TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, October l9, 1994
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6895
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6896
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6896
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6897
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6897
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6897
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6898
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6898
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6899
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6899
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6899
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6899
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6899
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6899
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6900
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6900
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6900
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6901
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6901
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6901
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6901
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6901
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6901
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6902
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6903
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6904
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6904
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6904
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6904
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6905
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6906
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6910
Bill C-284. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6913
Bill C-285. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6913
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6914
Bill C-49. Motion for third reading 6914
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6917
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6924
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6926
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6931
Bill C-226. Motion for second reading 6932
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6939
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6941
6895
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October l9, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre. B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events in Norway, where a
five-year-old girl was killed by two six-year-olds, the public is
entitled to wonder if television violence does not lead to violent
behaviour in young people.
Many are convinced that it does: 1.5 million people have
signed Virginie Larivière's petition calling for an end to
violence on television.
There is increasing agreement among medical experts as to
the harmful influence of television violence on the behaviour of
children.
In the face of the CRTC's inertia on this issue, what is the
federal government waiting for to propose concrete and
effective measures that address this serious problem, which is
detrimental to the development of our children?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
Torontonian applied to bring his bride from Guyana to Canada.
His file was taken in Etobicoke; another was taken in Port of
Spain, Trinidad. The files then went to Toronto. Then they went
to Brampton. Then they went to Mississauga and back to
Toronto.
There his file sat for over six months with no action. Now it
has to go back to Trinidad with no action taken, but the medicals
have expired and have to be done over. Then the file will have to
come back for approval to Mississauga and then go back to Port
of Spain.
With luck the case will be finalized in a few months. That is
two years of passing the buck for a standard application. That is
two years of heartbreak and loneliness and that is not unusual. I
have spousal sponsorships on my desk that have taken four
years.
The system is overwhelmed. This government says that
family reunification is a priority but to make it work we must cut
the numbers of extended family sponsorships, cut the backlog
and make room for those who deserve priority.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of the House a glaring
difference between reality and practice in the immigration
sponsorship program.
Ideally under the terms of the program, someone who agrees
to sponsor a family member also agrees to provide assistance, if
necessary, for a 10-year period following their arrival. In
reality, this agreement is of little worth as 62 per cent of all
sponsored immigrants apply for social assistance within two
years of their arrival in Canada. While undoubtedly some
defaults are justifiable, in most cases sponsors simply do not
live up to their agreements because they are not enforceable.
The credibility of the immigration sponsorship program must
be restored. The creation of a mechanism which would be
enforceable would give sponsored immigrants the security they
need while at the same time protecting the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to congratulate the Canadian Labour Market and
Productivity Centre on its 10th anniversary today. Former
Minister of Finance Hon. Marc Lalonde was instrumental in
establishing this unique forum for dialogue and consensus
building among Canada's business and labour communities.
Admittedly, business and labour have distinct and divergent
agendas on many fronts. However, over these past 10 years the
CLMPC has brought together leading labour and business
organizations, such as the Business Council on National Issues,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour
Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and the
Canadian Federation of Labour. Together they have produced
many significant consensus reports on important economic
challenges facing Canada.
6896
All of us wish to extend our thanks to the hundreds of
business and labour leaders who have contributed so much to
this worthwhile endeavour. We congratulate the CLMPC today.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
his document released last week the Minister of Human
Resources Development announced the objectives of the reform
which included helping Canadians get and keep work by
ensuring they have the knowledge and skills to compete with the
best labour forces in the world.
[Translation]
The Parti Quebecois government shares this objective and
sets it out clearly in its chapter on full employment: ``If every
member of society, on the basis of his abilities and
determination, is able to find employment that meets his
expectations, society as a whole stands to gain. In order for
Quebecers and their economy to attain their full potential, there
must exist a framework of policies that encourage people to lead
a productive life''.
It is perhaps surprising that the Quebec government shares
our objective. I would therefore invite it, without delay, to take
part in the consultations on the reform of social programs. This
is part and parcel of the responsibilities of the good government
it has promised us.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to remind members of the House of Commons and
all Canadians that October is Breast Cancer Month.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among
Canadian women. Approximately 17,000 new breast cancer
cases will be diagnosed this year and 5,400 women will die of
the disease.
Health Canada, together with the Canadian Cancer Society,
the National Cancer Institute of Canada, and provinces and
territories is implementing a major initiative on breast cancer
totalling $25 million over five years. Activities include support
to provincial breast cancer screening activities, research, five
breast cancer exchange projects and fostering high standards of
care for breast cancer.
I would like to applaud the efforts of families, professionals,
voluntary and self-help groups and others toward reducing the
burden of this disease on Canadian women and their families.
This month proclaimed as Breast Cancer Month provides us
all with opportunities to support breast cancer initiatives-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
approximately 20 people were killed and 40 wounded in a
bombing this morning in Tel Aviv. The horror we have witnessed
was appalling, and we wish to extend our deepest sympathies to
the victims' families.
(1405)
Just days after it was announced that the Nobel Peace Prize
had been awarded to Israeli leaders and the leader of the PLO
and two days after Israel and Jordan announced they had reached
a comprehensive agreement, there is cause for considerable
concern about the effect of this deadly attack on the ongoing
peace negotiations.
We strongly condemn this attack. The enemies of peace must
not win. According to the PLO leader, the best way to respond to
the acts of such radicals is through the pursuit and
intensification of the peace process. Let us hope that the peace
process will continue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party I offer my deepest condolences to the victims
and their families of today's tragic bombing in Tel Aviv, Israel.
While no words can do justice to the suffering of the families,
we must speak out.
Terrorists who seek to destroy peace must not be allowed to
win. Those who target innocent people to generate fear and
hatred must be fought with every ounce of our energy and
condemned by all civilized societies. In the end it is the voices
of those who have struggled long and hard for a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East who must triumph. Their victory will
honour the lives of the victims and send a message to the world
that violence need not be an endless cycle.
We are sickened by this criminal act and will not forget the
victims of terrorism. I hope members of this House will pledge
to fight on for their memory and the memory of those who have
gone before them. The world community must never surrender
to terrorists and we must never abandon our quest for peace.
6897
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every year
the Governor General awards in commemoration of the Persons
case are given to individuals who have made an outstanding
contribution toward promoting the equality of women in
Canada.
This year we honour five women who have gained distinction
for their lifelong vision and dedication. They are: Shirley Carr
of Niagara Falls, Ontario, who championed legislation that
addressed women's rights in the workplace; Dr. Rose Charlie
from Agassiz, British Columbia, who struggled for social
justice for the women of Canada's First Nations; Alice Girard of
Montreal, Quebec, who made a remarkable contribution to the
public awareness of the nursing profession's role in health care;
Morag O'Brien of Saint John's, Newfoundland, who was the
backbone of her area's health care system for over 40 years; and
finally, Dodi Robb of Toronto, Ontario, who dedicated her
career to ensuring the inclusion of women's perspective in
television programming.
I call upon this House to join me in saluting the courage of
these five remarkable Canadian women.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House a
constituent of Souris-Moose Mountain of whom we are justly
proud.
Theresa Stevenson is a member of the Cowesses Indian band.
She will receive the Order of Canada today for her personal
conviction to improve the condition of life of all people in her
community by helping them to receive the basic necessities of
life: food, shelter, clothing and education, the necessities many
of us take for granted.
Theresa is a woman of action. She is involved in providing hot
meals to needy children, working as a literacy volunteer,
assisting patrons to provide low cost housing, and much more.
Theresa lives by the credence: If you are honest, fair and work
from the heart, you can do almost anything. Her humanitarian
efforts are not reserved for her own people. She says: ``God has
made me colour blind. A person is a person and I will never close
my door or my heart to a person in need''.
We congratulate her.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
government of Quebec has announced its intention to amend the
Quebec Election Act to save time and money by eliminating
steps that are not necessary and cost the taxpayers a great deal of
money.
(1410)
Ottawa could bring the federal deficit down and save tens of
millions of dollars if it applied measures along the lines of those
announced by the Quebec government. The federal government
should consider seriously a real election law reform.
The government must eliminate influence peddling as well as
financial backer pressure in the case of traditional federal
parties. As my hon. colleague from Richelieu said, the
government of Canada should revise all outdated electoral
practices and review party financing so as to allow only
individuals to contribute to the coffers of federal political
parties.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tragedy has once again stricken the residents of St. John's West.
It is with great sorrow that I rise in this House to inform
members of a tragic loss of life. On Thursday, October 13 the
vessel Patrick and Elizabeth was lost off the coast of
Newfoundland with all five crew aboard. A massive search
failed to turn up any signs of survival.
I express our deep sympathy to those families mourning the
loss of Captain Patrick Coady of St. John's, crew members
Edward Barry, Gerald Goldsworthy, and Mark Traverse of the
Placentia area, and Wayne Giles of Southern Harbour.
My deepest sympathy.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we also
extend our sympathies and appreciate the member's statement.
When interest rates shot up after the release of the Liberal
government's first budget, the red ink book, Reformers were the
first to call for immediate action to keep the budget on its deficit
reduction path. Yet the government refused to acknowledge that
a problem even existed. The Prime Minister repeatedly stated
that no additional cuts would be necessary for the government to
reach its deficit reduction targets.
6898
Over the last few weeks the C.D. Howe Institute, the Business
Council on National Issues, and the Governor of the Bank of
Canada have all said what we have been saying from day one:
that the Liberal deficit reduction targets are billions of dollars
off track. Yesterday's presentation of the finance minister only
confirmed this scenario.
This government's unwillingness to reduce expenditures is
threatening economic growth, hindering job creation and
jeopardizing the nation's health care and social programs. The
government cannot put off making hard decisions. The ticking
of the debt clock is growing louder every day and now stands at
$534,864-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, N.D.P.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Public Service Alliance of Canada
pointed out the skyrocketing cost of contracting out. Far from
being a way to save money, contracting out is actually way more
expensive. A Manitoba example helps to illustrate the point.
As Local 704 of the Union of National Defence Employees
argues, figuring the total cost of the base support budget and
other costs into the allegedly hourly cost of doing a job currently
done by DND employees at Camp Shiloh not only grossly
misrepresents the cost but creates an artificially high ceiling
that is easy for private contractors to come in under.
Contracting out is a scam designed for patronage. A
government serious about saving money should cut back on
contracting out. It should not cut back on employees who will do
the job for a lot less than what the private sector now charges the
government, thanks to the government's own misleading way of
calculating the cost of doing it in house.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
post-secondary education is a critical issue to the future of
Canada.
The riding of Waterloo includes two of Canada's leading
universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier
University, as well as a campus of Conestoga College. The
concentration of post-secondary students in Waterloo riding is
the highest in the country. These institutions have played a
crucial role in my community and in Canada's economy.
The residents of Waterloo riding are proud of Canada's record
of excellence in post-secondary education. However we also
know that our education system must continue to develop in
order to meet the challenges of the next century.
I am pleased the government is now reviewing its role in
post-secondary education in an effort to improve the system.
We need to ensure that our post-secondary institutions are
affordable and accessible to our youth who must compete in the
international marketplace. Only through a comprehensive
discussion with students, professors, administrators and the
general public can we properly strengthen our universities and
colleges to effectively serve Canadians in the years ahead.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party came to Ottawa on a power trip last
weekend for its first national convention east of the prairies.
Using a decoder, here is a translation of its policies. If you
want to speak French, go to Gaspé. If you fear a break-in, get
yourself a bazooka. If you catch a kid at the cookie jar, cane him.
If you are a woman wanting equal pay, get lost. If you are an
immigrant, pay the doctor cash in advance if you please.
God save us from such caring, national unity builders.
_____________________________________________
6898
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last election campaign, a few days before the vote, the Prime
Minister made a formal commitment not to increase taxes. He
reiterated this same commitment in this House on September 20,
when he said: ``We do not plan to have any tax increases''.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his election
commitment not to increase taxes with the statements made
yesterday by his Minister of Finance, who said: ``We made no
promise with regard to taxes''?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not plan any tax increases. The Minister of Finance
will table a budget and we think that there will be cuts. However,
if people do not want us to make cuts, the alternative is to raise
taxes.
We do not know exactly how much the economy will grow. We
hope that it will give us the revenue we need, and I am pleased to
report to the House that the Conference Board said today that
confidence in Canada last month was the highest since 1979.
6899
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): As a historical aside, I was
Minister of Finance at that time.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Prime Minister tell us that he is counting on economic
growth to make up the deficit, when his Minister of Finance said
exactly the opposite yesterday, and I quote him from memory:
``We can no longer count on economic growth alone to make up
the deficit. Other measures will have to be taken''? How does he
reconcile these two statements?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member has a memory
problem. We cut government spending in the last budget; it will
be necessary to make further cuts in the next budget. That is
what we are saying.
The Reform Party tells us that we are not cutting enough.
Yesterday, you criticized us for not cutting enough, so we will
perhaps listen to the opposition and make more cuts. Then they
will stop complaining.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, you
will agree that the majority of Canadians find it rather
distressing for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to
merrily contradict each other on such an important issue.
If the Prime Minister is serious in the answer he just gave,
could he, despite what his Minister of Finance said yesterday,
make a formal commitment not to increase taxes for Canada's
middle class?
(1420)
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are consulting the Canadian public at this time.
Everybody knows that when we became the government we had
$500 billion of debt that we have to carry. We have prepared a
very serious plan. We said that we will reduce the deficit every
year by so much and will be at $25 billion at the end of the third
year of our mandate.
We said very clearly that we will achieve our goal and we will
do it. This year growth is at 4 per cent which is helping a lot. We
will probably have to make cuts too. Probably we will have to
plug some holes that exist in the tax system. We always have
some problems like that which can bring in more revenue to the
government.
I have absolute confidence we can reach our goal. There is
always abuse of the tax system. I have been around long enough
to know that. It is the job of a good minister to plug these holes
and I have complete confidence in my good Minister of Finance.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Instead of
getting spending under control, the Minister of Finance has
clearly announced that he is not giving up the idea of raising
taxes. His document proposes a review of tax expenditures that
affect mainly middle-income people, such as education tax
credits, RRSPs, credits for charitable donations, credits for
seniors, credits for married people, compensation for work
accident victims-it is all fair game.
After hitting the unemployed and the very poor hard, how can
the Minister of Finance now consider taxing the middle class
more when he makes no reference in his paper to the scandal of
family trusts and of tax shelters which benefit rich Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the hon.
member just did, really, as I did yesterday, was to read the public
accounts. Now we know that he can read. We now ask him to
take a closer look, to make choices and to tell us what he thinks
should be done. We also asked the member many times to give
us his suggestions about family trusts. We asked him to
participate fully in the debate, but all we hear are political
speeches, not constructive suggestions!
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we made some very specific suggestions to
the Minister of Finance. And I even challenged him to apply
them and to attack the problems that are out there: operating
expenses and tax breaks for wealthy Canadians. That is where he
must cut.
Under these circumstances, how can the Minister of Finance
consider going after RRSPs when he refuses to touch family
trusts and tax shelters? That is the question and it is outrageous
that he is not doing it!
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget,
we closed the $100,000 capital gains loophole. That was the
biggest tax break. We closed a great many corporate tax
loopholes. We will certainly follow through in the next budget.
Until then, the hon. member and his colleagues can make
suggestions. Instead of making partisan speeches and praying to
heaven, why do they not act as responsible members of
Parliament and join the committee to really improve the lot of
Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister admitted that the
spending cuts contained in his last budget were not sufficient to
even meet his own modest deficit cutting target. He admitted
that unless another $3 billion to $5 billion in savings is achieved
in 1995-96 and another $6 billion to $9 billion in 1996-97 he
will not meet his target.
6900
My question is simple and direct and I hope to receive a
simple and direct answer. Where does the minister expect to
get that order of savings?
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development- Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I set out
yesterday, among the various scenarios, was a scenario based on
a prudent assessment of what interest rates are going to be and of
the necessity to arrive at savings of $9 billion cumulatively over
a two-year period.
As to where that is going to come from, I set out very clearly a
list of all government expenditures, a list of all spending and tax
expenditures. We have set in place a process of consultation
which is unique in Canadian economic history. It is very
important that the process work.
I ask the leader of the Reform Party and his colleagues who sit
on that committee to give us their suggestions, to join in drawing
Canadians out as we have to, to make the trade-offs.
It is crucial, in the period into which we are going and the
budget into which we are going, that we build bridges to
Canadians so there is a national consensus of the need to face up
to the problems at which we are looking.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister was told in the budget debate six months
ago that his spending cuts were inadequate. He insisted that they
were good enough. When interest rates went up, the minister
was told by analysts, by officials in his department, by the
money markets, that his deficit cutting was off track. He insisted
he was on track.
The minister has repeatedly been advised over the last six
months that his deficit control program is off track and how to
fix it, but he has ignored that advice.
Why should Canadians believe that their advice would be
listened to now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party is
engaging in a certain amount of revisionist history.
What took place in the House was members of the Reform
Party consistently crying wolf and saying, within about two
weeks after the budget, that we were going to miss our targets
this year, that we should have a mini-budget in March, that we
should have a mini-budget in April, May, June, July.
I do not know if they have ever run anything, but that is not the
way a big institution works, certainly not the Government of
Canada.
As we indicated yesterday, we are going to hit our deficit
target this year for the first time in Canadian history.
If someone would like to talk about the last budget and how I
feel, I am a little upset that the Prime Minister announced that
business confidence was up. I was going to announce that. I am
even more upset that the Prime Minister said that business
confidence was higher when he was the finance minister than
now-
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Same level.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): On the same level. I would
like to tell the Prime Minister that not only is business
confidence up but that real exports are up to record levels, 17.7
per cent higher than at this time last year.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Silye: Keep laughing while you go further in debt. Enjoy
yourself now.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I love these Wednesdays.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the truth is that the Liberal cabinet has not the foggiest
notion of how to balance budgets and Canadians are paying the
price for it.
Reformers in the House know that the Minister of Health
cannot read a financial statement, that the Prime Minister does
not know that jobs are created by deficit cutting and not public
spending, and that the Minister of Human Resources
Development has never balanced a budget in his entire political
life.
How much more are Canadian taxpayers going to have to pay
while high spending Liberals learn the elementary lessons of
fiscal responsibility?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just a slight correction. I believe
the Minister of Health is an accountant. I have never said very
much about accountants, but I think they can read balance
sheets. In fact she is a very good accountant.
We have offered members of the Reform Party the
opportunity time and time again to set out before us what they
would do. We gave it to them in the prebudget debate and they
did not take advantage of it. We gave it to them this summer and
they did not take advantage of it. We have given it to them over
the last two days. What we are saying is this: You now have a
unique opportunity to lay in front of us what the Reform Party
would do, and we are looking forward to the details. I was going
to say one other thing before I was so rudely interrupted. Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell you that manufacturing shipments
are also up. We have just had the strongest six months growth
since the start of the recession.
6901
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. In his grey paper, the
minister admits for the first time that he intends to make major
additional cuts in the social program reform, on top of the $7.4
billion cuts announced in last spring's budget and which have
largely been approved already.
Now that the Minister of Finance has confirmed that he will
cut billions more at the expense of the poor and the middle class,
the question is: How many billions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made it very
clear in the budget that, in 1996-97, transfers to provinces
would be frozen to the 1993-94 level. This was also confirmed
by the Minister of Human Resources Development in his
document.
We said that a review of the UI program was in order and that
it would be the second stage of the reforms undertaken. Again,
this was confirmed by the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Make no mistake about it: We will definitely have
to cut in all government spending.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is holding
consultations right across the country and the finance committee
will conduct the same exercise. I do hope that members opposite
will make suggestions. Indeed, instead of just yelling they
should make useful suggestions.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister announce additional cuts of billions of dollars
in social programs without being more specific, when the
consultation process on the social policy reform is barely
getting underway?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggested that
the hon. member read not only the grey paper, but also the first
document, which is mauve as you can see. She will see that the
policy statement is very clear: we have to improve government
finances in order to protect our social programs.
Obviously, we cannot let international markets tell us how to
build our country. Again, it is to protect our social programs that
we are undertaking a true structural reform and I hope that the
hon. member will come before the committee to make
suggestions. I will welcome them.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 23 of this year I asked the Minister of Finance to admit
that if he provided realistic economic projections in his budget,
as a result of that budget the deficit would not go below $30
billion in the third year and would remain close to 4 per cent of
GDP. The minister replied: ``The answer is quite the opposite.
Absolutely we will attain the 3 per cent of GDP''.
Yesterday the minister admitted that my original assumption
was correct. Will he tell the House why he did not know what he
was talking about when he presented his budget projections in
February?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there obviously is
a little confusion here. The member says that I did not know
what I was talking about in the House yesterday. I was not in the
House yesterday.
Perhaps these might help. The fact is-
(1435 )
The Speaker: Order. We would prefer that there not be any
props.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I wish they were props, Mr.
Speaker.
The fact is that we have been unequivocal. The Prime
Minister has stated it unequivocally. All the members of cabinet
and all the members on this side and on that side of the House
have stated it unequivocally. We are going to hit our target. If
there should have been any doubt about it, there could not have
been any doubt after yesterday with what this country is going
through.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the minister missed the English translation. What I said
was that the minister made precisely that statement about his
February budget and he was wrong just as every finance minister
with weak intermediate targets-Marc Lalonde, Michael
Wilson, Don Mazankowski-have been wrong in the last 10
years on this very subject.
When will the Minister of Finance admit that a two stage
approach to this problem will not work? Will he admit that it is
not possible to jump over a wide chasm in two short leaps?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not
have the same familiarity with the Mazankowski and Wilson
budgets that the member does because I did not work for them as
he did.
6902
I understand the member's analogy to jumping chasms. Let
me simply say that may be the Reform Party's way, but in terms
of chasms, we in the Liberal Party far prefer to build bridges.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
He acknowledged yesterday in the House that he has no idea
whether or not the Hibernia megaproject will be profitable one
day. He said, and I quote: ``We must complete this project
because[. . .] we will be able to recover if not all at least a large
part of the money invested so far''. The Prime Minister does not
even dare talk about profits.
Considering that this statement is in direct conflict with the
smug optimism of the Minister of Natural Resources, how can
the Prime Minister say that he is managing public money
soundly, when he is not even sure that we will be able to recoup
the billions of dollars we are sinking into that project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Let me assure the hon. member that this government believes
that the Hibernia project is viable and that we anticipate a
reasonable and fair rate of return on our investment as do all
consortium members.
Let me suggest that the hon. member should appreciate that
we in the Government of Canada define value in a number of
different ways, only one of which is rate of return. I should
remind the hon. member that many jobs have been created and
many contracts have been let, many of those in the province of
Quebec. Over half a billion dollars worth of benefits have gone
to the province of Quebec.
We are building infrastructure. We are building a new source
of energy security in this country. Therefore, I suggest that
Hibernia on all counts is a valuable project for the long term
prosperity of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister must be one of the very few who imagine
we can make money on a barrel of oil. We are going to see the
end of the oil before we see any profit. If you want to talk about
Quebec, Madam Minister, let us talk about it!
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that he should
address his comments to the Chair.
Mr. Duceppe: If the Minister wishes to talk about Quebec,
maybe she could explain to us why a shipyard was built from
scratch in Newfoundland, where there was no expertise-as we
can see today with the transfer of work to New
Brunswick-while the shipyard in Lévis-Lauzon could have
done the work instead of being threatened with closure.
The minister is telling us that she is having her arm twisted.
As we know, the government withdrew from two other
megaprojects, one in Regina and one in Lloydminster, in
Saskatchewan.
Why continue to sink billions of dollars in Hibernia, when she
actually acknowledges that it will never be profitable?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try and answer at least some of the
hon. member's allegations.
There are many indicators at this point that we will receive a
reasonable rate of return on our investment. I suggest the
member look at a recent Wood Gundy report which indicates
that we will enjoy a reasonable rate of return on our investment
as will all consortium members.
Let me suggest to the hon. member that when he talks about
shipyards that he is referring to a recent contractual issue
involving Vinland shipyards and Saint John shipyards.
I think many in this country, including my colleagues from
New Brunswick, would be somewhat surprised to hear that the
hon. member does not believe that the Saint John shipyard, one
of the finest shipyards in the world in terms of instrumentation
and electrical abilities, is qualified to participate in this
contract.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I appeal to you. If we could
keep the questions short and the answers, it would be better for
all of us.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, under
the red ink book infrastructure plan, governments of Canada
have borrowed over $4.7 billion in this $6 billion boondoggle
and have created only 7,000 long term jobs.
Given the statement of the finance minister yesterday about
everything being on the table when considering cuts to the
deficit, will the Minister of Finance commit in this House today
to axing the pork barrel program and saving taxpayers the last
billion dollars?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I again want to remind the member about the projects
that are going on in his riding which he did not object to.
6903
Nevertheless, this program is creating not 7,000 but some
100,000 jobs. That is only the beginning because it is attracting
additional private sector investment into many communities
and that will create at least twice as many jobs at the end of
the day.
The money that is used for the federal portion as has been said
time and time again because it is in the red book-have a look, it
is on reallocation-is a matter of setting priorities and spending
smarter. That is what we doing with the money we are putting
into it.
The Speaker: I want to thank you for keeping the questions
short and the answers.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister had taken the time to find out, he would have found out
that I opposed the projects in my riding.
We hear about the red ink book, the lilac book and the green
book. The only thing in common is that they are comic books.
The infrastucture program is up for review at the end of its
second year. Given that the finance minister has admitted that
the deficit kills jobs, will he kill the infrastructure program and
create jobs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to hear what the member thinks about
some of the projects in his own riding that are putting people to
work. He has never told me that. He certainly never told my
office that.
This program is implementing what this government said it
was going to do in providing a program that brings three orders
of government together to get the economy moving. Provinces
of all political stripes and municipalities of all political stripes
applaud this program and are in fact joining together in a
partnership that is helping to get Canadians back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Clearly, without the
participation of the provinces, the National Forum on Health
will be just a lot of useless talk about health issues, and the
Prime Minister admitted as much when he said, and I quote:
The forum is not a decision-making body. Its purpose is to look at the issue
and make recommendations. This exercise is not binding on the federal
government nor on the provinces. . . I invited these people to discuss the issue.
(1445)
Since the fact that the provinces will not attend makes the
National Forum on Health an exercise in futility, will the Prime
Minister cancel the forum and save $12 million in taxpayers'
money, to show he is really serious about dealing with waste in
government spending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all participants, who represent the health care
community in Canada, including all national associations, have
applauded the government's initiative. The time has come to
review a system that has served Canadians well so far. We must
realize, however, that the system costs the Canadian economy
more than 9 per cent of our gross domestic income. This is better
than the United States, but not as efficient as systems in other
countries.
We must find ways to work as cheaply and efficiently as we
can to serve all Canadians, and we must have a dialogue with
experts from all regions of the country. I think it will be a very
useful exercise that will help us ensure that we can maintain
adequate levels of health care for all Canadians across Canada,
because health is everybody's business.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Prime Minister refer, as he did yesterday, to establishing
national standards, when health care is the exclusive purview of
the provinces and at a time when his government, the federal
government, is contributing less and less to health care
financing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was an ordinary member of Parliament and we
adopted medicare for all Canadians, the federal government's
contribution in the health sector was practically nil at the time.
We set up a national system of which Canadians can be proud. If
the federal government at the time had not taken this initiative,
we would not have a national health care plan that applies to all
Canadians.
That is why we have a Canadian Parliament that sets standards
for the benefit of all Canadians. Our system is the envy of other
countries, because we treat our citizens well, whether we are
talking about health care or other areas.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
riding of Bruce-Grey is very near to Lake Huron and we are
susceptible to airborne particulates and pollutants from the state
of Michigan.
Recently the state of Michigan applied to the EPA to lower the
standards of emissions. Is the Minister of the Environment
aware of the situation, and what she is doing to protest this step
by the Michigan authorities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this happens to be an
issue that affects the health of literally hundreds of thousands of
people in southwestern Ontario.
6904
As a result of the initiatives of not only the member for
Bruce-Grey but also the southwestern caucus and the minister
from Windsor, we have been in touch with the EPA directly.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has spoken directly to the
State Department of the United States.
We are not satisfied with the EPA's proposal to move forward
with the lowering of the standards that could potentially
negatively affect the health of Canada. This is why I am very
pleased to tell the House that on July 26, along with my
counterpart in the United States, Carol Browner, I entered a
dialogue to start looking at the issue of joint airsheds from a
shared point of view.
Airborne problems do not carry passports. We are going to
tackle the problem together and we are going to find a solution
that respects the health of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance says that Canadians can expect the deepest
spending cuts in history, cuts that could total at least $6.3 billion
in the next two years.
Is the minister willing to play a leadership role and make
spending cuts in his own backyard, namely cuts to the federal
office of regional development in Quebec, a program for which
he is directly responsible?
(1450 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of
FORD-Q and very proud of the role FORD-Q plays within the
province of Quebec.
FORD-Q, along with the other regional agencies and indeed
with all of government, has already been subject to very severe
fiscal discipline. No part of government is going to be exempt
from a detailed examination of what it is doing.
The kind of thing we are doing on this side and on that side of
the House is making government better. We are not only
looking, as did other governments, at the 10 or 15 per cent of
cutting that must be spent but we are making the 85 or 90 per
cent that remains work well. That is certainly the case with
FORD-Q.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says everything is on the table, which includes taxing
RRSPs.
Will the minister commit to Canadians that he will make
spending cuts including his own regional development program
and not go after Canadian RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate
that the member was not there yesterday. We made it very clear
that our preference in this whole action is clearly on cutting
spending. We said that very clearly.
We also said, in relation to the tag end of the question which is
an original one, I must say, that I am not going to comment on
individual suggestions because what I really want is for
Canadians to focus on the tradeoffs. I hope the member and his
party would rise to that challenge.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. In approximately three
weeks, the Security Intelligence Review Committee will report
to the Solicitor General on its inquiry into the Bristow and
McInnis affairs as well as allegations of illegal activities.
Surprisingly, after one month of inquiry, the review committee
has not yet gone back to the main actor, Mr. Doug Lewis, who
was then Solicitor General.
Does the Solicitor General find it normal that on the eve of the
publication of a report which is supposed to reassure the people,
the review committee has not yet questioned the former
Solicitor General even though he is the main clue to this puzzle?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has been
created by Parliament in legislation passed by it to be
independent of CSIS, of the government and of the Solicitor
General.
Therefore I do not think it is for me to comment on how the
committee does its work. The committee can take note of the
hon. member's question and I look forward to receiving its
report at the earliest possible date.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Solicitor General expect the review committee to shed
some light on the activities of CSIS when its five members are
only working part-time and fail to meet with major witnesses?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the Security Intelligence Review
Committee has a full time staff and is capable of hiring
additional staff to work full time on inquiries like this one.
6905
I understand this is what has happened. People have been
hired to work along with the full time staff. I suggest to the hon.
member that he await the completion of its work before passing
judgment. That is the fair thing to do.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's appearance of the former
Solicitor General before the subcommittee on national security,
it has become apparent that both the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada have had access
to CSIS information that mentions the Reform Party of Canada.
It appears that the party denied access to the information is the
Reform Party whose rights have been abused. What steps is the
Solicitor General prepared to take to stop this abuse of the
democratic process?
(1455 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I am aware political parties do not have access
to information gathered by CSIS and the CSIS act is very clear
on what that body can and cannot do.
I think the hon. member knows as well as I do that this
information is not available to political parties, even though the
allegations and questions relate to a period of time before this
party formed the government.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent to me that solicitor
generals do represent political parties. There is only one way-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put her
question, please.
Ms. Meredith: There is only one way to alleviate the
concerns of Canadians about the information that CSIS holds on
our party.
Is the Solicitor General prepared to provide the leader of the
Reform Party with access to all information that CSIS may hold
on our party?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not concede that CSIS holds information on the
Reform Party, but I would be prepared to provide any and all
information as I am entitled to do under the law passed by
Parliament.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At the last meeting of the G-7, Canada was asked to take a
leadership role in the international effort to restore the
Ukrainian economy. After decades of economic and
environmental mismanagement under the former Soviet regime,
could the minister explain how Canada is investing in the future
and fostering better ties with Ukraine?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his
question.
I remind the House that last July in Naples the G-7 endorsed
the proposal of the Prime Minister to host a conference on
economic reform in Ukraine. The conference will take place in
Winnipeg at the end of this month. It will be part of the state visit
of the Ukrainian president who will be in Canada for a few days'
visit.
It is good to remember that Canada is totally committed to
assisting Ukraine in its development. We have already
committed over $41 million to over 70 projects. We are very
confident that Ukraine will be able, with the assistance of the
G-7, to turn around and establish a market economy in that
country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada.
On more than one occasion, Mr. Protti, the director of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and his predecessor,
Mr. Elcock, told members of this House that there is no special
division within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
spying on the Quebec government and its democratic move
toward sovereignty.
With everything that is being written in the newspapers these
days, and in view of the imminence of a referendum in Quebec,
can the Prime Minister rise in this House and solemnly affirm
that there is no organization of the ``French-problem'' type
keeping an eye on the sovereignist movement in Quebec or on
any other democratically elected party in this House or in
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been in politics for a while now and I have never
been advised of any spying activities. I am the leader of this
government and the Reform Party is making accusations. Well,
6906
we do not need spies to know what that party is saying. We need
not know more to eliminate it. As for the Parti Quebecois and the
Bloc Quebecois, who are unable to admit that they are
separatists and call themselves sovereignists to try and confuse
people, we do not need spies to know more about them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 7, I sent to the Minister of Transport my
solution for the Pearson airport contract problem. He has now
had almost two weeks to consider the merits of my proposal.
Will the minister agree that the Pearson problem will not go
away and that the proposal I sent him is the only fair and logical
way to bring the matter to a just conclusion?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you will understand my concern when you hear from
whom the proposal came. The hon. member who asked the
question has been quoted as saying that as far as he is concerned
there is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal. Therefore
anything he has to say about it certainly will be suspect in my
mind.
What is very interesting with respect to the position of the
Reform Party on this matter is that when we talk about the court
system, I hear its members every day questioning the judicial
system of the country. Yet when they want to protect their
friends with a deal at Pearson they want us to go to court. Make
up your mind.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, N.D.P.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, before the
finance committee, he indicated that in his first round of
prebudget consultations Canadians ``told us they wanted clear
targets to which they could hold the government accountable
and we provided those targets. We provided those milestones.'' I
applaud him for his leadership.
However, we have heard an awful lot about the target of
deficits. Why did the minister not also include targets for
employment? He is concerned about employment. We have been
hearing only targets for deficit reduction. Why not targets for
employment as well?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say first of
all that I welcome the question from the hon. member. It is really
unfortunate that it only appears to be from this side of the House
that one ever hears the voice of compassion or understanding
and I am delighted to hear it coming from that side of the House
and from that member.
The member is quite right to point out the great distinction
between yesterday's document and the document that we issued
on Monday: the one that dealt with creating an economic
framework, the one that dealt with jobs, the one that dealt with
giving Canadians skills, that said basically that the best social
policy is a good job, the one that dealt with building this country.
The member is very wise to point out that we embarked on a
two track project in the red book and in the election campaign.
We were going to build this country and we were going to clean
up the nation's finances. We remain faithful to both tracks.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. George Heller,
president of the Victoria Commonwealth Games Society.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6906
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to the first
report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development.
[Translation]
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, our
response to the first report of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the Government's response to a
petition.
6907
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in only a few short
days we will celebrate the first anniversary of the Liberal
government.
(1505 )
Over the course of that year the red book has become a
guiding light of government policy. Today I am proud to
announce that once again we are delivering on another red book
promise.
I am proud to announce that we are going to follow up on the
recommendations of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development. We are following
up on our promise not only to appoint an environmental auditor
general, but to go even further.
[Translation]
Today, our government has decided to make profound changes
in the way we operate in order to ensure that Canada's
environmental agenda is integrated with Canada's economic
agenda.
[English]
We have heard the members on the opposite side of the House
say spend money. What the members of the third party do not
understand is that a government that incorporates the principles
of sustainable development into all of its actions will be a
government that will save taxpayers money.
We promised in the red book that we would appoint an
environmental auditor general. Many people thought the
government would never follow through on that promise
because it opens the government up to the potential for
criticism. It could subject us to the same kind of hard nosed
analysis and criticism that we are currently open to as a result of
the Auditor General's current level of activity on our financial
behaviour.
I wish to tell members of Parliament that not only are we
fulfilling our red book promise today, we want to go further. We
think it makes good environmental sense and it delivers better
government. We are serious about promoting sustainable
development and we are delivering today. We are serious about
the greening of government.
This place alone saved over $750,000 when the former
Speaker decided to make the practices of the House of Commons
sustainable. It does not cost more money because we are
spending money smarter. We are serious about getting the
federal government's act together on environmental issues and
we are serious about being held accountable for our
environmental actions and our environmental planning.
The cabinet has reviewed the extremely thoughtful work of
the parliamentary committee chaired by the hon. member for
Davenport.
[Translation]
The committee felt that while it is vitally important to audit
past actions of the government, it is even more important to
ensure that environmental considerations be a fundamental
component of planning in all government departments.
We have decided upon a package of initiatives which meet all
the objectives of the committee's report and does so in a manner
consistent with the fiscal framework of the government.
Members of Parliament from all parties and a wide range of
individual witnesses indicated the importantce of moving from
the concept of sustainable development to the practice of
sustainable development.
[English]
I want to repeat that in English because I think it is an
important underlying principle. We have to stop talking about
sustainable development and start delivering. We have to move
from the theory to the practice, and that starts right here in this
place with the actions of the single biggest employer in the land,
the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
The Committee called for enhanced environmental auditing
of the government's policies, programs and laws.
[English]
The committee believed that individual government
departments must improve their practices to achieve
consistency with sustainable development and the greening of
government. The committee called for the review of existing
policies and independent and internal evaluation of all new
policies and laws.
The committee also felt that the government must be held
accountable to Parliament and to the public for demonstrating
real progress in meeting these objectives.
[Translation]
The committee advocated that the government go beyond the
idea of just an Environmental Auditor and, instead, establish a
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development.
(1510)
The government will amend the Auditor General Act to
establish a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development.
To guarantee the absolute impartiality of this person, she or he
will be appointed by the Auditor General of Canada and report
through the Auditor General to Parliament. The government will
include a definition of sustainable development in the Auditor
General Act and ensure that environmental considerations are
taken into account in all Auditor General reports to the House of
Commons.
6908
[English]
All cabinet ministers will be required to table sustainable
development strategies in Parliament. The act will make the
commissioner responsible for monitoring and reporting, not to
cabinet, not behind closed doors, but to Parliament to monitor
and report on the performance of government departments in
meeting our sustainable development goals and objectives.
The Auditor General Act will also be amended to allow the
commissioner to receive from the public and to forward to
appropriate ministers petitions on environmental concerns. The
commissioner will have the authority to monitor and report on
government responses to petitions from the public.
I want to be crystal clear. The commissioner, through the
Auditor General, will issue a separate report annually to
Parliament on the extent to which departments are or are not
meeting the goals and objectives of their stated sustainable
development strategies.
In addition to this separate report, the Auditor General's
report will include considerations of economy, efficiency,
effectiveness and environment.
These changes go well beyond the red book commitment and
we intend to do even more. The parliamentary committee
indicated the importance of an open, inclusive process to really
get people involved.
[Translation]
We must get people involved in the greening and sustainable
development process.
[English]
Government departments will be required to prepare their
sustainable development strategies in an open and transparent
manner which includes review by public stakeholders in
receiving the advice of independent, objective experts,
including the National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy.
[Translation]
We want to guarantee that members of Parliament have a key
stake in ensuring that we meet our objectives. All ministers,
therefore, will be required to report on their progress toward
sustainable development in preparing and presenting their
annual estimates for consideration by Parliament.
[English]
The environment is not just a job for the Minister of the
Environment. The environment is a job for every minister, every
member and every department of government. The government,
through the red book, devoted a chapter to the importance of
sustainable development in building a strong economy by
linking a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We are
committed to this integrated approach.
Economic, social and environmental policy must go hand in
hand. We are committed to ensuring the promotion of thinking
green and delivering on our actions. It must be a central
component of decision making, not just from the Ministry of the
Environment but in the decision making of all departments of
government and at all levels of society. That is the role Harlem
Brundtland was talking about when she said that you think
globally and you act locally. What you flush down your toilet is
part of what affects the environment. What we flush down the
sewers, sometimes unaccounted for, affects the drinking water
and the ecosystems and the gifts that we can give to our children.
In the Government of Canada, decisions of government
departments must reflect a sustainable approach to building on
our economic strength by recognizing that the world is going
green.
We have announced already our intention to proclaim and
strengthen the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I was
pleased that we received the support of the opposition in this
particular initiative.
(1515)
We have already announced a comprehensive proposal for the
management of toxins which put the onus not on people to prove
that chemicals kill, but on companies to prove that they are safe.
Reverse onus is a very important principle.
We have followed up on our promise to establish an
environmental industry strategy at a time when everyone knows
that government dollars are tight. We are spending new dollars
from a reoriented budget to ensure that we have our fair share of
an emerging world market that has the potential to create
thousands of Canadian jobs over the next decade.
In less than one year we have also delivered on our promise to
put in place an independent task force. The Minister of Finance
and I spent a number of months working on the membership of
that task force. That task force is going to report in one month on
where the government is developing tax policies that help the
environment and where perhaps some of our policies might be
disincentives to sound environmental practices. The
information from that report will help the Minister of Finance as
he has to make the tough decisions that come up in the next
budget. That work will also lay the groundwork for a
comprehensive review of federal policies and programs again as
promised in the red book.
We are determined to see the greening of the federal
government. Looking around, this is a green chamber, but we
want to make sure it is more than in name only. We are prepared
to put our government on the line, to hold ourselves accountable
for meeting our objectives and obligations.
6909
Today's announcement means the beginning, just the
beginning, but it is the beginning of a fundamental change in
the operation and practices of government. Environmental and
economic thinking must converge. They are not disparate; they
are not fighting against each other. They are coming together
because environmental health is essential for long term
economic and human health.
Who would have thought 10 years ago that a whole industry
would be wiped out because we did not develop sustainable
practices? Just look at the fisheries, the cod stocks in Atlantic
Canada to see a living example of the lack of a sustainable
development policy.
Today's initiatives will be funded within existing resources. I
believe in the long run today's announcement will pay off major
dividends, environmental and economic, to the taxpayers of
Canada, because thinking green does not cost money, it saves.
The government is getting its act together on sustainable
development. We are beginning to make the links between the
environment and the economy. We are turning the sentiments of
Canadians into concrete action. We are delivering on the spirit
of the red book. We are taking measures to seek out independent
advice because we are not afraid to have our mettle tested. We
are not afraid to put our feet in the fire and say we will be
accountable not only to cabinet, not only to the government but
to the people of Canada through the Parliament of Canada.
That is what is happening with the creation of the
commissioner who reports to Parliament. The government
wants to hold Parliament accountable and the people want to
hold the government accountable.
[Translation]
With this announcement, the government is fulfilling, in less
than a year, yet another primary election commitment of the
Prime Minister. One chapter was devoted to sustainable
development in the red book. This is much more than words. It is
a set of specific initiatives to ensure all government departments
develop, announce and publicize our sustainable development
programs.
I want to thank, first of all, the members of the standing
committee and the witnesses who appeared before the
committee for their invaluable advice and insight. Today's
initiatives are much stronger because all members of the
committee undertook their responsibilities with the utmost
seriousness and dedication.
(1520 )
[English]
I want to acknowledge the work of all the committee
members, some of whom actually along with the chair are
currently on the road on another task of reviewing the five year
plan of CEPA. One former member is in the House today. I know
he and his colleagues contributed very constructively to the
outcome of today's announcement. As I said, it is only the
beginning. We want to look to him and his party and to all
parliamentarians for that kind of constructive co-operation in
the future.
I can say from a personal point of view that I have spent a lot
of time in opposition and not much time in government.
Sometimes it is hard for governments to open themselves up to
public scrutiny. It was not easy to move this through all the
levels behind closed doors. However I can say that the
commitment of the cabinet to open this to transparency and in
particular the commitment of the Prime Minister to live up to the
promise of the red book is what has made today's announcement
a reality.
We came into government and some of the people in the
bureaucracy said that the red book was politics. Now it is
government and now they are starting to understand that the
politics and the policies of the election form the basis of what it
is we want to achieve.
We were successful in actually moving forward on the
creation of a commissioner for sustainable development who
will report directly to Parliament through an agency outside of
cabinet and outside of government departments. I had the full
support of all my colleagues because they understand that to
really make government work we have to incorporate the
principles of sustainable development not only in the Ministry
of the Environment, not only in the agencies involved in
environmental protection, but most particularly in how we do
business in the future.
May I conclude by saying that I believe today's
announcement is the beginning of a future when the
commissioner for sustainable development will provide the kind
of ammunition opposition parties need to get up and hold the
government to account.
I am confident the mandate we have accorded to the new
commissioner for sustainable development with the political
teeth of the Office of the Auditor General and with the personal
commitment of the current Auditor General will make this
process work. Just as today when the Auditor General comes
down on government departments, we may not always like it but
we change, we move and we respond to the analyses of the
Auditor General. In the same way future Parliaments will be
waving around reports of the commissioner for sustainable
development to make government accountable, to work for the
people, of the people and in particular to be accountable to the
Parliament of Canada.
6910
I am thrilled. This is a small step in the right direction, but
it is a step that could yield fantastic dividends for the greening
of Canada in the next decade.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
today I have been given the great honour of hearing the Minister
of the Environment respond to the report of the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
about the position of environmental commissioner.
Throughout last winter, the members of this committee heard
many witnesses who, one after the other, told us how they felt
about the idea of creating such a position in order to assess
federal programs, activities and legislation, thereby translating
sustainable development into something concrete, measurable
and quantifiable.
The work done by all committee members was
unquestionably very serious and constructive, while the
discussions held during our meetings were always frank and
honest.
(1525)
I must pay tribute to all members of the Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development, and particularly to
its chairman, the hon. member for Davenport, who always
showed throughout our discussions a respect-I would go so far
as to say an innate respect-for the environment and sustainable
development.
The Bloc Quebecois members on the committee, that is, my
friend and colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, and
myself, expressed a dissident opinion on the main directions set
by the majority. We did so with the necessary rigour, without
partisanship and in the hope of optimizing the resources and
expertise already available in the Canadian Parliament.
So I take a certain pride in the fact that the minister accepted
the alternative proposal we submitted to her at that time. The
minister and the Cabinet agreed to amend the Auditor General
Act to outline a function to be assigned to the commissioner. The
government decided to make departments more accountable for
sustainable development, so that efforts made in this area can be
assessed.
Making departments accountable for the environment is the
way of the future for sustainable development. The Auditor
General, need I remind you, has learned a great deal about
environmental assessments. He has developed an expertise in
this area over the years and he now performs several
environmental assessment functions. The Auditor General has a
thorough knowledge of where environmental jurisdiction is
shared and where the provinces have exclusive authority.
In a word, the Auditor General has the necessary integrity to
carry out these tasks, to give the person appointed all the
requisite technical support to meet the objectives and fulfil the
ensuing action plans, in order to make sustainable development
a reality. Of course, to do this, he will need the financial
resources required to implement these objectives, which the
minister has surely provided for and will assuredly inform us of
in the near future.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois thought it was most
important to amend the Auditor General Act to allow the
Auditor General to present more than one report a year to
Parliament and the people.
A few moments ago, the Minister of the Environment, in full
oratorical flight, said that the auditor or the commissioner might
tell the government things it did not want to hear. Of course, it
hurts to hear that one has done something badly, but to be told it
only once a year by someone who has a four-year contract with
the Canadian people is not so bad. We suggested that the
Minister of the Environment allow the commissioner to make
two reports a year, or better yet, to present them as required in
case of disaster and not to wait 18 months to bring this disaster
to the public's attention. But no, they are still sticking with an
annual report.
(1530)
We members of the Bloc Quebecois thought that it was very
important to amend the Auditor General Act so that the Auditor
General can report to Parliament as required. If there is an
emergency, another report will be presented; if there is another
emergency, one or two more reports could be presented.
It seems that the minister did not want to amend the law that
way. If our understanding of this is correct, two separate annual
reports will be published, dealing with two different aspects of
sustainable development: one for the departments and the other
for current activities affecting the environment.
Hopefully, the bill to establish a commissioner responsible
for the environment will be more specific and will provide a
clear idea of what is involved.
The environment minister acknowledged the contribution and
concerns of Bloc members regarding the position of
commissioner. We will continue our critical but constructive
work in committee during the review of this legislation.
Sustainable development and the environment must become
priorities for the federal government, the provinces, the
territories and the municipalities.
Our concern for the environment is real and permanent.
Recent measures taken by the minister, including the
proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
and the proposal regarding an integrated management policy on
toxic substances, seemed to be motivated by a stand-offish
attitude.
6911
However, establishing a dialogue and harmonizing policies
with the provinces are essential to promote sustainable
development.
Our environment is too important and too fragile to start
arguing over issues of jurisdiction. True sustainable
development can only occur by co-operating with the provinces,
not by antagonizing them or acting alone.
We feel the minister is making a mistake and will not help the
environment at all if she does not enlist the participation of the
provinces in various federal initiatives. The minister must make
sure that the efforts to provide a healthy environment for future
generations are not wasted.
I am sure the minister will agree that our environment is too
important to avoid a dialogue with her provincial counterparts.
In conclusion, I once again say to the Minister of the
Environment that she can count on the support of the Bloc
Quebecois regarding any policy, provided that she respects
provincial jurisdiction and that she avoids overlapping.
(1535)
Her colleague, the Minister of Finance, used a very vivid
metaphor, when he said that jumping over a bar three feet high
does not look like much, but if you happen to be standing six feet
down in the hole, it is quite a challenge. It means you actually
have to jump nine feet!
Well, the minister can always count on our support, but
Madam Minister, you will have to recognize provincial
jurisdictions, and especially Quebec's, and you will have to
avoid overlap, something Bloc Quebecois members on the
Environment Committee have said repeatedly. Of course we did
not always get our way on the Environment Committee, but
considering the announcement made by the Minister of the
Environment today, we were probably the only two
members-after three or four months of debate, who were right,
because from the very beginning our position was that the
environment commissioner should work with the Auditor
General.
Perhaps the Minister of the Environment will appreciate the
following story. When I was a little boy, in a certain country they
had a red book that was read by everyone. Children grew up
reciting passages from the red book. Of course, Mr. Speaker,
they later went to the other extreme-
An hon. member: Like a catechism.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Yes, like a catechism. They
collected all the red books to make huge bonfires. The hon.
member for Shefford mentioned this awhile ago, and I suddenly
remembered. So the red book became toxic waste, as it were,
and they tried to erase its harmful effects from the minds of the
people, and they will succeed. Mr. Speaker, you have probably
guessed the name of the country and the author.
Speaking of red books, I had one during the election campaign
almost a year ago, and then my organizers made the mistake of
throwing it out when they were housecleaning. I asked some
Liberal colleagues for one, and of course they were quite willing
to give me photocopies of part of the red book but never the real
red book. Madam Minister, could I make a formal and official
request for a red book?
Ms. Copps: Please drop by my office.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): I will be there in less than
an hour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to acknowledge at the commencement of my remarks that
when I first started into this process I rose in the House and I
said: ``If the minister is serious and if we have the opportunity to
go through the whole process, I am looking forward to her and
her department coming forward and saying yes, this is the
collective wisdom of the committee and we are prepared to act
on it''. I said that if she did that I would congratulate her, so
today I congratulate her.
I realize as a Reformer that I have to be careful, but I would
like to make special note of the chair of the committee, the hon.
member for Davenport. I believe he and I share a mutual respect
for each other, for the fact that we have hard opinions, strong
opinions and different opinions. In spite of that he did a
masterful job of bringing together all of the opinions that were
available through this arduous process. He is absolutely to be
commended for his work.
In addition, taking some of the responsibility for this, the
member for Comox-Alberni and myself absolutely held out,
dug in our heels and would not be moved. I am now very pleased
to see that the minister has announced that we will fund these
initiatives within existing resources. I take some small amount
of credit for that on behalf of the Reform Party. There were
people on the committee who had a differing point of view to
that.
(1540)
I would like to read from the minister's prepared comments:
``The government will include a definition of sustainable
development in the Auditor General Act and ensure that
environmental considerations are taken into account in all
Auditor General reports to Parliament''. She will know that
extreme environmentalists would see the term sustainable
development as being an oxymoron, in other words the two
things do not necessarily fit together. The responsible
industrialist, the entrepreneur, does not see it that way. I must
tell this House that neither does the Reform Party.
6912
The Reform Party sees sustainable development as being an
absolutely achievable goal. However, one of the difficulties is
what does sustainable development mean. That is a very
difficult question. I have some small bit of concern because the
minister in her comments today in the unprepared part of her
speech said that there will be an onus on the companies to prove
their process is safe.
One of the concerns that I have is that I do not know what that
means either. In other words, are we going to kill the goose that
lays the golden egg by becoming so wrapped up in saying we
cannot do anything that we will not be able to have any
responsible development of the resources that we have in
Canada? It is a concern.
I would like to read into my speech from the Reform Party
blue sheet. We have gone from mauve to purple to red to green to
grey. The Reform Party has always stayed with blue.
The Reform Party supports ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants
dwell in a clean and healthy environment. The party supports sustainable
development because-
This is the most important part.
-without economic development and the income generated therefrom, the
environment will not be protected or enjoyed.
That is where the hon. member for Davenport and myself
differ. From his perspective I believe I would be fair in
characterising his point of view to say that we must protect the
environment before we get into economic development. I
suggest if we take a look at what is happening in the third world
where the countries do not have proper economic activity, where
they do not have the resources to protect the environment, we
end up with absolutely atrocious situations in the third world in
terms of pollution. They do not have the resources to protect the
environment.
I say again that the Reform Party states that without economic
development and the income generated therefrom, the
environment will not be protected or enjoyed.
This has been a consistent position of the Reform Party
contrary to what has been said. I am sure that the minister would
never have said anything disparaging about the Reform Party,
but maybe there are some people in the Liberal Party who have
said some things that perhaps have not been totally accurate in
characterising where the Reform Party is coming from. I would
like to read in exactly where we are coming from on the issue of
sustainable development. This by the way has been in our blue
book since 1991.
The Reform Party supports the view that environmental considerations must
carry equal weight with economic, social and technical considerations in the
development of a project.
The Reform Party supports the integration of environmental and economic
objectives in management philosophy, structure, procedures, planning and all
decision-making matters involving economic and environmental issues in which
the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction.
The Reform Party supports the initiation of a public education program of
environmentally conscious purchasing. The federal government and private
sector should cause their purchasing departments to be environmentally
conscious in all their purchasing.
The Reform Party supports the federal government in taking leadership in
developing a new discipline integrating economics and the environment.
This has been the position of the Reform Party. I cannot
possibly imagine that the responsible members of the Reform
Party would ever move from those very sustainable and
responsible positions.
However, there is a battle for the hearts and minds of people
over the issue of responsible resource management and
development and probably no place more strongly than in the
province of British Columbia.
(1545 )
This battle for the hearts and minds of citizens is waged by
people who seem to get on to the extreme. We have to realize
that, just as in society, people, human beings, have a finite life.
For example, in British Columbia the flashpoint is trees. Trees
have a finite life.
What has to be decided is what we are going to do with the
fibre. Are we going to let it fall to the ground in decay? Are we
going to harvest it? Are we going to be handling it responsibly?
There is this battle for the hearts and minds of people.
I will tell a quick story. I was at a meeting attended by people
from all over Canada in my constituency a few weeks ago. A
prairie farmer came up to me. He was very proud of the fact that
he was going out of his way to save all the forests in British
Columbia. He was one of the largest contributors to one of the
more extreme environmental groups that have single-handedly
shut down logging operations, put loggers out of work, and
created all sorts of havoc in situations where the companies
within the last five years have turned around and managed their
affairs and the affairs of the forests very responsibly. I suggested
to him that maybe I should start to contribute to a fund that
would advocate returning all the prairies to grasslands. How
would he feel about that? Of course he became very incensed
about it.
One issue in the entire area of the environment is to get good,
quality information out. I congratulate the minister and the
committee chairman for their effort to this point. I look forward
to the Reform Party supporting the initiative.
6913
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs regarding membership of committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
this report later today.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, N.D.P) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Canada
Health Act (conditions for contributions).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the act to amend the Canada Health Act,
conditions for contributions, is intended to ensure that the health
care insurance plan of a province provides for the obligation for
hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees, who
provide emergency medical or rescue services to a patient, the
name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease that the
patient might have transmitted to them.
This is something that the International Association of
Firefighters has been requesting for a long time. It is similar to a
bill which was first introduced in the last Parliament by Joy
Langdon, the former NDP labour critic. However the bill
includes a clause dealing with confidentiality which is an
improvement over the previous bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, N.D.P) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-285, an act to eliminate financial support for
nuclear reactor design and construction in Canada or abroad and
to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act in consequence
thereof.
(1550)
He said: Mr. Speaker, actually the tabling of the bill is quite
timely when we consider that the subsidies to Atomic Energy of
Canada amount to almost $200 million a year at a time when we
are very concerned about deficit reduction.
Essentially the bill prevents the federal government from
giving any financial assistance or technical support to nuclear
reactor projects except those for making isotopes for medical
use, acknowledging that there is an appropriate use in terms of a
nuclear industry particularly when it comes to treating the
illnesses of people.
It is essentially a moratorium on any further construction of
these types of projects.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading of the 40th report, interesting as it may be.
I move that the 40th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the
House will know that violence in our society is a great concern
among Canadians. Violence in the media is of particular concern
perhaps principally to parents who are raising children.
The petitioners ask government to ensure that the CRTC
monitor very closely violence in the media. They feel there is a
relationship between that which they see and hear and that which
happens in society. They believe that violence is not necessary
in order to entertain. They also underline that violence and
violent acts are counterproductive to that which they try to do in
raising their families.
They point out, however, that there have been some changes
and that they are appreciative of the initiatives the CRTC has
taken.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from residents of my riding asking the
government to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which
would sentence people convicted of murder to life
imprisonment with chance of parole after 25 years but review
after 15 years. They are objecting to it and think that section of
the Criminal Code should be repealed so that it would not be
allowed.
It is always kind of sad when somebody in the community
starts a petition, collects hundreds of names, and then when the
petition arrives it does not meet the requirements; it is lacking in
form. I am always sad when that happens.
6914
I have two such petitions here which I know I cannot present
in the usual way at the table or get any record for them.
However they are both objecting to suggested gun control that
is being discussed in Canada. They think we should have
criminal control.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition to the House that asks Parliament
to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
I submit that with my full concurrence.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, N.D.P.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition from constituents who call on
Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality. The petition includes
amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation. That is the way the petition reads.
(1555)
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have the solemn responsibility to present a
petition to the House.
Last May 6, I stood in the House to table a petition in memory
of Carrie Lynn Pinard signed by over 54,000 Canadians. Today I
add 972 names.
The petitioners pray for more severe penalties for those
convicted of violent offences; the release of names of those
young offenders convicted of murder, sex crimes and other
violent assaults; and the automatic transfer to adult court for
those young offenders charged with sex crimes and murder.
I am pleased that since May 6 the government proposed
amendments to the Young Offenders Act and that the Pinard and
Racine families have been heard.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
sets of petitions. The first has 247 signatures.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
The signatories are mostly from the city of Nepean but also
from the city of Kanata.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition has 90 signatures, again of residents of Nepean.
They ask that Parliament review and revise our laws
concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to
prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing
our society, by releasing their names and lowering the age limit
to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all notices of motions for the
production of papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 42 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).
_____________________________________________
6914
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (on behalf of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-49, an act to
amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or
repeal certain other acts, be read the third time.
He said: I am glad to address the House as Secretary of State
for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and to
move the third reading of Bill C-49 entitled: An Act to amend
the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal
certain other Acts.
Three weeks ago, at the start of this debate, the minister was
telling the House that this bill was a reflection of the kinds of
changes the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry has
undergone in recent years and can anticipate in future years. The
proposed changes are not spectacular, but they are important for
the two following reasons. First, they take into account the fact
6915
that agriculture as a commercial activity is evolving and is now
much more that mere growing of plants. Second they represent
sound public management.
(1600)
The agri-food element now added to the mandate of the
department is important, because it reflects the interactions we
must have with all our clients, from producing farmers to urban
consumers. To prosper, the processing sector must rely on
flourishing farms and, conversely, farmers need a healthy
processing sector for their goods. We are mutually dependent
for our daily bread.
[English]
Allow me to illustrate with a few examples. In 1993, $10.5
billion worth of farm inputs such as seeds, machinery and
fertilizers were transformed into farm production valued at
$21.5 billion. In turn that farm production was further
transformed into processed foods and beverage products worth
$46 billion.
In 1993 Canada exported $13.3 billion in agri-food products.
That contributed to a surplus of some $3 billion to Canada's
balance of trade.
The recognition of these connections will be important as we
plan for the future.
[Translation]
These amendments will contribute to better public
management for the following reasons. The bill defines more
clearly the department's responsibilities in research. The
present legislation indirectly refers to research by mentioning
experimental farm stations. The bill broadens this definition to
include research in agriculture and its products specifically with
respect to experimental farm stations. This is a wise
clarification at a time when Canadian industry must compete on
international markets dealing with food and non-food products,
that is to say products resulting from research.
More amendments. The Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food will have the authority to designate inspectors for
the purpose of the Food and Drugs Act, a responsibility which is
presently his under several other acts. Contrary to what the
opposition has been implying, this amendment does not add to
the inspection functions of the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. Rather, it is an amendment necessary to allow the
minister to carry out responsibilities under the Food and Drugs
Act he inherited from the former Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs.
These amendments represent a sound management practice
since they repeal three pieces of legislation which had become
useless.
Finally, under this new bill, the department will publish only
one yearly summary of its expenses and programs in a single
document, namely Part III of the Main Estimates, instead of
doing it in several annual reports. This will save a lot of time and
money.
[English]
With the world trading environment opening up with new
ways of doing business emerging, it is an opportune time to
review the mandate of one of the country's oldest departments.
(1605)
Over the next few months the minister will be working with
producers and industry to hammer out a shared, comprehensive
vision about where we want agriculture and agri-food to be in
the year 2000, 2005 and 2010 and how we plan to get there.
The government is preparing to make some fundamental
decisions about many longstanding and difficult issues in
agriculture and agri-food. These decisions for the future will be
part of a comprehensive plan for a modern, progressive industry.
The minister has spent a good deal of his time during the past
month or so talking about the need for a long term vision. The
minister's view is clear. Industry should be growing. Industry
should be competitive. Industry should be market oriented and,
of course, it should be profitable.
It should respond to the changing food and non-food needs of
domestic and international customers. It should be less
dependent on government support. It should contribute to the
well-being of all Canadians and it should contribute to the
quality of life in rural communities. Overall it should achieve
farm financial security, environmental sustainability and a safe,
high quality food supply.
As a New Brunswicker I am of course very interested in the
vibrant farming community and agri-food industry. My
province may be small, but it has developed a very competitive
food sector. McCain Foods Ltd., Cavendish Farms, Ganong,
Moosehead, Baxter Foods and Dairytown Products are all New
Brunswick firms that have found success beyond provincial
borders. In my own riding of Beauséjour, although concentrated
in the fishery, food processing is a major activity and farming is
as well.
I see in agriculture an agri-food industry that is leading the
way in achieving growth, jobs and security, the three overriding
themes of this government in the Atlantic region and across
Canada. To achieve this, it is vitally important that everyone
involved in this industry, from suppliers to producers to
handlers and processors to consumers and governments,
recognize that most of our issues cannot be dealt with in
isolation.
6916
[Translation]
This bill, which groups agriculture and agri-food together
under one roof, highlights how important it is nowadays for
sectors, provinces and even continents to consult one another.
We are all interconnected and interdependent. We must be
aware of the possible impact of our aspirations and actions on
the other links in the complex chain of stakeholders in the
agricultural and agri-food sector. We need one another and we
must adopt a concrete and firm team-work approach to solve our
internal problems and compete against the rest of the world.
The GATT and NAFTA agreements have resulted in freer
trade and easier access to world markets. Every government on
the planet is helping its exporters to make inroads abroad. We
too must follow suit. During our first year in power, we have
taken steps towards this end.
Soon we will create a Canadian agri-food products marketing
board which will be made up of people from the industry
representing every sector of the agri-food business. This board
will act as a forum to improve co-operation among industry
players and to help them to be more competitive.
(1610)
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in
co-operation with the departments of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, will create an international agri-food
marketing branch. Through this single window, the industry will
have access to federal foreign market development programs.
We have already put in place a network of agri-food trade
specialists in key locations like Seoul, Singapore, T'aipei,
Mexico and Dusseldorf, and this network is growing.
We are getting ready to take advantage of increasingly
sophisticated national and international information highways.
Our offices world-wide will be linked to the Info-Agro-Export
network. This is an interactive, automated system providing
personalized information on world markets. Canadian food
industries invest a relatively small percentage of their sales in
research and development, as compared to their US
counterparts. They could do better in this area.
A few months ago, the research branch undertook a
pilot-project called Agri-Food Research and Development
Cofinancing Project. In this project, the department and the
industry will work together to carry out research and
development, each contributing half the funds. Since the
industry will be setting its own priorities, the relevancy of the
research and development activities will be guaranteed. In
addition, technology transfer will be facilitated because, with
the industry sharing in the financing of the research activities,
its support will be guaranteed in advance. We hope that this
project, to which a budget of $2 million was allocated this year,
will be a first step towards a substantial increase in agri-food
research in Canada.
[English]
This is only the beginning. The challenges we face are
formidable. As I said earlier, in 1993 Canadian agri-food
exports of $13.3 billion contributed a surplus of almost $3
billion to Canada's balance of trade, almost a full one-third of
Canada's total merchandise trade balance.
However, it is worth noting that while there is a positive
balance for primary products, there is a negative balance for
processed products.
Strong export growth has been registered in early 1994 with
projections for the year moving beyond the $14 billion mark.
Canada's overall share of the world agri-food market has
declined since the early sixties. Our growth in agri-food exports
is lagging behind the rest of the world. It will be a major push to
meet the $20 billion export target by the year 2000 set last year
by federal and provincial agriculture ministers.
We are on track toward that target in 1994 with exports
projected to reach $14 billion. What can we do in co-operation
with industry to keep on track?
These are some of the issues we need to address: From 1992 to
1993 our agri-food export surplus declined. In fact, countries
which used to buy Canadian commodities and products are now
net exporters. We have higher processing costs and less private
sector research than some of our competitors. Government
income support payments exceed net farm income and are much
higher than our investments in marketing or market
development.
(1615 )
There is little growth in our exports of these higher value
products to countries other than the U.S, in particular, to Asian
markets where demand is growing rapidly. We must therefore
continue to address international access issues without
forgetting there are unnecessary trade barriers here at home.
Of course food safety has been and must continue to be a
priority in and for Canada. Our reputation for safety and quality
is vital to our domestic consumers and it is a critical advantage
in the international marketplace. At the same time we need to
ensure that it is an efficient system.
[Translation]
The minister fully intends to continue playing an active role
in promoting Canadian agri-food products abroad. Next month,
the Prime Minister will head a trade mission to Asia, a region
that the Governor General and the minister visited last spring.
Next week, he will go to the international food fair in Paris,
where he will participate in the presentation of international
prizes to five Canadian companies that showed excellence in
creating or marketing innovative food products. The Paris fair is
the largest trade fair for food products in the world.
6917
The Canadian agri-food sector already enjoys some
significant advantages such as internationally famous product
competitiveness, high health and safety standards, and
environmentally friendly agricultural practices.
If we focus our activities on the markets, if we use our limited
financial resources wisely, and if we keep in mind that the
various elements of the agricultural and agri-food sector are
interrelated, we will be able to preserve and even increase the
level of success enjoyed by the whole sector.
By proposing these amendments today, we recognize that,
even in a changing world, the Canadian agricultural and
agri-food sector can continue to play an important role at the
international level.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-49 which we are debating on third reading this afternoon
would amend the Department of Agriculture Act.
Mainly, this bill adds the term ``agri-food'' to the
department's name. Like the minister, his secretary of state said
in his speech on second reading of this bill that it is important to
change the title of the act.
This emphasizes that Agriculture Canada's field of activity is
not limited to helping farmers. Indeed, their economic future is
closely tied to processing, distribution, marketing and of course
research and development at all levels of these various products.
It is essential to deal with the whole cycle of farm products.
As agriculture critic for the Official Opposition, I can tell you
that we in the Bloc Quebecois will not oppose this bill.
(1620)
Nevertheless, as my colleague from Jonquière said on second
reading of this bill, changing the department's name will in no
way solve other thorny problems, including overlap with the
provinces. What farmers, like pork producers in Quebec, want is
not a change in the name of the Department of Agriculture. They
do not want a change of deputy minister. What our pork
producers in Quebec want is a government that works for them.
For example, regarding pork exports in particular, what has
the minister done to clear up the mystery surrounding the
reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs? Nothing. What
did the federal agriculture minister do to reassure the nine
countries importing pork, namely Russia, Argentina, Venezuela,
Australia, Uruguay, Panama, Korea, Denmark and South
Africa? Nothing. What did he do to reassure Quebec's maple
syrup producers? Nothing.
Quebec's maple syrup producers do not care whether the
department is called the Department of Agriculture or the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. What they want is
that department to help them sell their product at a fair,
reasonable and, above all, stable price. Last Sunday, I met a
producer who told me that he had sold maple syrup, in bulk, for
$1.62 a pound. Some people and friends told him that this price
was too low and that he should wait until the end of the fall to
sell the syrup produced in the spring.
So, that person waited until last month and instead of getting
$1.62 he only got $1.47, which is 15 cents less. That price does
not even cover production costs. These costs keep increasing
year after year, while the selling price of maple syrup is almost
constantly getting lower. In fact, one can now buy maple syrup
for much less than in 1980. This gives you an idea why Quebec
producers do not care about the name of the agriculture
department. What they want is results.
What did the federal Department of Agriculture do to
stabilize prices? Nothing. What budget did it allocate for
research and development in the maple syrup industry? None.
The result is accumulated surpluses in Quebec, where 90 per
cent of all the maple syrup in the world is produced. I come from
the region of Plessisville, the national capital of maple syrup; I
know what I am talking about and I can tell you that we produce
the best maple syrup in the world.
(1625)
We have surpluses and if the government would only take the
trouble to release funds for research, we could surely find some
new attractive outlets. Just the other day, the former Liberal
Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan-I can give you his
name since he is not here-said: ``In the agriculture industry, $1
invested in research later yields $7.'' I told Mr. Whelan: ``I am
no businessman but I can count. If you can guarantee me a
seven-fold return over seven, eight or ten years, I am willing to
sell everything I own and to invest the money in your research
and development company. I am ready to do it if I am to get a
seven-fold return.''
What has the Canadian Department of Agriculture done to
ensure income security for Quebec farmers in supply-driven
sectors such as milk, eggs and chicken? Not much. What has this
famous department done to find more new outlets for dairy
products, eggs and chicken? Not much. Surely, changing the
name of the department will not make it any more efficient. We
need to change our ways. We have to be willing to change our
ways. The department is not doing anything. And the Bloc
Quebecois will keep nagging at it until it decides to act, because
the farming community is fed up with this stagnation.
6918
What has Agriculture Canada done or what will it do in the
short or medium term to support young farmers, to ease the
transfer of family farms from one generation to the next?
Nothing.
My neighbour bought a hog farm not far from us. He went to
the Farm Credit Corporation, the federal agency, to negotiate his
loan the day after New Year's Day and was able to sign the
contract the day after Canada Day. It took exactly six months for
him to get the necessary financing. I should tell you that he
nearly lost the opportunity to buy this farm. And, in buying it, he
created a job for himself, for his brother and for another person.
For Quebec's farmers, the Department of Agriculture seems
rather sluggish and unwilling to help. So much so that last week,
during our recess, whether my government colleagues like it or
not, I toured my riding where nearly 20 per cent of my
constituents depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for
their livelihood and I submitted them to a test. I just love tests. I
asked them: ``Do you know who Quebec's new Minister of
Agriculture is?'' Eight out of ten said that it was Marcel Landry,
a member from the Gaspé Peninsula, and some of them were
even able to name his riding, Bonaventure. Then I asked them:
``Could you tell me who the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa
is?'' I could not find anyone, Mr. Speaker, who was able to tell
me the name of the Minister of Agriculture sitting right in front
of me. Nobody could. Perhaps it is because he went too often to
Quebec or spoke to Quebec producers in their own language,
listened to their concerns, their needs, the solutions they had to
propose, I do not know, but the fact is that they do not even know
his name. Let us hope that he is better known in his own riding
than he is in Quebec within the farming community of my
riding.
(1630)
What did the government do to promote gobal marketplace
access for ours producers? I listened carefully a few moments
ago to the Secretary of State who said he was going to favour
this, to develop that, to open our borders. Our farmers are fed up
with talk. They want action.
This afternoon, someone pointed out that next week would
mark the first anniversary of the Liberals' coming to office, on
October 25. Let me tell you that the Liberals are slapping
themselves on the back for winning such a clear majority, 98
seats out of 99 in Ontario, almost a perfect record. One hundred
per cent in the Maritimes. There is one lady there who was
elected-
An hon. member: Fifty per cent of the Tory caucus!
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Indeed, 50 per cent of the
Tory caucus. But even there, one out of approximately twenty,
and 98 out of 99 in Ontario. Fine. But in Quebec, the results were
not so fantastic. Except for the English-speaking ridings and the
Outaouais, they were elected in two predominantly
French-speaking ridings, apart from the riding of
Saint-Maurice which elected the Prime Minister, have elected
Liberals. Of course, no expense was spared in Saint-Maurice.
And let us not forget that in
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they won by a very
narrow margin. These things must be pointed out.
Nevertheless, I would like to put another question to the
Liberal government: What has the Department of Agriculture
done to reduce acid rain? As you know, acid rain affects the soil.
Year after year, we check the pH balance and we find that the
acidity level is too high. When flowers and strawberries grow in
crop fields, that is bad news. Children like that, they can pick
them. But farmers know very well it means that the pH level is
too high and must be lowered, and that costs a lot of money.
Lime is getting more and more expensive. The riding of
Frontenac is getting acid rain and as we know, this riding and the
Eastern Townships are where acid rain conditions are the worst
in eastern Canada. This is not because there are industries in
Frontenac because we have almost none, except for asbestos
mines and a few small and medium-sized firms. The acid rain is
not caused by industries in Montreal. A good part of it comes
from Ontario but for the most part it comes from the American
Midwest.
What have my Liberal friends done to compensate farmers
and help them eliminate the acid rain that seeps through the soil?
Every year farmers must buy lime to lower the pH level in order
to have decent crops. Year after year, farmers see their
production costs rise and their gross income decrease.
(1635)
What has the Minister of Agriculture done and what does he
intend to do for farmers with respect to the global warming
problems? It is all very well to say that, over the last 50 years,
the temperature has risen by 3.2 degrees centigrade. Some
people are smiling at the thought of lower heating costs. But the
problem is not so simple. Far from it.
The Department of the Environment is not alone in having a
role to play. The Department of Agriculture is also in for
trouble. What has it done? Nothing. What has the Minister of
Agriculture done to reach a reasonable and acceptable
agreement between his department and the Department of the
Environment? Nothing.
To illustrate, one of my constituents called me last week. He
was desperate. Let be tell you briefly what happened to him.
Three or four years ago, a fire destroyed his farm, leaving only
the foundations. People in my region are very supportive, you
know, so we pulled together, we all contributed money
according to our means and we organized a bee, as we often do in
the Beauce area, and we rebuilt the barn following all the
standards set by the Department of the Environment. We had
obtained permits to build on the same spot.
6919
A river runs very close to the barn, perhaps 700 or 800 meters
away, 1,000 meters at the most. In May, the farmer applied for
a permit to the Department of the Environment to build a liquid
manure tank. Believe it or not, last week, he was still waiting
for his permit to dig a manure pit. Why? ``You are too close
to the river''. After being granted a permit to build a $450,000
barn four years ago, why is he being told today that a permit
cannot be delivered because he is too close to the river and why
do they make him wait for a permit to dig a manure pit?
You see, too often, it seems as though, in some departments,
the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Merely
changing a name will not help to improve foolish situations like
this one.
What has the Department of Agriculture done to improve
rural services? I was about to say: ``Nothing.'' But another
department has chosen to close down some post offices, arguing:
``They are not profitable''.
An hon. member: Not any more.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Not any more, you say? But
they did. Stop kidding me, they did. They closed down some
post offices.
How about the road conditions. You could tell me: ``The
province of Quebec has jurisdiction over this issue''. It is true,
but what did you do four years ago? You cut transfers to the
provinces. What did Mr. Ryan, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, do? He transferred $500 million of expenses to the
municipalities. Municipal governments do not have the money,
the technology nor the know-how to maintain the smaller
municipal roads.
(1640)
Can you imagine the 1,500 municipalities of Quebec each
buying a grader, a salt-spreader, a small bulldozer and a
backhoe. It does not make any sense!
I know where the Minister of Finance is heading! Of course, it
is not the Minister of Agriculture, but his good old buddy. The
Minister of Finance will cut transfer payments to the provinces.
He is paving the way for this announcement. He has promised
not to increase taxes, but last night, on the news, he did say that
they never promised such a thing. In the red book, there was a
promise-but now they have discovered a gaping hole. They
will not be able to fulfil their commitments; they will need more
time.
I can see where he is heading! He is going to transfer part of
the federal deficit to provincial and municipal governments,
again at the expense of rural Canada.
I visited a small town whose 500 residents are concerned with
gas supply. Standards for gas tanks are very strict and since it is
too expensive and not cost-efficient to dig out old tanks and
replace them by new ones, gas is not sold there any more. These
people must drive 15 kilometres to buy gas. That is what it
means to live in rural communities.
As for government services, since regional offices are not
cost-efficient, they are closed down. People will just have to go
to the city. As it happens, MAPAQ services were closed in
Disraeli. Granted, Ottawa had nothing to do with this but these
services were closed and people must now go to Thetford. If you
need to have an autopsy carried out on a dead animal, you can no
longer go to Sherbrooke. You have to go instead to
Saint-Georges de Beauce.
These are small irritants people have to live with in rural
areas. People are telling us it is not fun any more to live in the
country, and that they want to move to the city to earn a living.
Young farmers are fewer and fewer.
What has the Liberal government done this past year? After
all, it will be a year next week since it took power. What has it
done to help young farmers? Nothing.
One thing we must recognize is that this bill to change the
name of the department includes amendments to update the real
mission of Agriculture Canada. Therefore, this measure is part
of a vast process of reorientation and redefinition which the
government is going through with respect to this department's
future.
It is in that context that during the next year, the Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food will try to redefine the future of
agriculture in Canada. Let me tell you that this is a big challenge
because considering the current economic and political
conditions, one thing is sure, and that is that it is absolutely
necessary to find a direction for the future of agriculture.
I submit that our discussions on Canadian agriculture must be
based on the following three factors: First, the willingness to
respect the provinces' priorities. I tell you, Mr. secretary of
state, that if the priorities of the provinces are not respected, you
are sure to fail. Second, the recent trade deals signed by Canada,
in particular GATT and NAFTA. And third, the ability to balance
the interests of the various regions fairly. It is not without reason
that Quebec's farmers have great difficulty naming the federal
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. There are hidden
reasons and I know them.
(1645)
There is nothing wrong with amending the act governing the
Department of Agriculture with a view to planning the direction
that Canadian agriculture will take in the future. However,
before redefining anything, it is important to ensure that the
provinces' work plans are fully respected.
In Quebec, this consultation and orientation process
concerning the future of agriculture has already begun.
Following Quebec's development model, the various players in
the agricultural community have undertaken an extensive
reflection effort. Let us just mention the États généraux du
monde rural and the Trois-Rivières Summit which resulted in a
series of real commitments. Quebec took the lead in laying down
the principles on which that province's agricultural future will
be built. It would be inconceivable that the federal government,
the Liberal government, would establish national standards that
are inconsistent with its own priorities and development goals.
There-
6920
fore, it is essential that any initiatives undertaken reflect the
priorities set by the provinces.
Another problem that should be examined is the provisions in
the free trade agreements affecting Canada. With market
globalization, we recognize that all trade areas will have de
redefine their orientations. The main goal is to allow farmers
from Canada and Quebec to be able to compete internationally.
Agriculture is an important and well established industry in
Quebec as well as in Canada. It is essential that it remain so and
that we take greater advantage of its export potential.
It is all very nice to export, but it is even better to export
processed products, commonly referred to as value-added
products. We have just been told that value-added exports are
stagnating whereas we are exporting wheat that we import later
under a processed form, for instance as flour. Japan is doing that
to us. The Japanese buy our wheat, refine it and then re-export it
as flour. If Japanese are bright enough to mill our wheat and
resell it to other countries as flour, I wonder why we could not do
the same here at home. This would provide jobs to our people,
and in so doing we would be promoting job creation and
economic recovery. We need more than mere words, we need
action. We have to get going.
GATT and NAFTA herald deep changes in the workings of
international trade. That is why Quebec and Canada must have a
clear and specific agenda.
(1650)
It is important at this point to mention negotiations on durum
wheat. My colleagues in the Reform Party dealt extensively with
that in the agriculture and agri-food committee. Those
negotiations should teach us a lesson. If our arguments are
flawed, and if our action plan is defective and outdated, we will
knuckle under to major league players like the United States.
The government and the agriculture department had an ideal
case with durum wheat. They had all they needed to play a good
hand of poker, but they ended up sharing the pot. This does not
bode well for the future. It is therefore becoming urgent that we
plan our strategies and solve the difficult problem of Canadian
trade deals. I ask the Minister of Agriculture: Which comes
first, GATT or NAFTA? Let me say this once more. Which takes
precedence?
I do not want to hear anything like sometimes it is the GATT
and sometimes it is the NAFTA and in some cases neither one
because they are equal. Which one takes precedence? As long as
this question remains unanswered, any assumptions on the
markets for agricultural products will only be a smoke screen.
When we talk about negotiations, the issue of regional
disparities always comes up. Agriculture is one of the best
examples of this dead end debate. The heart of the problem is
that in a negotiation process, you must compromise in order to
make gains you consider crucial. You cannot win it all, but you
cannot lose it all either. How can we speak for the key sectors of
all provinces with one single voice?
Canada is a vast country and, as my colleague the hon.
member for Richelieu said so very well, it is quite a job to
govern a country. How could we speak for the key sectors of ten
provinces and two territories with one single voice? The GATT
negotiations are a striking example of the fact that one voice
cannot speak for all regions of Canada. In Western Canada, the
priority is grain exports; in the East, it is quota controlled
productions.
There is no denying that Canada's failure with regard to
Article XI.2(c) of GATT is a good example of these opposite
interests. In December, a few months after being elected
member of the federal riding of Frontenac, I went incognito to a
meeting organized by UPA in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce-I
remind you that I am also a farmer. At that time, the GATT
negotiations were going full steam. I wanted to find out the
farmers' opinion on the matter. I walked in and, although I was
recognized by a few people, I could sit in a corner with a few
friends and listen to the chief economist of UPA. This man is a
professor at Laval University and also the owner of a dairy farm
in the Drummondville area. He explained very simply what the
negotiations involved.
(1655)
I must say that the 500 producers present at the meeting were
very concerned. The older farmers especially were worrying
about their retirement, because their milk quotas represented
their retirement savings. Clearly they worried about their future:
``I invested in milk quotas. I was counting on the sale of this
quota to retire''. They were unable to give him a satisfactory
answer.
Most farmers do have RRSPs. Today, during question period,
the finance minister was asked once again if, in the next budget,
he was going to tax RRSPs. His answer was neither yes nor no.
If the Liberal government decides to tax RRSPs, I hope that
the agriculture minister, totally unknown by Quebec farmers,
will stand up and speak with one voice for all the farmers in
Quebec and Canada. This is their pension fund. The government
changes the rules at the very last minute. This is totally
unacceptable.
In Quebec, we believe that the future of agriculture lies in
shifting power to the regional decision-making units which are
more sensitive to local realities. Unfortunately, shared
jurisdiction in agriculture and the very diverse interests of the
main agricultural areas in Canada leave very little room for
initiative on the part of Quebec farmers.
6921
The Bloc Quebecois believes that sovereignty is the
indispensable tool which will allow Quebec agriculture to fare
better. I want to stress that bills like the one before us this
afternoon are surely very important, but we should keep in mind
that there are other urgent issues to deal with.
Bill C-49 reflects the government's desire to make changes
within the Department of Agriculture. I sincerely hope that it
will meet the provinces' concerns and that the government will
not take advantage of this to confuse further the issue of
provincial jurisdiction.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his secretary of state that it is
not by changing a name that they will solve the agricultural
problems in Quebec. It will take the will to change, and things
have to change.
(1700)
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, it is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Mississauga West-Pearson International Airport;
the hon. member for Calgary West-The Constitution.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I must admit when I first laid eyes on Bill C-49 I had no
idea it would be so convoluted and complicated. Today we have
heard two speeches that went into great detail and involvement
in the department of agriculture. Certainly I had no reason to
expect what we saw yesterday with the amendments in Bill
C-49. There were voice votes and all matters of things I had not
anticipated we would see in a bill that I originally thought was a
very lackluster one containing absolutely nothing.
The federal department of agriculture certainly needs more
than just a name change. As laudable as Bill C-49 is, to reflect
the reorganization of the department made in June 1993 we need
to do much more to restore hope for the future in the agriculture
industry. Today I would like to place before this House a
proposal for reforming the entire jurisdictional areas of the
agriculture industry.
My proposal builds on statements and ideas put forward in
this House by my colleagues on this side beginning last May. It
also reflects the ideas that are being generated and talked about
by many farmers, academics, and farm leaders right across this
country. There is a real momentum building to radically alter
and redesign how governments and industry function together in
agriculture, in other natural resource sectors and the other many
sectors of our society.
This is an issue where people are way ahead of governments in
their thinking, their ideas, and their proposals. It is time to lay
those ideas and those proposals out on the table to look at them
honestly and openly, to have the debate and discussion needed to
move forward. I am not suggesting in any way that what I will
share today will be the final word in the way things should
ultimately be but, it is a starting point for discussion and
dialogue.
Our proposal builds on Reform's vision for reconfederating
agriculture on the basis of a clearer division of responsibilities
for both levels of government and for the industry. It also lays
the foundation for a new visionary, comprehensive and cohesive
Canadian agri-food policy.
The new governance system proposed here calls for decisions
to be made at the lowest most local level at which decisions can
reasonably be made. The task of the larger unit is to assist or
support the individual industry or more local government bodies
in carrying out these tasks. This new governance entails a
devolution of senior government responsibilities to the
provincial and local levels and to the industry and the citizens
themselves.
Consequently we should have a leaner and more strategic
senior level of government to deal with norms, standards,
general directions and values over and beyond the managerial
tasks that can be handled effectively at that level. The system
would be more community owned with the federal government
in a more catalytic role. It would call for local and provincial
governments to minister to the public and to deliver the service
best adapted to the diverse needs of different communities.
Such devolution might entail a Canadian governance system
of the year 2020 in which a small percentage of the agri-food
civil service will be federal. It would be organized into small
units concerned with longer term national policy in the areas of
trade arrangements, financial support, and safety and health
standards. Again, although there is an attempt in this proposal to
more clearly delineate jurisdictional responsibilities in the
agri-food sector, this does not mean an absolutely watertight
allocation of tasks among players.
This new system of governance tries to reconcile
contradictory tendencies, for example the need to be global in
outlook but local in application, to be small and big, to be
centralized and decentralized, to be capable of generating both
freedom and justice for all the players. This therefore must and
will be an ongoing process of learning.
6922
(1705)
This proposal complements the current study being
undertaken by the Liberal government in its effort to downsize
government programs and departments. The Liberal study is
based on six questions that each department asks itself.
The questions are: Does the program or activity continue to
serve the public interest? Is there a legitimate and necessary role
for government in this program or activity? Is the current role of
the federal government appropriate, or is the program a
candidate for realignment with the provinces? What activities or
programs could or should be transferred in whole or in part to
the private or volunteer sector? If the program or activity
continues, how can its efficiency be improved? Lastly, is the
result and package of programs and activities affordable within
the fiscal constraint and if not, what programs or activities
would be abandoned?
By thinking hard about these matters now we can help lead the
way to a sound future for the agri-food industry. This proposal
forms a theoretical basis for examining how agri-food programs
currently in existence at both levels of government and in the
industry could be reformed, removed or reassigned. As such, it
is a prerequisite step for proposals we would make about federal
budget cuts, savings and expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not be able to continue my
speech as I cannot get a word out of my voice. I would just like to
ask the Chair if I can take my leave right now.
The Deputy Speaker: Certainly. Would somebody wish to
carry on and give the speech for the hon. member?
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, I would just defer
at this point in time.
The Deputy Speaker: Does that mean nobody wishes to
speak on behalf of the Reform Party at this point in the debate?
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, maybe we could move on to the
next speaker and that will be fine.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-49,
an act to establish the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Our farm community has many concerns today. I used to farm.
I was not a full time farmer. I was a part time farmer but I
certainly realized very shortly that farming is a lot of hard work
and not a lot of money.
I would like to deal with two concerns that our farm
community has today and possibly address how our government
is dealing with them. They deal with general financing and also
with intergenerational transfers and farm properties.
In my riding agriculture is a very significant enterprise where
gross agricultural production is second only to General Motors.
From Bowmanville to Orono to Port Perry and Uxbridge
farming is a major way of life. It is a community that has
developed over 100 years of agricultural background. One thing
I have noticed is that our farm community is aging. The average
age of the Canadian farmer is about 54 years.
I have spoken in this House and in committees about the need
for small business to seek access to new forms of capital.
Indeed, the industry committee which I sat on has just put out a
report on access for growing small business. All too often we
forget that farms are small businesses as well and they have
significant problems in dealing with their banks. When I was
farming every spare dollar I had went back into the farm, into
equipment and new buildings. As a consequence, farmers have
very little cash flow.
(1710)
Over this last break I had the opportunity to talk with some of
the local bank managers. Many of my constituents who are
farmers have expressed the major concern that they are having a
hard time dealing with their banking enterprises. These are not
people who started farming overnight; they have had long term
credit ratings with their banks, possibly 15 or 20 years. I talked
to some of the managers. One of them commented that the banks
no longer want to make evergreen loans. I had never heard that
expression before so I asked him to explain. He told me that an
evergreen loan is one the banks consider never gets repaid. I
suppose the analogy is that evergreen trees never shed their
needles; similarly the banks do not want to make loans they
think will not be repaid.
Quite frankly, I thought that to be rather preposterous. I can
remember not too many years ago that the last thing a bank
wanted to do was have its loans repaid, because obviously once
forming a good credit relationship with a farming enterprise it
went on for decades and decades. A relationship was formed
with these people.
Farmers need to finance numerous things on the farm. The
two basic ones however are the financing of livestock inventory
and the financing of next year's crops. Like any other small and
medium sized business, as it grows it continually needs that
degree of financing. By definition, it is not money that is paid
off every year. In fact in a sense it becomes a fixed asset or
liability of the farm. It becomes what we used to call a hard core
loan, something that is there all the time; the farmer pays his
interest on it and the banks make their profits on it and
everybody is happy.
We have discovered that the banks have changed their attitude
to all kinds of sectors of small and medium sized businesses.
Farmers are feeling this very hard pinch as well. The banks are
saying they want their loans paid off. They have also become a
little different; they are now brokers of money as opposed to
bankers. That means every time someone wants to borrow
money the banks will charge a fee. They charge all kinds of setup
fees.
6923
Worse than that, I have clients in the farming business who
have been with a bank for 15 or 20 years and they are now being
asked to do all kinds of financial reporting. These are things
the banks used to do internally and now they are telling the
farmers to hire professionals to get all this work done. Of
course the farmer is in a very precarious situation. He owes the
bank $100,000. He may have a half million dollars worth of
assets but he cannot pay the $100,000 back tomorrow without
selling his cattle or getting rid of all his crops, or not planting
next year's crops. In a sense the farmer is in a bad position so
he has to comply.
I am a chartered accountant and my own profession would
love to deal with the extra business from that source. But the
reality is and the question is, is it necessary? Is this a necessary
expense to farmers? I suggest that along with some of the studies
that have been done in the industry committee that we also focus
on small business loans to farmers.
I look at the banks and their pampered position in this country.
There are special tax laws for banks. There are even laws that
allow them to create money. What better operation can you have
than that, when you can lend money that you do not even have?
These are the rights of the banking sector. We have to look at
those rights and privileges and reflect on what they are doing to
our farm community.
One of the recommendations made by the industry committee
was the possibility of regional banking. People can think back to
the early 1900s when there were such things as farmers banks.
The local people could form their own banking enterprises so
that the smart alec MBAs from Bay Street are not telling them
whether or not they can buy that new combine or manure
spreader, even though they may have more of an affinity for the
latter than the former. These are some of the aspects of
capitalizing small business. I think our government is very
interested and very concerned about moving in the area of
improving access to capital for farmers.
(1715)
I would like to deal with the aspect of retiring farmers. As I
mentioned in my opening remarks the average Canadian farmer
is 54 years old. One of the exemptions that they have under the
Income Tax Act today is a $500,000 lifetime exemption for
capital gains. I would like to discuss capital gains in relation to
farming.
The reality is that the capital gains tax, in spite of what the
people in finance might tell us from time to time, generally
speaking does not exist on the farm. In fact what it represents is
inflation. In other words, what was the value of the farm in the
1950s and what is the value of the farm today. If we go back and
extrapolate the real value of money we discover the farmer in
fact has not gained anything.
He has however taken every spare cent he has and buried it in
that farm property. That is his retirement income. He does not
have a retirement savings plan. Maybe some do, but very few
just by the nature of the business itself.
Finance from time to time talks about $2.2 million lost
revenue from this deduction for farmers. The reality is that it is
not lost money at all. It is money that does not exist. It is a tax on
inflation.
I draw that to the attention of the House. Presumably the
finance minister will also feel similarly impressed that this is
something we have to maintain in order to assist our farmers to
make orderly transfers of their farm property to another
generation or even to retire completely from farming.
My second point is where Agriculture Canada and more
specifically the Farm Credit Corporation have been active in
assisting our farm community. Only recently Farm Credit
Corporation introduced a new mortgage plan for farmers. Some
of that will relate to farmers who are retiring and turning it over
to their sons or daughters and some of it will involve farmers
who are retiring from farming completely. Generally speaking
this program will assist retiring farmers to transfer their
properties to another generation.
All too often farmers stay with the farm away beyond the time
they should turn it over to another generation. Usually the
problems are financial. Farming is hard physical work.
Obviously at 54 we should have thought about retiring or
becoming a manager long before this.
Farm Credit Corporation has devised a mortgage instrument.
It is a little complex but I will explain it briefly. If the farmer
wants to sell his farm for say $100,000, his son will have to
come up with 10 per cent of the proceeds, $10,000. Farm Credit
Corporation will then advance $40,000, up to 40 per cent of the
sale price to the retiring farmer. He will have $50,000 or half of
the proceeds of the sale on the day of sale. The balance of the
money is paid to the retiring farmer over a maximum five year
period. It could be a shorter period than that.
The other side of that is the retiring farmer only receives the
interest on the $40,000. The new farmer, his son or daughter,
will pay full mortgage payments. More and more money is being
applied against the principal and only a small portion is paid
toward the interest on the $40,000.
This is another good idea that Farm Credit Corporation has
which is going to assist the new farmer to build up equity in the
farm and assists the retiring farmer to get his money out of the
farm.
(1720 )
What is the catch? Generally speaking the retiring farmer is
not going to receive interest on as much as $50,000 over that
short period of fiscal time. However, most farmers I know
realize and in fact I have heard it mentioned many, many times
in the farm community that if we charge over 10 per cent interest
we are going to get the farm back.
6924
Most farmers are knowledgeable about the concept. They
would be happy to reduce the amount of their real interest with
the concept that they are going to get their cash flow out of the
farm.
This is one area where the Government of Canada through
Agriculture Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation has added
a very specific and useful instrument to assist the farm
community to make intergenerational transfers.
I conclude with the remark that these are some of the things
we will have to take into account when dealing with our
agricultural sectors, the problems they have with their banks,
the fact that they must retain their $500,000 lifetime exemption.
The Government of Canada has heard their concerns about
intergenerational transfers and it is trying to do something very
positive in assisting them.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Durham
had to say when he talked about financing for intergenerational
transfers. I will comment very briefly and would appreciate the
hon. member's comments as well.
I know quite a few farmers who need a very substantial line of
credit. The problem is, however, that the bank or credit union
charges very high interest rates on this line of credit, because it
does not pay for the farmer to mortgage his farm, his house or
part of his property to get the loan.
I am reminded of one of my friends who bought a quota in the
spring, a very substantial quota worth $35 per kilo of butter fat,
not produced, and then ran into some bad luck. He had to
replace, and he had not budgeted for this, his baler,
bale-catapult and four-wheel drive which all broke down at
some point, and at the end of the haying season, he had to replace
his mower-conditioner as well.
This was money he had to spend right away. He could not
afford to waste three weeks looking around for financing. He
needed the money yesterday. He could not afford to wait,
because every minute counts when the haying season is under
way. So he increased his line of credit and had to pay much
higher interest.
Perhaps the hon. member for Durham could suggest that his
government set up some form of assistance, so that farmers
could have a line of credit based on their income as reported on
the previous year's tax return. The interest would be paid largely
by the Farm Credit Corporation or else the FCC, which he
mentioned earlier, could provide financing in a few cases when
farmers are hard pressed. As I said before, a farmer cannot
afford to wait six months. The money would have to be available
within a week.
I would appreciate the comments of the hon. member for the
Liberal Party.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
First, the Farm Credit Corporation does have a program of
what is called variable rate mortgages. The reality is that Farm
Credit usually takes its credit by way of a mortgage on fixed
property so it is usually the mortgage on the farm.
(1725 )
I think what the hon. member is really addressing is more of a
demand for what we would call working capital. The reality is
that there is a great void between our banking sector and how it
operates and how farms operate. As the hon. member has
mentioned, it is because there is always a degree of uncertainty
on the farm. There is always the possibility that hailstones will
wipe out your crop. There are countless problems.
In my brief encounter with farming it seemed that the
equipment would always break down on a Sunday when nothing
was open. It goes on and on and on. These are the problems of
farming.
To address the specific intent of the question, I think it goes
back to some of the things that I was saying. Our financial sector
genuinely is not set up to really deal with farmers. The banking
sector, which has always been a short term lender, is becoming
more and more of a short term lender and wants its money back
every year. It wants to be able to be flexible. It wants to be fluid.
Farms are just the reverse of that. Farms are long term
commitments to capital. In other words, there is a breakdown in
the financial structure of that system.
We have realized through the Industrial Development Bank
that in the business sector there is this problem of obtaining long
term capital. I think it is an apropos question to ask how we can
reform the credit lending system for agriculture. Maybe this
goes back to my first comment. Maybe we should think about
things like schedule 3 banks, regional banks, a farm bank where
farmers will understand as creditors of that bank and as lenders
and depositors the problems of banking. I think that is possibly
one way we could address that issue.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the member about the Farm Credit Corporation.
The member referred to a particular program that the Farm
Credit Corporation offers.
I would like to ask whether the Farm Credit Corporation is
needed any more. I have heard from managers, directors and
members of the credit unions that they would like to fill the
lending gap or would like to be lending the money that Farm
Credit is lending now. They are asking if there really is a need
for the Farm Credit Corporation and that is the first question I
am asking you.
6925
The second question is along the same line. There is
considerable money which should be available to farmers in any
farming community. This money comes from retired farmers
and in particular from within that community. Unfortunately
what is happening now is retired farmers are concerned enough
about the economy and the future of agriculture that they are
investing the money mostly outside of the country now. This
is as a direct result of the lack of resolve on the part of finance
ministers for the past 10 to 20 years to eliminate the deficit and
reinstate in Canada an air of confidence in the economy.
My question to you is do you believe it might be a wiser move
to get rid of Farm Credit and use that as part of the budget
balancing funds and indeed make that money available through
private investors by creating this more positive atmosphere?
The Deputy Speaker: I take it the member for Vegreville
wants the Chair to answer the question. I am making the point.
Please, members, when they say you please refer to the Chair
and the third person as an hon. member.
Mr. Shepherd: Thank you very much for the question. I think
the thrust of that question is whether there is still a need for a
Farm Credit Corporation in this country. I am going to say yes,
very much, in the affirmative. On some of the things that you are
talking about concerning confidence in our economy, we are
doing those things in a positive way as well.
The problem with financing in agriculture is the thing that I
talked about which is the necessity for long term capital.
Generally speaking, our capital markets have not addressed that,
even in the residential mortgage business today. I can remember
when everybody had a five year mortgage. Today it is down to
two years or three years and people are playing around with that.
That is another problem with residential mortgages.
(1730)
The United States has 30-year mortgages. Canada cannot
come up with anything better than a five-year mortgage. It
seems to be a dilemma of our capital markets. They are not large
enough and strong enough to be able to address that concern.
We have a parallel situation in industry with the industrial
development bank. In spite of what we might say-they have
had a lot of management as all other banks have had-generally
speaking the industrial development bank has been successful at
addressing the issue of the need for long term capital. If private
industry would come along and take that over we would all be
very happy about it. The reality is that they are not prepared to
take the risk.
In answer to the member's specific question, we still need
something like the Farm Credit Corporation. Perhaps we should
open up its doors. The hon. member talked about farmers who
are investing overseas. In my area we would not have such a
luxury. Perhaps too many subsidies are being directed to the
member's area so these people have that kind of luxury.
They might invest in something like a farm credit
corporation. That is a possibility. Perhaps we can cross the line
and partially privatize it. Everybody wants to address the
concerns of farmers for long term capital.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
speech will deal with Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Department
of Agriculture Act.
The Department of Agriculture being renamed the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is something that we
can understand. It goes without saying that the economic future
of the agricultural sector depends not only on government
assistance but also on the development of processing, marketing
and distribution. I have questions on the last point, distribution,
and on overlap. Agri-food processors often talk about the
difficulties they encounter in distributing their products.
How can we develop the agri-food sector successfully
without tackling the deficiencies of the distribution sector?
Let us take the example of fine cheeses, which are difficult to
distribute. This small market could be profitable but
transportation and market placement costs are exorbitant.
Intercompany consultation could be a solution. The current
distribution monopoly hurts processors. We could look at the
example of the Quebec consultation forum on exportation,
where businesses worked together to transport food products to
new markets. The government has a responsibility to provide
more information on these markets. There is room for
improvement on its part in this area.
Such co-operation must be encouraged among wholesalers,
who have a hard time competing with their American
counterparts enjoying special access through U.S. subsidiaries
established in some Canadian markets. These subsidiaries
already have their own suppliers of cheaper U.S. products. That
is why it is important for our wholesalers to work together to
fight these American companies with a significant advantage.
Producers do not enjoy a power relationship with the
distribution sector so they must co-operate on transportation to
become more competitive. Joint price setting by producers,
processors and, of course, the government must not be done at
the expense of producers.
6926
With respect to overlap, we see, once again, that the
government did not take it into account in drafting a bill. The
minister of agriculture did not say clearly that his bill would
save Quebecers from paying twice for the same services. This
happens all too often, unfortunately.
As I already pointed out in a previous debate on agriculture in
this House, industry and government in Quebec have worked
together for a very long time to implement market-winning
strategies. Meanwhile, the federal government sets up programs
that conflict or overlap with provincial programs, thus wasting
public funds.
(1735)
This also increases the debt, which surely displeases the
Minister of Finance. When the government imposes its policies,
does it realize that these do not always, and I would even say not
often, fit in with the priorities and development approaches of
those who work in the sector concerned?
Let me remind you of some of the objectives which came out
of the summit conference on rural Quebec in 1991: respect and
promotion of regional and local values; co-operation among
regional and local partners; diversification of the regional
economic base; protection and regeneration of resources; a
top-down shift of political power. From this conference arose
the co-operative councils, which have proven their
effectiveness. The federal government does not take these
objectives into account at all in developing its programs.
The government should stop trying to direct farming, but
should consider farmers as business people when it supports
regional entrepreneurship. It must distinguish agricultural
development policies from regional development policies and
encourage farmers themselves to realize the importance of
environmental issues as a way to promote agriculture. Those are
provisions we could have found in this bill.
It is all very well to agree with the spirit of this bill, but
nothing prevents us from seeing that there is still a big potential
for overlap. Some activities that overlap? Here are some: The
Canadian and Quebec governments both support farmers. They
both promote the development of markets, research initiatives,
as well as inspections of agricultural products.
The fact that the Department of Agriculture will become the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food confirms the greater
responsibility of that department. It will no longer simply help
producers, because the future of the agricultural sector is
dependent on the processing, marketing and distribution of
products. The minister made it clear in this House last month.
Needless to say that the new department will have to help our
producers become more competitive and self-sufficient in
relation to foreign producers, and will also have to ensure the
future of our agricultural sector.
The bill provides that the minister will assume his
responsibility in the field of research, which is essential. Indeed,
with the opening of world markets, the department should play
an active role in that regard.
I will conclude by asking the minister to look at the issue of
overlapping as well as the distribution problems experienced by
processors, which I referred to earlier. Then, the new name of
his department could be a meaningful change.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of farmers in my
riding, and as you know, farming is a major industry in Eastern
Quebec, in the province as a whole and, of course in Canada.
I was again very interested to hear the hon. member's
comments, but I was surprised at this tendency to ignore what
the Government of Canada does for a sector that is so important
to Quebecers and especially to the people in the Gaspé.
I had the privilege of working with the Union des producteurs
agricoles du Québec in my riding, where we handed over a
cheque of $84,000 to develop a small-fruit industry, as part of a
program to provide new incentives for local farmers to grow
new products for local, provincial and even international
markets.
I would also like to point out that the same people have
already contacted me, and I am referring to representatives of
the UPA and farm producers, especially in the dairy sector, to set
up a program for regional processing of milk and cheese.
(1740)
These people came to see the Government of Canada. They
came to see their federal member. However, they have yet to
receive an answer, and people may have the impression that
their member is the Minister responsible for Agriculture in the
riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and has not
bothered to respond.
I took this project very seriously. I transmitted it to the
Federal Office of Regional Development, because we want to
show local people that the federal government is prepared to
work with them, in partnership with farmers, the Government of
Quebec and all the agencies concerned.
An hon. member: Question.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.):
So I am very surprised, and I realize we are on questions and
comments, but just the same, if we are talking about agriculture
and research, including research on cattle, I repeat, the federal
government has made a commitment to develop new
technologies, but unfortunately, once again we hear the Bloc
Quebecois setting themselves up as the defenders of the public
service. I do not claim to defend the public service. I defend and
promote the
6927
interests of farmers in the Gaspé. And when I hear the
opposition defending the public service, I have my doubts.
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to respond to
my colleague opposite. There is one thing that I would like to
tell him about. Let us look, if you will, at maple syrup, where we
have an over-production. Look at what is going on. I will go
further than that by telling exactly to the government what
happened in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Let us talk about
potatoes. In New Brunswick, farmers produce potatoes; they are
also produced in Quebec, and the federal government was
subsidizing the New Brunswick potato growers so that they
could go on the Quebec market.
Quebecers never got 5 cents to leave their area and go on the
market, within their own province. So, I justify myself today;
that is exactly what the federal government did, or give me some
evidence to the contrary. The evidence that I have is that it has
never been fair. I could also talk about many other issues.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact, although
the opposition seems to ignore it, that 48 per cent or the
Canadian milk production comes from Quebec, and this is
because of the quotas that were instituted by the federal
government. It is thanks to the federal government which
protected the Canadian market that Quebec could control 48 per
cent of our milk production.
Potato farmers were mentioned once again. Let us talk about
potato farmers, let us talk about maple syrup. I know what I am
talking about, I used to work for a company abroad which tried
to open up this market for Quebec producers. It is totally false to
say that the federal government did nothing. In my riding, UPA
received $84,000, and you refuse to acknowledge that we paid
more money to people who work in the field in order to diversify
local production.
I am disappointed by the denials of the opposition. Once
again, we only hear the separatist rhetoric, that real Quebecers
do not want.
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec 24 per cent of the
population works in the agricultural industry, but only 10 per
cent of the agriculture budget goes to Quebec.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Only 10 per cent.
Mr. Landry: Only 10 per cent. I want equity. Once my
colleague opposite gives us equal treatment, we will talk.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that much
remains to be done in agriculture. The hon. member must bear in
mind however, that the federal government and several
departments are working on finding ways to make programs
more accessible to the Quebec producers. At any rate, I would
like to point out to the hon. member that, as it happens, we are
managing and considering programs in which producers are
invited to get involved in biotechnology.
As it happens, there is program in my riding to encourage
farm producers, these men and women who work the land, to try
and find ways to perhaps introduce such products making use of
new technologies, for the betterment of Canadians health and
well-being.
(1745)
Of course, the opposition is none too pleased to hear such
things, but as far as the entrepreneurs are concerned, when we
talk about bank loans, about the implications for example of the
involvement of the Federal Office of Regional Development, of
the Federal Business Development Bank, it is all a matter of
balance. What matters for Quebec producers, in terms of
balance, is to make sure that there is a Canadian market in the
first place.
I think that Quebec producers agree almost unanimously on
the importance of the Canadian market and the need to maintain
this market to compete with the United States.
Funds were made available to farmers, scientists, research
workers, unions, labour organizations. The federal government
has a role to play. Let us not forget it and let me tell you that it is
often welcome, contrary to what the hon. member opposite
claims.
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, we were talking about fairness.
That is a point I wish to raise. I would like to debate the issue of
fairness.
In my riding in Quebec and elsewhere, we see young people
who, after completing agricultural studies, want to start working
on farms, or to buy family farms. There are many restrictions
and requirements at the FCC. Young agricultural school
graduates are not allowed to work in their field of study.
We in Quebec know what we need. I have nothing against
them defending the federal government but I want fairness. As I
said earlier using the figures I quoted, we have 24 per cent of the
population but only 10 per cent of the budget. I am not asking the
impossible; we should simply get our fair share per capita, that
is, 24 per cent.
With respect to agriculture in Quebec, there is overlap and
duplication. The party opposite has asked us to offer solutions.
We do more than just criticize. The Official Opposition is not
only to criticize but to propose solutions, as we saw this
afternoon when we talked about tax shelters and family trusts.
We indicated where cuts must be made and what is needed. We
do more than just criticize. I am willing to criticize but also to
offer solutions.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this bill as a politician
and also as a farmer. I appreciated the comments of the last two
hon. members because as a farmer I am a little hard of hearing.
Finally I could understand the debate and it made my day a little
6928
happier. I do not want to comment on the remarks. I do not know
how valuable they were but I could understand them.
When the bill was first proposed to the House we were briefed
on it. I found it almost unbelievable that a new government
would pick up on a suggestion that more or less was put to us by
the previous government under Prime Minister Kim Campbell
to reorganize this department. I felt that the bill would have at
least contained some improvements to make the department
more efficient or in some way give the Department of
Agriculture a stronger voice in the House. I do not see anything
of that. That is the point I would like to raise at this time.
If I as a farmer had not reorganized every year before I put the
crop in, if I had not updated my machinery or improved my seed
varieties, I do not think I could have survived. If I had gone out
and purchased a different machine in a different colour and it
had no more performance and did not do the job any better,
although I had just spent a bunch of money, my neighbours
would have thought me a little queer and I am sure I would not
have survived very long.
(1750 )
The government reminds me a little of the first self-propelled
combine I owned. It had all the parts. It looked like a beautiful
machine. I was so proud of that machine I was just dreaming of
the day I could take it into the fields. By coincidence that
machine was a faded red colour.
When I started up that machine there was noise. Boy, it really
performed out in the yard. I said: ``If this machine works like
this in the fields I will get my crops off in half the time''.
However that is about where my joy ended.
When I put the combine in the field and pulled into the swath
there were noises; loose chains, loose bearings, walkers
banging. The worst part was that the cylinder was out of balance.
An hon. member: It sounds like a Liberal combine.
Mr. Hoeppner: Let me get to it. I am trying to get there. This
was a tremendous experience. My hair stood on end. I was
furious that I had been really duped into buying this machine.
When that cylinder got some straw in it, it bounced around and
almost left the ground. What were the results of this? I got very
little work done all day.
It reminds me of this Liberal government. I have heard noises.
I have heard: ``Boy, we are going to do something for
agriculture''. Boy, we have accomplished very little. That
cylinder I see in front, which I call the cabinet for comparison, I
hear one member say ``cut'', the other one says ``spend'' and the
agriculture minister says: ``Hold it members. Let us not do too
much. We could be accused of doing something''.
I was a little enthused the other night when all of a sudden I
saw one of the standing committee members on that side making
amendments that would make this bill of some value. He tried to
balance that cylinder so it would run a little smoother. What did
the majority of the members do? They shot him down, 90 per
cent. The Bloc agreed and the Reform agreed. Finally we had an
amendment that would have made this bill of some value.
What was the result of this? It was the same as with my
combine. I got very little done. We have been two days on this
bill and we still have not passed it.
It amazes me that people do not realize that when you put in a
long day and only get little done the fuel tank still gets emptied.
That is all we have received out of this debate so far. We have an
empty fuel tank and when that happens we are going to be in big
trouble.
Grain that should be in the bin is not in the bin. Grain that
should be in the tank is mostly chaff and straw. It has no
substance. Why do we pass bills like this when we should be
talking about problems like provincial trade barriers and value
added? Instead we are talking about building swimming pools
and maybe adding a sports arena somewhere. We are forgetting
that we may be hungry some day. Why are we even going
through the motions here?
I would like to compare the tremendous amount of effort we
have put into this bill to my tremendously efficient combine that
went so slow that when I turned the corner I was usually lost in
the dust and I could not find the next swath. People around me
wondered if there was a driver in the machine. I get the same
impression from this Liberal government. When we as a
standing committee make suggestions to the government they
just get shot down or forgotten. Ask me why.
(1755)
When we told the agriculture minister to stop the
back-tracking and change the car allocation system, what did
the government do? This was recommended by every member
on that standing committee. The government did nothing. Is the
Liberal government running this by remote control? Are the
railways, or the grain companies or the unions running the
government? Who is running it? Sometimes I wonder.
This bill reminds me of a lot of other bills. When we should
have been addressing problems what did we do? We did the same
thing as that old, faded out red combine did for me. It put the
grain over the walkers back on to the ground and we are going to
see it sprout and be ruined.
6929
That is what Parliament has done as far as agriculture is
concerned. It makes me wonder when I see a bill which contains
a clause like clause 6 which says that the agriculture minister
can appoint any person to inspect any product, to control any
act that he has anything to do with.
I will tell members why that bothers me. The government
previous to this government and the agriculture minister tied the
hands of the customs and revenue people and allowed
unlicensed grain into the country. He set at risk the quality of our
wheat. He set at risk the reputation that farmers had built up of
growing a superior quality of grain. Not that he listened to
farmers, he listened to a few individuals or self-interest groups.
This agriculture minister is going after illegal exports of
grain, for which I must commend him, but why does he not
prosecute those farmers under the wheat board act? Why does he
have to enlist customs and revenue when they have nothing to do
with it? Customs and revenue are there to prevent imports, not
exports.
This is the type of bill I will not support. That is why I think
clause 6 should not be in the bill.
I see I have taken my 10 minutes or so. I always like to end on
a positive note. There is hope. One of these days we will have a
green machine on that side. Then as farmers we will say when
we see a green machine on the fields, it runs like a deer and we
will see a government that runs slick, smooth and swift and we
will get things done.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the member for Lisgar-Marquette that I
thought the story of the combine was absolutely fantastic.
However he missed the essential point. He should have told us
why the operator, to wit himself, was punishing through with
that kind of machinery. Why would he not do what we are doing
with this bill? The time comes to refurbish, to trade your
equipment in or at least refurbish it instead of trying to punish it
out in the field with very low production. That is what this bill is
all about.
The member for Lisgar-Marquette said something else and I
wrote it down. I will probably get it framed. I want the House to
realize, all my friends to realize-
Mr. Nunziata: Friends, which friends?
An hon. member: I'm his friend.
(1800)
Mr. Simmons: Are they ready for this now? Even the member
for York South-Weston will appreciate this one, I am sure. The
gentleman from Lisgar-Marquette said something just now
that has to be absolutely historical. He sits with the group that
said: ``We are not politicians. We are going down there to get
them politicians''. He started his speech today beautifully. I
commend him as a politician and as a farmer. Welcome to the
real world.
Mr. Hermanson: An honest politician.
Mr. Simmons: Now the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster wants to qualify it. There is only one
kind of politician. Either he is a politician or not a politician. He
should stop apologizing for it.
If we had the time-we certainly have the audience; there is
no question about that-I would tell the House about agriculture
in Newfoundland. There the combines do not break down. They
are all green. Roadrunners, almost.
You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, in the very short
time I have at my disposal that in my riding alone we have quite
a diversity of farm activity.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Better green than
red.
Mr. Simmons: Only yesterday I was musing with my friend
here about how times have changed. This crowd came to Ottawa
not to heckle. They were going to be pipsqueak quiet all the
time. It is beautiful; I am feeling more at home with this crowd. I
might join this crowd.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Simmons: I say to my friend from Winnipeg South that
the idea of being the first Reform cabinet minister of
Newfoundland and having my own clothing allowance had its
appeal, but I said no. I said it was a good opener but it was not
enough. I asked what else they had. It is a question of time.
Mr. Ramsay: At least we do not put our helmet on backwards,
Roger.
Mr. Alcock: At least we wear one.
Mr. Simmons: That is his sin. That is the Prime Minister's
sin, I say to the gentleman from Crowfoot. Is that a terrible sin?
Is that a terrible gaff? Imagine, the member for Crowfoot has
gone right to the nub of the issue. Some people, no matter how
many helmets they put on or which way, would not protect
anything important.
We can change the name of the department and the sooner we
do it the better.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is the following one. Mr.
Robichaud for Mr. Goodale, seconded by Mr. Chan, moved that
Bill C-49, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration-
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the din I
did not hear the speaker ask for the next presenter this evening
and I was prepared to give a presentation on Bill C-49.
6930
(1805 )
The Deputy Speaker: There was a mistake in the form and I
read the wrong bill. I asked if the House was ready for the
question and I do not think I heard anybody say no.
Is the member indicating, and we always take a member's
word on these matters, that he could not hear and generally
wished to say that the House was not ready for the question?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, that is right, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will always take a member's
word on that. The hon. member for Vegreville.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much.
The Deputy Speaker: It seems to me the member has already
spoken in this debate. Am I not correct?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): No.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe you had already called the question and that you had
moved on to begin reading the question. In fact there was
substantial agreement among the three major parties in the
House that we would allow the debate to collapse at this point
and have a vote on division on this question.
Perhaps the hon. member who just rose might want to consult
with his whip before he insists on making a speech at this
particular time. The fact is that the question has been called and
we should then go on with the vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Does any other colleague wish to speak
on this point of order, mostly including the whip or the acting
whip of the Reform Party?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, Reform had agreed that if the
debate did collapse on the bill we would have the vote on
division. However I was informed that the member for
Vegreville intended to speak and had prepared a speech.
However in the din and the excitement between the speech of
the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette and the response of the
member for Burin-St. George's I think he did not hear you, Mr.
Speaker. Therefore, if the House would be agreeable, we would
appreciate it if you would give him an opportunity to speak to
Bill C-49.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I made some preliminary
comments during my speech. I had intended to make a speech on
the issue but I was informed there was an undertaking among the
parties that there had been enough debate on the issue and that it
was the general wish of the House to conclude the debate. I
co-operated by sitting down and yielding 15 minutes of my time
to allow the vote to go forward.
I think a deal is a deal. I appreciate the member for Vegreville
would have liked to make some remarks on the matter. He
should have told his whip or his House leader in due time so that
could have been communicated as part of the deal. We had an
arrangement here. We have observed the arrangement and in so
doing I have forfeited my speaking time. I am sure there will be
other opportunities for the member to participate in debate.
I would suggest that technically the Speaker has already put
the question anyway. I believe the Speaker has effectively called
for the question and I think we should get on with it.
Mr. Hermanson: The agreement was whether or not we
would call a recorded division.
Mr. Simmons: I submit that the question has been put. I also
submit that we had an arrangement and we should in honour stay
with that particular arrangement.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, not with the intention of leading the
Chair but rather making a suggestion to the Chair, it has been
precedence in the past that in some cases where this has arisen
the Speaker recognized the request by the hon. member who may
not have had the opportunity to rise in his place at the moment
that was important. What that led to was a request for unanimous
consent of the House to proceed with the member's request to
make the speech. Maybe that could be the compromise the Chair
might want to reach on this particular occasion.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, for our part, we would be ready to
vote. However, if I understand correctly, I believe that the
government is adamant on having a vote today.
On the other hand, the Reform Party wants one of its members
to be allowed to speak. I think that we are running out of time. If
we could have unanimous consent to prolong the debate in order
to allow the Reform member to speak before proceeding with
the vote, it would be satisfactory to all of us here. We all know
that the vote will be taken on division. I believe that if there were
unanimous consent to do so, everybody would be satisfied and
this would put an end to these incessant points of order, clearing
the way for a real debate on important matters.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member would take her seat for a
moment, the time has expired for the debate unless there is
unanimous consent from all the members not to see the clock for
a few moments.
It was the Chair's understanding that there was an agreement
by all parties to end the debate a moment before 6.12 p.m. and
6931
then the vote would be taken on division. On that understanding
the Chair was not listening for anybody saying that he or she
was not prepared to go ahead.
We are now in a very difficult position. I wonder if the deputy
whip of the government party has something to propose.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to accede
to unanimous consent, provided the member for Vegreville
displays the same courtesy to our agreement that the member for
Burin-St. George's did and keeps his remarks equally brief.
Otherwise we would have the position where one member was
denied his speaking time. I hope he will respect that.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to give
the floor to the member for Végréville for a few minutes and
then proceed with the vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
apologize to the House for causing all the problem this evening.
It was lack of experience on my part. Indeed I will keep my
comments very brief. I will just hit on the points I was going to
elaborate on in some detail.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Department of
Agriculture Act to give effect to the government reorganization
initiated by the previous government. For the most part it is an
administrative bill. Its basic intention is to streamline and
clarify the mandate of the department. Streamlining is
consistent with Reform thinking but when streamlining is done
there has to be a positive outcome, or at least Reformers demand
a positive outcome.
In the case of the streamlining proposed in the bill there is
only a very small efficiency added to the way the department
operates. There is no indication at all of any cost saving, which
is the other requirement of any streamlining. The bill falls far
short of what any reorganizing bill should. It will not improve
the efficiency of the department substantially and it will not cut
the cost of operating the department.
The specific clause of the bill I would like to address again
briefly is clause 7 that deals with reporting to Parliament. The
bill recommends and, if it passes, will cause the reporting to
Parliament to be removed. These annual reports have been
around for some time.
Part III of the main estimates give more detail than the reports
do in terms of how spending occurs within the department. The
problem is that part III of the estimates do not give enough
information to make the finances and spending of the
department clear. I would propose this accounting to Parliament
and this report to Parliament should remain in the bill so that
there is proper accountability.
(1815 )
This is exactly what the hon. member for Malpeque was
suggesting in his amendment which was shot down by his
colleagues.
I am only asking for what the hon. member for Malpeque was
suggesting in his amendment and nothing more. The
parliamentary secretary to the minister when addressing this
issue said: ``Why keep the annual reports because they were
always late anyway and they had very little in them?''
That does not sound like the way to handle a situation like
this. If the annual reports were of very little value then the
annual reports should be presented in a more timely fashion and
with enough information to make them worth while.
There are two different views on how to handle a situation like
this. I believe that by making these annual reports timely and
meaningful that together with the main estimates this House and
the people of Canada, to whom we are responsible, would be
able to understand whether the spending within the department
is done in an efficient and acceptable way or not.
The only other comment that I will make now in the extended
time I was given is that the main estimates do not give enough
information to make the spending by this department or any
other department easy to understand. As evidence of this I would
challenge any member opposite to a duel at high noon tomorrow.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.):
I will take you on.
Mr. Benoit: I will ask questions about the department. I will
ask questions and using part III of the estimates, the hon.
member will answer the questions. I hope there will be a taker
for this challenge, certainly the parliamentary secretary or the
minister. I will be absolutely delighted if this challenge is
accepted.
I will end my remarks saying that we will not oppose this bill
although there is very little in it for us to support.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the main motion. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on
division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
6932
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.20 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6932
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this
evening to speak to Bill C-226, which I initially introduced in
the last Parliament and reintroduced in this Parliament on March
17, 1994.
I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee on
Private Members' Business, the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River, and other members of the
committee for selecting this bill as a votable item. As you know
Mr. Speaker, it means this bill at some point will be put to a vote
in this House, a free vote. Every member will be called upon to
exercise his or her discretion in saying either yes or no to
repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I am convinced, given the discussions I have had with a great
number of my colleagues, that this bill will in fact become law in
the not too distant future. I am convinced as well because of the
overwhelming public support for the removal of this section
from the Criminal Code.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code was introduced in 1976
when Parliament was debating the abolition of capital
punishment. At that time there were a series of compromises and
deals struck, presumably in the backrooms of the precincts of
Parliament, in order for capital punishment to be abolished.
One of those deals or compromises was that in return for
abolishing capital punishment there would be a law that said if
you are convicted of first degree murder you have to serve a
minimum of 25 years in prison before you become eligible for
parole. That is not where our predecessors let it stand. A group
of others decided that was cruel and unusual punishment. Before
giving their support for abolishing capital punishment they
argued that what became known as section 745, because they
thought 25 years was too long, would give inmates faint hope
that they could in effect apply for a reduction in the parole
ineligibility period. They argued that it would be used very
rarely, only in exceptional cases.
Most Canadians are not aware that section 745 is in the
Criminal Code of Canada. It says very simply if you commit
first degree murder, it is the worst possible crime in the Criminal
Code. This is cold blooded, calculated, premeditated murder.
These are the people who plan a murder. They buy a gun or a
knife. These are not pleasant crimes, not your run-of-the-mill
armed robberies. These are vicious and cruel crimes that result
in the victims being mutilated and raped before or after they are
murdered. We are talking about the worst crime under the
Criminal Code.
Section 745 says if you are convicted of murdering somebody
in those circumstances, if you kill one, two, three or more
people-Clifford Olson raped and murdered 11 young children
and he will be eligible under section 745-regardless of the
number of people you murder or how you committed those
murders, you can apply to have your parole ineligibility period
reduced to 15 years.
Most Canadians believe that the penalty for murder is life in
prison. We all know that is bogus. Nobody serves life for
murder, or at least not that I am aware of. Most Canadians think
it is 25 years, but that is not the case. Right now the going rate
which I refer to as the Walmart discount in the Criminal Code is
you can get 40 per cent off that 25 years by applying under
section 745. These applications just started a few years ago
because of the time lag from 1976 and 15 years hence. As of May
1994 there were 60 applications from convicted killers.
Forty-three of those 60, or 72 per cent, were successful.
That tells you very simply that the penalty for first degree
murder in Canada is fast becoming 15 years. Is that what
Canadians want? Is that a fair penalty? I suggest not. In my view
it demeans the value of life. It is one of the reasons why
Canadians have so little respect for our criminal justice system.
It is an example of how the criminal justice system in this
country is totally imbalanced. The rights of convicts, the rights
of criminals are considered to be first and foremost. The rights
of victims and their families are shunted aside.
(1825)
This Parliament now has an opportunity to create a more
equitable balance in our criminal justice system. Section 745
must be removed from the Criminal Code in order for Canadians
to at least have some belief in the criminal justice system that it
is serving the public and not serving convicted killers.
I spoke of Clifford Olson who becomes eligible for parole on
August 12, 1996. It was not that long ago. Most members in this
House recall the hideous nature of Mr. Olson's crimes. I have
here some comments from Mrs. Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother
of one of the Olson victims, Daryn Rosenfeldt, who was
abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered by Clifford Olson.
She says and I quote: ``I am so repulsed that our justice system
6933
can circumvent a court of law decision. A court of law sentenced
the killer of my child to life in prison with no eligibility for 25
years. Who then is lying to me, my family and the public?''
That is the mother of just one of the victims. I can say that in
the next 12 to 15 years 600 of these applications will come
forward. I have here the list of those who have committed first
degree murder or those who have committed second degree
murder and have been sentenced to a period of incarceration of
more than 15 years. A good number of them have already been
successful. Some of my colleagues might recognize some of
these names.
In Ontario for example, the province I am from, there is
Gerald Chase, Darryl Dollan, William Frederick, Frederick
Sweet, Norman Clairmont, Rolf Droste, Allan Kinsella whose
case is coming up, and Federick Radike. These cases have all
been successful. There are a good number of other cases across
the country that have been successful.
It would appear that a good number of these applications,
unless Parliament acts decisively to repeal section 745, will be
made by Olson. Do not let anyone kid you that it is impossible
for Clifford Olson, the Canadian version of Charles Manson, to
be released. All you have to look to is the Karla Homolka case
here in Ontario. A woman who was privy and party to the murder
of two innocent young women was sentenced to 12 years in
prison. We are not even talking about first degree murder. She
becomes eligible for full parole after serving only four years.
She becomes eligible for day parole after serving only two
years. Something is drastically wrong with our criminal justice
system in this country.
There is the case of a family of another victim, in this case a
police officer in Saskatchewan. In 1978 a 39-year old RCMP
officer by the name of Constable Thomas Brian King had
completed his shift on duty and was returning home to his wife
and three small children. There were two men who decided that
they were going to bag and murder a cop. What they did was
remove the licence plates from their vehicle. They were stopped
by two police officers. They wanted to get stopped. The two
police officers searched the car and levied a fine I suppose.
Because there were two officers and only two of them they
decided not to do anything to those two officers.
They again removed the plates from their car. This time they
were stopped by Constable King. They overcame Constable
King, handcuffed him with his own handcuffs and then went
around to boast about how they had bagged a cop. Because they
could not find some of the friends they wanted to boast to, they
took Constable King out and fired two shots into his skull. As he
was dying, and I am reading from a synopsis of what occurred,
according to the evidence in court, ``as the steaming warm blood
was gushing on to the two soon to be convicted killers they
delivered a few more final blows to the head of their victim and
began dragging his body off to the river to discard it''. That was
in 1978, not a long time ago.
(1830)
Mrs. King, her three young children and all the other relatives
thought that these two individuals would serve a minimum of 25
years in prison. Much to their horror, last year it was revealed to
them that one of the killers was applying under section 745 to be
released from prison or to have the parole ineligibility period
reduced.
The wife of Constable King writes:
This suddenly opened a terrible new chapter in the life of the King family for
which we were not prepared. If a book were to be written, it would show enough
pain in this one chapter to nauseate or embarrass them into reconsidering the way
in which section 745 functions and how it is so counterproductive to the very lives
of those whose Canada's judicial and correctional system is intended to serve.
I relate these two cases to you, Mr. Speaker. Here is another.
Let me make it three, the Kaplinski family. In January 1978 a
young night desk clerk at an inn in Barrie was robbed by two
men. Mr. Kaplinski was the father of a very young child. He was
a law-abiding citizen, working to support himself and his young
family. The inn was robbed and several months later his
decomposed body was found in a snowbank north of Barrie.
They came in to rob the guy. They took the money and then
drove him up north where they pumped a number of bullets into
Mr. Kaplinski's skull and left him in a snowbank. This is what
the sister, Joanne Kaplinski has to say about how section 745 has
impacted on her family:
We the Kaplinski family received our own life sentence by being forced to
look into the abyss of human cruelty and selfishness. However, last December
1993, we were once again forced to revisit that abyss by the application of one
of the murderers, Allan Kinsella, for early release under section 745. We
thought that after the original trial the men responsible for taking Ken's life in
such a cruel and brutal fashion were being made to pay for their actions by
forfeiting at least 25 years of their lives under the conditions of incarceration.
We simply could not believe that release after only serving 15 years was an
option.
She goes on to say:
Fifteen years is not adequate retribution or denunciation for the wanton
destruction of human life and we fail to comprehend why the current legislation
fails to include protection of the public as relevant criteria being only reflective
of the rehabilitation principle of sentencing and ignoring-
She goes on about how this section is a miscarriage of justice.
Those are just three cases. Six hundred others are coming up.
Families that were victimized 15 or more years go will be
revictimized as a result of this provision in the Criminal Code of
Canada.
It is an injustice. Section 745 ought to be repealed. I regret to
say that it is not the official position of the Government of
Canada today that it ought to be repealed. However I am pleased
with the government's commitment to Private Members' Busi-
6934
ness and I am pleased that this bill will have a free vote in the
House of Commons.
As I said earlier, I am convinced that it will pass. Not only
does section 745 demean the value of life and create a terrible
imbalance in our criminal justice system, but it is costing
Canadian taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars for these
applications to come forward, an estimated $4 million a year
over the next 15 years. I believe that is a low estimate, given the
fact that those who will be applying will be using legal aid
lawyers.
(1835)
This bill is supported by CAVEAT, the Victims of Violence,
the Canadian Police Association and, I would submit, the
overwhelming majority of Canadians. I cannot accept the views
of the bleeding hearts. I suppose we will hear from some
bleeding hearts here in the House who say that 25 years is cruel
and unusual punishment.
Those who argue that 15 years is a sufficient period of time for
first degree murder, I suggest that they are sadly mistaken or
misguided. There are those who will argue as well that those
convicted of first degree murder will not reoffend.
I present this statistic for consideration. Between 1975 and
1986, there were 130 murders committed by people who were
released on parole. Ninety of those were murder and 40 were
manslaughter. Anyone who suggests that people who are
released on parole are unlikely to reoffend and commit murder
refer to these statistics which were put out by the Ministry of the
Solicitor General.
In closing, I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to
support the bill at second reading. In so doing, it will be referred
to the justice committee which will then provide an opportunity
for all Canadians, various interest groups and others to come
forward and present their views.
When the bill comes back to the House I hope and I expect it
will be passed, resulting in a major correction of a flaw in the
criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, in
1976, the federal government amended the Criminal Code to
make it consistent with its parole legislation and policy. It
replaced the death sentence, which had just been abolished, by
life sentence for murder.
The Liberal philosophy, to which the hon. member for York
South-Weston would never have subscribed, was inspired at
the time by the general principles of humanism. In 1976, the
criminal was looked upon first and foremost as a victim of
society in general, of his social group in particular and even of
himself. His crime was above all a social act. Irrespective of the
harm done, criminals were treated like the casualties of the
system, individuals who had to be saved even at the expense of
common sense.
We must now recognize that such noble principles overlooked
certain realities. The system had come to consider all criminals,
that it to say individuals convicted by a court for an offence
against a criminal law, as the first victims of their actions. Our
parole legislation is a product of this thinking.
Once the judicial drama is over, you deal with the real stuff.
As soon as the court has passed sentence, the correctional
system takes charge of the individual behind closed doors,
whether in an institution or in an in camera sitting of the parole
board. Regardless of the work of the court, the correctional
administration undertakes to assess the criminal and to establish
how much of the sentence he or she will actually serve. And all
of this under the cover of a big word: rehabilitation.
The entire system is predicated on this concept that the public
does not look upon favourably, an argument put forward by
criminologists, these crime philosophers. In a word, the concept
of rehabilitation is defined as an act of pity on the part of society
towards criminals perceived no longer as individuals
responsible for their faults but rather as victims of an
ill-accepted social environment.
Therefore, crime no longer being a real crime, the criminal is
no longer a real criminal, and a quiet reintegration into society is
supposed to serve the public interest.
(1840)
Even if the court feels that an individual is beyond
redemption, Parole Board and correctional system officials will,
in their ivory tower, decide to set that person free when he
should have been kept in jail.
Even if they admit that an individual is the sole responsible
for his crime, these so-called rehabilitation experts firmly
believe that criminals can be rehabilitated. It is time we set the
record straight.
Our criminal law is based on the responsibility of the
individual. I realize that many hold less pragmatic views on the
Canadian criminal law, but let me say to these philosophers that,
in our judicial system, positive law still takes precedence over
moods, which is certainly a good thing. Consequently, an
individual who has committed a murder will be handed down the
mandatory sentence provided by the law and by the law only.
That is the reality.
The general public thinks that murderers are jailed for at least
25 years. This is what the law provides. However, along with our
common law system, a new law full of subtleties, nuances and
surprises has developed. The public does not know about it,
because this new law is, more often than not, applied in an
absolutely discretionary manner by crown agencies. There is
now such a thing as correctional law.
6935
If I were cynical, I would define correctional law as the set
of written or implicit rules which allow criminals to serve the
shortest possible sentence in the best conditions. Behind its
functional aspects, correctional law refers to the allocation, by
public authorities, of maximum resources to reduce the
sentences handed down by the courts.
Our so-called correctional law is based on a set of laws and
regulations more elaborate than our criminal law. We have
developed a very sophisticated administrative legal system for
the benefit of criminals.
Criminals who go to jail enjoy the protection of a true charter
of rights and freedoms for convicted offenders. In fact, the
correctional system abides by the following principle: the
sentence is now calculated based upon the duration of the total
reduction. The prisoner knows about this.
All the efforts made by the prisoner, often with the help of
correctional officers, aim at changing the length of his sentence.
It is a well-known fact that prisons are full of converted and
born-again Christians just waiting for parole.
A life sentence should mean imprisonment until the death of
the inmate, but the average citizen has come to understand that,
by some work of fiction, it now means a minimum of 25 years
before parole. But this is where he is wrong. In fact, a life
sentence can mean 25, 15 or 10 years depending upon the
inmate's eligibility for parole. And this is when the average
citizen lets you know that he has had enough.
So, I understand how frustrated the hon. member for
York-South-Weston feels, but I do not think that the minor
amendment he is proposing will change anything in the system. I
even think that striking down section 745 of the Criminal Code
would do more harm than keeping it.
What we find appalling in the parole system is the philosophy
behind it, the costs and the aberrations, but mostly the discretion
given to the sentencing courts, despite all the information it has
about the crime and the criminal.
Actually, the sentencing court is in the best position to
evaluate the individual and the crimes he has been found guilty
of. The sentence is contemporaneous with the offense.
Do you really believe that, 15 years after the sentencing, a
civil servant would be in a better position that the court to
determine if the decision was justified? Or that because of
changes in his personal outlook, the criminal no longer deserves
the punishment imposed for acts for which he remains
responsible, despite the passage of time? Tell that to the
relatives of murder victims.
In these circumstances, whether a sentence is exemplary is
very much a matter of opinion. In the end, the principle of
immutability and the usefulness of sentences as a deterrent
should prevail over all the nebulous theories of liberal
criminology.
(1845)
Under its existing provisions, the Criminal Code provides for
a judicial review mechanism, which seems appropriate.
In every case where the inmate has served 15 years of his
sentence after being found guilty of murder, he will have to
convince a jury that he should be released before his ineligibility
period expires. If he is not successful, he will have to serve his
full sentence.
Personally, I am more inclined to trust the judgment of six or a
dozen ordinary citizens than that of a commissioner of the
National Parole Board, whose qualifications are strictly based
on his political past.
The statistics I obtained from the Department of Justice tend
to confirm my opinion and put into context the relatively small
number of individuals concerned by section 745.
Since the 1976 amendments and up to March 31, 1994, only
128 inmates across Canada were able to apply for a judicial
review under section 745. Only 71 actually applied, and 43
requests were heard.
Before looking at the conclusions, we should remember we
are discussing the cases of about fifty people. We are looking at
legislation that is aimed at a very small group. I want to make it
very clear that I do not understand the relevance of the bill
standing in the name of the hon. member for York
South-Weston.
As for the outcome of these hearings, I think we can conclude
that the system works quite well. As a matter of fact, of the 43
applications heard to date, and again I repeat that this number
covers the 28 years since the introduction of section 745, 11
were turned down, 13 have led to a partial reduction of the
number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole
and 19 have been successful.
Thus it seems to me that the system is working relatively well.
This is why I think we should end the discussion immediately
since we are discussing situations so rare that I feel I am wasting
my time.
Must we remind the House that in case of murder the rule is
still life imprisonment?
Finally, section 745 allows any inmate guilty of a murder of
either category, first or second degree murder, to apply for a
reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without
eligibility for parole. The bill proposes to abolish this section.
In other words, imprisonment without any possibility of
parole.
6936
I will conclude by saying that by abolishing section 745 we
would be replacing a necessary evil by a mandatory evil. I
nevertheless congratulate the hon. member for his initiative but
I must tell him and the House that I will not support the bill.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for this bill. I
stand in support of it.
Today there is a cry across the land for the return to capital
punishment. Why is this? It is clear this cry for the return of the
death penalty is a recognition of the complete and utter failure of
the bleeding heart approach to criminal justice. The philosophy
underlying our present criminal law is not protecting members
of society. Our sons and daughters are being assaulted and
murdered without end.
The most horrific sign of failure of this underlying mentality
of our criminal law is the murderer who kills again after being
paroled. I thank my hon. colleague from York South-Weston
who told us today that 130 innocent people have been murdered
by people who have been released on parole.
(1850 )
These politicians who have set the agenda for the
administration of Canada's justice system for the past 20 years
are responsible for paroling into society criminals who have
raped, assaulted and killed again. The custodians of our justice
system, these very same people, want to continue to release
these people into society. Section 745 of the Criminal Code is
the most pathetic example of this bleeding heart mentality.
In 1976 the death penalty for murderers was abolished. At that
time the politicians assured us that society would be protected
because murderers would be sentenced to life imprisonment and
would have to serve a minimum of 25 years before release.
However, the people of Canada were betrayed by these
politicians.
Bill C-84 which eliminated capital punishment contained a
little known clause which allowed for the creation of section 745
of the Criminal Code. Section 745 nullifies the term life
imprisonment and grants murderers the right to apply for parole
eligibility after serving only 15 years of their so-called life
sentence.
The bleeding hearts assured us that in exchange for the
abolition of the death penalty, society would be protected by a
25-year minimum sentence. Then they deliberately betrayed us.
They provided the murderers with the right based in law to be
released back into society after serving only 15 years.
I ask these people who support section 745 and the early
release of killers into society: What is a human life worth to
them? I ask these politicians: What penalty should Larry
Sheldon pay for having raped and murdered a little, innocent
9-year old girl? What penalty should Norman Clairmont serve
for brutally and savagely murdering the 19-year old Potts girl?
What penalty would the bleeding hearts have Charles Simard
pay for murdering two innocent teenagers in the province of
Quebec? I ask again: What is the value of an innocent life to
these politicians?
On April 28, 1994 Judge Demetrick of the Alberta provincial
court declared that portions of the definition of firearm
contained in the Criminal Code of Canada were so convoluted as
to be legal fiction and twice removed from reality. It seems
incredible that the Government of Canada is producing
legislation that is being declared by our courts to be fictitious
and twice removed from reality.
The only explanation for this type of legislation is that the
political thinking and reasoning that is producing this type of
legislation is fictitious itself and is itself twice removed from
reality. Can the families of victims murdered by criminals who
have been released on parole come to any other conclusion than
the politicians responsible for this are twice removed from
reality and do not know what they are doing?
When we look at our national debt, our Young Offenders Act,
the horrendous mess our immigration policy is in and the
betrayal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, is it any wonder
that our courts are pointing out that some of this stuff is twice
removed from reality. And by so doing are they not clearly
implying that our politicians do not know what they are doing?
The hon. member for York South-Weston has my support for
this bill. I believe he has the support of the entire Reform caucus
and I believe he also has the support of millions of Canadians
who back in 1976 were conned into believing that the abolition
of the death penalty was to be substituted for a term of life
imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years.
(1855 )
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take offence
to the term that Canadians were conned by a piece of legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order as I suspect
the member fully knows. The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe as well the hon. member
for York South-Weston may even have the support of many of
his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus if they are allowed a
true free vote on this private member's bill. I shall wait and see.
I am sure millions of Canadians who are demanding the return of
the death penalty are also waiting to see how many in this House
consider the taking of the life of an innocent human being to be
worth less than 25 years imprisonment.
6937
We will see if the twice removed from reality mentality still
controls the agenda in the Liberal caucus. If it does, then the
only real hope for the people of Canada who want change to
legislation like section 745 of the Criminal Code is to wait until
the next federal election. They can then remove the Liberals
from power as decisively as they removed the Tories from
office in the election one year ago.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I owe it
to my constituents and the Canadian Police Association, the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CAVEAT, the
families and friends of victims of violent crimes and tens of
thousands of Canadians who signed petitions, to rise in the
House today to speak to Bill C-226, an act to amend the
Criminal Code.
During the last Parliament and through two years of work my
own private member's Bill C-330 attempted to introduce
similar changes to the Criminal Code that among other things
would eliminate section 745. Consequently I applaud and
second the member for York South-Weston's bill to
reintroduce this initiative to the House of Commons for
consideration. I thank him for that honour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Keyes: The Reform Party should wait to hear my whole
story before applauding.
In our society first degree murder has always been considered
to be one of the most heinous crimes punishable by law. Despite
our unswerving disgust with the premeditated destruction of
another life, our approach to punishing first degree murderers
has changed somewhat over the years.
With regard to convicted first degree murderers, the most
significant change to take place in our criminal justice system
occurred in 1976 when the members of this House passed Bill
C-84. In addition to creating two new categories of murder, first
and second degree, this bill also brought about two significant
changes to our criminal justice system. It abolished the death
penalty for Criminal Code offences such as first degree murder.
It went even further by creating a legal loophole, section 745,
that allows convicted first degree murderers to apply for early
parole consideration after serving only 15 years of a so-called
life sentence without parole for 25 years.
The actions taken in this House by my predecessors 18 years
ago constitute what I call a double compromise. This double
compromise is unwarranted and unjust. It serves only to
confuse, frustrate and even traumatise the many families and
friends of murder victims throughout this country.
When the death penalty was abolished 18 years ago, it was
done in recognition of several key factors: one, the fact that
capital punishment was not and is not an effective deterrent for
heinous crimes such as first degree murder; two, the death/
penalty obviously eliminates the entire notion of rehabilitation
of the convicted criminal; three, at the time this legislation was
introduced, Canada's social conscience was more conducive to
sentencing a convicted first degree murderer to life
imprisonment rather than authorizing state sanctioned murder;
and four, the legal and administrative costs associated with
successfully carrying out a death sentence are often, I say to the
Reform Party, far greater than the costs of incarceration.
Clearly the abolition of capital punishment represented the
first compromise between two extremes. Those at one extreme
were like our friends in the Reform Party who believe that all
first degree murderers should be lined up and shot immediately.
Those at the other extreme believed that we should simply
rehabilitate first degree murderers for a few years instead of
subjecting them to the harshness of long term imprisonment.
(1900 )
As though that compromise were not enough, section 745 of
the Criminal Code allowed for what I call a double compromise.
Not only would first degree convicted murderers escape the
death penalty, they would also have a chance to escape their
so-called life sentence by applying for early parole
consideration after serving only 15 years of a minimum 25-year
sentence.
I personally do not agree with the death penalty but let us be
reasonable here. By compromising ourselves twice in this area
we went too far. Whose interest does this second compromise
really serve anyway? Does section 745 serve the interests of the
victims who were brutally murdered in cold blood? Of course
not. Does section 745 serve the interests of a society that is led to
believe that it will be safe from first degree murderers for at
least 25 years without parole? Of course not. Does section 745
serve the interests of a criminal justice system that aspires to be
balanced, fair and effective when dealing with first degree
murderers? Certainly not.
People across the country are asking us to say what we mean
and mean what we say when a person is convicted of first degree
murder. If an individual is convicted of first degree murder and
sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years then that is
what should happen. If people think that life in prison without
parole for 25 years is inappropriate for the same reason then we
should debate what the actual sentence should be, reach an
agreement and codify it in our laws. We should stick to it until
we have reason to change those laws.
Under the current provisions of section 745, the sentence of
life imprisonment is nothing but legal doubletalk. According to
the statistics of the National Parole Board there are over 2,000
offenders serving life sentences in the Canadian correctional
system. Furthermore over the next 15 years-and this is for the
Bloc's edification-655 inmates in federal prisons will be
eligible for this judicial review courtesy of section 745.
6938
As of May this year there have been 60 judicial review
applications made under section 745. A staggering 42 of them
have been successful. That means 72 per cent of the convicted
first degree murderers, first degree premeditated murderers
who applied for early parole consideration, were successful
under the current provisions of section 745 of the Criminal
Code.
To anyone who is thinking that I am just a vindictive
individual, I ask them to consider this: crown attorneys, our
public defenders, tell me they are not prepared to handle the
sheer volume of judicial review cases that are about to come
crashing down upon them. Most crown attorneys have little or
no experience with this type of judicial review, which makes me
a little concerned with the proper administration of justice in the
country.
Canadians are fed up. They feel their rights are being
superseded by the rights of the criminal. They feel that the
scales of justice are no longer balanced but tipped in favour of
the criminal and that there is not enough justice for the victim in
society in general. For the benefit of those who may have
forgotten why we need to seriously punish for heinous crimes,
allow me to awaken their collective consciousness.
Daniel Gingras was convicted of murder in 1978. Nine years
later he was released from a maximum security prison on a day
pass for his birthday. He escaped his police escort and later
celebrated his birthday by brutally killing two women.
Clifford Olson was convicted of murder in 1981. He still
managed to murder 11 children while out on parole, one of
whom was a young boy who was repeatedly raped for several
hours before he was killed. He has the right under section 745 of
the Criminal Code to be eligible for parole in less than a year.
Joseph Fredericks was convicted of raping and sodomizing a
little boy in 1984. While on parole this man raped and murdered
an 11-year old boy.
Patrick Mailloux was convicted of a long list of violent
crimes. While on parole he walked into a corner store, pulled out
a gun and murdered a 17-year old girl in cold blood.
Charles Simard killed two teenagers in Quebec. He had his
parole eligibility period reduced by a judicial review from 20 to
15 years. Also there were Gilles Lavigne, Larry Sheldon and
Serge Roberge.
(1905)
Perhaps the most stirring case is that of Saul Betesh, Josef
Woods and Ronald Kribs. In 1977 those three men lured a
12-year old boy into their apartment and raped him for 12 hours
before strangling the little boy to death. Betesh and Kribs were
convicted of first degree murder and Woods was sentenced to 18
years without parole, which means that he may be released as
early as next year. All three prisoners are expected to seek
judicial review courtesy of section 745.
Mr. Speaker, think about what that 12-hour torture was like
for that little boy. Now think about what it would be like if he
were your child.
In my own riding of Hamilton West there was the case of John
Rallo who brutally ended the lives of his wife, his five-year old
daughter and his six-year old son, whose body has yet to be
found. Indeed the list goes on and on.
What exactly are the people of Canada saying to us about this
issue? I have received a great deal of feedback from my
constituents over the years that illustrates the public sentiment
out there. I will give one before I conclude: ``Only a politician
and/or a lawyer could come up with a penalty which turns out to
be not life imprisonment for 25 years but 15 years, and our
politicians wonder why people do not trust their words''.
How much longer must Canadians live with the double
compromise presented by section 745 of the Criminal Code? Let
us say what we mean: truth in sentencing. Life without parole
for 25 years should mean exactly that and section 745 of the
Criminal Code must be eliminated.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-226 could have been called ``sink the
shipwrecked'' or ``shoot the ambulance''. In actual fact, it
comes to the same thing. In the society we live in, the light at the
end of the tunnel is part of daily life, irrespective of the
environment we are in.
For example, we are currently going through an intense
recession. The Minister of Finance knows it, he does not see the
light at the end of the tunnel either. We have difficulties
imagining that one day this country will come out of it,
financially. Yet, we do not shoot the Minister of Finance. The
system is not perfect, only human, and no human is perfect.
To understand the consequences of Bill C-226, we have to put
it back in its context. In 1961, murders fell into two categories:
capital and non-capital. Before that, death was the only
sentence available for convicted murderers, even though the
governor could grant a stay of execution and intervene in favour
of the sentenced.
Those convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to life
in prison, but were eligible for parole after seven years. We are
talking about 1961.
After 1967, people sentenced to life in prison needed
permission of the governor in council to be released. They had to
serve at least ten years before becoming eligible for parole.
In 1974, changes to the Criminal Code allowed judges to raise
to 20 years maximum the period during which no parole could be
granted.
6939
As we can see, sentences are becoming more and more
severe. In 1961, we were talking about seven years; in 1967,
ten years; and in 1974, we could go to twenty years.
On February 24, 1976, the Solicitor General introduced Bill
C-84 which abolished the death penalty altogether. At the time
that was a hot topic. We were wondering whether the death
penalty should be kept on the books or abolished.
It is still a very contentious issue today, so imagine what it
was back in 1976.
Bill C-84 offered a new variation, namely different categories
of murders: first degree murder and second degree murder.
People convicted of first degree murder had to serve 25 years
before being eligible for parole, whereas people convicted of
second degree murder had to serve between 10 and 20 years,
depending on the sentencing judge's decision, before being
eligible for parole.
(1910)
Therefore, in 1961, seven years, in 1977, ten years, in 1974,
maybe 20 years, and in 1976, maybe 25 years. Bill C-226 is
aimed at removing any hope of parole for convicts serving a life
sentence. Everybody agrees that society must be protected, but
to what extent? As parliamentarians, do we have the right to pass
laws regarding the probable behaviour of individuals 15 years
from now?
As it now stands, the law gives individuals the opportunity to
be tried and sentenced to penalties proportionate to the
seriousness of the crime which brought them to court. Bill
C-226 claims that none of us believes that individuals who are
sentenced today will be rehabilitated 15 years from now. It
closes the door to hope. It shoots down rehabilitation. Do we
have the right to do that?
As parliamentarians, we have rights, but we also have the
fundamental duty to do our best so that, when we leave, society
is a bit better off than when we arrived. It is to meet this humble
objective that we must strive. Statistics show that only 6 per cent
of inmates on parole re-offend within six months of their
release. That is to say that the present judicial process and parole
system are not working too badly.
The controversy surrounding the review process is fuelled by
two often contradictory objectives. On one hand, there is the
way we feel about crime and, on the other, the desire to
rehabilitate offenders, which are often mutually exclusive. The
initial reasons for a judicial review are always the same. At the
time, in the years 1961, 1967, 1974, and 1976, reactionary views
were predominant. There were debates on the death penalty and
life imprisonment. Those were the buzz words, back then.
The right wing is back, and we hear the same debate all over,
especially with the emergence of victims' rights groups, the
word victim being used in its widest sense. The emphasis is now
placed on the problems those victims experience. We should
realize that arguments for repealing section 745 of the Criminal
Code are based on retaliation.
Retaliation does not justify shattering one of the few hopes
lifers have left. When you are in prison, the light at the end of the
tunnel is essential. I do not mean to put up an all out defence for
prisoners, but we must recognize that those people are not
animals. They are human beings, and we have no moral right to
utterly deprive them of hope.
Let us not forget that judicial review after 15 years does not
mean lifers will automatically be released from prison. It is just
another step a prisoner has to take before parole is granted.
People who sit on parole boards are there to determine whether
individuals can be safely released in our society. If not, parole
boards have every right to keep them behind bars till the end of
their sentence.
I am puzzled by Bill C-226. First of all because I honestly do
not think victims will be better protected. Nor do I believe that
sentencing will be improved by this bill. Moreover, we have to
wonder if Bill C-226 really serves any purpose since there are
already, within the parole system, people whose job it is to be
sure that the individuals they choose to release will make a
positive contribution to society. Obviously, it is important to
protect society, but as members of this society we have a role to
play. When we see an ambulance going down the street, we do
not fire at it. We give it the right of way without even asking who
is inside.
(1915)
For a person who has received a life sentence, the parole
system is the light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think that the
victims' relatives will suffer after 20 years. They certainly have
suffered and everybody deplores that fact. However, we do not
have to always give in to the people who shout the loudest.
A politician must be able to stand up and defend his views. My
view is that Bill C-226 serves no useful purpose.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the debate on these
bills under review this evening gives me the opportunity to
dispel certain myths concerning the Criminal Code provision
which Bill C-226 would repeal and that is the section providing
for a judicial review of the parole ineligibility period.
This provision was adopted in 1976. The legislation adopted
at that time stated that people convicted of first degree murder
or high treason were to wait for at least 25 years before being
allowed to apply for parole and for those convicted of second
degree murder, the jury would set a 10- to 25-year parole
ineligibility period.
6940
But Parliament was wise enough to determine that in both
cases, once the convict had served 15 years of his sentence, a
jury could be formed and the parole ineligibility period could
be reviewed and revised if appropriate.
This provision was based on the principles of justice and
rehabilitation, two principles which are still very sound today.
Parliament added that section to the legislation because it
believed individuals could improve.
They considered then, and the argument is still valid today,
that the possibility for the parole ineligibility period to be
reviewed could be an incentive for the convicts to make special
rehabilitation efforts.
I should remind you that this provision was linked to the
abolition of capital punishment which occurred in several
countries where authorities instituted life imprisonment without
any eligibility for parole as a compromise to please both those in
favour and those against the death sentence.
[English]
No doubt the creation of section 745 was unique in the
criminal law of the country. However the section was included
in the first reading of the original bill in 1976. It was fully
reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs
committee at that time before it was finally debated and passed
by the members of Parliament.
In fact, rather than the original proposal to have three judges
to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would
decide the case instead. This was done specifically to increase
public participation in the process.
Clearly there was debate and communication in the public
arena. Efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review
hearings as public as possible.
Let me review briefly how the provision works. I think the
Reform Party-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
6940
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Pearson International Airport is a vital asset to the
Canadian economy.
(1920 )
I recently chaired a Toronto Liberal caucus task force
investigating the immediate needs for runway construction at
Pearson. The task force reviewed the available documents and
held two public meetings. There were several issues considered:
the immediate completion of a second north-south runway; the
construction of two additional east-west runways and the
impact these runways would have on the travelling public, the
economy and the surrounding communities.
Currently air traffic at Pearson is handled primarily on two
east-west runways. Five per cent of the time, about 70 times per
year, severe cross winds force planes to change to the one
available north-south runway for periods of up to five hours, a
total of 350 hours per year. Capacity is cut in half, disrupting
airline schedules, forcing delays and re-routing, allowing
potentially dangerous landings to occur on the east-west
runways at higher cross wind limits than are allowed at U.S.
airports.
Does Pearson need a second north-south runway at this time?
The Minister of Transport recently announced a second
north-south runway will be tendered for completion. This
construction will not increase the overall capacity at Pearson,
only the efficiency and the safety.
An environmental assessment report completed in 1992
recognized that a second north-south runway was needed to
eliminate the current imbalance of two east-west with only one
north-south. They wanted a safety and operational feasibility of
a shorter 4,500 north-south runway investigated. This short
runway would have had less noise impact on the local residents.
Two studies were undertaken by Transport Canada and the
Canadian Airline Pilots Association in 1992 and 1993. They
found that 85 per cent of the aircraft that use Pearson could not
land on a 4,500 foot runway. Arriving aircraft would have to be
kept at high altitudes of 10,000 feet to facilitate sorting and
sequencing. These restrictions would increase the probability of
mid-air collision. The operational separations imposed for
safety reasons might even result in less capacity than exists now.
Both reports concluded that safety concerns would have to be
given priority over all other considerations. They recommended
6941
against the short runway. The caucus committee concurred that a
full length north-south runway is needed at this time. It further
recommended the new north-south runway should be used for
landings only during severe cross wind conditions only.
Does Pearson need two more east-west runways at this time?
The Air Transport Association of Canada has provided figures
which indicate aircraft movements are down 12 per cent from
their pre-recession high. Currently Pearson processes 20.5
million passengers per year, a volume easily handled by the two
existing east-west runways.
Travel replacing technology such as faxes and tele and video
conferencing are being increasingly utilized with fewer people
travelling for business purposes.
Our committee concluded that any additional runways should
not be contemplated until the threshold of passengers exceeds
30 million per year. This will not take place before the proposed
Canadian airport authority takes over the management of
Pearson.
I endorse the minister's decision to complete the second
north-south runway for economic and safety reasons. I applaud
the innovative plan to turn the operation of airports over to local
airport authorities so they can be financed and improved in a
self-sufficient, cost-effective, businesslike manner.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
to expand on the concept of the Canadian airport authority for
the residents of Mississauga. What assurance do we have that
this will be the most efficient and economical solution to
Pearson's current problems?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Transport I would like to respond to the question from my hon.
colleague, the member for Mississauga West.
Let me first assure my colleague that she can reassure the
residents of Mississauga that when the new north-south runway
is completed at Pearson it will be used primarily for landings. In
recognition of the concerns of the residents living near the
airport about noise I want to reiterate that the new runway will
only be used 5 per cent of the time when severe cross winds
make landings on the two east-west runways unsafe.
The only time the new north-south runway would be used for
take-offs would be on those extremely rare occasions when,
combined with adverse weather conditions, the existing
north-south runway is unavailable due to emergency or repairs.
On these occasions only take-offs toward the north following
the established departure path of the existing north-south
runway would be permitted.
The minister wants to assure the member and her constituents
that absolutely no decision will be taken on the matter of
additional east-west runways until the Canadian airport
authority is in place and functioning at Pearson International
Airport. In any event it is anticipated that the additional
east-west runways would not be constructed until traffic
warrants it. This is not expected to happen until the turn of the
century.
(1925)
One of our colleagues from the Reform Party has said that we
do not intend to move on the new Canadian airport authorities
for Pearson until 1998. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As the minister has made very clear we will be moving to
establish CAAs at many airports as soon as the communities
involved identify their representatives and pass the necessary
local resolutions which is indeed the case for Pearson. There is
no question about waiting until 1998.
The fact is that the local municipalities have named their
representatives and the minister has indicated that we will
proceed with all that needs to be done at Pearson. The only
logical option though is to work with these representatives in an
advisory capacity for the time being.
We will move to activate a Canadian airport authority which
we believe is in the best interests of the Canadian public as soon
as the Senate puts the interest of the taxpayer ahead of its
rhetoric.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, October 17 I put two sets of questions to the Minister
for Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister effectively declined
to answer those questions at the time saying they were
hypothetical. However, the exchange after question period
between the leader of the Reform Party and the Speaker would
indicate the questions as put were of course not hypothetical and
were in order. The questions were in order because they dealt not
with the government's political plans but with its competence,
jurisdiction, and role in the matters of constitutional law and the
possible separation of Quebec.
The first question was formed from a quotation from the
Prime Minister of Canada. He said a Prime Minister of Canada
has a constitution he must respect and there is no mechanism in
the Constitution permitting the separation of any part of
Canadian territory.
While that is very narrowly true in fact the Constitution does
have provisions relating to amendment of various things that
would be required in the event of the separation of a province.
These are things as elementary as the transfer of the legitimate
powers of the federal government to a province which would
generally speaking require the consent of two-thirds of the
provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. In other
cases where it actually involves institutional change it would
require unanimous consent. These clauses are laid out in part 5,
sections 38 through 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
6942
My question to the government was merely that it affirm that
it is the position of the Government of Canada that the
constitutional status of a province could only be changed
legally and would be done through this amending formula. This
would of course not apply simply with a separation scenario
but to any constitutional change. I would maintain that it is the
duty of the federal government which purports that national
unity is its highest priority to recognize that it does have an
obligation to uphold the Constitution.
I would also note that politically there would be considerable
advantage for it to make clear to the people of Quebec that when
they are being told that separation can be achieved unilaterally
that this is legally untrue. In fact, it would also be political
untrue, politically unfeasible to pursue in that manner.
We would also of course be interested to know what the
position would be of the leader of the official opposition on such
an illegal position as unilateral separation. However I do not
expect the parliamentary secretary to comment on that
particular question.
My second question concerned an article recently written in
Canadian Parliamentary Review, Autumn 1994, by the hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra. He held that today the federal
government retains full constitutional options to allow or not to
allow a referendum vote, to control the content and wording of
any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any
vote, and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum
legally superseding any Quebec vote.
As you well know, the opinions of the member for Vancouver
Quadra are of some interest not simply because he wrote the
article but because he is a noted constitutional expert and also a
member of the governing caucus. While I do not subscribe
necessarily to all his constitutional views I would certainly
think that the government would take note of them and would be
prepared to comment on whether it believes these are in fact the
constitutional powers of the federal government.
I would note that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
himself has previously commented that the federal government
should consider the option of a national referendum. I believe
this is an option our own party would suggest should be
considered, not necessarily acted upon but certainly considered
given that ultimately the unity of the country and its future
constitutional status is the business of all Canadians.
I put that question and hope to receive more enlightenment
than I did on Monday.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for his question. It is quite an extended
question and is obviously a subject of considerable debate.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for whom I am
answering believes that the Constitution Acts do not provide any
rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces.
The argument which has been presented by the hon. member
for Calgary West that the amending formula can be stretched to
include the secession of a province is a point of view. However
as the hon. member suggests there are many points of view on
constitutional questions. Colleagues of mine have expressed
constitutional views. Members of the opposition have as well.
It is very clear that when the time comes there is international
precedent and their is domestic precedent in this regard.
However, what I think the record shows internationally is that in
cases of secession what is likely to occur is so much confusion
and trouble that it would be impossible to proceed in an orderly
and fashionable manner and indicate what goes before.
It seems to us that the premise of the member's question is
that we should say: You cannot leave unless we let you go. That
does not seem to be a very helpful approach at this time. Our
approach is to argue to Quebecers that the case for secession
cannot be sustained. It involves costs and risks that are
unnecessary and that this country is too precious to be
destroyed.
We want the question to be put fairly and quickly. We agree
with the leader of the Reform Party who has expressed that point
of view. I do not intend to talk on behalf of the Leader of the
Opposition, but I believe he said this morning in Toronto that he
is a democrat and we are all democrats. Certainly we in this
Chamber are all democrats and a democratic decision is
appropriate and will occur we hope promptly and with a clear
question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.)