CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 2, 1994
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7554
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7555
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7555
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7555
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7555
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7555
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7555
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7555
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7556
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7556
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7556
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7556
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7557
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7557
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7557
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7557
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7557
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7557
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7558
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7558
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7558
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7559
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 7559
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7559
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7559
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7559
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7559
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7560
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7560
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7561
Motion moved and agreed to 7563
Bill C-50. Report stage 7567
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7567
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7567
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7572
Division on motion deferred 7575
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred. 7575
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred. 7575
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7575
Division on motion deferred 7579
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7579
Division on motion deferred 7582
Bill C-218. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7582
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7582
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 126 7589
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 7590
7551
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 2, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
learning is a life long process and in a rapidly changing world
our vision of learning must be constantly changing and
evolving. I am proud to say that the city of London is developing
into a learning community.
The London Investment and Education Council is a
non-profit community based group committed to bringing
together students, business, labour, government, families and
social and cultural organizations to plan initiatives and share
information related to education.
The federal government recognizes that learning is a life long
process and encourages all sectors of our community to become
involved in the learning process. London truly is a learning
community, thanks to the innovative work of the London
Investment and Education Council.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday,
the Minister of Finance said in an interview published in
Le
Soleil that everything to reduce the deficit was on the table. In
other words, the minister is simply ignoring the commitment
made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign that he
would not raise taxes. On the expenditure side, the minister tries
to justify additional cuts in social programs that might total $7.5
billion, arguing that everyone would have to do his or her share.
Instead of targeting the needy, the unemployed and the middle
class, I suggest the minister take a good look at the
government's operational expenditures, subsidies to
corporations, Defence spending and duplication, and ensure that
taxpayers who live on high incomes are the first in line to pay
their fair share of taxes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, police sources state the hub of Asian organized crime
for the world will be situated in Vancouver and Vancouver Island
by the turn of the decade. This statement has been acknowledged
in part by the Solicitor General who recently supported the
deployment of extra drug enforcement officers to Nanaimo.
The situation requires more than just extra police. The
government must get serious about reforming and strengthening
legislation in the areas of immigration, customs, justice,
fisheries and human resources development.
The Reform Party recognizes the need for these changes. In
my riding I have already started bringing together concerned
members of the immigrant population with municipal,
provincial and federal authorities to look at ways to make the
system work for all Canadians. Next week I will continue the
process and will report the results of this truly grassroots
consultation process back to the House.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hon. members
opposite often suggest that the views of Canadians are not taken
seriously by the government. I want to tell my hon. friends that
they are wrong.
Some of the suggestions made last April by my constituents
appear in the discussion paper the Minister of Human Resources
Development tabled in the House on October 5.
Oxford recommendations in this paper include: first,
programs should be result oriented, with the emphasis on ending
dependency.
Second, while everyone should pay into unemployment
insurance, it should be structured more like private insurance so
that those in higher risk areas of employment pay higher
premiums. Third, to help those on welfare become independent
the govern-
7552
ment should subsidize those who choose to take low paying
positions rather than remain at home.
I am happy to see that these recommendations were taken
seriously by the minister and that they are now being discussed
across Canada.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next week on November 11 members of the House will
join with thousands of Canadians to pay tribute to those who
fought and died so that we might enjoy democracy and freedom:
freedom to hold democratic elections and the freedom to voice
concern.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the second
world war. It is a time to show that Canada remembers. Let us
join with all Canadians on November 11 to renew our pledge to
the many Canadians who fought and fell in battle.
Let us also remember the sacrifices and efforts made by those
at home. It is through the efforts of these people that we have
been able to build Canada into a country deemed the best in the
world in which to live.
We shall never forget.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of all Canadians that
November 1 to 7 is Pharmacy Awareness Week.
The theme of the week is: ``Talk to me, your pharmacist, your
friend''. The purpose of the week is to encourage
communication between pharmacists and their patients. This
week recognizes the important role that pharmacists play in
health care, and in particular medication use.
During Pharmacy Awareness Week pharmacists across the
country will be demonstrating their commitment to close the
information gap on the safe use of medications.
(1405 )
I recognize today the work of pharmacists in the field of
health. I encourage them to continue their work in ensuring that
medications improve the health of all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by not
dismissing out of hand the recommendations of the SECOR
report on the future of cultural industries, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage knowingly supports the abolition of the NFB.
NFB productions are well received and win many prizes
internationally. The minister does not seem to realize that
closing the NFB would mean shutting down the production of
documentaries and animated films.
How many artists and technicians have been able to benefit
from this institution's training programs? Does the minister
really understand the impact that NFB productions have on our
cultural life?
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is obviously no longer
competent to defend the interests of cultural institutions. The
industry can do without friends like these.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance realizes he is over budget and will have to
make deep cuts. The human resources development minister
will also be making some cuts.
Now we find that Canadians are paying some $24,000 for the
commissioner of official languages to drive back and forth
between his two residences in a chauffeured limousine because
he does not want to relocate from Montreal to Ottawa.
The Minister of Finance likes to give us the impression that he
is attacking the deficit but now we find this example of
scandalous spending. Canadians are outraged when they learn of
this type of spending. How could the government dream of
paying $15,800 for his apartment, $5,160 for his meals, and
$3,000 for incidental expenses?
I call on the Minister of Finance to stamp out this spending.
Let us hope that the commissioner is paying taxes on his benefits
as are all other taxpayers.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to inform the House of the partnership
being announced today in Toronto between the National
Basketball Association and the stay in school program by my
hon. colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the Secretary of State for Youth and Training.
The stay in school initiative has become a community success
story. The program encourages young people who are at risk of
dropping out to stay in school longer and complete high school.
Significant gains have been made in expanding knowledge,
action, collaboration, and moral obligation among Canadians to
find solutions to the disturbing high school dropout problem.
7553
As the Toronto Raptors and the Vancouver Grizzlies become
household names to Canadians, they will become synonymous
with championing this important issue.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
acknowledge a pilot project for young adults that has
commenced for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
in my riding of Erie.
Service Kanada, an initiative of the Secretary of State for
Training and Youth, brings 19 to 24 year olds and non-profit
organizations together to provide labour for needed projects
while offering the participants training and the opportunity to
live in another community while learning another language.
Participants are paid $2 daily and will receive a $1,000 grant
at the end of their six-month stint. Food and lodging are
provided by Service Kanada.
There are four objectives for the participants: performance of
valued work for the community, acquiring personal work skills,
achieving an awareness of our environment, and learning a
second language.
These energetic volunteers, these young adults of today from
Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick will be the leaders of a
strong and united Canada in the not too distant future. We all
benefit from projects such as Service Kanada.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the great honour of visiting Rideau
Hall for the presentation of the first ever National Entrepreneur
of the Year Award by His Excellency the Governor General of
Canada.
In particular I wish to single out one of the nine recipients,
Mr. John Bragg, president of Oxford Frozen Foods Ltd., Oxford,
Nova Scotia. John Bragg founded his company in rural Nova
Scotia processing wild blueberries in a single plant. Today he
has four processing plants and has capacity to process 1.9
million pounds of blueberries per day as well as other frozen
foods. In peak season John Bragg employs 3,000 people
throughout his diversified companies.
I salute John Bragg and the other eight national award
recipients whose gross sales total more than $2 billion annually.
The government is very proud of our entrepreneurs, the role
models for all Canadians.
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the co-chairman of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's
Defence Policy is quoted today in
La Presse as saying that this
department exists solely to show our solidarity with the rest of
the planet.
In the report that came out Monday, he defended the idea of
acquiring new equipment, the purpose of which would be to
enable Canada to defend, at great expense, its territorial
sovereignty.
It would certainly take mental gymnastics to be able to see
how buying tanks, not to mention submarines, is a way of
expressing solidarity with the planet. On the contrary, it merely
confirms the militaristic doctrine that pervades the report.
My advice to the co-chairman is that he would do better to
strengthen his solidarity with Quebec, which is in great need of
support, particularly his, if it is to hang on to what little it
receives from the Department of National Defence, the Liberal
Party notwithstanding.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
National Film Board of Canada's mandate is to produce and
distribute films for Canadian audiences and foreign markets, to
enhance knowledge of Canadian social and cultural realities and
in so doing contribute to the development of a flourishing film
industry.
The National Film Board receives over $80 million from
taxpayers. I would like to outline for the House where some of
those dollars are going. A film board promotion for a video says:
``Compelling, often hilarious and always rebellious, the 10
women discuss lesbian sexuality and survival in Canada during
the fifties and the sixties. This video brings lesbian history out
of the closet and contributes to the viable history of sexuality in
Canada''. It also states: ``Due to the explicit nature of certain
scenes, viewer discretion is advised''.
This is another example of hard earned tax dollars at work
enhancing Canadian social and cultural realities.
By the way the current debt is $536,656,634,487.41.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Pharmacy Awareness Week serves to draw
attention to the very serious problem of over medication and
cross-medication. Our senior citizens are at greatest risk.
7554
I urge the members of the House to support Pharmacy
Awareness Week and participate in making the issue better
known.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four
times a year, the House of Commons meets the cost of
publishing a householder prepared by each member of
Parliament to keep their constituents informed.
In his latest householder, a Bloc member published a letter
under the heading ``Changes required at the CECM''. In this
letter, the member argued the need for a school that meets
modern-day needs and one with a resolutely forward-looking
curriculum, adding that in the current debate, only MEMO
offered such a perspective.
I must admit that, on the surface, the connection between the
member's mandate and school board elections is not obvious.
However, we are not naive enough to believe that this statement
has nothing to do with the fact that the member's spouse is a
MEMO candidate in ward No. 9 in Montreal.
Taxpayers strongly object to their taxes being used to
indirectly fund the election campaign of the wife of the hon.
member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here is
something I would like the ministers of agriculture, transport
and finance to think about before they discontinue the so-called
Crow benefit.
In my region the benefit is worth between $22 and $28 per
tonne. We grow about one tonne of crop per acre and good land
rents between $20 and $30 per acre.
If the benefit disappears and freight costs rise by a like
amount, the cash rental value of those lands becomes zero. The
financial effect on the region is to further deflate farm land
values by several hundred dollars per acre. This equity, which
will disappear with the decline and demise of the Crow benefit,
is what farmers and their communities have been using as
collateral to borrow funds for economic diversity.
The proposal to save some $600 million per year will take
billions of dollars worth of value and equity from existing farms
and businesses in western Canada and will trigger further
bankruptcies and business failures.
How can the government justify that?
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to CIDA and our foreign aid
program, the inmates are running the asylum.
Since 1991 the Canadian Wilderness Committee has received
around $300,000 from CIDA. The Sierra Club of Western
Canada and the Clayoquot Biosphere Project have also received
CIDA funding.
To my best recollection, British Columbia is still a part of this
great nation. Why then is nearly half a million dollars being
misspent to bolster the efforts of anti-logging radicals?
This is blatant interference in British Columbia's jurisdiction
over its natural resources. B.C. is battling to maintain the
considerable lumber exports in the face of a concerted campaign
of disinformation by these very groups.
We are neck deep in debt. What little foreign aid we can afford
should go to those most in need. The federal government, which
has not shown any great competence in managing natural
resources, has no business interfering in provincial concerns.
_____________________________________________
7554
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, said on
television this morning that at no time did he receive from the
Prime Minister or his colleagues the mandate to investigate the
heritage minister's direct interference in the CRTC's business.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he confirm what
his counsellor said?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the facts relating to this issue were clearly put on the
table; these are public documents available to all. The
counsellor, Mr. Wilson, is aware of the facts, but he does not
need to investigate. All the facts are public knowledge and have
been discussed in this House for several days.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister
deliberately neglected to ask his ethics counsellor to investigate
last week because he did not want to have to justify the decision
to overlook this matter which he had made a month earlier when
he was informed of his minister's mistake?
7555
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we told the House of Commons and the public
everything that happened in this affair and, as I said several
times, the minister in question realized that his letter was
interpreted as support. He immediately took action to correct the
situation and we accepted this explanation. Then I personally
took the initiative of asking all ministers to search their files to
see if there was anything in them concerning the
Radio-Television Commission, which itself asks for public
opinion before rendering its decisions. Several members have
written to this commission and several ministers wrote as they
did when they were backbenchers. I asked Mr. Wilson to clarify
the directives on this subject. I have had conversations with him
and I hope that the new directives will be ready within a few
weeks.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he thinks that his
minister again showed his lack of judgement yesterday when he
said that he felt more and more at ease, although four of the
largest newspapers in Canada and Quebec are calling for his
resignation.
Does the Prime Minister, who has shown the virtue of
forgiveness, not consider the penitent to lack firm resolve and to
be insufficiently remorseful?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Lord in Heaven decides whether someone has firm
resolve, not I.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We learned
that government ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, was
disciplined in 1992 for awarding almost $1 million worth of
contracts without tender. His signing authority was suspended
by the Deputy Minister of Industry after the Auditor General
intervened.
How can the Prime Minister think that the government's
ethics counsellor still has the credibility needed to occupy his
position, whose incumbent must be above suspicion?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was an investigation on this matter and Mr.
Wilson's signing authority was reinstated. All I know about this
man is that he is honest, competent and very open. He readily
makes himself available to the media and, under circumstances
like these, he gave interviews.
Before appointing him, I asked both the Leader of the
Opposition and the leader of the Reform Party for their opinion
on his ability to perform these duties; they both agreed with me
that he was an honourable man and that he could do an excellent
job.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, need I remind the Prime Minister that Mr. Wilson
himself admitted that he had not informed the Prime Minister of
his situation before being appointed ethics counsellor in June,
thus making it impossible for the Leader of the Opposition and
the leader of the third party to find out about the situation which
Mr. Wilson was involved in.
How can the Prime Minister continue to trust Mr. Wilson, who
hid his suspension when his first duty was to inform the Prime
Minister of his background at the time of his appointment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the man in question was not suspended. He kept his
position. It was an administrative matter as to whether he had
authority or whether he should keep it. It was found appropriate
to give him back the authority he had before.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, October 27, the Prime Minister said
regarding the heritage minister affair: ``I consulted the
government's ethics counsellor and confirmed that I had made
the right decision in this matter''. On Friday in the House he
said: ``I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself but I asked that he be
consulted''. Today we find out that in fact no one, neither the
Prime Minister nor his staff, asked the ethics counsellor to rule
specifically on the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC.
The ethics counsellor's revelations on national television this
morning contradict every version of events that the Prime
Minister has given us. I ask the Prime Minister: How does he
explain his previous comments to the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained clearly that I had asked people to call the
ethics counsellor and they called him. He gave me an opinion
that did not lead me to change my mind.
The leader of the Reform Party should know that whatever
advice a minister or a Prime Minister receives, that advice is for
him or her. As I said, he is the one who takes full responsibility
for the decision. I cannot get up in the House and say to
somebody here: ``I made that decision because somebody told
me to do that''. That is not the way it works. The Prime Minister
is the one who is fully responsible. I am fully responsible for the
decision I have made and I will stand by it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to accept
responsibility for comments that he made to the House.
The Prime Minister clearly declared that the ethics counsellor
had been consulted and said nothing that changed the Prime
Minister's mind about his decision to retain the heritage
minister. In fact, the ethics counsellor was not asked to give a
ruling on that matter so how could he have provided advice to
the Prime Minister on that subject?
7556
Could the Prime Minister explain this contradiction between
his own comments and the comments of the ethics counsellor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that we seek advice. The ruling is
the decision of the Prime Minister and this Prime Minister
makes decisions. He was not called upon to rule. He has no right
to rule. I have the right to rule and I made a decision.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this whole affair from the letter writing to the Prime
Minister's comments is either an example of gross stupidity or
unethical conduct, or both.
(1425 )
The Speaker: We are getting very close to language that is
not acceptable. I wonder if I could ask the hon. leader of the
Reform Party to rephrase his question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an
example of a grave error in judgment or unethical conduct, or
both.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for changing his
wording on the first part. I would invite him to do the same on
the second part.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an
example of a gross error in judgment or in conduct unbecoming
to a minister or a Prime Minister, or both. It has also made a
mockery of the office of the ethics counsellor.
Will the Prime Minister allow the ethics counsellor to report
directly to Parliament on the conduct of the Prime Minister's
own office in this affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am responsible to the people of Canada.
I appreciate the frustration of the leader of the Reform Party.
He and his party are out fishing and catching no fish. That is
their problem. However I do not want to get mad.
When the member for Beaver River yesterday made an
accusation in relation to me she forgot to tell the nation in the
accusation she made in the House today that the judge
apologized to me and the Globe and Mail apologized to me. Not
only that, the Globe and Mail paid me money because they had
made an error.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On
Monday, we were stunned to learn that a young man who is
unemployed was threatened with losing his UI benefits because
he intends to participate in the job-search program set up by
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. This is an agency whose federal
contribution was just cut and which has now been taken over by
the Quebec government and the city of Gatineau.
How can the minister justify such blackmail on the part of his
civil servants when young jobless people want to use the
services provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi to improve
their lot?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a judgment by
employment counsellors as to the advice they give to clients of
our employment centres as to the services that can be provided.
In this particular case, the employment counsellor referred
the young man in question to the project La Relance. It has an
almost 75 per cent success rate in ensuring that employment is
gained under these circumstances.
We believe very strongly that we have to ensure there is
discussion and decision making at the local level. Therefore that
kind of authority is given to local employment counsellors. I am
sure when they make a judgment that a reference to the group
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi is appropriate and helpful they will
make references to that group as well.
(1430 )
It is a little strange that a member of Parliament in this case is
second guessing the judgment of an employment counsellor
when he was not there. He does not know the case and he does
not know the individual. It is up to the employment counsellor
who is dealing with the case individually to make the best
judgment that can be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister recognize that this deplorable situation demonstrates
once again the scope of the current mess in manpower training,
with federal and provincial civil servants wrestling with each
other, at the expense of the unemployed?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what
question the hon. member has.
I would like to point out to him that in the case of the
Carrefour Jeunesse the federal government provides an annual
contribution of $550,000 which compares with the $100,000
from the province of Quebec. It would seem to me that we are
doing our proper job in contributing to help the unemployed in
7557
that area by that contribution at a five to one ratio to the
province.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have pages from a document from the Privy Council Office
called ``Guidance for Ministers'', marked confidential.
I will read the Prime Minister a quote from pages 23 and 24 of
that document:
Parliament has gone to special lengths to protect the independent mandate
and powers of certain other agencies such as granting bodies or tribunals. You
are advised to take very special care to avoid intervening, or appearing to
intervene in cases under consideration by quasi-judicial bodies.
In light of this, will the Prime Minister do the only honourable
thing that is available and ask the heritage minister to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have asked the minister to be careful but there is no
accompanying prohibition for ministers. We have tabled in the
House some letters by ministers in support of cases from their
constituents. We have debated in the House the problem of
members of Parliament who become ministers remaining
members of Parliament in our system.
I have asked the ethics counsellor to work on some guidelines
so that members who are ministers can serve their constituents
at the same time as serving the government. The guidelines will
be ready in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
these guidelines are absolutely clear.
Is the Prime Minister's version of responsibility that he has no
responsibility for his own guidelines, no responsibility for his
ministers, no responsibility for his own statements? Is it the
Mulroney version of responsibility: ``to heck with the facts, I
will wait until the next election''? Is that his version of
responsibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking at the next election anxiously because a
lot of you guys will not be there.
We have been in government for a year and Canadians are
quite happy with the government. Never has the confidence in
the nation been as high as it is today. We have growth in the
economy and the mood of the country is very good. I can see why
the Reform Party is going fishing when it dropped in the polls
from 19 to 11.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The federal government's decision, as a result of which
unemployment insurance benefits may be cut off to young
people who do not use the services of La Relance, a centre
subsidized by the federal government, is starting to look like
some kind of retaliation or tit for tat, just because the
Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau have decided to
support Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi.
Does the minister realize that by supporting La Relance as
opposed to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, his public servants are
contradicting the very essence of the minister's social security
reform, which includes substantial flexibility in the way young
people will be helped?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just explained,
the federal government funds the Carrefour Jeunesse to the tune
of $550,000.
(1435 )
It shows that there is a very clear commitment to that
organization to conduct a variety of services. At the same time
we made it very clear that the judgment of the employment
counsellor as to what is the best reference and the best service
should be left to that counsellor and not be second guessed here
in the House of Commons.
We are not cutting the UI benefits to the young man. That is a
false statement. The hon. member should withdraw that
statement. It is simply not a fact. He should recognize that we
have many good public servants working in the province of
Quebec giving major help to a lot of young people. They should
not be second guessed by the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we do not deny the competence of the employment
counsellors, but we do deny that the federal government has
jurisdiction over manpower training.
Does the minister not realize that this is just one more pitiful
example of the federal system's failure to function where
manpower training is concerned, which merely strengthens the
broad consensus that exists in Quebec in this respect?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
statement is really not logical, nor does it make much sense.
The presence of the federal government is through the people
we have as our public servants who represent the federal
government who are doing an effective job in giving good
advice. In this specific case, as I just stated, we provide funding
of over half a million dollars to the Carrefour Jeunesse. We have
7558
also provided funding for projet La Relance, but we have made
some division of responsibility so that we can get more
efficiency and more effectiveness out of it. That was a choice
that was made very much within the local region.
I believe that trying to turn this into some kind of great
abstract argument of the role of the federal government in
Quebec simply makes no sense at all. The federal government,
as the member well knows, is highly committed to the
employment of people in Quebec because we are doing
something about it. That is why we have created close to
100,000 jobs in that province in the past 11 months.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has said over and over again in the House that his
officials had consulted the ethics counsellor regarding the letter
by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
He said over and over again that the ethics counsellor's advice
had affirmed his own decision to not fire this minister. The
ethics counsellor has a different story. He says that he was not
asked to rule on this incident.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the ethics counsellor was
set up to be the fall guy for providing bad advice when his advice
was not even sought?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said everything I have to say. We talked to the
ethics counsellor. I said to the House that I have consulted a lot
of people in my life. I know one thing. At the end of the day, I am
responsible. There is no fall guy in this. We have debated that.
We went a long way. I have asked every cabinet minister to look
over the files and to say whether they have written letters. It is an
open process. These documents were public at any time.
If the Reform Party is so smart, why did it not go to the CRTC?
These documents were public. Those members did not do their
job. We had to tell them what the facts were. We were not trying
to have a set up person.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says they talked to the ethics counsellor.
Did the ethics counsellor talk to the government? The Prime
Minister indicated to us that the ethics counsellor had advised
him on the minister's letter and the ethics counsellor says that
this is simply not the case.
This morning he said no, and that is clear. The question of
course is: What part of no does the Prime Minister not
understand? Will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for
this contradiction in his integrity and apologize for breaching
the trust of the Canadian public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beaver River for getting
up and giving us a lesson.
Yesterday she made an accusation that was completely false.
It was on national TV and she does not even get up to apologize.
I do not want an apology from her because I do not need an
apology from her.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On Monday, the minister stated that he had included in his
discussion paper on social program reform proposals regarding
older workers who are laid off. But the paper contains no
concrete proposal, and does not even make reference to POWA.
How does the minister, after undertaking to make known his
intentions regarding POWA, explain that no reference is made to
this program in his reform? How does he explain this?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
read chapter 2 of the green book, he would recognize the entire
chapter is devoted to the question of how we can take resources
of the federal government, provincial governments and the
private sector and redirect them toward proper training, job core
development, literacy programs and community based
employment through a strategy that would help older workers,
young people, workers who need adjustment.
The chapter is devoted to how we basically can improve the
entire system of employment development services.
It would seem to me that the hon. member should be able to
read the entire chapter and come to the conclusion that it is a
brand new philosophy and direction by giving a lot more local
control, a lot more responsibility to the people to make
decisions about how they get re-employed.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister rise in this House and tell us how, in
concrete terms, and in what sense he intends to reform POWA in
order to end the discrimination to which older workers are
subject, since 75 per cent of them are excluded from the very
program designed to help them?
7559
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts
are simply not true. The fact of the matter is that in the province
of Quebec we have approved, in conjunction with the provincial
government, because it is a joint federal-provincial program, 65
per cent of the applications we have received. I think the
expenditure represents almost 45 per cent of the entire POWA
expenditure in that province alone. It has been a very important
program.
I do agree with the hon. member in one area. It is an awkward
program to run. I am quite prepared to talk with the provinces
about how we can improve the program and how we can, as I said
in my earlier statement, use many of the existing programs to
consolidate into broad based employment services so we can
then direct resources to those groups that need it most, and they
can help make the choices to put their own signature on their
re-employment efforts.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rest assured my question is not one of
whining and rewhining about a letter. My question is for the
minister responsible for Canada Post.
Canadians from coast to coast and I were pleased last winter
when the minister stopped the closure of post offices in small
communities which are vital for their social and economic
development.
Could the minister tell the House what plan he has to
modernize those post offices in order to provide decent, modern,
written communication abilities for all Canadians?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the excellent question. It is an extraordinary
question and has particular significance for rural Canada and
small communities across the country.
Canada Post will be working co-operatively with a number of
federal agencies and departments to see whether it can utilize
existing facilities in small town Canada in order to provide
better government services to Canadians, and to partner with the
private sector so that we can elaborate and bring into these
facilities more services in order to serve rural Canadians who
are a very important element of Canadian society.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have clear rules on dealing with quasi-judicial bodies. We have
very clear statements in the 1976 Trudeau guidelines. We have
the 1984 Starr-Sharp guidelines. We have the government's
conflict of interest code. We have the guidance for ministers
guidelines. The guidelines from the Privy Council are very
clear.
(1445 )
I ask the Prime Minister: Since the government has plenty of
guidelines, is not the real problem a shortage of confidence and
integrity from the front benches?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a very competent cabinet.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is wonderful to see how the government side gets its exercise for
the day: up and down, up and down.
The government's pursuit of improved ethical guidelines is
just a red herring to divert attention from the failures of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and from the incredible lapses in
the Prime Minister's office. Reform MPs will not be diverted.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Despite the shrieking
Liberals, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to put my question.
When is the Prime Minister going to live up to all of his talk
about integrity and responsibility and ask the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want the Reform Party to change its policies
and divert. It has the right policies to lose the next election so
badly that we are supporting Reformers to stick to these
policies. This is why we want them to stay on it.
I made the decision about this problem and I have informed
the House of Commons many times. The answer is that I have
not asked the minister to resign and he is still a minister.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Defence.
In a majority report on Canada's defence policy, Liberal and
Reform Party members recommended cosmetic changes instead
of a real and thorough reorganization of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
7560
Committee members from the Bloc Quebecois have
dissociated themselves from this report, after the Liberals
refused to reconsider Canada's participation in NATO and
NORAD and in UN peacekeeping forces.
Considering that only 13 per cent of Canadian defence
infrastructure is located in Quebec, while Quebecers meet
approximately 25 per cent of Canadian defence expenditures,
can the minister undertake to take into account this imbalance
that is unfavourable to Quebec before making any cuts
whatsoever?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it sounds to
me as if the hon. member is reflecting upon the position taken by
his defence critic in response to the committee's report and that
is that the Bloc Quebecois advocates defence spending be
reduced in Canada and Quebec of course as part of Canada by 25
per cent.
I do not think that is widely known. It was said in the election
and it has been reiterated. That is very interesting.
With respect to the report of the hon. members, I have read it
with interest. I have read the report of the defence committee.
All the members of the House and Senate who took part should
be congratulated.
The government will certainly consider its recommendations
in the development of the new defence policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that Quebec already receives proportionately less than its fair
share in terms of military equipment, can the Minister of
Defence dissociate himself from the defence committee today
and give this House the assurance that unacceptable decisions
such as the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean will not
be repeated in the case of Bagotville or Saint-Hubert?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only
comment I wish to make is that as a result of the budget cuts that
we announced in February of this year defence spending in
Quebec actually increased by 3 per cent. That was because of the
severity of cuts elsewhere in the country.
(1450)
I have said this before in the House. We will look at the
committee's report. We will look at the report of the hon.
member and his party and we will take all of that into
consideration in the formulation of a new policy.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister did not know for sure what it was but the other day he
said the buck or the puck or whatever it is stops with him.
I have news for the Prime Minister. The buck stops with the
Canadian people and they are fed up with governments that put
political survival before integrity. The guidelines are clear. We
have four different guidelines. Everyone of them makes it wrong
for a minister to telephone or influence a judge or a
quasi-judicial body in his control. That is clear. Yet we are not
getting an answer.
The Speaker: I would ask my hon. colleague to please put the
question.
Mr. Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister
promote public trust by giving the ethics counsellor full
independence and have him report directly to the House of
Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has the mandate to report to the
House of Commons once a year. He is invited to give advice to
all sorts of people. Members of Parliament, ministers,
everybody can consult him before doing something. These are
private conversations, for example, with any member of
Parliament who has a problem with conflict of interest. He is
there to give advice but he does not have to report on every case.
He gives advice to people. He gave advice to me.
At the end of the day I am responsible. Yes, I said the buck or
the puck stops with me and I do not run away when it is coming.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind the Prime Minister that he made a red book promise to
give the Canadian people an independent ethics counsellor. I do
not know why he is now so afraid of that independence.
Will the Prime Minister cut the political strings between his
office and the office of the ethics counsellor? If not, why not?
Also, how does he balance his response with his own needs and
the expectations of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the first time we have an ethics counsellor who will
report to the House of Commons once a year. He is there to
advise everybody, including myself.
He gave me advice and he gave advice to other people. It is up
to the person who received the advice to keep it or not, but at the
end of the day the decision is made by the minister or by the
Prime Minister. In this case it is me and I am not afraid to take
my responsibility.
7561
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The minister is aware of the situation in the harbour adjacent
to Massena, New York. Many seaway residents are worried
about the environmental damage which could be caused if the
safety measures taken do not control the PCB laden silt which
will be stirred up as a result of the proposed dredging.
I realize that the minister has stopped the dredging for now.
What guarantee can the minister give that she will not allow
resumption of any more dredging in the St. Lawrence near
Massena until it is proven absolutely safe for the people and the
environment in that area?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did announce
jointly yesterday with the Environmental Protection Agency of
the United States that there will be no dredging at Massena this
year. I can further assure the House that there will be no
dredging unless and until the Department of the Environment
and myself as minister are satisfied that there is absolutely no
risk to the health of Canadians.
There is no dredging this year. If there is any operation next
spring, and I want to thank the EPA and General Motors for their
co-operation and their assurances, no dredging will take place
where there is any risk of any PCB contamination.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Early last
October as speaker at a dinner sponsored by the western
transportation advisory committee, the Minister of Transport
made the following comment: ``Railway labour with grade eight
or nine education cannot be blamed for negotiating excessive
collective agreements''.
Does the minister realize that his remarks were an insult to the
62,000 rail workers in Canada and is he prepared to make a
public apology for his unacceptable and scornful comments?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because it
provides me with an opportunity to explain to him and to the
House exactly what was said.
I am from northern New Brunswick. From the time I was a kid
I have dealt with railroad workers. I know who negotiated the
contracts. I have listened to the stories of the people who
returned from the war and had to negotiate contracts with the
railway barons in the country.
What I said that night in Winnipeg was that never, no matter
how much pressure is exerted on the Minister of Transport, will
I ever point a finger at those men who worked very hard with
very limited educations to find a way to negotiate collective
agreements to protect their rights and to protect the rights of
others who worked on railroads in the country.
I said that government had to take its responsibilities and
management had to take its responsibilities. I did say, Mr.
Speaker, because it was the truth-I remember Bill Dunn telling
me exactly this in Tracadie in 1950-that it was very difficult
for people with grade eight and grade nine educations to sit with
people who were educated and who were in the pay of the
railroads of the country and try to negotiate collective
agreements to protect their rights.
I said then I would never attack the men who achieved that and
I will not now because they did what they had to do to protect
their rights.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, day after day we receive more copies of ethical
guidelines for cabinet ministers. None of them appear to be
unclear. None of them are contradictory. In fact, the current
guidelines from the PCO insist there be no intervening by
ministers with quasi-judicial bodies under their jurisdiction.
The letter tabled said intervention on it.
Now that the truth about guidelines has become obvious will
the Prime Minister admit that he has offended Canadians by
stripping his government of its integrity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made a speech on Monday and I explained the
guidelines, the distinction between the two. I have asked
everybody to table the letters and so on.
I think the people of Canada think the members of the Reform
Party are just trying to score some political points because they
cannot attack the government on its economic policy. They
cannot attack the government on the performance of the
economy. They cannot attack the government because
unemployment is down. They cannot attack the government
because the mood of the country is much better than it was a year
ago.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On October 20, 1993, five
days before the last federal election, the Prime Minister, then
leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to one of his
caucus members.
7562
In this letter the Prime Minister stated that Canada requires a
first rate transportation system that is able to serve every region.
He also stated that the PC government's continued tolerance to
rail line abandonment had done nothing to improve the
situation. He stated that the Liberal Party, if elected, would
clean up this mess.
(1500 )
The Minister of Transport has stated that he cannot answer my
call because he has 175 Liberal calls to answer first. In view of
that fact, could the Prime Minister intercede and make sure that
after December 15 the people in Saint John have a dayliner to
Moncton instead of a bus as promised by the Minister of
Transport?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member for Saint John, I have
been into her beautiful city on at least four or five occasions to
meet with people who have concerns about the transportation
system there.
I want to say to the hon. member that we are going to do
everything we can to continue to provide services to Saint John
and all other parts of the country. However, what we need to hear
are some solutions and proposals that make a lot more sense than
what was done over the last nine years by the party that she
represents.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jorma Huuhtanen, Minister of
Social Affairs and Health from Helsinki, Finland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Yesterday in this Chamber the Deputy Prime Minister quoted
from a letter I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
regarding the concern of one of my constituents without my
prior knowledge or permission or the prior knowledge or
permission of my constituent.
Mr. Speaker, in your deliberations as to whether what I raise
today constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, I ask that
you consider the following. Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation
115 reads:
A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the
first possible opportunity.
Because breaching the right of a member of Parliament is a
serious matter, before taking it any further I undertook to obtain
the transcript record of what transpired yesterday. I also
undertook to consult the legal counsel of the House regarding
what had occurred.
The Deputy Prime Minister and by making the aforesaid letter
available to her the Minister of Canadian Heritage breached
confidentiality and in so doing interfered with my ability to
function as a member of Parliament.
By breaching confidentiality the minister has called into
question whether or not issues on which my constituents ask my
assistance will be made public.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find this to be a prima facie question
of privilege. If you do so find, as is the usual practice of this
House as described in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 118, I
will move that this question of privilege be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the letters were
part of the public record of the CRTC.
The Speaker: I also will avail myself of the transcript of what
was said yesterday and I will seek advice. I will do research on it
and if necessary I will come back to the House with my decision
at the earliest time.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have been rising in my place for the last two days trying to get
the floor.
An hon. member: It is good exercise.
Mr. Blaikie: I have been getting the kind of exercise
somebody else was referring to earlier only I have been getting
more of it than I want.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall an argument I made to you earlier
in this session. I argued that the NDP caucus should be entitled
according to the mathematics of the opposition to at least a
question and a supplementary and a statement each day. We have
not come anywhere near that.
(1505)
This week we have only had two statements. I have to say that
I think the treatment of the NDP caucus in this Parliament by
you is abominable.
The Speaker: Every day in Question Period I attempt to see
that according to the approximate proportion each party has that
they get a chance to put questions. It is not always possible in
7563
every Question Period to recognize everyone who stands in this
House, although I must say in fairness that I have no difficulty
seeing the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
I would respectfully request that if the hon. member wishes to
pursue this case I invite him of course to see me at any time at his
convenience in my chambers. I would hope that the hon.
member would be a little judicious in his comments toward the
Chair.
I will do the best I can to see to it that all members get fair
treatment in this House as has been my want since I took this
Chair. I will see if I can make improvements on my
performance. I would surely urge all hon. members to seek to do
the same thing in theirs.
_____________________________________________
7563
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting to the House of Commons supplementary estimates
(b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, was presented by
the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Deputy
Speaker to the House.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(6) I move:
That supplementary estimates (b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995,
laid upon the table on this day, November 2, 1994, be referred to the several
standing committees of the House as follows:
(1510 )
This list being rather long and there being a detailed
allocation of the supplementary estimates (b) to the committees,
if it is agreeable to the House, I ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read. I will file a copy at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Natural Resources, Vote 10b, 20b, 30b, 35b and 40b
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 5b, 10b and 20b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1b, 10b and 30b
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 2b, L25b and 35b
To the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Finance, Vote 30b
To the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development
Environment, Vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes 1b, and 10b
Industry, Votes 1b, 2b, 10b, 70b, 75b, 80b and 90b
Western Economic Diversification, Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development
Human Resources Development, Votes 5b, 10b, 30b, 35b and
42b
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b and 25b
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b and 25b
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 10b, 70b, 75b, 125b and 140b
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Privy Council, Vote 1b
Parliament, Vote 1b
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 20b, 31b and 41b
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present five petitions I have recently
received from my constituents in the Ontario riding of
Victoria-Haliburton.
The first petition was sent to me by Dr. Jules Sobrien. It calls
upon Parliament among other things to refrain from any further
gun control legislation in the name of controlling crime which
would be of no value and would constitute unjust harassment of
lawful gun owners.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): The
second petition asks that Parliament amend the laws of Canada
to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture
of
7564
killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that
their product if destined for Canada will be seized and
destroyed.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): The third
petition asks that Parliament not amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): The
fourth petition asks that Parliament 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.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): The fifth
petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from many
hundreds of residents of my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
The petitioners plead that the crimes committed on society by
young offenders are on a serious uprise throughout all of Canada
and that there are certain elements in the young people of our
communities who have little or no respect for law and order and
the protection of life of their fellow citizens. The petitioners
abhor the lack of remorse or shame shown by many of the young
offenders within our communities.
The petitioners implore Parliament to review and revise our
laws with respect to the Young Offenders Act by at least
releasing the names and lowering the age to allow prosecution of
the young offenders in this country to meet the severity of the
crime.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions from constituents
in Williams Lake, British Columbia.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the
Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be vigorously
enforced.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): The
second petition calls upon Parliament not to amend the human
rights act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way
which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): The third
petition calls upon Parliament 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 concur with all of these petitions.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this afternoon,
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by a number of constituents of The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, all members of the Ukrainian
Catholic Women's Organization in The Battlefords.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the
following: Decriminalizing assisted suicide or legalizing
euthanasia could lead to a reduction of patient-physician trust
and respect, the degrading of the value of human life and the
erosion of moral and ethical values. Palliative care is active and
compassionate care which can relieve the pain and suffering of
terminally ill persons and families without the dangers of
suicide.
(1515 )
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament continue to
reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and
that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code
of Canada which prohibits the counselling, procuring, aiding or
abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced rigorously,
and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that
would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a number of
residents of various parts of Canada. The petition presented to
me states that Canadians for several decades have been provided
home delivery of their mail not by privatized post offices but by
Canada Post post offices.
Further, the recent introduction of supermailboxes has further
reduced and eroded post office services that all Canadians have
come to expect as a normal federal government service.
Therefore the undersigned petitioners pray and call on
Parliament to end privatized postal outlets and reinstate full
postal services and products normally provided by Canada Post
through sub post offices.
7565
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege of presenting two different petitions today.
One is signed by 387 of my constituents regarding the issue of
abortion. Now that an abortion clinic is opening across the street
from the Parliament Buildings the issue is receiving new life and
I hope higher priority on the political agenda.
My constituents are concerned that unborn human beings do
not receive the same protection as those who are allowed to be
born and they request that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child.
I too am concerned that there is currently no law in Canada
protecting unborn children.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have the privilege of presenting two additional petitions
today signed by 124 of my constituents.
Their concern has led them to sign a statement which says that
a majority of Canadians believe that same sex couples should
not receive the same privileges as heterosexual couples. They
also say that the Canadian human rights code should not be
amended to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I share their concerns and I want them to know that I concur
with their sentiments.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present three petitions to the House.
In the first one 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 which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia. I concur with this petition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has to do with the issue of sexual orientation.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation. I concur with this petition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition has to do with the rights of unborn human beings.
The petitioners of Mississauga South and the surrounding
area pray that Parliament 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 concur with this petition.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions.
The first petition is signed primarily by constituents of
Scarborough West but also surrounding areas. They pray and
request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Human Rights Act to include the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is signed primarily by residents of the town
of Frankford, Ontario who have requested me to bring this
petition to the attention of the House.
They have asked that Parliament 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.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is signed primarily by residents of Smiths
Falls, Perth and Lanark in Ontario. They have asked me to
present this petition for them.
(1520 )
The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I concur with all three of these petitions.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions on the matter of Leonard Peltier. One has 175 or so
7566
signatures, the other has 75. They are signed largely by people
from Peterborough riding but also from elsewhere in Ontario.
These people petition Parliament stating that at the time of the
Lakota-Chippewa native American Leonard Peltier's
extradition from Canada to the U.S., the information provided
surrounding Mr. Peltier's case was fabricated by U.S.
authorities. Since that time new information has emerged that
indicates that Leonard Peltier was not guilty of the crimes for
which he has spent the last 18 years in prison.
Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament hold an
external review of the 1976 extradition hearing and that he be
brought back to Canada for asylum.
I would like to say the last time I presented one of these
petitions I made the point that an internal review is already
under way but I would stress that these petitioners want an
external review.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am presenting three petitions for
my constituents in the Collingwood-Stayner area.
The first petition contains 67 signatures and calls on the
government to amend the Criminal Code to extend to unborn
children the same protection enjoyed by born human beings.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition contains 63 signatures and calls on the
government not to amend the human rights code in relation to
the recognition of same sex relations.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition contains 60 signatures and calls on the
government to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal
Code with regard to assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
to make no changes to the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege for me to stand this afternoon to present two
petitions.
The first petition is signed by residents of my constituency of
Regina-Lumsden, as well as the communities of Copper Sands
and Pilot Butte in Saskatchewan. Pursuant to Standing Order 36,
this petition is duly certified and states that whereas under
section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted
murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of
parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after 15 years and
that the murder of a Canadian citizen is the most reprehensible
crime, these petitioners request that Parliament repeal section
745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition I have to present today pertains to the Senate.
The petitioners are from the constituency of
Regina-Lumsden primarily. They believe that the Senate,
being unelected and unaccountable, has become a home of
recipients of Tory and Liberal patronage, and has been a
discarded notion of a working body in the best interests of
Canadian taxpayers over the past number of years. Because the
Senate costs $54 million to $55 million per year to Canadian
taxpayers, and that travel costs for senators alone are nearly $3
million, these petitioners request, pray and beg the House of
Commons, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of
Canada to abolish the Senate.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions to
the House today.
In the first, petitioners pray and request that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes in law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners pray
and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human
rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
It is my pleasure to present these to the House.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 71 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 71-Mr. Caccia:
With respect to the World Cup Soccer games and the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC), (a) did CBC submit any bid for TV broadcasting in Canada for
the 1994 games, (i) if yes, how much did it bid, (ii) if no, why not and (b) will CBC
commit itself to compete for broadcasting rights in Canada for the 1998 World Cup
soccer games?
7567
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): (a)
no; (ii) the CBC did not bid for any of the 1994 World Cup soccer
games because its summer schedule was already very heavily
committed to sports, particularly the 100 hours of coverage
from the Victoria Commonwealth Games; (b) at this point it is
too early for such a decision.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1525 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary requests
that the notice of motion be allowed to stand. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7567
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported (with
amendments) from a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Here is the Speaker's ruling on Bill
C-50. Five motions in amendment are listed in the Notice Paper
at the report stage of Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted
on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be debated and voted on
separately.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to the House.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10, on page 2,
the following;
``(1.1) The Board shall recommend to the Governor in Council a rate to be
fixed for deductions pursuant to subsection (1) after consultation with
persons or organizations that in the opinion of the Board represent the
holders of certificates and the Governor in Council shall take into
consideration the recommendation of the Board in fixing a rate for
deductions pursuant to subsection (1).''
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 46, on page
3, with the following:
``by giving notice in the application for a permit book for the period that no
deduction should be made for the period.''
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 to19, on page
4,with the following:
``33.5 A deduction fixed by the Governor in Council shall apply at the same rate to
all holders of certificates in the designated area.''
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
two amendments that we propose regarding Bill C-50, an Act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, are cautionary measures.
Indeed, some protection must be provided to agricultural
producers.
The purpose of the bill is to allow the Canadian Wheat Board
to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final
payment cheques. The purpose of these deductions, or check
offs, is to finance plant breeding research. Contributions will be
made on a voluntary basis.
Since the bill meets the expectations of western producers, we
can only applaud this initiative which imparts a responsibility to
agricultural producers. However, some provisions deserve a
closer look and we should even be prepared to amend those if
need be. This is the case with the provision concerning check
offs for research.
(1530)
The initial provision provides that the Canadian Wheat Board
shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council and at such
rate as is fixed by him, make the deduction. The danger with this
provision is that the Governor in Council may unnecessarily
increase the deduction and reduce the federal government's own
research budget, thus forcing producers to shoulder a heavier
burden. In that case, agricultural producers would have to make
a greater contribution to research funding.
Based on the original rate, that is 40 cents on each tonne of
barley sold and 20 cents on each ton of wheat sold, and based on
the assumption that 90 per cent of farmers will voluntarily
participate in this funding scheme to promote research and
development, contributions should total $4.5 million.
7568
The Canadian government currently provides between $17.4
and $17.5 million. Consequently, a total amount of about $22
million could be allocated to research on wheat and barley in the
four western provinces. Again, my fear is that cabinet might
decide to increase farmers' payments and lower the federal
government's contribution. Should that happen, farmers would
have to fund a greater proportion of the research and
development budget. I may recall that in a speech made here in
the House, Eugene Whelan, a former Liberal Minister of
Agriculture, who has made quite a name for himself throughout
the world, said that there is a return of seven dollars on every
dollar invested in research and development in the agricultural
industry.
The government should invest now in research and
development, because no bank in Canada will give us a better
return on our investment. The government could, of course, take
advantage of this opportunity to cut its research budget as a
deficit reduction measure, in the knowledge that it can tap the
incomes of grain producers for the funding it needs.
To preclude this possibility, we in the Bloc Quebecois suggest
that the CWB conduct consultations with individuals and
organizations that represent certificate holders so that the board
itself can make recommendations on the rate of deduction to the
Governor in Council, who would then consider such
recommendations when the time comes to fix the rate as
provided in subsection (1) of the Act. In addition to providing
safeguards for producers, this would also benefit consumers
who, in the end, have to pay, because if the producers have to
spend more on research, consumer prices may very well be
affected.
This amendment will require genuine consultations with the
principal parties, people in the industry who are in the best
position to know what a reasonable deduction would be and what
our research and development needs are. In any case, I may
remind the House that farm producers in the four Western
provinces are entirely free to say yes or no to this voluntary
deduction, which will be used to collect $4.5 million for
research and development. Should the Governor in Council start
throwing his weight around, I assume farm producers will
simply decide not to participate.
(1535)
The amendment also gives producers some say in determining
the amount of the deduction, and since this bill is a response to
their initiative, it is entirely fair that this should be the case.
We are aware that the Canadian Wheat Board, an agency
established to defend the interests of producers, consults
producers on decisions as important as setting the deduction
rate. But this is only to make it automatic and include it in Bill
C-50.
I would go as far as saying that our amendment proposal will
give the Canadian Wheat Board enhanced legitimacy vis-a-vis
the Governor in Council, as it should be the case on the issue
before us today.
My proposal is clear: to allow those who are the most
qualified to set the rate of deduction do so. These are my
arguments in favour of Motion No. 1 and I would like to take this
opportunity to thank my colleague from Lotbinière, who sits
with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food, for seconding Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Now, turning to the famous Motion No. 4 put forward by the
hon. member for Vegreville, it is important to note that this
motion introduces two significant changes to Bill C-50. First,
we eliminate the red tape and make life easier for producers.
I imagine that the situation is no different in Western Canada
than in Quebec. In my riding, indeed everywhere in Quebec,
producers and voters ask us ten times a week: ``Why make
things so complicated?'' This is one such case. When it comes to
withdrawing from the deductions plan, why make life difficult
for our farm producers? What my colleague from the Reform
Party, the hon. member for Vegreville, is proposing here makes a
lot of sense. It will cut the red tape.
Motion No. 4 deals with the procedure for opting out of the
voluntary deductions plan to support research. The bill provides
for filing a separate notice to withdraw from the program,
whereas it is suggested here that this notice be given in the
permit book that producers have to fill in when they sell their
crop to the board. There should be space provided at the bottom;
you check off one or two boxes and there you have it.
This makes life easier for producers who do not wish to
contribute to research, and spares doing unnecessary
paperwork. But there should be a space provided specifically for
this purpose inside the book, in order not to make life unduly
difficult for the board.
I would like to conclude by saying that, with this amendment,
producers will have to decide whether or not to continue
contributing to the research fund at the wrong time of the year.
That is to say, when they see their income for the year. But since
this is the risk you take with a voluntary contribution plan, I will
vote for this amendment.
(1540)
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to the three amendments in the
first package today, amendments 1, 4 and 5.
I will start with amendment No.1 which puts in this bill a
requirement for consultation with the people who would be
affected by research done with the money collected through this
fund established by the Canadian Wheat Board.
7569
There is need for consultation. Certainly my concern with that
amendment is that by putting it in the act it may lead to more
consultation than is necessary. I say that because in this case the
check off is refundable. Because of its refundable nature I
suggest that when the research foundation is setting the level of
funding it should be careful to make sure that the level is
reasonable.
Because of the refundable nature I think this amendment is
not needed and may cause a lot of extra bureaucracy beyond
what is necessary. For this reason I do not think I can support
this amendment, although I do recognize the need for
consultation.
Another concern is that it still leaves the power to make the
decision in terms of the level of the check off in the hands of the
governor in council. The power should be left strictly in the
hands of the Western Grains Research Foundation, the
organization that will allocate the funding for research. For that
reason I cannot support that amendment.
Amendment No. 4 is the Reform amendment which, as the
Bloc member has stated very clearly and very well, would
simplify the process that farmers would have to go through in
order to get a refund for their research funding.
This amendment would put on the permit book application
form, which every grain farmer receives every year, another box
and require the farmer to check off the box if they want to get a
refund on their check off for this particular year.
Some argue that it is really not a problem for a farmer to write
a letter for a check off. As a grain farmer I know that farmers are
inundated with stacks of letters and requests, a tremendous
amount of book work they do not ask for. This would just be
another piece of paper, another duty, another responsibility,
another process they would have to go through to do business. I
think there is far too much government interference right now.
Certainly farmers would appreciate this simplification of the
process. I believe simplifying the process of refund would be
very worthwhile in this bill.
Amendment No. 5 put forth by the NDP is really asking for the
wheat board to have complete control to interfere with check
offs that are presently in place. For example, right now the
western barley growers have a refundable check off through the
Alberta Barley Commission. Barley farmers selling barley in
Alberta already have a check off in place. This amendment
would require that the people selling barley would have a check
off by the wheat board as well as by the Alberta Barley
Commission. For that reason it would cause a double check off
or would cause the barley growers to give up their check off.
(1545 )
It is a general Reform principle that the closer to the people
one can put decision making, the better the decision will be. In
this case I believe it would be better to leave it in the hands of the
barley producers in Alberta, just as an example, instead of
requiring that all the check offs are done through the Canadian
Wheat Board.
I cannot and will not support this amendment because it is just
another move to put the power in the hands of this huge
bureaucratic monopoly. I can in no way endorse that. Leave it in
the hands of the Alberta Barley Commission for example.
I will leave my comments at that. I certainly look forward to
speaking on this bill again at third reading.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on this grouping of amendments.
One is from the member for Frontenac. He proposes to set up a
group with whom the wheat board would consult before setting
the rate of the deductions that are provided for under this act. I
commend the hon. member for his concern about consultation.
However I remind him and the House that there is a group that
provides consultation and advice to the board now. It is the
advisory committee and the board would be asking for that
group's advice.
The board will also be asking for advice and
recommendations from the Western Grain Research Fund. It
makes certain there is no duplication in the research efforts that
go into plant breeding and the research programs that gravitate
around plant breeding, whether it is to establish what methods
and levels of fertilization should be utilized or what genetic
changes should be searched for in order to avoid disease and to
get better productivity and yields and to come to fruition in a
shorter growing period.
Therefore there is in place already the kind of organization the
hon. member for Frontenac envisions. I am sure it will be put to
that purpose.
With regard to Motion No. 4, essentially the member for
Vegreville is proposing to make it fairly simple for people to opt
out of paying into this program. I have no personal problems
with that. I would remind the hon. member that if he is going to
support the idea of raising money for research through check
offs that asking people if they want to save some money when
they are applying for their permit book will almost always get
the response: ``Of course I want to save some money. I will not
bother allowing the check off to occur''. It will depend on how
that part of the application form is drawn to the farmers'
attention as to whether they do or do not decide to participate in
the check off.
7570
My motion proposes that a deduction fixed by the governor in
council shall apply at the same rate to all holders of certificates
in the designated area. First there should be a little bit of
translation as to what that means.
Holders of certificates are people who are eligible for a final
payment under the wheat board for the four pools that exist for
various types of barley and wheat. These are people who will
have a final payment accrue to them at the end of the crop year
when there is a surplus that has accrued from the sales and
marketing activities of the wheat board. That surplus is
distributed on the basis of how many tonnes of each grade and
variety the farmer delivered.
(1550 )
This act is proposing to take a certain amount from each of
those pools which would go into specific research which would
be designated and allocated by the Western Grain Research
Fund. This works in conjunction with the other granting
agencies which set out the programs that will receive public
funding for research, whether it is for plant research as in this
case, or for engineering or other disciplines throughout the
country.
I am proposing this motion because the act as written now
permits some parts of the wheat board designated area, which
for those who do not know what that is, it is essentially the
prairie region plus the mountain valleys and the valleys running
into Thunder Bay in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta
and British Columbia. It is essentially the northern end of the
great plains region. The climate and the soil and the farming
technique there is such that most of the varietal research that
will be done will be only applicable to that region. Therefore the
plant varieties we develop for that region are usually of no
application to regions in the rest of Canada. It is a nice, clear cut
area whose economic interest in the area of plant breeding is
basically the same.
The province of Alberta has decided to take a check off for
barley and some types of wheat. That exists and is possible
under provincial legislation. It is Alberta's constitutional right
to do so. If we are going to take an action as a federal Parliament
with a federal program, it should apply to all of the area the
program is designed to cover. There should not be written into
the law the ability for some regions to opt out. If some regions
want to use their powers under the Constitution to do a similar
thing, so be it.
We have plenty of examples of how that has been applied. For
instance, when the GST was applied it was applied at the same
rate right across the country, even though it was a tax on
consumer goods and some of the provinces already had
consumer taxes on consumer goods. However there was no
recognition that because for example Newfoundland had a 9 per
cent provincial sales tax that we would not bother to collect it in
Newfoundland because those taxpayers were already
contributing to the tax system in Newfoundland.
I think it is inappropriate for us to put forward federal
legislation that will apply to all of the wheat board designated
region that covers as I said basically the northern plains of North
America. That is a very concise and well-defined region that has
very clearly defined needs because of climate, geography and
agrology for basically the same services. It makes no sense to
have a separate rule for growers of some crops in some of the
provinces.
Therefore, I would expect that there would be considerable
interest in the House to try to apply the rules equitably and fairly
across all the regions. I presume I would get support for this very
logical motion.
Alberta growers may wish to continue with the activities they
have been carrying out under their check off system which is
different in many respects from the check off for research that
this program is collecting for. As an example, the Alberta
program only contributes less than half of their collected
moneys to actual research and the the rest is either held in trust
or used for administrative costs. With this program however we
have been assured by the promoters at the department of
agriculture that virtually all of the funds will be allocated for
research through the Western Grain Research Fund.
(1555 )
If my amendment does not pass, I do not think it is fair for the
contributors in Alberta under the proposal to contribute a lesser
amount to the research needs of the area and still benefit from
the activities of the surrounding areas. Barley growers in
Alberta will benefit just as much as barley growers in British
Columbia or Saskatchewan from the research that is done on
barley varieties. Yet if we go along with the way the bill is
currently drafted without my amendment they will be paying
less toward research for the same benefit as everyone else gets.
I have no objection to Alberta growers taxing themselves by
means of a check off to perform their political, administrative,
and other activities the fund is now engaged in. However they
should not expect the rest of us in the other provinces to finance
the research and to give them the benefits from barley research
they will get by opting out.
I urge members of the House to support this motion because it
makes sense, because it is fair, because it is the cheapest way to
get the most bucks for research. This will work if Alberta
farmers pay the same rate as Saskatchewan farmers, as
Manitoba farmers, as farmers in the rest of the wheat board
designated area. I urge support for this because I think the only
way the federal government and the federal jurisdiction can
continue to receive the kind of respect this country ought to
receive is if we treat them all in an equitable manner.
7571
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, it is now the turn of the
government to speak. I do not see anybody standing on the
government side. I take it there is nobody wishing to speak. Is
the minister of agriculture intending to speak? It would be his
turn to speak now.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to speak with respect
to both groupings of amendments. However, with the
permission of the House I would prefer to wait until all relevant
comments have been made so that I could respond to them all
together, once I have heard all members of the opposition on the
points they wish to raise.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois wishes to express its concerns about Bill C-50, an
Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which provides
for deductions from the board's wheat sales in the four Western
provinces and from barley sales in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
British Columbia.
We certainly agree with the principle that this sector should
contribute to research and development and with an initiative
that could generate close to $5 million for plant breeding
research on wheat and barley. Especially since this initiative
was put in place by the producers themselves, who will thus
remain competitive with their counterparts in countries where
plant breeding research is strongly encouraged. I am thinking in
particular of American, European and Australian producers,
who played a leading role in reviving government plant breeding
programs. That is why a deduction program is vital to Western
producers.
However, we are entitled to ask a few questions. While the
government really meets this sector's needs by promising to
contribute to the research fund, it should not withdraw later
because it is a producers' initiative. We must see to it that our
interests are truly protected.
(1600)
That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to this
bill which, as you will see, my colleagues from other parties will
readily approve. Again, they are aimed at protecting producers'
interests.
The first amendment provides that it should be clearly stated
in the act that the board must consult with producers before
changing rates, for example. If it seems obvious to you, then the
government should have no objection to putting this in writing
in the act. This would provide extra protection for producers. We
must ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board always consults
producers' associations before recommending changes in
deduction rates. The democratic right of any association of
producers to be consulted should be respected.
The second amendment is necessary to prevent the
department's research projects from duplicating or overlapping
the industry's. We are told that those concerned in the farming
community will discuss the research plans in order to avoid
duplication and overlap and ensure that the funded projects are
complementary. The bill says nothing about this and that is why
this amendment is essential. We in Quebec have seen too much
wishful thinking to believe that the government will always act
logically. The Minister of Finance has told us often enough that
the government's financial resources are limited. A good way to
avoid wasting public funds is to make duplicate research
impossible.
We all want to reduce the deficit. When an opportunity to
avoid waste presents itself, we should seize it! If you refuse to
adopt this amendment, the people will judge you and you will be
accused of lax handling of the funds provided by the producers.
What we are asking for is a simple effort so that the government
does not subsidize the same research activity twice. Show some
resolve to end waste-that is what the people expect of us in
general and the government in particular.
The Reform Party presented two motions with which we
agree. Having the minister table a report will show that the
producers and the government actually co-operate. However,
we consider the fifth amendment unacceptable. Alberta set up
its own program and, considering that we keep asking the
government to put an end to duplication and overlapping, we
would be ill-advised to let that government impose its program
on a province which already funds research through
contributions from its producers.
It would be useless to compete with the provincial initiative in
Alberta. Quebec's example should be eloquent enough to
understand the absurdity of such overlapping. In our province,
the federal government never stopped trying to control
agriculture. It has been told time and again that the Quebec
government already supports farmers. Yet, the federal
government is involved in market development as well as in
research activities, even though the Quebec government is
already looking after these aspects. The same is true for
activities related to the inspection of agricultural products. Let
us reject this amendment so that Alberta can avoid such
problems with overlapping.
As for the other amendments, the bill would become a lot
more acceptable if they were supported. As we say back home,
you cannot be against virtue.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on
these amendments as they have been grouped today.
I am particularly pleased that the minister of agriculture has
indicated that he wishes to listen to all the presentations before
responding. I certainly respect that position. I am quite
appreciative of the fact that the minister is present today and that
he is
7572
taking note of what is being said in response to these
amendments.
(1605 )
I would like to take advantage of that circumstance to indicate
that the majority of farmers I have talked to throughout my
constituency have asked me on as many occasions as I can to
speak strongly in favour of a strengthened Canadian Wheat
Board and to convey to the minister their concerns that the
current debate about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is
one that they have expressed opinions upon for numerous years
by their continual support for the board and its activities.
In fact they would prefer a bill in front of the House today that
did not deal with check off but dealt with expanded powers for
the Canadian Wheat Board, powers that included marketing
jurisdiction for oats as in the past and perhaps for canola and
other products as well.
On behalf of many hundreds of producers in my constituency
who have discussed this matter with me, I would certainly urge
the minister to consider bringing forward another bill in the near
future to take into account those very issues of expanding and
enhancing the jurisdiction and role of the Canadian Wheat
Board.
In particular, I want to add a few words to what my colleague
from Mackenzie said in direct response to the amendment,
Motion No. 5, that he has put in front of the House for
consideration and debate today. That concerns the application of
the check off to all holders of certificates within the designated
area.
The member for Mackenzie spoke very well. I support his
arguments about the need for the act to have a blanket
application to producers supplying the Canadian Wheat Board
with product for sale and therefore not dealing with the
exemption for certain Alberta producers who as the member for
Vegreville indicated already have a check off in place.
Perhaps when the minister makes his remarks he could
address this issue and give the House some information about
why the check off for Alberta producers exists in the first place.
I wonder if we know specifically what the Alberta check off is
for. We know that the federal check off proposed in the
legislation is for breeding research, that the funds that are
collected will go specifically for research into plant breeding. Is
the Alberta check off for the same specific purpose? If not, why
are the Alberta producers not participating in this breeding
research program?
Will Alberta producers not benefit from the research that will
be commissioned by the WGRF? We do not know if Alberta has
plans to continue in perpetuity the check off within that province
for its producers.
Under this legislation, if for any reason the Alberta check off
were discontinued, would Alberta producers continue to enjoy
the exemption allowed by the current legislation or do they
automatically get picked up by this legislation?
I believe that we need the blanket provisions. Alberta
producers should recognize that the benefits that they would
receive under this program are the same as if they were living
anywhere else in Canada.
I want to reiterate the point that my colleague from
Mackenzie made because it is a most appropriate one. When we
look at the way other federal legislation has applied, the Goods
and Services Tax Implementation Act is a very good example.
If we applied the same principle to agricultural check off
programs as we applied in the introduction of the GST, we would
find that the GST would apply only in the province of Alberta,
the only province that did not have a pre-existing tax in place as
a result of other legislation.
(1610 )
All the provinces, with the exception of Alberta, have a sales
tax. If the federal government was applying tax appropriately
across the country then obviously the GST could not have
applied in other provinces, only in Alberta. It is an interesting
point and I think the minister of agriculture might want to give
some indication whether or not he would agree with or support
that premise.
It is obvious that I am anxious to support the amendment put
forward by my colleague from Mackenzie. I look forward to
additional legislation that may come forward from the minister
of agriculture concerning a stronger and enhanced Canadian
Wheat Board.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-50 and the
amendments. In particular, I would like to address my comments
to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. First I would like to go back a little
bit and share with the House my history of involvement with a
check off program in the riding I am pleased to represent.
One position I held prior to being elected to this exalted place
was with an organization called the B.C. Grain Producers
Association. I was a founding member of the organization. I was
the first vice-president when it was first formed and
subsequently became president of that organization. Over the
years, as any struggling organization does, we had to try and sell
memberships and raise money to keep the organization running.
We had a number of ongoing projects.
One we always wanted to get involved in was in the area of
varietal trials and research at local levels. There were always
problems with the government operated research farms in areas
that did not necessarily conduct research applicable to the Peace
River region of British Columbia. We wanted to carry that
7573
research one step further by conducting trials in our area on a
field scale.
Over a number of years we came up with a plan to lobby the
provincial government to allow the B.C. Grain Producers
Association to enact a check off that would automatically come
off producers' cheques at the time their product was delivered to
the elevators. This check off is now in place and has been for a
number of years. It is working quite well, I might add.
I would like to address some concerns that have been raised by
my colleague from Vegreville and other members. One real
strength of the operation of the check off in the B.C. Peace has
been that it is local and is administered at a local level. In other
words, the farmers have the option of electing councillors to a
regional council that oversees how the money is spent. The
problem my colleague from Vegreville mentioned was that once
you go beyond that and have a bureaucracy in some distant place
administering the money, there is concern with the local
producers that they lose control of how that money is spent and
whether they get the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
Local producers supported the check off because they could
visibly see how their money was being spent. As we moved
forward and were able to purchase specialized equipment for
plots to expand different varieties of wheat, barley, canola and
other grains, we could readily drive by the fields in our area and
see how different varieties were producing in comparison to one
another. That was a real benefit to the producers.
(1615 )
Subsequently we found that there were very few people who
opted out at the end of the year because the check off was and is
fully refundable. However, what we found, because it was a
local organization, was that at our annual meetings we could
certainly do a good selling job to the local producers of what
they were getting for their investment. Subsequently we found
that very few wanted their money back out of the check off
pooling fund.
I am certainly in support of the fact that this check off is
totally refundable, as is the one in B.C. However, I am very
concerned about the process. I think that is addressed in
amendment No. 4 put forward by my colleague and the amount
of the extra paperwork. In other words, make it as easy as
possible for farmers to opt out of it because after all if it is not
easy for them to get their money out they will view this as just
another form of taxation, just another expense for them. They
have to be convinced to see it as an investment in their future.
All of us in the agricultural industry certainly understand that
we have to have and have to find the funds in these days of
increasing problems with the government funds being available
for research and development. We have to find them elsewhere.
Producers are willing to do that as long as they can see the
results. To do that we certainly want to pass amendment No. 4
which would allow that there would be as little paperwork as
possible to allow the producers to opt out should they decide
they are not getting the best investment for their dollar.
The other thing I would like to briefly touch on is the
amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie in
allowing certain groups that already have a check off in place an
exemption from it. We had concerns when we were holding
meetings in our area of the B.C. Peace region trying to convince
producers to come on board and support this thing. We actually
had to pass a referendum of the producers before the B.C.
government would pass the legislation to allow that check off.
They insisted, and rightly so, that the producers supported the
concept. To do that the B.C. Grain Producers Association had to
go out and hold meetings and actually convince the farmers of
the necessity of this and that it would certainly be worthwhile
over the long haul.
We did that but one of the real concerns that was expressed to
us time and time again was if we vote in favour of this what is to
prevent next time another check off by the Canadian Wheat
Board or the prairie wheat growers and the list could go on and
on. That was the major concern that they voted for with the
understanding that there would be no further check offs.
I am quite insistent that we should oppose amendment No. 5
put forward by the member for Mackenzie because it does allow
those areas that already have an existing check off the option of
trying to get the exemption and not having a double check off put
in place.
With that bit of history with my involvement with the check
off I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed and appreciated
the opportunity to listen to the remarks that have been delivered
by all members with respect to three of the motions that are
before us, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 4 and Motion No. 5.
I will confine my remarks at this point in the debate to those
three specific motions. I understand we will have a chance later
this afternoon to talk about motions 2 and 3.
First, with respect to motion No. 1 proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, this motion would in effect impose a duty for the
Canadian Wheat Board, not the Western Grains Research
Foundation, to consult with respect to the amount of levies and
to make certain recommendations.
(1620 )
The motion would effectively make the Canadian Wheat
Board more than simply an administrator of the check off
program. In the development of this program proposal and in the
lengthy consultations with farm organizations, it was
recognized that the Canadian Wheat Board is a marketing
institution and not a research agency. Therefore the role of the
board in this particular research initiative should be purely
administrative.
7574
This has been explicitly discussed and agreed to by all of the
farm organizations involved in this initiative.
The Western Grains Research Foundation as a matter of
practice consults with its membership on all significant business
matters. In turn, the member organizations that are a part of the
WGRF consult with their producer membership to gauge
support for all of the foundation's activities.
It was that kind of consultation that resulted in the
accumulation of a very broad base of farmer support for the
check off proposal presently contained in Bill C-50. Should
there be any discussion in the future about altering the levy rates
from where they will originally be established, there is an
obvious and ready mechanism to consult with producers and
with producer organizations. That mechanism is the Western
Grains Research Foundation, its board, its member
organizations and their broad based farm membership at the
grassroots level.
This amendment in effect would contradict the agreement and
the consensus that exist for implementation of this particular
research initiative. Therefore it is not possible for the
government to support the amendment because it would
contradict that consensus and that agreement.
In addition, we view the amendment as unnecessary in any
event because that ready consultative process is already in place
through the apparatus and the means of the WGRF.
Motion No. 4 proposed by the Reform Party has to do with the
method by which a producer could effectively opt out of the
check off procedure.
The resolution that is proposed in motion No. 4 really deals
with an operational matter, the method of operation for the
check off program. It seems to me that is something which
producer groups should decide upon for themselves.
It is my understanding that the Western Grains Research
Foundation board of directors has reviewed the motion that is
before us at this moment in Motion No. 4. It has considered very
seriously the arguments and the rationale put forward by the
Reform Party and by others who support the motion. The board
of directors of the Western Grains Research Foundation has
decided that it would by far prefer to retain the opt out
mechanism which is envisaged in the bill and envisaged in its
business plan.
The rationale for taking this position on the part of the WGRF
is really three fold. First of all, when a person merely has to put a
check mark in a box, opting out may be done without a lot of
serious consideration going into that decision. Support for
agricultural research is in the view of the government and in the
view of the WGRF a serious matter and it is important that a
conscious decision be made by producers whether to participate
in the program. Merely ticking off a box in the wheat board
permit book application form may not provide the opportunity
for that serious consideration.
Second, writing a letter by a prescribed date is not a very
onerous obligation. It does show that the individual has given
some thought to the matter and has made a conscious decision to
opt out and that evidence of that conscious decision is in the
form of the letter.
(1625 )
Third, the opting out mechanism that is envisaged in the bill
and in the business plan for the WGRF is consistent with
virtually all other existing check off mechanisms and
procedures. It is obviously consistent with the wishes of the
WGRF and the 12 farm organizations that make up the WGRF.
This is my final point with respect to motion No. 4. It is also
important to recognize this amendment would effectively
restrict the producer's ability to opt out, to make that judgement
call to one specific moment in time. That moment in time would
be when the permit book application form is actually being
filled out.
The other procedure as we have envisioned it under the terms
of the bill and under the business plan of the WGRF would allow
the producer more time and more flexibility with respect to
making this decision. If the producer had to just tick off the box
on the permit book application form, that decision would have to
be taken effectively 18 months before the check off would
become effective.
The check off becomes effective when the final payment is
made, which is basically in January after the end of the crop
year. The permit book application form must be filled in before
the crop year begins, about 18 months prior to the date upon
which the check off would occur. It seems to me that is a time
gap that is unreasonable and limits the producer's flexibility and
the timeliness of the producer's decision.
Accordingly, for those reasons we are not in a position to
support Motion No. 4.
Finally, with respect to Motion No. 5, I certainly would agree
with the general comment that the check off systems presently
available in the province of Alberta are somewhat less focused
in their objectives and more costly in terms of their
administration than the check off system being proposed in Bill
C-50.
However, the scope of Bill C-50 effectively embodies an
agreement that has been reached among 12 producer
organizations in western Canada. Part of this agreement, this
consensus among producers, is that the activities of the WGRF
check off system will not impinge on other established check off
schemes.
7575
In developing the consensus necessary to implement this
program, the WGRF directors were in unanimous agreement
that the program should not overlap upon the activities of other
existing check off programs. This means that where existing
check offs are in place with respect to Alberta barley and Alberta
soft wheat, the WGRF will not make a check off.
The WGRF and existing agencies that are funded by other
check offs have agreed among themselves that they will
co-operate with each other. They will co-ordinate their research
activities to make sure that research dollars from producers,
whether collected under one check off or the other check off, are
used in the most cost effective and efficient manner to the
advantage of grain producers.
This is essentially a producer decision about a producer
program. It is not appropriate in my opinion to alter the program
in a manner that explicitly contradicts the consensus upon which
the program was developed. Part of that consensus at the outset
was that there should be no overlap.
I appreciate the comments that have been made by hon.
members on Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5. I regret for the reasons I
have already stated the government is not in a position to
support these motions. I acknowledge that in putting forward
these motions to amend Bill C-50, hon. members have done so
in a conscientious and sincere manner. Their close attention to
the subject matter is much appreciated.
(1630)
Mr. Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since
we will have to make a decision on how to vote on the basis of
the minister's wonderful remarks, I wonder if he would tell us
what method he is going to be using to assure that producers of
barley, for instance, in Alberta will pay exactly the same amount
into-
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
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
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social programs reform; the
hon. member for Beaver River-Ethics; the hon. member for
Mackenzie-Child care; and the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona-Railway workers.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
7576
That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 47, on page 2,
the following:
``(5.1) The research funding agency shall not distribute moneys received by
it pursuant to subsection (3) to persons or plant breeding centres for a
research purpose unless the research funding agency, after reasonable
inquiries, has determined that the information to be sought by the research is
not and is not likely, as a result of other research, to become available to
holders of certificates.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, the second amendment we wish to
present in the House this afternoon, seconded by the hon.
member for Lotbinière, is aimed mainly at preventing
duplication by the various organizations that are awarded
research contracts and also any duplication of research carried
out by the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
(1635)
Under Bill C-50, the Canadian Wheat Board will be
responsible for distributing monies received as a result of
deductions from producer income. The Board will distribute
such monies among the various centres engaged in developing
new and improved wheat varieties.
The purpose of our amendment is to make it clear that the
agency must, after reasonable inquiries, have determined that
the information to be sought by the research is not, and is not
likely, as a result of other research, to become available to the
producers. In other words, we must make sure we are not paying
twice for the same research. To do so, we need consultation
between the research funding agencies.
Take the example of Agriculture Canada conducting research
on possible alternate processing of red wheat. If the Canadian
Wheat Board does not make the necessary inquiries, it might
provide funds to an agency in order for it to carry out similar
research, and producers would end up paying twice for research
seeking the same information.
This measure would also oblige Agriculture Canada to carry
out its research mandate on behalf of producers. If private
agencies wish to receive research funds from the CWB, they will
clearly have to align their research activities with the interests
of producers, who ultimately are the ones making the
recommendations. Thus, if Agriculture Canada does not carry
out its mandate well, independent research agencies will step in
to meet producers' needs.
The Canadian Wheat Board will be obliged to increase the
amounts given to independent agencies and to increase the
contribution from producers, who will again pay for a
duplication of services. If producers see their contributions
increasing unduly, that would be a good sign that Agriculture
Canada was not meeting the needs of the clients it serves,
because private agencies would have to take over the
department's work.
As set out initially in the bill, however, the measure allows
Agriculture Canada to diversify its areas of research. If, for
example, grain production picked up substantially and for this
reason more research than earmarked for the sector was
necessary, another sector might suffer. This could happen to
dairy producers, for instance.
This bill give producers a chance to have research conducted
on demand. With the element of information we are adding, it
would be very interesting to see that organizations eligible for
CWB grants do not need such grants because the Minister of
Agriculture satisfies any requirement this farm production
sector may have. It could mean that other sectors are probably
being neglected.
(1640)
Our proposal is designed to prevent Agriculture Canada from
focusing on one single aspect of grain production in terms of
research. One potential risk that should be kept in mind and
could be countered with our amendment proposal is that larger
producers end up running the show at the expense of smaller
ones. Insofar as the voluntary contribution is based on the
number of tonnes of wheat sold, larger producers will inevitably
make larger contributions to this fund because they produce
more than the others.
If research is not adequately suited to the needs of smaller
producers, the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to react to
this threat. Since it will be monitoring the research activities, it
will know exactly what is the fruit of the research it is
supporting.
In closing, I would like to point out that initiatives such as
those put forth with respect to Bill C-50, which show a
commitment on the part of producers to assume responsibility
for themselves, are encouraging. To sit idly by and wait for the
department to resolve our problems is not a very effective
approach, in my view.
The cautionary measure we want to include in this bill is
simply aimed at greater protection. The Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food must not see this measure as an excuse to neglect
his duty to Western grain producers to promote research.
In closing, may I remind you that producers will contribute to
this research fund on a strictly voluntary basis. If the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food ever abuses the good faith of grain
producers, he will live to regret it. There will be a protest
movement, producers will withdraw, and he will end up
financing research and development by himself.
Partnership is another key to success in research and
development. When producers are directly involved in research,
development, or co-operation, they co-operate wholeheartedly.
Farmers, as is well known, are the workers who show the most
solidarity in Canada, or at least in Quebec. I personally can tell
you that if the Minister of Agriculture still thinks that he has a
monopoly on truth, he is sorely mistaken.
7577
The amendments proposed in this House by the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party and my colleague from
Mackenzie-some of which I think are relevant-are not meant
to thwart the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. On the
contrary! It is to help him and at the same time to help farmers in
the four western provinces. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has
nothing to gain politically in this matter, but we are doing it as
members of the Official Opposition and we are also acting in
accordance with the old principle that if your neighbours are
prosperous, you will also benefit and live well.
(1645)
With that, I call on my colleagues in the Reform Party and the
NDP and the Minister of Agriculture to read this amendment
carefully. I ask the minister for once not to say no just because it
comes from the opposition. I ask him for once to try to assess it
for what it is worth and to support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac would,
I believe, require that the funding which is gained from the
check off on wheat and barley which passes through the
Canadian Wheat Board is spent on research.
If this motion did put in the hands of the Western Grain
Research Foundation the responsibility to ensure that there is no
duplication in research, then I would support the motion.
However, this motion puts this responsibility in the hands of the
Canadian Wheat Board through the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
A responsibility that should be in the hands of the foundation
will now be in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board.
A brand new level of bureaucracy will be added to the process.
The Canadian Wheat Board certainly is not the one you would
want to add to as far as bureaucracy is concerned because it is a
very large bureaucracy. It would be counter productive to have
the Canadian Wheat Board as it is set up now deciding whether
there was duplication in funding.
I believe it would be a big mistake to give the Canadian Wheat
Board control and get it involved in the process of allocating
funds. For that reason I cannot support this motion.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly that is not
accountable to anyone it seems. I said the other day that it is not
even accountable to God because it thinks it is God. Certainly it
is an organization that has power beyond what the farmers who
pay for the operation want.
The Canadian Wheat Board ought to be run by an elected
board of directors and farmers across western Canada, as
proposed by the Reform Party. That type of organization could
be involved in making a decision such as this but certainly not
the board as it is.
I strongly oppose this motion because it adds another level to
the decision making. That level is the Canadian Wheat Board
which is a large bureaucracy and one which would make this
bill, which I support, not as good.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was not
going to intervene on this motion until I heard the member for
Vegreville. I wonder if he was speaking to motion No. 2 because
he does not seem to have read it the way the hon. member for
Frontenac wrote it.
We should remind ourselves that the research funding agency
that is mentioned in the motion by the hon. member for
Frontenac is to be the Western Grains Research Foundation. If
members look at the section of the act where this all starts, the
deductions for research portion on page 2 explains that the board
collects the funds and then turns it over to this research funding
agency.
(1650 )
The motion we have before us from the member for Frontenac
directs that the research funding agency, which will be the
western grains research fund, shall distribute funds to persons
who will make the results of their research available to the
people who contributed to it, namely the producers. I do not see
anything wrong with that. This is something that should pass as
a matter of course. However I realize the way some
bureaucracies work and some funding works it does not always
happen.
I do not know if the people who contribute to the check off for
research in Alberta necessarily know what varieties of plants
their deduction money has gone into. Neither do I know if the
designation of research is the same in each case. In the bill it is
quite clear that the funding will be for plant breeding research. It
is not clear what the deductions are in some of the other
provinces.
I hope the research granting agency, which is the western
grain research fund, will make certain that it collects the same
amount per tonne from producers in Alberta as is collected from
producers in Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Manitoba.
Whether it comes from a different collecting group should be
irrelevant, but I hope that the same amount of moneys for a
tonne of grain goes into the research granting agency from
Alberta producers as is coming from Saskatchewan or Manitoba
producers.
If that does not happen a lot of screaming and yelling will be
going on by producers in Saskatchewan if this duality that the
minister appears to be willing to support and which apparently
the Reform Party is willing to support results.
If we cannot have fairness in the funding of research and
openness to the point of allowing the people who pay for it know
what the results are, then we are on a long, slippery slope into
another form of taxation and another way for government to opt
out of providing the kind of research dollars that it ought to have
supplied in the first place.
7578
I have one other thought as I look at motion No. 2. Since this
money is being collected directly from farmers to finance this
plant research I would hope that when a variety is developed that
those same farmers will not be asked to pay fees under plant
breeders' rights for the privilege of growing the variety they
paid to produce.
I believe that is what the member for Frontenac is trying to
avoid. If we know what varieties our money has produced as a
result of the deductions from our grain sales then we should not
have to pay plant breeders' rights on those varieties because we
have already paid for them once, thank you very much.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will take just a few moments to comment on the
amendments in front of us this afternoon, motions No. 2 and 3,
before we conclude the debate.
I could not help but notice a few moments ago, when the
minister of agriculture rose to speak on motions No. 1, 4 and 5
and the following interventions by a number of members on this
side of the House, including myself, that many of the issues we
raised were not addressed in his responses in reply.
In particular, I was expressing the support of my constituents
in northwest Saskatchewan for the strengthened and enhanced
Canadian Wheat Board.
(1655 )
I hope the minister takes an opportunity before the end of the
day to express to the House, to producers in Saskatchewan and
the prairies his support and his party's support for a
strengthened Canadian Wheat Board, a marketer of Canadian
grain.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, coming from the west you realize that
the Canadian Wheat Board has long benefited the producers in
western Canada. It has always found premium markets for
Canadian grain. Those premium markets occasionally come
close to the Canadian border as they do today.
Those people, including the Reform Party, who support dual
marketing of grains forget that the premium market is not
always across the Canada-U.S. border. The premium market is
sometimes in Japan or Saudi Arabia. With the agricultural
situation in China today it is quite possible that the premium
market may exist there in the near future. Under no
circumstance could any of the dual marketers survive without
the Canadian Wheat Board in a marketplace that is dominated by
a nation outside of North America. In any case I hope the
minister of agriculture would take a moment to discuss that.
More to the point of the amendments, I could not help but add
my voice to that of the member for Mackenzie who just talked
about plant breeders' rights. Members of my constituency a few
years ago were opposed to the introduction and passage of the
plant breeders' rights legislation. They said at that time the
legislation would lead to a greater concentration of agricultural
breeding in the hands of multinational corporations and other
corporations that would push up the cost of producing
agricultural products, grains in particular. When the costs of
producing the product increase and the results of plant breeding
are tied in with fertilizer and chemical production of any kind,
then the input costs rise as well.
My constituents are now seeing a possible tie between
legislation that perhaps turns some of their contributions to
plant breeding over to those individuals or corporations which
may financially benefit from their breeding programs at the
expense of the producer. This is a situation to which the
government should pay very close attention because we cannot
jeopardize public supported research in grain varieties to benefit
the corporations to the detriment of the producers and the
industry.
I have spent a great deal of time as the New Democratic
Party's environmental critic working on issues of population
and the environment. These issues have helped me to understand
that the need for agricultural product must be increasing with
the increasing populations. Whether we are feeding grains to
people or whether we are feeding grains to cattle, fish or other
sources of protein or food for human consumption, the growing
of grain will become very important to the future of the world as
populations increase.
Yields must increase. Therefore the transfer of support and
resources to the producers of the grains must also exist to ensure
that we have a steady supply from this part of the world where
grains grow so well and to ensure the transfer of the benefits of
that growing to the areas of the world where populations are also
growing.
(1700 )
For that reason alone, even though it is not fully intended in
Motion No. 2, I would look favourably upon Motion No. 2 as it
appears before us. Obviously, from my remarks I hope the
minister of agriculture will have some additional matters to
think about as he looks to additional legislation and perhaps
even additional amendments to this legislation in the future.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): During the course of the debate this
afternoon on the various motions that we have had before us
members opposite have invited me in my responses to go quite a
distance beyond the precise subject matter that is the focus of
the debate today.
While I am indeed tempted to respond at length and in a wide
ranging way to some of the remarks that have been made by all
of the speakers this afternoon on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, I
will continue my practice of restricting myself to the precise
7579
subject matter that forms the point of the debate and save the
wider ranging commentary for another time.
The fact that I do not happen to mention some of those other
things should not be taken as any kind of disinterest in the
subject matter. I am simply holding my fire.
Motion No. 2, the further proposed amendment by the
member for Frontenac, is directed to the point that research
efforts funded by the proposal in Bill C-50 should not be
duplicative or overlapping. I take that as a valid point.
Unfortunately, the proposed amendment would really not offer
any assurance of no duplication and no overlap other than just
comfort language. Quite frankly, I do not think that is realistic.
The avoidance of research duplication in reality is a primary
objective of the Western Grains Research Foundation. To this
end, the foundation has already established a very close working
relationship with both public and private research
establishments, including a very close working relationship
with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers.
Further to this the foundation has consulted with and it
intends to work with existing producer-funded research
programs-for example, Alberta barley-to ensure that there
are not turf wars started and that research efforts are
co-ordinated.
Since this type of co-operation and co-ordination of research
is already an established practice, it would not be useful in my
view to proceed with the motion contained in Motion No. 2.
Incidentally, I would add that in its present form I believe the
amendment is unenforceable in any event.
I conclude by saying that I fully understand the spirit of what
the hon. member is trying to achieve. I think it is achieved
otherwise through the WGRF and I cannot recommend this
particular amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion is deferred.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-50 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 3 with
the following:
period ending on December 31, and the Minister shall lay the report before
the House of Commons on any of the first fifteen days on which the House
sits following the day the Minister receives the report.
(1705 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 3 is about
accountability. The Western Grains Research Foundation is
required under this legislation to report to the minister once a
year. All we are asking for in this amendment is to require that
any report to the minister is made public through the House of
Commons. That is the intent of the motion.
I cannot possibly see how this government would be against
this accountability. I do not know why a report from a body such
as the Western Grains Research Foundation should be kept
under cover. I do not know why it should not be a public
document.
The Western Grains Research Foundation, I just want to
acknowledge, has an annual report that is made public every
year but that does not necessarily mean that the report that it
sends to the minister is the same report.
That is why I want this report which is sent to the minister
every year made public through this House. That is what the
intention of this motion is and I believe that is what it would do
if it was passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to comment on Motion No. 3, moved by the hon. member
for Vegreville. First, I would like to say that we support that
proposal to the effect that a report must quickly be tabled in the
House of Commons.
For reasons of transparency, annual reports submitted to
every minister must be tabled in the House, so that all
parliamentarians can quickly have access to them. If our good
friend the Minister of Agriculture receives a report, he should
not keep it to himself for months. We, members of the
opposition, have a right to see that report as quickly as possible.
As you all know, if a report is made public after a six-month
delay, it has lost a great deal of its timeliness. It no longer
generates the same interest.
The proposal made by the hon. member for Vegreville makes
a lot of sense. As regards agriculture we, members of the
7580
opposition, work primarily for the agricultural community and,
in doing so, we also work for the 28 million Canadian and
Quebec consumers. Indeed, we do not work exclusively for the
agricultural community. We work for everyone, and that
includes producers and consumers.
If the minister believes in transparency for his party, he
should support the motion tabled by the member for Vegreville.
In its original bill, the government merely proposes that a report
be tabled to the minister as soon as possible. If there is still some
fortitude left in this House, if transparency is really a concern,
as the Prime Minister mentioned again today, why not accept
that it be done within two weeks of the minister receiving the
said report?
Right now, the government's transparency somewhat
resembles the St. Lawrence River, you cannot see anything a few
centimetres below the surface. The proposed amendment is very
interesting because it does not put pressure on the agency, but on
the minister. Indeed, it suggests that the minister shall lay the
report before the House within fifteen sitting days of the day the
minister receives the report.
(1710)
All of us elected representatives from Quebec and Canada
have the right to have access to the report within fifteen days.
Since such a wish can be easily granted, I wonder how anyone
could oppose an amendment making a minister accountable to
the House of Commons.
Therefore, it will be for the sake of transparency and
efficiency that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will support the
motion presented by my colleague for Vegreville.
To conclude, I will use the few minutes I have left to comment
on Motion No. 5. I must say that I am rather puzzled by the
amendment proposed by the member for Mackenzie.
Considering that section 33.1 recognizes the principle of
distinct wheat classes, the amendment he proposes would only
allow the Governor in Council to exclude the province or the
area where a given class of wheat is produced.
In Alberta, since farmers can already contribute to a similar
program for barley, offered by the Alberta Barley Commission,
the proposed amendment would eliminate the monopoly and
encourage competition between that organisation and the board.
The argument is justifiable, since the results of the subsidized
research funded by the board would also benefit Alberta and also
because farmers who support the board might prefer that it
manage their deductions.
However, if the Governor in Council no longer has the
authority to exclude a province, provincial initiatives will
immediately be cast aside.
This is why, as you can imagine, I have a great deal of
difficulty supporting motion No. 5. When a province, like
Alberta, is ahead of the federal government, it is essential that
its initiatives be respected.
This is why members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot support
the motion of our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the
hon. member for Mackenzie.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on this motion. I will take up
where the minister of agriculture left off in his remarks. The
minister of agriculture indicated this was not the time to talk
about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact he said,
and I think I quote him correctly: ``Now is the time to hold my
fire''.
I could not help but think that on this side when one holds
one's fire and when one is fed up, it leads only to indigestion. We
do not want this issue to be lapped without the proper debate in
this place that it deserves.
(1715 )
I remind the minister of agriculture that members of his party
campaigned in my province and others one year ago, some of
whom were elected on a campaign of supporting the Canadian
Wheat Board and enhancing its powers.
The red book has a commitment toward marketing boards and
the support of the Canadian Wheat Board. There were numerous
news releases issued a year ago from Liberal candidates and now
sitting members indicating support for the Canadian Wheat
Board. I do not believe that at this time when the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board is under so much pressure that the
government, especially members who campaigned the way they
did, and particularly the minister can hold their fire on this very
important issue.
As it stands, my constituents are firmly behind the Canadian
Wheat Board and I will speak for them as often as I can to ensure
that the Canadian Wheat Board supports the farmers, the
producers of western Canada and all the communities those
farmers and producers support throughout my constituency in
western Canada.
I want to indicate that on this motion the member for
Vegreville has made an interesting intervention and with a
couple of clarifications I believe I will now be able to support
the amendment he has brought forward and I urge the
government to do the same.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to address
precisely to the subject matter of Motion No. 3.
Once again the member who has just spoken and others have
tempted me to broaden the discussion this afternoon. I will not
do that. There will be ample opportunities for that. I will
7581
welcome those opportunities and if hon. members want a sneak
preview of some of my views and opinions on the subject they
seem to be amply reported almost on a continuous basis in the
media so they can whet their appetites on those observations and
we will get to the main subject matter in due course.
There do seem to be some animal noises coming across the
way from the opposition members. Sometimes it is difficult to
determine the distinction between their heckling and their
speeches. I trust the speeches will have more substance than the
animal imitations that seem to be emerging from the opposition
members at the present time.
That type of conduct does tend to trivialize the subject matter
that is under consideration. I prefer to remain serious about it.
With respect to Motion No. 3 the proposal is essentially for a
tabling of the annual report of an arms length, not for profit
private organization. That is a rather unusual proposition
because the Western Grains Research Foundation is an arms
length, not for profit private organization. It represents 12 farm
organizations in western Canada. It may represent in due course
more organizations than that because as I understand it other
organizations are expressing very sincere interest in joining the
WGRF because of the good work that it does. It does represent
those private sector producer based organizations.
It will operate with producer and not taxpayer funds. That is
essentially what the check off procedure is all about.
Bearing in mind that the agency we are talking about in terms
of the WGRF is a private, not for profit, arm's length
organization. Bearing in mind that organization will operate
with producer funds, not taxpayer dollars, it seems to me that a
different type of accountability is appropriate.
(1720 )
Accountability obviously is important but it must be of a
different kind than one would think of if we were speaking of a
purely government institution. The foundation is operated by
producers and is accountable to producers. The program that is
proposed in Bill C-50, it seems to me, does not require
excessive control by the House of Commons or by any
government agency. It should have that kind of accountability
which the WGRF in the proper exercise of its responsibilities
considers to be appropriate.
In these circumstances the avenue that should be pursued is
simply this. Every year when the report from the WGRF
becomes available there should be a notice published in the
Canada Gazette indicating that annual report has now been
produced and it obviously is available for inspection. That is a
more economical and appropriate way to deal with this
requirement of accountability in the case of the WGRF.
At the same time I would again point out the nature of the
WGRF. It is an organization involving 12 western farm
organizations. They have a board of directors and they are
accountable to their membership. They have developed this
whole program in very close consultation with farmers. There is
a very real discipline and a very real form of accountability built
right into that structure because it is producer based and
producer driven through those farm organizations that make up
the WGRF. The board of directors of the WGRF is
representative of those farm organizations.
In addition to that kind of accountability which will certainly
ensure the publication of the kind of annual report that is
appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, I think it would
be sufficient for us to simply publish a notice in the Canada
Gazette every year noting that the annual report is available for
inspection if needed. In addition, it would seem to be logical that
a summary of that annual report could be provided in the
ordinary course through the publication known as ``Grain
Matters'' which is broadly distributed to all Canadian Wheat
Board permit book holders across western Canada.
The annual report will include statements concerning
revenues and expenses as audited and other statements as may
be necessary to provide and to ensure full transparency.
I would also note in conclusion that when Bill C-50 was in
committee it was strengthened by allowing for agreements
between the minister and the research funding agency. That
agreement is now provided for in a prior amendment to Bill
C-50, section 33(1)(6). That particular agreement will provide
for another form of accountability. All of those factors taken
together sufficiently address the point and make the amendment
proposed in Motion No. 3 unnecessary.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
7582
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8),
the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
(1725)
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the division on the motion before the House is deferred to
tomorrow at 10 a.m. at which time the bells will ring for 15
minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would probably find
unanimous consent to proceed immediately to private member's
hour or we could suspend for four minutes. My colleague seems
to be ready to proceed now so the House would probably consent
to proceed immediately.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is
important while we are on this subject of deferring the votes
until tomorrow morning that the House realize that the minister
of agriculture is before the standing committee on agriculture at
nine o'clock tomorrow morning. The deferral of the vote until
ten o'clock tomorrow morning simply cuts short the amount of
time that the minister would have in front of the committee. I
wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it
5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7582
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from September 20, 1994, consideration
of the motion that Bill C-218, an act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act (excepted employment), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Unemployment
Insurance Act. I wish to indicate my approval of the bill
introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
The bill seeks to correct an injustice made against almost a
million Canadians and Quebecers, of whom two-thirds are
women.
Yes, one million Canadians, most of them women, that the
government does not trust and considers as UI abusers because
they are not dealing at arm's length with their employer, who is
either a brother, a son, a daughter or a spouse. This is
unacceptable in a country where citizens are presumed to be
honest.
I remind the House that until 1989, any woman employed by
her spouse could not draw unemployment insurance benefits.
That in itself is shocking and appalling. Indeed, who would
accept such a discriminatory clause nowadays? Yet, women had
to unite in a long and vigilant fight to bring that discrimination
to an end.
After a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
the section of the act excluding from entitlement to benefits any
woman working for her spouse was ruled invalid and
discriminatory by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 1989.
This ruling finally gave fair treatment to these women who work
in family businesses and granted them the well-deserved right
to unemployment insurance benefits.
However, this victory was short-lived. In October 1990, the
then government found a way to get around the 1989 ruling, by
including, in the definition of excepted employment,
employment where the employer and employee are not dealing
with each other at arm's length. By excluding from benefits not
only women, but everyone not dealing at arm's length with their
employer, legally, the law no longer seemed discriminatory.
It is possible that some employees working for their spouses
defraud unemployment insurance just as it is possible for an
employer and an employee who are perfect strangers to cheat the
system. The penalties in the law are explicit and severe enough
to cover all fraudulent claims.
Losing a job is in itself a stressful event that can weaken one's
self-esteem. We, on this side of the House, do not think that
most people choose unemployment as a way of life. Nor do we
believe that the unemployed in Canada are lazy people drinking
beer in front of the television, as the prime minister
unfortunately said. But that such a suspicion be covered in the
act is unacceptable to the 1 million Canadians who are
unemployed, including 650,000 women.
What is shocking here, and that I want to denounce, is the
burden of proof which lies with the unemployed individuals
from the very first stage of their benefits claim. These
individuals must prove to Revenue Canada, Taxation that their
work contract was meeting all the requirements of a position
that anyone else could have held. No other category of claimants
is required to produce such proof.
7583
But what is more shocking and adds to my determination to
support the deletion of section 3(2)(c) is the fact that the
amendment adopted October 22, 1990, only slightly softened
the blatant discrimination present in the former Unemployment
Insurance Act. The existing legislation is targeting an easily
identifiable group and results mainly in the systematic
exclusion of women employed by their spouse.
Are these women entitled to UI? Yes, said the Tax Court of
Canada in 1989. Since then, these women have been
contributing to the system. But by a clever trick, the 1990 UI
reform managed to include anyone not at arm's length with the
employer.
When these women lose their job, it is often because their
spouse's business is going down the drain. It is then that these
women need UI benefits. Instead they have to prove to officials
of Revenue Canada, Taxation that their job is justified, therefore
insurable.
Then begins a long inquiry process that can last several
months, even a year, during which the slightest doubt leads to an
exclusion because the process does not tend to confirm
eligibility but rather to prove abuse.
Once more, the Canadian government shows that it does not
focus on the real problems and that the services most needed by
people are still subject to a cumbersome bureaucracy.
I believe it would be improper to assume that a woman taking
an active part in the operations of her husband's business would
try to abuse the unemployment insurance system. Yet, if she
worked for a competitor, she would not be subject to such
misconceptions. Bill C-218 precisely aims to put an end to such
an unfair situation.
This discriminatory clause of the act is detrimental to all
women from a human and social point of view because it denies
them the right to their fair share and a fair treatment.
Therefore I ask the government to repeal paragraph 3(2)(c) of
the Unemployment Insurance Act. I urge the government to get
rid of the vicious and discriminatory measure by which the
previous government deprived one million Canadians and
Quebecers, mostly women, of their right to unemployment
insurance at a time when they need it most.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the
concerns expressed in Bill C-218 by the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert.
The hon. member's bill purports to correct an injustice she
perceives in section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance
Act. I know the hon. member has brought this matter forward
with the very best of intentions.
(1735 )
The government appreciates the hon. member's concern.
After all, we are striving to make sure its rules and regulations
are fair and equitable for everyone. It pleases me to say that this
particular provision is an example of the equality we are trying
to achieve.
The section of the act that the hon. member is concerned about
addresses the situation whereby relatives work for one another.
Some hon. members have argued that this section of the act
discriminates against relatives of employers. This is simply not
so. The provisions simply act to make sure that those individuals
who work for a spouse or for a mom or dad have the same access
to this important government program as any other worker.
Perhaps I can alleviate the hon. member's concern by pointing
out the intent of this arm's length employer-employee
relationship.
The government recognizes that more so today than ever
before individuals are starting their own businesses working out
of their homes and providing services that may involve family
members. What we can call non-standard employment is on the
increase. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were
part time. Therefore I think the hon. member will agree with the
necessity of having UI regulations that allow a relative or
common law spouse to be an employee.
This section of the act entitles these individuals to pay
premiums and collect benefits if their contracts are similar to
those of workers not related to their employer. As well the
employee of a corporation in which he or she has shares may
also be eligible to pay UI premiums and collect benefits.
All the unemployment insurance program is asking in this
regard is that relatives employed by relatives ensure that this is a
legitimate employer-employee relationship. This is not
discriminatory because all employees related or not must also
do the required paperwork to satisfy the commission that they
are legitimate employees. I say to the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert that the only real distinction is a few additional
forms to fill out. This is but a minor inconvenience. It is a
reasonable measure because it protects the integrity of the UI
program for everyone.
The hon. member has quite rightly pointed out that the
majority of individuals affected by this section of the act are
women but that is why the section was amended in the first
place. It used to be that spouses, the great majority of whom are
women, were not eligible for UI benefits. This is no longer the
case. Women are not discriminated against in this regard. They
7584
are however required as any other employee to show there is a
legal employer-employee relationship if they wish to pay UI
premiums and to be eligible to collect benefits.
In a related matter this government recognized that many
women are entering the workforce. We know that many women
are the main providers for their families. To address this
evolving situation, the government introduced the dependency
benefit rate of 60 per cent. This rate is for claimants with low
incomes supporting a dependant or who have a spouse
supporting a dependant. Without this, people in this situation
would receive a 55 per cent benefit rate.
I believe that if the hon. member for Saint-Hubert considers
the matter, she will see that this government is totally
committed to fairness and compassion in applying its programs.
The thinking behind any adjustment to unemployment
insurance is to guarantee that all potential UI recipients are
treated fairly. That is one of the reasons we are looking at UI as
part of the social security reform. Our surveys have shown that
the great majority of Canadians support the concept of
unemployment insurance, but the key word is insurance.
Canadians want this program to be used for the purpose for
which it was originally intended, the purpose being temporary
financial support between jobs and not as a supplement to a
regular income. People understand that UI is a major component
of social security and they want to see that it works fairly and
equitably.
During previous debate on this bill one hon. member referred
to the government's initiative to use UI development funds for
training and upgrading skills. He suggested that by supporting
the hon. member's bill we will enable workers employed by
relatives to take advantage of training programs.
Individuals who qualify under this section of the act are as
eligible for training programs as any other recipient. They are
not being denied training because they have to fulfil an
obligation, an obligation that guarantees that the business
arrangement with their spouse is a true employer-employee
relationship.
(1740 )
I say to all hon. members that a review of our social security
system will give them ample opportunity to present their ideas
on reforming our unemployment insurance program. The
government's proposals are detailed in the discussion paper and
we more than welcome constructive input. Social security
reform is a partnership. It is a partnership that needs helpful
suggestions if we are to develop new social security programs
that will be fair and beneficial to all Canadians.
In summing up I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hubert for
raising concerns over what she perceives to be discrimination.
The government appreciates her attention in this regard.
However in studying the matter I see no grounds to assume there
is discrimination under this section of the UI Act. Therefore,
regretfully I cannot support the hon. member's bill.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on Bill C-218
which seeks to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The
member for Saint-Hubert proposes to eliminate the exemption
that prevents family members from collecting UI if they work in
the family business.
I suppose the intent of unemployment insurance at the time it
became law in 1940 was to provide financial assistance to
industrial and commercial workers during periods of
unemployment. Since that time the program has expanded to
encompass everything from grants to organizations under
section 25 to maternity leave and sickness benefits. Today 97
per cent of paid workers are covered by the unemployment
insurance program. The originators of the program would not
recognize it in its present form today.
For some time now Canadians have been expressing concern
over the abuse of the unemployment insurance program. Even
the Minister of Human Resources Development realizes there is
a need to tighten up the system and close the loopholes.
When the hon. member for Saint-Hubert outlined her reasons
for introducing this bill, she said that the primary effect of
section 3(2)(c) is the systematic exclusion of women who work
for their spouse. She finds it objectionable that such employees
must prove to Revenue Canada adjudicators that the labour
contract has all the features of a job that the employer would
have given to someone else who was completely unrelated to
him or her.
We believe that if a wife works for a husband or vice versa,
they should be prepared to prove that a bona fide
employer-employee relationship exists. At this point many
people on farms would qualify under those regulations.
It should be incumbent upon them to show they are not taking
advantage of the system and trying to add to the family income. I
do not believe this is an unreasonable safeguard in a system that
is all too often abused. Members from the official opposition
often talk about abuse in the system.
Revenue Canada adjudicators would adjudicate arm's length
relationships. Statistics show that each year some 3,750 UI
claimants are denied benefits because they do not work in true
employer-employee relationships. This actually amounts to
one-quarter of the claims that are reviewed each year. This
means there are some 11,000 arm's length relationship
claimants who do receive UI benefits. If this amendment were
passed those 3,750 claims that are rejected each year possibly
would be approved. Taking the average benefit from 1992 which
is
7585
$6,600, the minimum annual increase in UI payments would be
$25 million.
I am sure my colleague for Saint-Hubert believes that her
amendment would be a great benefit to women and to the small
business community. The truth is that she is ultimately bringing
more harm to those people she is trying to protect.
(1745 )
The changes and add ons brought in since the inception of the
program have been costly to the workers and their employers.
Together the contributions by employees and their employers
average 7.3 per cent of contributors' income.
As it stands now the UI program will take $19.8 billion from
the people who are trying to keep their businesses solvent and
from workers who are trying to make ends meet and pay their
taxes. That $19.8 billion amounts to approximately $1,500 from
every Canadian worker covered by the unemployment insurance
program. It is the second highest source of revenue for the
federal government, second only to personal income tax.
If the hon. member really wanted to help women and small
businesses she would support the proposal of the Reform Party
for a private insurance plan, one which is operated on basic,
actuarially sound insurance principles. She would be proposing
an amendment to make UI contributions voluntary so that those
who are not eligible to collect benefits would not have to
contribute to the plan. She would be calling on the government
to lower the tax rate so that money could be left in the hands of
the entrepreneur, the farmer, the small business person who
relies on family members to help out on the farm or in the store.
We feel most Canadians would agree with our party's belief
that a dollar left in the hands of an entrepreneur, a small business
person is far more likely to stimulate economic growth than a
dollar left in the hands of mother government or bureaucrats.
Reform Party members oppose this bill for many reasons. It
opens up the Unemployment Insurance Act to yet another
avenue of abuse and waste of taxpayers' dollars at a time when
we should be tightening the loopholes and saving employer and
employee UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and their
families hardest hit by today's high unemployment. This bill
would increase payouts of the UI benefits by millions of dollars
per year. It directly contravenes Reform Party principles which
support elimination of fraud and abuse and returning UI to true
insurance principles.
Most important, spouses employed by their partners already
have an advantage over other Canadians because they can split
their income and reduce their taxation in that way. While
Reformers support income splitting for married couples, we
would like all Canadians to have equal opportunity to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): As you know, Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal section 3(2)(c) of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, which stipulates that
employment where the employer and employee are not dealing
with each other at arm's length is not insurable. The law is clear:
Where the employer is related to the employee, he or she must
prove that the job would have been given to an unrelated person
in similar circumstances.
The vast majority of workers affected by this section of the
Unemployment Insurance Act are women who work in a family
business. For these women, the law is also unequivocal. Women
who work for their spouses must pay unemployment insurance
premiums. This is also true for employees who are not dealing at
arm's length with their employer and who hold 40 per cent or
less of the family business shares.
Since the act was brought into force in October 1990, the
Department of Human Resources Development, which is
responsible for the administration and the application of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, increasingly refuses to pay
unemployment insurance benefits to these people.
The Bloc Quebecois denounces such an attitude stemming
from the retrograde section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment
Insurance Act. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this section is retrograde and
even discriminatory, since its main effect is to systematically
exclude from the unemployment insurance program women who
work for their spouses.
(1750)
The argument most often put forward to prove that the
employment is not insurable in the case of women working for
their spouses is this: The employer and employee are not dealing
with each other at arm's length, hence there is no
employer-employee relation. When examining the claims of
these women, Revenue Canada may carry out all inquiries it
deems appropriate at the workplace, including financial
statements audit, analysis of bank statements, and study of the
work organization in the plant or the office.
In fact, the department is not seeking to establish eligibility
but to prove fraud. I support Bill C-218 put forward by my
colleague from Saint-Hubert to repeal this antiquated provision
of the Unemployment Insurance Act that is so unfair to a certain
category of women. There are 650,000 women in this situation.
If they lost their job, these employees who work in a business
controlled by their spouse, these workers described as wife
associates, would not be eligible for unemployment insurance
benefits because of their status.
7586
Again, wife associates represent the vast majority of
exclusions under section 3(2)(c) of the existing legislation,
which deprives women of their right to equality in matters
related to unemployment insurance. In general, these women
perform administrative duties in a family business, whether it is
a farm or any other type of small business.
They perform duties such as billing and accounting and
respond to requests from suppliers and clients. A family
business, like any other type of business, can experience serious
financial difficulties. The wife associate can be laid off and stop
receiving a salary. We think that, since she contributed to the
unemployment insurance program, it would be quite normal that
she be eligible for benefits.
This injustice toward women is particularly obvious in
agriculture. In 1988, 6,066 Quebec women had titles of
ownership in a farming enterprise. In 1993 their number had
almost doubled. For their work on the farm, 43 per cent of
respondents to a survey say that they are paid, either through a
salary or through profit sharing or through investments made in
their name.
The survey also shows that 33 per cent of those women earn
off-farm revenues. Obviously, women with such earnings make
a large contribution to the operation of the family farm. What,
then is the difference between women who earn their living in
the family business and those who do so elsewhere?
Both groups of women are equally dependent on the farm and
pay UI premiums, but their status is different when they become
unemployed. Again, that is blatantly unfair to a group of
working women.
It is not a matter of whether a wife is dependent on her
husband. In any normal couple, the wife is no more dependent
on her husband than he is on her. It is a matter of being fair to a
group of working women. That is why we support Bill C-218,
which proposes that section 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment
Insurance Act be repealed. The Bloc Quebecois refuses to wait,
as was suggested at first reading, for the Liberal comprehensive
reform of social programs, a reform that will never achieve
national consensus in any case. I urge all the women in the
House, including those in the Liberal government, to support
this bill.
[English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has presented the House with
a matter which I am sure concerns us all and that is the fairness
of our rules and regulations. This government most certainly
does not wish to discriminate against anyone.
The question in the circumstances raised by the hon. member
is whether or not discrimination is occurring. Her bill argues
that because the majority of people affected by section 3(2)(c) of
the Unemployment Insurance Act are women the section
discriminates against women.
(1755)
I admire the hon. member's concern but this section does not
discriminate against women nor does it discriminate against any
relative involved in an employer-employee relationship. The
intent of the section is to ensure that genuine legal
employer-employee relationships exist in businesses that
involve relatives. That is hardly an unreasonable requirement.
The House has heard some interesting arguments on this
matter but if my hon. colleagues consider what could happen if
the act did not have safeguards I think they would agree we
would be in a real quandary.
Section 3(2)(c) of the act requires only that those affected by
it satisfy the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they
qualify for UI coverage just as any other employee. It is merely
one of the regulations set out to protect the program's integrity. I
do not hear hon. members arguing that employees not related to
their boss should be exempt from proving a legal
employer-employee relationship, so why should employees
who are related be exempt? That would be the effect of passing
Bill C-218.
Family employees should certainly have the same rights as
any other employee. However I trust the hon. member will agree
that family employees should also have to meet the same
requirements to be eligible for UI benefits. That is all section
3(2)(c) requires. To have it otherwise would then discriminate
against employees not related to their employer. The regulation
treats everyone in the same manner, which is the way it should
be.
One word we have heard frequently in the remarks of my
colleagues is fairness. I would like to expound briefly on how
the government has used fairness, not as a political slogan but as
a philosophy. Fairness or equality or whatever synonym you
wish to use is a cornerstone on which this country's social
security system was built. Indeed it may be argued that it is the
cornerstone on which the entire country was founded.
I do not for a moment claim that every program is perfect or
that these programs do not have loopholes that unjustly deny
people their due. I will state however that fairness has been and
will continue to be the watchword for this government. We will
strive to close loopholes wherever and whenever we find them.
A case in point is a recent series of changes to the UI program
which took effect in July. We realize that reducing the benefit
rate to 55 per cent would represent an undue hardship to people
with lower incomes who have dependants. That is why we
7587
introduced the dependency benefit rate which gives a 60 per cent
benefit rate to people in these circumstances.
A decision to reduce the benefit rate was indeed a tough one.
However we tried to be as fair as we could by minimizing the
impact of this change on those who could least afford it. It is this
spirit of fairness that embodies the provision which so concerns
the hon. member.
As my colleague has pointed out this provision allows family
members to collect UI. In the past they simply were not eligible.
Yes it is true there is a little bit more paperwork involved in
these cases. I hasten to point out that among the tens of
thousands of UI claims filed by family businesses in the
1992-93 fiscal year only 15,000 were reviewed by Revenue
Canada. The great majority of individuals employed by a
relative simply filled out the forms necessary to qualify for UI
and they received their benefits.
Therefore I can say with great sincerity and with all due
respect to the hon. member that her concerns are exaggerated.
No one is questioning the intentions of the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert regarding this matter. She is undoubtedly
addressing what she perceives to be an injustice but I would say
to her and to all hon. members that during the review of our
social security system there will be plenty of opportunity to
present constructive recommendations for reform of the UI
program.
In our discussion paper the government has proposed a
number of possible approaches to adjust and strengthen
unemployment insurance so that it serves all Canadians. That is
the context in which we should be looking at the UI Act.
Everyone most certainly recognizes that UI is very much a key
element of social security.
I am sure that when hon. members hear from their
constituents they are finding more and more people are working
in what we refer to as non-standard employment. There is a
considerable increase in the number of part time, self-employed
and multiple job holders. And yes, there is also a significant
increase in family run businesses.
We need to look at the whole picture. We need to consider
whether we should develop an entirely new unemployment
insurance program that will address the needs of workers in the
changing economic structure, or whether we can adequately
adjust our present UI program to serve the needs of a rapidly
diversifying workforce. Whichever approach, the government
has stressed that social security reform is a partnership. We want
input from anyone who has constructive ideas.
(1800)
The hon. member for Saint-Hubert will have an opportunity
to present her ideas and the government will be pleased to give
her submissions every consideration.
At this time, while I appreciate the intent of her bill, I regret
that I cannot support it.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate the bill
presented by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
Like my colleagues, I recognize the hon. member's intent in
presenting this bill which is to correct a perceived injustice. I
would ask her and all hon. colleagues to remember that the bill
received first reading prior to the government's discussion
paper on social security reform. Perhaps if the hon. member had
known the extent of the proposed revisions to the unemployment
insurance program she would have seen fit to wait and put
forward her ideas in that context.
As the old saying goes, I do not want to keep flogging a dead
horse, but I honestly believe that Canadians want their elected
representatives to consider revisions to the UI program in the
context of social security reform. I am sure the hon. member
sees the logic of evaluating her suggestion in that context.
The hon. member for Saint-Hubert talks about injustice but
there is no injustice in doing everything possible to maintain the
integrity of our unemployment insurance program. I can state
unequivocally that the majority of UI claimants are honest,
law-abiding citizens and we need not fear that they will try to
take advantage of the unemployment insurance system.
However that does not preclude us from being diligent in
ensuring that UI benefits go only to those who meet the
necessary conditions. We must be accountable. Canadians
expect their elected representatives to do everything in their
power to ensure the viability of our social security system.
I would ask the hon. member to look at it another way for a
moment. Just last week the Minister of Finance made it
abundantly clear that the government will fulfil its commitment
and meet its deficit reduction target, that is 3 per cent of the
gross domestic product at the end of the third term in office. It
has been made very clear that this goal will be met. There is no
doubt about that. We can help by keeping costs as low as
possible in our social security programs.
We have already tried to do what we can to save UI funds
through other measures. I am thinking of such things as
lowering the premium rate which we estimate will create or
preserve about 40,000 additional jobs. These jobs mean that
people will pay into the fund rather than take money out of it.
Besides that, we have to do everything possible to ensure that
the system is used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Now that we have heard hon. members argue that arm's length
provisions discriminate against women since they are often the
ones employed by their husbands in a family business, as the
kids say today: ``Let's get real''. When it comes to making
7588
revisions to UI, we have been mindful of the particular needs of
Canadian working women.
One measure we have taken, as hon. members have
mentioned, is to bring the dependency benefit rate of 60 per cent
for low income earners who are supporting a dependant or
whose spouse is supporting a dependant. We estimate that
approximately 240,000 claimants are helped by the dependency
benefit rate. I can assure my hon. colleague that the majority are
working women. If hon. members want to do more for women
then I encourage them to study the proposals for social security
reform and to come up with positive, constructive ideas on how
we an make improvements.
(1805)
It is easy to criticize but it gets us nowhere. It is just the easy
thing to do. The hon. member whose bill we are debating today
is down on the government because the government is being
responsible and protecting the integrity of the unemployment
insurance system, a system that has served Canadians well for
more than half a century.
Just what are we asking under this provision of the
Unemployment Insurance Act? Are we asking workers to do
anything more than ensure the UI branch that they are genuinely
in an employer-employee relationship? No, we are not. We are
simply requesting that workers fill out the required forms and let
us know the precise nature of their working relationship with a
family member. This is not too much to ask if it helps reduce the
UI deficit and maintain the fund's integrity.
It would not surprise me at all if the majority of individuals in
this situation would support this requirement because it will
guarantee that working for their relative fulfils their obligations
under the act of employer-employee relationship.
I implore the hon. member not to use the scattered shotgun
approach to fixing problems to UI and other social problems.
Let us look carefully at the whole package, as we are presently
doing. During our review of the system the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert and all hon. colleagues will have every
opportunity to present constructive ideas on changes to UI. I
encourage them to do so in that context.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 44(2) in part states:
(2)a reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive
motion-
(3)In all cases the Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover
of the original motion closes the debate.
Since no other members are rising, I will recognize the hon.
member for Saint-Hubert, who will close the debate.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by thanking hon. members for their interest
throughout this debate on Bill C-218. I particularly want to
express my thanks to members who have solidly supported a
cause that is just and democratic, a cause that is reflected in Bill
C-218.
However, we cannot close this debate without responding to
certain claims that repealing paragraph 3(2)(c) of the
Unemployment Insurance Act would inevitably increase the
likelihood of abuse and fraud and lead to a sharp increase in UI
claims.
I refer more specifically to what was said by the hon. member
for Yorkton-Melville who, on April 21, expressed his
apprehensions about Bill C-218. The hon. member's fears are
clearly ill-founded. The hon. member seems to think that
paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act is a
punitive provision. The sole purpose of this section is to
discriminate against a substantial part of the population that
contributes to the fund and pays premiums but is treated unfairly
and inequitably when the time comes to claim benefits. These
individuals, who may have paid unemployment insurance
premiums throughout their working lives, are denied the
benefits to which they are entitled because a public servant at
the Department of National Revenue has decided that their
employment is not insurable and that as a result, they cannot
receive these benefits.
I referred earlier to concerns that were expressed by the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville. I think he can take some
comfort from sections 73 and 74 of the act and from the powers
of investigation conferred under sections 92 to 106 of the same
act. The purpose of such provisions is to deter potential
offenders. The Unemployment Insurance Act already
incorporates procedures to curb abuse and prevent fraud. Stiff
penalties are already provided for with respect to anyone who
would dare to contravene the act. This means that, as it stands
and regardless of paragraph 3(2)(c), the act already has teeth and
can bite.
Opponents of this bill also quoted some interesting statistics,
showing that, on average, 85 per cent of benefit claims are found
to be admissible after review. Opponents of Bill C-218, and the
Minister of Human Resources Development in particular,
maintain these are very satisfactory results. The parliamentary
secretary is glad that the vast majority of benefit claims are not
fraudulent.
(1810)
How can he allege that the very existence of paragraph 3(2)(c)
is justified? How can we claim that the act as it now stands is fair
and equitable to 85 per cent of those who must wait months and
even years before a decision is made as to whether or not their
jobs are covered by UI?
These people, the majority of which are women who help run
the family business, are honest people with no intention of
committing fraud. Yet, they are treated like cheats until they can
prove otherwise.
7589
The member for Calgary North added insult to injury when
she said in the House on September 20:
If a woman works for her husband in a small business, then she must be
prepared to convince Revenue Canada that she is in fact in a true
employee-employer relationship [-]
It is very wrong that in 1994 women in family businesses must
still have to prove that they are really working, as though their
work were not real and these women were only foils for their
husbands. It is this kind of archaic thinking that underlies the
philosophy of the present law and denies working wives and
dependants the same protection and benefits as the rest of the
population.
This is an opportunity to say loudly and clearly in this House
that we cannot close our eyes and give our tacit consent to such
an unfair and unjust law. I therefore ask hon. members to vote
for Bill C-218 and above all to think of all those who are still
waiting for a decision from a revenue department official.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1830)
[English]
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion seated on the same side as the mover. The votes of
those who are in favour of the motion on the other side of the
House will be recorded.
(1835 )
Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 99)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Ianno
Jacob
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Marchand
Mercier
Minna
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-53
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
7590
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peters
Phinney
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-126
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anawak
Asselin
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Crête
Deshaies
Discepola
Fewchuk
Flis
Guimond
Hubbard
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Manley
Patry
Peterson
Pillitteri
St. Denis
Whelan
de Savoye
(1840)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
_____________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
(1845)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the week before last I raised a question in
the House with the Deputy Prime Minister about the proposals in
the green paper for post-secondary education funding.
We all know that there is much in the green paper which talks
about the importance of education, skills upgrading and training
to Canadians and to Canada in terms of our ability to compete in
the new world economy.
I am glad to see those comments in the green paper but the
proposals which the Minister of Human Resources Development
goes on to suggest for post-secondary education belie this
rhetoric.
The minister is proposing that the $2.6 billion which each
year goes to the provinces for post-secondary education instead
go to students in the form of loans. We remember that federal
government transfers to the provinces were first cut by the
Liberal government prior to 1984. Those cuts were continued by
the Mulroney government through the 1980s and into the 1990s
and of course, as we all remember, were vigorously criticized by
the Liberal Party while in opposition. Now the Liberals are back
in government and those cuts continue.
The government rationale here appears to be that the cash
portion of post-secondary education funding coming from the
federal government to the provinces is going to disappear
anyway because of this trend begun first by the Liberals and
continued by the Conservatives. As it is going to disappear why
worry about tuition fees going up, they are going up already. Let
us just let them go up even further.
What the government is planning to do in spite of arguing,
quite rightly, for the importance of post-secondary education, is
planning to slash $2.6 billion from post-secondary education
and make that available as loans to students and have an income
contingency loan repayment system.
The contradiction is quite clear. It is time the government
recognized that it cannot say good things about post-secondary
education and then cut funding to post-secondary education and
expect Canada to compete in the world economy.
The imposing of a heavy burden of loans on students will of
course lead to less accessibility of education as more and more
potential students decide that they simply cannot afford to incur
such heavy loans.
A study in Australia which has a similar program to that being
proposed by the government has found that the average man
repays 50 per cent of his loan by the age of 28 years but it takes
an average woman until she is 38 years old in order to pay 50 per
cent of that loan because of the difference in earning capacity for
women. We know that Canadian women earn significantly less
than Canadian men and thus they will be the most heavily
burdened by this process.
Perhaps the most cynical and disturbing part of this proposal
is what this government is doing is saying to Canadians and to
Canada that the agreement that we have always regarded as
important, that post-secondary education is an important
contribution both to the student and to Canada as a society, is no
longer the case.
What this government is saying is that the burden of paying
for post-secondary education and thereby the benefits will all
fall to the student and Canada will not benefit in the slightest.
7591
This completely contradicts every study done in Canada since
the Massey commission in 1951. It is stupid and the government
should change its strategy and position on this.
It has done a good job of politicizing students in 1994. I am
glad to see the students have seen through this government's
action on this. I urge the government to change its policy and
make post-secondary education an investment in Canada and
Canadians and stop imposing the burden on Canadian students.
(1850)
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.
Under the present system Canada spends a lot, about $16
billion, on post-secondary education. The federal government
alone spends $8 billion annually. The cash portion of the EPF
transfers to the provinces is slowly ratcheting down. As the cash
portion decreases the invisible portion which is given to the
provinces through tax points is increasing. This is an invisible
endowment to the provinces which will grow from about $4
billion in 1996-97 to $6 billion within 10 years.
The provinces will make the decision whether or not to pass
on some or all of this cash reduction to students. Nobody yet
knows how much will actually be passed on. That remains to be
seen. Many factors will influence their decisions.
At the same time we face different pressing realities.
Government resources are shrinking but more people need more
education to get and to keep a job. Full time college and
university enrolments are up 36 per cent since 1981 and 3
million workers, 25 per cent of the workforce, want to upgrade
their skills and cannot afford it.
The discussion paper asks whether the federal government's
role should remain as is or whether we should develop a more
strategic approach. One option proposed in the green paper is to
use the cash to invest in a new permanent program to provide
more loans and grants to individual students.
Each $1 we spend could mean $4 in loans, $500 million could
mean $2 billion in loans. Instead of declining cash loans would
remain constant. Along with tax transfers this would mean the
total resources available to the post-secondary education
system would continue to grow in order to meet increasing
demands for more learning opportunities for more Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this adjournment debate to ask more questions and try to get
some clarification about this ongoing saga that has continued in
the front benches.
I would like to make the Chair aware again of the remarks I
made on Friday where I asked the Prime Minister about his
particular quote in which he said and I quote from Hansard:
I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and the one I appointed for
myself-
We asked questions about that and did not seem to get
wonderful answers. The Prime Minister replied to me on Friday
morning, October 28 and I quote from
Hansard at page 7367:
The ethics counsellor was consulted yesterday and gave his advice. The
advice he gave was given to me and it did not force me to change my mind
about the decision I took a few days ago.
It is pretty straightforward. It would seem to me that would
make perfect sense if we took the Prime Minister at his word.
However this morning the ethics counsellor appeared on
national television, CBC Newsworld. I quote from the transcript
that we were provided where the interviewer said: ``You're
saying then that the Prime Minister at no point asked you to rule
on the ethics of this letter''. Mr. Howard Wilson replied: ``No.
That is quite clear. The Prime Minister indicated that he had
handled it and came to the conclusion and he stated it''.
This seems perfectly clear to me that the ethics counsellor in
fact was not consulted, was not asked for his advice. There is a
huge discrepancy here and we want to get to the bottom of it.
There are any number of guidelines for cabinet ministers, the
most recent of which I quote from, when we look at
quasi-judicial bodies versus the judiciary. It would seem to me
pretty straightforward again where these guidelines from the
Privy Council Office in a confidential document say to
ministers: ``You are advised to take very special care to avoid
intervening, or appearing to intervene in cases under
consideration by quasi-judicial bodies''. It is again fairly
straightforward to me. It would seem like the minister certainly
knew what his bounds were and he stepped outside of them.
I would just like to finish before asking the parliamentary
secretary to respond to this by pointing out that the Prime
Minister has made it clear over and over again that you should
not phone a judge no matter what. I refer to a situation that went
on in the House yesterday and of course in the newspapers
recently where the Prime Minister said that I was being dreadful
for bringing up an incident in which he phoned a judge in 1971.
Of course he said that he was just asking when the particular
court case on this bankruptcy would be. That is fine. The Globe
and Mail accused him further of saying that he had tried to
intervene in that case.
(1855)
Regardless the instance, regardless the circumstance, this
Prime Minister stood in his place a number of times in the last
week and said that no cabinet minister should phone a judge
ever, for any reason, period. That seems fairly straightforward
to me.
7592
We are trying to get to the bottom of this. I hope that we get
further answers and further clarification from the parliamentary
secretary right now.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
question of October 28.
In our parliamentary system it is the Prime Minister who is
ultimately accountable for the actions of his government and
who must answer to Parliament and to the public. There can be
no substitute for responsibility at the top. It is the Prime
Minister who sets the moral tone for the government and who
makes the ultimate decisions when issues of trust and integrity
are raised. That is what leadership is all about. As the Prime
Minister said yesterday during question period, the buck stops
here.
The ethics counsellor plays a very important role in advising
the Prime Minister in conflict of interest issues, but at the end of
the day it is the Prime Minister who must make the decisions. He
must make the decision about membership in the cabinet.
Creating an ethics counsellor with a reporting relationship to
Parliament will not change this fact.
The ethics counsellor envisioned in the red book had a focus
on lobbying. This government extended that to a much broader
range of ethical issues, including administering and enforcing
the revised conflict of interest code which replaced the old
conflict of interest guidelines.
The ethics counsellor's responsibilities in the two domains of
conflict of interest and lobbying put him in a unique position to
make a significant contribution to restoring public confidence in
government.
The ethics counsellor is available to the Prime Minister to
investigate allegations of impropriety by public officeholders
and to advise the Prime Minister accordingly, but he is only an
adviser. At the end of the day the Prime Minister is ultimately
responsible for ministers and senior officials.
Under Bill C-43, the lobbyists registration bill, the ethics
counsellor has independent powers with respect to the lobbying
industry. If there are grounds to believe there has been a
breach-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Mackenzie.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday I raised a question with the Minister of Human Resources
Development to whom I had given notice. Eleven ministers of
agriculture for Canada had agreed to an initiative to help with
community development, particularly concerning child care.
The Department of Human Resources Development had
allocated some $720 million for 150,000 child care spaces in
this budget year. I was asking how much of that would be
dedicated to rural child care.
I raised this question because we have just come through a
harvest season which is a very busy time on farms. As always
there have been reports of some injuries to children because of
the exigencies of harvest.
The modern farm is not the idyllic place that we read or think
of in mythology. There are huge machines around. There is
noise. There are chemicals. There are factory type buildings.
There are sinkholes that children can get caught in. There are
grain augers. There are all sorts of hazards for children. It is not
a place particularly for very small children to be involved.
However, both parents of necessity are required to contribute to
the work, especially in busy times and it is unsafe and quite
impractical for those children to be among the machinery and
animals on the farms.
There has always been difficulty in setting up child care
facilities for rural areas because of the low population and great
distances and the need for very flexible hours. Families will
sometimes need child care for short periods of time during
harvest and seeding that would run from eight o'clock in the
morning until 10 or 11 at night. The rules that have been set out
for urban child care just are not adequate and do not fit.
(1900)
For the decade and a half that I have been in this Chamber, I
know of groups that have been trying to find a model for rural
child care that is flexible, that will work, and that provides all of
the requirements for children and still provides the basic
necessities available for urban child care but can be adapted to
rural communities.
We have watched a model of child care develop at Langruth,
Manitoba. That very small community of some 500 souls has
developed a child care facility that meets all of those
requirements. It has been in operation for about two and a half
years and provides child care for some 40 children. It is
considered to have overcome most of the organizational
problems, the service delivery models and particularly provides
the required flexibility.
There is an old saying that it takes an entire village to raise a
child. All communities whether they are strung out rural
communities or local neighbourhoods in cities understand that.
Particularly in an era of the global village we understand that the
whole of society must contribute to the raising of a child.
Therefore it is only fair that the money which has been allocated
for child care should also be equally available to rural families.
I would hope that the government would state how much,
what proportion and what its plans-
7593
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
member for Mackenzie.
This government is committed to improving child care in
Canada. In its red book the government committed itself to
investing $720 million toward that end. The intent is to expand
existing child care in Canada by 150,000 new quality child care
spaces, 50,000 to be phased in over the next three year period.
The implementation of the federal initiative will be done in
co-operation with the provinces since child care is a provincial
responsibility. Initial discussions with provincial authorities
have shown that rural child care is a priority for any new
spending. However no decisions have been taken yet on the
allocation of spaces. The provinces will decide on the
distribution of funds and services to their rural communities.
During these discussions most provinces indicated a preference
for rural population in new cost sharing arrangements with the
federal government.
In his question, the member referred to Langruth, Manitoba as
a model for delivering rural child care. This centre is an
excellent example of federal-provincial co-operation. The
centre became operational through provincial support and
federal funding under the child care initiatives fund program.
The centre's program is designed to meet the specific child care
needs identified by families living in that rural community.
I would remind the member for Mackenzie that the federal
government currently contributes significantly to the cost of
child care services in Canada. The federal government is
contributing in excess of $400 million annually to support child
care services mainly through the Canada assistance plan.
Clearly that is not enough and more needs to be done. The
human resources minister tabled a discussion paper on social
security reform which addressed the whole issue of child care.
Page 53 is the reference.
In closing, I would like to invite the member for Mackenzie to
submit any proposals on how we could develop child care in
rural parts of Canada to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. I am sure he would be very interested.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am here today to pursue a question that I asked of the Deputy
Prime Minister. The Minister of Transport was not in the House
at the time but I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not
letters that were being sent to the Prime Minister with respect to
something the Minister of Transport had said would be
answered.
These letters are from the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and the United Transportation Union and others. They
were calling on the Prime Minister to ask the Minister of
Transport to apologize for remarks that he had made and to
which railroaders had taken offence.
(1905 )
Subsequent to my question and to putting in for this
adjournment debate the Minister of Transport had an
opportunity to explain what he had to say in the House during
question period earlier today.
I listened carefully to what he said. I think he could probably
bring the matter to a close if he had added, and perhaps that is
what he wants to do now, that if people took offence at what he
said that he would apologize. He explained himself earlier today
but did not actually apologize. Clearly some very sincere
offence was taken at what the minister said. I look forward to
what he has to say.
While I have him here and because I have so much difficulty
in communicating with the minister on the floor of the House,
perhaps he might also want to comment on a couple of other
matters.
Recently a colleague of his, the member for Thunder
Bay-Nipigon said that we would be better off without
Churchill in the Canadian port system. This runs directly
contrary to promises made by the Liberals in Manitoba during
the last election.
Another matter has to do with Manitoba and Liberal promises
during the last election has to do with the Liberals making a lot
of promises in Winnipeg with respect to stopping the flow of
jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton on the part of CN. Subsequent
to the election of the new government, CN has announced that it
will be moving its rail traffic control centre and its crew calling
offices from Winnipeg to Edmonton in 1995.
Here we have two Liberal promises to Manitoba, that
Churchill would be revived and that the bleeding of jobs from
Winnipeg to Edmonton on the part of CN would be stopped.
What do we have? We have the rail traffic control and the crew
calling jobs being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and
we have a Liberal chair of a committee looking into ports and the
seaway, et cetera, saying that we would be better off without
Churchill.
I hope the minister can deal with these matters, repudiate the
member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and say that Churchill is
still part of the plan for the Liberal government. Could he also
say that pursuant to the promises made by his colleague, the
member for Winnipeg South and the minister of human
resources, that the Ministry of Transport and the government
will be instructing CN to stop this constant diminution of
Winnipeg as a rail centre by transferring jobs to Edmonton.
7594
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for recognizing that I had
tried to explain the context in which the remarks were made in
Winnipeg.
I do not know the rules on this, but let me explain with respect
to Churchill. There is a marine review going on and Churchill
will be addressed as well as the comments made by my hon.
friend whom he mentioned in his speech.
With respect to jobs in Winnipeg, CN has just announced
hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg. I was there a couple of weeks ago
and that was confirmed, so there has been an effort to retain
some jobs there.
I want to address specifically the question that was raised a
couple of weeks ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, thousands of CN
employees worked in my province and many times I heard about
the challenges that employees faced when representing their
union brothers in trying to improve salaries, working conditions
and safety conditions.
Many of these men to whom I spoke and listened to were
veterans of World War I and II, like Luc Roussel and Bill Dunn
who I mentioned this afternoon. They were very proud of what
they had achieved in their military service but they understood
they had very limited educations which was through no fault of
their own. They had fought for their country and then they
fought for their rights as workers, faced by highly skilled
lawyers, negotiators for powerful railroad interests.
I said in Winnipeg that all parties today have to recognize
their responsibilities with respect to where railroads are and
what is happening, whether it is government or management. I
also said that under no circumstances would I point a finger at
those achievements arrived at by men who in many instances
had only grades 7, 8 or 9 education who worked very hard at
protecting their rights and the interests of those who have
succeeded them.
Everybody in that room in Winnipeg, with the exception of
the three people who walked out, knew exactly what I meant. It
was a compliment to people who had made an enormous effort in
the face of very difficult odds to achieve rights that were theirs.
I want to take up my friend's suggestion and apologize to
anyone who has been mislead by the way those remarks were
interpreted. I apologize if anyone felt slighted by them because
those achievements were remarkable in those days. Now I think
it is time for us to move on and make sure that the railroaders of
today have a future by making sure the conditions they work in
and the railroads they work for can be viable.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the 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 7.11 p.m.)