CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 13, 1994
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2967
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2968
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2971
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2971
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2971
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2971
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2972
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2972
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2972
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2972
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2973
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2973
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2973
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2974
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2974
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2974
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2975
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2975
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2975
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2975
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2975
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2976
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2977
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2977
Bill C-22. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 2978
Bills C-234 and C-235. Motions for introduction andfirst reading agreed to. 2978
Bill C-236. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 2979
Motion for concurrence in first report 2979
Bill C-18. Motion for third reading 2981
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2987
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2990
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 45; Nays, 184. 2998
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 2999
Consideration resumed of motion 3002
2967
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 13, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity today to offer my sincere
congratulations to young David Belhumeur, a resident of
Pierrefonds in my riding, who just won the World Cup freestyle
skiing in the combined.
Quebec is well represented in this category, when we consider
the achievements and reputation of Brassard, Langlois and
Laroche.
After winning this important event, David now belongs to the
new generation of Olympic champions.
I urge this young athlete to keep up the good work. He has a
very promising future ahead of him.
On behalf of all residents of Pierrefonds-Dollard, I wish him
good luck and every success in his next events.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in an important statement in the Quebec
National Assembly, Gérald Tremblay, Minister of Industry and
Trade, asked the federal government to meet its commitment to
support conversion of defence industries.
The federal Minister of Industry was reassuring about the
future of Oerlikon in Saint-Jean and referred to an apparently
well-filled order book.
However, it is not clear whether the company will be able to
maintain its operations in Quebec. If the Minister of Industry
were to act in a manner consistent with the commitments of his
own party to defence conversion, he would examine the
company's plan for diversifying toward environmental
technologies, which would guarantee its long-term survival.
Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Industry and Trade said he
was prepared to consider such a proposal, provided the federal
government agreed to participate. What is the minister waiting
for?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in the House to express my concern
regarding the appointment of the environmental secretariat to
Montreal. How can a government that claims to be fair, honest
and open on the one hand turn around and admit openly that a
major government decision was made through partisan politics
of the past?
I would like to state in this House that the city of Edmonton
would have been an excellent host for the environmental
secretariat. The city of Edmonton met the original requirements
and therefore should have been a front runner, yet it was not.
The west wants in. We want the federal government to stop
pandering to the wants of one region over another and start
treating all provinces as equals.
I call on the government to reconsider the decision to
establish the environmental secretariat in Montreal.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, social
upheavals in countries across the continent have resulted in over
19 million refugees throughout the world. As arms struggles
continued, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
spent approximately $1.1 billion in 1993 caring for the world's
refugees.
Canada has developed an international reputation as a caring
and compassionate country and we are committed to protecting
people who have been forced to flee their homes and their
countries.
I commend the efforts of the constituents of
London-Middlesex who worked to make the community aware
of the issues and concerns affecting our refugee neighbours and
friends. I encourage all Canadians to work to ease the settlement
of true refugees in our country.
2968
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, this past
Monday on a U.S. news show, ``Day One'', it was reported that
the Santa Monica Freeway destroyed by the massive California
earthquake was set to reopen more than three months ahead of
schedule.
U.S. and state officials call it a miracle because some experts
predicted that it would take upwards of nine months to complete
the repairs.
This early completion was no miracle but the result of
common sense. Indeed, it was the eliminating of government red
tape and paperwork that allowed the contractor to complete the
work in record time. The elimination of government
interference saved millions of dollars in transportation costs.
We as parliamentarians can learn a valuable lesson from this
situation and work together to lower and eliminate needless
government red tape and paperwork which have strangled
Canadian businesses.
As we have said many times before, Canadian businesses can
and will create the jobs if given the right environment. What
better way to create jobs than to eliminate needless bureaucratic
intervention?
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, as we have seen in recent weeks there is a growing
concern that our safe and peaceful communities are being
threatened by crime.
To properly address this issue, I believe that we must examine
the root causes of crime. Poverty, child abuse, underfunded
social services and low levels of education are all issues on
which we as a government must focus our attention.
Many of us have groups in our ridings which work toward
crime prevention through public education. We must offer our
support to these organizations and their efforts to prevent crime
in our communities.
The Minister of Justice has stated that we will create a
national crime prevention council as part of our integrated
strategy for crime prevention.
I urge all members of this House to support this action. Only
by addressing the underlying causes can we effectively deal with
crime in our communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, in his 1993
annual report, the Commissioner of Official Languages
commented on the dire state of aboriginal languages in Canada.
Statistics indicate that less than one third of aboriginal peoples
can speak an aboriginal language well enough to carry on a
conversation and that only one quarter have sound language
skills.
(1405)
While I deplore this situation, I wish to remind this House that
it is in Quebec that aboriginal peoples have the best chance of
retaining their language due in large measure to the support of
the Quebec Department of Education and the open-mindedness
of Quebecers. Studies carried out in 1991 show that 47 per cent
of Quebec's aboriginal people speak a native language,
compared, for example, to 21 per cent in Ontario. When
compare to the rest of Canada, aboriginal people in Quebec are
better off in most areas, for example, housing, income and
health. These statistics are worth noting.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, last
week I had the ultimate privilege of seeing into the future. I
attended a model parliament and read the speech from the throne
at Halifax West High School.
Andrew Cook was elected prime minister with a majority
government and it represented the concerns and aspirations of
young people today. Its speeches emphasized the need to reform
the economy, the criminal justice system and the parliamentary
system.
Mr. Cook and his government represented the Reform Party of
Canada in Halifax West.
Apparently in some parts of the maritimes the youth of today
and the voters of tomorrow are no longer happy with the old
style of politics. The old solutions do not work any more and the
young people of this country are more aware of that fact than
anyone.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, Sikhs around the world are today celebrating the 295th
anniversary of the birthday of the Sikh nation, the Sikh faith, the
Khalsa. April 13 also marks the first day of the Sikh new year.
Over a quarter of a million Sikhs live as peaceful and full
participants in Canadian society. In spite of numerous
difficulties encountered by the first Sikh immigrants at the turn
of the century, today they are a full and active component of the
Canadian mosaic.
As the first turbaned Sikh member of the Canadian Parliament
I am sure all members would like to join with me in
congratulating the Sikh community on this auspicious occasion
and hope that we all continue to work together to promote
harmony and
2969
good will in order to keep Canada an exemplary country in
which tolerance and compassion abound.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, in
shorthand this government's mandate is job creation. In
longhand the mandate is to modernize, streamline and stimulate
the national economy and deal with the deficit and the debt by
generating jobs.
The national infrastructure program is a good illustration of
this. It is thought of as a job creation program and will create
thousands of jobs but it will also improve the efficiency of our
economy by modernizing and improving our national
infrastructure.
In addition, it is an attempt to stimulate the economy directly
by encouraging responsible and productive spending all across
the country.
That is why it is so important that the decisions on the
thousands of construction projects are being made by local
municipalities like Asphodel, Belmont-Methuen, Douro,
Dummer, Ennismore, Havelock, Lakefield, North and South
Monaghan, Norwood, Otonabee and Smith, all in Peterborough
county.
Names like these have not been heard in this House for many
years. This government is reaching out to the grassroots of our
economy because it knows that is where the economy can be
stimulated most effectively and where most jobs can be created.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I extend my
congratulations to the Ottawa Police Department and Chief
Brian Ford for a job well done.
Three offenders were arrested just hours after the recent
drive-by shooting in the capital of Canada. Community leaders,
business representatives and local police expressed their views
at the public safety forum held in my riding last week.
Some of the recommendations were to increase from five to
ten years the maximum sentence for a young offender convicted
of first degree murder; to create the category of dangerous youth
offender, allowing young offenders to be tried in adult court; to
increase access to rehabilitation programs for young offenders;
to ban all handguns with the exception of police, military,
licensed collectors and sport gun club members; to ban the sale
of ammunition to minors; to establish a permit system for the
purchase of ammunition.
(1410 )
I know that most of these recommendations will be dealt with
by our government and my community supports them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, in the
daily newspaper
La Presse, the president of the MIL Davie
shipyard says that he needs two contracts from the federal
government to complete the military to civilian conversion of
the company. These two contracts are to build a ferry for the
Magdalen Islands and to build a multi-purpose ``smart ship''.
Analysts say that the world market for merchant ships will
grow strongly for ten years starting in late 1995.
MIL Davie is in the midst of restructuring and has made major
productivity gains since 1991. These gains will be even larger
once its conversion plan is implemented.
Through its lack of vision and indecision on all
employment-related issues, the government is endangering the
survival of a potentially profitable shipyard which generates
thousands of jobs in the Quebec City region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
of this week the Minister of Justice told reporters he was going
to bring in further restrictions of handgun ownership in response
to the tragic events in Ottawa and Toronto.
He will recall that the Auditor General this year stated that
Canada's present gun control program is controversial and
complex, and an evaluation is essential. The Auditor General is
saying there is no clear indication that existing gun control
legislation is working.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice stated we should not be
making knee-jerk reactions and yet he is demanding tougher
legislation without evaluation, an obvious knee-jerk reaction.
When will he start to come down hard on criminals, the cause
of concern, and not law-abiding gun owners? Does he have any
idea of the level of concern he raises with his present
statements?
2970
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, a consultation
report entitled ``Environmental Industry Strategy for Canada''
was released by the Minister of the Environment and indicates
that a network of three national environmental technology
advancements centres will be created in western Canada,
Ontario and Quebec. These centres will form the cornerstone of
the federal government's environmental industry strategy. The
report indicates the process by which employment opportunities
for Canadians would be maximized.
I bring to the attention of the Minister of the Environment that
Saint John, New Brunswick, is the industrial centre of Atlantic
Canada. I would ask her to consider Saint John as a place for one
of these centres to help us to maximize our environmental
problems and to work them out.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to urge the provincial
government to grant funding for hemodialysis equipment for
citizens in York Simcoe.
Presently a number of residents of this area have to travel to
downtown Toronto to undergo treatment, often with
life-threatening consequences. This is not only time consuming
but often extremely difficult for patients who are physically
incapable of making these trips. There are many people who
would benefit by access to this equipment in the region.
I implore the provincial government to allocate funding for
this equipment. It is essential that equal access for this treatment
should be provided across Ontario.
The provincial government should not tie its purse strings at
the expense of these patients' health. These people should not
have to suffer more than they already are.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the House.
As we have heard in the past few days there is great concern
about the railroads in Canada, particularly CP, CN and VIA,
again seeking to curb costs by making ad hoc restructuring to
operations and thereby upsetting many Canadians.
I call upon this government through the Minister of Transport
to undertake a long overdue review of the rail transportation
system and bring to this House a new rail transportation strategy
for Canada to meet the needs of Canada in the 21st century.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, people
remember last summer's flooding in the U.S. midwest and the
damage done to crops and communities there. The U.S. federal
government responded generously and so did ours, sending
PFRA technicians and engineers to assist with the the dykes and
dams.
Our own flooded and snow covered crops in northeastern
Saskatchewan and northwestern Manitoba, however, have so far
been ignored. There were no large centres to be flooded, only
acres and acres of flat black soil which were later covered with
snow and subsequently trampled by wildlife, making most of it
unrecoverable.
(1415)
Not only has last year's crop been lost but conditions are such
that probably this year's will not be seeded on those lands either.
Since such circumstances are not addressed under existing
programs, I have asked the federal minister of agriculture to
initiative third line of defence actions which are to be triggered
when existing programs fail. Why has he not acted? Why are
these farmers and communities being left to fend for
themselves?
I know the red book ignored farm policy but surely the
government cannot ignore this.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
all across the country communities are determining their uses
for their portion of the national infrastructure money.
Remember, this money, every cent, is borrowed from future
generations of Canadians, future generations that will have no
say in the way their money is spent today. Their standard of
living will be reduced because they will be paying the bills our
generation incurred.
Therefore it is vitally important that infrastructure money is
spent exclusively on infrastructure such as roads and sewers.
This is the use intended by the Canadian Federation of
Municipalities. Not one cent should be spent on private
enterprise, including hockey arenas.
2971
ORAL QUESTIONS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs discounted the
possibility of an agreement with Quebec on the transfer of
federal responsibility for manpower training prior to any social
program reform.
We now know that Ottawa is considering a simple temporary
agreement limited to the joint leasing of buildings. This kind of
intransigence prompted the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson,
inspired no doubt by healthy fear of the eve of the election, to
ask the following question: ``Who is in charge in Ottawa? The
political powers or the bureaucracy?''
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to conclude the
agreement that Quebec has been urging its federalist ally to
sign? And, following Mr. Johnson's lead, I would also like to ask
him this: Who is in charge in Ottawa? The Prime Minister or his
bureaucrats?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
my government has entered into negotiations on this matter with
all of the provinces, including Quebec. We are making progress.
We have undertaken a complete overhaul of federal social
programs and we are trying to eliminate as much duplication as
possible. The answer given yesterday by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs was correct. We are trying as best we
can to work out an agreement. If the hon. member would take a
moment to think about it, there is no question that the real power
lies on this side of the House, not on his side.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): That is
right, Mr. Speaker, the perverse power to say no to Quebec, to
deny it jurisdiction over pressing matters-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: The Prime Minister is fully aware that the
unemployed are the ones who are paying the price for the
arm-wrestling match and endless discussions between Quebec
and Ottawa.
I wonder if he shares the opinion of his federalist ally, the
Leader of the Quebec government, Mr. Johnson, who says that
Quebec is in the best position to deal with such matters. If the
Prime Minister does agree with this statement, why then is he
putting off transferring to Quebec responsibility for a sensitive
area such as job creation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
all these programs contains an element of equalization. Under
the Canadian federal system, money can be transferred from
those who are employed to those who are not. And
unfortunately, Quebec has more unemployed people than the
rest of Canada. The situation is worse still in Atlantic Canada
where the unemployment rate tops that in Quebec. These
programs were introduced to allow us to take money from the
more prosperous regions in Canada and redirect it to areas which
are not as well off. And it is in this spirit that we want to resolve
the problem. We believe that all of Canada can work together.
There is nothing twisted about wanting to ensure that the least
fortunate in Canada receive money from the rest of the country.
Our system is based on generosity and we are not about to
dismantle it on a whim.
(1420)
We are currently undertaking an in-depth review of the
system and we will listen to the views of all parties in this House
in order to devise a system that will satisfy all Canadians. To
resolve only part of the problem would be like taking a step
backward, rather than forward. We have at heart the interests not
only of Quebecers, but of the less fortunate provinces as well.
We want to ensure that social justice prevails throughout
Canada.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has just described Quebec's deepest
aspirations as a whim. This is one issue on which all players in
Quebec, be they economists, politicians, employers, employees
or trade unionists, firmly agree. It is shameful to dismiss in this
manner an issue which has brought together all players in
Quebec, both in the public and private sectors.
My question for the Prime Minister, since his proposal-one
which has not yet been formally made but which has been
announced by his minister-has already been rejected by the
head of the Quebec government and since it would maintain the
current mess and the single window system for all federal and
provincial programs, a system which confounds everyone, is
this: Will he now admit that he must review this stillborn
proposal to bring it in line with Quebec's aspirations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition, his voice breaking with emotion,
is trying to be convincing, when he knows very well that even if
we did have an agreement in this area, tomorrow morning he
would still want to take Quebec out of Canada. This from the
same member who, only a few years ago, defended
francophones outside Quebec and who today, does not have the
courage to rise in this House to defend bilingualism in this
country. This is ironic, coming from someone who changes his
mind as often as the Leader of the Reform Party changes suits.
We are taking a serious look at ways of providing all Canadians,
including Quebecers, with the best possible social security
system and job creation initiatives.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, for five
years, there has been a broad consensus in Quebec on the need to
repatriate all powers with respect to manpower. Five years of
2972
amicable negotiations, as the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs put it, have proved fruitless.
Finally, yesterday, Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Finally, yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
the answer came: ``Not for another two years''. Does the Prime
Minister realize what this means? If nothing is done for another
two years, $600 million will be wasted, $600 million that could
have been used to help the unemployed in Quebec as well as
those who are waiting for job training.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
Question Period is not the appropriate time for speeches, but if
you want me to make a speech, I will. No question was asked.
This is sheer hypocrisy-
The Speaker: This is a day for caucuses.
(1425)
I would ask hon. members to put their questions as succinctly
as possible. This is not speech period but question period.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we want
answers. That is what I am trying to get across to the Prime
Minister.
Are we to understand from what he said that all this
pussyfooting around at the expense of the unemployed in
Quebec is sure proof that the federal system does not work and
never will? That system is rotten because of infighting between
ministers within his own cabinet.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the hon. member is ranting and that he will do the
honourable thing and resign his seat after losing the referendum
on Quebec separation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to interrupt the family feud and bring us back to
sanity and an issue of concern to all Canadians.
Yesterday the Prime Minister three times affirmed that the
government will be making additional spending reductions not
presently included in the budget to further reduce the deficit.
We welcomed that announcement. We assume it is supported
by all members of cabinet and now expect various ministers to
bring forward revised estimates containing these additional
spending reductions.
My first question today is for one of those ministers, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What
additional expenditure reductions will he be putting forward in
his $5 billion departmental budget in order to further reduce
spending as the Prime Minister has promised?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
was not a very suitable way for the Leader of the Opposition to
put a question. I would like to tell the leader of the Reform Party
that it was not a family fight. I understand there was one on
Monday night in his family.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I have been
elected by three times as many Canadians in English Canada as
he has. I am the Prime Minister of all Canadians. I resent him
trying to portray my defence of Canada as a family fight with the
temporary Leader of the Opposition.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The question of
departmental budgets is the responsibility of the Minister of
Finance in his budget. He presented a very good budget and it
has been voted on by the House of Commons. When spending
cuts are made by the government, they will be announced in due
course.
The technique of having every minister get up one after
another is nothing but grandstanding which shows they do not
know how to operate in the opposition. The leader of the Reform
Party should know that type of question should be asked of the
Minister of Finance.
(1430 )
The Speaker: If the questions are long and the answers are
long, we could have a very long question period.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the intensity of these answers reminds me a little bit of the old
preacher who got fired when his-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I am sure we would like to hear the story
about the old preacher, but I would like to hear the question from
the member.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister
made a commitment that there would be spending cuts in
addition to those already contained in the budget. My line of
questioning today is to try to find out from the other ministers
who must have been a part of that decision precisely what those
cuts are going to be.
The Prime Minister has not allowed the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development to answer, so I would like to
direct my question to another minister.
I would like to ask the Minister of Industry what additional
spending reductions he is contemplating in his $2.7 billion
departmental budget in order to further reduce the deficit as
committed to by the Prime Minister.
2973
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, let
me say to the hon. member that I am sure he is aware the budget
making process is one that is under the direction of the Minister
of Finance. If a further budget is to be presented it will be up to
the Minister of Finance to do it.
However let me say as well that the budget we are directing in
Industry Canada is very much targeted at those sectors of the
economy in which we expect to see the greatest economic
growth. The key to reducing our deficit is not just to cut
expenditures but is to see growth in the economy. That is the
objective of the government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we are not having much luck in finding these expenditures. I
therefore would like to direct my second supplementary
question to another minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Could the minister tell us what additional expenditures he is
planning in his department's $3.7 billion budget in order to
further reduce spending as the Prime Minister has promised.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is a waste of time of the House of Commons and a lack of
imagination of the leader of that party. I know he has a problem
with his neighbour next door. He should work with him in order
to solve his problem, along with the members from Calgary.
He keeps asking the types of questions that are irrelevant in
the House of Commons. We have a normal budget process.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): No, no, we have a Minister
of Finance for that.
If he does not perform very well, Mr. Harper, his neighbour,
will give him a promotion to the third row.
The Speaker: It would probably facilitate matters in question
period if we did not refer to the names of members.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
This morning's Toronto Star confirms that the government is
about to launch its jobs plan for youth. This strategy will include
an apprenticeship program for young people. But in Quebec,
where the procedures are different, this program does not work
and, according to the daily newspaper Le Devoir, only $2
million out of a total of $225 million will be spent on young
Quebecers.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development admit
that the federal apprenticeship program cannot be adapted to
Quebec's own needs and realities and will only increase the
inefficiencies and overlap already hampering job training in
Quebec?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed one small
correction, the proposals we have put forward for the
employment of young people across the country were not
announced in today's Toronto Star. They were announced in the
red book campaign platform last October which was endorsed
by something like eight or nine million Canadians, including a
large number of people in Quebec. That is the real source of the
youth employment program.
The member will see that the benefits of the program we hope
to be able to announce very shortly will be broadly shared by all
Canadians in every province and in every region.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, instead of dodging
the issue, could the minister promise today to give Quebec its
share of the apprenticeship program funds so that it can invest
them itself according to its own needs and priorities?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as exceedingly
strange that the hon. member is building a whole set of questions
upon an event that has not yet happened.
It is about as accurate as the figures used by the Leader of the
Opposition yesterday when he said that there were 20,000
people still waiting to receive training in Quebec. In fact the
number has been reduced to 14,000 in the last five months of this
government because there has been a change in government and
a change in attitude.
I would say that the questions of members opposite are about
as reliable as the facts they use.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, it is a real shame the Prime Minister feels that
budgetary matters are irrelevant to the Canadian people.
Yesterday the Prime Minister affirmed three times that the
government would be making additional expenditure reductions
not presently included in the budget in order to further reduce
the deficit. We on this side of the House and millions of
2974
Canadians are simply trying to find out where these additional
expenditure reductions are coming from.
Could the Prime Minister tell me what additional expenditure
reductions the Minister of Transport will make in his $2.8
billion departmental budget in order to reduce spending as the
Prime Minister has promised?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
get to be Acting Minister of Transport as well today so I get
another one of these questions. I frankly do not understand the
idea that the Reform Party has of asking open-ended questions.
If the member has some specific suggestions about where he
would like to reduce spending in the transportation sector I can
assure him that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, will be
happy to undertake to review his suggestions. I can give the
undertaking with all assurance that his considerations will be
given to the hon. member.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, we are just trying to determine that there will be
additional cuts as the Prime Minister stated yesterday. Surely
members of cabinet must have talked this matter over. I hope the
minister of defence is not the only minister who is bearing the
brunt of these cuts. I know he is pulling his hair out over them.
The minister would suggest that his department is not making
those significant expenditure reductions so I will direct my
supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment.
What is that minister going to do to reduce her $737 million
departmental budget in order to further reduce spending as the
Prime Minister has promised?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member
would ask that question given that when his leader responded to
the government's budget the comment his leader made was that
one department that should not be cut was the Department of the
Environment because of its importance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During
his recent visit to Regina, the Prime Minister made an ardent
plea for bilingualism to support his particular vision of Canada.
(1440)
The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages once
again pointed to a major decline in access to federal services in
French across the country and deplored the fact that
French-language education was still not available in many
locations in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister admit that despite all the rhetoric we
have heard from the Prime Minister, especially today, the
implementation of the government's policy on bilingualism has
been a failure, a fantasy from the Trudeau era, and that it is false
to claim, as he does, that a person can live, work and receive a
decent education in French anywhere in Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when I see people who want bilingualism everywhere in Canada
but do not want it in Quebec, I see people who want a double
standard.
I maintain that the French fact has made considerable
progress in this country. We have 325,000 anglophones in
French immersion across Canada. My colleague next to me
learned French in Hamilton, Mr. Speaker. We have come a long
way.
I agree that in some locations service to the public is not
adequate. A committee of the House of Commons, chaired by a
French Canadian from outside Quebec, will examine the
problem and help the government ensure that its policy on
bilingualism operates as it should. It is not perfect, but we have
made considerable progress, and we intend to keep up the good
work, although francophones outside Quebec are complaining
that Quebec's separatist francophones are undermining their
efforts to maintain the French fact outside Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I wish the Prime Minister would
read the commissioner's report, because he would see that all
this progress is an illusion. We are not getting anywhere.
I want to say to the Prime Minister, who hails from Quebec
and who keeps talking about his French Canadians, that he
should treat them as well as English-speaking Quebecers are
treated. We treat them well in Quebec. When will you start
treating French Canadians as we treat English Canadians in
Quebec?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I wonder how
the Prime Minister can expect to maintain his credibility and can
sing the praises of bilingualism, when in its latest budget, his
government cut financial assistance to all francophone
associations outside Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have a problem here. On one side we have the Reform Party
that wants us to more or less get rid of bilingualism across
Canada, and on the other side we have people rising in the House
today with a lump in their throats, and I really appreciate that, to
defend the cause of francophones outside Quebec, but as soon as
they achieve their objective to separate Quebec, one million
francophones will lose their language because of the
irresponsible actions of these people. That is why we intend to
defeat them in their quest to separate Quebec from Canada.
2975
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister committed his government three times to cutting
the budget.
We have asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development where he is going to cut and we have not had an
answer. We have asked the Minister of Industry twice so we
would have a chance to see where he would cut. We have asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs where he is going to cut and we
have not had an answer. The Prime Minister has deferred to the
Minister of Finance. We want to know who is in charge over
there.
(1445 )
Will the Prime Minister please tell Canadians which ministers
are going to be cutting their budgets to fulfil his commitment of
yesterday? It is not only us who want to know. Canadians want to
know. Investors who are buying their bonds want to know. We
feel we deserve an honest and forthright answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have presented a budget to this House of Commons. It was
voted on and it is the budget of this government.
What I said in the House of Commons is it is the task of the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and every other minister
to make sure that every expenditure in every department is
looked at very carefully. When they find some opportunities for
cuts they should come forward right away.
I have asked the minister responsible for the renewal of the
public service to do that task with every department. Already
ministers are coming forward with suggestions. There will be a
lot of rationalization.
Fundamentally the budget that we presented and which was
approved by this House of Commons is the base of our economic
policy. We will achieve our goal. As we mentioned so clearly in
the budget, in our program in the period of three years the deficit
in relation to GDP will be 3 per cent. We are determined to
achieve that goal.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister committed himself and his government to additional
cuts beyond what was presented in the budget yesterday. We are
trying to find out how much these cuts are, who is going to be
cutting and where they are actually coming from.
Since he will not answer that question, will the Prime
Minister please tell us how much we can expect in additional
cuts beyond what was presented in the budget? His figures
regarding the deficit and the cost of the debt are out to lunch
because of rising interest rates through their mismanagement of
government.
Some hon. members: Question, question.
The Speaker: The questions and answers sometimes tend to
go on on special days. I would ask the hon. Prime Minister to
answer the question which was put if he would like to.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I will repeat
the statement I made a minute ago that every minister is working
to have more reductions. More reductions will be announced
when they have been made. Every minister is working very hard
at that.
The fundamentals of the budget have been presented to this
House of Commons. They have been voted upon. It is the budget
of this government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister. Since the Official Languages Act was
passed 25 years ago, we have witnessed an accelerated erosion
of the number of francophones living outside Quebec. Statistics
Canada tells us that the proportion of francophones outside
Quebec has dropped by 40 per cent over a period of 20 years.
My question is this: Does the Prime Minister realize that the
alarming assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec is
proof that Canada's bilingualism policy is a total flop?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the actual number of francophones outside Quebec has
increased, and the francophone community outside that
province is more dynamic than ever. That community now has
universities. It seeks to protect its rights. However, it also
deplores the fact that some francophones like the Parti
Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are the ones who create
the most serious problems for it.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, beyond the
issue of costs, will the Prime Minister recognize that the mere
fact that the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends
eliminating bilingualism bonuses is, in itself, another proof of
the failure of the bilingualism policy coast to coast?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the Commissioner said that we have to look and see if
these bonuses are still useful and necessary. The Leader of the
Opposition said that such an exercise was necessary. I think so
too, and we are going to review the situation. The fact remains,
however, that considerable progress has been achieved.
2976
For example, last month I had the pleasure of visiting the
University of Moncton. This is an exclusively francophone
university and some of its students are anglophones from all
over Canada who go there to study in French, because it is a good
institution which was set up after official bilingualism became a
fact of life in Canada. The same situation exists elsewhere in the
country. Progress was made but nothing is perfect. If the hon.
member wants to help, he should say that it is possible for
Canadians to live in French outside Quebec and to live in
English in Quebec. Then he will make a positive contribution to
help the French fact in our country.
* * *
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Currently if a proprietorship or partnership incorporates
during the year Canada pension plan premiums start anew.
Employees are subject to a refund of Canada pension plan
premiums on filing their income tax returns. Small incorporated
businesses are not eligible for such an overpayment.
Will the minister address this inequity which results in a form
of indirect taxation on small and medium sized businesses as
well as acts as a hindrance to business formation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
bringing that particular issue to my attention.
As I understand it that particular regulation has been in the
CPP book since about 1966. As he points out it could impose a
special burden on small and medium businesses at a time when
we are trying to encourage them to create jobs and create
growth.
Based upon the representation of the hon. member I will
undertake to review that regulation and see if we can make a
change.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice or the
parliamentary secretary for justice.
The government continues to talk about gun control for
legitimate gun users.
In August 1993 Frederick Stephen Dieno was arrested in a
shootout with the RCMP in Surrey, B.C., while fleeing after
robbing a pharmacy with a gun. Mr. Dieno was originally
charged with 40 offences, including eight armed robberies and
accompanying use of a firearm during an indictable offence.
However, in a plea bargain arraignment last week Mr. Dieno
pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery. All charges of using a
firearm were dropped.
How can the minister ensure that Canadians can feel safe from
the improper use of firearms when charges of using a firearm
during the commission of an offence are routinely plea
bargained away?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, for the next few weeks the Minister of Justice and the
department will be studying very closely the possibility of
making changes to the gun control laws. These changes if
decided upon will be brought forward and dialogued with all
members of Parliament.
I want to say that questions relating to the administration of
justice and plea bargaining are under provincial jurisdiction. As
such they are not within the responsibility of the Minister of
Justice.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see there will be co-operation with
the government side in making some changes to the gun control
legislation. Unfortunately, I have every reason to believe it is in
the wrong direction and it is against legitimate gun users.
We are asking for changes in the law. We want to know if the
government is prepared to make changes in the law to prohibit
plea bargaining away existing gun control on the illegal use of
guns.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that plea bargaining away
charges on armed robbery should not take place.
This question relates to the study the Department of Justice is
conducting on gun control. It is doing it very intensely and with
the same concern the hon. member presents to this House. I am
sure we will have something to tell the hon. member and indeed
all members very shortly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister said in Edmonton on March 4, 1994 that the
only cuts to be made in the next three years were those
announced in the Budget; however, the Minister of Finance said
in London on April 11, 1994 that there would be more deep cuts.
2977
(1455)
Speaking of possible cuts, he said: ``I will make the answer
very clear.'' That means yes, he will cut. So said the Prime
Minister in Ottawa on April 12, 1994.
Who was telling the truth, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister
in Edmonton, the Prime Minister in Ottawa or the Minister of
Finance in London?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the very large cuts that the government made, especially in
Defence and elsewhere, in programs that we are now reviewing,
criticized by the opposition, when we always said that we would
make those cuts. That is the basis of our budget. I said in
Edmonton and here that the ministers could try to reduce
government spending outside the budget, on a daily and weekly
basis.
The results of this operation will be known every week or in
the weeks to come. I think that in the next few days, for example,
some ministers will have an opportunity to announce that some
programs or institutions in their departments can be abolished
right now. They will make announcements when they are ready.
At the end of the year, we will see how much more was cut, in
addition to what we promised in the budget.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has just disowned his budget. He has just said
that his budget is no longer worth anything.
Now that he has admitted the need to make additional
spending cuts, now that it is clear that he cannot do the job on his
own, is the Prime Minister prepared to involve Parliament in
this process by creating a parliamentary committee to review the
government's finances, as we have been asking him from the
beginning?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): It is the duty of
all parliamentary committees, when they review the
appropriations of every department, to make the appropriate
recommendations. If members of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party want to make recommendations, the committees
are there. They sit every week and I am sure that all committee
chairs will be very pleased to consider all recommendations for
spending cuts and that will make the hon. members very happy. I
asked our party to do so, because we want our members to be
involved. There is no problem, then. You will have the estimates
of all departments and you can make the suggestions that you
want to make. They will be considered by the committee and
forwarded to the government in due course.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration the minister revealed that he wants to attract more
immigrants from Europe. I ask the minister to assure this House
he has no intention of introducing ethnic or racial criteria into
the government's immigration policy.
The Speaker: I believe that this matter is in committee now.
However on a more general type of question perhaps the
minister would like to respond to that.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is having
some degree of difficulty in trying to understand the nature of
the question.
On the one hand the hon. member is talking about the
legitimate promotion of our immigration program through
Europe. On the other hand he talks about a program in terms of
ethnic or cultural lines.
The fact of the matter is we have a balanced program. We have
a number of doors through which individuals can apply to enter,
whether it be the refugee stream, humanitarian, family class,
independent skilled, or business.
When I was in the London, England office which is our
biggest office in Europe, I on behalf of my government
suggested that the perception in Europe that our doors are closed
is wrong. I believe we need to promote immigration from that
part of the world and also to target it with respect to business
class and independent skilled. Many trades, such as aerospace,
are overheating in Great Britain. We could certainly do with
those skilled tradespeople coming over.
(1500 )
There is nothing incompatible in saying that we want to have
independent, skilled and business applications coming in, and at
the same time maintaining our family and humanitarian
programs which have been a hallmark of this country for a long
time.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question was to determine the policy of the government and
whether it was going to introduce racial or ethnic criteria.
Reformers welcome immigrants from all over the world. I ask
the minister, in trying to attract more immigrants from Europe,
is he suggesting that immigration from other parts of the world
be curtailed or is he suggesting that the total immigration
numbers be increased? It has to be one way or the other. Which is
it?
2978
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the member is missing the boat
completely and he is all wet.
If the hon. member looks at the immigration plan we
presented to the House just a few weeks ago, he will note that we
increased, as per the red book, the number of independent
skilled people. Canadians, including I am sure members of his
own party, have wanted to take advantage of skilled individuals
who can find an economic niche.
All I am saying is that the proportion of people with
independent skills coming from Great Britain and the rest of
Europe will increase over 40 per cent in keeping with the
increase in our independent skill levels.
No, the government does not create policies based on the
colour of one's skin, or religion or creed. We base policies on
sound facts and we try to not divide people but bring them
together in unity.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.
I and my colleague from Malpeque, the P.E.I. potato industry
and others have been working with the agriculture ministry for
the past five months trying to solve the PBY-n compensation
problem.
We were all expecting cabinet to make a decision on the issue
this week, thereby putting an end to a four-year ordeal by the
P.E.I. potato seed industry.
Can the government tell the P.E.I. potato industry when a
decision will be made on this issue? A lot of farmers' futures
depend on it.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
been pursuing this very important issue since it was first raised
with him almost immediately after his appointment as Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-food.
He has met with Prince Edward Island potato growers. He has
met with the Potato Growers' Association. He has met with the
premier. He has met with the MPs from that province and
discussed this. He started and completed some analyses so that
he could become fully and fairly informed on all the facts.
The process has taken some time. He has made sure that all of
the facts have been before him. The process has been slowed up
a little bit and interrupted by the launching of a lawsuit by some
Prince Edward Island growers and the government has no
alternative but to defend itself, and the government will.
In the meantime, the minister will continue to treat this as
seriously and as thoroughly as he has in the past. It is now in the
hands of the courts and nothing more can be said at this time.
_____________________________________________
2978
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
(1505)
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Transport) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act respecting certain
agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of
terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(facsimile advertising), and Bill C-235, an act to amend the
Canada Post Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I am introducing
today two bills which deal with related subjects, so I will speak
on both together.
First of all, as we know, of course, masses of unsolicited
advertising material are delivered to our homes regularly. A
number of our fellow citizens would prefer that Canada Post not
deliver this kind of material.
The purpose of one of the bills I am introducing is to allow
people who do not wish to receive direct mail advertising or
unaddressed mailing to so advise Canada Post Corporation and
stop receiving such material.
Let us now move on to another type of unsolicited
advertisements, the type we often receive by fax, not on paper
paid for by the originator but rather on our own paper. Sheet
after sheet after sheet of ads that we never solicited pile up
overnight in our offices.
2979
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of faxes to
advertise the sale of goods or services to individuals or
corporations which did not solicit it.
(Motions deemed agreed to, bills read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-236, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act (at age 60, 10 years service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit
former members of Parliament from collecting a pension while
employed by the federal government, an agency of the
Government of Canada or a federal crown corporation. This
would eliminate the so-called practice of double dipping.
The bill also states that a former member is not eligible to
receive a pension until reaching age 60 and has served at least
three consecutive terms with a minimum of 10 years
consecutive service.
Finally, under the bill beneficiaries of a member or former
member who died before the age of 60 would not be able to
collect a pension until that member would have been 60.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to move that the first Report of the Standing
Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, which was tabled
March 22, 1994, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Speaker of the
House of Commons and the National Archivist of Canada dated June 8, 1993, all
documents presented to a committee of the House of Commons sitting in camera
and any other documents so designated by the Speaker which have been or will be
deposited in the National Archives of Canada for safekeeping, including any
such records deposited prior to the date of the Memorandum of Agreement shall
be identified as Secret Records;
[
Translation]
That, Secret Records shall not be made available by the Archivist to any person
for a period of thirty years from the close of the Parliamentary session in which
the Secret Records were created, unless the House of Commons or one of its
committees directs otherwise, and
That, twelve months before the expiry of the thirty year delay, the Archivist
will inform the Speaker that unless the Speaker directs otherwise, the secret
documents will be made public according to the terms of aforementioned
Memorandum of Agreement.
[
English]
I ask for unanimous consent for this motion.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I have petitions sponsored by the Community Council
of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce which contains over 200 names. The
petitioners refer to the critical need for more social,
co-operative and non-profit housing in Montreal and ask
Parliament to lift the budget restraints imposed on CMHC for
the development of social and co-operative housing.
(1515)
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have several
hundred more names to add to the thousands that have already
been presented from my riding and surrounding areas calling on
the Parliament of Canada to urge government to abolish the
Senate.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36, I would like to present four duly certified petitions on behalf
of my constituents, three of them dealing with the same subject
from the towns of Shaunavon, Cabri, Maple Creek and Gull
Lake.
The gist of the petition is that whereas section 745 of the
Criminal Code of Canada requires a convicted murderer
sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25
years may apply for a review after 15 years, and whereas the
murder of a Canadian citizen is a most reprehensible crime,
wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of
Canada.
2980
The fourth petition from residents of Gravelbourg,
Saskatchewan, and environs contains some 150 signatures
dealing with section 241 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners beg that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the code in any way and to uphold the Supreme
Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow
assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find the
consent of the Chamber to revert to presentation of reports by
committees. The chairman of the fisheries committee is here
and wishes to present a report and I wonder if we could do that at
this point.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
committee reports?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the first report in
this Parliament of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans in relation to the Atlantic fisheries adjustment
programs.
I want to thank all the individuals who have co-operated with
us, most particularly members of the committee on the Liberal
side, the official critic and the member from the Bloc Quebecois
as well as members from the Reform Party.
I also want to thank the over 92 witnesses who participated,
allowing us to come to some consensus on a number of issues
relating to the tragic situation of the collapse of the Atlantic
groundfishery.
Some of the technology that we used such as
teleconferencing, which at first perhaps some, including myself,
were a little leery of, has proven to be very beneficial in
allowing Canadians access to their parliamentarians and to
committees.
I hope that at least some of the recommendations in this
committee report find their way into government policy.
This was broadcast live from coast to coast. The process we
went through does show Canadians that Parliament can work
better and that it can work without animosity and that
partisanship can be put aside when we do the job. Our job
obviously as members of this place is to represent to the best of
our abilities the interests of the citizens of this country, no
matter where they live and no matter the political stripe of the
individuals who sit on a committee.
I also understand that we have some minority reports which
will be appended to the document and there may be one of the
members opposite who may wish to add a few words to the
record.
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, given what the
chairman just said, I think I have the unanimous consent of the
House to append our document as mentioned. We had to proceed
and co-operate with the government to hear the 92 witnesses
who testified before us. It was not easy and that is why, given the
need to proceed quickly, the Bloc Quebecois as the Official
Opposition party wants to point it out. We also want to append to
the Standing Committee's majority report a minority report
stating the missing elements that, in our opinion, would enable
the government to make the right decision.
Our report is generally concerned with the lack of industrial
strategy. There is also the question of job training on which a lot
of money will be spent. There is a constitutional dispute on the
Quebec-Canada agreements, and we wanted to point it out in the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: I will start by asking, as the hon.
member indicated, for unanimous consent to give him the floor.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member from the
Reform Party to say a few words also?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
echo the words of my colleague from the Bloc and of the
governing party. The committee worked very well during the
hearings. Unfortunately we were rushed at the end in an effort to
get the reports together.
I would like to present a minority report. I think there are
some issues on which we were in disagreement with the
majority. These issues deserve to be heard as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 18.
[Text]
Question No. 18-Mr. Deshaies:
2981
Has the Federal Infrastructure program made provision to allocate funds to the
federal-provincial-territorial co-operative program entitled Canada's SchoolNet
and, if so, how many Quebec schools will participate in this program and what are the
names of the Quebec schools or school boards concerned?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): The Canada
infrastructure works program is a series of agreements with the
provinces to support regional and local needs over the next three
years.
The Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement was signed
February 7, 1994. Under the terms of the agreement, the
program in Quebec is divided into four parts: infrastructure
repair, expansion and construction for municipalities with a
population of 5,000 or more; infrastructure repair, expansion
and construction for municipalities with a population of less
than 5,000; projects involving new technology, and major
projects affecting urban areas.
As in other provinces, there is no specific allocation to
programs such as SchoolNet or to other similar programs, but
the criteria would allow for projects that could support the use of
SchoolNet. To date, no proposals have been made to the
province of Quebec regarding SchoolNet or the school boards.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Question No. 18 has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the single notice of motion for the production of papers
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the notice of motion stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2981
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons) moved that Bill C-18,
an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Suspension Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak at third reading of
this very important bill which has been introduced in the House
and which has received considerable support on all sides.
I recognize there is some opposition in the Reform Party to
this bill but I suggest it is misplaced opposition and that in the
end the Reform Party will really appreciate the fact that this bill
has been introduced and dealt with in the House because it will
be so pleased with the final result of the thing when
redistribution has finally been accomplished.
The member for Kindersley-Lloydminster shakes his head
and looks dubious but that has been his problem all along. He
has been a doubting Thomas in respect of this bill and I think
when he sees the outstanding work that the committee of which
he is a member will do in coming up with a new law he will be
gratified with the results and say he cannot understand why he
did not agree with this bill in the very first place.
The hon. member knows, and all members know, that in
dealing with a subject of such importance as redistribution, of
great importance to the members of this place, a government is
always loathe to act unilaterally and in a way that is unfair, or
perceived as unfair, to the other players in the political process.
(1525 )
In this case I suggest that what the government has done is
move in a very fair and reasonable way. What has happened as a
result of this bill? The purpose of the bill is to shelve the current
redistribution process for a period of 24 months. If at the end of
that time there is no new mechanism put in place by legislation,
the redistribution commissions will restart their work,
presumably using much of the material they now have and come
up with a new set of maps.
There will be public hearings that follow as there are under
the current regime, and everything falls back in place again.
This is simply a delay of 24 months. Let us look at the history of
this. Why is the government operating in this way? Why would
we argue for a 24-month suspension at this point?
Redistribution should have been effected following the 1991
census at an earlier date than this because the very first figures
released in 1992 on that census were the ones for redistribution
of seats in the House of Commons. However, the previous
government, the Mulroney government, introduced a bill in this
House to delay the process for 12 months because there was a
committee doing a study of the report of the Royal Commission
on Electoral Reform and Party Financing which had been
presented to the country by the royal commission in early 1992.
Maybe it was late 1992, I cannot remember the date, I must
admit.
2982
That report was referred to a special committee of the House
of Commons. It was to study the report and come up with
recommendations. It seemed pointless at the time. There were
one or two in the NDP who disagreed but almost all members
agreed that the proper course was to defer consideration of
redistribution until there had been a study of the royal
commission's report because the royal commission
recommended changes to the redistribution law of Canada. The
aim was to have that study by the committee done so that
legislation could be introduced in Parliament to make changes.
The committee ended up with a short timeframe for such an
extensive study of the act because the referendum intervened in
the process and disrupted the entire committee work. It took so
much time to do the referendum bill and then Parliament did not
sit for months and months because of the referendum.
Nothing was done in respect of the redistribution
recommendations contained in the royal commission report and
nothing was done to change the redistribution law. The law was
left in place and began its operations during the summer of 1993,
just when Parliament had been adjourned for the summer, and at
the subsequent election because Parliament did not sit again
until well after the election was called.
There we were in a situation in which these commissions were
beavering away across the country preparing draft maps that
were subsequently made public and members suddenly
discovered that redistribution was back on the table, here were
the maps and the public hearings started in another month.
These maps were unacceptable to the vast majority of members
in this House.
We heard yesterday at length from members of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[Translation]
They made several speeches. It was unbelievable to hear so
many speeches on that issue yesterday, but each of these hon.
members had problems with the boundaries in his or her
constituency.
[English]
We responded to this. That is partly why the government acted
with alacrity to bring in this bill and suspend the process. We
spoke in advance with members of the other parties to ensure
that there was some agreement on this. We suggested a motion to
refer various matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs in order to allow that committee to do a
detailed study.
We invited comments from the opposition and we got some
very constructive comments from both parties in opposition. We
included in the motion various items at their specific request to
make the committee process more palatable to them, to make
sure we covered the points that were of concern to the
opposition. I think we have covered them all.
The difficulty was that some hon. members on the other side
have made speeches in the House decrying this. They wanted us
to write in what the committee was to do; that is, if the
committee was to bring in a report saying this. We as a
government said we will let the committee make its own
decision on how it will report to the House. It will consider all
these matters but the report is the committee's decision. We
would not prejudge it. We would not instruct the committee to
do certain things such as limit the number of members of the
House of Commons to 295 or reduce the number of members of
the House of Commons or increase it no more than by x number.
We said the committee would have to look at all the options and
come up with a report. That turned some members of the
opposition in the Reform Party in particular into nervous
Nellies. They became quite upset at the thought that the
committee might-
(1530)
Mr. Hermanson: Wise owls.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster says: ``Wise owls''. I say: ``Nervous
Nellies''.
They were afraid the committee would go out of control and
come up with something worse than we now have. I suppose that
is possible, but I think the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster needs to look at the composition of
the committee. He is a member of it and a very responsible
member of it.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Bellechasse also sits on that committee
and he is very competent. We have several competent members
and, as chairman, I can do certain things to assure committee
members that everything will go just fine. So, I support this bill
because we now have a motion on the Order Paper to refer all
these issues to the committee, and that motion is acceptable to
the vast majority of members in this House. I am convinced that
once the legislation is passed, the Reform Party will support our
motion to the effect that the whole issue should be referred to the
committee.
[English]
I know their doubts will vanish. The committee will be able to
conduct a study and come up with a new bill.
How is the new bill to come into operation? I would hope we
would have the bill passed so that we would not have the
24-month delay any more. It will simply get rid of the current
system and replace it with a new one which would start as soon
as the new bill has passed Parliament.
2983
The question is when it will pass. That matter rests very
substantially in the hands of the committee because we have
adopted for the motion to be referred the new procedure in
Parliament of instructing the committee to bring in a bill on the
issue.
The committee would come back with a bill to the House. The
government could then table the bill. Debate on second reading
stage would be very short, as hon. members know, assuming the
bill complied in all respects with what the committee
recommended. We would have shortened debate and rapid
passage of the bill based on the new procedure. The committee
would do the work and would do it in advance.
I know hon. members will strive to have the committee
achieve agreement on all major points before it. We will look at
the alternatives that are available for dealing with the issue for
the benefit of all Canadians.
Some members of the Reform Party have said there is not a
public outcry on the issue. Of course there is not a public outcry
on the issue. Members of the public are not particularly involved
in the redistribution process and have never shown a particular
interest in the redistribution process. Most members of the
public do not worry particularly about where they are voting.
When the new boundaries are in place there will be outcries
from people: I do not want to vote with that group; why do I have
to drive this far to vote; why is my part of the riding cut off from
all the rest, all my friends and neighbours that I normally voted
with; why are we suddenly lumped in with so-and-so as our
member of Parliament?
That will not happen until the redistribution is complete, the
election campaign starts and people find they are in different
ridings. In spite of all the advertisements of the commissions
most people do not look to see which riding they are in. I have
gone around my constituency and have asked, and most of the
people I would be losing to the neighbouring riding in this
scheme-and there are not many-are totally unaware of it.
Members of the public do not know and there is no public outcry.
The people who are interested in the legislation for the most
part are right here in the House. It is members of Parliament who
have to work with those boundaries during the time they are
elected to serve the people in their own geographic areas.
Imagine, if the redistribution came into effect today or very
shortly as planned, what members of the House who are losing
their ridings would do for the next four years. Who are they
going to be representing? Would it be the people who elected
them or the people whose ridings they think they are going to be
running in the next time?
From the point of view of the public the bill makes sense
because it defers the process so that if redistribution is
completed in time for the next election it will be done shortly
before but not a long time before the election. Members of the
public will be fully represented by their MPs during the time
they are elected to serve them, without having to cast an eye on
neighbouring ridings where members might be running the next
time. That is important. It is a significant advantage for
members of the public, let alone for MPs. To ignore that reality
is perilous, and there are many constituencies that are
disappearing.
(1535)
I suggest that members of the Reform Party, many of whom
are suffering substantial shifts in the process and know it,
particularly those in British Columbia, must be apprehensive
about it. I know they are. I know many members of that party are
very concerned about the boundary proposals that have been put
forward.
Here is a chance to come up with a new scheme. I am not
saying the committee is going to sit there and draw boundaries;
far from it. We will come up with a new arrangement that will
allow for a redrawing of boundaries on a more equitable basis.
We think we can come up with something that is fairer and better
for Canadians.
It may be that there should be a more specific requirement for
consultation with members of Parliament on the issue, or at least
with political parties in the existing constituencies. I do not
know what will be the best solution, but the reference to the
committee is open-ended and we can look at all possible
solutions in the committee.
I know hon. members on the other side are anxious to get on
with the work. As chair of the committee I am anxious to
undertake the work to see what we can discover. There are plenty
of experts on the issue of redistribution in Canada who are
familiar with it. Members of these commissions may have views
they wish to make known to the committee. It is important for
the committee to get on with the work and hear from those
people. Passage of the legislation will ensure that will happen.
I invite members on all sides to bury the hatchet they have
been wielding in recent days and support the bill. I know the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster particularly has his
doubts, but I invite him to cast his doubts aside and walk with
confidence into the future the redistribution process holds for all
members and for the benefit of the Canadian public. It is a good
bill. I know the hon. member in his heart of hearts thinks so and I
invite him to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-18,
an act to suspend the operation of the electoral boundaries
readjustment process in Canada.
2984
I listened with interest to the speech made just now by the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands, and I am sure he will want
to show the same interest in what I have to say about this bill at
this particular stage.
When considering a bill that has long-term implications for
the future of the Canadian federation, it is always necessary to
define the role of the sovereigntist member with respect to such
legislation. I have never made a secret of the fact that I was
elected by the constituents of Bellechasse to defend and promote
the interests of Quebec, which includes promoting the
sovereignty of Quebec.
As was pointed out, not by the hon. member from Kingston
and the Islands but by the hon. member for Calgary West and
also by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, the seats in this
House are ours on a temporary basis. We have them in trust, as it
were. We do not own them. It is up to our constituents to
determine who will sit in those seats. Of all the members sitting
opposite during the 34th Parliament, only one member is left in
this House, and this happened when constituents across Canada
freely expressed their will that it should be so. It is always useful
to recall that this House is not owned by anyone, that these seats
are not anyone's property and that we occupy them on a
temporary basis, until we are recalled by our constituents or
decide otherwise or reach the end of our career.
That being said, I may be a sovereigntist, but it would be
irresponsible of me to deny that a decision on the sovereignty of
Quebec is still a decision that must be made by Quebec voters in
a referendum that will be held in a few months, in Quebec. It will
be held after the Quebec elections which, according to the
Canadian Constitution, will have to take place in the fall, at the
latest.
(1540)
Since we, on this side of the House as on the other side, of
course, are all in favour of supporting the rule of law, the very
essence of democracy, we must operate within the confines of
the present legislation.
At the present time, we still belong to the Canadian
federation, and we must think ahead in case our ultimate
goal-we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, since
the Quebec referendum is only a few months away-should that
light fade away for one reason or another, these seats will still be
Quebec's. That is why we cannot afford to ignore the
implications of this bill, if there were a change in the
membership, since the Bloc Quebecois was elected for a specific
term. That is why I took an active part in the study of Bill C-18
at every stage.
I must point out that once again, the government has acted
belatedly in presenting this bill. They could have presented it 10
or 15 days earlier, so that it could have followed the normal
process. But they chose to wait until the last minute when
provincial commissions, especially in Quebec, had already
started to hear witnesses or were about to hear them. As a matter
of fact, these commissions are operating at the present time.
The way the debate has been going on has forced the
government to bring a motion for time allocation, commonly
called closure. My colleagues from Calgary West and
Kindersley-Lloydminster rose in opposition to that motion.
They were protesting against closure, and rightly so, I think. We
did the same, even though we support the bill, because we will
never accept closure on such a bill. We have been just as vocal as
our colleagues from the Reform Party in opposing it.
The bill was passed at second reading and referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which
tabled its report in the House. Then my colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster, seconded by the hon. member for
Calgary West, proposed three amendments at report stage. And
curiously, the party which complained so bitterly about time
allocation, because debate was cut short, hardly intervened on
its own motions. It is the Official Opposition which had to do the
job of the Reform Party, which is a bit ironic. Why did they
complain about time allocation, and choose not to speak
yesterday? There is a logic there that I do not get. Could it be
that their caucus meeting, Monday night, caused a number of
them to lose their voices? I do not know.
Anyway, we will do our job at third reading. I do believe that
Bill C-18 is necessary if we want to review the 30-year old rules
on electoral boundaries readjustment. In my humble opinion, we
should start this review process, immediately after the bill is
passed, by studying carefully section 51 of the Constitution Act,
1867.
(1545)
It is the basis for the entire decennial readjustment process
provided for by our Constitution. It will no doubt be the first
section we will have to consider in hearing testimony and
debating various amendments to provisions of section 51 of the
Constitution Act, 1867. We may also have to review section
51(a), the so-called senatorial clause, which prevents a
province from being represented by fewer members in the House
of Commons than senators in the Senate and which presently
applies only to Prince Edward Island.
Perhaps there should also be a section 51(b) forcing the
government to take a member from Prince Edward Island from
within its ranks and make him or her a cabinet member, which is
presently lacking. Why does a province with such a glorious
history as Prince Edward Island have no Cabinet members in
this government?
There is another question, but I will not get into it either. We
can ask ourselves the question anyway. The criteria have not
2985
been reviewed since 1964. I have no intention of going through
the whole list, but it is high time that they we review them.
In 1964, the government of the day, the Pearson government,
had the brilliant and worthwhile idea of taking the electoral
boundaries delineation process out of the hands of Parliament
and members of Parliament and putting it in the hands of
independent commissions.
Grasp all, lose all, the saying goes. Perhaps the right balance
has not been struck between the role of the legislator and that of
the commissions. These are also questions we have to ask
ourselves because a number of members have risen in this House
to disagree with plans currently before the various provincial
commissions.
We need to act, not hurriedly, but swiftly nonetheless, as we
are facing some form of danger, a constitutional danger I would
say. As I see it, the danger results from the fact that, during the
24 month period when readjustment is to be suspended under
Bill C-18, during that time, the Procedure and House Affairs
Committee will have to continue to work. The government will
make its bed and eventually present a bill or accept the one
proposed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. But we should not face the next federal election with a
seat distribution based on the 1981 census.
One thing is certain, for the legal security of all Canadians.
With all due respect, I wonder whether it is appropriate for the
government to submit Bill C-18 with all its consequences,
namely that we still have a distribution based on the 1981 census
and that the 2003 election could still be based on 1981 census
figures. Are we not in violation of section 51 of the Canadian
Constitution, which provides for a decennial census and a
readjustment of representation after each decennial census?
The Constitution is there for a reason. If it requires us to
conduct a census, a census will be conducted, and then we will
say, ``We need a readjustment''. If every time we are about to
undertake such a readjustment, some bill cancels or postpones
it, it is as though this provision were no longer enshrined in the
Canadian Constitution.
I urge the Canadian government to use the authority of the
Governor in Council to refer the constitutional problem to the
Supreme Court of Canada for advice, so that any challenge is not
left to ordinary Canadians already overburdened by taxes, and
so that it can be dealt with as quickly as possible.
(1550)
Bill C-18 also provides for the abolition of existing
provincial commissions, a measure which we fully support since
we cannot keep on standby-in spite of the comments made by
the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, which will
certainly be corrected later-and pay the members of those
commissions to do nothing.
This provision should also apply. We can start all over again
later. When I say ``we'' I mean this House, because we do not
know what the situation will be in 24 months, and what the
House will look like. Who knows, there may be 75 fewer seats. It
is pointless to discuss the architecture of this House. After all, if
the 75 seats from Quebec disappear, there will be enough room
for larger desks, to accommodate those who have put on some
weight because they do not have time to exercise in the
Wellington or Confederation building. This could prove a lot
cheaper than tearing down walls, as suggested by our friends
from the Reform Party.
We Quebecers will do an immeasurable service to this House
by freeing a little more than a quarter of the seats here.
Of course, I am pleased because I did not hear any terms such
as break up or collapse. Things went smoothly and I was able to
discuss the issue. In fact, I wonder why, when I raise the issue of
sovereignty for Quebec, I hear some hon. members use those
expressions- but not everyone, far from it. In fact, fewer and
fewer do so, and it may be because they understand more and
more that Quebec's sovereignty is not directed against anyone:
rather, it must be done for our own good. As I mentioned
yesterday to the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, Quebec
will always be as open as it is now with its neighbours, and
particularly its Ontario friends, who are very close, not only
from a geographic point of view but also in terms of the
affinities which we have developed. Quebec is a state which
tomorrow, just as it was yesterday and is today, will remain open
and receptive to the world around it.
Again, Quebec's sovereignty is not directed against anyone.
Let me give you an example. If, tomorrow or in the near future,
the people of British Columbia decided to become sovereign, I
will not get frantic. I will simply say: very good, this is your
decision as British Columbians. That is fine, let us try to make
some agreements, this is an emancipation for you, this is your
choice and I see no point in criticizing it. I will not say that
someone is trying to dismantle the country, to tear it apart, to
blow it up or whatever. I think that we will have to consider very
calmly the implementation of new structures for this country
which has already gone through several structual changes. Since
1763, it has been known as Canada, but during the period when it
was made up of Upper and Lower Canada, and even before that,
at the time of the Quebec Act and the Royal Proclamation, it was
a small country. It grew quietly, over the years.
My comments are totally relevant to the debate, Mr. Speaker.
In 1949, Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation, but
Newfoundland was not destroyed because it decided to give up
its status as an independent Dominion. Newfoundlanders were
never told that they had destroyed their country. They were
congratulated on choosing to join the Canadian federation.
2986
In the second 1949 referendum, because there were two of
them, Newfoundlanders voted 52.34 per cent in favour of
joining Confederation, while 47.66 per cent voted against.
However, that referendum was somewhat special, and we will
not have the same kind of referendum in Quebec.
(1555)
For instance, in the riding of Labrador, the number of
registered voters in the second referendum on July 22, 1948, was
2,886. The number of votes cast was 3,447, which means a
participation rate of 119.44 per cent in favour of union with
Canada. The people in the riding of Labrador were way ahead of
the riding of Ferryland, where 3,791 voters were registered but
3,965 cast their votes, which meant a participation rate of
104.59 per cent in the second referendum, which is not bad!
The first referendum was held on June 3, 1948. There again
the participation rate showed that the people of Newfoundland,
and probably their ancestors as well, were interested in voting in
the referendum, because as they say, we have to vote, not just for
our own sake and our children's, but for the people in the
cemetery. I think that is what happened there!
If we look at the riding of Grand Falls, in the first referendum
on June 3, 1948, the number of registered voters was 11,458, but
the number of voters on June 3, 1948 was 12,580, which gives us
a participation rate of 109.79 per cent, which is quite good!
Grand Falls had the best rate, closely followed in second place
by Humber, with 10,745 registered voters and 11,588 people
who cast their votes, producing a very respectable participation
rate of 107.84 per cent. St. John's West was a close third with
19,586 registered voters and 19,880 votes cast, producing a
participation rate of 101.5 per cent.
And last but not least among the ridings with a participation
rate of more than 100 per cent-something not even members of
the former Soviet Union have been able to do, the best record so
far being 99.9 per cent in one of the former Soviet
republics-the riding of St. John's East, with 16,313 registered
voters and 16,322 votes cast, producing a participation rate of
100.5 per cent. A number of ridings reached 95, 98 or 99 per
cent. But in spite of all that, the final result was 52 to 48. That
did not prevent the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King,
then Prime Minister of Canada, from saying in this House, after
the results of the second referendum in Newfoundland were
announced, that ``It was clear from these figures that the
majority of the huge number of voters who cast their votes were
in favour of Confederation. It would seem that the outcome of
the plebiscite was ``definitely beyond a shadow of a doubt'' a
sign of support for union between the two countries. The
government, and surely the Canadian people as well, welcomed
the results of this plebiscite''.
I trust that with the standards now in effect and Quebec's
legislation that is almost unmatched for its rigour, a result of 50
per cent of the vote, plus one, will be accepted when Quebec
makes its decision.
That being said, you will no doubt allow me to say a few
words about my own riding, which is also affected by the bill as
all other ridings are. Several of my colleagues in the Official
Opposition spoke about their ridings yesterday and I did not yet
take the opportunity to talk about mine in the other stages of the
debate.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to visit my riding of Bellechasse.
You will always be welcome and I will be pleased to host you if
you do not have anywhere to stay, but there is excellent
accommodation almost everywhere. Anyway, it will be a
pleasure for me to receive you when you come. The limits of the
federal riding of Bellechasse are as follows: it is bounded on the
east by the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
represented by my hon. colleague. On the west, it is bounded by
the riding of Beauce; on the east, by the State of Maine in the
U.S., and on the north, by the St. Lawrence River, although my
riding also includes some islands in the St. Lawrence, one of
which is Grosse Île, where thousands and thousands of Irish
families stayed on their migration to Quebec or Canada.
(1600)
The riding of Bellechasse could now be described as a
rectangle going from Saint-Pamphile in the southeast to
Lac-Etchemin in the southwest, and from Saint-Jean-Port-Joli
in the northeast to Saint-Anselme in the southeast,
Saint-Anselme being the parish adjacent to my own parish of
Sainte-Claire-de-Dorchester.
With the new electoral map as proposed, which takes into
account regional county municipalities or RCMs, the riding of
Bellechasse would include two more parishes in the RCM of
L'Islet, namely Saint-Roch-des Aulnaies and Sainte-Louise,
which are now in the electoral district of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, so that the whole RCM of
L'Islet would be in the riding of Bellechasse.
More to the west, the riding of Bellechasse would gain the
municipalities and parishes of Saint-Cyprien,
Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, Sainte-Rose-de-Watford,
Saint-Benjamin, Saint-Prosper, Sainte-Aurélie and
Saint-Zacharie, which are all located in the RCM of Etchemins.
My federal riding of Bellechasse would then include every
parish of the RCMs of L'Islet, Montmagny, Bellechasse and
Etchemins, for a total of about 64 parishes and enormous
distances we still measure in miles because the numbers are too
high when they are measured in kilometres.
The homogeneity is very nice, but the distances are a little
ridiculous as a single member of Parliament responsible for
such a vast area cannot properly serve all of his constituents.
The criteria for readjusting electoral boundaries in Canada must
be reviewed.
2987
In closing, since we are talking about redistribution, it would
be interesting to say a few words on the redistribution of seats in
the other place. We would be in favour of an immediate and total
redistribution of the 104 seats in the other house where
unelected people are highly paid to sit. I think our friends in the
Reform Party would wholeheartedly agree with us that we
should abolish, in their present form, all the constituencies in
the other house of the Parliament of Canada. We do not need a
second house whose members would be working as they are
now.
I for one am in favour of the proposal put forward by the
Reform Party, namely a triple-E Senate, an equal, elected and
effective Senate. In my view, that respects the principle of
equality among provinces, where all provinces would have the
same number of representatives and all regions would be
represented.
Even though I said I would be in favour of such a proposal, I
do have one very fundamental reservation. The proposal would
probably be acceptable to English Canada, but never to Quebec.
Quebec does not belong in another house where there would be
equal representation of all provinces. Quebec will have nothing
to do with that, nothing at all.
In 1965, the premier of Quebec, or the man who would
become premier the following year, in 1966, Daniel Johnson Sr.,
the ``real one'' as some people call him, wrote in a book entitled
Égalité ou Indépendance that Canada will be binational and
biethnic or it will not exist.
(1605)
It is up to my colleagues and of course to you, Mr. Speaker, to
determine if Canada has become binational and biethnic. Not
only do we not hear the word biethnicity anymore, but outside
the province of Quebec, a lot of people even deny the existence
of the Quebec nation-and I use the word nation in the English
sense of the word, in its sociological sense, where it means
people rather than country. No matter what Mr. Trudeau says in
his private meetings, the word nation in French can apply to the
existence and values of the Quebec people today, a people who
have demonstrated their collective willingness to live in a given
territory, to prosper there in their own language while respecting
their minorities and to create within this territory a national
state, a home for francophones in America.
That is the goal that we, the Official Opposition, along with
Quebec sovereignists and nationalists, will continue to pursue
until we succeed, hopefully within a few months, in convincing
our friends and colleagues in Quebec that Quebec sovereignty is
as good for Quebecers as Canadian sovereignty is good for
Canadians and as American sovereignty has been good for
Americans. Quebec sovereignty is the affirmation of a people
who have finally achieved political maturity. In that spirit, we
will vote in favour of Bill C-18 at third reading.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to participate in the debate on third and final reading of
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. First of all, I want to state my
party's position. We in the Reform Party are against this bill and
continue to oppose it. It is obviously a waste of the time of
independent commissions established under legislation passed
by this House. Also, it is rather strange to stop the process as
public hearings are starting or about to start.
I will be discussing the policy of this government as well as its
motives. I must also comment on the remarks made by my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and his party's position. I
understand that the Bloc supports this bill, but I cannot figure
out why.
Basically, I do not see why the Official Opposition would
support the government in establishing boundaries in Quebec
for elections which, they say, will never be held because Quebec
will have achieved political independence. I understand the
Bloc Quebecois's position on Quebec's independence, but not
their position on representation in this House. I do not
understand their position on this bill, not at all. I am puzzled by a
number of things.
(1610)
The hon. member for Bellechasse mentioned that we
Reformers had moved amendments to this bill yesterday. We
made the points we wanted to make. Five or six of our members
have spoken on the bill. Now the Bloc, which supports the bill,
continues to debate the amendments we moved and that they
oppose, thereby delaying passage of a bill they support. I do not
understand that and, as I said earlier, I do not see the point, for
the Bloc Quebecois, of supporting suspension of the
readjustment of electoral boundaries and of the number of seats
in a future election if, as they claim, they are not interested in
those seats because they would have no use for them in view of
the events to come in Quebec.
[English]
It is a position I do not understand. I understand somewhat
better the position that the government has put forward. I
listened very carefully today to the words of the parliamentary
secretary who gave for the first time somewhat of an explanation
of how the government arrived at its position and how it has
conducted itself. I will not comment on that at length. I have said
a great deal about it already in the House and in committee.
If one examines very carefully the position of the
parliamentary secretary, what he really is saying is that
politicians should decide whether these boundaries are
appropriate or not. Many of us, Liberals and apparently
Bloquiste aussi, think they are not and therefore that really
justifies the bill. I know there was more
2988
sophistication to the argument than that. But I heard that as the
core of the argument and that troubles me a great deal. It is a
fundamentally different concept than the one we have about the
redrawing of political boundaries. It is the reason we are
concerned about delaying the process for two years and
diverting it to a parliamentary committee, dominated by the
government majority and then, of course, having on that
committee an official opposition that does not think these seats
are going to be important to it four years from now.
Let me just comment a little further on that. We had a
committee hearing on this bill. We passed the bill on the
Thursday before the House rose. Within hours we were in
committee and within a couple of hours of that the bill was
passed.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and I were
there. Officials from Elections Canada including the Chief
Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, appeared before the committee.
I want to put on the record part of the exchange from that
committee if I could because it is very instructive on what the
motivations for bringing this legislation were. Let us be clear.
They have very little to do with the process that is now under
way. I will summarize a few points from that hearing.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster asked Mr.
Kingsley:
-were you yourself or Elections Canada in general consulted about the
suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act prior to its
introduction into the House of Commons?
Mr. Kingsley: -there was not what I would call consultation with me or my
office about this bill.
Mr. Hermanson: Is this unusual?
Mr. Kingsley: Well, I've been in the position for four years, and previous
amendments to legislation relating to the office have involved consultation with
my office-
Mr. Hermanson: -I want to know if the commissions have completed their
work under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to this point? Would
that be fair to say overall?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer is yes, they have. They've done their work in
accordance with the schedule and in accordance with the requirements of the
statute. They are on time.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you know whether they're on budget?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the budget that had been fixed, the answer is yes,
they are on budget.
Mr. Hermanson: Were the commissions themselves properly constituted as
required under the act?
Mr. Kingsley: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. Hermanson: Was there any indication of incompetence on the
commission? Were there any obvious errors or mistakes reported to you or that
you observed in supervising their work?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer is no.
Mr. Hermanson: Are you aware of any meetings having been held
improperly, say, without a quorum or something like that?
Mr. Kingsley: I am advised the answer to that question is no.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you feel Elections Canada was able to meet the needs of
the commissions by providing the maps, the census information and other
information you were required to provide to them?
Mr. Kingsley: That is certainly my view because I have heard absolutely
nothing to the contrary from anyone.
Mr. Hermanson: There has been no suggestion there were inaccuracies in any
of the information received? The census information was correct?
Mr. Kingsley: No information to that effect at all.
(1615)
Mr. Hermanson went on to ask whether the commissions have
the latitude if they hear representation from the public in the
public hearing process to make more largely definable changes
in the boundaries. Mr. Kingsley replied that in accordance with
the statute the commissions have all the latitude they wish on
that matter. That is the point of the exercise. I will go on.
I had asked Mr. Kingsley to confirm that the first notification
was really with this particular bill. Did it occur after the tabling
of the new proposals or the new maps? In other words I was
asking if the government showed any particular interest in this
to Elections Canada before there were specific boundary
proposals that affected Liberal members. Mr. Kingsley
confirmed essentially that yes it was after the tabling of the
maps that the question was drawn to his attention.
Mr. Hermanson: Are there already a number of people who have applied to
meet before these commissions? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Kingsley: Apparently requests have come in throughout the land.
I know that because I was one who along with several other
members of our caucus had prepared submissions and made
contact with the commissions. I should add that considerable
money had already been spent setting up the public hearing
process which is now under way.
Mr. Hermanson asked if a review were going on in committee,
in other words the review proposed under the government's
motion to look at the process, would it hamper in any way the
current work of the commissions. Mr. Kingsley replied that
from a purely technical point of view he would have to answer
no. Of course we do have the bizarre situation that the hearings
are now proceeding because the commissions have to do that in
law. Of course there is still the intention to shut down the
process.
I asked Mr. Carol Lesage, assistant director of operations,
electoral boundaries, whether some of the people on the
commissions were qualified. Mr. Lesage made the following
observation: ``In the majority of cases the commissioners are
university professors in political science and in most cases
specialize in questions dealing with representation''.
2989
In fact when I asked my research assistant to find some
detailed articles on these questions so we could call some
witnesses it turned out that many of the names she came up with
were in fact commissioners.
I asked Mr. Lesage whether to his knowledge the
commissioners had any particular partisan background. Of
course the answer to that was no.
Mr. Hermanson: Has Elections Canada received extensive complaints that the
process is too slow, or too fast?
Mr. Kingsley: I am advised that we have not received any complaint in that
respect.
Mr. Hermanson: Have you had a large number of calls requesting more
information or registering complaints regarding the maps that were distributed?
Mr. Kingsley: I remember looking at some statistics. The number of calls has
increased recently as a result of this exercise at the 1-800 number.
It would appear furthermore he went on to say, that a number
of those calls were directly related to the fact there were
advertisements that the public hearing process was about to
begin. It is now under way.
It is fairly clear there is no malfunction in this process. It
simply does not suit the political self-interests of members of
Parliament, particularly members of the government. It
apparently does not suit the political interests of members of the
Bloc Quebecois. However I do not understand precisely what
those interests are. I am sure they have nothing to do with the
referendum in Newfoundland 50 years ago.
(1620)
There has been a certain amount of public reaction to this
event and this bill in the media. Let me just review that because
this is what people are reading across the country concerning
this piece of legislation.
I will not go on and on about this but the Vancouver Sun said:
``So much for fair play''. That was its editorial on March 25.
The Calgary Herald of March 25 urged the government to
play by the rules. The Calgary Herald said: ``The Reform Party
is right. On this issue, Reform at least appears willing to play by
the rules rather than work them to its own self-interests''. I have
to mention that because I certainly do not have an endorsement
from the Calgary Herald for the election and I do not suspect I
will have one in the future. However, I think it is worthwhile to
note that endorsement.
Winnipeg Free Press, March 26: ``A Liberal fiddle''. It goes
on to point out the inequities that this legislation will
perpetuate.
The Montreal Gazette: ``Redrawing the boundaries. Ridings
should reflect reality, not Liberal politicking''.
[Translation]
In La Presse of March 29, Pierre Gravel wrote: ``Electoral
map-millions wasted''. He points out, and I agree with him,
that ``Since they arrived in Ottawa, the Bloc has pleasantly
surprised its opponents, even in English Canada, by behaving as
a responsible opposition party.'' This is an editorial from
Quebec. But he also adds that ``This is the first important issue
on which one can criticize it for not playing its role.''
[English]
The Ottawa Citizen, March 26: ``So much for principles.
Crass partisan interference by the Liberals in the redrawing of
electoral boundaries ensures the next elections will be unfair''.
Edmonton Journal March 26, Norm Ovenden: ``Liberals
protect personal kingdoms. Proposals from independent
commissions for new riding boundaries would have cut some
MPs out of the political picture''. Of course some of them may
be cut out in any case.
The Globe and Mail wrote a number of articles on this. One in
particular I want to quote at length: ``Ottawa moves to scuttle
revisions to riding boundaries. Grits cut off debate, introduce
law to help process of redistribution. Using arguments that
affected MPs traditionally raised at boundary revision time,
Liberal MPs said yesterday that the proposed changes would
disrupt traditional communities and social links within ridings
and would eliminate historical riding names. The realignment of
rural ridings to give them similar numbers of residents to urban
ridings would also make them larger and more difficult for MPs
to travel''. That is what we heard.
``However, at a closed caucus meeting two weeks ago, Liberal
MPs from central Ontario said that the boundary revisions
would adversely affect local campaign organizations especially
in weakly held ridings. The MPs burst into applause when
Solicitor General Herbert Gray, the minister responsible for
elections legislation, promised that the government would block
the process. The government's move to close off debate
yesterday prompted some dissension within the Liberal caucus.
Some senior ministers objected to using time allocation so early
in the party's term on an issue not crucial to Liberal policy or
programs''.
``Sources say some Liberal MPs facing another four years
with hugely overpopulated constituencies were persuaded to
support the move with warnings that realignment could boost
the Reform Party's chances in Ontario. Other MPs were told the
government will assign additional constituency staff to crowded
ridings''. I should add that all three parties have agreed to assign
this additional staff through the Board of Internal Economy,
which we did in any case.
2990
(1625 )
We all know we cannot believe everything we read in the
newspapers. However this is a disturbing report, not refuted to
my knowledge by anybody in the government to this point. I
think the motivations, perhaps not as openly painted by Liberal
members as in the article, have been clearly expressed in the
Commons that this does affect personal political needs.
I want to shed a little more sympathetic light on this situation.
First of all I am glad to see in that article, and I did suspect and
have reason to believe there are Liberal MPs and cabinet
ministers who do not support what is going on. I wish they had
been listened to here.
However I do think there is a problem we should be frank
about. Why has this particular issue proceeded this way at this
time? In the past there has been a ruckus and concern about
riding redistribution. There always will be. Sometimes in the
past Parliament has intervened to change the process but it has
always given a public policy reason before. It has changed the
amending formula in the Constitution that only it can alter, some
of the particulars of that. It has through that suspended the
process and it has restarted again. Never has it stopped the
process without a clear public policy objective other than to
study it.
Why did that happen this time? I think the reason is very clear.
I saw the map in the Ottawa airport recently. The partisan map of
Canada after the last election is very interesting. I know there
are some differences here and there, but if you stand back a few
feet you see a green bar on one side, the Reform Party and our
strength in Alberta and British Columbia. You see a red bar
through Ontario where the Liberal Party won most of the seats.
You see a purple bar through Quebec where the Bloc Quebecois
won almost all of the francophone majority ridings; most of the
ridings won by the Liberal Party were ridings with larger
anglophone or allophone populations. Then there is another red
bar on the other side of Quebec in Atlantic Canada.
What does that mean? It means that you cannot go to an
independent commission and make proposals that appear to be
sticking up for your own riding without appearing to be against a
caucus colleague. You cannot say your riding should be altered a
certain way and therefore change the riding next to yours, unless
of course you get together as caucus colleagues. That has made
it more difficult. I sympathize with that situation because we
have had to deal with that in our caucus in terms of preparing our
own submissions.
As difficult as that situation is, that cannot block
redistribution forever. It certainly is not right to have people
represented in the year 2000 on a census that was conducted in
the early 1980s. That is ridiculous.
With that all said this is an argument for many, many things. It
is an argument for the independence of the process. As the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster pointed out to me today,
it is probably also in many ways an argument for the Reform
Party policy of fixed election dates every four years.
It is an argument for some of the things that have been raised
to restore the Senate to its role of regional representation. It is
also an argument for the need for a second chamber. When there
is a dominant majority in this Chamber that operates on
confidence and insists that the most wildly unjustifiable thing
go through and it slams it through as quickly as possible, there is
an argument for an elected independent or second legislative
chamber. I repeat elected. It would reconsider that measure and
force the government and force the House of Commons into
some reasonable compromise.
The Senate itself is in a very awkward position in these kinds
of situations. The Senate has a clear legal and constitutional
mandate which allows it to revisit and to block any piece of
legislation. Its unelected status puts it in an extremely difficult
position. I am not going to mince words on this, but I hope the
Senate studies this thing as carefully as it believes it should be
studied. I hope it examines very carefully all the questions,
including the constitutional question. To delay this past the year
2000 is in fact a potential violation of our Constitution.
(1630)
If the Senate believes that is the case, the appropriate thing for
it to do, because of its unelected nature, would be not to block
the bill, not to vote it down, but insist that the government get a
constitutional reference to the Supreme Court on this so that we
can be sure that we are not doing anything that is
constitutionally or legally untoward. That is very important.
I have spoken a lot on this bill before. I have spoken at length
today. Our point is clear. There will be other speakers from the
Reform Party and I believe they will all be opposing the bill and
we will be opposing it at third reading.
In closing I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day three months
hence.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion appears to be in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak on Bill C-18 at third reading. I would like to remind
you that during debate on second reading, I stressed the
fundamentally democratic nature of the Bloc Quebecois and its
2991
intention to respect the character and autonomy of the people it
represents in every riding of Quebec.
I would like to draw the attention of the member from Calgary
West, who is wondering about our intentions, trying to
understand our approach, to the strongly held democratic beliefs
of the Bloc members. I would add that one of our party's main
objectives-particularly when it comes to Quebec
independence-is, as I have already said, to follow the
democratic process every step of the way.
We are taking part in this debate for much more significant
reasons than party politics, since, as a number of my colleagues
stated in this House, the decentralization process started a few
years ago in Quebec is being accelerated and decision-making
powers are being transferred back to the regions.
Today I want to say again that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour
of Bill C-18, a bill to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act for a two-year period and abolish
the 11 electoral boundaries commissions. Our goal in supporting
this legislation which suspends the operation of the Act for two
years is, as you will have understood, to respect the regional
character of the population and, at the same time, to avoid
hampering the process of decentralization towards these same
regions that is now under way in Quebec.
(1635)
Yesterday, I was pointing out in this House that the
government in office, the Liberal government, does not usually
understand the deep meaning of decentralization. In our
fundamental reasons in favour of that readjustment, we are
stressing that if, and I repeat if, Quebec is still in the
Confederation when this step takes place, we would want to
make sure at that time that all of this decentralization pursued by
Quebec would be fully respected.
However, as I mentioned yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois
supports Bill C-18 with some reservations. First of all, it seems
essential that we denounce once again the arbitrariness and
inconsistency of some boundaries established in the past. To that
effect, we must emphasize the importance of administrative
divisions in Quebec. I remind you that these administrative
zones not only have a strategic importance for Quebec, but they
are also based on fundamental geographic, economic, industrial
and cultural considerations, and we must fully understand all the
work done by the economic, cultural and geographic
communities in Quebec.
As long as Quebec remains part of the Canadian
Confederation, the federal commissions readjusting electoral
boundaries will have to take into consideration regional county
municipalities as well as administrative regions.
As I said in my first speech, and this is the reason for our
second reservation about Bill C-18, we consider
decision-making an essential element of regional policy for the
year 2000. Yet decentralized economic and social development
is absent from Canadian policy as seen by the highly
centralizing Liberal government. Again, the Liberal
government's centralizing thrust works against the process and
the work being done in Quebec.
Let us not be afraid of words; let us not deny history; it is high
time that Quebec broke free from this centralizing federalism
which is extremely costly and leading us to bankruptcy.
Decentralization of the political and economic decision
making process appears to us equally essential to the creation of
jobs in RCMs, particularly in my area of Sherbrooke, in
Val-Saint-François and in the Asbestos region. Therefore, in
the spirit of the reform of the Minister of Regional Development
of Quebec, Mr. Picotte, and following the consolidation of
regional development councils, the Bloc Quebecois commits
itself to entrust the regions with political and economic
decision-making.
The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the Government of Quebec
should not be the only one involved in the developing of a
consistent economic policy. The general direction of
development must be defined by the regions in the first place.
I personally support the approach proposed by the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, according to which regional
authorities are synonymous with regional government. Regional
development councils will enjoy the credibility that comes with
being elected and have the authority to pass regulations and
raise taxes.
The rest of the provinces have to be told that. This way,
Quebec remains original and authentic in its approach to
regional development.
Decentralization of a central government, this bureaucratic
monster which is well known to civil servants, must come from
political sovereignty.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that decentralization of
government funds and political power is the only way to
promote development in eight regional strategic areas defined
by the regional council of Eastern Townships, which brings us to
the redistribution of all constituencies in the Eastern Townships.
Last spring, in the five-year development plan for the Eastern
Townships, local decision makers were able to identify three
major development themes.
First, development strategies are defined according to
problems caused by delays and all the catching up to do. By
promoting resource development, manpower training, research,
technological development and business networking, these local
2992
decision-makers are influencing economic development
throughout the country.
Hence, we truly believe that people should feel they belong to
their region and that ridings should be defined according to
common interests shared by municipalities. That basically
explains our position on Bill C-18.
(1640)
Second, in any forward looking approach, it is primarily at the
local level that development policy can be defined based on
natural and cultural assets of the RCMs and on environmental
protection.
Third, we should always start from a decision at the local
level, when defining a set of criteria for building on our
strengths through investments to modernize our agriculture,
forestry and mining sectors and make them more competitive.
Therefore, it is primarily for structural reasons that we support
this bill.
If my colleagues will bear with me, I will try to explain the
reasons behind specific actions by Quebec. Human resources
development, manpower training, the potential for natural and
cultural development, research and development,
environmental protection, natural resources industries and
business networking are a priority for my team, and we believe
that the RCMs of my riding of Richmond-Wolfe and other
Quebec ridings, and the revised electoral boundaries, will be the
basis for economic development.
My question is: Should we be always waiting for federal
subsidies to boost research and development in the RCMs of
Val-Saint-François and Sherbrooke? No. The Bloc Quebecois
replies that the time has come to repatriate all powers and public
funds which belong to us as a sovereign country and to share
them with the regions which represent the real power.
In Richmond-Wolfe, the Bloc Quebecois wants to do more
than change the structure and the riding boundaries. We want
some logic.
Some hon. members: Good.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): The members across the
way are reacting to these words because they are not familiar
with them. Do they know the words logic and decentralization?
Decentralization is part of a logical process of regional
self-management based on grass-roots democracy. Does that
mean something to you?
Our approach favours the emergence of very decentralized
and unbureaucratic organizations. Having read the Auditor
General's report, we know the high cost of this bureaucratic
monster, which is leading us straight to bankruptcy. In short, we
oppose all authoritarian social and economic management
policies of unified and centralizing administrations, like the
Liberal government, which are ruining this country's finances,
let us get that clear it once and for all.
By favouring the decentralization of decision-making, we
will help the people in the ridings work for regional
development instead of trying to develop an impossible Canada.
Adopting Bill C-18 on third reading is a good thing, but, in
closing, I wish to say to hon. members that the next stage,
consideration by the Senate, is not really essential for us. That
institution costs us $43 million a year, but does not produce
anything. Nevertheless, Bill C-18 is now at third reading, and
we support it.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe and I had the feeling that maybe the one who
wrote his speech is the same person who wrote the speech of the
hon. member for Bellechasse, because both have nearly the
same theme. I wonder why he can discuss sovereignty or the
separation of Quebec in a speech on new electoral boundaries
throughout Canada. It is incredible! Maybe logic defies reason
in his speech. In any case, I have a question for the hon. member.
(1645)
Does he think that he will stay in this House after a
referendum, if Quebec says yes to Canada and wants to stay here
with other Canadians? If that is the decision, will he remain a
member in this House and will he participate as a member, as he
is doing now, and abandon his ideas of sovereignty and
separation in order to defend his constituents' real interests?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased that the hon. member is so receptive to the idea of
openly discussing sovereignty in this House and that he is
prepared to accept some of the arguments that have been raised
here so that together we can consider what lies ahead for us.
Our course of action will be quite straightforward. Yes, the
Parti Quebecois will win the next election in Quebec. A
referendum process will be launched and will be won by the
Parti Quebecois. The members of the Bloc Quebecois will be
pleased to work in Quebec with considerable open-mindedness
with a view to laying the groundwork for negotiations with
English Canada. Yes, we will be participating in the process.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I would simply like to comment on the speech by my
colleague from Richmond-Wolfe. In my opinion, his
comments were most relevant to this debate, unlike what the
government member had to say.
He spoke at length about decentralization. I would like him to
explain to us a little more how he would go about ensuring that
2993
the will of local communities is respected if and when the
process of redrawing the electoral map is undertaken.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, to provide an
adequate answer, I must point out that regional county
municipalities in Quebec-as my colleagues have explained in
detail-are municipalities grouped together and whose
economic, cultural and social activities are closely related and
involve people commuting between home and the workplace.
These regional county municipalities were asked to develop
strategic plans and first review all the problems experienced in
their region, in terms of employment and social, educational and
cultural development.
Once the diagnosis was established, a strategic plan was
developed for each regional county municipality. Let me use the
example of the Eastern Townships, where there are seven
regional county municipalities. Together, these municipalities
examined and put together their strategic development plans,
and then quickly selected major thrusts and common
development projects, favouring a decentralization of the
Quebec government to the regions, a transfer-the hon. member
opposite should listen-of funds to the decision makers at the
regional level and, consequently, a decision-making process
with real spending power.
When we look at the proposed electoral reform, we realize
that this structure is not understood and is simply ignored. The
powers that be in Ottawa do not understand this structure and
they draw electoral boundaries which systematically undermine
an effort which has already been going on for some ten years in
Quebec. These are the major structuring arguments which lead
us to participate in this debate, and this may be the reason why
some hon. members are not listening to what we are saying.
(1650)
If hon. members are receptive, they will understand that what
is taking place in Quebec is really a decentralization in favour of
the real decision makers, those who are key players in the field.
First, these people can identify problems and, second, they can
provide original and effective solutions.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the proposed
suspension of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act. I rise to oppose Bill C-18 and to support the
Reform amendment to that bill.
There are three issues here that need to be addressed and have
been addressed. I would like to put my thoughts to them. The
first one is the issue of government interference with due
process; the second is the issue of proper representation for the
people of Canada; the third is the proper use of funds and the
affordability of the process that we are looking at.
In terms of government interference there are several things I
feel the government is doing in proposing this bill. In 1964 the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act put into place a system
that was non-partisan and operated under general principles, a
system to look at electoral boundaries within our country and
make a choice in a system to make it fair to Canadians.
On a whim the government has decided to dismantle a due
process. The people of Canada look at the motivation and
wonder what motivates this and what in future might happen the
same way, as well as government interference in the process
here in this House in terms of time allocation and the closure on
bills.
I have a quote here from a few years ago of a former member
of this House who represented a constituency in B.C. when
closure was enacted by a former Conservative government to
enact the legislation that this government is trying to annul.
Let me quote from Hansard of December 17, 1985. The Right
Hon. John Turner stated:
The proposal of the government to impose closure on Bill C-74, an act which
in effect amends the Constitution of this country with regard to the number of
members who have the right to sit in this Chamber, cuts very deeply into the
ability of the House to represent adequately the people of Canada. The House of
Commons, its make-up, its essence and how we operate should not be tampered
with in a careless, callous and cavalier fashion.
I warn those who sit on all sides of this House, particularly those who sit on
the backbenches of the Conservative government, to take heed and pay close
attention to what the government is attempting to do, because it affects all of us
and our ability to represent adequately the people who did us the honour of
sending us to the House.
This is the first time in the history of the House that a government has made
redistribution a partisan issue.
Now we have a second time.
At all times previously redistribution, a measure to redivide the seats of the
House of Commons, has been done in a non-partisan, impartial manner. There
was all-party agreement, in fact for 30 years.
If the action so heartily condemned by the leader of the
Liberal Party was wrong then, why is it suddenly so right now?
Does time change these things, or is it power? Suddenly debate
and a thorough review of the best approach to take in an
atmosphere of freedom are no longer valid concerns when he is
the one in power.
Is it any surprise that MPs on this side of the House are now
suspicious of the government's motives and undefined plans?
Government interference is also in the fact that it is allowing
or seeks to allow or disallow the input from the public, from
Canadians. Instead it wants to put the decision to a
parliamentary committee of which of course it would control the
outcome.
The very act of redistribution takes at least two and a half
years, possibly longer. It involves the striking of commissions,
it takes a look at geography, drafts boundaries, involves
consultative processes and perhaps, as we saw in 1981, court
challenges in the process.
2994
(1655 )
Besides that, Elections Canada has to look at it and put into
place all the returning officers needed. Polling districts have to
be set up.
The 1988 election had to operate from a 1981 census. The
potential of the process that we now see if this is delayed for two
years as suggested would be looking of course at something that
would take us into the year 2000 before we had redistribution.
We would be looking at 1981 numbers and I would like to
reflect that in my own area. My constituency right now is made
up of three centres, Coquitlam, Port Moody and half of Port
Coquitlam, and happens to be one of the fastest growing areas in
the lower mainland.
In the 1992 referendum there were 77,900 voters and in the
1993 election there were 86,324 voters. According to Statistics
Canada in the three centres the population in 1991 was 136,000;
in 1996 that is projected to be 158,000; in the year 2006,
197,000.
There was 21 per cent growth from 1986 to 1991 in Coquitlam
alone, and 26 per cent growth in that same period in Port
Coquitlam. By the time we come to the year 2000 which is
potentially where we would be if the process is shut down and
the representation is not there we would be looking at numbers
that do not reflect the proper representation by population. The
skewing would be that much worse than it has been.
I was interested to see the numbers that were assigned to this
project that has happened and hopefully in the public
consultations this will be looked at.
The target number in our particular area was 96,000 voters.
Certainly some of these things need to be reviewed.
I was interested to review that the United States House of
Representatives has in total 435 representatives. They represent
ridings of approximately half a million people. That maximum
is set by their constitution and like ours their boundaries are
adjusted every 10 years.
Britain, on the other side of the scale, has 651 members. There
are so many members and so little room in the House they cannot
accommodate these members. In fact to vote they have to file
past the Speaker. This limits debate. It shortens the question
period.
We do have to look at numbers and in fact the Canadian people
are saying they do not want the numbers increased. The cost is
high enough in this House.
What do the Canadian electors want? My second point is they
want proper representation. Effective representation comes
from representation by population. The numbers that come from
each constituency should reflect the population. Those numbers
should be equal as much as possible for the constituency.
However, outside in rural areas to make up for that we need
reasonable regional representation.
Once again I would make a point of the importance of the
other place, representing regionally and equally across this
country, an elected Senate that is effective and therefore equal
representation of all Canadians.
The third thing we have to remember is the affordability of the
process. The process that is in place has met the criteria
proposed by the body that the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act is proceeding on budget. It has accomplished
to this point its purpose on budget and would be wasted if the
process were put aside. I propose that what we do need is proper
use of funds. We should let this proceed to the point at which the
public can be consulted, the input is in place and we get the
feedback that Canadians want from this process.
(1700)
It is true that we do not need more seats in Parliament. The
Reform stand is that Canada is already one of the most governed
countries of the industrialized world. Do we need more
representation? No, we need better representation. Do we need
more costs? No, we need better representation.
We need representation by population. We need regional
representation. We need proper use of the money that has
already been spent and a step in the right direction for public
input on how best to spend money in future electoral processes.
With these comments I would like to support the motion for
the amendment to put aside or to postpone Bill C-18, as
proposed by my Reform colleagues.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam in her speech stressed
very greatly the importance of not increasing the number of
members of this House.
In the negotiations that were carried on there was some
discussion about that issue and I know that members of the
Reform Party pressed to have a committee to not only consider
whether there would be any increases but to have a commitment
that it be frozen. It would have been happy had such a clause
been included in this bill.
2995
I have two questions for the hon. member. First, did she in
making her statements bear in mind the fact that this bill merely
suspends the process for two years? It is not a bill that in any way
interferes with the process or changes it. The process will
resume in two years time if nothing else has been done. Did she
bear that in mind when she quoted from the speech by the Right
Hon. John Turner who was after all criticizing a bill that
changed the process right away? This was not a case of a
suspension bill, this was a change in the process. I note there is
no change in this process in this bill.
Second, would she support this bill if it contained a clause that
limited the number of members of the House of Commons to
295?
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, a
suspension of process, what does that mean? That means an
interruption in a process that is already in place. What this does
is take it to a Liberal dominated committee again. What is its
intention? We do not know. Why suspend it if you feel that it will
proceed? Let us carry on with what is there and use the process
that is there.
As to the other question, if the number of members were
limited to 295, certainly that would be an improvement and from
the feedback from my constituents they would heartily endorse a
freeze on the number of members of Parliament. Perhaps this
should be looked at more carefully over time and perhaps that
could even be reduced depending on what we would find to be
the proper representation by population and the proper regional
representation model that would apply to the Canadian people.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I commend the
hon. member on her comments. She certainly made some efforts
at researching this issue. The hon. member has also referred to
her own riding in the context of where she might be if we do not
have redistribution in the next 10 years.
(1705 )
The hon. member may not know that my riding currently has
about 210,000 constituents. I had absolutely no difficulty in
attesting to and recommending that this government proceed
with the legislation as it had planned for the very simple reason
that the riding next to me had only one-third the number of
constituents.
The member talked about the prospect of capping the number
of seats that we have in this great House. Given the situation in
which one may have a riding that does not have as many as the
hon. member's riding does, would she not agree that it might be
better to redistribute between the existing ridings?
Perhaps more important, rather than talking about the waste
that might occur by having to suspend the electoral boundaries,
we might be doing something that helps the Canadian public and
the taxpayer.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be
done to help the Canadian public and certainly-I hope the
Liberals are listening-the Canadian taxpayer.
It is not simply electoral boundaries and that is another thing I
hear loud and clear. There are inequities in the system right now.
There are very large ridings and very small ridings but with the
process in place, I believe in the public input that would be given
to that process. Many of the things that the hon. member asked
would be put on the public agenda and discussed. Then
something very real could come out of that.
I feel that should be put in place and followed through as it is
already very much along the way. Finish it and get the public
input. It is not just the hon. member and I. The public wants a
voice in this as well.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, as some of
the other speakers have in this debate offered an invitation to
you and indeed to the rest of the House to visit their ridings, I
would also like to do that. I am certainly proud of my riding.
I would have to admit that I am just a little biased as far as that
riding is concerned. I was born in that riding as was my father.
His father was born pretty much in this area of the country and
then emigrated to Alberta and homesteaded in this constituency.
I am about the third generation Johnston in that area. I guess
members can understand my affinity for it.
As far as redistribution is concerned, or representation by
population, I guess it is always difficult to arrive exactly at
representation by population when one considers what a huge
country Canada is and that over the last many years the
population has more or less gravitated from the countryside to
the larger cities.
In my opinion to try and arrive at true representation by
population would be extremely difficult if one does not take into
consideration, as one would have to, some method of
considering the size and vastness.
My riding has many small towns in it. The population
continues to grow as opposed to some in rural Saskatchewan
where the population shift is really dramatic from the country to
the city.
It is interesting to note that the guidelines state that Alberta
constituencies should not exceed a maximum population of
122,000 approximately or a minimum population of around
73,000. Certainly my riding does fit into those upper and lower
limits.
I agree with my colleague who included an amendment to this
bill that would limit the amount of seats in the House of
Commons and put a cap on it at 295. I would feel quite
comfortable supporting the bill in that form. Why the
government chose not to put that in the bill is really a mystery to
me. This could have been one time when we had unanimity in the
House.
2996
(1710)
The west side of my constituency is quite sparsely populated.
As we move into the cities, which are along the corridor of No. 2
highway, they are really the largest populated centres of our
constituency. As we move to the eastern side of the constituency
again we come into an area where the population dwindles off.
In one of the local papers recently faxed to me the editorial
was that they have not seen much of their MP lately. That is a
problem. The larger the constituency gets as far as area is
concerned, the bigger problem that becomes. It becomes a
physical impossibility to be seen the desired number of times in
a given area of the constituency. It is something that we find in
these large areas. If one tried to get anywhere near 100,000
people in southeastern Saskatchewan one would have to take in a
very large area of that province. To a certain extent that holds
true in the southern portions of Alberta as well.
My party suddenly needed a speaker.
Mr. Milliken: We could have a vote right now.
Mr. Johnston: At any rate, it certainly gives me an
opportunity to brag about my constituency. I also have to say
that we have an extremely well informed electorate there as is
evidenced by the fact that I am here today. It was given a choice.
We presented the constituency with six candidates to choose
from and I was the fortunate person to come here and share this
experience with the House.
As far as postponing the process, I have in my constituency
many people saying that they would like to present briefs to this
panel and have their views heard as to what they plan to do as far
as the constituency and what they would like to see done. I am
really at a loss as to what to tell these people. I tell them that we
would really like to see this bill die in the House but that we do
not think there is any danger of that. We have to recognize the
simple mathematics that the people who introduced the bill
certainly hold sway over the result of the bill.
As a result of that I have people in my constituency looking to
me and asking what to do. Apparently there is very little they can
do. Maybe what they should be doing is preparing their brief
now for what will take place in maybe a year or two from now.
We talk about the difficulty of trying to represent a rural
riding. I have never had the opportunity to try and serve an urban
riding but I would assume that the transportation problem, the
physical problem of trying to get around the constituency is
somewhat less of a burden. It would seem to me that whatever
formula the committee ultimately comes up with must take into
consideration the actual physical territory that the member has
to cover. Surely it is not just the plains that have this difficulty. I
know my neighbours to the west in British Columbia have large
tracts of terrain they have to cover.
(1715)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you to my
constituency. I would be pleased to introduce you at our annual
stampede and rodeo, and that goes for all members of the House.
It is an event that is second only to the Calgary Stampede as far
as being an excellent show. I am a little prejudiced but I think
that you are a little closer to the action at our show. I believe the
Speaker has actually been to the Ponoka Stampede and I would
very much like to invite all members of the House to come and
join us on the July 1 long weekend.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon.
member and I congratulate him on the discourse. He said, if I
heard him correctly, that if the bill had a cap on the number of
MPs at the present level of 295 members-I think he said 195 in
his speech but I am sure he meant 295-he would have
supported the bill.
That being the case, how can he justify the comments of his
colleague who moments before him said that the bill distorted
representation by population. If that is true, how could he vote
for such a reprehensible bill?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not 100 per cent sure if I
have the question straight, but to answer a part of the question, if
the bill did cap the number-the hon. member is completely
correct, I meant 295 not 195-I would be tempted to support the
bill.
Perhaps my colleague is not prepared to support the bill. That
is her prerogative. But I would be prepared to at that point.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciated the speech by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. I
thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for allowing
a more adequate vision of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
The hon. member gave us a good description of the role of a
member of Parliament representing a rural riding, as I do. Does
the hon. member agree with current standards allowing a
variation of 25 per cent of the provincial quota for a riding, in
many if not most cases, to compensate for the size of the
territory and reduce the number of constituents the member
must represent when he or she has many communities to visit?
(1720)
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said that some of his
constituents had not seen him since the beginning of this
Parliament. Well, it sometimes takes several months or even an
entire year to cover a whole riding.
I also want to ask how the hon. member for Wetaskiwin can
reconcile his party's objective of limiting or reducing the
2997
number of electoral districts with that of adequate
representation for rural ridings requiring much more travelling.
And while we are on the road, of course, we cannot meet with
anyone.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to answer the
member's question, the 25 per cent allowance for geographic
size in many cases would be adequate. In my view there are
cases where it would not be adequate.
It is most difficult in larger ridings. We find that people in the
large ridings, the electorate, are really very mobile. They have
to be in order to live in areas that are sparsely populated. Rather
than MPs continually make house calls it would be incumbent
upon them to have meetings in a central area, advertise them
well and make sure that people got there to make their
representations.
Further, it is most important to reform the Senate to the point
where it is elected, equal and effective. It is most important in
my view. In that way we would be looking after more regional
representation. It is one of the facts of Canadian life that the
population is very widely but not very evenly distributed.
Therefore it is all the more important that we have regional
representation, a Senate with equal representation from each
province that is actually effective in blocking, revising or
sending bills back to the House or committee and is elected by
popular vote. That is absolutely essential in Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer, as many Reform MPs
have suggested, recognizes the importance of representation by
population as well as regional representation.
We have had debate on Bill C-18; we are coming to the end of
it. The Liberals proposed that something was terribly wrong.
Reform looked at the situation. We were sincere in reviewing it.
We were sincere in our agreement with Canadians that there
were too many seats. We looked for ways and looked for a
commitment from the government to find solutions. When that
was not forthcoming my colleagues and I became very
concerned about the whole process.
We are amused at why Bloc members who do not seem to have
an interest in the matter would be so concerned. Once again it
is-
The Deputy Speaker: I gather from the hon. member's
remarks that he is speaking on debate rather than on questions or
comments. Is that correct?
Mr. Hermanson: I have a question. I am trying to say we hear
Bloc members and wonder who they are speaking for. We hear
the Liberals and we know they are speaking for themselves.
Canadians have to ask who can represent them on this issue. On
many issues it seems like Reform has been representing the
people.
Has the hon. member for Red Deer consulted with
constituents? Does he feel he is representing them on Bill C-18?
Mr. Johnston: Just to correct my colleague, Mr. Speaker, the
riding is Wetaskiwin.
Actually I have consulted with my constituents not only
federally but at the provincial level as well. I made
representation a couple of years ago to the commission that was
looking at redrawing the electoral divisions in Alberta. I think I
am representing the wishes and views of my constituents here
today.
(1725)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 30)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-45
2998
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-184
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Discepola
Goodale
Lalonde
Lastewka
Lefebvre
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mifflin
Peterson
Pomerleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe you will find unanimous consent for the question to be
put now on the motion for third reading of Bill C-18 and that the
vote just taken shall be applied in reverse to the motion for third
reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 31)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
2999
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-184
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-45
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Discepola
Goodale
Lalonde
Lastewka
Lefebvre
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mifflin
Peterson
Pomerleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.14 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
_____________________________________________
2999
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to authorize the construction of a high-speed train (HST)
linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary
infrastructure.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise again today
to speak about the high speed train between Quebec City and
Windsor.
For the Bloc Quebecois, this public transit system, which is
effective, fast, convenient, comfortable, pleasant and
environmentally friendly, is a key component for the economic
development of our main urban centres in Quebec and Ontario.
We all know that communication links inevitably entail trade
deals and industrial business. This was well understood by our
ancestors who invested in railroads between both our provinces
to start with, and then throughout Canada.
Traditionally, prosperity in Quebec and in Canada has been
very closely tied to our investments in transportation. Our
standard of living and our competitive position largely depend
3000
on decisions that are taken today regarding the transportation
infrastructure of tomorrow.
Unfortunately the railroad network and facilities used for the
transportation of passengers and goods in Canada are
considerably behind and our obsolete infrastructure has
progressively given a competitive edge to other means of
transportation such as cars, buses and airplanes.
Has the government forgotten that the increasing use of
airplanes between Montreal and Toronto has put more pressure
on airports and the highway system? Has it forgotten that
increased dependency on cars has wasted more energy and hurt
the environment? The government appears to have neglected
facts which are nevertheless obvious.
It is more important than ever that Canada and Quebec have
an efficient public transportation infrastructure which promotes
the use of non-polluting and renewable energy resources in
order to protect our ecosystems as much as possible, in keeping
with the concept of sustainable development.
The government must consider this high-speed train project,
which will make the transportation system more productive and
provide technological benefits as well. It must establish a
general policy involving Canadian transportation technology
considered one of the most advanced in the world. It offers a
unique opportunity to engage in an international industrial
strategy that will allow Canadian and Quebec entrepreneurs to
be leaders in introducing the high-speed train to North America
and to the developing world.
(1820)
The high-speed train, also called the HST, or the TGV in
French, is the logical way to develop passenger rail
transportation in Canada. Some 10 million people, that is 40 per
cent of the total population of Canada, live in the
Quebec-Windsor corridor. This section, which covers the most
densely populated area of Canada, is used every day by 10,000
people. The Canadian HST could take over at least 35 per
cent-and, according to another realistic scenario, up to 45 per
cent-of the total passenger market between Montreal and
Toronto. Such a concentration is sufficient to support an HST
which will definitely improve the quality of service in the most
densely populated urban corridor of Canada and relieve
congestion in the airports and on the roads.
Besides, we firmly believe that the government should have
committed itself to putting into place permanent job-creating
projects that would really help stimulate economic growth while
reducing unemployment. For the Bloc Quebecois, a high-speed
train for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor is an initiative
which largely meets these objectives.
The HST will bring about the creation of some 120,000 jobs,
directly or indirectly related to the construction of the system
and its equipment, operation and maintenance, to the
technological transfers and to the industrial agreements to
follow, not to mention the positive impact that it will have on the
tourism industry.
The crucial role of the corridor for the Canadian economy has
been stated many times and the high-speed train is practically
the most efficient mode of transportation between larger cities.
The European experience clearly shows that the high-speed
train draws people to hotels, office buildings, convention
centres, restaurants and other commercial or tourist activities.
A high speed train service will have additional economic
spinoffs beyond those directly related to building and operating
the train. Indeed, the increased number of passengers travelling
the Quebec City-Windsor corridor will spend money for meals
on board, accommodation and entertainment, and developers
will invest in infrastructure to provide additional services
needed to meet the growing demand.
Thus, a high-speed train will encourage the public and private
sectors to better promote their communities and to develop
package deals for tourists travelling aboard this train. Several
communities along the corridor will also benefit from a faster
connection to much larger cities and, consequently, improve
access to their numerous facilities.
At the same time, connections to other modes of
transportation intended to improve the total passenger
transportation system will be an important advantage for some
of the communities close to cities on the HST line.
(1825)
I take the case of Trois-Rivières and Kingston which will also
be able to benefit from considerable social and economic
spin-offs. That might facilitate the transportation to Kingston of
our future students who will have to abandon the college in
Saint-Jean.
Keep in mind that a community located close to a high speed
train line would regain prestige because it would be seen as a
modern and expanding community. The proof of this can be
found in France where communities located close to the high
speed train line capitalize on that in their written and oral
publicity.
The Bloc's proposal is not just to promote tourism or
economic development of local communities and job creation.
We also consider it essential that Canada and Quebec invest in a
railway infrastructure that is modern and better adapted to the
realities of the 21st century. With improved facilities, we will be
better able to face the challenges of the year 2000.
3001
To do so, we must opt for a rail transportation system that will
reduce ground and air traffic which has reached the saturation
point, that will use non-polluting and renewable energy
resources, and that will improve our industrial co-operation
with a series of technological transfers between different
European and Canadian companies, allowing them to become a
technological bridge-head of high speed rail on the North
American continent.
Research, development, innovation and technology transfer
are one of the best solutions to economic problems and that is
why we must speed up our efforts in that direction.
In Quebec and Canada, we have a critical mass of high-tech
companies that creates a favourable climate for the development
and implementation of advanced technologies. In addition to
providing attractive opportunities for our scientists and
technicians, these companies are a source of major spin-offs in
terms of production and exports in the manufacturing sector. It
is therefore essential for the future of our economy that we
promote research and development and technological upgrading
by supporting the strengths we already have in our high-tech
companies. One of our serious problems in this respect is the
delay in disseminating and implementing new technologies. The
construction of a Canadian HST would make good use of our
industrial capabilities in one of the sectors in which we excel,
namely transportation equipment.
How much have governments invested in the past 20 years in
developing or upgrading our airport facilities and how much
will have to be invested in the years to come? What does it cost
to maintain our road network and how much will future
improvements cost?
We agree all these investments are necessary, but it is high
time we took the same kind of action to rejuvenate our passenger
train services. More government subsidies for developing
transportation by bus or by air means the Canadian HST project
is less likely to be realized.
We all know the HST project has been examined a number of
times in the past ten years: there was a study by VIA Rail in
1982-84, updated in 1989; there was one by GEC,
Alsthom-Bombardier in 1988-89 and another study by the
Quebec-Ontario rapid train task force in 1989-91.
All these studies come to the same conclusion, which is that
the potential market is sufficient to ensure the profitability of a
high speed railway transportation system. The HST project
would certainly enjoy the support of communities that would be
able to take advantage of an HST service.
(1830)
In June, a feasibility study on the construction of high-speed
rail lines in the chosen corridor is to be made public by the
federal, Quebec and Ontario governments. It will be very
interesting to see the results of the cost benefit analysis carried
out by the tripartite committee on technologies available to
build a high speed train. Hopefully, all these exhaustive studies
on a high speed train will eventually result in its construction
and not gather dust on a shelf. On the other hand, once convinced
of the undeniable potential of this project, governments and the
private sector should jointly undertake a comprehensive
feasibility study to determine the cost of the whole project and
how to share responsibilities for this venture.
It is estimated that it will take $7.5 billion over ten years to
build a high-speed line between Quebec City and Windsor. The
tax revenues generated by this project over the construction
period should reach $1.9 billion. At this rate, the high-speed
line will be paid for very quickly. One must also take into
account that the government's expenditures will be reduced
since the high-speed train will provide transportation between
cities at a much lower cost than that of upgrading the road and
air networks. This is what you call rationalizing government
expenditures.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois recommends the construction
of a high speed rail transportation system which will provide the
following advantages: 120,000 jobs per year in Canada during
construction; nearly $1.9 billion in tax revenues also during
construction; funding provided mainly by the private sector; use
of a well proven Canadian technology allowing speeds of 300
kilometres an hour; new construction and urban renewal in
communities all along the HST corridor; increased
competitiveness for the corridor cities; a more economical and
accessible mode of transportation for individuals as well as for
businesses and communities established along the corridor; an
environmentally-friendly mode of transportation; decreased
highway and air traffic, reducing the need for new
infrastructure; finally, technological expertise giving Canadian
industry a strategic leading edge on the American high speed
train market valued at approximately $250 billion.
Without any hesitation, the Bloc supports the HST project
because nowadays, no society and no region can afford not to
use its innovative resources.
Construction of the HST would guarantee Canada and Quebec
a prosperous future filled with benefits like those I mentioned
earlier.
Construction of the HST in the most densely populated area of
Canada is a unique investment opportunity. By investing right
now, Canada and Quebec would reap dividends for decades.
There would be immediate spinoffs during construction, and
benefits for Canadians and Quebecers would continue to accrue
throughout the project.
3002
(1835)
The Quebec City-Windsor high-speed train project is
undoubtedly a much more useful and desirable investment than
the defunct helicopter project was. Particularly in the greater
Montreal area, which was so badly hit by unemployment, it will
provide an opportunity for industrial conversion in a field where
export opportunities and therefore job opportunities are
excellent.
I will conclude by telling you that, with the high-speed train,
Canada will make the most profitable investment in
transportation in its entire history. This investment by the
Canadian government will not increase the Canadian debt and
will contribute to VIA Rail's profitability. I hope that my
colleagues will understand the importance of supporting this
project, which fits part of our natural economic development
and a good way to use the skills we have acquired.
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of agriculture who, I believe, has the
unanimous consent of all members of the House to speak very
briefly about an urgent matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members
of the House for the opportunity to clarify what has been a
misunderstanding of a statement I made at the end of question
period today. Unfortunately the time allotted to me did not allow
me to make a very critical part of that statement regarding the
PVY-n virus in Prince Edward Island and the potato growers
there.
As I said then, the minister recognizes and continues to give
serious attention to the issue, as he has for the number of months
he has been appointed. He recognizes that legal proceedings are
inevitably lengthy and expensive to all parties that may be
involved. The minister sincerely hopes that protracted litigation
may be avoided and can be avoided. He will seek through legal
counsel and continuous discussion with the industry to achieve
that result.
I apologize to the industry for any misunderstanding that may
have been caused by the incomplete statement earlier today.
I again thank the House for the opportunity to clarify this.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
thank the member for Joliette for his very informed speech on
high speed trains.
I have no quarrel whatsoever with his enthusiasm for a
technology that we are obviously considering. He alluded to the
fact a report and a study on which $6 million is being spent by
Ontario, Quebec and the federal government is to be released in
June. Surely he wants to be true and honest with Canadian
taxpayers by at least waiting for the report and until such time as
government and Parliament can make a decision on it.
As I said, the governments of Quebec, Ontario and Canada
have embarked on a major study to determine the viability of a
high speed rail system in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor.
The present study covers a broad range of subjects that have
been identified in previous works and is so designed to provide
the most comprehensive evaluation of the potential of high
speed rail in the corridor.
The three governments hired a consortium of consultants as
managers of the project. The consortium is responsible to
produce the benefits and the costs and the financial analysis for
the overall project.
In addition the consortium is supervising and co-ordinating
the following component studies, all very important to the
decision making: data gathering, passenger and revenue
forecasting, technology assessment, including the operating and
strategy and costing.
The member alluded to one technology but he also should
know that two technologies were under consideration. New
technologies are being developed even as we speak.
The member talked about $7.5 billion. I do not know where he
got those figures. The study has not been finished yet and some
of his figures, unfortunately, are from previous reports or
previous studies that have been done.
Also included are the industrial strategy and the economic
benefits, institutional options and the legislative and labour
issues, trends in intercity passenger transportation and
government support, environmental aspects, impacts of the
urban system and settlement patterns and the light freight and
station concessions. This study builds on the findings and
recommendations of the Ontario-Quebec task force report
which identified several shortcomings in its work and the work
of previous studies.
(1840)
One of the main concerns in the task force report work was the
inadequacy of the data that formed the basis for the passenger
and revenue forecasts. To address this concern one-third of the
total allocated budget of $6 million for the current study has
been devoted to the gathering of data concerning travel patterns
3003
and attitudes of the travelling public and to the forecasting of
future usage.
This is the most critical aspect of the high speed proposal.
Will people use it if in fact it is built? Previous studies of
passenger travel in the corridor were conducted in a short
timeframe and did not address the seasonal variances that may
exist.
The quality and reliability of the base data have also been
greatly improved over previous works. We have obtained 60,000
survey responses, three times more than had been obtained in
the previous studies. This level of response was possible
through the full co-operation of all the carriers in the corridor.
Complete access to their passenger facilities and equipment was
obtained to facilitate the conduct of the surveys. This is the first
time researchers have been able to gain this unconditional
co-operation. The survey results were also provided to the
individual carriers to validate accuracy and reliability.
We have exerted a great deal of effort to improve the quality
of the data to be used as the base for the study. This information
is presently being incorporated by many of the consultants who
are still in the midst of their work. It would be inappropriate and
naturally premature to presume the outcome of their work.
In October 1989 the federal government established a royal
commission on national passenger transportation with the
objective of reporting on a national integrated, intercity
passenger transportation system to meet the needs of Canadians
in the 21st century. The commission reported its findings in
1992 and recommended with respect to high speed rail that
governments only invest in high speed rail if the overall benefits
exceed the costs and taxpayers do not have to pay an operating
subsidy.
Furthermore, the commission recommended that there be
public consultation on the implications of the government's
decision and that the government establish a regulation under
which high speed rail would operate, including safety and
environmental regulations.
Clearly the royal commission has indicated through its
recommendations that a hasty decision should not be promoted
and that the full impacts of high speed rail are known prior to
making a decision.
The Canadian debate on high speed rail has been ongoing for a
long time and has intensified over the last few years with the
release of several independent reports. These reports indicated
that the governments will have to play a major role in any high
speed project in Canada. The scope and the nature of the federal
government's participation are yet to be determined or defined.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport
addressed the question of the role of the federal government in
high speed rail and reported its findings in March 1992. The
Member should know that the theme of that whole report was a
leap of faith.
The standing committee's recommendations are to a large
extent addressed in the many component studies underway
within the scope of the present study. Once again, these results
will not be known for some time and the government should
have all the information at hand prior to deciding on the future
of high speed rail.
Canada's national rail passenger service has undergone many
changes over the past few years. VIA Rail operations have been
downsized in order to reduce subsidies. High speed rail is an
option to improve the quality of service that is presently
provided by VIA Rail.
A decision on the role of the federal government on high
speed rail should not be made in isolation but would have to be
addressed in the light of the broader context of the overall
transportation needs in Canada. Canada's freight railways, CN
and CP, have incurred substantial financial losses over the past
10 years. The railways are preparing proposals for the
consolidation of their networks in Canada and some rail
rationalization may be inevitable. This does not mean that
valuable right of way which can be redeveloped for future
purposes will be forgone. However, it would be beneficial to
include this aspect in the decision on any high speed rail system.
(1845)
As I stated earlier, the creation of jobs is a priority mandate of
the federal government. A high speed rail project during the
construction period will create significant employment. We do
not argue with that. The economic impact study which has yet to
be completed will quantify the levels that would be generated by
a high speed rail project.
The choice of technology is another area that must be
identified. As I have indicated, we are looking at more than one
technology. A high speed rail project will not see the light of day
without significant contributions from the private sector. The
motion should not be moved forward without the benefits of the
study.
We are prepared to further discuss this matter once the $6
million study, paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, is brought
forward and presented to Parliament.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to speak on Motion No. 112 proposed
by the hon. member for Joliette.
The motion calls for the federal government to authorize the
construction of a high speed train link between Windsor and
Quebec City. That is something which has been talked about in
government circles, not to mention within the transport industry
itself for many years but to little avail.
Before such a rail line could even possibly be seriously
considered by the federal government, a wide array of important
details and snags would have to be studied and worked out after
3004
a long period of planning and public consultation. This is a
project that could have far reaching ramifications to Canada
well into the 21st century.
Although the good side of the coin is pretty evident for all to
see, we should first take a good hard look at what some of the
potential downsides of such a plan might be. I do not believe the
hon. member's motion really addresses any of the essential
specifics needed by the House before it could possibly see itself
as being well enough informed to consider such a complicated
issue.
Transport Canada is presently studying the high speed rail
issue at length. Until it releases its report on the matter
tentatively for some time in June, I certainly would not consider
it wise for this House to blindly approve the sweeping motion
put forward by the member for Joliette.
I understand as this is a private member's motion I am
speaking on at the moment, it has little chance of successfully
passing the skeptical eye of government benches. I nevertheless
feel I have not seen enough by way of concrete information that
would allow me to support the motion in good faith.
At present the motion before us in the House is simply a
standard motion. It basically says there is something we should
do and that is about it. There are no details, no dollar figures and
of course nothing concrete or of an analytical nature.
Let us not be mistaken here. Properly constructed, a high
speed rail line would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of
$5 billion to $7 billion. That is a little more than pocket change
even for free spending members on the other side of the House.
The first question I would have to ask the hon. member for
Joliette is where he would suggest the funding for such a project
might appear. Is it expected to miraculously materialize out of
thin air? Or, does the member actually have some ideas in mind
as to where he would raise the necessary funding for this bold
and innovative proposal? There is no mention at this point in his
motion. Quite frankly that concerns me.
There have been all sorts of rumours flying of late as to who
would or should shoulder the burden for such a major
expenditure. On one hand let me say right now I would be much
more apt to throw my support behind a high speed rail proposal
if I had some concrete assurances that the entire multibillion
dollar cost of such a major undertaking would be handled
entirely by private industry. Unfortunately I have been hearing a
number of disconcerting things that would have me believe
otherwise.
The concept of a 50:50 funding split between the private
sector and various levels of government, including our own here
in Ottawa has been discussed and certainly has not been ruled
out. From what I understand this possibly means the federal
government could be asked to shell out as much as $2.8 billion
toward the construction of something that sure sounds nice but
carries the potential of turning into a bottomless money pit.
If this $2.8 billion figure is anywhere near accurate and
truthful as the truth now stands in the mind of the hon. member
for Joliette then I would strongly suggest it may be time to set
the alarm bells ringing over this one.
(1850 )
The arguments that have been floating around in favour of
publicly funded high speed rail lines are always the same ones
we end up hearing when requests for government handouts come
up, something to the effect of ``do not worry, Mr. Prime
Minister, sure you are putting up a big chunk of money but do
not be concerned. This is a profitable enterprise and we are
going to cut you a chunk of the profits''.
As charitable and generous to the government as this offer
may seem at first glance, let us be realistic. In the past so-called
profitable endeavours the government has been foolish enough
to get itself into have turned out to be total financial busts more
often than not. The record of government involvement in the
sphere of industrial development has been a dismal one as far
back as most of us can remember.
This rotten record speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.
Ottawa is unable to effectively manage its financial investments
in the private sector and this will probably never change, nor
should it.
If the high speed train link is supposed to be such a financial
benefit for the federal government in the long haul with all the
profit sharing that will take place why let us in on a share of the
profits in the first place? Certainly it cannot be because private
business has suddenly become enamoured with the likes of the
Ottawa political crowd.
Considering that the political elites of Ottawa have not had
the competence to turn an annual budgetary surplus since the
early 1970s, I would certainly be surprised if any viable industry
would want to enter into a working partnership with the federal
government.
What could possibly be the justification for government
participation in this high speed proposal? In short, the crux of
the issue is very simple. If the rail line is a financially viable
project then the federal government should give its full
legislative backing to such a plan, provided there is no fiscal
component involved. If that is not proven to be fiscally viable,
why then would the government want to sink any of its
non-existent money into such a plan? It certainly would be nice
for us to be the North American pioneers of high speed rail
transportation. If the logic is not there, neither should the
taxpayers' money be.
3005
The whole issue of taxpayers' dollars becomes even more
acute when one considers the potentially far reaching
ramifications of the upcoming Quebec referendum. If Jacques
Parizeau and his Parti Quebecois are successful in their next run
at the voters, as many polls seem to indicate, then we would
certainly expect to see the whole separatism issue shoot to the
forefront, a public debate yet again.
As unappealing as I personally find this considering my
preference for a strong and united Canada, we certainly must
take this situation into account when we examine the possibility
of assisting any major infrastructure project between Quebec
City and southern Ontario. As distasteful as this may sound to
some ostrich-like Liberals with their heads buried in the
political sand, it stands to reason that the federal government
should have the common sense to refrain from throwing any
further multi-billion dollar funding allotments to Quebec until
such times as the future of that province is settled
democratically and decisively, hopefully once and for all.
Even if the government had wads of money spilling out of its
coffers at this point, which it certainly does not, there would be
no sense in undertaking a major high speed rail link, a third of
which would be located in Quebec, as long as the separatist
threat continues to loom over the economic and political
well-being of this great country.
As with the citizens across the rest of Canada, voters in
Quebec are no longer willing to allow their support to be bought
off with their own taxpayers' dollars. That time has long passed.
People from the Atlantic to the Pacific are aware that the
national and provincial treasuries are as bare as the trite
promises contained in the Liberal's red book. They are no longer
willing to let their elected representatives throw oodles of their
own hard earned money at dubious megaprojects, especially
ones that would be completely lost to Canada in the event of a
successful Quebec separatist effort.
These are the hard facts of the late twentieth century, and
though they may seem confrontational or narrow minded they
are not meant to be so. They are simply meant to set out the
honest truth, alarming and brutal though it may be.
I have not arrived at my conclusions lightly, nor have I arrived
at them without significant consultation with other various
official sources within the transportation sector. This includes
extensive and recent meetings with representatives from
Bombardier, the Quebec based company hopefully planning to
receive a significant chunk of any contractual work which would
arrive out of this high speed link.
(1855)
Despite the admittedly optimistic outlook of Bombardier
officials I am afraid past experience has shown Canadian people
that their politicians should look a little more before they leap.
That is precisely what I am attempting to do now by avoiding
making hasty commitments to this very shaky concept. As such I
find I am unable to support the motion made by the hon. member
for Joliette.
The homework has not yet been done. I believe the proposal
for a high speed train line, though intriguing, is simply too much
too soon at this point in time.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to say that Quebecers who are listening to us,
and also some Canadians, must be convinced, when they hear
comments such as those coming from the Reform Party, that
Quebec should become sovereign. I thank the Reform members
for behaving in such a way, because they are helping our cause.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank you for allowing me
to support my colleague from Joliette who moved this motion in
the House, by asking him to demand that the government take
the required measures to authorize the construction of a
high-speed train linking Quebec City and Windsor.
As early as February 1, I had the opportunity to address this
House and explain why the government should implement this
project as soon as possible. I was recently followed by the youth
wing of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is determined to
pressure the Johnson administration to hold to it. That same
federalist youth wing tabled this resolution at the policy
conference of the Quebec Liberal Party in Montreal in March.
The leader of the Parti Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau, often asked
the former premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, to put this
project forward as an economic recovery tool. I am telling you
all this because the implementation of the HST in the Quebec
City-Windsor corridor has almost universal support in Quebec.
To be convinced of that, you simply have to look at the 1991
report of the Task Force on the Quebec-Ontario High-Speed
Train, co-chaired by the honourable Rémi Bujold, the former
member of Parliament for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I know that the government is expecting a report by this
summer, which will make comparisons between competitive
technologies. However, this is a question of form, not of
substance. I am sure that the report which will be presented to
the Minister of Transport will indicate a strong desire to go
ahead with the HST and will suggest several ways to do so.
Recently the dollar has been in a free fall while interest rates
have been rising-we cannot know how high they will go-and
the stock market has been very volatile.
3006
In these circumstances, it would be easy to criticize the
Minister of Finance for not having reduced our deficit. It would
be easy to criticize the Governor of the Bank of Canada for
having allowed a rise in interest rates. It would also be easy to
ask the government to review its borrowing policy on foreign
markets in order to protect ourselves from the fickleness of
foreign investors from all parts of the world. But, Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are worried and in need of a leader, of a government
which will restore their self-confidence, a government which
will give them hope in a better economic future in the short term,
with an extraordinary venture, the construction of a high-speed
train.
Why such a train? The government claims that it is ready to
provide venture capital to promote high-tech industry, but are
these empty promises? What is it waiting for to give the go
ahead to the HST project? In two years it will be too late. The
Americans will have forged ahead, depriving us of any hopes of
winning contracts for high speed lines. We will not be able to
export $200 billion worth of technology over the next 10 or 12
years. At stake are many value-added jobs as well as our
competitive edge in the high tech transportation field.
Why a high speed train? Because it will travel a corridor more
than 1,200 kilometres long. It means more than 120,000 jobs
over a 10-year period.
(1900)
A high speed train will allow municipalities in the corridor to
build the infrastructure necessary for the economic
development of their citizens and will give them hope for a
better future for their children. This venture, worth some $7.5
billion, will be the highlight of this last decade, a landmark
future generations will remember about the 20th century in
Canada.
When I have the opportunity to meet people from all walks of
life in my riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, the
same two issues keep cropping up: the fears of seniors and the
exasperation of our youth with our generation.
Let us look at the fears of seniors. They are concerned about
developing our country, educating the next generation,
establishing in our society all the required structures for
education, hospital and other health services, transportation,
environmental protection and good quality of life in general.
Ten years ago, these people were not worried about their future,
they believed the next generation would take care of them and
they would reap what they had sowed a hundredfold. But as soon
as they meet with economic difficulties, all governments,
including the one in place, ask seniors to pay the bill.
Let us look now at young people, those who dreamed of a
better world, those who worked hard to acquire a specialty and
university degrees, those who were promised a leisure society in
the year 2000, those who are presently discouraged, jobless and
frustrated because they see the previous generation-our
generation-enjoying conditions they will never be able to
obtain. We have to give them faith in and hope for a brighter
future. We must leave them something besides an accumulated
debt of $500 billion. We must show them that we were daring
and that we left them with big projects and the opportunity to
develop them in the years to come.
The HST project is exciting, visionary and affordable.
Affordable in the long run if we learn to expand it according to
our means; affordable because each dollar invested will create
real jobs for the long term, not temporary employment like the
municipal infrastructure program.
Railway companies are less and less interested in operating
regional lines. They would rather be travel wholesalers
operating only the main lines. After studying the situation in
several countries like Italy, Germany, Japan and the United
States, we concluded that rail transportation is a state
responsibility almost everywhere. Decisions on operation and
expansion are always taken by government, which is also
involved directly in construction and financing either through
subsidies or loan guarantees.
There would be nothing wrong with following the same model
used for the bridge between Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick, which will be done with the help of the private
sector and some generous subsidies from the federal
government. As for the environment, it is interesting to know
that, even when running at 300 kilometres an hour, the HST uses
close to half as much energy as a car and four times less than
passenger jet aircraft.
The HST would not cause air emissions and would use a type
of energy that is abundant in Ontario and in Quebec. Following
the cancellation of the agreement with New York State, these
provinces have an enormous electrical potential to support this
new transportation mode. Besides, this means of transportation
is not so new since most big North American cities used this type
of energy for their transit from the 1900s to the 1950s. There is
no need to reinvent the wheel, our ancestors left us everything
we need. Now, all we have to do is demonstrate a willingness to
innovate in a transportation corridor that presents many
opportunities.
(1905)
Finally, I strongly urge this House to adopt the motion
presented by my colleague from Joliette and to demand that the
government rule immediately on its substance, in other words to
give the go ahead to the HST, subject to a review of the terms and
conditions which will be presented to the Minister of Transport
in June.
3007
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a brief remark before I start my
speech on the TGV.
Goodness knows I am a federalist and I am a deeply
committed Canadian. I feel very differently from the people
across the way in the Bloc Quebecois. At the same time I would
be less than truthful if I did not feel hurt as a resident of Quebec,
as a citizen of Quebec, by some of the remarks made by the
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
I do not believe extreme statements about any part of the
country, whether it be Quebec, the west or Atlantic Canada, help
Canadian unity. I have always believed in constructive dialogue.
We are adversaries at times. At the same time I do not think that
loud and extreme statements help.
[Translation]
I am pleased to address today the motion presented by the hon.
member from Joliette that the government should immediately
authorize the construction of a high-speed rail service between
Quebec City and Windsor.
Before stating the government's position on the motion, I
would like to provide some background information which will
assist in understanding our response to the motion put forward
by the hon. member for Joliette.
In November 1991 the federal Minister of Transport of the
day, along with the ministers of transport from Quebec and
Ontario announced a joint study of the feasibility of operating a
high-speed train service in the corridor between Quebec City
and Windsor where the prospects for viability are surely the
highest in Canada. This study was to take between 18 and 24
months to complete, at a cost of $6 million to be shared equally
among the three governments.
The decision to conduct the study was based upon the
recommendations of a joint Quebec-Ontario task force report
released in May 1991 which examined the merits of high speed
rail service in the corridor. This task force was created by the
premiers of Quebec and Ontario in 1989.
The task force concluded that a final decision on whether to
proceed with a high speed train project could not be made
without undertaking a more detailed study covering such areas
as traffic forecasts, routing, available technologies,
environmental issues and funding alternatives by the private
sector and the three governments. The report also recommended
that the Government of Canada should be an active participant
in this new study.
So, in keeping with these recommendations, the federal
government agreed to participate with Ontario and Quebec in
undertaking this more detailed work.
Based on the foregoing, the objective of this feasibility study
is to recommend whether governments should initiate and/or
support the development of high-speed rail service in the
Quebec City-Windsor corridor.
The study is based on a review of representative technologies
which would operate over various routes. Six such technologies
are currently under consideration. The study enables realistic
projections of impacts, including revenues and costs, to be
evaluated and involves the participation of some thirty
consultants on various aspects of the analysis. Obviously, we are
talking about a very serious examination.
The study was initially scheduled for completion in the fall of
1993 but has been delayed as a result of the magnitude and
complexity of the work. I should point out, however, that the
study is still within its original $6-million budget, which, as I
said, is shared equally between the three governments. The
present schedule provides for the completion of a draft final
report a few months from now.
As we are just coming out of a recession, we are faced with
very high unemployment. Owing to high deficits, governments
will want to ensure that projects will not require large amount of
public funds. It could be argued, on the surface, that the
implementation of a high-speed rail service would be a major
initiative for considerable job creation and a major economic
stimulus. The results of the economic impact studies will give
an idea of how many jobs could be created by such a project.
The jobs would not be created in the short term, however.
Should this project be approved, it would require at least several
years of detailed environmental studies and assessments.
[English]
The government is faced with another reality which has been
addressed by the Minister of Finance in a recently tabled budget,
namely the deficit and the question of deficit reduction.
The government has demonstrated for the benefit of all
Canadians its commitment to deficit reduction in the budget. We
must address the unemployment problem in a constructive
fashion. Care must be exercised in ensuring that any potential
job creation initiatives will not have an adverse impact on the
deficit but, on the contrary, should be such as to result in a
steady reduction of both our deficit and national debt.
The benefit, cost and financial analysis will only be known at
the completion of the study which as I mentioned previously
will not be available for some months. Therefore it would not be
appropriate to speculate on the results and to precipitate a
decision as tabled by the hon. member for Joliette.
3008
It is obvious that for a national government any decision on
the potential of a high speed rail service must be examined in the
light of the broader context of the overall transportation needs in
Canada of Canadians.
[Translation]
Furthermore a decision of the potential of a high speed rail
service should be examined in light of the broader context of the
overall transportation needs in Canada, as I mentioned earlier.
High-speed rail service has gained prominence throughout the
world. France, Sweden, Spain, Italy and Japan are some of the
countries that have benefited from the introduction of high
speed rail services.
While recognizing the very obvious merits of such
technology, we should be cautious and not jump to the
conclusion that high speed rail service could have similar results
in Canada, at least not until the review now under way is
completed. Conditions that exist in Canada such as climate,
demographics, intermodal competition, and the institutional
and regulatory environment are all real concerns and could
determine whether a high-speed rail service is viable or not.
Much closer to us, all attempts to initiate a high-speed rail
service in the United States have failed. The most promising,
namely the Texas project, has failed to raise the required private
funding.
At the present time, it appears that only one high-speed train
project will proceed in the United States. That is the Northeast
corridor project between Washington, New York and Boston.
The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on major
government subsidies.
The difficulties encountered in the United States are a
valuable lesson that we should not ignore and provide a further
incentive to proceed carefully only once we have all of the
information needed to make a sound decision.
While we treat the initiative proposed by the hon. member for
Joliette with all the objectivity and seriousness it deserves, and
we think it should be considered objectively and seriously, I
believe that it would be wise and appropriate to wait to review
this matter until the joint study has been completed. It would be
totally irresponsible to rush into a project of this magnitude
without taking the time to review it from every angle.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 7.14 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.)