Canadians do not like politicians. I do not know
about the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the
hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, the
hon. member for Bruce-Grey, the hon. member for St.
Boniface, the hon. member for London West. All of these people
are not unpopular in their constituencies. I know when they go
home they are greeted warmly. They are not regarded as
unwanted politicians. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest and some of the members of his party feel they are
unpopular and therefore think politicians are unpopular. It does
not follow. Some are, but I know many who are not. Many of my
colleagues on this side of the House are very popular.
Let me read what the hon. member for Calgary Southwest said
about politicians: ``What's the difference between a politician
and a catfish? One is a slimy, wide-mouthed bottom feeder and
the other is a fish.''
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Milliken: I knew hon. members opposite would applaud
that one. As my hon. colleague from St. Boniface said,
obviously they are intellectuals.
(2145)
If the hon. member for Calgary Southwest holds politicians in
such low esteem, I can understand why he and his colleagues do
not think there should be any more in the House. I assure him
that my constituents and the constituents of my friends-
An hon. member: You are exhibit a.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member suggests that I am an exhibit.
I do not think that is quite fair.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is well
regarded in his constituency. I know; I have been there. In St.
Boniface the hon. member is very well regarded. In Bellechasse
I have no doubt the hon. member is well regarded.
For the member for Calgary Southwest to speak this way
about the profession that he now claims to profess and to refer to
his own colleagues in this way is unfair and unjust. Hon.
members opposite deserve a better defence and I am prepared to
defend them from the ravages of their own leadership.
Having said that, let us turn back to Bill C-69. The bill, after
all, represents an honest attempt by the government and by
members of the House. The House is dealing with a bill that has
been approved by the membership of the House in a committee.
As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said in
his remarks earlier, this is the first time the House has come up
with a bill that has been created or drafted from scratch by a
committee of the House. It was agreed to in the committee.
I know the hon. member for Calgary West said in his remarks
in the debate on the bill the other day that this was their fourth
and fifth choice, that they went along with it only because we
rejected choices one to five. All of us had choices we wanted on
different things rejected in different ways. We all settled and
made compromises. That is the way committees work.
I do not know where the hon. member comes from when he
thinks a committee goes the way of only one person. I was only
the chair of the committee so I did not even have a vote. I accept
the work of the committee as good, solid work. I think it was
fair. I think it was reasonable. The hon. member opposite was
there. He knows it was reasonable. The hon. member for
Bellechasse knows it was reasonable.
When the bill came back to the House, when the government
introduced the bill, it had reasonable support. I know hon.
14282
members complained about it. Of course it did not have
everything in it that they wanted. They are members of an
opposition. They are paid to be here to oppose. So they did what
any opposition would do and opposed it. I have been in
opposition before. I know how it works.
Let us face the facts. The bill was a reasonable compromise
reached by the members of that committee working together. I
think we worked extremely well together. We came up with a
reasonable proposition.
Now we have this loud criticism going on night and day,
especially from the Reform Party, spouting absolute nonsense in
respect of the bill. The extraordinary thing is that they have had
to do it on the basis of Senate amendments when they know
perfectly well the Senate amendments are not ones the
committee agreed to. The committee considered almost every
one of the Senate amendments in one form or another in the
course of its deliberations, rejected those changes in the law, and
came up with something different.
The Senate is trying to take us back to the same old law we had
before. The Senate amendments proposed in the notice that was
sent to the House effectively gut the bill of any significant
change over the existing law. Hon. members opposite know that
is not what the committee agreed to. They wanted changes in the
law. They did not get everything they wanted but they got a good
number of changes that were quite reasonable. We all agreed to
the changes. For the most part they are good changes and
reasonable changes. We should support them and tell the other
place that is the case.
Hon. members opposite like to complain about the use of
closure in this debate. They have not said a lot about it. Nor
should they because we are getting toward the end of a session.
An upcoming summer vacation is specified in the rules where
members will have a recess from the House and will go to do
work in their constituencies. I am looking forward to the
opportunity to do some work in my constituency. I am sure hon.
members opposite are doing exactly the same.
(2150)
When we get to the end of the line and are running out of time,
the government is trying to get its legislative agenda through
and has adopted measures with respect to arranging the time of
the House to ensure the legislative agenda is adopted. The
government has various tools at its disposal.
Hon. members opposite could get up and quote chapter and
verse on the evils of time allocation and probably on the evils of
closure. As a member of the opposition I opposed those
applications in years past. However I can say to hon. members
opposite that they do not know how lucky they are that they have
a Liberal government on this side of the House that is so
beneficent and so careful in its use of these tools.
I see the hon. member for Beaver River. She was here. None of
her colleagues was but she was. She knows that the former
government used closure and time allocation right, left and
centre with what can only be described as gay abandon. I should
also say that it was used by the previous government unilaterally
with no co-operation from anybody.
This government used closure today for the first time and with
reluctance only because members opposite would not make any
arrangement to dispatch this business expeditiously. It is quite
reasonable to apply it. Look at the difficulty they are having
filling the time with speakers tonight.
With respect to time allocation we have used it in almost
every case with full co-operation of the opposition. In other
words we have not used it unilaterally. We have done it with
co-operation from opposition members. They know organizing
the time of the House is important to the orderly conduct of
business. They know we have an interest in seeing that bills are
passed in a timely way, and that when debate has come to a
logical end and it has gone on for too long it is time to bring it to
an end and to reach a decision in the House.
I spoke on this issue last week when the time allocation
motions were moved and carried in the House with a substantial
majority of the members. Only the Reformers and a handful of
Independents were voting the time allocation process adopted in
the House. The time allocations we allocated on the bills were
reasonable. On this one we could not get agreement but closure
was a simple, short way to dispatch this item of business.
Hon. members opposite know in their heart of hearts that they
want the bill passed. They want the Senate to back off on these
amendments and get on with life. They prefer to get the
amendments in but they know if we agreed to their amendments
tonight they would be standing here screeching at the Senate to
pass the bill tomorrow.
The hon. member for Calgary wags his head but he knows
perfectly well that is the case. He would not be supporting the
amendment otherwise. He wants these amendments if he can get
them.
I remind hon. members opposite-and I thank the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for this point-that
we have even had support from members of the Reform Party on
time allocation when there were bills they wanted passed.
We have not used time allocation unilaterally very often. In
fact it has been extremely rarely. The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster keeps a little list and marks it down
every day it is used. It is not a long list but he has it there. I invite
him to count how many times it was used unilaterally. In almost
14283
every case it was done with the co-operation of one or the other
of the opposition parties.
An hon. member: It is a new rule.
Mr. Milliken: It is not a new rule. Standing Order 78(2) has
been in the rule book since 1969 when it was passed. It is just
that it has not been used before. Governments have usually acted
unilaterally and we fought that when we were in opposition.
We are in a different situation. It is a different kettle of fish at
the moment. We are getting co-operation from one party or the
other because the parties opposite realize that for the orderly
conduct of public business it is sometimes necessary to fix
times. That is exactly what we have done. We have done it fairly
and we have done it in a way that could not lead to any
complaints from hon. members opposite despite the screeches
of horror we hear so regularly.
I urge members of the House to vote against the amendment,
to vote for the government motion rejecting these amendments
in the other place and to urge the other place to pass the bill with
dispatch so that we can get on with drawing proper electoral
boundaries for all the constituencies in our great country.
(2155 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak on Bill C-69 respecting changes to
electoral boundaries.
The arrogance and the lack of integrity that have been
displayed by the government, particularly over the last couple of
weeks, are absolutely astounding to me, the Reform Party and
all Canadians. In true Grit fashion the Liberals have had the
nerve to campaign on a theme of restoring integrity to
government. Yet the government's arrogance is increasing while
its integrity is decreasing. The government's lack of
competence is appearing in more and more areas.
The defence minister, the heritage minister, the health
minister and the minister of Indian affairs are seriously
mishandling their portfolios. The human resource development
minister has caused a complete collapse in the social reforms
promised in the red book.
Speaking of promises in the red book, let us for just one
moment take a look at some of the promises in the red book that
the Liberals talked so much about during the election campaign.
Did they not promise to base key federal appointments solely on
the competence of the person rather than on patronage? That
promise is routinely broken on a weekly basis.
Was it not the Liberal government that said in the red book
that it promised not to alter federal-provincial transfers without
the full co-operation of the provinces? That was broken by the
introduction of the Canadian social transfer in the recent budget.
Was it not one of the cabinet ministers, the Deputy Prime
Minister as a matter of fact, who said that she would resign if the
GST was not replaced within one year? Shamelessly that
promise was broken on October 25, 1994.
There were more promises. There are sheets and sheets,
literally miles and miles of promises the Liberal government has
broken over a short period of time. In a mere 19 months it has
broken promises to the Canadian people.
The arrogance of the Liberals is clear in their coercive
treatment of individual MPs, forcing them to vote against the
wishes of their constituents. Can we imagine? The Prime
Minister even congratulated those members for toeing the party
line. For goodness' sake, if we were not elected to this place to
represent our constituents, what were we elected for?
More examples are the Liberal's sexual orientation bill, the
gun registry bill, and the disappointing changes to the MPs gold
plated pension plan. They have all been torpedoed through the
House. The use of time allocation and closure effectively
limiting debate in the House is as prevalent as it was in the
government before.
The Liberals should be absolutely ashamed of what they have
done to parliamentary democracy. They are not governing with
integrity. We have seen conflicts of interest, unethical
behaviour, broken promises, arrogance and incompetence. The
confidence of the people in the government is decreasing as the
integrity of the government decreases.
Let us take Bill C-69 as an example. This piece of legislation
has cost the taxpayer some $6 million so far. That is the amount
of money needlessly spent on previous federal electoral
boundaries commission proposals. These were scrapped by the
government in Bill C-18 because a number of Liberal members
disliked the new maps. Now the whole process is being redone in
their favour under the guise of Bill C-69.
(2200)
To obscure the real intent of Bill C-18, this government put
forward a motion which initiated this bill. It asked the
procedures and House affairs committee to examine methods of
capping or reducing the size of the House of Commons, to
improve the process by which the boundary commissioners are
selected, to consider how boundary commissioners conduct
their work and examine the involvement of the public.
If this bill capped or better yet reduced the number of
members of Parliament in the House of Commons, then the $6
million lost by scrapping the previous commission and its
proposals could have been justified. The cost savings could have
14284
been much more than the $6 million already spent on the
previous commission's proposals.
Sadly and in true Grit fashion, this government has shown its
usual contempt for the taxpayers of this country. The
government did not address the most fundamental reason it
claimed for reinitiating the whole process. The government
failed to reduce the already excessive and growing number of
members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons. This
bill has been rendered utterly useless in the face of the $6
million which is removed from the pockets of hard working and
tax paying Canadians.
Worse still, contrary to all logic, the government actually
intends to increase the number of members in the House of
Commons from 295 to 301. This will cost the Canadian
taxpayers millions in additional salaries, staff costs and how
about travel expenses? Of course, something the Liberals do not
like talking about very much is the lavish gold plated MP
pension benefits which they will receive. We only have to worry
about that if there are any members opposite left here after the
taxpayers vote in the next election.
In addition to the extra cost this bill imposes on Canadians by
increasing the size of the House of Commons, new commissions
will need to be struck to redo what the commission scrapped by
this government has already done. Judging by the last
commission, this will cost taxpayers at least another $6 million,
maybe more.
Many Canadians have questions, as do I. Why has this
government shown such contempt for the taxpayers? Why does
the government fail to cap or reduce the number of members of
Parliament? The answer is obvious. It is very clear. Self-interest
of course. The interests of the voters and taxpayers were set
aside so that no Liberal members would have to voluntarily give
up their seats when the numbers were reduced.
This example of arrogant self-interest will backfire when the
taxpayers get the opportunity to vote in the next election.
Liberal members need not worry. They will not have to
voluntarily give up their seats because they will be booted out of
this place by the seats of their pants in the next election.
Liberal arrogance and incompetence reared its ugly head
before this bill even made its way to the committee. The
government actually intended to include a schedule of special
ridings exempt from having their boundaries adjusted by the
future electoral boundaries adjustment commission.
(2205 )
This is laughable. It is not funny but it is laughable. What a
tool that would have been. Imagine the Liberals manipulating
the system by creating safe seats. Even though the schedule was
dropped in committee, the arrogant attempt to create safe seats
shows that the Liberals are running scared. They know what is
going to happen to them in the next election.
Whatever happened to the red book promise to govern with
integrity? We all know the Liberal red book's title ``Creating
Opportunity'' and what that stands for. Unfortunately the
Liberals left out the subtitle: ``for deception, hypocrisy and
greed''.
During committee and at report stage the Reform Party
offered a number of amendments to the government which could
have salvaged the bill. The government could have succeeded in
making the bill workable and productive. It could have
succeeded in making this bill worthwhile for the taxpayers.
However, the constructive amendments were rejected by the
government.
Bill C-69 then went to the Senate where a number of our
concerns were again raised. It was returned to the House from
the Senate with a number of constructive amendments. For
example, the Senate amendment to reduce the allowable size of
deviation from a provincial electoral quota of 25 per cent to 15
per cent is well worth supporting and has been raised a number
of times by the Reform Party.
A deviation of 25 per cent is totally unacceptable to
Canadians. The creation of ridings which could actually vary by
50 per cent is not only unfair but is undemocratic as well. A 15
per cent deviation would promote the equality of vote for each
Canadian while at the same time allowing the boundary
commissioners sufficient flexibility when drawing up new
boundaries. Despite the constructive amendments offered by the
Senate, this piece of legislation will still be lacking.
Bill C-69 fails to address the supposed intent of the motion
put to the procedure and House affairs committee which was to
reduce or cap the number of ridings in Canada. The House of
Commons will needlessly swell to a size taxpayers need not and
should not support. At a time when it is urgent to cut the fat and
bloat we see everywhere in government, there is absolutely no
excuse for putting forth legislation which would make the House
grow. This is not in tune with the people of Canada or the
finances of the country.
It is appropriate to remind hon. members opposite that
Premier elect Mike Harris handily defeated the Liberal Party in
part because he promised to reduce the size of the Ontario
legislature.
This government could partly make amends to the people of
Canada by letting this unnecessary and counterproductive
legislation die. If nothing else, it would save the Canadian
taxpayer $6 million. I urge all members to vote against Bill
C-69.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate for
some time. I was interested in the comments offered up by the
14285
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and by the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands. Back in British Columbia
we call some of the comments which were made symptoms of
the Ottawa disease: no substance but a lot of cheap political
gamesmanship, and this from veterans in the House who could
pursue much more productive avenues.
The bill we are discussing tonight was not produced by all
parties, as those members well know. We co-operated, which is
our norm and we filed a dissenting report. We heard in typical
style that this bill will be adopted. One of the problems with this
House is that the results are a foregone conclusion when we see
the stubbornness with which these bills are approached.
(2210)
This is the fourth time I have spoken in public on Bill C-18,
the forerunner to this bill, on Bill C-69 today and indeed on
another occasion to the electoral boundaries commission in
British Columbia. This dates back to February 9, 1994, March
21, 1994, May 26, 1994 and again today.
I must say that when members of the public ask me what is
transpiring in terms of the whole electoral boundaries situation,
there is a natural tendency to try to not talk about it because
everything has become so complex, unravelled and intertwined.
There is a great deal of uncertainty among everyone as to where
we are going on these boundaries and when the changes, if there
are going to be changes, will actually take place.
It is important to dredge up the history behind all of this and
why we stand here tonight in this circumstance. We have to
explain a little bit of that history to understand what is going on
here.
One thing was of concern to me last year and is still very much
at the forefront of my thoughts. The whole initiative to kill the
electoral boundary redistribution process started in Ontario. It
had got up a head of steam so that Bill C-18 was being drafted
before British Columbians had even received their original
electoral boundaries report to know where their proposed
boundaries were.
This is typical of how many regions of the country feel left out
and manipulated by what goes on in Ontario or in central
Canada. It is worth repeating that there is no necessity in this
issue. It was not an issue in the campaign. It was not an issue
after the campaign. It is not in the Liberal red book, the dead
book.
This bill continues to do one thing and one thing only. It
responds to the desires of politicians to draw lines on a map. The
Ontario MPs are trying to kill the boundary redistribution
process. As I said before, they were trying to do that before the
B.C. report was even out. This process has been in effect every
decade since 1867 during the time of Confederation. It has been
tied to the census. There was no public outcry. The outcry does
not exist.
Mr. Milliken: There was in 1986, it was changed then.
Mr. Duncan: Phone the electoral boundaries commissions
that were in place at the time. Phone the chief electoral officer
and ask him if there was a public outcry. There certainly was not.
There is self-interest in this issue and that is what it is all about.
What do I do to tell my constituents where we sit on this
electoral boundary redistribution process? Confusion reigns
supreme because of government actions. There is confusion
over timing and confusion over the role of the Senate. There is
uncertainty as always over when the election date is going to be
and when these things are going to kick in.
(2215 )
Is the original motivation of government, of this
administration, still the same today as it was last February? It is
a good question; we do not know. When does government
embarrassment kick in? I do not know if the government ever
gets embarrassed. When does the government want to end the
uncertainty? I thought that day would come sooner than it
appears it will.
Listening to the debates tonight one thing is very clear. What
was a non-partisan exercise to realign constituency boundaries
has already deteriorated into a partisan political exercise in
Parliament. That is really not what we should intend.
I hope we can separate the whole process at some point into
boundary adjustments and the question of how many members
there should be in the House. Those two issues became a part of
this last exercise when in my view they should be quite separate.
If we had left the original redistribution process the way it was
and taken an all party committee to look at the number of
members for the next exercise we would have been in very good
shape.
It may be two years from the next election. When will Bill
C-69 ratification lead to a final resolution? I cannot answer that
question and I do not think anyone else can at this point.
This whole exercise has been political football and now the is
government trying to save face by continuing this charade. It
would have been better to drop it at this point. The government
has wasted time, money and the goodwill of members to keep a
few disgruntled government members happy.
We have debated in numerous readings, we have gone to
committee, we have had dissenting reports and now we have six
Senate amendments before us and our constituents have lost the
thread to this rapidly unravelling bad novel.
I felt strongly in March 1994, as I did on February 9, 1994
when once again I protested politicians' drawing lines on maps.
I will talk about Amendment No. 1 the deviation quota. This
amendment reduces the allowable size of deviation from a
provincial electoral quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.
Reform can support this amendment. From the outset we called
for an allowable maximum variance of 15 per cent to ensure the
14286
primacy of the equality of voting power over sociological
considerations.
Elections Canada had reported 51 of the 295 existing ridings
exceeded the current permissible population variances.
Legitimate concerns were expressed by the Reform Party that
this situation could be compounded in light of population shifts
between redistributions. The bill still allows for deviations
greater than 15 per cent in special circumstances.
Amendment No. 2 deals with non-judicial commission
members. When the bill was drafted this clause was probably
left out in error. Adding the requirement for the two
non-judicial commission members to be resident in the
province for which the commission is established does make
sense; who better to monitor and recommend boundary changes
than those from the province concerned? The Reform Party can
support this amendment but overall does it really improve the
bill? Does it really change or improve the existing process
enough to warrant discarding the redistribution process that is
almost complete?
(2220)
Amendment No. 3, the 20-member factor to challenge the
Speaker's appointments to the boundary commissions, is an
indefensible amendment in our view and we oppose it. These
appointments are not under parliamentary rules a ruling by the
Speaker. It may cause the Speaker a little embarrassment but
little else. It hardly can be construed as a non-confidence
motion in the Chair. It is turf protecting and is adding a political
element to a supposed non-partisan apolitical function.
The Senate amendment does not take the House of Commons
dynamic into account. The Reform Party views the ability to
challenge appointments as an improvement over the current
process when the Speaker's appointments cannot be challenged
and therefore can be influenced by government.
If we could have maintained this challenge option, I dare say
before appointments were made the Speaker would surely have
consulted with all parties in the House.
Amendment No. 4 is a trigger based on population shifts. This
Senate amendment eliminates the use of a trigger based on
population shifts to determine whether a boundary commission
must be established in a province. We oppose this amendment.
Already under Bill C-69 the Speaker and the chief electoral
officer can order a redistribution where one has not been
automatically triggered. To say the least, this elimination of a
trigger is perplexing. The trigger is largely a cost saving
measure and it is estimated the cost savings are substantial.
Some may argue there could be challenges to this section
under section 15 of the charter surrounding the quality element.
We view this as extremely remote because the Constitution
requires only an interprovincial deccenial redistribution, thus
the prevention of an intraprovincial redistribution would not
contravene section 51 of the Constitution. To me this is good
grounds not to eliminate the trigger.
Senate Amendment No. 5 deals with eliminating the provision
that a commission will only recommend changes to existing
electoral district boundaries where the factors set out are
significant enough to warrant such a recommendation.
The original intent of this provision was designed to
encourage the commission to give greater consideration to
existing boundaries. We can support this amendment because
for all intents and purposes existing or traditional boundaries of
electoral districts are also included for the commission's
consideration in the current definition of community of interest.
Amendment No. 6 deals with redefinition of community of
interest. Reform is opposed to this amendment because it calls
for a redefinition of community of interest using the Lortie
commission's definition.
Community of interest according to clause 19 would include
such factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries
of electoral districts, urban or rural characteristics of a territory,
boundaries of municipalities and Indian reserves, natural
boundaries and access to means of communication and
transport.
I ask why clause 19(4) currently contained in Bill C-69 is so
offensive. It is clear and gives clear direction to the boundary
commissions. While the Senate's proposed definition is
consistent with the recent Supreme Court decision, the
procedure and House affairs committee considered and rejected
this definition because it turns redistribution into an affirmative
action process.
This is not in keeping with the process that has been in place
since Confederation. We oppose this amendment also and that
concludes my remarks on this bill.
(2225)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at this rather late hour we are debating a bill that is
purely technical. I wonder whether people who may still be
listening would appreciate some information on the present
proceedings. There are not many of us here but that is not the
point.
We are discussing Bill C-69, which provides for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions. The bill is
of particular interest to Quebecers and in fact to all Canadians,
as we saw in the course of the debate this evening.
14287
The bill is of particular interest to people in Quebec because
at the report stage, we proposed an amendment that would
guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of
Commons. This amendment was voted on and defeated.
When we first arrived in the House of Commons, we voted on
a bill, C-18, which suspended the proceedings of the
commission which had started to review the electoral districts
under the legislation then in effect, on the basis of the 1991
census.
We went through the whole procedure to pass this legislation,
and now we have Bill C-69 which must be approved before
tomorrow midnight, if the new legislation is to come into force.
In this area, as in so many others, as we saw recently in the case
of the CRTC and satellite television, we may end up with a new
legal debate.
If Bill C-18 is once again in effect on June 22 because the bill
before the House today has not been passed by the Senate,
according to the parliamentary House Leader who has his own
interpretation of the facts, we will have a problem because we
will have to find out which legislation will be in effect on June
26: the one that was in effect before or the new legislation, when
it is passed by the Senate? That is a legal argument we can look
forward to.
What is difficult to understand in this process is the
government's agenda. The bill was tabled, and we worked
together on this bill, as the government's chief whip pointed out.
In fact, the hon. member for Bellechasse contributed his
expertise to make this bill as good as it could be.
But in the end, we had to vote against the bill, unwillingly, but
the government refused to concede on one thing we considered
essential: the guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats.
The bill went to the Senate. The senators are appointed, not
elected. They come from the regions. They met and tried to find
something that could be changed in the bill, with the good
intention, no doubt, of improving it. When we look at some of
the amendments from the Senate, we wonder how these people,
who in principle are supposed to represent the various regions in
Canada, could propose an amendment like the one to change the
variation in the quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.
To put this in concrete terms, suppose there was an average of
100,000 voters in Quebec ridings, the bill provides that the
number could grow to 125,000 or drop to 75,000 in a riding
because the variation can go 25 per cent either way.
(2230)
The Senate, for its part, suggested that this quota should be
reduced from 25 to 15 per cent. As you can well understand,
such an approach could not have been worse for regional
representation. This bill came back from the Senate with six
amendments. At first, the government said, ``We will accept the
one amendment that makes sense''. An amendment to the
amendment was moved by our Reform colleagues, who
suggested that we approve a few others. But as far as the
substance of this debate is concerned, what is really interesting
to us, the people of Quebec, is that the message is very clear.
When they were in opposition, government members were the
first to demand 25 per cent representation for Quebec and to
express a willingness to guarantee such an outcome.
The statements made by the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, who insisted that Quebec should be
guaranteed 25 per cent of seats, are still fresh in our memory.
This is not the first time we point out that, when they were in
opposition, the Liberals advocated policies that were sometimes
very innovative in my opinion. However, now that they are in
power, they repeat the speeches made by those they used to
criticize when in opposition, and it could even be said that, in
some regards, they are going much further than the Tories would
have gone.
To us, the message is crystal clear: Quebec no longer has its
place in Canada. What they want is to turn Quebec into a
minority as quickly as possible, to reduce its representation as
much as possible, and they are not even interested in saying that
they want to keep Quebec in Canada. They are telling Quebec
that 25 per cent is too much. They will reduce its representation
as much as possible; they could not care less if some day Quebec
ends up with only 5 per cent representation.
In the end, the clear message from the government is that
Quebec is not welcome and that it can go on with its plans. On
the eve of the referendum, when we see that the government is
unable to send us a clear message, as our colleague from Mercier
reminded us, we may well ask ourselves where this is taking us.
If we look at what happened in history, I remember that the
Prime Minister recently stated that, ``If we continue like this,
the sovereignists will want to keep the name of our country,
Canada, for themselves''. Rest assured that you can keep that
name, even though you took it from us, as Canada first came into
being in Quebec.
At the very beginning, before Quebec took its name, it used to
be called Canada. So, you took our name. You stole it away and
said: ``We will turn it into a great country from coast to coast''.
Both my colleagues from Bellechasse and Mercier made
historical reviews, saying that, while it may not be fun to hear
historical reviews in this House, we need to be reminded that
Quebec is a founding people. We were here first. You came 200
years later. My ancestors were here before the British conquest.
This gives me a sense of belonging to this land. We first settled
in the province of Quebec, which was known at the time as
Canada. When Upper and Lower Canada were created, we were
on equal footing as two founding people.
14288
Did you know that this is what we would like to return to,
because the only way for us to continue to develop on this land is
by restoring somehow the balance that used to exist between
Upper and Lower Canada in numerical terms. These were two
distinct entities and one could not legislate for the other. They
settled their problems between themselves and even had the
decency to pay their debts. Debts were released and we started
over with a clean slate. Realizing that this did not work so well
and learning from this experience, another step was taken in
1867. And what we want to do now is basically the same thing:
have two equal people who recognize and respect each other as
such, two founding people. It is obvious that within Canada,
there are two nations: the Quebec nation and the nation of
Canada.
(2235)
So, let us have two separate countries. Then we can talk about
an economic and political union. After all, we will have things to
manage together in the process of starting from scratch again so
that you can have your country and run it as you wish. Never
again will you have to wonder what we want, since we will have
gone with all we wanted, and that is a country. That is what we
want.
Eventually, discussions would be bound to be held to sort
things out because to us it is very important, as a founding
people, to be able to deal with you on an equal footing.
You took the name; keep it, it is yours. Not everyone knows
this, but you also took the national anthem from us, lyrics and
music. That is right, both the lyrics and the music are from
francophone Quebecers.
There are people in Canada who are not aware of this
important fact. When Canada adopted the national anthem, one
of longest debates in the history of this House, the problem was
to agree on an English version of the ``O Canada''. It made for
very stormy debates. If there had been television back in those
days, we could watch how low members quibbled over how the
original ``O Canada'' should be translated into English.
People can even be found who think that we are responsible
for changing the words to the national anthem, when
translations were in fact adopted following these events. It is
obvious that the small favour we were asking was the assurance
that we would continue to carry a reasonable political weight, as
a form of recognition for all we had done for Canada. Do not
think, however, that we came here and did nothing for the
country. We helped build this country, we helped give it a top
notch image, a respectable image in the eyes of the international
community; we have contributed at least 25 per cent towards its
development, because we represent 25 per cent of the
population. But, at one point, we made up at least 50 per cent of
the population of Canada.
If policies which were fair towards both founding countries
had been adopted, if a dominant approach had not been taken in
order to crush us, under Lord Durham's policy for example, we
would not be where we are today. We would have been two
peoples who could have grown in ways we wanted to grow and
could have carved out the niches we wanted.
Therefore, our demand for 25 per cent representation was
entirely legitimate. Our demand was supported by a very, very
large consensus among politicians in Quebec.
It is safe to say, for example, that the Liberals from Quebec
who were in the House in 1992 and who are still in the House
today, want Quebec to be guaranteed 25 per cent of
representation. Therefore, if we add these Liberals, who are
government members, to the Bloc members, who are on this side
of the House, and to the Quebec Liberals, because, do not forget
that the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly,
Daniel Johnston, tabled the following motion: ``That the
National Assembly of Quebec reiterate its goal of maintaining
Quebec's representation at at least 25 per cent in the House of
Commons of Canada, and that it ask the Government of Quebec
to make representations to this effect''. A federalist, a Liberal,
Daniel Johnston, the leader of the opposition to the Government
of Quebec, asked the Government of Quebec to make such
representations to the Canadian government.
So we can say that all the elected representatives of the people
of Quebec, all the representatives of Quebec, in Quebec and
Ottawa, came to bring this message to Canadians who also
represent the people, asking them to grant us this representation
of 25 per cent. It was denied. For us, as the hon. member for
Mercier said, it was a very sad day.
(2240)
This bill is going to the Senate, to the other place. Personally,
I hope the senators do not intend to sit tomorrow or, if they do,
that they will take a long time to discuss the bill so it will not be
passed in time to supersede Bill C-18 which was passed last
year. That is the sad part for Canada, because the referendum
will be held this fall and we still do not know what the
democratic choice of Quebecers will be. So no gesture was made
to Quebec.
In a way, as a sovereignist, I am delighted. I will be able to
travel all over my riding all summer, and at all the political
meetings I attend during the referendum campaign, I will be able
to tell Quebecers that Canada does not want us. Canada is not
willing to make any concessions. Canada is not making any
gestures.
I think Quebecers will realize there is no future in Canada for
us and that we could never develop our potential in this country.
We were here first. We want to see a gesture of openness, of
sympathy for a people and a nation you say you want to keep in
this country. It seems to me that if the government wanted to
14289
show that it loves Quebec, it should have realized long ago that
what we wanted was a guarantee of 25 per cent.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in the debate tonight, but while we see this
place going round and round, let me interject this. In the real
world New Jersey has just scored and it is two to two with about
three and a half minutes left in the game, so stay tuned.
We are tied up in a ridiculous wrangle about changing
electoral boundaries. This has been going on for some time now.
In 1993 when the former government set up the electoral
boundaries commissions, as governments have done for many
years, the process kicked into place. It was during the 1993
election campaign that the commissioners started their work.
When they came out with the maps a year ago last spring, the
present government was very displeased with them and Bill
C-18 was put in place.
The question which anyone would ask is: Why was Bill C-18
initiated in the first place? We would not be here today debating
Bill C-69 if Bill C-18 had not been brought forward.
The process was proceeding without government
interference. The commissioners were chosen, the maps were
being redrawn and people were attending the public hearings.
That process was being carried out by the electoral boundaries
commissions. It was fair and democratic and there was no basis
for suspending it whatsoever at considerable cost to the
taxpayer. This whole exercise has cost millions of dollars.
Last spring, a year and a bit ago, shortly after the independent
commissions reported their findings and were preparing public
hearings on the boundary changes, the present government
blatantly interfered with the democratic process. Of course
government members would argue tonight that they did nothing
of the kind.
However, the maps were drawn by the original commissions
after the 1991 census. Those people said: ``Here is our best shot
at it''. Maybe they were not perfect. Who knows what the
community of interest and all these other geographic and
psychological boundaries are. However, the government said:
``Wait a minute'', and blatantly interfered with the process.
I am sure the government was under pressure from many new
Liberal MPs who were not pleased with the new electoral maps,
particularly where boundary revisions transferred blocks of
voters from one riding to another. Nothing to me is sadder than a
self-serving politician saying, ``Wait a minute. That is my
strong area that you are taking and you had better not do that''.
Territorialism is probably the most frightening thing that could
happen in the Chamber, when someone says: ``This is my
ground. This is my territory,'' and as we say in Beaver River,
``Keep your mud hooks off it''. That kind of attitude is
something that is becoming more and more prevalent, certainly
not just with Bill C-69 but with a government, as we have seen
in the last 10 days, that has said we know what is best for you and
you just like it or lump it. Unfortunately, many of the members
who are speaking up are going to have to lump it, and that is very
unfortunate.
(2245)
In the guise of opening the redistribution process for
fundamental review the government scrapped the maps
produced by the provincial boundary commissions and
introduced Bill C-18, which suspended the whole operation.
I just did my spring tour in my riding. People asked me, where
is this anyway? Is it cancelled? Is it going forward? Are the
maps good? Are they no good? What is happening? I tried to
explain to them that the government actually put this process on
ice for exactly one year and now it is coming up with other
legislation and if it does not get royal assent by the magic day of
June 22, which is about 48 hours from now, then that whole
process that we wasted all this time and money on, Bill C-69,
gets scrapped and we go back to the original.
If anything is confusing for us, it is that process. How in the
world are we supposed to tell people across the country the facts
and the figures and what actually is going on? It is just
absolutely ludicrous.
These commissioners last spring were told ``You're on ice''.
You know that feeling, Mr. Speaker. ``You're on ice. Hang on to
it for a year and we will let you know next June 22 if your work is
going to be of any use or not.'' It is ridiculous. Those
commissioners felt disappointed, they felt disillusioned. They
thought: ``What about all this work? I was being paid good
money for my work.'' It just seems as though it was all for
nought.
Many of the witnesses who came in good faith and drove
miles in our rural ridings thought the process was going
somewhere, that they were really participating in democracy,
only to be told, ``Sorry, that's on ice. We'll let you know next
June 22 if anything in fact is going to happen.''
Following a one-day debate in the House of Commons the
government imposed that ``the question be now put'', thereby
suppressing any further debate and smothering democracy one
more time. Here we are today, the democratic process again
being thwarted.
Mr. Speaker, you and I sat in the last Parliament and watched
government members then, the Conservatives, bringing in time
allocation and sometimes they got really scandalous and just
brought in actual closure, and my friend from Kingston and the
Islands said that it was ``scandalous'' and of course ``rubbish''
14290
and finally he said ``This is morally wicked for a government to
do this''.
What in the world is the difference between this side and three
sword lengths across the aisle? It is three big steps. What ever
happens to the psyche that goes from here, saying it is morally
wicked, to all of a sudden on that side saying ``We are
government and we do have things that we need to get through
for the Canadian public''?
I do not see any benefit to the Canadian public in this bill,
quite frankly. What I see are self-serving politicians who say
``We want it this way because I'll keep my good polls and you
can give the lousy polls that don't support me very much to
somebody else''.
This process has gone on for a year. Last July these
committees sat during the summer recess. They heard witnesses.
It has just been chatted among us here and it is unanimous; you
may find it surprising, but we decided that this whole exercise
has been pointless. Frankly, there has been no positive outcome
on it for anybody. I do not think these MPs are going to be a
whole lot better off in the next election, regardless of what their
boundaries are, if they keep behaving this way. It will not matter
what the boundaries are, folks. It will not matter what the
boundaries are one bit if people are disgusted and they say ``You
in your lofty positions on Parliament Hill, if you don't listen to
us, you will go the same way the Conservative Party went in
1993''. And no member in this House should think they will not
do it. They did it in 1993 and they are prepared to do it again in
1997, with every opportunity that they see for this arrogant
behaviour, keeping people here until all hours of the night,
ramming legislation through 48 hours before it is actually due.
It has been a total waste of time. It has kept people flying back
and forth to Ottawa. It has been an incredible waste of money. It
has taken so long to do. This partisan manoeuvring and
meddling are why we are here tonight to debate this bill.
The odd person is snorting across the aisle. I suppose that is
fine for them. What they are forgetting is that there are real
voters out there. We are not just talking about people in the
Chamber and then all the rest of the people out there. People are
not dumb. After the Charlottetown accord, which I have
mentioned so many times in here, people are not going to put up
with this kind of nonsense from politicians any longer. It is as
simple as that.
(2250)
Bill C-69 will go the way of the dodo bird for all those people
who are running on these new boundaries that are supposed to be
sacrosanct and supposed to save their seats. SOS-``save our
seats''-is what this government is talking about. It is not going
to happen.
This is blatant interference in what is supposed to be a
democratic and non-partisan process. If ever I have seen
anything that is partisan, it is certainly to say: ``We know what is
best for you. Father knows best. The House leader, the whip, the
Prime Minister know what is best for you''. It is interference.
And Mr. Speaker, you know better than any of us in this
Chamber that when there is interference there ought to be a
penalty, for sure.
My guess as to why the electoral boundaries readjustment
process was suspended is that the Liberals did not like some of
the results in the last federal election. If we look at the numbers,
not the theory, it is interesting what happened, especially in
Ontario. While we are here in the province of Ontario tonight,
we might as well have a look at some of those results. My friend
from Ontario would be interested.
The Reform Party came second in 57 out of the 99 ridings. My
friend from Broadview-Greenwood knows that. He has
probably also added up that in 25 of those ridings the PC and
Reform vote combined would have defeated the Liberal vote.
That is rather interesting. That starts getting into the actual
numbers of this and the hidden reason why so many people are
demanding that their ridings become safe.
Across the country the combined PC and Reform vote
defeated the Liberal vote in about 100 ridings. If you add that up
you realize that only 130 Liberals would have been elected. That
would have been a minority government.
If it comes to another vote in 1997, I could refer my friends to
the corner over there, where the former government, for the first
time in Canadian history, was totally obliterated. That may well
happen again.
It has often been said that the Reform Party would split the
vote. Of course nothing could be further from the truth, because
those people are going to go for absolute, fundamental change
and democratization of this system, regardless of what my
friends in the governing party would say. This is democracy. It is
wonderful.
Closure is okay now that the Liberals are government, making
sure that their backbenchers fall into line or their nomination
papers will not be signed. That is the kind of behaviour people
are sick of and do not want to see any more.
The Reform Party has managed to get some improvements to
the redistribution process. The selection of boundary
commissioners is less partisan and subject to more public
scrutiny. That is a wonderful thing. That is a good move with
some of these amendments.
Under the changes that have been made, the role of MPs and
the redistribution process has been greatly reduced. As far as I
14291
am concerned, nothing is better than politicians' hands being
pulled out of any of these processes. There is nothing better than
politicians being yanked back from the process and not being
able to take part in it quite so self-servedly.
In provinces where significant population change has
occurred, the possibility of a five-year redistribution now exists
rather than ten years. I know my friend from York North has an
incredible population explosion. It seems wrong that he would
have to wait for ten years. There is also my friend from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. The population in the
riding she represents is incredible. To be able to do that on a
five-year span rather than ten years is probably really good.
Reform also pushed for a cap or a reduction in the number of
seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals rejected it at every
stage totally out of hand. As a result, this House will
immediately increase to 301 seats and continue to increase in the
future.
I ask anybody sitting in this Chamber tonight or watching on
TV, if they are not watching the hockey game, does this country
need more politicians?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: Liberals, yes.
Miss Grey: The answer is fairly clear, because there is a
direct correlation to the amount of noise on the government side
to the question.
If Bill C-69 receives royal assent by June 22, just 48 hours
from now, after tomorrow we celebrate the longest day of the
year, and nobody knows other than the people who sit in this
Chamber how long these days are getting.
If it gets at the new redistribution process, we will begin all
over again. We are going to start this dance again. Because of the
government's interference in the democratic process, here we
are almost two years later back to square one. Because of the
time the electoral boundaries readjustment process takes, the
new boundaries will not even be known until shortly before the
next election.
(2255)
With this process in place, we will have new ridings and new
riding associations. The question of course is where is the
money going to be split up between this riding and that riding?
How are they going to break up the bank accounts? Who is going
to run for nominations in these ridings? The answer: ``Your
guess is as good as mine''. That is ridiculous. You cannot be
prepared for an election, move ahead for an election, and
nominate candidates if you do not know the boundaries until just
a couple of months before the election is called.
This is the government that said it was going to restore
honesty and integrity to our political institutions. Canadians are
still waiting for that restoration of integrity. They are still
waiting for some of those promises in the red book to be
fulfilled. They are not waiting for a government that is going to
start ramming through time allocation, closure, and the attitude
of we know better than everybody else does. We have seen that
in this House, and we are going to see it again in 1997 if this
government does not get its act together, get these things on
their way, and quit wasting time and money. The people who are
paying the bills are disgusted with it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
probably have little time beyond giving my introduction, but I
do want to say something with respect to boundary reallocation.
What we are talking about is how many MPs we send to this
House, where they come from, what region they represent and
what their constituencies are. It reminds me of a story I read a
long time ago entitled ``How Much Land Does a Man Really
Need?'' It was a story about a man who, in almost a crusade,
spent his whole life amassing land. At the end of the story he
died and it was found that the amount of land he really needed
was a plot of about two feet by six feet.
I asked myself the question: How many MPs are really needed
in this place? I have come to the conclusion that we need 20
MPs. Those 20 would all be cabinet ministers. They would
decide what is done and the rest would be redundant. Members
may say that does not sound very good, but that is really the way
it is right now.
This is a government that promised more involvement for
members of Parliament. It is a government that promised more
meaningful work in committees. I have observed what happens
in committees. During the beginning we had some really good
debates, good honest give and take and some true negotiations.
However, when we came to the place where we were actually
voting on the clause by clause, these poor members from the
government side all came in with their little sheets of paper and
were told what to do. Even though prior to that I know from the
way they responded that I had persuaded a number of them on
different issues, they voted against them. When I asked several
of them why, they said ``Well, we don't really have a choice''.
That is deplorable.
If that is the way this government is going to work and that is
the meaning of more MP involvement then this whole exercise is
really an exercise in waste. Why should we even consider
increasing the number of members of Parliament from 295 to
301 when most of the members here are redundant in any case?
Added to that is the fact that we are also limited in the debate.
As a member of Parliament representing Elk Island, the only
way I can represent them and have their wishes influence the
decisions of government is through debate. When I debate I put
out my best arguments. I try to persuade the other members to
14292
my point of view. We actually experienced this in one of the
committees in which I participated, where there was a closure
right in committee and we were not permitted to debate. Even if
I were able to debate and persuade, if members are not given the
freedom to represent their constituents, as is the practice with
this present government, there is no point in having them.
(2300 )
My conclusion is very simple: The move of this government
to increase the number of members of Parliament is truly an ill
conceived notion. It is one that should not even be thought of
until it is decided that members of Parliament will be allowed to
truly represent their constituents. How deplorable of the Prime
Minister to praise the members of Parliament who defied their
constituents, who went against what even they believed, by
saying to them it was wonderful that they put that aside in order
to keep party unity.
This Parliament needs true representation of the wishes of the
people. If we had true free votes then surely there would be
meaningful give and take, meaningful debate, meaningful
negotiations on different points. We would eliminate and we
would amend those clauses of bills which were undesirable. We
would pass bills in amended form which would be good for the
country.
The way it is right now we end up with the lowest common
denominator. It is forced on us. We have absolutely no say in the
matter. I am speaking now of the Liberal backbenchers who are
not permitted to vote according to their consciences and
according to the wishes of their constituents. We need to
redefine the way Parliament works.
The Senate has sent Bill C-69 back. Of course we have a little
bit of a problem with the Senate because it is not elected, but the
Senate has in sober second thought come back with some
amendments to the bill, some of which we actually support.
This country has the potential for the best government
possible. If only we would in honesty and in clarity do away with
those aspects of our democracy that do not function properly.
We could replace them with a true representative democracy,
one in which we acknowledge that democracy works best when
the wishes of the majority are considered, when the common
sense of the common people by majority vote is brought into this
place, where each of us as members of Parliament can represent
that. If we find a consensus among the Canadian people for the
views that are being put forward because we represent them,
then certainly Canadians will continue to have a high regard for
law and order which we so desire.
A basic fundamental aspect of democracy is the willingness
of the governed to be governed. We are going to lose that if we
practise the arrogance of the kind of government we are
experiencing here where a small group of people simply impose
their wishes on everyone else by cutting off debate, not allowing
free votes, controlling and inhibiting the freedom of members of
Parliament. It is time that we clarified this. We must indicate to
the Canadian people that we are ready to make the needed
changes. This is urgent. Really urgent.
For example, while we are going down the tube at the rate of
$110 million a day, more and more people are no longer willing
to participate in the tax process. Why is that? Because the GST
was rammed through without the majority will of the people. It
was rammed through using exactly the same system which is
being used here tonight. Because of that we are losing between
$7 billion and $10 billion a year, and some estimate up to $40
billion to $50 billion per year, in unpaid taxes. People are saying
that if this government rams things through that the majority
does not concur with, they just will not concur in practice. That
is exactly what is happening.
We see the same thing in the justice system. Rules are being
passed that do not bear the majority of Canadian support.
Consequently there is no reflection in the laws of what the
people support. There is a reduced respect for it and this country
has an increasing amount of lawlessness and crime.
(2305)
The government got elected on its word that it would restore
integrity, give more meaningful work to members of
Parliament, and increase the importance of committees. The
government having been elected on those words is missing a
great opportunity by not delivering on them. It is a terrible thing
that the government is thumbing its nose at the people of Canada
by engaging in these practices.
I am appalled at the fact that the government persists in doing
things like pushing this bill through for purely political reasons.
There is no excuse that would warrant changing the political
boundaries simply because after the process had started, a
number of members felt they were being threatened.
If we wanted to do the honourable thing, we would say that
perhaps there is a problem. In order to provide for continuity and
stability in the political process, we would simply begin our
work and the rules which are presently in place would stay there
until the next election in order to remove the political
motivation from the process.
This is a tremendously important era we are embarking on.
The government talks about representing the people. It comes up
with that theme so often. Members of Parliament are saying that
if they have 25 per cent more in their ridings they will be unable
to represent them properly. With all due regard, those are empty
words from members of Parliament who persist in ignoring the
wishes of the very constituents they are concerned about. We
need to be honest about this. We need to do what we are sent here
to do, which is to represent our constituents.
14293
With respect to the bill before us, we would do well to give it
some serious second thought. We would do very well to think
soberly and carefully about the ramifications of it. With all of
the push and rush of the last few days I am not sure that we are
making good decisions.
I cannot believe that raking members of Parliament over the
coals as we have been doing for 14 hours a day yields any good
thought. It does not give us the best ability to think clearly.
Putting through bills such as the MPs pension plan without
looking at the long term effects of it and ramming through other
bills such as Bill C-41 and Bill C-68 have tremendous
implications to our population.
The government rams this through by saying: ``We are only
going to talk for so many hours and then we are going to vote.
You are going to vote the way you are told. We are the majority.
We will get it through''. That is not the way to provide good
democracy and good decision making.
Many members of this 35th Parliament will look back. They
will then recognize how grave the errors were because of the
lack of thought and the lack of integrity in the democratic
process. There is no adequate debate, no freedom to vote, so
what can we expect?
(2310 )
The only thing I can do as a member of Parliament is to try to
persuade. In most of the committees on which I sat there were
two and sometimes four opposition members, but there were
always more government members. If I wanted to get my point
of view across to influence a change in the legislation we were
contemplating I had to persuade.
I challenge government members to be brave, to stand up for
what is right and to put aside the years and years, almost a
century of a tradition which is taking us down the wrong road. I
challenge members of the Liberal Party, who in majority can do
whatever they want, to think independently in terms of what is
good for their constituents and what is good for Canada. Without
disrespect to their leader they should simply say: ``I stand on a
high principle. I will do what I know is right''. I am sure that if
members of Parliament from whatever party followed that
principle they would be applauded by the people who really
matter, the people who elected them.
On the other hand, I would probably be better off politically
speaking if I were to encourage Liberal members to continue to
do what they are doing. The more they do that the more cynical
Canadians will become and the more seriously they will think
about alternatives. Canadians had it up to here with the
Conservatives because of their arrogance. If we continue to have
this kind of behaviour from the Liberal government Canadians
will be more likely to look at an alternative in terms of a true
democratic system which will represent them.
I also want to say a few words to Bloc members and to the
Quebec members of the Liberal Party. These days we are facing
the challenge of having our country torn apart. A group of
people is saying that Canada as it exists no longer works and that
group wants out. Of course, they do not want to opt out of the
pension plan; they want to opt out of Canada but not out of the
pension plan. These people are saying that Canada does not
work.
It is an easy and simplistic response for the government to say
that it is Quebec's problem. It would be much more honest to
say: ``Let us look at what part of it is the Ottawa problem''.
When will the federal government wake up to the fact that the
people of Canada are tired of having somebody in distant Ottawa
controlling every aspect of their lives? It is no wonder that some
of them would come to that conclusion, although we disagree
with it.
All Canadians, not only the people in the west, or in Ontario
and eastern Canada, but also the people of Quebec should be
made an offer which says: ``Let us stay together in a democracy,
in a federation which truly works because the people who come
here to represent the constituencies are free to represent them''.
If we were to practise that and if we were to go back to the
principles of our Constitution, in which the members of
Parliament represent their constituents and guard the rights of
the provinces, we could all live together in harmony. We could
all survive, look after our own domains and do so very
efficiently. No one would be so disgruntled with the country that
he or she would feel it necessary to leave.
The electoral boundaries issue is but a symptom of a much
larger problem. We need to look at what is causing the problem
and correct that. It is in that area that we will maintain the unity
of the country.
(2315)
To all people in Quebec, and they may not have thought of this
before, I urge all in la belle province, to consider what we say.
We want to be one with them. We want to reconsider. We want to
look again at the Constitution of the country. We want to build it
in such a way that respect of all Canadian citizens is maintained
and that all provinces can live in Confederation in unity and in
harmony.
This bill is very important. I urge members to vote against it
so that it will die and we can look at this more seriously in a
better way later.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 57, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bill now
before the House.
14294
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 316)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Schmidt
Silye
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-34
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-170
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
14295
(2330)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, as I was absent for the first vote, I
would like my vote to be recorded for the next ones with the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
the main motion.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for the members who voted
on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
You will probably note as well, Mr. Speaker, that some
members who were not here for the first vote may wish to rise to
add their names to those who were here for the first vote.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unanimous
consent was sought and I do not give unanimous consent. I
would like a recorded vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House did not give its
unanimous consent.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 317)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
14296
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-92
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
(2340 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-89 an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian
National Railway Company under the Canada Business
Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares of the
company to the public, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division at the stage of third reading of Bill C-89, an
act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian National
Railway Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act
and for the issuance and sale of shares of the Company to the
public.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. Would you ask the
House if there is unanimous consent for the members who voted
on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House? If there is, Liberal members will
vote yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will be voting nay.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote nay,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the privatization
of CN there is no unanimous consent to apply the vote. We will
have another vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous
consent.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 318)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
14297
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-194
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-53
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11.54 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14297
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 425
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the
undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of
municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment
facilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity
to speak to my motion before the House today.
The motion deals with the need for the government to support
the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the
treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least
that of primary sewage facilities. The motion is about setting a
minimum standard right across Canada for sewage treatment.
As Canadians we often take for granted the vastness and
magnificence of our environment. As much as we struggle to
balance environmental with industrial and economic concerns
we hold our environment in high esteem.
(2355 )
Reform environmental policy supports the balance between
environmental and economic concerns and encourages
Canadians to develop, renew and conserve our resources and
environment to ensure the next generation inherits an
environment equal to or better than that which the last
generation received.
Essential to a clean and healthy environment are clean rivers,
oceans and water bodies. When our water bodies are threatened
with over pollution it hurts our environment, our fisheries, our
economy, tourism, industry and municipal growth.
14298
For these reasons municipal sewage facilities, set at a
minimum level of primary treatment, are essential to
maintaining and protecting our environment. That is why I am
introducing the motion today.
I will give some background on the state of sewage treatment
in Canada today to illustrate why the motion is necessary.
In most provinces the provincial government sets the standard
for sewage treatment and for disposal of municipal solid waste
and provides the regulatory function. Municipalities are
responsible for the actual treatment of sewage and for collection
and disposal of garbage. In 1993 approximately 57 per cent of
Canadians were served by waste water treatment plants. That
compares with 74 per cent for the Americans, 86 per cent for the
Germans and over 90 per cent for the Swedes. We are obviously
well behind.
Many cities have lagoon facilities which provide minimum
treatment. Waste water flows through the lagoon, allowing long
residence times for the settling of solids and the microbial
degradation of organic matter. This is basically a system where
raw sewage, less the solids, is dumped directly into the ocean or
water basin with no treatment. This is the system used in the city
of Victoria as well as in Halifax. We have the problem on both
coasts. I will discuss the objections to this system of dealing
with sewage later on.
Victoria is the only city from Alaska to the Mexican border
which still dumps untreated sewage into the ocean.
I will give a quick summary of the three types of sewage
treatment which include primary, secondary and tertiary
treatment facilities. Primary treatment, which I am calling for,
is the most basic stage of sewage treatment and is the minimum
level I propose in my motion. Primary treatment involves the
settling and chlorination stage prior to effluent discharge.
A more advanced stage of treatment is secondary treatment,
which uses an activated sludge process to hasten the rate of
waste water treatment. Large masses of actively growing
bacteria are retained in large tanks and fed waste water. High
levels of mixing and aeration facilitate microbial action.
Treated water then goes through a settling stage to remove the
micro organisms and is chlorinated prior to release to the
receiving body of water. Edmonton, Fredericton, Hamilton and
Winnipeg use this more advanced form of waste water treatment
on the majority of their municipal sewage.
Tertiary treatment is the most sophisticated form of water
treatment practised in Canada. An anaerobic microbial
fermentation step is added after the activated sludge process.
The final effluent is relatively clean and in desert areas such as
Israel is used directly for crop irrigation. Tertiary waste water
treatment is used in Calgary, Kitchener, London, Oshawa,
Ottawa, Regina, Sudbury and Toronto. In the maritime
provinces a large percentage of municipalities do not have any
sewage treatment and tertiary treatment is virtually
non-existent.
The annual volume of untreated sewage in this country would
cover the entire 7,800 kilometre Trans-Canada highway to a
depth of nine metres. That is a lot of you know what, Mr.
Speaker.
The effects of raw sewage dumping are being debated in cities
such as Halifax and Victoria, which both discharge sewage into
large water basins. In cities such as Regina, which dumps into
small rivers, the effects are potentially disastrous. Sewage
removes so much oxygen from the water that fish cannot survive
and decomposing sewage may render the water undrinkable.
(2400)
The government is in the process of major infrastructure
spending with funds initially targeted for projects such as
sewage treatment facilities, roads and water lines. Many towns
and cities remain without any sewage treatment while tax
dollars are being directed toward art centres and hockey rinks.
Where are the priorities?
The government has made some significant promises
regarding sewage treatment facilities in the country. The Liberal
red book states on pages 66 and 67:
One of the country's biggest sources of water degradation is untreated
municipal sewage, aggravated by decades of neglect of sewage and water
treatment infrastructure. A Liberal government would assist provincial,
regional, and municipal governments to finance new or renewed municipal
sewage and water treatment infrastructure. This federal commitment would be
conditional on municipalities encouraging water conservation and developing a
sound financial regime for infrastructure maintenance in the future.
Federal assistance to municipalities for sewage treatment has
been discussed in the House for over 25 years. In 1960
amendments to the National Housing Act provided for federal
aid for municipal sewage projects to be administered by the
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Up to two-thirds
of the cost of projects would be lent by the federal government.
Municipalities would have to repay only 75 per cent of the loan
if sewage work was completed by 1963.
The purpose of the 1960 legislation was to provide incentive
to make an early start on these problems while it was still
relatively inexpensive. Municipal sewage became an ongoing
problem with annual allocations of $50 million to $75 million
administered by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
The system was put into place 25 years ago, yet today Canada
remains with almost half of its residents without any sewage
treatment whatsoever. Now costs have skyrocketed. The longer
municipalities wait, the more expensive it will become.
14299
Despite efforts to date there are several reasons sewage
remains untreated in many areas. One reason is Canada's large
land mass and relatively low population which often mitigate
the need for expensive, centralized sewage treatment facilities.
Another reason for the low level of sewage treatment is that
many Canadian communities located adjacent to oceans and
large rivers discharge raw sewage directly into water bodies, as
in some cases the solution is to simply dilute the sewage.
In small amounts this may not harm the environment as
organic matter can supply nutrition to aquatic organisms and
benefit the fishery. However, once communities reach the
municipal size, primary sewage treatment should be a
requirement.
If we do not encourage a minimum standard of primary
sewage treatment we risk damage to the environment, tourism,
recreation, fisheries and health. In large amounts raw sewage
can devastate the area by drastically degrading water quality,
limiting dissolved oxygen levels, harming marine life, polluting
shorelines, removing areas from recreational use and
endangering human health.
The Liberal Party has recognized that a national waste water
program exists and has pledged financial assistance to
provincial, regional and municipal governments to finance new
or renewed municipal sewage and water treatment
infrastructure, but infrastucture spending is bypassing much
needed sewer upgrades.
For example, Halifax and Victoria are still without any
sewage treatment while at the same time government spent over
$12 million in infrastructure funds for improvements to the
Olympic Saddledome in Calgary and a hockey rink in Winnipeg.
In the big picture, basic infrastructure such as water and
sewage treatment clearly has to take precedence. It is time for
the government to renew its commitment to the public.
Infrastructure spending should be targeted to local
improvements which would benefit the entire community, not
just a select few.
Clearly the biggest problem is expense and we all know it.
There is no doubt that sewage treatment upgrading will require
additional funding. When we look at the environment,
environmental costs must be weighed with economic costs. In
many instances taking action will be far more economically
beneficial than the costs of the long term environmental damage
of doing nothing.
(2405)
Effective municipal waste treatment facilities are an
expensive proposition for any municipality as they involve the
provision of basic infrastructure as well as treatment facilities.
To counteract the cost, some cities such as the city of Toronto
have proposed user pay fees on sewage discharge. That is one
way to collect for the cost of cleanup and upgrading. It is one of
the many options that warrants consideration.
In deciding which areas necessitate primary sewage treatment
facilities, the environmental benefits of treatment must equal or
outweigh the environmental costs. I am not proposing that all
towns and cities undertake a program of primary treatment
because there are many towns that are too small to benefit from
sewage treatment programs.
For example, towns with small populations often do not
generate enough waste to necessitate sewage treatment
facilities. My proposal applies only to the minimum standard of
municipalities which by definition have a minimum population
of 1,000 residents.
Many studies have shown that secondary or tertiary forms of
treatment are not necessary in all cases. In Victoria, for
example, studies concluded that the treatment of waste water
discharge into the strait would provide no appreciable health or
environmental gain to the city or to the strait and that primary
treatment was all that was necessary. That is what I am calling
for in my motion.
Provincial governments have known about the bio-hazard of
municipal sewage for generations, but many choose to ignore
the problem. Concerns with the volume of minimally treated
waste water were first identified in 1975. Yet many
municipalities routinely fail to comply with permits on the
discharge of sewage from outfalls.
The Fraser River is B.C.'s most endangered watershed with a
sewage discharge amounting to 450 billion litres per year. If one
were to package the sewage into one-litre milk cartons and pile
them one on top of each other, a year's discharge would extend
to the planet Mars and back with enough left over for 100 side
trips to the moon. That is a lot of fertilizer.
Federal fisheries scientist analysed discharges from the
sewage outfall at Iona Island on the Fraser in 1985 and found
200 toxic substances, many of them persistent and some with the
ability to increase in concentration and toxicity as they migrate
up the food chain.
Other substances identified are associated with organ
damage, birth defects, cancer and second or third generation
reproductive collapse in both humans and wildlife. Obviously
these substances simply cannot continue to be dumped into the
Fraser. I am pleased to report that one of the larger infrastructure
projects of the government involves upgrading the Fraser
sewage treatment facility.
A report by the World Wildlife Fund said sewage plants in
Ontario and Quebec were receiving, along with billions of litres
of waste water, about 100 tonnes of industrial metals and
14300
chemicals each year. This discharge can cause serious damage to
the ecosystem and contaminate drinking water.
Provinces such as Ontario have been working on developing
effluent quality standards for sewage plants but nothing
concrete has developed to date. Six years ago the federal and
Nova Scotia governments agreed to deal with the untreated
sewage flowing directly into Halifax harbour. Concern was
raised seven years ago that the lack of sewage treatment
facilities in the harbour would have long term consequences on
the fisheries and on growth and investment in the metropolitan
area.
Over 30 million gallons of untreated sewage enter Halifax
harbour waters every day, with close to 20 per cent of this inflow
classified as industrial in origin. This has resulted in
documented levels of toxic contamination of the harbour waters.
This sewage and waste dumping into Halifax harbour present
health hazards on top of the aesthetic problems with the harbour
mired in sewage. The Nova Scotia government and Canada
entered into an agreement in September 1988 to upgrade
existing sewage infrastructure in the Halifax-Dartmouth area.
The agreement recognized that:
Even though the provision of municipal sewer services is fundamentally a
provincial-municipal responsibility, Canada and the province recognize that
the current state of sewage infrastructure in Halifax-Dartmouth is of urgent
concern and justifies assistance on the basis of a regional development priority;
and a significant portion of waste water is generated by federal facilities in the
Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area.
(2410 )
Some $200 million was set aside to build a sewage treatment
facility in Halifax, yet today the project is at almost a complete
standstill with over $20 million sunk into consulting and with
Halifax no closer to a primary sewage treatment facility. This is
where the G-7 conference took place.
Today the estimated cost has doubled to over $400 million,
twice that which was first estimated six years ago. The longer
we wait, the more expensive it will be.
Now the Nova Scotia government and the federal government
are wondering how it will come up with the extra money. After
several promises that this will be completed they appear to be
backtracking on their promises. Again I go back to the G-7.
Halifax harbour is but one example of the status of sewage
facilities throughout the country. It is now commonplace to hear
each summer which beaches are open and which beaches are
closed due to high concentrations of fecal chloroform. Now is
the time to deal with the problem.
In conclusion, I hope all members will support Motion No.
425 to undertake a country wide program of improving the
treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least
that of primary treatment facilities.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend my colleague for introducing this private
member's motion. It is a very important subject. We share the
feeling that this is a question of key importance.
I know my colleague is extremely concerned about matters of
the environment. However, at this time when friends are fewer
and fewer as days go by, we have almost completed an
infrastructure program. The federal, provincial and municipal
governments have joined together to launch a $6 billion
program, effectively to renew infrastructure including the
sewage systems in the country.
Whatever we do we cannot do by imposing ideas from the
federal government. It has to start at the municipal level because
sewage is a matter for municipalities to deal with and
municipalities are creatures of provincial governments. This is
why at the time of the election, in our red book, we decided to
join with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and with all
the provincial governments without exception to start a broad
infrastructure program.
The $6 billion infrastructure program has achieved sewage
treatment upgrades amounting to $2 billion in total. I will give a
few examples of various projects that are being carried on under
the program. In British Columbia, as the member for
Comox-Alberni pointed out, there has been a $206 million
upgrade projected of the Anascis Island sewage treatment plant;
one of $2.2 million in Sherwood Park, Alberta; one in the
Hamilton-Wentworth region of $25 million; one in
Chicoutimi, Quebec, of $7.2 million; one in Grand Falls, New
Brunswick; another one in Crossroads, P.E.I; another one in
Deer Lake, Newfoundland; and so on.
The irony of it is that the leader of the Reform Party at the
time of the election was quoted as saying:
Any politician who thinks he can stimulate a $700 billion GNP economy with
some sewer projects or $2 billion to $3 billion in public works will believe he
can start a 747 with a flashlight battery.
(2415 )
Therefore, with due respect, I think my colleague from
Comox-Alberni should speak to his leader and suggest that
sewer and infrastructure programs are key to the renewal of a
prosperous economy. In fact the Reform Party, in its own budget
plan, referred to physical and intellectual infrastructures on one
page. However, as I read through it, there is not one mention of
the environment or sewage projects. It mentions Canadian
highways, airports, information transmission systems, ports,
and railways, but not one word about the environment, sewage
or water treatment.
14301
It would seem to me that this is where it must start. If the
member wants to do something constructive he should start at
the level of his own party and persuade his leader to include the
environment, sewage treatment plants, and infrastructure
projects dealing with environmental needs in his future budget.
It is significant that during the infrastructure program the
following provinces spent the greatest part of their money
toward sewer upgrades and environmental projects. British
Columbia has spent as much as 75 per cent, amounting to $488
million. Sixty per cent of all New Brunswick's infrastructure
money went into environmental projects. In Newfoundland it
was 48 per cent, in Nova Scotia 62 per cent, in P.E.I. 60 per cent.
Admittedly, the other provinces spent a minor part of their
infrastructure moneys in sewer and environmental projects.
Even then, it is pretty significant. Alberta has spent 30 per cent
to date, Saskatchewan 32 per cent, Quebec 33 per cent, Yukon 27
per cent, and so it goes.
Mr. Caccia: In Ontario?
Mr. Lincoln: The figure for Ontario was only 16 per cent, and
in Manitoba it was 16 per cent.
Mr. Morrison: They fixed up the rinks.
Mr. Lincoln: Well they might have fixed up the rinks, but
they also fixed up a lot of sewer projects. In the member's own
riding I see that out of this infrastructure project the village of
Ucluelet, the regional district of Comox, Strathcona, Port
Alberni, and the village of Cumberland all realized sewer
projects with their infrastructure money.
What I think we have to do is support what we have already in
order to make it a better project and convince the member's own
party that the environment counts. When they redraw their
famous budget they should include the environment and sewer
projects.
I agree that work has to be done, but it will only be done when
we sit together with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
all the municipalities in the land and all the provinces so that
future infrastructure projects, if we can find the collective
money to put them together, will be geared firstly and hopefully
almost exclusively to environmental needs.
Admittedly a lot of money has been spent on road repair and
all other types of infrastructure projects, which were also
necessary. However, maybe we can agree in the future that
environmental needs will come first and foremost. In this I
would support the member 100 per cent.
What we must do is first of all ensure that what we have
already works and works well. What we have attempted here has
been a significant achievement to put together for the first time a
collective program of $6 billion at a very tough juncture for both
provincial and federal governments as well as for municipal
governments. It has been a big achievement, $2 billion spent on
environmental projects.
(2420)
I believe that we have the start of something constructive, and
I respectfully suggest to the member that this is a solution for the
future in what he is trying to do.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see
that the Minister of the Environment has managed to influence
the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. He speaks the
same language as the Minister of the Environment. He now
engages in petty politics.
It is with great interest that I rise tonight during private
members' hour. Motion M-425 put forward by the hon. member
for Comox-Alberni deserves a few minutes of consideration
since it deals with an issue that affects us very closely,
municipal sewage.
If I understand correctly, the purpose of the hon. member's
motion is to prevent municipal sewage from being dumped back
directly into the environment without undergoing at least
primary treatment, as the motion says.
I, for one, am totally in favour of this. Sewage must undergo a
minimum level of treatment. We no longer think that we can
flush our sewage directly into bodies of water without negative
consequences. We, unfortunately, did this for too long, and we
must now pay for our carelessness and stupidity. Today, we must
live with and clean up polluted lakes and rivers. Of course, at the
time, we thought that our hydrographic system could absorb a
certain amount of sewage. Perhaps it could, but did we have the
right to do this?
Since then, however, the amount of sewage has grown by
leaps and bounds, so to speak, and it now contains an increasing
variety of products whose long term effects are totally unknown.
At the present time, if we dumped all municipal sewage without
treating it, our hydrographic system would be totally devastated
and become unusable for no good reason.
Fortunately, some 30 years ago, I would say, we became
aware of how big the problem is. The small facilities then in
existence quickly became outdated and inefficient, even
obsolete.
It is then that it was decided, in Quebec in particular, to
modernize existing systems and build more sophisticated and
efficient equipment that could absorb and treat large amounts of
sewage.
Significant amounts were invested. Provincial funds and
municipal taxes were spent through specific programs. Of
14302
course, there were major flops. Some of the plants that cost a lot
to build did not live up to expectations. But on the whole, we can
say that it was a success.
Much work has been done and much money has been poured
into this since, but we are still far from being able to draw our
drinking water directly from our lakes and rivers or dip our big
toe into certain waters that bathe our urban or semi-urban areas.
In that regard, is it not somewhat paradoxical that we treat our
sewage before discharging it and have to treat water again
before using it?
That being said, it is clear that efforts are required in that area.
So far, all the efforts have come from the provinces and
municipalities.
Municipal sewage is therefore and undeniably an area of
provincial and municipal jurisdiction. So, when the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni talks about a country-wide
program and a minimum standard, I cannot help but wonder and
worry about what he wants exactly.
(2425)
Does he want the federal government to come and impose,
because of its spending power, standards in a jurisdiction clearly
belonging to other levels of government? If that is what he
wants, I think that he is mistaken. The federal government is
certainly no guarantee of a better environment. As media
reviews and environmental groups have been telling us
regularly these days, the federal government is backing off in
matters of the environment. It is cutting funding, abandoning
the Green Plan, showing its inability and blatant lack of
willingness to meet its own targets and failing to honour every
one of its international undertakings under various treaties.
In the face of this abdication, I think that the federal
government should stay in its backyard with respect to
municipal sewage. Not in my backyard, as the popular saying
goes. The government could nonetheless provide funding to
carry out this great plan of discharging clean sewage into our
waters. A resource envelope divided equitably among the
provinces would certainly help achieve this objective. Do not
get me wrong. All I am talking about is funds divided equitably,
period.
If the federal government starts imposing standards, as it
tends to do more and more, its attempt will have to be quashed.
Finally, I wish to underline the good intention of the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni. His motion reflects a genuine
concern for the environment. Besides, the Reform Party's
concern for the environment is made abundantly clear anytime
we deal with an environmental issue. From Cape Breton, where
we have the Sydney Tar Pond Projects, to the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development,
where the CEPA is being reviewed, the Reform Party
contribution has shown exemplary concern for the environment.
In concluding, I should say that municipal sewage is only one
element of the much larger pollution problem. It is essential that
we immediately correct the problems and that we consider very
seriously all the other sources of pollutants. If we do not act
now, the condition of our planet will be such that in the future
our children and grandchildren will not be able to survive. I
would like to propose an amendment on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to the motion of the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni. I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:
That Motion M-425 be amended by adding, at line 2, after the words ``a
country-wide program'' the following: ``with opting out provision and full
financial compensation for all provinces''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The amendment
moved by the hon. member for Laurentides, seconded by the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, is in order.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion by the member for Comox-Alberni concerns the
establishment of a country-wide program to permit
municipalities to upgrade their sewer systems. I would point out
to the House that the infrastructure program launched by the
government in co-operation with the provinces and the
territories has helped municipalities modernize their effluent
treatment facilities and, at the same time, has created the jobs
these communities badly needed.
(2430)
On June 14 of this year, the government approved $1.2 billion
dollars for infrastructure projects across Canada to modernize
and expand sewer systems. If we add to this the funds approved
for projects to improve drinking water supply and treatment
systems, we end up with a figure of $1.9 billion, or a third of the
money earmarked for the infrastructure program, going to water
or sewer system projects.
These figures indicate that clean water and establishment of a
healthy environment are priorities in each province. The
municipalities invest the money from the infrastructure
program to provide essential services, and we are their partners
in this undertaking.
The improvements will benefit the municipalities themselves
and Canada as a whole. The projects will mean work for
workers, improved quality of life in the communities and a
better future for our children.
[English]
The member sponsoring this motion comes form British
Columbia. In that province 75 per cent of infrastructure works
funding has been set aside specifically for sewer and water
projects and $388 million has already been approved for sewage
treatment improvements.
The largest single infrastructure works project in the country
is a major sewage treatment facility in B.C. The $206 million
upgrade to the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant will
reduce waste reaching the Fraser River. Costs will be shared
with the province of British Columbia and the greater Vancouver
regional district. The upgrade will cover the first phase of
secondary waste water treatment and reduce the level of pollu-
14303
tants expelled into the Fraser River, home of the largest salmon
run in the world. More than one billion fish migrate up the
Fraser River to spawn every year.
Still in British Columbia, communities from one end of of the
province to the other are taking advantage of the unique
partnership created by Canada infrastructure works to upgrade
vital services and boost their local economies. For example, in
the Okanagan region infrastucture funding of $27 million is
allowing the district of Summerland to build sanitary sewers and
a sewage treatment plant. With a population of almost 10,000
Summerland is the largest community in the Okanagan without a
community sewage program.
Thanks to the $7.5 million in infrastructure works funding
Prince George is moving ahead with stage three of a waste water
treatment plant in that city. Smaller communities are also
benefiting. On the northern part of Vancouver Island, Port Alice,
Port McNeill and the district of Powell River are upgrading or
building sewage facilities under the infrastructure program.
[Translation]
By taking advantage of the possibilities for co-operation
offered by infrastructure works, municipalities can begin
earlier, and at a lower cost, to modernize their water treatment
facilities. In my province, Manitoba, Winnipeg is modernizing
its sewer system in order to reduce spillover into the Red River.
Four projects worth a total of $20 million will prevent the rise
and overflow of sewer water.
[English]
A similar project is now under way in Hamilton, Ontario. That
city is building a $25 million facility that intercepts combined
sewer overflows and contains them for treatment at the water
pollution control plant. Here again is a case of the national
infrastructure program responding to local priorities and
improving our environment.
The infrastructure program is bringing water and sewer
service to many rural Atlantic Canada communities for the first
time. Examples include Colchester county, Nova Scotia where a
$13 million project will build a sewage treatment plant to
service the town of Truro and surrounding area. This improved
infrastructure will assist industrial development while
enhancing the local environment. What is more, using the latest
technology will develop the job skills of those employed in the
construction and operation of the plant.
Three communities in Prince Edward Island have worked
together to expand sewer facilities. Bunbury, Southport and
Crossroads have now been amalgamated into one town. The
community is pleased with the rapid implementation of the $1.5
million project. It is a densely populated area and environmental
problems were imminent if the sewer system had not been
extended.
(2435)
According to the head of the local pollution control
commission, the community benefits in several ways. I quote:
``One is the potential for safer groundwater for a much longer
time. It also makes the area much more attractive to live in.
There's also a greater potential for commercial and industrial
development in the area''.
In the community of Conception Bay South, Newfoundland
about 350 homes, schools and businesses will have water and
sewer services available to them this summer for the first time.
The $5 million infrastructure project employed over 200 people
and has been a real shot in the arm for the local economy. The
town's mayor says that it is the best thing that has ever happened
to his community. I quote: ``There are a lot of families that have
been waiting a long time, perhaps 20 years, for these services, if
not for the infrastructure program''.
[Translation]
Finally, the infrastructure program has allowed large and
small municipalities across Canada to make improvements to
their sewer systems, improvements they established as
priorities themselves.
Thanks to federal-provincial co-operation, these
improvements may be made now and create the jobs these
communities so badly need. The program is a fine example of
what can be accomplished when three levels of government
decide to work together for the welfare of the people.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is now 12.35 in the morning and it is a privilege
to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from
Comox-Alberni. The motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the
undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of
municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment
facilities.
The motion put forward is to improve sewage treatment
facilities, part of what I might call need to haves rather than the
like to haves, which are often put forward by the government in
its infrastructure program.
This is not a western issue. It is a national issue. It is also an
issue raised by the Liberals in their red book, an issue that now
seems to have been put on the back burner.
I want to read the promise in the red book word for word. I
encourage my colleagues from across the floor to listen closely.
It states: ``One of the country's biggest sources of water
degradation is untreated municipal sewage, aggravated by
decades of neglect of sewage and water treatment
infrastructure''.
14304
This sounds very similar to the motion so I would assume its
mover would have the full support of all the members on the
government side on this one.
The lack of basic sewage treatment is a serious problem.
According to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund report: ``If the
annual volume of untreated sewage were piled on the
trans-Canada highway, all 7,800 kilometres of it, it would cover
the road to a depth of nearly 9 metres from coast to coast''.
Running on the boundary of my riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby is the Fraser River. British Columbians
realize that the Fraser is in serious jeopardy. Unfortunately most
do not truly understand why it is in the condition that it is in. I
am sure there are many answers, complex scientific ones, but
certainly one answer is that it is how sewage is handled in and
around the river.
Just last week the Fraser River Management Program issued a
report card on the Fraser basin. Sewage treatment plants on the
river were singled out as the biggest problem, receiving an f
grade, a fail. Dumping of under treated sewage is benefiting no
one and is endangering once abundant fish stocks.
The Outdoor Recreation Council declared that the Fraser
River, which supports about a $300 million a year salmon
fishery, is British Columbia's most endangered river.
We realize that the cost of upgrading or building new
treatment plants is rather expensive. We also realize what our
priorities are. Our priorities should always be for the well-being
and health of Canadians.
A ribbon cutting ceremony for a new sewage treatment plant
may not make for great photo opportunities but photo ops are not
what will keep the country environmentally sustainable. We all
know the Liberal government is more into photo ops than it is
into environmental cleanups.
(2440 )
The government implemented its grand infrastructure
programs soon after they were elected. They talked about
funding going toward roads, sewers, bridges and water mains,
except here is where some of the funding is actually going: $15
million for renovations to a coliseum; $21 million for a
convention centre; $173 million for a trade centre; $50 million
for an arts centre; $24 million for a tennis stadium; and almost
$15 million for building a circus training facility.
This is only a portion of the list. I believe the list I just read
will give an understanding of how wasteful this government has
become. Among the legitimate projects there is also a lot of
Liberal pork. These are misplaced priorities from misguided
Liberalism.
Our motion clearly calls for the federal government to
improve municipal sewage facilities to a minimum standard of
at least primary treatment. With only three types of possible
treatments available, this is the second from the bottom for
effectiveness yet it would be far greater than some Canadian
cities currently have. Some of them have nothing at all.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia the city dumps all of its raw sewage
down the pipe into the ocean. That is 250 years of pumping
untreated sewage right into the Halifax harbour. The same
method is used in Victoria, British Columbia. In both places
proponents hope that the cold tidal waters will be capable of
carrying the waste out to sea. I believe both cities are realizing
that there is only so much that the waters are able to neutralize.
So many promises have been made that people are having
trouble keeping track of which level of government actually said
what. For Halifax, the federal, provincial and municipal
governments apparently earmarked $200 million to build a new
treatment facility yet residents of Halifax are still pumping over
100 million litres of untreated sewage into the harbour each day.
While Nova Scotia waits for its much needed facilities,
Montrealers will be serving up aces in their new tennis complex
and doing somersaults in their new circus tent, all part of
infrastructure money.
This country's deficit and debt are ballooning larger every
day. The federal government must be frugal on how it spends its
money. My constituents have told me that when their bank
accounts are low, they spend according to priority. They only
purchase what is most necessary and they expect the
government to do the same.
Like many of my constituents, Canada has basic necessities
like education, health and the environment. When my own
personal bank account is low, I do not go out and purchase a
painting but when the federal government's bank account is low
it goes out and builds an art gallery. Something just does not
make sense here.
The Minister of the Environment talks of sustainable
development but talk is insincere when the words are not put
into action. British Columbia's Fraser River is the greatest
salmon producing river in the world. People living along the
Fraser have always had a close connection with the river, relying
on it for water, food, transportation and livelihood. However
this river system cannot be sustained if municipalities along the
river are forced to release untreated sewage.
My colleague from Comox-Alberni is not proposing
anything new with his motion. He is simply reminding the
government of its commitments for sustainable development. I
hope that the revenue minister as well as the member for Halifax
are listening closely to this debate because Victoria and Halifax
are the two Canadian cities that are dumping untreated sewage
into our waters.
14305
I note that the revenue minister is quite aware of the situation.
In February 1993 he wrote a column in the Globe and Mail
entitled: ``The benefits of dumping sewage in the sea''. In the
article he wrote: ``When the waste water leaves the pipe, it is
immediately subjected to vast quantities of cold, fast moving
sea water high in oxygen which would result in a biological,
bacterial and chemical change''. Strangely enough, he does
admit there is the possibility that something dangerous but
unknown may be in the discharge water and might become a
problem in the future.
Finally it should be noted that in 1989, 70 per cent of
Victorians supported treatment for all waste water coming out of
Victoria's capital regional district. I hope that the minister will
have the courage to listen to his own electorate.
The government was so proud of the red book during the
election. I often heard the Prime Minister tell Canadians that if
his Liberal government was not following the red book promises
to notify him and make him accountable, not that the red book
was so great anyway.
Someone mentioned to me recently that the Deputy Prime
Minister said a similar thing but added that if promises were not
kept that they should give her a good swift kick. After the next
election, the voters will not be able to kick the minister around
any more for she will not be around.
The Reform Party through this motion is asking the
government to live up to its basic promise and to support
improvements to municipal sewage facilities. Should it fail to
do so it will be conveying a message to Canadians that the red
book was merely an election pamphlet which was long ago
forgotten.
(2445)
I urge the government to take care of the basics, to do at least
the minimum and quickly act positively in response to the
motion presented today.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion and the well researched speech by the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni are very important and stir the sentiments of
many in the Chamber who share the views with respect to the
importance of continuing this effort.
I remind my colleagues in the Reform Party it was the Liberal
Party and the Liberal government which initiated the
infrastructure program. Even if the method by which the
program was launched is not 100 per cent satisfactory, programs
related to sewage treatment, water improvement and the like
have been set in motion which permit the debate tonight in a
search for ways of improving what is under way.
The infrastructure program is a good measure. It has helped to
create jobs for Canadians and it has helped to finance initiatives
environmentally oriented in conjunction with other initiatives,
as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has already indicated
and as the parliamentary secretary indicated in his reply.
What needs to be stressed in the debate is the importance of
the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and of the respective
provincial governments in deciding how the money is to be
allocated. Evidently Ottawa, even if it wanted to allocate 100
per cent of its funds to a specific purpose, would have to obtain
the concurrence of the other two partners. Therefore there is the
necessity of working very closely with and convincing
municipalities and provincial governments to agree to what we
think are the priorities for the infrastructure program.
However, the infrastructure program has come to an end. This
is year two and the scheme has virtually been completed. The
question is how to continue. Obviously in considering the
economic policies of the Reform Party and the limitations which
have been imposed by the budget one would have to be very
creative in the search for the funds.
I invite members of the Reform Party to look at a study
conducted by the Department of Finance in December of 1993
and January of 1994 entitled ``Tax Expenditures''. There is one
item which is rather considerable, a tax expenditure which is the
equivalent of a loophole in the taxation system with respect to
lottery winnings. In 1991, because of non-taxation of lottery
winnings, the loss in revenue amounted to some $860 million. I
suspect that amount increases every year. Therefore there are
places where moneys can be found by way of improving our
taxation system and by closing loopholes.
I bring these thoughts to the attention of the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni because I am sure he is very keen in his search
for funds required in order to continue the infrastructure
program in years three and four.
(2450 )
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House at this late hour and be the last
speaker on the motion brought by the member for
Comox-Alberni.
Like the member for Davenport, I will begin by
congratulating the member for Comox-Alberni on his motion
and on the presentation he gave which was a very thorough
exposition of the nature of the problems in our country and in
every modern society dealing with effluent. We have to be very
conscious of this. This is an example of the type of debate we
can have in the House to search for the best solutions to these
perplexing and complex problems from a technological point of
view and from a human management point of view.
14306
I suppose as a member of the government one regret I have
about the debate is I was disappointed to see it degenerate so
quickly on the other side of the House from what I considered to
be the high level of the opening moral tone of the member for
Comox-Alberni to other members of his party who then used
the motion as a way to attack the government for not doing
things which we have been doing.
It reminds me of earlier when I listened to the member for
Fraser Valley East spending his whole speech complaining that
there is no discussion in the House. When members of the third
party get up and use these opportunities to attack another party,
no wonder we do not get into any discussion.
This is a constructive opportunity to exchange views. The
member for Davenport has indicated members of the House on
all sides are passionately interested in finding solutions to these
problems.
I, as chairman of the foreign affairs committee and the
member for Red Deer, who also sits on that committee, are more
than aware of the consequence of effluents flowing from
Victoria into international waters and our relations with the
United States. It behoves all of us to be aware of that.
To suggest that the government is not aware of it is totally
ignoring reality. Suggesting the infrastructure program has been
deficient in this respect is doubly unfair. The infrastructure
program is, as the member knows, a tripartite program
conceived in the Canadian spirit. It requires the collaboration of
the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
When we look at the way the infrastructure program has been
applied around the country and the way it has been used, it
co-ordinates the needs and desires of all people. Members of the
Reform Party should be happy because at the municipal level we
are getting the input from the very lowest level of government in
the European sense of subsidiarity, that which is closest to the
people, and it is their choice.
There are municipalities that have selected water treatment
facilities. In those cases the federal government has
participated, encouraged and done its best to make sure the
country and the needs of the municipalities are served. Where
other municipalities have chosen other priorities, the federal
government has recognized that it is their right as citizens and as
municipal governments.
I suggest to the third party we should concentrate not only on
the question of effluent removal, which is a most important
priority, but also on the principle on which the country is
founded; a principle of tolerance and co-operation by all levels
of government. If we can get all our programs working that way
and use persuasion to get the federal government to do its work
we can achieve the results wished for by the member for
Comox-Alberni without trampling on the rights of local
municipalities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14306
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is
deemed to have been made.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to focus on the recently passed gun legislation.
(2455)
Our articulated gun bill in Canada says something for us as a
society not only for today but for generations to come. However,
I have some real concerns in the ability to apply that law. We
would like to think that Canadians are law-abiding citizens in
terms of there being seven million guns. I do not know who
counted them. I do not know who knows for example that I have
three guns.
Let us say there are seven million guns out there. A lot of
those guns have been sitting around. They are in attics,
basements and behind pantry doors. A lot of them are not used
and have not been used for years. I have two rifles that have not
been used for 20 years. My concern is that we must have some
incentive to flush out of existence a lot of those rifles and guns
which have not been used, are not being used and will not be
used unless they happen to fall into the wrong hands.
I am proposing a form of gun amnesty in Canada. There would
be some incentive for people to turn in those guns. Some people
are quite aware they have no use for the gun but there is a
reluctance or a sentimental attachment to it. Perhaps the
widow's husband used the gun for many years and she is just a
little bit reluctant to get rid of it but at the same time knows she
has no earthly use for it.
The bill could be improved. The application of the bill
certainly would be much easier. It will be a tremendous and
horrific job for our police departments unless there is genuine
co-operation to register the guns.
My proposal is to have a form of amnesty, amnesty plus if you
like, with some sort of minimal tax credit, something in the area
of $25 or so for turning in those guns. Motivation is needed. I do
not think a lot of people would object to that. It would not cost
very much. It is going to cost something to register the gun
14307
anyway so it is not as if it were all lost. Some program like that
with a public relations selling job associated with it would have
a very positive effect on the number of guns that are in this
nation.
I would be glad to turn in my two rifles and keep my shotgun.
In that case I would probably make better use and take better
care in the storage of my shotgun than if I had a whole lot of guns
sitting around.
We could flush out those guns that are no longer used and
where their purpose is long forgotten. I do not see any advantage
to having them sitting around when people will be reluctant to
go through the inconvenience of registering them. They would
be relieved if there were some way in which they could dispose
of them. The motivation could be a very small tax credit. I think
it would work. I have received very positive feedback from
some very unexpected corners when I think back to their attitude
toward the gun bill. That is why I brought this matter forward.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Leeds-Grenville brings forward a
very interesting proposal. There is a new twist I have not heard
before which is the aspect of the tax credit.
With the passage of Bill C-68 in the House of Commons and
the expected passage of the same bill in the Senate later this
year, we will be registering all firearms. As the member for
Leeds-Grenville has said, some people may not want to
register firearms.
Frankly, I do not think it will affect the gun owners
themselves, but for those who have inherited firearms or have
had firearms lying around the house, they may not want to go
through that procedure if it is not their intention to use those
firearms. Of course I think mainly of long guns, rifles and
shotguns. Firearms can be sold. Handguns, even the prohibited
ones, can be sold to people who have similar types of firearms.
They can be turned in at any time or they can be sold out of the
country.
It is correct that when there is an amnesty it focuses the idea in
people's minds so they become more conscious of turning in
their firearms. A lot of people will turn in firearms without any
compensation but certainly more people would turn in their
firearms if there is compensation.
The main problem is the cost which would be considerable.
One never knows how many people would take advantage of the
amnesty but we would have to expect that there would be a cost.
The other question that has to be looked at is if prohibited
weapons are being turned in that can be purchased on the street
or out of a trunk of a car for a very small amount, then these
people with the tax credit would receive more than they actually
paid for the firearm. That would only take place for a short
while. Once registration came into effect they would not be able
to do that. However, it is certainly something that should be
examined further.
I know the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice
will be discussing this idea with the Department of Finance.
Something may result from this but it is too early to speculate
whether the idea of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville will
result in a solution or not. We will have to wait until these
discussions take place.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.02 a.m.)