CONTENTS
Monday, June 19, 1995
Bill C-295 Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 14055
Division on motion deferred 14062
Bill C-86 Report stage (with amendments) 14062
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1157 am 14062
The House resumed at 12 pm 14062
Bill C-86 Consideration resumed of report stage 14062
Mr Chrétien (Frontenac) 14064
Division on Motion No 1 deferred 14067
Bill C-92 Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 14068
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee 14071
Bill C-87 Motion for concurrence agreed to 14071
Motion for third reading 14072
Mr Leroux (Shefford) 14079
Mrs Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14081
Mr Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14082
Mr Gauthier (Roberval) 14085
Mr Gauthier (Roberval) 14085
Mr Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 14088
Mr Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14089
Mr Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14089
Mrs Dalphond-Guiral 14090
Mr White (Fraser Valley West) 14093
Mr Leblanc (Longueuil) 14094
Mr Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14096
Mr Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14097
Mr Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14097
Mr White (Fraser Valley West) 14097
Mr White (Fraser Valley West) 14097
Bill C-87 Consideration resumed of motionfor third reading 14098
Mr Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14098
Mr Leblanc (Longueuil) 14102
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed 14109
Bill C-88 Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and of the amendment 14109
Mr Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 14117
Mr Leblanc (Longueuil) 14124
Mr Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14124
Division on amendment deferred 14138
Bill C-94 Motion for second reading 14138
Bill C-94 Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14150
Mr Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 14162
Bill C-69 Consideration resumed of Senate amendments 14166
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 49; Nays, 193 14166
Bill C-89 Consideration resumed of report stage 14167
Motion No 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 192 14168
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 96; Nays, 147 14169
Motion No 14 negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 195 14170
Motion for concurrence 14171
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 193; Nays, 50 14171
Bill C-85 Consideration resumed of report stage 14172
Motion No 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 93; Nays, 147 14172
Division on Motion No 2 negatived: Yeas, 46; Nays, 194 14174
Motion for concurrence 14175
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 193; Nays, 47 14175
Bill C-70 Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 14176
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 147; Nays, 96 14176
(Bill read the third time and passed 14177
Consideration resumed of motion 14177
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 153; Nays, 90 14177
Bill C-86 Consideration resumed of report stage 14178
Motion No 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 194 14178
Motion for concurrence 4179
(Motion agreed to.) 14179
Bill C-88 Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14180
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 197 14180
Bill S-7 Consideration resumed of report stage 14181
Motion No 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 42; Nays, 196 14181
Motion for concurrence 14182
Mrs Stewart (Brant) 14182
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 196; Nays, 42 14182
Motion for third reading 14183
(Bill read the third time and passed 14183
Bill C-295 Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14183
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 93; Nays, 145 14183
14055
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 19, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian
peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the
National Defence Act in consequence thereof, as amended, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am resuming remarks interrupted by other House
business on another day and we now return to the motion of the
hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
To recapitulate what I said earlier on this bill, one respects the
intention and the purpose behind it. In the interim I have had the
privilege of sitting as a substitute member on the all party
committee on national defence. The experience reinforces the
comment I made earlier. This is one of the very strong
committees of the House. I was very impressed with the degree
of knowledge of the members and the degree of co-operation
across both sides of the table from all parties. In other words,
there is a great deal of awareness in the committee of the gravity
of the problem and the search for proper remedies.
That brings me back to the main point that the failure in
Bosnia is a failure in foreign policy and not in the military
sphere of the operation. The failure goes back to a basic
criticism many contemporary historians have made that this is
one of the low periods in foreign policy in the world community.
If we look at the confidence, the reaction to the events of the
emerging cold war in the late forties and fifties, the very creative
period in American foreign policy, in European foreign policy
with Adenauer, Schuman and De Gasperi creating the European
community, we are now in one of those periods in which foreign
ministers simply seem unable to cope with the problems.
Returning to Bosnia, the failure was in lacking a vision of
what to do with Yugoslavia once it broke up, as inevitably it was
to break up. Everyone predicted this when Tito should die and
Tito's regime should pass into history. We find there are
alternative plans. Greater Serbia has been spoken of but there is
a greater Bulgaria concept, a greater Greece concept, conflicting
ambitions of Balkan powers restrained by the facts of life of the
cold war and bipolarity but broke out with the breakdown of the
cold war system of world public order and the new pluralism
which dangerously at times comes close to anarchy.
In this area Canada has played a constructive and useful role.
We were not in at the beginning on the decisions on Yugoslavia
and post-communist Yugoslavia. We were not part of the
contact group. To be frank, I see no point in our trying to join the
contact group now. We would in effect be trying to correct errors
made by European foreign ministers who should have known
better.
We have to search for solutions using other arenas like CSCE,
NATO, forum available to make our point. In terms of military
operations, the Canadian forces have behaved with intelligence,
good judgment and restraint. We have recognized that United
Nations peacekeeping as devised by Prime Minister Pearson
absolutely prohibits a political role. What is now talked about in
contemporary international relations activities as crossing the
Mogadishu line is something Canadian military men above all
have always observed with proper self-restraint. We have to
face the reality that our peacekeeping forces have not been
developed with a view to imposing political solutions by
military means. There is nothing in the training of our staff
colleges that lends itself to this.
I have had the privilege of lecturing to our national defence
college and the military college at various stages in my
pre-parliamentary life. They are very well trained but they
cannot cover the whole world. If we are to send them to Somalia
to impose a political solution or to former Yugoslavia to impose
a political solution the training is not there. We have behaved
properly and correctly.
Counting this we have had three debates in the House on the
future of peacekeeping. What emerges on the future of
peacekeeping is a large interparty consensus which crosses the
House that we wish to maintain the classical conception of
peacekeeping. That is something we developed and which we do
very well. If it is a matter of moving into peacemaking,
imposing political
14056
solutions, we have to recognize the limits of our special
competence.
(1110 )
In countries that have connections with the former British
empire, the Commonwealth and la francophonie there are
special ties of culture and experience that give us perhaps the
ability to make political judgments if that is what is called for.
Elsewhere, it is entering unchartered seas. Therefore, the clear
conclusion emerging from our debates is that we maintain
peacekeeping as our function for the United Nations, that we do
not get into peacemaking and that we do not cross the
Mogadishu line.
In relation to the bill presented by the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East, I respect the intention here but I wonder about the
attempt to legislate what sensibly can be left to executive
administrative judgment. In article 5(2) the Canadian forces
shall not participate in any action designed to force the governor
of state to leave office or to install a government other than by
facilitating a democratic process in accordance with the laws of
the state or a resolution of the United Nations general assembly
or the United Nations security council.
We are bound by international law. Because it is one of the
currently contested points before the International Court and
elsewhere, it is arguable whether a United Nations general
assembly or security council resolution can go beyond
international law. Where it does go beyond that it is arguable it
is unconstitutional in United Nations terms.
I wonder why one should try to legislate this. We are bound by
common sense. The one thing emerging from the debates in the
House and which any foreign minister would take note of is that
Canadians do not want us to get into political ventures in the
Balkans or areas where we have no special historical ties and no
background of historical experience to aid our judgment. In
other words, we have done very well with General MacKenzie
and the people we have had there. The all party consensus is
there and the defence committee reflects this. There is no need
to legislate this. Good sense prevails.
This bill is taking us into an American style constitutional
solution but it is unnecessary in our context. Even in the case of
the United States, all the legislation in the world and the
American constitution have not prevented the president of the
United States making those errors of political judgment and
getting involved in political military ventures overseas that go
beyond the letter and, some would argue, the spirit of the
constitution.
These debates on peacekeeping have been an educational
experience. In many respects there have been inspiring
contributions by members. The consensus is very clear that no
foreign minister will take us on a creeping course into foreign
military involvement. All reports of the summit meeting
suggested we have exercised prudent self-restraint. Within the
limits of our powers we have spoken to other foreign ministers,
presidents and heads of states and have said as far as we are
concerned we are peacekeepers, we cannot ourselves get
involved in political-military ventures.
That is the spirit of the House. I do not think it is necessary to
legislate it. However, I commend the member for Fraser Valley
East for giving us yet another occasion to reaffirm a striking
consensus.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
several occasions already we have had a chance to speak in the
House on subjects concerning the peace missions. As did the
member from the Liberal Party and my colleague from Foreign
Affairs, we thanked the member for Fraser Valley East for
having given us, by means of this bill, an opportunity to discuss
the peace missions.
(1115)
During the review of Canada's defence policy, the question of
peacekeeping missions came up in the discussions of the
national defence committee, of which I am a member.
When you look at Bill C-295, as the previous speaker
remarked, you realize that there is an all-party consensus on the
principle of peacekeeping missions and the humanitarian way. I
would like to add that the people of Quebec and of Canada
accept the fact that Canada participates in peacekeeping
missions.
However, I am far from sure that this bill will remedy the
shortcomings that have been noted during recent peacekeeping
missions, whether in Rwanda or more recently still in the former
Yugoslavia.
In my opinion, the bill-and we support it in principle, as I
said-contains certain restrictions that are not spelled out as the
Bloc Quebecois has requested on a number of occasions. As
well, in the report on the review of Canada's defence policy, the
member for Shefford and I asked on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois that criteria for peacekeeping missions be defined.
Nowhere, either in the bill or in a statement by the government,
is there set out what Canada thinks should be the basis for a clear
definition of criteria governing participation by our military
personnel in other or possible future peacekeeping missions.
And yet Canada is supposed to be a leader in peacekeeping
missions.
The government or some of its spokesmen have expressed
reservations about the bill, saying that the fact that a
peacekeeping mission agreement would have to be discussed in
the House would slow down the effectiveness and speed of a
decision and that this could be prejudicial to certain categories
of mission.
14057
Looking at the current mission, I think that argument does not
hold a great deal of water, because ever since the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia started, the Canadian government has been
havering and wavering and sometimes even flip-flopping.
When the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the UN last summer
that Canada would be encouraging the UN to set up a permanent
contingent and that Canada would participate, the Department
of National Defence retorted that Canadian military personnel
could not serve under an operational command that was not
Canadian, and the whole issue is still up in the air.
In my opinion, with respect to peacekeeping in general and
the current conflict in the former Yugoslavia in particular, the
views of the citizens who pay for the humanitarian mission with
their taxes are not given much attention.
Almost 1,800 of the peacekeepers in Bosnia come from CFB
Valcartier, which is in my riding, and I can tell you that the
people there are extremely interested in any discussion in this
House of peacekeeping missions and also in statements from the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, or the Minister
of National Defence. Some of them would like to know how it
happened that in April 1992 Canada recognized
Bosnia-Hercegovina as a sovereign state and called attention to
Serb aggression, when throughout the conflict there seems to
have been a certain slackness on the UN's part, recognized on all
sides.
I have already reminded this House once that General Dallaire
said that more than 200 UN resolutions had never been
implemented and that with the amount of dithering going on it
seemed possible the Serbs would end up laughing at the UN and
the international organization.
(1120)
The Minister of Defence was also reported recently to have
said he was beginning to believe that the Serbs were playing cat
and mouse.
I would like to add, because the bill does address the peace
missions, that when soldiers return from missions, we hear some
strange things. We also hear them from European
parliamentarians who say that, since the UN has taken a great
deal of time to act and change course-Indeed, several persons
have requested either a change in the Security Council or a
change in the way its resolutions are actually implemented;
some persons are trying to say that at present the peace missions
are no longer peace missions but no more than buffers between
warring parties. They are even going so far as to say that UN
peacekeepers, sometimes against their will, or because of the
laxity of the UN, will practically be maintaining the conflict or
making it drag on.
Mr. Speaker, you are not unaware-you have certainly
heard-that when humanitarian convoys travel in the former
Yugoslavia, Bosnia, or the self-proclaimed pseudo-Serb
republic inside Bosnian territory, they are stopped at the
checkpoints and, often enough, equipment, trucks and even food
supplies are seized; Serbian soldiers or sometimes Bosnian
soldiers then use the goods-ostensibly requisitioned for
checkpoint purposes-to line their own pockets by selling them.
I think that the bill on the peace missions is certainly of value,
and we agree with it in principle. I would go farther in that
direction and say that it is high time the government made a
decision once and for all, some aspects of which would certainly
be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs or the
Defence Committee. It is high time to specify some basic
criteria, before sending off our peacekeepers as part of peace
missions without previously defining how far they are to go,
how long they are to endure being slapped on one cheek and
turning the other, and how long they are to be given equipment; I
say ``given'' ironically, because very often that equipment is
seized. Unfortunately-or perhaps fortunately-those things
are known.
When soldiers return from missions, they mention the
damning facts I have mentioned to you. At that point, the public,
which, through its taxes, does send our peacekeepers on
humanitarian missions, finds it hard to accept that Canada, the
leader in peace missions, does not take the lead at the UN once
and for all and make a really valid proposal for change that, I am
sure, would be accepted by the parties in this House.
There is far too much hesitation and procrastination. I believe
we have reached a point where we must-without necessarily
pounding the table and becoming belligerent, something Canada
has never been-at least manage to define a clear policy. For
some eight or 10 months, since the first debates in this House on
the peace missions, the Bloc Quebecois has in fact requested
that specific criteria be established regarding the role our
peacekeepers are called upon to carry out and also regarding a
definition of our participation-military or humanitarian-that
can be targeted, not only within a budget, but also within the
limits of what is acceptable.
After all, we must not delude ourselves and begin to react
energetically when we see hostages taken by the Serbs. People
saw that on television screens all over the world. I think that
chaining up a soldier as a human shield alone runs counter to
every principle of the Geneva Convention governing countries
at war. Unfortunately, both Canada and the other UN member
countries took that incident lightly and hardly reacted to acts
that can only be described as barbaric.
(1125)
In conclusion, I believe that this bill is essentially a good idea,
but it needs elaboration, and I would suggest to the government
that it initiate a discussion process, both at Foreign Affairs and
in the defence committee, with very precise criteria.
14058
[English]
Mr. Harry Verran (South West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill we are addressing today, Bill C-295, proposes to shift
control of the Canadian peacekeeping activities from the crown
to Parliament as a whole and to amend the National Defence Act
to reflect this wider decision making responsibility. Rather than
offering an improvement to the system now in place, such
legislation may well substitute rigidity for flexibility and
inaction for responsiveness.
The bill before us was created out of concern for the Canadian
forces' personnel serving on peacekeeping missions and the
desire to ensure the government follows a sound decision
making process; of that I am certain. However having examined
the bill I am equally certain that it confuses more than it clarifies
and that it will impede decision making rather than assist it.
In short, the bill will worsen rather than improve the system
now in place. It will add time to matters that demand urgent
responses and it will dilute responsibility for decisions that
demand clear, unequivocal leadership. For these reasons I must
oppose Bill C-295.
Bill C-295 would restrict the prerogative, speed and
discretion of the crown to decide Canada's contribution to UN or
regional peace operations. Peacekeeping like other military
operations is carried out under the authority of the Minister of
National Defence. Section 4 of the National Defence Act
identifies the minister as the representative of the crown
responsible for the management and direction of Canadian
forces and for all matters relating to national defence.
However, the proposed bill would remove the responsibility
and direction not only of the minister but of all the government
respecting military operations. As a result, the bill would slow
down the government's response to UN requests for assistance
in peace operations and compromise its ability to respond to
changes in the peacekeeping mandate in a timely manner.
It has been said that lost time is never found again. That
certainly is the consensus of many former Canadian UN
commanders who have identified as a major problem the length
of time it takes for the international community to respond to a
crisis.
Major-General Roméo Dallaire has spoken publicly of the
importance of speed in responding to emergencies. He has
estimated that tens of thousands of lives would have been saved
in Rwanda if his urgent request for troops had been met with
action.
I do not think Bill C-295 would improve the situation for a
commander who found himself in a position similar to that of
Major-General Dallaire. With another layer added to the
decision making process it would require even longer for
Canada to become involved and provide help. If a situation is
deemed an emergency it should be treated like one.
Bill C-295 would also compromise a structure in place to
manage international Canadian forces' operations. Every
potential operation is evaluated against guidelines that include
the broad political and foreign policy context, the overall
mission requirements as well as our own military capability.
These guidelines have been refined for more than 40 years of
practical experience. They also reflect in a prudent but
pragmatic manner the new thinking that has emerged since the
end of the cold war. This new thinking was articulated in a 1994
defence white paper which contains a list of key principles that
underlie the design of all peace missions.
I should like to remind the House the Minister of National
Defence consulted widely before formulating this policy. The
overriding principle determining each peacekeeping mission is
that it addresses genuine threats to international peace and
security, such as the worsening situation in the former
Yugoslavia, where there are emerging human catastrophes such
as we have seen in Somalia and Rwanda.
(1130)
I have explained why and how Bill C-295 would slow down
Canada's ability to respond and contribute to international
peacekeeping. Now I would like to talk about how the bill
confuses the issues that underlie our current system. The
confusion represents many more impediments in what must be a
rapid and flexible decision making process.
First, Bill C-295 as it is currently written contains restrictions
that would prevent the government from carrying out its
obligations under the UN charter. Chapter VII of the charter
provides for action by the security council with respect to
threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
Under various articles of the charter UN member states are
required to carry out the security council decisions aimed at
maintaining international peace and security.
Although as worded the bill appears to cover the UN chapter
VII operations, most of its provisions contradict chapter VII
requirments. I question whether Canada would have contributed
to the gulf war if Bill C-295 were in effect a few years ago.
What troubles me more however is the provision of Bill
C-295 that gives up Canadian sovereign command of Canada
forces elements. I believe strongly that this would lead to an
unworkable command and control relationship. The intent of the
bill seems to be taking us back in time to the first and second
world wars when Canadian troops came under allied rather than
national command. This indeed appears to be a regressive step
and one that I doubt the bill's proponents meant it to take.
14059
Canadian forces personnel serving on peace operations today
are always commanded by a Canadian. Canadian units and
personnel can only be placed under the operational control and
not the operational command of the UN or other multinational
commanders for specific tasks. Under operational control,
changes to the tasks assigned to Canadian peacekeepers or to
their area of operations must receive Canadian national
approval. Under operational command, Canadian troops could
be reassigned and moved without such approval.
Under current legislation a non-Canadian commander who
only has operational control cannot separately assign
components of a Canadian unit. A company of infantry soldiers,
for example, cannot be removed from its battalion to serve with
another unit unless the deployment is approved by Canada. Once
again, under the non-Canadian operational command this could
happen.
Currently commanders of Canadian contingents are directly
responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff for the success of
their operations. However under Bill C-295 Canadian
commanding officers would be placed under UN or other
international command. To my mind this would mean less
national control, not more.
To sum up, I cannot support a bill that appears to provide for
greater control by the government over peacekeeping operations
when in fact it reduces government control, compromises
national authority over troops abroad and confuses several key
components and concepts. Moreover, at a time when flexibility
of response is critical to meeting the demands of rapid change,
the bill proposes significant restrictions on the government's
ability to manoeuvre.
The government has demonstrated its commitment to
consultation. We have listened to the views of parliamentarians
and ordinary Canadians alike in formulating defence policy and
we will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Bill C-295
presented by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.
The bill has several important features that commend it. The
first is that it is a peacekeeping bill. I believe it is important that
all Canadians, including their representatives in the House,
understand the difference between peacekeeping and
peacemaking. This is little understood.
(1135)
The situation in the former Yugoslavia gives us a good
example. If I understand it properly, there is a real peacekeeping
operation going on in Croatia. This is so because the warring
factions there agreed that they wanted peace and agreed to the
UN going in to keep it, which the United Nations did under
chapter VI, the peacekeeping chapter of the UN charter.
In Bosnia, on the other hand, we do not have a peacekeeping
operation there because there was no prior agreement among the
Serbs, the Muslims and the Croats to have peace. Therefore, as
is very evident, there is no peace to keep. What is going on there
is humanitarian assistance under chapter VI of the UN charter.
What is needed in Bosnia-Hercegovina is an agreement between
the warring factions that there be peace, or we need a declaration
with follow up actions by the United Nations that peacemaking
is required under chapter VII of the charter. We need one or the
other to happen there and we have neither.
Canada's help to Rwanda, if we take another example, was
one of humanitarian aid: the provision of medical assistance,
food, water and communications under chapter VI, which is the
peacekeeping chapter.
Let us look at our activity in Somalia. This came under both
chapters VII and VI of the UN charter. From January to June of
1993 members may remember seeing pictures of Somalian
warlords roaring around the country in vehicles that had
machine guns mounted on them. What was required there was a
military operation to bring the bandits under control. Canada
during that first six months was in Somalia as a peacemaker
under chapter VII of the UN charter. Once the situation was
under control and some agreement had been reached with the
warlords, Canada moved into operating under chapter VI, which
is the peacekeeping chapter of the UN charter.
Aside from understanding the difference between
peacekeeping and peacemaking, the important point to be made
is that it has got to be clear in everyone's mind before we get
involved in any military operation what kind of an operation it
is. Is it clearly peacekeeping or is it not? This lack of clarity has
led us to the situation we now have in Bosnia.
It is also important to know what the terms of reference are or
what the mandate is before we get involved. Canada has a good
example and a bad example of each in our experience in
Indochina, in Vietnam. Canada, as part of the International
Commission for Supervision and Control, spent nearly 20 years
in Indochina along with India and Poland. The problem was that
we were ineffective there because the rules governing the ICSC
did not allow Canada to tell the world what was going on. We
could not unilaterally bring the world's attention to the
violations of peace agreements.
After nearly 20 frustrating years we finally learned our lesson
in 1973. In that year we responded to the U.S. desire to extricate
itself from Vietnam and get its prisoners of war out of North
Vietnam. Canada agreed to be one of the four nations that
formed the International Commission for Control and
Supervision. There was a juxtaposition of the initials ICCS as
opposed to the former ICSC.
14060
(1140 )
We went into that commission with what we called an open
mouth policy which allowed Canada to make public all
violations to the peace, which were for the most part by the Viet
Cong. I have described this operation before in this House and
do so again because it illustrates a certain amount of savvy on
Canada's part. We went into Vietnam, did our job, got the
American prisoners of war out and then left the commission
within six months without getting bogged down as we did in the
previous ICSC or as we did in Cyprus for 29 years.
What Bill C-295 does is bring Canadian peacekeeping
missions before Parliament. It is important that we do this. The
debate and review that would take place would diminish the
chances of our going into a military operation with inadequate
terms of reference and without knowing what we are getting into
and for how long.
Bill C-295 would not tie the hands of cabinet or the
Department of National Defence in reacting swiftly where
military intervention was required. It would simply ensure that
things were properly considered and that the Canadian people
were involved in the decision making process through their
parliamentary representatives here assembled.
Several weeks ago I was in Hungary and I discovered in that
rather new democracy that they are very interested in civilian
control over the military. What I found is that their Parliament
has more control today over their troops than Canada has over its
own. Even one Hungarian soldier may not cross the frontiers of
that country without parliamentary approval. That is not so in
good old democratic Canada.
Canadians take pride in the fact that we have been leaders in
the international community in peacekeeping operations and
particularly in the United Nations sponsored ones. We take pride
in the professionalism and compassion shown by our troops.
This applies to Somalia as much as it does anywhere else. We
have heard the negative stories out of Somalia and there is no
excusing those transgressions but there has been precious little
publicity given to the good works of the men of the airborne
regiment in that unfortunate land.
Our men in uniform are a cross section of the population of
Canada. They act humanely and compassionately. We have
heard far too little about the help our troops gave to the
Somalians from restoring order to medical assistance, food,
shelter, schooling and so on. I really do wish the news media
would bring out this aspect of the airborne regiment's
performance. Perhaps the Somalia commission of inquiry under
Justice Létourneau, which continues hearings today, will be
instrumental in telling the story about what went right as well as
what went wrong.
In any event, our experience over the years, good and bad, in
peacekeeping and peacemaking in Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Somalia, the gulf war, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, Suez,
Kashmir, the Congo, Vietnam, Korea and other operations
should give us pause as Canadians to think about what we have
done in the past and what we will do in the future.
We should not take such pride in our past participation that we
join in all such operations without due consideration. I suspect
that there was an element of that in our entry into the former
Yugoslavia. Bill C-295 would enhance our decision making
process and I heartily commend it.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak at third reading of Bill C-295, an act to provide for the
control of Canadian peacekeeping activities by Parliament and
to amend the National Defence Act in consequence thereof.
Like other members on the government side of the House, I
find Bill C-295 to be a flawed, contradictory piece of legislation
that would do irreparable damage to Canada's reputation as a
skilled peacekeeper. If this bill were to become law our ability to
participate effectively in future peacekeeping missions would
be put at serious risk. The very lives of our peacekeepers would
be put in grave danger.
(1145)
Before I look at some of the specific details of Bill C-295 I
think it is important to understand the nature of Canada's current
involvement in peacekeeping activities and the way in which we
manage our participation in these operations. Only then will the
shortcomings of this legislation be fully appreciated.
Canada has a long and proud tradition of helping the global
community to defend peace, freedom and democracy. We
remain committed to creating an association with our friends
and allies and a stable international environment.
[Translation]
We realize that our security and our prosperity depend on a
more stable world order. Because Canada is a responsible
member of the international community and one of the world's
major trading nations, we know that conflicts must be contained
and their expansion prevented. We also want to help reduce or
eliminate suffering in cases where outside assistance can make a
contribution.
[English]
Canada has long viewed peacekeeping as an extremely useful
tool in international efforts to manage and resolve conflict. We
have excelled at peacekeeping and we like to boast, with some
authority I would say, that our experience and skills are
unmatched. Our contribution to peacekeeping reflects our belief
that a stable international order is essential to Canada's long
term peace and security. It is for this reason that we provide well
14061
trained and suitably equipped military personnel for
peacekeeping and related operations.
[Translation]
However, although Canada reviews attentively all requests
for it to participate in peacekeeping missions, our participation
is not automatic. Our participation is second to none, certainly,
but it does not follow that we will be part of every mission.
There have been UN peacekeeping missions in which Canada
has not participated.
[English]
Nevertheless the international community turns to Canada
almost as a matter of course whenever a new mission is getting
off the ground. The world not only understands that
peacekeeping is an integral part of our own foreign policy but it
also knows that our flexible, multipurpose combat capable
forces can do the job.
We have a long tradition of peacekeeping expertise based on
professionalism, training and the resources of our personnel. We
have a wealth of experience in preparing, deploying, sustaining
and repatriating great peacekeeping forces of various sizes.
More recently we have been the vanguard of new concepts. Our
corporate memory in peacekeeping makes us a natural choice
for a wide variety of missions. It has taken years to build this
marvellous reputation. We do not want to see it disappear now.
This bill I fear would do just that.
Let me look at some of the specific problems of Bill C-295.
First, I do not believe the authors of Bill C-295 fully understand
the nature of modern peacekeeping. For example the definition
of peacekeeping offered is too imprecise and does not specify
the types of operations covered. Peacekeeping as we know from
our experience in the former Yugoslavia has become a generic
term covering a broad range of activities, from traditional
Pearsonian peacekeeping and preventive deployment to peace
enforcement and peace building. These distinctions are glossed
over in the legislation.
[Translation]
Nor is it explained anywhere in the bill why this applies only
to the Canadian forces. Civilians are often used in UN
peacekeeping missions-elections personnel, for example, and
police officers. But there is no mention of civilians anywhere.
[English]
Bill C-295 confuses other fundamental concepts. It would
amend the National Defence Act so all members of the Canadian
forces assigned to a peacekeeping mission would be on active
service for all purposes. This proposal is unnecessary. Pursuant
to Order in Council P.C. 1989-583 dated April 6, 1989, all
regular force members anywhere beyond Canada and all reserve
force members beyond Canada are currently on active service.
Moreover, all members of the regular force have been on active
service continually since 1950.
In other words, there is no legal requirement for individual
orders in council placing members on active service for specific
peacekeeping missions. Our practice of issuing orders in council
is simply a parliamentary convention, although I might add that
it reflects the government's commitment to involve Parliament
more frequently in defence matters.
With respect to termination of Canadian contributions, let me
move on to some of the provisions in the bill which deal
specifically with peacekeeping operations.
[Translation]
For example, clause 8 of the bill requires that when the
objectives of a mission are reached, all Canadian forces shall be
withdrawn. At first sight, this is a very sensible idea. But in
reality it will be difficult to determine at what point objectives
have been reached, or how much expenditure it will take to reach
them. And yet those are the very conditions that the bill would
like to see defined in advance.
If a Canadian contingent were withdrawn from a mission too
quickly, our participation could prove pointless, and worse still
the whole mission could be compromised.
[English]
Moreover, the bill states that Canada should set its own
peacekeeping objectives. However it is not clear how
international and national aims might be reconciled. As it stands
if we do not like an operation's objectives we do not contribute.
However once we join we understand the operation is
multilateral. We take pride in our role as a team player in
international missions and we do not want to compromise it
now.
The muddled thinking that dominates much of Bill C-295
carries over into the section dealing with rules of engagement.
Let me first provide a little context. Rules of engagement are
always issued to armed Canadian forces personnel participating
in international operations. Our personnel often operate under
UN rules of engagement, although these are frequently drafted
in conjunction with the Canadian forces staff at national defence
headquarters as well as the Canadian contingent commander.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the
end of the debate on this bill. I would just like to thank all
members for contributing to that debate. The bill was drafted in
response to the recommendations of the joint Senate-Commons
defence committee in its recommendation that Parliament be
consulted before future peacekeeping missions.
I thank hon. members for their debate and ask that they
support this bill.
14062
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.52 a.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the second stage reading of the bill
before the House.
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 the order made Friday,
June 16, 1995, the recorded division stands deferred until later
this day at 11.30 p.m.
_____________________________________________
14062
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-86, an act
to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of this bill.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
[Translation]
We are a little ahead of schedule, and apparently the member
moving the amendment is on his way to the House. We can
suspend for a few minutes, or we can wait for him. The choice is
yours, colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if the member will be arriving
shortly we will then suspend for a few minutes, but if we have no
news of the member then we should put the question.
The Deputy Speaker: I am told he is on his way. We are a
couple of minutes early. He might not have expected we would
be doing this.
Does anyone else wish to comment? Could one of the
members of the Reform Party indicate how long the member is
gong to be?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, we are just checking on that now.
If the House would indulge us and give us a minute or two, I will
definitely get back right away and let you know what is going
on. We expect him here any moment now.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, shall we suspend for two
or three minutes? If the member is not here in two or three
minutes we will come back. Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.57 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-86 be amended by adding after line 43, on page 2, the following
new Clause:
``2.1 the Act is amended by adding, after subsection 9(1), the following:
``(1.1) the Commission may exercise the powers described in paragraphs
(1)(f) to (i) only with the agreement of
(a) the province where the power is to be exercised, or
(b) the Board that has jurisdiction over milk or cream in the province where the
power is to be exercised.''''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present an
amendment to Bill C-86, which will change the Canadian Dairy
Commission Act. I recognize and acknowledge up front that
changes are necessary to the act which will allow it to operate
within the trade agreements now in place, particularly the
NAFTA and the GATT.
While acknowledging that the changes are needed, I have
some concerns about Bill C-86. The main concern is that the
Canadian Dairy Commission will be allowed to exercise powers
which have traditionally belonged to the provinces. Concerns
have been expressed by dairy farmers and others in several
provinces about the movement into provincial jurisdiction.
While I have concerns about what is in Bill C-86, my larger
concern is with the discussions which have taken place since its
introduction. What I have heard in the discussions is that the bill
will accommodate supply management. It will allow supply
management to continue pretty much as it is with some changes.
We have heard from the agriculture minister, the parliamentary
14063
secretary to the agriculture minister and dairy groups that
because the legislation will accommodate supply management
no changes are required. That concerns me. Certainly a lot of
dairy farmers who I have spoken to know that changes are
coming in supply management. These changes will come not
because of legislation passed in Canada but as a result of
pressure, particularly from the United States, through the trade
agreements NAFTA and GATT.
(1205)
The discussion surrounding Bill C-86 is that it will fix the
problem and allow supply management to continue. Supply
management has been working well and this will allow it to
continue to work well. As a result of that kind of discussion,
many dairy farmers are not aware that change is inevitable. It is
important for farmers to acknowledge that, to allow for a
reasonable transition period and to move from the present
supply management system which will be accommodated under
this legislation to a system which will assist them to respond to
more competition, particularly through more imports from the
United States.
In the discussions the parliamentary secretary to the minister,
the minister and even the leaders of some farm groups have said
this will help solve an immediate problem but the long term
concern is still there because change will come. Many farmers
did not get that message. It will mean that the dairy supply
managed industry will not have the transition time needed to
move from the present system to a system with more
competition.
That is my single largest concern surrounding the legislation.
The amendment I propose is essential before the bill passes
because it will prevent the federal government, once again
through its agencies, from interfering in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
I have specific concerns with the bill. I will address those
later. My main concern is for the dairy farmers. I am extremely
concerned they will not be prepared for the coming changes.
Over the past months I have made trips to different parts of
Ontario and I made a point of talking to dairy farmers. This is an
area where I feel Reform must do more work. Certainly I need
more knowledge in the area. I make a point of talking to dairy
farmers about what is going on in their industry. I find from
discussing the industry with dairy farmers that different groups
of dairy farmers look at the change in different ways.
For example, dairy farmers who are quite close to retirement
and maybe plan on farming for five or ten years are asking why
the system cannot remain exactly as it is. They do not even want
to talk about change. They want us to do everything we can to get
the maximum price now and pretend that change is not going to
happen. I understand their thinking. Change is intimidating to
most people.
These dairy farmers who will only be in business for maybe
another five years would do well to keep the system exactly as it
is. I understand their concern and acknowledge their view.
Another group of dairy farmers have borrowed a large amount
of money to finance quota. They are concerned as we move into
a more competitive system. Many are willing to acknowledge it
will happen, that change is coming. They do not know whether it
will be in five years, ten years, two years or three years. These
farmers are concerned because if their quota loses value, which
it certainly will when there is more competition allowed into the
system, in some cases they will become insolvent. They will not
have the equity to back loans. In other cases their retirement,
even though it is down the road, is being eroded. This is a
concern to them.
(1210)
Then there are the young farmers coming into the system.
Many of them feel they would do well not having to pay for
quota at all. That means the competition is not as big a threat to
them.
The amendment I have proposed will fix up one of the
problems in the bill. It will allow provinces to keep jurisdiction
which is rightfully theirs. It does not fix the problems with the
change in the industry.
Mammoth changes are coming to the industry. That must be
acknowledged. Let us discuss them openly as we discuss this
amendment and this bill as it passes through the House.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take a few minutes to comment on the motion that is before the
House.
First, I am very disappointed in the lack of knowledge or
understanding that the member who has just spoken has
concerning the bill that is before us today. He needs a few more
trips to some place in Canada where there is supply management
and he needs to talk to more producers and more stakeholders in
the industry to get a better understanding of it.
I am also disappointed he does not seem to recognize and have
faith in the dairy industry that which the rest of us have to adapt
to the changes that the dairy industry does know are happening.
It is addressing them.
It is very clear that in all sectors of the dairy industry,
including the primary producer and the processors, are prepared
and are rolling with the punches as the industry evolves not only
here in Canada but throughout the world.
The bill before the House does absolutely nothing to change
the role and the participation at the present time. Reaching
consensus on any major Canadian industry initiative, whether it
is in the dairy industry or wherever, is always difficult. Reach-
14064
ing unanimity is even more difficult but that is what has
happened with this bill.
The representatives of 26,000 dairy farmers and some 300
processors and marketers have clearly voiced their strong
support for the bill. I remind the House that the value of this
industry to Canada is $8 billion a year.
The members of the national Canadian milk supply
management committee, provincial governments and the milk
marketing boards and agencies throughout Canada have agreed
to all aspects of the bill. I find it very contradictory for the
member to stand in this place, representing a party which
continually says that the industry should be able to adapt the
way the industry wants, and give a contradictory message. That
is exactly what this bill does today. It is an industry decision.
None of the parties involved, and this shows the distance of
the member from the issue we are discussing, agrees with this
motion. The parties have been to the standing committee. None
of the parties involved in this have asked for this.
The administration of pricing and the pooling of milk and of
returns by the Canadian Dairy Commission on behalf of the
producers requires legislation dovetailing certain provincial and
federal powers. There is absolutely no infringement on
provincial authority involved in this legislation.
Most provinces currently have legislation allowing milk
pricing and pooling within their boundaries. Bill C-86 has
absolutely no effect on current provincial powers.
To duplicate the equity which the current levy system
provides to the new national pooling system, similar powers
must be provided for milk sold across provincial borders and
that is interprovincial movement of milk and for export.
There are four points in the bill. The first is the bill provides
the power to establish and operate a pool or pools. The second is
the power to establish the price of the milk or cream to be
included in the pool.
(1215 )
The third is the power to collect the returns from the milk or
cream to be pooled. The fourth is the power to establish and
operate a special program that will enable processors and further
processors to obtain milk or milk components at special prices.
Only the last of the powers is subject to formal agreement
between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the provincial
milk marketing boards. While the other three powers will be
delegated to the provincial authorities under the new pricing and
pooling system they are and should remain strictly within
federal jurisdiction.
The legislative changes replicate the same federal-provincial
power sharing now in effect through the levy system and the
special assistance program for processors and further
processors. The bill will allow maintenance of the dairy sector's
current successful, effective and equitable framework for the
orderly marketing of milk and dairy products in Canada.
In closing I emphasize to the member and to other members in
the House that the motion would not represent a change from
what exists at the present time. It certainly would not be what the
industry asked for. I remind the member to touch base closer
with the industry so that he can assist us in doing exactly what he
keeps asking us to do: provide the industry with what it wants.
More formal agreements between the federal and provincial
governments would only be further restrictions on the dairy
industry which is not our wish. Our wish is to do what is wanted
by the Canadian milk supply management committee which
represents the total industry. That is what the bill does.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise this afternoon to discuss Bill C-86 and
more specifically the amendment proposed by my colleague, the
hon. member for Vegreville.
First I would like to make a statement that contradicts my
colleague's assertions about supply management. When you
want to fill a glass with water, it's easy, you turn on the tap. If
you want the glass to be filled right to the brim, you take care to
turn off the tap just at the right moment for the glass to be filled
up; if you only want half a glass, you turn off the tap when the
water reaches halfway.
In the early 1970s, farmers, provincial governments and
processors got together and introduced what is now generally
referred to as supply management. Regulated supply
management in the dairy industry is profitable for all levels.
First of all it is profitable for the farmers, who are the base of the
dairy pyramid.
Previously, our producers found it much more advantageous
to produce milk in May, June and July, when their herds were at
pasture. In those three months they could make a better profit on
their milk while in the winter it was less profitable, more costly,
to produce milk. The result was that consumers and processors
ran short of the raw material, milk, that was needed for a full
year, so that there were periods when there were no fresh dairy
products the way we always have now.
Today dairy producers are assured steady income throughout
the year, and not just for one defined portion of the year.
Consumers can get fresh butter and cheese every day, thanks to
competent management of dairy production. And processors can
run their plants all year round and not just for a few months.
14065
I have to say to my colleague from Vegreville, who has visited
dairy producers in southern Ontario who want to keep the
existing arrangement, that this is not in compliance with the
agreements we have signed with our international partners.
(1220)
We are not in compliance with our GATT commitments and
we have to modernize, we have to position ourselves by the start
of August to respect the agreements signed by the Canadian
government with the 140 other GATT members.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vegreville
does not, given the present system, constitute a change that
gives more powers to provinces, as its wording might suggest at
first glance. Given the system as we know it, this amendment
would simply limit the effectiveness of the consultation process
that exists at the present time through the Canadian Milk Supply
Management Committee.
Currently industrial milk is managed by the Canadian Milk
Supply Management Committee. The committee is made up of
the chairmen of all the provincial milk marketing boards. The
Canadian Dairy Commission just chairs the committee. The
committee operates on a consensus basis and in case of dispute
on any point that requires unanimity, the budget for example, a
preliminary management committee will be struck.
If consensus is still not possible after three meetings of this
committee, the majority decides. As in any good family-you
know this, Mr. Speaker, you are the father of a family-there
comes a time when someone has to wear the trousers and make
the decisions. If after three meetings unanimity is not possible,
the majority decides. In no case does the Canadian Dairy
Commission have a right of veto.
Moreover, it is important to point out that the Canadian Milk
Supply Management Committee has never, in living memory,
failed to reach agreement. That means that the Canadian Dairy
Commission cannot impose its views on representatives of the
provincial boards. So why include in the bill that their
agreement is necessary?
There are some other anomalies in the wording of this
amendment. It refers to amending a clause affecting the
Canadian Dairy Commission. That commission has jurisdiction
over industrial milk only, while the provinces are responsible
for fluid milk.
The proposed amendment means that the Canadian Dairy
Commission can exercise certain powers only with the
agreement of the provinces in which the power is to be
exercised, but the provinces have no say with regard to
industrial milk. Most importantly, when the amendment refers
to agreement by the province, it does not seem to take into
account the fact that the provinces do not sit on the Canadian
Milk Supply Management Committee.
Provincial representation is provided through the provincial
marketing boards. Thus paragraph (a) of the amendment adds
nothing to Bill C-86, because it refers to a level of government
that, under the present system, has no direct jurisdiction. Since
the agreement needed under paragraph (a) of the amendment
will be that of the marketing boards, we now question whether
paragraph (b) of the amendment is relevant.
In my opinion, there is even a problem of interpretation with
the bill itself and with the principle underlying the amendment;
since the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee
operates by consensus, why include in the bill that the
commission can exercise the powers mentioned therein only
with the agreement of the boards?
(1225)
Even if the provinces had jurisdiction in the area to which the
amendment refers, the amendment's reference to either the
provinces or the boards would not succeed in achieving a
majority whereas, at present, as I was saying, the committee
operates on consensus.
For these reasons, we of the Bloc Quebecois would ask our
colleagues to oppose this amendment proposed to us this
morning by the hon. member from Vegreville, who represents
the Reform Party on the agriculture committee.
Overall, maintaining the system as it now operates beyond
August 1 would be illegal. The government, in consultation with
the provinces, reached agreements with the vast majority of
them, with the result that today six provinces out of nine
participate in milk marketing. Six provinces agreed to sign the
memorandum of agreement. Those six provinces, including two
important ones, Quebec and Ontario, produce 82 per cent of all
the milk in Canada.
At present three provinces have signed partial agreements,
but on very specific points, still hesitating to jump in with the
six other provinces. They are the three western provinces:
Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, which together
produce 18 per cent of Canada's milk, an average of 6 per cent
each, if we do a very simple calculation.
I am delighted that in 13 or 14 months at the outside, milk
producers in all parts of Canada will be paid a single price for
their milk. There will be no more discrimination between
industrial milk and fluid milk.
You know, Mr. Speaker, right now there is still a discrepancy
of more than 10 per cent between prices for these two types of
milk. The odd thing is that it is often the same cow that produces
the milk. One day she produces fluid milk, the next day
industrial milk; one day that cow is 10 per cent more profitable,
the next day she is being milked at a 10 per cent loss. You have
the same standards for cleanliness, the same care, the same
cooler, or ball tank, of milk. You have the same cows, the same
14066
dairy producer, of course-and there is a 10 per cent difference.
That is unaccceptable.
If we go back 30 or 40 years, it was logical and even
acceptable that there be a 10 per cent discrepancy because fluid
milk producers had to be much more careful, they had to
produce 12 months every year, and they were subject to supply
management: if they produced too much milk, they could not
sell it.
In closing, then, I ask my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to
oppose the Reform Party's amendment. In fact, I have just
learned that the party in power does not agreee to this
amendment either.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your careful attention to my
remarks.
(1230)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-86, the act to amend
the Dairy Commission Act.
This bill is significant because it provides for the replacement
of the existing system of levies with a system of pooling market
returns from the different classes of milk. The government
claims the move to a pooling system will maintain equity among
producers and will be consistent with Canada's international
trade agreements, NAFTA and GATT.
Changes are needed to allow supply management to continue
while meeting the requirement of our agreements. For this
reason my colleagues and I can support the stated purpose of the
legislation.
We have talked to dairy farmers and others in the industry and
they have said they feel the legislation is necessary to allow
supply management to continue under GATT and NAFTA. For
this reason we can at least support the intent of the legislation.
We do have some major concern with clause 2, which affects
clause 9 of the Dairy Commission Act. This bill extends the
powers of the Canadian Dairy Commission and could possibly
diminish the authority given to the provinces under the original
act. Therefore to guard against this possible erosion, my
colleague from Vegreville has proposed an amendment which
will affect clause 9 of the Dairy Commission Act.
There is a problem in supply management in maintaining the
status quo. With respect to supply management, change is
inevitable. We have already seen change and nothing stands still
in the face of time and advancement. Dairy farmers will be
forced to compete more and more with American farmers and
the odds are change will come sooner than the Liberal
government is prepared to admit.
I am not saying this is what I want, but this is what reality tells
us. The rules are changing and dairy farmers will need transition
time in order to adapt to more open trade in the future. This bill
will allow the supply managed system to continue for some time
but there are nagging doubts as to the longevity of the current
system if we do not consider changes.
Members of the Canadian Dairy Commission claim this bill
properly reflects the changes affecting dairy farmers, but what
the bill actually does is maintain the status quo for now. Given
that a change to supply management is inevitable, there will be a
problem over the long run.
The message the government has been presenting along with
the legislation concerns us. I want to speak briefly about a
concern with Bill C-86 from the discussions we have had with
the minister of agriculture, the parliamentary secretary to the
minister, some farm groups and some dairy farmers we have had
the opportunity to meet with.
The legislation will allow supply management in the dairy
industry to continue in a form quite similar to the present
system. This does not mean supply management will continue in
this form forever. Several trade issues may lead to more direct
competition from the U.S. by allowing more access to dairy
products from the Americans.
Before I begin discussing trade issues which could have a
substantial impact on our present supply management system, I
will make one thing very clear to the House. I am not talking
about these issues because I want to see the demise of supply
management or because Reform wants to see the demise of
supply management. We are discussing these issues because
they could have a dramatic impact on the dairy industry, and this
discussion will provide an important service to the dairy farmers
and others in the industry. Just because change will be difficult
and is not wanted does not mean it should not be discussed.
Reformers have had enough courage to talk about probable
change while the minister and the parliamentary secretary and
even leaders of the dairy organizations publicly pretend the
present system will exist indefinitely. This sends a dangerous
message to dairy farmers that they can be protected against
further competition, particularly from the American dairy
farmers. This was the message the previous Conservative
government gave to dairy farmers. It said article XI of GATT
will not be touched under the new arrangements it was
negotiating, and several Liberals echoed that. The NDP said it
would not let anybody stand in the way of article XI. None of
them could carry out that promise because it was not feasible.
I want to talk about why some change is inevitable and why it
may be sooner than later. NAFTA began as an agreement
between Canada and the United States. The deal is already being
expanded now to include Chile and other countries. The world
is forming into international trade blocks and we cannot be
14067
certain that our supply managed industries will be totally
isolated from new arrangements being negotiated.
What must the government do? It must acknowledge there is a
high probability of more access for American dairy products,
therefore a move to more competition. The government must
help ease diary farmers' legitimate fears that Americans will not
compete fairly unless they are forced to through tough action by
the Canadian government
(1235)
We need a government that stands up for our producers and
will not be bowled over by the Americans. We need to make the
commitment to our dairy farmers that our government will stand
with them.
We must start working toward levelling the playing field
between Canada and the U.S. before more competition occurs.
Now is the time to set the rules for the new economy. We should
not go into this blindfolded and not prepared to deal with the
inevitable consequences of relaxed trading agreements with our
trading partners.
We must recognize there are different concerns about change
to the supply management system among different groups of
dairy farmers. They are not homogeneous. Each group must be
listened to and asked for recommendations on how to deal with
problems which will result from the move to competition for
more imported products.
My colleague from Vegreville has put forward an amendment
to the bill before us today in report stage. We have spoken to
dairy producers and many in the west have expressed concern
with certain aspects of the bill. Clause 2 of Bill C-86 extends the
powers of the Canadian Dairy Commission which could
possibly limit authority of the provinces. That is a concern. The
proposed amendments appear to give the CDC very wide new
powers. They appear to include much wider powers than would
be needed to address the reduction of export subsidies and the
provision for national pooling of milk returns. Though
delegated administrative functions, the amendments do not
necessarily reflect the stated objectives of the CDC to delegate
all these powers to provincial boards by way of agreement.
Therefore to prevent this from taking place the motion put
forward would make the proposed new statutory powers of the
CDC subject to agreement from the province or the board. I
think that is very important. I hope hon. members can see the
merits of this motion and that they will support it.
My colleagues and I are supporting the legislation despite the
fact we feel it is not always sending the right message to supply
managed farmers. However, we cannot argue with what the
industry and the majority of farmers want.
When change does come we will have to take into account
older dairy producers who are close to retirement who want to
hold their quota and make sure things stay the same while they
are still in the industry, and younger producers who may have
borrowed money and bought quota at high prices. Their equity is
tied up in their share of the quota. We need to consider
consumers, those who consume the products dairy farmers so
adequately supply.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
We all know the importance of moving the bill through the
House for the dairy industry and the unanimity out there. In the
spirit of co-operation this side of the House showed a few
minutes ago to get debate on the bill, I wonder if there would be
unanimous consent to move right to third reading to move this
along for the good of the Canadian dairy industry.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to move to
third reading?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous
agreement to accept the amendment as put forward by the hon.
member for Vegreville, we would be agreeable to proceeding to
third reading immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: In any event, we have to deal with one
thing at a time. We can have another point of order when we get
there.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
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:
(1240 )
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief government
whip the vote is deferred until 11.30 p.m.
14068
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this time to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board and some
of the changes proposed in Bill C-92.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act for several reasons. The first is to change the pooling points
on which initial payments are based from Thunder Bay and
Vancouver to points in Canada designated by governor in
council regulation, and then to establish a deduction from the
initial payment which reflects the relative transportation cost
advantage for each producer; in other words, to make the new
pooling system work using the old system. We cannot see how
anything old and new can be mixed. It reminds me of a Bible
verse about putting new wine in old skins and vice versa.
To put a new pooling system into place when we are still using
the fundamentals of the old system simply will not work. The
whole move was partly caused by Alberta's recent move to hold
a plebiscite on dual marketing which will include asking
farmers if they wish to open up the Canada-U.S. border for
direct shipments to the U.S.
The bill, which is supposed to come into effect August 1, will
change how eastern grain transportation costs are paid. This
means eastern prairie farmers who ship through the St.
Lawrence seaway will have to pay the full cost of transportation.
In the past all prairie farmers shared the cost through the
Canadian Wheat Board pool accounts. The changes will result in
higher relative grain prices for producers in eastern
Saskatchewan and Manitoba once deductions for transportation
are made.
The immediate effect after August 1 will be higher initial
prices of about $5 per tonne for wheat across the prairies and $6
per tonne for feed barley. It is expected the increased costs will
depress eastern prairie wheat prices by about $5.80 per tonne in
the first year. For the transition assistance, partial compensation
will be provided from the $300 million Western Grain
Transportation Act adjustment fund to offset higher costs as a
result of the pooling changes and to facilitate the transition to a
deregulated system after August 1. Although these changes
sound good, under a new system we have to ask why we are
using the fundamentals of the old system to ensure that happens.
One way to real, meaningful change to the Canadian Wheat
Board is through a farmer elected board of directors to replace
the present system of government appointed commissioners,
basically another patronage trough and an advisory board with
no real power.
(1245 )
We have seen it happen over the years where people get
government appointments to the Canadian Wheat Board. If the
whole system is to be democratized and updated we need to pay
attention to the requests of farmers, which are in fact becoming
demands, to democratize the whole Canadian Wheat Board
system and make sure that farmers elect their board of directors.
I think of every situation across the country, every board of
directors, every community group or whatever. Those people are
elected yet somehow the Canadian Wheat Board is still in the
old system of government appointed commissioners.
Farmers should be given the authority to decide what type of
wheat board they want. After all they pay the bills. It is the very
same as it is here in the House of Commons. If people are
demanding something from government they will make sure
they vote in and elect people who will effect the changes for
them.
Farmers are paying the bills through the Canadian Wheat
Board just as Canadian taxpayers are paying the bill for this
place. We need to make sure that if we are to open up the
Canadian Wheat Board, if we are to put new systems in place, it
has to basically go all the way. We must make sure that we
democratize it fully and that the wheat board directors are
elected by the farmers who pay the bills for them.
Farmers should be given the chance to democratically
examine their organization and all jurisdictional options. This
would allow grain farmers to carefully consider and vote on a
variety of market opportunities, for example introducing greater
domestic and international domestic competition, allowing the
purchase of wheat and barley on either a cash basis or a pooled
price basis and allowing the board to operate as a seller from
export terminal positions only.
If we are to see any changes in the Canadian Wheat Board
these things will have to be updated regardless of who is in
power and regardless of their views on the Canadian Wheat
Board or on the dairy commission that we have just spoken
about. We are getting close to the 21st century and we cannot
continue with a system where government appointees who have
been faithful political hacks are transferred to some of these
boards.
These and other issues must be decided directly by farmers
through referenda. My party has proposed national binding
referenda in the House since I have been here in 1989 and we
will continue to push that.
The Charlottetown accord was a perfect example of that
through a national referendum in 1992. It was a really exciting
day for everyone in Canada. Politics changed forever in the
country as of that October evening when we had a choice of
putting down yes or no. Of course the no side won. I was the only
federal parliamentarian of a federal party in the House of
Commons who was on the no side. It was not really a happy
occasion for me in this place but fortunately the lives of most of
14069
us do not just take place in the Chamber. We found incredible
support in the rest of the country outside these hallowed halls
from people who said they did not want a government dictating
to them what would happen in the country. That was really
exciting and opened the way for referenda.
As we move now toward democratizing the Canadian Wheat
Board we need to continue to put pressure on the government as
well as on various groups if we are to open up the system
regarding the pools with which the bill deals. Maybe that is a
good first step, but we need to open it totally after that and make
sure people who are in the positions of power in the Canadian
Wheat Board, in fact the directors, will be voted in and have
some measure of confidence from the farmers who put them into
place.
Referenda are exciting. Because we had one in 1992 does not
mean that we have to put it off nationwide for another 40 years
or 50 years. It is something that could be worked quite well into
the Canadian system.
Reform believes that now is the time for a fundamental
evaluation of the role of the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain
handling transportation system in Canada. The Canadian Wheat
Board will continue to be a contentious issue until the
democratic rights of farmers are restored and they are given real
choice.
We see the battle around the country about pro-choice.
Farmers need to be given real choice so that they could elect the
people who will sit on their boards. After all it is their
organization, as I mentioned earlier. They are paying the bills
for it. If they are paying the bills they should be the ones who
decide how it is run in the future.
(1250 )
Obviously the minister of agriculture has made some changes
but I am wondering whether he has the political will to make all
changes that are necessary to the Canadian Wheat Board. The
changes will come anyway and the big question is: Will our
producers be prepared for them? That is what we are concerned
about more than anything else. It is not with what the
government is saying, that it is putting legislation in place or it
thinks this is best. Let us be sure the producers are the ones who
will be freed up in this and thereby the consumers.
In the earlier discussion on the dairy commission a Liberal
member said that all dairy farmers felt that way because the
dairy commission said thus and so. We have to be a little nervous
about that. I am not sure any particular organization speaks for
every one of its members.
We have just lived through the contentious Bill C-68, the gun
control bill, in the House last week in which various interest
groups had a vested interest. For instance the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police not only obtained a government
grant, which seems rather ironic, but it was supporting the
legislation and basically saying that every policeman in the
country supported gun control.
I invited you, Mr. Speaker, to Beaver River last week to talk
about pensions. I invite you again to come to listen to any
producer. Being from Alberta you know they say whatever the
organizations are, whether the Canadian Wheat Board or the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, they do not speak on
their behalf, just as I am able quite freely to say that although the
National Action Committee on the Status of Women claims to
represent me as a Canadian woman it simply does not.
For us to take a blanket statement that my group speaks for me
and we know what every producer thinks because some group
said it means that we are making huge leaps in logic. We are
pleased to see some changes in the pooling system. However, as
I said about the old and the new, if we are to make changes and to
make something new then let us make them completely new. Let
us not just tinker with the system and try to keep the old in place
and put patches of new cloth on the wineskin. It simply will not
work. If we are to move in the direction of freeing it up for
producers and ultimately consumers, let us go whole hog and
make sure the Canadian Wheat Board is changed.
Having spoken of hogs I will sit down.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to follow my colleague from Beaver River. I would like
to raise many of the same points but it is important that I have an
opportunity to speak on Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. The bill is very near and dear to my heart. It
affects many of the people in my riding. The Peace River riding
has a large and very dynamic agricultural community. We are
watching with great interest what will happen today as the bill is
amended.
By way of background, the bill amends the Canadian Wheat
Board Act to change the pooling points on which the initial
payments are based from Thunder Bay and Vancouver to points
in Canada designated by regulation of the governor in council.
The bill also amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act to establish
a deduction from the initial payment that supposedly reflects the
relative transportation cost advantages of each producer.
The way the system works now shipping charges are
determined by the distance a farmer has to ship grain to its
designated pooling point of Thunder Bay and Vancouver. In my
riding of Peace River approximately 95 per cent of all the grain
produced in that riding is shipped west to the Pacific coast
although one of our designated pooling points has been Thunder
Bay. This means farmers in Peace River and other farmers in the
western prairies have subsidized part of the costs of farmers in
the eastern prairies through the freight pooling system the
Canadian Wheat Board has implemented.
14070
My understanding of what is being proposed is a system of
four catchment areas. Each area will have a different deduction
for transportation to a new designated pooling point. There are
few specifics in the bill so I can only speak to the larger concept
of what is being proposed.
The changes will result in higher grain prices for farmers in
Alberta and western Saskatchewan and lower relative grain
prices for producers in eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba
once deductions for transportation are made.
(1255 )
It is thought that the bill which becomes effective August 1
will raise wheat prices in the west by an average of about $5 per
tonne and feed barley prices by about $6 per tonne. Similarly
prices in the eastern prairies will drop. This is part of what we
call a rationalization that needs to take place in the total
transportation industry and grain industry so that farmers can be
effective, efficient and able to compete on the world market
where they must compete. We must get transportation prices in
line and this is a step in the right direction. It goes part way to
addressing some of the distortions caused by the blanket pooling
system and replaces it with a bunch of mini-pools.
However I have a problem with the whole concept of straight
pooling no matter how it is done. As a farmer I do not want
anyone to subsidize my freight costs. I certainly do not want to
subsidize anyone else's either. I propose that we pay the real cost
of moving our grain from point a, in my case the Sexsmith area,
to Vancouver or Prince Rupert and let the producer who lives
somewhere else pay his or her real costs.
I am opposed to any type of freight pooling system. My
preference would be to move to an open user pay system where
farmers can decide where they want to ship their grain and where
the market decides how much it would cost.
The changes proposed in the bill seem to maintain the control
the Canadian Wheat Board has enjoyed in past decades. Just as a
bit of history, the board was established first in 1917 for the war
period and then again in 1935 to ensure the orderly sale of grain
when western Canada faced economic and environmental
disasters. In its original form the Canadian Wheat Board was a
compromised tool for increasing returns and stabilizing
incomes. Participation by farmers was voluntary. I stress very
clearly that it was voluntary. It was not the way it is now where it
is compulsory on all export grain.
In 1943 when supplying food to Canada's allies once again
became an important national goal, the participation of farmers
in the Canadian Wheat Board became compulsory.
Unfortunately that did not end when the war ended, although
that is the time it should have ended.
The board's chief mandate is to market wheat grown in
western Canada in the best interest of western Canada's grain
producers. Its designated areas include the three prairie
provinces and a small part of British Columbia. The board is the
sole marketing agency for export wheat and barley and the main
supplier of the grains for human consumption in Canada.
Canadian feed grains for domestic consumption could be
marketed either through the board or directly through grain
companies. The sales of the Canadian Wheat Board fall between
$3 billion and $6 billion annually. The board is administered by
a chief commissioner, an assistant chief commissioner and three
other commissioners. All costs of the board's operation are paid
for by western grain producers. It is a user pay system and will
lead to the concept that we should have control over the board.
An advisory committee was touted in the House last year
elected from the producer group. It would advise the board on
policy but would have no real power. It is just an advisory
committee. However it has a very important function; it was
democratically elected.
I have run through a bit of the background because I want to
point out that the Canadian Wheat Board did not always exist in
its present form. There was a time when farmer participation
was optional. I also want to lead into some other changes that are
necessary to bring the Canadian Wheat Board into the times.
The Reform Party has been saying for a long time that
commissioners to the board should be democratically elected.
Producers should have a real say on how the board operates and
what kind of power it has. Only if commissioners have to run on
certain platforms in certain designated areas can producers truly
have a say in the board's operation.
The government is willing to allow an elected advisory
committee, which is what has taken place for the last several
years. Why not extend the same democratic process to where it
really counts, to the people who run the Canadian Wheat Board
themselves, the commissioners? I would like to see a dual
system of marketing so that it would be the same for export grain
as we currently enjoy on domestic grain in Canada. That would
mean there would be a Canadian wheat board type of system
where farmers who wanted to pool would be allowed to do so
and those who did not would be allowed to sell on the open
market.
I would like to give two examples of situations that are
nonsensical but exist because the board is not accountable to the
people it is supposed to be helping. These two examples are of
farmers who have been trying to diversify. The very thing we
want is for farmers to diversify however both of them have been
frustrated by the rigid structure of the Canadian Wheat Board.
14071
(1300)
First there is the story of Bob Numweiller, a Saskatchewan
miller who lives close to the U.S. border. He wants to mill his
own wheat, let me emphasize his own wheat, into flour and sell
it from his farm. The board says he cannot do that. First he must
sell his wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. Then he can apply
to buy it back but he must also pay the board's price and its
administration fee even though he does not go through the
Canadian Wheat Board. Then he has to wait a year or more to
find out how much money he got for his wheat, his wheat, which
he so-called sold to the board. It sounds like something which
could have happened in Russia 20 years ago.
There is an absurd twist to the story. Now that the Canadian
Wheat Board can no longer control imports because of the
passage of Bill C-57 which brought us up to speed with the
World Trade Organization, that farmer has discovered he can
cross the United States border, buy American wheat and bring it
back and mill it on his farm but he cannot mill his own wheat
without going through this rigid structure. Something is
obviously wrong.
Then there is the story of a farmer in my riding who is a friend
of mine. He has gone on to diversify and has started to grow
organic wheat. However the wheat board does not sell
organically grown wheat. As such it has to be pooled with
conventional grain where of course it loses all of its advantages
and its distinctiveness.
The board deals in boat loads. There is not enough production
at this time to fill a boat and it is too much hassle for the board to
administer a container load, or so it seems. The question is: Is
Mr. Schmidt allowed to do his own marketing? Only if he goes
through the Canadian Wheat Board first. He has to do his own
marketing but he has to apply to go through the board first.
Here are the steps he must take: First he has to go to his own
local elevator to sell his grain on contract. The elevator writes
out the sales ticket. Mr. Schmidt writes out a buy-back cheque
for $36.94 a tonne. He also has to pay the elevator a $5 per tonne
administration fee even though he does not use it. Now he owns
his own grain. I have to emphasize that at this point he now owns
his own grain. How absurd. He can sell it as he pleases. However
he has to wait a year to get his original $36.94 per tonne back or
he may not see it at all depending on how the pool did that year.
If he tries to bypass the Canadian Wheat Board he commits a
criminal offence and must pay a penalty of $12,000 and spend
two years in jail. What kind of a system do we have in this
country? This gentleman has gone out and found his own market
for a product which we are trying to encourage, organically
grown grain, and the system which we use is inhibiting him and
many other farmers who want to diversify.
Those are just two examples of why the Canadian Wheat
Board needs an overhaul. I would start by ensuring that the
commissioners are democratically elected by producers. After
that the board would change its ways and meet the needs of the
farmers of the 21st century in a hurry. Otherwise they would not
be re-elected.
Today's new generation of commercial farmers want to
substitute their management skills for the collective approaches
which have dominated the system for the past few decades. They
see new opportunities and hot new products such as organic
grain. Using their own skills and their own comparative
advantages they want to be free to grow new crops and market
them themselves. That seems a reasonable approach to me and
one which has to be worked out. Otherwise the Canadian Wheat
Board will lose in the end.
My experience in my riding is that the farmers who are
questioning the Canadian Wheat Board's approach to a single
desk marketing agency are those of a younger age. Unless the
board adapts they will be gone. These new farmers are not
knocking on the government's door asking for new subsidies.
All they are asking is for government to get out of their way to
let them do business. I hope the government is listening.
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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
(1305 )
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-87, an act
to implement the convention on the prohibition of the
development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and on their destruction, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
14072
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear anyone from the Reform
Party or the Bloc. On division, or is it agreeable to go without
division?
It is not a debatable motion. I am asking whether it should be
on division or by unanimous consent.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, could I just have some
clarification as to what we are on? There is some confusion here.
The Deputy Speaker: We are at concurrence in report stage
of Bill C-87. Can we do this by unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Gagliano (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too
much time on the bill because I spoke on it before it went to
committee.
This bill could probably set a model for future bills to be
passed expeditiously. When the bill came to committee we
asked the chemical producers and other witnesses to appear.
Because the chemical producers and other interested parties
monitored this problem during the convention they did not see
any need to appear before the committee other than to endorse
the legislation. Canada showed leadership in trying to convince
other countries to accept this convention against the
development, production, stockpiling and use of any chemical
weapons or their precursors.
All three parties were very co-operative. We all saw that we
are making the planet safer for future generations. We are very
fortunate to have a member on this side of the House who
actually witnessed the signing of the convention. He will be one
of our speakers in this debate.
It is important to get the legislation through the House and the
Senate before the summer because Canada would like to be one
of the first 65 signatories to ratify this convention. With the kind
of co-operation we have been getting from the official
opposition, the Reform Party and independent members, I think
we will have this legislation passed very quickly through this
House and then hopefully passed just as quickly in the Senate.
(1310)
The reason this convention was so successful is that
companies which are producing chemicals were involved.
Canadian manufacturers were even used as a test ground to see if
this is the kind of convention that will work. It is a convention
that is doable. Canadians can be proud that here again when it
comes to the security and environmental cleanup of our planet,
Canada always shows the lead.
In closing I thank all parties and the private sector for helping
us to get this legislation passed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to again address Bill C-87 which, when
proclaimed, will enable Canada to implement laws prohibiting
the production and use of chemical weapons and providing for
the regulation in Canada of certain chemicals which could
readily be turned into chemical weapons.
This new law will fulfil Canada's obligation under the United
Nations chemical weapons convention signed by Canada and
over 130 other states in Paris in January 1993. Almost a quarter
century of negotiations have taken place at the conferences on
disarmament in Geneva to bring this initiative to fruition.
This is a major achievement and the first multilaterally
negotiated treaty to abolish an entire category of what can only
be called weapons of mass destruction. Not only will all
chemical weapons and their production facilities be destroyed
under international supervision, all government and industry
activities falling under the convention's objectives will be liable
to international monitoring and possibly inspection. This is a
mammoth undertaking and the success of this important
milestone in world affairs is dependent upon each participating
state or country ratifying the convention and then abiding by
their treaty obligations.
Canadian negotiators have done a tremendous job and can
take great pride in the instrumental role government in
co-operation with the private sector has played in the successful
negotiation of the convention. An important multilateral
process has taken place. Its success can fuel even greater
co-operation among nations so that even larger strides can be
made to make our world a safer place in which to live.
Because trade with nations which have not signed the
agreement will be prohibited, our ratification of the treaty will
ensure our chemical industry remains competitive.
Additionally, speedy passage of this bill will make it possible
for Canada to be among the first countries to ratify the treaty. It
is fitting that Canada be among the first 65 nations to ratify the
treaty. After all our nation has worked diligently to ensure its
success.
The treaty will come into force 180 days after it has the
validation of 65 of the 160 signatories to the agreement. Should
some member nations require more than the 180 day period to
meet the criteria, there are provisions to extend this period but it
may not be extended beyond two years.
Because of the implications and complexity of this
convention, every avenue has been sought to ensure that all
obligations under the convention are fully met. It is important
that we
14073
recognize those who have dedicated their efforts to ensure that
implementation will go smoothly for our industries.
With the co-operation of the Canadian Chemical Producers
Association, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association, Merck Frosst and government officials conducted
a trial inspection of the Merck Frosst facility in Quebec to test
the verification provisions. These results were presented by
both associations to the annual industry consultations with
negotiators in Geneva. This ongoing private sector co-operation
was instrumental and invaluable in ironing out the wrinkles
during the negotiations and in drafting the legislation.
(1315 )
The Canadian Chemical Producers Association played an
integral role by submitting one of the first papers on the issue of
confidentiality to the conference on disarmament. This
preliminary private sector involvement provided valuable
constructive support and all participants are to be applauded for
their contribution.
Additionally, officials from the Department of Foreign
Affairs deserve commendation for their extensive preparatory
work initiated to ensure the legislation will be effective while at
the same time minimizing any negative impact on or
interference with the affected industries.
By choice and representing the views of Canadians, Canada
does not possess chemical weapons or chemical weapon
production facilities. Therefore the overall impact will not be as
difficult or significant for us as for those nations that do produce
these instruments of war.
The greatest impact within Canada will arise from the
provisions dealing with industry activities. The underlying
thrust of the legislation is, as dictated by the chemical weapons
convention, to completely prohibit any activity relating to the
production of chemical weapons.
The most toxic, destructive and dangerous chemicals are
listed in schedules 1 and 2. These chemicals will have the least
impact on Canadian industry because production in Canada of
chemicals on these lists is negligible. They have little or no
commercial use. The more commonly used industrial chemicals
noted in schedule III will have the greatest impact on our
industry. Because of the commercial value of schedule 3
chemicals, industry production will proceed without inspection
up to a limit of 30 metric tonnes.
As for Canadian industry, the initial and annual declarations
will be mandatory for all plant sites that were in production the
previous year and/or those plants expected to produce in the
following year more than 30 metric tonnes of schedule 3
chemicals.
The initial declarations where necessary must be made within
the 30-day period after the treaty comes into force. Chemical
amounts exceeding 230 tonnes will be subject to verification
and random onsite inspections to ensure compliance. They will
require an initial declaration followed thereafter by mandatory
annual declarations. Such declarations must include aggregate
national data from the previous year on quantities produced,
imported and exported of each schedule 3 chemical. Also each
involved country must provide a quantitative itemization of
each product exported and imported. This information will be
declared no later than one month after the convention enters into
force.
Reporting will commence in the calendar year following
ratification of the treaty. Canada will be required to submit
annual declarations within 90 days after the end of each calendar
year. Also annual declarations on past activities are to be
presented no later than three months after the end of the previous
year.
Should production estimates exceed the projected threshold a
new declaration must be submitted within a two month period.
Should projected production be greater than the reported
estimates such new activity must be reported at least five days
before such production commences.
To allow some flexibility for industry declarations may not be
necessary for any schedule 3 chemicals that are mixed in low
concentration with other substances. The guidelines dictate that
if these chemicals could be easily recovered from the mixture or
if the total weight represents a risk factor reporting could be
required.
Reports for production exceeding the 230 tonne threshold will
include the purpose, the chemical name, common or trade name
used, the structural formula and chemical abstracts service
registry number if one has been assigned. The declaration of
anticipated activity will be indicated in ranges starting for
example between 20 and 200 metric tonnes and extending all the
way to ranges above 100,000 tonnes.
Production levels for previous years will be similar in nature
to the outline just mentioned. Verification within Canada will be
carried out by onsite inspections. Using mechanisms such as
specially designed computer software, the technical secretariat
will randomly select plant sites for inspection. Such selection
will be based on factors such as the identified chemical
designation, as provided for in the legislation, plant site
characteristics and the nature of activities carried out at the
plant.
(1320 )
Every effort will be made to ensure there is an equitable
geographic distribution of inspection activities. As a note,
provisions clearly stipulate that no more than two inspections
per year will take place at any one plant although special
provisions pursuant to article IX will permit more inspections.
The combined number of inspections in any one country shall
not exceed three plus 5 per cent of the total number of plant sites
declared by a state or the maximum number of 20 inspections,
whichever of these two figures is lower.
14074
The general aim will be to verify that activities are consistent
with the information reported in the declarations and ensure that
no chemicals indicated on other schedules are being produced or
used. Inspection teams will be authorized to demand access to
records, particularly in situations where it is determined this
information is needed for verification.
Sampling and on site analysis will be conducted to check for
the presence of undeclared chemicals. If on site analysis is not
possible, analysis may be required at a designated laboratory.
Plant areas to be inspected will include storage sites, delivery
sites, reaction vessels, feed lines to the reaction vessel valves,
flow meters or other equipment associated with the production.
There will be an external inspection of reaction vessels and
ancillary equipment as well as any lines leading to long term or
short term facilities for the chemicals, areas for waste, effluent
handling and disposition of chemicals not meeting
specifications.
Inspections are not to take more than 24 hours but in some
cases extensions may be sought and negotiated. At least 120
hours' notice of an inspection must be given prior to the arrival
of the inspection team. Industries producing chemicals such as
phosphorous, sulphur and fluorine, which can be readily adapted
to produce chemical weapons, will have to report their activities
but at least at this stage will not be subject to random
inspections.
Inspection data will then be compiled and forwarded to the
International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, OPCW. Our government must also control and report
the import and export of these chemicals ensuring the
confidentiality of the data collected.
For the most part the necessary structures are already
established in Canada. The national authority will be set up
within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our current export
and import permits and laws will facilitate the monitoring of the
products.
Domestic enforcement is to be conducted under the Criminal
Code. Industries must co-operate with inspectors or be subject
to conviction if indicted and found deficient. The most serious
infractions can make industry liable for up to five years in prison
and a $500,000 fine. After five years an international conference
will take place to evaluate the success or failure of measures
implemented to monitor the agreement. If necessary new
methods or requirements may be established at that time.
In establishing mechanisms to bring this convention into
effect, every effort must be made to ensure the paper burden and
costs do not become so prohibitive that smaller industries will
be adversely affected or even forced out of business.
Government must also continue to be sensitive to the financial
implications of administrative costs. Extreme care must be
taken to ensure the decision making will be streamlined and
effective avoiding the creation of an excessive bureaucratic
machine to track these chemicals. Already business in Canada
has far too much bureaucracy and red tape to contend with.
The collection of data and conduct of inspection should be
cost effective and any industry feedback must be heard and
receive due consideration. Hopefully the co-operative
relationship established between government and industry
during the preliminary development stage will continue.
Although some of our veterans were subjected to it most
Canadians are fortunate to have been spared the horrors of the
use of chemical weapons such as were experienced with the use
of mustard gas or nerve gases in wartime. Chemical warfare in
the Iran-Iraq conflict brought vivid pictures of the terrible
lethality of these weapons. The indiscriminate and massive loss
of human life convinced the international community that every
effort has to be taken to outlaw these terrible weapons of human
destruction.
Our world has changed. The cold war is over but recent events
in Japan bring home the necessity of continuing to work toward
the elimination of these terrible weapons. That event proved it
does not take a war to result in chemical weapons intruding into
our lives.
(1325)
At the time when the nerve gas assault on Tokyo's subway
system took place, leaving 12 dead and 5,000 sick, it was not
illegal to make or possess sarin and other nerve gases. In the
days and even weeks after the nerve gas attack, a series of
frightening incidents affecting defenceless civilians continued.
The cult's top scientist was fatally stabbed in front of reporters.
Burning bags containing a form of cyanide were found in a
public washroom in a huge train station. Mysterious noxious
gases were released several times in train stations and other
public places making hundreds of people ill.
Police raids on cult sites yielded tonnes of chemicals and
equipment necessary for the manufacture of sarin. There is even
further evidence that research was taking place on biological
weapons. Because of the cult attacks, Japan recently enacted
laws to prohibit these chemicals.
Moving to another region, there is now very conclusive
evidence that chemical and biological weapons were present in
the theatre of operations during the Persian Gulf war. In this
instance the introduction of low levels of such chemicals may
have resulted from bombings of either Iraqi chemical weapons
facilities or caches of Iraqi weapons on the Saudi border.
14075
The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association in Victoria
has been approached by field engineers who were involved in
operation axe. One of their duties was to destroy objects that
could not be specifically identified and some are now suffering
from what appears to be exposure to highly toxic substances.
Their reported symptoms include severe headaches, bleeding
gums, rashes, joint pain, memory loss, dizziness and breathing
difficulties.
Collectively these symptoms, first traced to their origins by
the doctors examining American veterans, had become known
as the gulf war syndrome. Not only is this of great concern to
those directly affected, a molecular toxicologist at the
University of Maryland, Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, told a
congressional hearing last fall that scientists now know that
those exposed to these toxic chemicals can pass the poison on to
their children.
Dr. Francis Waickan, an environmental pediatrician, has
compared birth defect statistics between gulf war babies and
other children. His findings reveal that abnormalities among
children of gulf veterans is probably tenfold that of the normal
population.
There is additional evidence that some of these toxins are
released from the body during night sweats experienced by these
veterans thus transmitting the chemicals to their spouses. This
explains why many veterans' spouses are reporting similar
rashes, fatigue and other symptoms of this ailment.
Clearly the effects and tragedies connected with chemical
warfare do not end at the time of their use. The ramifications
persist even being passed on to the future generations and
causing untold harm to the human race.
The passage of Bill C-87 is just the first step on the way to
eliminating future tragedies such as these. The real test will
come when we are able to measure the willingness of the major
powers of this world, those having the greatest number of
production facilities and the largest stockpiles, to indicate their
commitment to accept and institute these measures.
It is my fervent hope that the obstacles facing the
international community can be overcome and that we can look
forward to a day when both biological and chemical weapons
will be no more.
To reiterate, we now stand at a pivotal junction on the road to
eliminating these cruel, indiscriminating and devastating
weapons. Let every nation accept the challenge by agreeing to
continue to further the implementation of co-operative
approaches and multilateral efforts to promote world peace and
security.
The Reform Party supports Canadian agreement to and
execution of Bill C-87.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra.
This bill provides for the ratification and implementation of
the chemical weapons convention which I have supported for a
very long time. In January 1993 I had the good fortune to be
present at the signing of this treaty in Paris, where I chaired a
parallel conference of parliamentarians. The purpose of the
parallel conference was to mobilize parliamentary support for
the ratification of this important treaty. As a result I am now part
of an international task force working toward this goal.
(1330)
Unfortunately the ratification process has been very slow. Of
the approximately 160 countries which signed the treaty since
1993, more than two years ago, only 27 at last count have thus
far ratified and deposited its ratification. This is a very small
number if we consider the great number of about 160 that have
signed the treaty. I should point out that the treaty can only come
into force six months after the ratification by 65 countries. We
still have a long way to go.
The chemical weapons convention is the most comprehensive
disarmament treaty ever developed. It is the end product of a
quarter of a century of negotiations and culminates 100 years of
international effort to eliminate chemical weapons from the
world.
Many Canadians will still remember the horrifying
experience of the chemical poison gas attacks of World War I
which caused 1.3 million casualties and 100,000 fatalities.
Many Canadians were killed in the gas attacks at Ypres in
Belgium. Following World War I, great effort was made to ban
these weapons. There was agreement in the 1925 Geneva
protocol but this treaty only banned the use of chemical weapons
in war and did not provide for inspection and verification.
This protocol, however, was never adequate. As members will
know such weapons were used by Iraq 10 years ago and were
threatened to be used during the gulf war. Fortunately they were
not used. They have been described, because they can be
delivered by missile, as the poor man's nuclear weapons.
Without this treaty they would cause a serious threat to many
countries in the world.
In comparison to the 1925 Geneva protocol, the chemical
weapons convention, which is before us, bans the use,
development, manufacture, distribution, transfer and
stockpiling of chemical weapons. It also provides for the
monitoring, inspection and enforcement of the treaty and
provides for penalties when the treaty is broken. One provision
provides for the destruction of current stockpiles.
Part of the enforcement machinery is the establishment of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons known as
the OPCW in The Hague as well as the establishment of national
14076
authorities in all countries to monitor the internal enforcement
as well as the import and export controls of these chemical
weapons.
There is also the provision of criminal penalties for those who
violate the treaty as implemented by this law. Consequently
some cost is involved, such as the cost of the national and
international authorities to monitor and enforce. However we
understand that this is essential if we are serious about banning
these cruel and horrible weapons.
There is also the cost of destroying existing stockpiles. This
could be a considerable amount for those countries which have
such weapons. In particular, I refer to the United States and
Russia. Under the treaty, if these countries sign and ratify, they
will have up to 15 years to destroy those stockpiles.
Unfortunately neither the United States nor Russia have ratified
although both have signed the treaty.
In conclusion I want to congratulate the Canadian government
for its work in developing the treaty and now for its ratification
through this bill. It is hoped that with this ratification by Canada
impetus will be given to other countries to ratify as well. As I
said at the beginning, 65 countries have to ratify before the
treaty can be put into force.
I also want to congratulate those Canadian companies that
manufacture chemicals and are co-operating with the
government in the implementation of this treaty. This is the
most advanced, complete disarmament treaty ever developed
and I am extremely pleased to stand in the House and support it.
(1335)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague, the
distinguished member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in support of
this bill.
It is a subject that has occupied the world community, as a
general subject, since The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907.
In fact one of the most significant acts of international law
making was the act referred to by my colleague, the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the Geneva protocol of 1925. The
protocol prohibited the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or
other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare.
The Geneva protocol reflected the spirit of its time. You dealt
in general prohibitions. You established the legal norms. There
was not the same attention that, by bitter experience, we have
given in recent years to the machinery for concrete
implementation of general principles. This is one of the
significant features of Bill C-87. It is not merely the prohibition
of chemical weapons, it is prohibition of the development,
production and stockpiling as well as use and it includes
measures for destruction.
It follows on the experiences that we derived most recently
from the INF treaty of 1987, the Reagan-Gorbachev treaty on
the destruction of intermediate and shorter range nuclear
weapons, that general principles without supporting
implementing machinery and sanctions are like tinkling
cymbals. They are noble but they do not bring us down to
concrete reality. I welcome this measure.
I also welcome it as another step in the process of
development on a pragmatic, empirical, problem oriented, step
by step basis of general universal disarmament. The Sermon on
the Mount in the large, general treaties is too often ignored. It is
the poetry of international law. It is not the material substance of
it.
If you follow through the period when the cold war was giving
way to detente and eventually ended, it was by this step by step
progression: the banning of nuclear tests above the ground and
in the atmosphere in the Moscow test ban treaty on through the
non-proliferation treaty, on through various treaties on banning
of placement of weapons on the seabed, eventually culminating
in the INF treaty of 1987. It is a process and this particular treaty
is a very distinctive and very happy part of that whole process.
Congratulations to all the officers who have been involved.
My colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
referred to the issue of ratification. This is one of the problems
with international treaties. There is an attrition rate. Perhaps
100 countries sign a treaty but then when the officials go back
home perhaps half of those only will proceed to ratify or ratify in
a timely fashion. If the treaty is non-self-implementing, even
fewer countries will introduce legislation to adopt it. We have
signed, we have ratified and we are implementing. Thus attrition
is avoided.
In terms of the treaty becoming general international law,
some would argue as to what sanctions, what controls should
there be. If I may, I will cite the general opinion of doctrinal
authorities, of legal text writers. It is part of general
international law as it now stands that the use of chemical
weapons is against international law. This is the view expressed,
as based on the evolution of customary international law
through a number of international acts.
I have referred to The Hague conventions. I have referred also
to the Geneva protocol. The view was advanced by the late
President of the World Court, President Nagendra Singh and
myself in a joint work on general disarmament we published in
1989 that the use of chemical weapons in warfare is against
international law. In the gap between the signing of the treaty
and ratification in good faith and implementation by individual
countries like Canada, and the treaty finally becoming general
law because of the necessary minimum number of state
ratifications, that principle of international law applies.
14077
(1340)
Canada, in communicating its ratification of the treaty and
implementation for other countries, might draw attention to the
fact that it is not necessary to wait for the ratification by the
minimum number of states joined by the treaty to have
recognized the principle of the use of chemical weapons in
warfare being banned.
The treaty itself goes well beyond that. It follows in the spirit
of the INF treaty. It is part of this step by step progression
toward a system of general international law and humanizing
warfare-the oxymoron that is there-temperamenta belli is
what it is called, reducing the agonies of war if it has to be
conducted but moving toward a general system of interdiction of
armaments.
The issue has been raised with this treaty, as with other
treaties, of whether it is missing some of the major problems.
One of the most serious problems today is the resumption of
nuclear weapons tests. It may interest the House to know that in
the same volume in which we suggested chemical warfare is
already outlawed under international law, the same learned
authors expressed the opinion that nuclear weapons tests, as
such, are against international law today.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bills tabled in this House, whether they are government bills or
private members' bill, do not always have the same impact.
Some legislation is merely technical, without any reference to
principles or values.
From time to time, however, bills do affect us personally
because they reflect our values and are for us an opportunity to
contribute to the progress of human kind and strengthen our
solidarity with the rest of the world.
Consequently, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to
Bill C-87, an Act to implement the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and
Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The bill
before the House today is a response to Canada's obligations to
implement, at the national level, international commitments
made by the Canadian government.
This convention, signed in Paris in January 1993 by more than
160 countries, was the result of 20 years of negotiations. In fact,
I want to take this opportunity to note the leadership role played
by Canada in the negotiations leading up to this convention.
Unfortunately, by January 1995, only five countries had
ratified the convention, and today, only 28 countries have
proceeded with ratification. At least 65 signatures are needed
for the convention to come into force. The Bloc Quebecois is
therefore pleased to support the Canadian government on the
passage of legislation to implement the convention so that it can
come into force as soon as possible.
To explain our position, I would like to provide a little
background information on the use of chemical weapons in
warfare throughout the ages and their capacity for massive
destruction.
First of all, we must realize that the use of chemical weapons
is not exclusive to the twentieth century. In antiquity, certain
forms of chemical and biological weapons were already in use,
although on a very limited scale. I am thinking for instance, of
the custom of poisoning the wells of cities under siege or
throwing plague corpses into the enemy camp.
However World War I marked the tragic advent of the science
and technology of chemical warfare. On April 22, 1915, at Ypres
in Belgium, the Germans used chlorine gas for the first time as a
lethal weapon.
(1345)
The result was horrible: 15,000 soldiers out of commission,
including 5,000 dead. Sadly notorious, this gas now bears the
name of the town where the slaughter took place and is still
widely used.
Once this new weapon had been developed, there was a rush to
improve it and make it even more deadly. At the time, since the
wind, which was the main vector of the gas, could suddenly shift
and turn against the user, science went on to develop projectiles
that provided a better guarantee of hitting enemy targets. Bombs
and mortar shells were used to accomplish this deadly task.
Developments in aviation further increased the threat to civilian
populations and the military. Meanwhile, science also tried to
overcome the protection afforded by the gas masks in use since
1915. From now on, toxic gases were to become an increasingly
devastating weapon on a massive scale.
During the Second World War, chemical and biological
technology became even more sophisticated. Worse still, as
increasingly toxic products were discovered, it also became
possible to manufacture them on an industrial scale. The gas
chambers and the thousands of Chinese gassed by the Japanese
are examples of the horrifying consequences of this new deadly
technology. After 1945, not only was the development of
chemical weapons unprecedented, their low cost and ease of
manufacturing also made them readily available.
Effective and deadly, chemical weapons soon became the
poor man's atom bomb. In recent years, the use of chemical
weapons has been most widespread in developing countries.
Industrialized countries had already decided that chemical
weapons no longer had any use strategically or as a deterrent
because they had the necessary detection and protection
technology. In addition, the two most developed blocks struck a
14078
balance of terror at the beginning of the 1950s with the
stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
The tragedy is that the have-not countries which use chemical
weapons do not have access to the same kind of protection as
industrialized countries. Since poor countries are unable to
acquire the hydrogen bomb, they are using chemical weapons as
a means to deter and to threaten. The balance of terror below the
tropic of Cancer depends on mustard gas, which is dubbed the
poor man's atom bomb.
The most recent demonstration of this was the Gulf war,
which was an immense laboratory to fine tune chemical
weapons. People all over the world were able to see on television
the innocent victims of chemical warfare. On March 16, 1988,
within a few seconds, 5,000 people from the Kurdish town of
Halabjah died after neurotoxins were dropped on it.
Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein did not stop there. In June 1988,
he bombed the Iranian Majnoun islands with mustard gas and
phosgene, killing between 10,000 and 15,000 people. Some
40,000 Iranians are still suffering from the after-effects of the
many chemical attacks made by Iraq. In addition, according to a
report issued by the Senate of the United States, tens of
thousands of allied soldiers who fought in the Gulf war were
exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons and now are showing
pathological symptoms, referred to as the Gulf war syndrome.
Do not forget that this terrifying arsenal was built with the
help of industrialized countries who, up until yesterday,
continued to export large amounts of products which can be used
to create chemical weapons. One of the reasons for the spread of
chemical weapons is the fact that industrialized countries
produce some of the substances used, certain pesticides for
example, for civilian uses.
As I stressed earlier, western countries stopped using certain
chemical substances for military purposes some time ago and
continued producing them uniquely for civilian uses. I would
like to remind you that Canada has already destroyed its
chemical weapons factories.
This tacit abetment and lack of care in exporting toxic
substances on the part of western countries have helped certain
third world countries to amass a huge arsenal.
(1350)
Libya is one of the countries that traded with the West in order
to build up a supply and then began exporting this deadly
technology.
This is how the government in Khartoum ended up using
mustard gas against the people in southern Sudan, and how
Somalia got hold of neurotoxins. Other countries where there is
fighting, such as Afghanistan, Egypt, the former Yugoslavia,
Laos and Cambodia are suspected of using these toxic gases,
which quickly attack the nervous system causing convulsions,
paralysis and suffocation. As states cannot be forced to submit
to investigations, they cannot be condemned by any evidence,
and international sanctions cannot be used against them.
Many of these countries have yet to sign the Chemical
Weapons Convention. Iraq is one of them. For the moment,
however, its chemical industry is not functioning, having been
destroyed by a commission of the United Nations. Its arsenal of
bacteriological weapons, the size of which we now know, did
not, unfortunately, suffer the same fate.
In response to the horrors and destruction of chemical
warfare, a number of countries in the international community
decided to take measures to prevent the manufacture and use of
chemical weapons. These countries had already tried to limit the
use of biological weapons as early as the middle of the 1970s
with a convention on biological weapons. However, as the
convention did not establish a verification regime, it was not
particularly restrictive and therefore of little use for
disarmament purposes.
In 1925, with the Geneva convention, the international
community prohibited the use of gas in wartime, but did not
prohibit its possession or manufacture. Great thinking, Mr.
Speaker. Prior to the 1993 convention, there was nothing in international law to prevent the acquisition and manufacture of chemical weapons.
I would first point out that the 1993 convention will benefit
everyone and is in the interest of all developed and third world
countries, even though it is in the latter that chemical weapons
are most often used, as I mentioned earlier.
Canada, unlike other countries, does not have equipment for
its armed forces capable of rapid detection of the dangers caused
by chemical or biological weapons. However, Canadian
peacekeepers are serving in countries which have or are
supposed to have these deadly weapons. It might be more
relevant to equip our peacekeeping troops with detection
equipment rather than buying four submarines, as the defence
minister is planning to do.
The convention is very far-reaching since it sets up a
stringent inspection system aimed at discouraging states which
might overwise be tempted not to abide by the terms of this
international agreement.
In fact, certain provisions allow for the control and
monitoring of the destruction of the weapons and civilian
chemical industry of the signing parties, anywhere, anytime.
Inspections and verifications will be carried out by teams of
international inspectors reporting to the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, created under the
convention.
In this sense the signatories to this multilateral agreement are
going beyond wishful thinking. They are equiping themselves
with the means to ensure that the terms of the convention are
abided by and to facilitate the implementation of the
convention.
In brief, the convention prohibits the production, acquisition,
stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons. This ban
covers not only chemical products manufactured for military
14079
purposes, but also vectors and equipment used in connection
with such weapons.
A planning commission has already been set up in The Hague
to oversee the creation of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons. Several panel of experts have been
reviewing different instruments and means to implement the
convention. This commission is to ensure the transition to the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
With Bill C-87, Canada is giving itself the means to meet its
obligations under the convention, namely to gather information
for the benefit of the organization, by setting up a national
authority. Under its terms of reference, that national authority
will also have to maintain a direct link with the organization and
facilitate international inspections on Canadian territory.
(1355)
Some information leaflets have already been printed on the
subject and distributed to Canadian chemical companies to
inform them of their new responsibilities and obligations under
the terms of the convention. This shows how important the
Canadian government considers the national implementation of
the multilateral agreement on chemical armaments.
This commitment also does credit to the mostly pacifist
attitude of Canadians in general. Let me explain to the House
how much Quebecers are interested in world peace and security.
Quebec sovereignists have already included specific
commitments to that effect in the Parti Quebecois platform.
In the chapter on international relations, the Parti Quebecois
promises to declare Quebec a nuclear weapon free zone and,
consequently, not to permit any research, production, testing,
stockpiling or deployment of nuclear, chemical or
bacteriological weapons, or of any of their vectors, on Quebec
territory.
This commitment is totally in line with the intent of the
convention on chemical armaments. Also, there is no doubt
possible about the intentions of Quebecers who definitely want
their country to be party to that convention once Quebec is
sovereign. Quebec supports this collective action on the part of
the international community, which aims at the complete
eradication of weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, let me reiterate my support, and that of my Party,
for Bill C-87 which will allow Canada to ratify the convention
on chemical weapons as soon as possible. After all, we must not
forget this is the first multilateral disarmament agreement
which comes with an effective control plan.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
14079
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those imploring the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to restore funding for lacrosse, a
uniquely Canadian sport.
I would remind my colleagues that lacrosse is central to one of
the most famous stories in Canadian history, the capture of Fort
Michilimackinac during the Indian uprising of 1763 led by the
great Indian chief Pontiac. Members will recall that the
Ojibway, allies of the French at the time, played lacrosse just
outside the fort, much to the amusement of the British garrison.
When the ball was deliberately flung over the palisade, the
British made the fatal mistake of opening the gates to allow the
Indians to retrieve it.
Thus the balance of power, despite the fall of Quebec, shifted
away from the British and toward the French. So it has happened
in Canada from time to time ever since.
It would be a great disservice to Canada's founding peoples,
aboriginals, francophones and anglophones, to allow lacrosse to
perish. It is a vital part of our shared history and culture as
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
relieved to learn yesterday about the release of the last 26 UN
peacekeepers and observers, including 12 Canadians, detained
by Bosnian Serbs.
This further hostage-taking incident, which shows incredible
defiance, followed three years of ethnic cleansing, mass
destruction and carnage by Bosnian Serbs that have claimed
more than 200,000 victims.
Although today we salute the release of the Canadian
peacekeepers and observers, we must still vigorously condemn
the Bosnian Serbs' ruthless behaviour.
We also remain deeply concerned about the fate of some 700
other Canadian peacekeepers deployed in Visoko and Kiseljak,
as the Bosnian government forces are mounting a vast offensive
against the Bosnian Serbs to break the siege of Sarajevo.
14080
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Special Olympics organizations all across Canada
provide opportunities for the mentally handicapped to develop
their physical, social and psychological abilities.
I have been involved with Special Olympics for a number of
years now and can attest to the benefits that result from these
Special Olympics programs.
On July 16, I will be hosting a fundraising golf tournament in
my riding in support of the B.C. chapter of Prince George
Special Olympics. I invite all members to come out and support
this tournament but if they cannot come out I will be happy to
take a donation back to the tournament on their behalf.
I also take the opportunity to urge all members of the House to
support local organizations that participate in Special Olympics
programs. Let me end my statement with the motto of Special
Olympians: ``Let me win but if I cannot win, let me be brave in
my attempt''.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Justice William Trainor of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, who died last Friday, was one of Canada's
most distinguished jurists, senior adviser to several federal
justice ministers and author of our law governing the legality of
wiretaps.
As judge he had extensive and varied experience in the Yukon
Territory and on the courts martial appeal court before going to
the Supreme Court. He had a deep knowledge of legal history
but recognized in his judicial opinions the need to up date old
legal doctrines to meet new societal conditions and needs.
Our sympathy goes out to his wife of 50 years standing, Betty,
and to his family.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure of welcoming His Excellency, Mr. Andreas
Jacovides, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus, to
our country and to our capital city.
I take this opportunity on behalf of 200,000 Cypriots who to
this day find themselves refugees in their own country and on
behalf of 1,619 persons who to this day are still missing and
unaccounted for to denounce the July 1974 brutal invasion of
Cyprus by Turkish forces.
Twenty-one years later and despite various resolutions from
the United Nations, the Commonwealth heads of governments
and the European community condemning this brutal invasion,
the Turkish regime refuses to come to the table and negotiate a
peaceful and just solution for the island of Cyprus. Why?
Because no solution is the solution for the Turkish regime.
Cyprus is not looking for pity. Cyprus wants what we all want
as civilized human beings. Cyprus wants what all progressive
institutions are advocating, justice.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I had the distinct pleasure to attend the
outstanding day of celebration for our home made poet,
Elizabeth Bishop.
We celebrated the life and work of Pulitzer prize winning poet
Bishop in Great Village, Nova Scotia. Bishop was born in New
England in 1911 and spent her early childhood in Great Village
with her grandparents. Her experiences as a child in rural Nova
Scotia influenced, in fact dominated, her prose and poetry with
the theme that all people are home made.
Elizabeth Bishop died in 1979. However, her literary works
grow and are ever more popular. She is classified in the top five
modern poets and is taught in virtually every department of
modern literature in universities throughout the world.
The Elizabeth Bishop Society is a rapidly growing
international association with memorabilia in Nova Scotia and
at Vassar College, Bishop's alma mater.
Today in the Parliament of Canada I salute the Elizabeth
Bishop Society of Nova Scotia and the organizers in Great
Village for recognizing her literary works.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Louise Beaudoin, the Quebec Minister of
Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, took stock of the first nine
months of federal-provincial relations since the election of the
new government in Quebec. Social program reform, the Canada
social transfer and the national forum on health are all examples
of centralization and encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction
over education, health and income security.
(1405)
By closing the military college in Saint-Jean, reducing
transfers to Quebec for health and education, restricting access
to UI benefits-which has doubled the number of new welfare
recipients Quebec must look after-and stubbornly refusing to
transfer prime responsibility for job training to Quebec, the
federal
14081
government shows how little it cares about Quebecers'
interests. That is flexible federalism for you.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday we learned that Quebec City lost its bid to host the
2002 Winter Olympics. We all agree Canada lost a tremendous
opportunity to showcase its talents to the world when it lost that
bid.
However, Canada can still showcase its talents to the world by
hosting Expo 2005. Calgary has a volunteer corps that will
guarantee Expo is a tremendous success. It has the financial
backing of the city and the province and would be a great
Canadian showcase for a world's fair.
Let me remind everyone the heritage minister promised to
follow the recommendation of the Reid committee, which
recommends Calgary as the best choice to host Expo 2005.
Over three months ago the heritage minister promised to
make a speedy announcement. The minister's dithering has
tainted the selection process and is jeopardizing Canada's
chances of winning on the international scene.
I strongly urge the heritage minister to finally keep a promise,
to announce Canada will sponsor an Expo bid and to choose
Calgary as the city that all of Canada supports to host Expo
2005.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 1 the finance minister officially opened the Industrial
Research and Development Institute in Midland, Ontario, in my
riding of Simcoe North.
The IRDI epitomizes the approach to research and
development needed in the new economy and reflects the
strategy called for in the red book.
[Translation]
The IRDI is a partnership between the federal, provincial and
municipal governments, industry and universities. From the
work done at IRDI Canada will derive major benefits that will
help make our manufacturers more competitive on the
international market.
[English]
I congratulate Mr. Robbert Hartog and Mr. Reinhart Weber,
two industrialists in Midland whose vision was the genesis of
the IRDI concept and whose hard work made it a reality.
Support for Messrs. Hartog and Weber represents an
important investment in Canada's future.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian businesses understand that to remain competitive in a
global economy and grow stronger at home they will have to use
all of our human resources as productively as possible.
Employment equity programs are tools designed to help
Canadian businesses to do so, not hinder them.
It is heartening to hear many businesses and institutions have
realized equitable participation by women, visible minorities,
persons with disabilities and aboriginal people enhances the
profitability of business.
Employment equity laws provide a minimum standard for
employers. They do not constrain innovative leading edge
employers who want to tap into existing and emerging markets.
The Conference Board of Canada made it quite clear in its recent
report that diversity is a bottom line business issue.
Employment equity is not a mystery. It is not a threat and it is
not a drag on the economy. Just ask business leaders in Canada
who understand Canadian customer demographics.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata attacked the city of
Halifax on the successful G-7.
Halifax has just delivered one of the best summits in recent
history in French, English and in other languages as well.
[Translation]
Halifax gave visitors and delegates from every country a
warm welcome in their own languages. We in Halifax celebrate
what unites us, not what separates us. We in Halifax appreciate
Canada in all its cultural diversity.
[English]
When the member opposite made her statement she accused
the mayor of not having enough pride in Canada to fly the
Canadian flag over city hall. The member owes Haligonians an
apology and should check her facts before she makes
accusations.
As the member made her claim, the Canadian flag was flying
high over Halifax city hall. We are a military town. We raise the
14082
flag at dawn and we lower it at sunset. We also raise our flag
over business, schools, vacation spots and community meeting
places because we are proud of our flag, proud of our country
and proud of all our people.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Brian
Mulroney may be gone but his legacy of damn the voters lives on
in the Liberal government. Patronage, arrogance and the
appearance of corruption were all hallmarks of Mulroney's
regime and the same can be said for the members opposite.
I thought I would never see it but the government's refusal to
have the heritage minister resign surpasses even the Mulroney
Tories in shoddy ethical standards.
Of most concern to me is the government's suppression of
public opinion. The Liberals came to power on a mandate for
change but nothing has. Ontario called out for change two weeks
ago but the federal Liberals responded with threats to the
dissenters. Unbelievably the heritage minister is defended while
those who stand on principle are scorned.
It is truly a shame but the old saying about safety in numbers
obviously does not apply to Ontario's voice in Ottawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
issue of BST was raised repeatedly by the official opposition but
the government never confirmed that it would respect the
citizens' right to eat products unaltered by synthetic hormones.
Without even a debate on the use of biotechnology in food
production, the government is presenting consumers with a fait
accompli. As a matter of fact, Health Canada has already
authorized the marketing of experimental milk produced with
somatotropin imported from the U.S.
It is not the interests of consumers that the government is
looking after, but the economic interests of pharmaceutical
companies such as Monsanto, which is lobbying Health Canada
like never before.
The government must stop dragging its heels and extend the
moratorium on somatotropin so that the interests of consumers
will be protected in the future.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government continues its initiative to halt the trade
in endangered species under the convention on international
trade in endangered species.
Training workshops for federal and provincial enforcement
staff are ongoing. Airport photo displays advising travellers not
to purchase endangered species and products are currently being
installed at five major airports in western Canada. Negotiations
for formal agreements to implement the government's new
wildlife trade act, WAPPRIITA, the wild animal and plant
protection and regulation of international and interprovincial
trade act, are well under way in three of the four provincial and
territorial jurisdictions in western and northern Canada.
A number of prosecutions and seizures under current
endangered species legislation have also occurred in western
Canada recently with substantial penalties levied.
Nationally a video was recently produced for use on
international airline flights and new posters discouraging the
purchase of endangered wildlife products are being distributed
to airlines-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, July 1 is a special time for
all Canadians wherever they live to participate in festivities that
bring us together in an expression of pride in Canada and in
being Canadian.
This July 1 Canadians can also celebrate the 30th anniversary
of our national flag. The flag represents our values, reflected in
the way we treat each other and in the regard we have for our
global neighbours.
Canadians value individualism and industry. We also work
hard together to ensure the welfare of our fellow human beings.
Our values are evident in the dedication, discipline, tenacity and
humanitarianism of our peacekeepers abroad. We have been
known to be a compassionate, tolerant and rather unflamboyant
nation but we stand firm when fair play is at stake. These values
have made our society safe and full of opportunity.
Our Canadian flag has earned the recognition, respect and
admiration of many nations. I wish all Canadians a joyous
Canada Day and invite them to be generous in spirit with family,
friends and neighbours.
14083
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to invite all of my colleagues to celebrate
their holidays in Manitoba this summer to appreciate la joie de
vivre of St. Boniface, Winnipeg in Manitoba.
There will be a number of important celebrations, including
July 1, Canada's 128th birthday. At the same time we will be
celebrating Manitoba's 125th birthday.
From July 6 to July 9 is the Manitoba folk festival with a
variety of music for everyone's tastes. From August 6 to August
16 is Folkorama, with roughly 50 pavilions celebrating
Manitoba's and Canada's multicultural diversity. From July 13
to July 16 for those who love food there will be the very best
foods from our very best restaurants in Manitoba. There will be
literally hundreds of activities celebrating
(1415)
[Translation]
-Manitoba's 125th birthday. I sincerely hope that my
colleagues will come and join me in St. Boniface and Winnipeg,
in the province of Manitoba this summer to celebrate who we
are.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
invite members of this House to join me today in congratulating
the Hon. Stanley Knowles, who yesterday turned 87 years of
age.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Knowles was first elected to the House
of Commons in a byelection on November 30, 1942. In his more
than 50 years of political life he has served as a member of
Parliament and as a vice-president of the Canadian Labour
Congress. He has received the Order of Canada and is a member
of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada.
In 1984 a motion supported by all members of this House
appointed Mr. Knowles the unprecedented status of honorary
officer of the House of Commons, a post which he continues to
fulfil.
His work in Parliament, especially on behalf of pensioners
and veterans, and his many contributions to political life are
appreciated by us all.
On a personal note, whenever I have spoken to Mr. Knowles
about political life and the role of politicians, he has one word of
advice, which I think applies to us all: ``If we are not here for the
people, we should not be here''. Mr. Knowles has always been
here for the people.
14083
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, while everyone is celebrating the release of the
hostages in Bosnia, the Muslim and Croat offensive against
Bosnian Serb positions continues, in an attempt to lift the siege
of Sarajevo. The fighting goes on, despite a warning from the
G-7 countries Thursday evening, and a solemn appeal for a
ceasefire from the UN special envoy.
My question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As
we speak, some 700 Canadian soldiers are still confined to their
camp in Visoko. Would the minister agree that in Halifax, the
G-7 countries failed to reach agreement on a specific solution to
put an end to the conflict in Bosnia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Bosnian crisis which has been going on
for several years could not be settled in a matter of hours at the
Halifax summit. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes
that.
However, summit participants have reiterated their
confidence in the diplomatic process as opposed to a military
solution. They renewed their unconditional support for the
peace plan proposed by the contact group and, more specifically,
gave a very clear mandate to Mr. Bildt and Mr. Stoltenberg to
continue their efforts to bring all parties towards a lasting peace
in the former Yugoslavia.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether the Canadian
government and its allies intend to take up the offer of the
Bosnian president, who says he is prepared to interrupt the
current offensive, provided all heavy artillery is pulled back 20
kilometres away from Sarajevo and access roads are again
opened to humanitarian convoys.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this proposal is of course a positive sign.
Unfortunately, to be effective, all parties involved in the conflict
must agree, not just the Bosnian government but also the
Bosnian Serbs. In this connection, summit participants asked
Mr. Yeltsin to use all his influence to intervene with the Serb
authorities so that an agreement can be reached that will involve
all parties involved in the conflict.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Americans have refused to
contribute financially to the rapid reaction force. That being the
case, does the minister believe it might be necessary to drop the
idea altogether?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear on this. The Americans have not
indicated that they were in a position to be a rapid reaction force.
14084
The financial implications of it will have to be discussed at a
later date. There was some urgency to pass the resolution at the
United Nations and in order to ensure that the resolution would
be passed it was decided to postpone the financial implications
to a later date.
The Americans, although they have not indicated that they
would be participating, have not ruled out the possibility of
financing part of it as they have done in the past.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We have learned that the Canadian government's
Communications Security Establishment might offer its
services to private business to help pay the bills in the face of
federal budget cuts. When questioned about this, the defence
minister declined to answer.
Considering how important this information is, can the
minister tell this House whether the CSE is really considering
making its spying expertise available to the private sector?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we
are talking about here is not signals intelligence, we are talking
about the information security program, or INFOSEC. It is
within the mandate of the CSE to give security advice on
government telecommunications. It is an expertise that is
probably the best in Canada and the CSE has been approached by
other levels of government, other agencies and indeed people in
the private sector to give advice.
It did occur to some officials that there should be some cost
recovery associated with giving the advice. That was simply a
working document with no government or cabinet approval.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, based on the information at hand, what is being
contemplated is much more extensive than what the minister
just described.
Given that Parliament has no control whatsoever over this
agency, which is not accountable to anybody, how can the
minister approve or even consider approving the provision of
spying services to the private sector by a government agency?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the hon. member did not hear my first answer.
We are not talking about espionage. We are not talking about
signals intelligence. We are talking about the security of
telecommunications. Every company, every agency, every
government in the country has a concern that its data banks and
its telecommunications are kept as secret as possible to preserve
their integrity. That is what we are talking about. We are not
talking about foreign espionage.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government came to power it promised to
make integrity a number one priority. The Prime Minister said
there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism toward
government and unless trust could be restored the political
system would not work. Twenty months later the government is
practising exactly the same ethics as its predecessor with
conflicts of interest, patronage and old style pork barrel politics.
What makes matters worse is that the Prime Minister has
stubbornly refused to fire or even discipline ministers who
violated codes of ethical conduct.
Since the government is unwilling to do the right thing
overall, will it at least introduce clearer guidelines for
ministerial fundraisers to prevent future conflicts of interest
such as those embroiling the heritage minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
Reform Party talks about integrity. In 1990 the leader of the
Reform Party appeared before the royal commission on
electoral reform and party financing where he stated: ``The
Reform Party of Canada believes that no tax credits or
deductions from income should be permitted in respect of
donations of money to political parties or candidates. Parties
and candidates should finance themselves''-
(1425)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: ``Parties and candidates should finance
themselves with the money of their supporters and not with
taxpayers' dollars''.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Ms. Copps: ``We recommend that the political contribution
tax credit be eliminated''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
14085
Ms. Copps: However, that did not prevent every single
member of the Reform Party from taking the government rebate
that was offered to them at the end of the election campaign.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pretending to not see an ethical issue is ignoring it or
covering it up. We cannot go on with that vein of reply.
What has also become clear over the last two weeks is that the
government's mechanisms and procedures for dealing with
breaches in its code of ethics are simply not working. The
heritage minister was caught in an obvious conflict of interest,
yet the ethics counsellor was powerless to act. The Prime
Minister only consulted the ethics counsellor as an afterthought
and his report remains a deep, dark secret.
If this government is serious about restoring integrity to
government and is unwilling to act itself, will it at least free the
hands of the ethics counsellor and make him directly
accountable to this Parliament?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
Reform Party says he sees no conflict in taking a public position
that his party should not accept political tax credits nor should
they accept money from the taxpayers, but when it is coming
they are very happy to take it.
While the leader of the Reform Party was up very righteously
in the House last week attacking the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for having a private dinner, he himself was attending
another private dinner at the posh Windsor Club where initiation
fees are $1,000 and annual dues are $600.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: However the press was not allowed because
according to the press secretary of the leader of the Reform
Party it was only a ``get to know you'' session.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister can see the difference between a
regular political fundraising event and one where a minister is
soliciting clients of his own department. If the minister cannot
see the difference there, we really have an ethics problem.
No ethics code can be enforced as long as the government
practices double standards when it comes to dealing with its own
members. Liberal backbenchers who occasionally vote against
the government at the direction of their constituents are
punished. ``I will not sign your nomination papers'', says the
Prime Minister. However cabinet ministers found flouting the
federal code of ethics are defended and even applauded for their
actions.
As a discipline for violating the conflict of interest guidelines
has the Prime Minister told the heritage minister that he will not
be signing his nomination papers at the next election?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of double
standards, it seems to me that the leader of the Reform Party
should explain to the House of Commons why he asked for his
justice critic to be removed when he did not like some of the
positions he took.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the federal
government would follow the letter and spirit of the Quebec
referendum act.
(1430)
Yet, in a letter addressed to business people concerning the
referendum campaign, the Privy Council suggests that they
make a list of speakers to include current, former or retired
business leaders who would like to speak in Quebec, and to give
those names to the Privy Council or to the Council for Canadian
Unity.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify
giving the Council for Canadian Unity, which is a charity
receiving 60 per cent of its funding from the Department of
Canadian Heritage, responsibility for the pre-referendum
campaign on behalf of the Privy Council?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Council for Canadian Unity is an independent
organization. This registered private organization has no
official link with us. The government finances the council
because that organization seeks to promote Canadian unity,
which is a perfectly valid goal.
When the opposition or its big brother finances the council on
Quebec sovereignty with my taxes and with the taxes paid to the
Quebec government, it is clear that the opposition's big brother
uses taxpayers' money to sell its option.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a
case of seeing the mote in one's neighbour's eye, but not the
beam in one's own.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: In that same letter, the Privy Council suggests
to business people that they should fund the advertising or
14086
promotion costs of events such as the 30th anniversary of the
flag, or citizenship ceremonies.
How can the minister claim that federal advertising on the
Canadian flag and citizenship is not part of a huge multi-million
dollar pre-referendum campaign, considering that the Privy
Council is asking companies to integrate these themes into their
advertising, in the fight against the yes side in the Quebec
referendum?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, how can the opposition dare to ask such a question,
considering who is doing the advertising in the Montreal metro,
who held the regional commissions, who is using Quebec
taxpayers' money to carry out, through its departments, false
advertising on what goes on-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, some pretty strong words are
being used today. I ask the hon. minister to retract the word
``false''.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I retract that word and replace it
with ``misleading''. Advertising which-
The Speaker: Again, I will ask the hon. minister to simply
retract the word.
Mr. Massé: I do Mr. Speaker, but I want to carry on-
* * *
(1435 )
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all Canadians are grateful that the troops at Ilijas and
Pale have finally been released.
Now that they are free, the government is also free to address
our continued presence in Bosnia in a more objective way.
Approximately 700 Canadians remain on their base at Visoko,
stuck between hostile armies in the midst of an escalating
conflict. They are pinned down by land mines and threatened if
they try to leave their compound.
Will the minister now accept that continuing this deployment
is pointless, dangerous and irresponsible and that Canada should
urge withdrawal as soon as possible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms
of the 700 members of the Royal Vandoos Regiment in Visoko, it
is rather regrettable and certainly unacceptable from Canada's
point that these people are confined to their base.
We will be making the strongest protest to the Bosnian
government. The local commander has been trying to negotiate
the passage of goods, food and personnel to the base. There is no
reason to fear for their safety, but that is a matter we will be
concerned about and we will be negotiating with the local
commanders.
With respect to the general policy, the Prime Minister has
made the government's commitment to the United Nations force
absolutely clear. We believe the force can continue to do its job
with the goodwill of the parties to start negotiating again.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government continues to waffle about whether
Canada will join the UN's rapid reaction force. It stalls for time,
refusing to make the tough decisions about the mission in
Bosnia. The government owes it to Canadians to stop dithering
and decide its course.
Will Canada join the rapid reaction force and commit itself
more deeply to the fighting or will it, as the Reform Party has
been suggesting, begin to wind down its participation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
nice for the hon. member from the Reform Party to express a
sign of relief at the freedom of our hostages.
However I would like to remind the House that at the height of
this crisis, when all Canadians and all parliamentarians should
have been rallying around, this was the party that was telling us
to withdraw. This was the party with a wanton disregard for the
safety of our troops.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs stated that the Privy Council would be spending $2.5
million of its budget on Operation Unity this year. The Clerk of
the Privy Council said that, of this amount, $1.4 million would
be for salaries and $1 million for the purchase of goods and
services. However, the minister and departmental employees
carefully avoid talking about the total cost of Operation Unity.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us what
the total cost of Operation Unity will be, including transferred
employees, goods and services and the rental of office space?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have very clearly estimated that the total cost of
Operation Unity will be $2.5 million. This was the amount noted
in the estimates, which are drawn up to give us an idea of how
much money we need for the fiscal year.
But obviously, since then, our big brother from the Bloc
Quebecois decided to put off the referendum, so we may have to
14087
spend more than we previously estimated. How much more, we
will only know once the referendum date has been set.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the date will be quite clear, and I suppose that they are
going to enlist the help of their big brother at Power Corporation
for their campaign.
How can the minister claim that the Privy Council will only
spend $2.5 million on the referendum, when his deputy minister,
who appears better informed than he is, states that 17 per cent of
the Privy Council's professionals are working mostly on the
Canadian unity issue and, for the minister's information, 17 per
cent of the Privy Council's total budget represents at the very
least $14 million?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the figures in the estimates were
drawn up to the best of our knowledge, given what we knew at
that time about the Parti Quebecois's strategy.
And anybody who spends between $8 and $10 million on
regional commissions, which were nothing more than
propaganda machines, is in no position to grill us about our
figures.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs met with the B.C.
aboriginal affairs minister this morning. The provincial minister
is here to insist on greater federal participation in settling native
disputes in B.C. A native spokesman has said since last week
that Adams Lake residents will have their access blocked today
at 5 p.m. unless the federal minister involves himself in the
dispute. There is urgency.
How is it the federal department can promote and participate
in all land claim and self-government negotiations in B.C., but
when the public is held to ransom the minister asserts that he has
no legal, moral or statutory obligation to get involved?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. The minister of aboriginal affairs is here from B.C.
Even though we are not of the same party, I want to commend
him for his excellent work in a very tenuous situation.
I will go back to the basis of the complaint. This is an off
reserve problem. As the member knows there have been
archaeological finds there. As a matter of fact if he reads the
Kamloops news it is fairly correct. Kyle Boxrud plans to build a
60-unit recreational vehicle park but has been ordered to have
an archaeological study conducted to determine the heritage
value of the land. He has been told that by the province. He has
been told to discontinue his work. He has refused to do the study
and he has also refused to discontinue his work.
That is the issue. It is an off reserve issue. We are prepared to
work with the province. I want to make clear that this
government and this minister do not negotiate over barricades.
We are a country of law and order and no barricade will get the
promise of a solution. We have had a person there at two of the
meetings. We are prepared to help facilitate a settlement with
the clear understanding that barricades in Canada gain nothing
from my department.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand a lot of private property owners not
involved in the archaeological dispute are suffering as a result of
this dispute.
The minister has raised expectation levels in B.C. beyond
what governments can deliver. A Penticton band spokesman is
now saying that the B.C. treaty process is falling apart as he
earlier predicted.
Other than to blame Reform, as the minister did Friday, what
is the minister doing to reduce expectations and create a sensible
and publicly acceptable set of negotiations in which the rule of
law is rewarded and protests and blockades are not?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring
to the broader issue of the B.C. negotiations. All Canada knows
that it was not this government that really started the
negotiations. We are doing modern treaty in British Columbia,
contemporary treaty addressing the spirit of intent.
I would advise the hon. member that there was a four-hour
meeting with the First Nations from B.C. this morning with the
minister and deputy minister. I thought the meeting was
positive. If he blames us for enhancing expectations, if we as a
government can collectively raise the spirits of aboriginal
people, if we can restore values and that is raising expectations,
that is what we are here for in the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Food and Drugs Act, which comes under Health Canada,
prohibits the sale of the synthetic hormone somatotropin, given,
as the minister has said, that Health Canada's study of its impact
on humans and animals has not yet been completed.
14088
Would the minister confirm that no Canadian can consume
dairy products from cows treated with the synthetic hormone
somatotropin?
(1445)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter is still being studied. The product will be
approved once Health Canada scientists have determined that it
is safe and effective.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain a letter dated October 2, 1986 from
Health Canada signed by Mr. Mitchel, the director of the Bureau
of Veterinary Drugs, permitting milk made with synthetic
somatotropin to be marketed as unprocessed milk without any
warning to consumers?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will say, in English this time, that rBST is under
review by Health Canada. The scientists at Health Canada are
doing their work and a notice of compliance will not be issued
until they are satisfied that rBST is safe and efficacious.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Because of an increasing use of technology in the workplace
we have witnessed an increase in global structural
unemployment. In response to this the government struck an
advisory group last fall to make suggestions to the government
on working time and the distribution of work.
Would the minister inform the House of the government's
intentions relative to the recommendations of the Donner report
on working time and the distribution of work?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question by the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury is particularly relevant, because
it concerns a matter currently under consideration in a number
of workplaces: hours and distribution of work. The report was
distributed widely, in a number of areas to encourage public
debate by provincial governments, unions and business.
Certain advisory bodies are currently examining the report,
including the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and
the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. We also
plan to support pilot projects at the Department of Human
Resources Development on testing hours of work. Finally, there
are also recommendations on changes to the Canada Labour
Code, and we have submitted them to the advisory group, which
comprises labour and management, for recommendations to the
Minister of Labour.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
immigration minister told this House a week ago that in 1994 he
had issued minister's permits to about 7,000 people who were
initially denied entry into Canada. We have obtained a list of just
who those people are and I find it and the minister's actions
deeply disturbing.
Why did the minister give permits to 147 people who were
caught working illegally, to 129 people who came into Canada
with fraudulent papers and to 354 people who have engaged in a
pattern of criminal behaviour?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is distorting
the purpose in the execution of the ministerial permits.
Clearly, we do not go looking for people with fraudulent
documentation. In fact, this government has been proactive on
interdiction. In 1990 there were some 8,000 illegally
documented individuals coming into Canada. Through that
active program, last year we reduced it to some 3,000
individuals.
If the interdiction program is bad, why is it then that
governments in the United States, Holland and Australia want to
duplicate what Canada has been able to do and do well?
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
permits were issued to 524 people who posed a health threat.
Seven people were engaged in acts of terrorism and subversion,
1,049 were convicted of an offence that carries less than a 10
year sentence and 10 people had been previously deported. I
have just scratched the surface.
Why has this minister refused to intervene even once to kick
dangerous criminals out of the country when he intervened
7,000 times last year to let these sorts of people in?
(1450 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member
scratches the surface, other people scratch their heads in
disbelief.
Ministerial permits are used across the country and
internationally. They are not simply permits which are at the
discretion of the minister, the discretion is also delegated to
officials. The fact that they have been used 7,000 times for
legitimate purposes is very different from the kind of accusation
which is being levelled by the hon. member.
14089
When he suggests that we allowed in seven individuals who
had been active in terrorism he is, in a certain sense, misleading
Canadians into believing that somehow their security is at risk.
Some of these individuals were called by the House of
Commons human rights committee. Some individuals came
here for multilateral peace discussions from the Middle East.
Some individuals came to testify to various human rights
committees about the situation in Latin America. Some
individuals came here to fundraise for the Jesuit college. These
are the kinds of individuals who were let in. It was for the right
reasons, not for the kind of innuendo for which the hon. member
and his party are well known.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
On June 9, the minister said, and I quote: ``We have taken the
position at the EPA hearings currently going on in Washington
that we would rather see to the disposal of our PCBs ourselves''.
Will the minister admit today that the Canadian government
never participated in EPA hearings, contrary to what she
claimed in this House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I personally wrote
these words to Carol Browner while these hearings were being
held. I have the letter, if the hon. member wants to see it.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister reconcile her answer with the contents of a
letter by Tony Barney, chief of operations at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, who maintains that no
Environment Canada official appeared before the panel he
chaired, and that no letter was received from this department?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps he should talk
to his boss.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister is adamant that he must bring in Bill C-64, the
employment equity bill and he is equally adamant that this will
not mean hiring quotas, but he is not right. Let me give him an
example. Seventy-four per cent of all new recruits to the RCMP
training academy in Regina this fall must be from the designated
groups. In other words the RCMP has declared the winners
before it has even held the exams.
How can the minister say these are not quotas and how can he
be sure these people will be the best qualified to be RCMP
officers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point
out to the hon. member that my very distinguished colleague,
the solicitor general, is responsible for the RCMP. I am very
pleased to see that he is already taking measures before the
legislation is even passed by the House to ensure that fair and
equal opportunity is being provided through the various services
of the federal government.
The mythology and illusion the Reform Party perpetrates
throughout the country is that somehow quota is part of the bill. I
want to underline that quota is not mentioned in the bill. It is not
designed for that purpose. It is designed to set up a system
whereby we can work with employers in both the public and
private sectors to ensure that barriers which apply to all workers
can be reduced. In that way everyone can be given the full
opportunity to advance to their level of talent and ability. It will
ensure that nobody is discriminated against as they have been in
the past.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone wants to ensure equal opportunity but the trouble is
that this type of policy and this bill will enact quotas in Canada.
Let me give the exact figures to the minister for his
consideration. This fall 112 new recruits will be visible
minorities, 112 must be aboriginal and 95 recruits must be
women. It could me more. Maybe it should be more, maybe less.
(1455)
The point is this: Why does the minister continue to say that
there are no quotas when there are numbers like this that must be
filled and prove that his bill and his policy means quotas for
Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say with deference that
the hon. member's second question shows how ignorant he is of
what is in the bill.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would urge you please to
consider your language and maybe just tone it down a bit.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, let
me rephrase it. Obviously the hon. member is a stranger to the
information contained in the bill.
14090
I would point out to him that in the legislation itself we get
away from providing any quantifiable requirements as was the
case previously under certain human rights decisions. We are
saying that by working with private employers we can ensure
that we really aim at developing human resource plans in a wide
variety of workplace situations so that we do not get to the point
where one group of working people is being compared to the
numbers in the workforce itself.
The bill is designed to exactly moderate and mitigate those
impacts. I suggest that the next time the hon. member asks a
question it might be wise for him to first read the legislation.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On June 14, 1995 the government responded to the report by
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning the
mandate and operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing
Corporation.
Can the minister assure this House that the government will
maintain and uphold the proposals that were announced last
week?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's response takes into account a number of
recommendations made by the standing committee, the main
thrust of which was to allow and give an opportunity to northern
remote communities to develop their fisheries.
Our response does exactly that. It provides for unconditional
licensing of rough fish such as carp and mullet. It will also allow
the community of Island Lake to buy and sell fish for a
three-year trial period outside the FFMC. I can assure the
member that the minister is committed to that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
It has now been more than 18 months since the Baird
commission tabled its report before this House. Despite the
health minister's promises and the justice minister's good
intentions, the government has yet to show that it does take
seriously the recommendations made in this report.
Can the minister confirm that, as she told the health
committee in May, she will be tabling in this House before the
summer adjournment measures to prevent the sale of human
embryos and ova and to ban genetic manipulation for
commercial purposes?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a very complex
issue, which demands a great deal of co-operation between the
various levels of government. It should be easy for Bloc
members to understand how difficult this is since we have to
deal with their big brother. Let me tell you that I am just as eager
as you are to have something ready soon because I have been
working long and hard on this.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and now the
premier elect of Ontario all oppose the firearms registry.
(1500 )
In the 1993 report the auditor general said: ``Co-operation
among the federal and provincial governments is essential if the
program is to be administered effectively''.
What will the Minister of Justice do when those provinces
opposed to the gun registration, the very governments
responsible for the administration of the regulations, do not
co-operate?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon.
member's question is faulty.
To give an example, he referred to New Brunswick's
government being against the registry. That is not so at all.
Frank McKenna was speaking for himself when he expressed a
difference of view about one aspect of it but many senior
members of that government are strongly in support of the
registration of firearms.
This government has every confidence first of all that the
registration system, responding to what police have been asking
for in this country for many years, will help make this a safer
place. Surely my friends want to stand with the police.
We have every confidence that when the registry is in place
provincial governments will discharge their constitutional
responsibilities and administer the law.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Customs has a difficult challenge at this time of year
with a higher number of travellers. They have to enforce the
laws against smuggling and other illegal activities at the border
and at the same time they have to facilitate the movement of
honest travellers and business transactions.
14091
What is the Minister of National Revenue doing to meet this
challenge more effectively?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
There was a series of measures undertaken under the general
heading of the U.S.-Canada border accord but also in addition
and outside that to make the border a more secure element of our
national life.
We are attempting to streamline processes to make sure that
for the honest traveller people have less hassle, indeed no
hassle, and for those who would break the law the border
becomes a brick wall.
Among the various examples of what we are doing was the
announcement I made in Hamilton last Friday of a new pilot
project for private aircraft that will allow free clearance of small
planes coming into Canada using selective small airports. Those
in this pilot project are Brantford, Buttonville, Gooderich,
Oshawa, Pelee Island, Peterborough and Sarnia. We hope to
expand this program nationwide next year.
* * *
The Speaker: We are honoured today to have three
distinguished visitors.
I would like to call your attention to the presence in the
gallery of His Excellency Dr. Atef Mohamed Ebeid, Minister of
Public Enterprise and Minister of State for Administration
Development and Environment Affairs of the Arab Republic of
Egypt.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also, my colleagues, I would like to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of the hon. John Cashore,
Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs in the Government
of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also present in the gallery, is my brother
Speaker, His Excellency Ortiz Arana, President of the Senate of
Mexico.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We will have a tribute to a former member in
just a few moments, but I am prepared now to give a ruling on a
question of privilege.
The Speaker: As questions of privilege affect all of us, it is
always valuable for us to give attention to the ruling.
[Translation]
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by
the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria on June 8, 1995.
During Private Members' Business on that day, the hon.
member and the hon. member for Beaver River engaged in a
heated conversation.
(1505)
According to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria, as
she turned to go back to her seat in order to end the discussion,
the hon. member for Beaver River grabbed her by the arm. The
hon. member brought this to the immediate attention of the
Chair and, the Acting Speaker heard the question of privilege.
Citing Erskine May's, 21st edition, at page 126, the member
noted that it is a contempt to molest a member. She then claimed
that she had been physically assaulted and was prepared to move
the appropriate motion.
[English]
The hon. member for Beaver River then rose to confirm that
the member for Madawaska-Victoria was correct in her
description of the events. The member for Beaver River
apologized to the member for Madawaska-Victoria and told
the House she had intended no harm, threat or assault.
The Reform Party whip, the hon. member for Calgary Centre,
and the hon. member for Mississauga South, both witnesses to
the incident, assisted the Chair by describing what they had
seen. The chief government whip also spoke to the matter,
drawing to the attention of the Chair a number of precedents. I
thank all three members for their contributions.
In my view the matter raised by the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria is a very serious one for this House. The
events that occurred were unfortunate, to say the least.
The hon. member for Beaver River has admitted she was at
fault but has explained she meant no harm and has in fact
apologized for her actions. I refer to her own words in the
debates of June 8 at pages 13507 and 13508:
I do apologize for that. I certainly did not mean any harm or assault. I do
apologize if she thought there was any intention of an assault. I absolutely
meant no harm or any threat.
As Speaker Fraser noted when ruling on a matter involving
the hon. member for York South-Weston and the late Mr. Dan
McKenzie, to which the chief government whip referred, once
14092
the error has been admitted and the member has apologized,
procedurally the matter should go no further.
The incident ought not to have happened and it ought not
happen again. I refer hon. members to the debate of October 16,
1987, at page 10090. I concur with the decision reached by my
predecessor on that occasion and with regard to the present case
I find the matter is closed.
[Translation]
There is a troubling aspect to this incident which, if left
unchallenged, could have serious consequences for us all, as
members of this House. It is my hope that my remarks will clear
the air and ensure that we stay on course in our dealings with
each other in this House, particularly during the long hours of
these final days before the adjournment.
As Speaker, I am the arbiter of House proceedings, charged
with preserving order and decorum. However, I cannot do this
job alone. I rely on the co-operation of you all, my colleagues,
to ensure that this Chamber remains the focal point for
thoughtful reasoned debate on the matters crucial to the well
being of our nation.
[English]
While I take consolation from the fact that our House is more
orderly and decorous than the one faced by my 19th century
predecessors, I am constantly reminded that this is a place of
strong opinions and strong emotions and that when tempers flare
hon. members can get carried away. I strongly urge all hon.
members, you my colleagues, to respect the conventions and
traditions of this place and to conduct ourselves-myself also,
because I am part of it with you-with the civility becoming
representatives of the Canadian people.
There is absolutely no place for violent language or actions in
this House. Our constituents expect members to be businesslike
and civilized in the conduct of parliamentary affairs. So does the
Chair. So does the whole House.
(1510)
To quote Speaker Fraser on a ruling he gave on December 11,
1991, at page 6142 of the debates:
The Chair can devise no strategy, however aggressive or interventionist, and
can imagine no codification, however comprehensive or strict, that will
successfully protect the Canadian parliamentary traditions that we cherish as
will each member's sense of justice and fair play.
In this I wholeheartedly concur.
* * *
The Speaker: We will now proceed to tributes for one of our
colleagues who died recently. I call upon the hon. member for
Sherbrooke to make the first intervention.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to one of the longest serving members of
Parliament, Mr. Bob Wenman, who passed away peacefully at
his home on June 13.
Robert Lloyd Wenman was born in Maidstone, Saskatchewan,
on June 19, 1940 and would have been exactly 55 years old
today. He had a distinguished academic career, attending the
University of Saskatchewan as well as several prominent
American schools. He trained as a teacher at Saskatoon Teachers
College.
He first entered politics in 1966 at the age of 25 years. He was
elected at that time to the British Columbia legislature. He was
re-elected in 1969 and after a short time was also an alderman in
Surrey, British Columbia.
He was elected for the first time to the House of Commons in
1974 and re-elected at every election afterward until he decided
to retire from politics in August 1993.
During his time as a member of Parliament he held several
posts, including parliamentary secretary to the minister of
defence, and chaired the Standing Committee on Labour,
Employment and Immigration.
Outside the House of Commons he gave generously of his
time to many causes, the most significant of which was
undoubtedly the United Nations.
Mr. Wenman was a member of this place who very early on
became interested in environment issues, issues that related to
the global population. He was interested in these issues at a time
when it was not fashionable. I remember in the 1984 Parliament
he was among a few members at the time who pursued some key
issues related to the environment, one of them being, as I
subsequently discovered in reading some notes following his
passing away, South Moresby in British Columbia. That was an
issue he pursued with the previous government, that of Mr.
Clark.
He was also very interested in issues that affected global
parliamentarians and chaired that group for some time.
He left his mark in a conference held in British Columbia
called Globe '92. He chaired the UN global parliamentarians on
habitat group. A consequence of the 1992 conference was the
creation of the International Centre for Sustainable Cities, now
located in the city of Vancouver.
He was also very interested, in his constituents and in the
issues of his own area, among them Fort Langley, which I know
something of because of previous responsibilities. I can assure
the House that he certainly pursued the interests of Fort Langley
with a great deal of vigour.
As friends and colleagues reflect upon his great contribution,
which spanned 30 years of public life in Canada, and as we think
back to the significance of that contribution, may I refer to
someone you have just referred to, Mr. Speaker, your predeces-
14093
sor, Speaker John Fraser. Upon learning of his passing away,
Speaker Fraser said this: ``Bob Wenman took his own direction,
clearly from his own star''.
As we look back on his life may we encourage many other
Canadians to follow the star of Bob Wenman.
(1515 )
In closing, I want to extend our very deep regrets to his wife of
32 years, Donna, and his four children, Jill, Kiven, Ken and
Kraig.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of loss that I rise to
recall the life and the untimely death of Bob Wenman, a man
dedicated to the country, to his province of British Columbia and
to public service.
My friend, Bob Wenman, died last week in British Columbia
at the age of 54 after a political career spanning almost 30 years,
including 19 years in the House of Commons, representing the
constituents of Fraser Valley West.
It is Bob's principled and distinguished life rather than his
passing which will remain fixed in the minds of those of us who
knew him.
Bob began his political career at the age of 25 in 1966 as a
Social Credit MLA in the provincial legislature of the province
of British Columbia. From that early start until last week he led
a life marked by an unwavering commitment to stand by his
beliefs and ideals. Whether or not his views were popular, Bob
was resolute in upholding and promoting those things that he
believed to be right.
During his final years in public office, Bob's commitment to
family values, the environment and Canada's relationship with
countries in the Pacific rim was very evident.
He is survived by his wife Donna and four children, Ken, Jill,
Kiven and Kraig, and our thoughts are with them at this very
difficult time. I hope his family and his many friends are able to
take solace in the knowledge that his contribution to his
province and to the country will long be remembered.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and on my own behalf, I also want
to pay tribute to Robert. You all remember that in 1981 only one
Conservative member was elected in Quebec. However, in 1984,
57 Conservative members arrived here to represent Quebec, 56
of them being new faces. That turnaround was the result of the
efforts made by Robert, who taught some skills at the sessions
for Conservative candidates.
As the leader of the Conservative Party mentioned earlier, all
Quebec Conservative or former Conservative members,
including those who were defeated during the last election and
those who did not seek a new mandate, remember Robert as an
exceptional facilitator and motivator at these sessions for
Conservative candidates. Robert was extremely friendly and he
taught us many points which proved useful during the election
campaign. In fact, several Quebec MPs elected in 1984 are very
indebted to him for his good advice. Even though he had to
conduct his own election campaign, Robert was generous
enough to come and spend two days with us at the sessions for
candidates, held in a hotel which is now a Travel Lodge, where
he welcomed us. The whole session was organized by him.
He was an extremely generous person strongly devoted to the
party line, but with some very progressive ideas. For example,
he was always the one, in the Conservative Party who would
trigger the debates on the environment. I had the opportunity to
sit with him on various commissions and committees. I was
always impressed by the avant-gardism of his ideas, as well as
by the pragmatism which characterized every one of his
statements. To be sure, he was a philosopher but he was always
very practical.
We had a lot in common. Like me he was a former teacher and
in business. Consequently we would often have discussions
together. Robert also talked a lot about agriculture since he
represented a part urban and part rural riding. Again, since our
ridings were more or less similar, we had long discussions
together. I have very fond memories of Robert. He was very
close to his constituents and always ready to give to others. He
was courteous, friendly, competent, meticulous, hard working,
and showed respect for his colleagues. Robert also loved sports
and we had to discuss racquetball with him every time we talked
to him.
I thank him for his great contribution to democracy in this
country. To his family, his wife and four children, I offer my
most sincere condolences. I leave them with a quote from
French author Alexandre Dumas who said: ``Those whom we
loved are no longer where they were, but they are always with
us, wherever we are''.
(1520 )
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sad to say that last week former Conservative MP Robert
Wenman passed away at the age of 54.
Mr. Wenman worked as a member of Parliament for 19 years,
proudly serving the Fraser Valley West communities of Langley,
Fort Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford.
14094
Bob was a longstanding politician who started his public
service at the age of 25 in 1966 as an MLA in British Columbia.
He joined federal politics in 1974. In the House of Commons he
focused on personal projects and issues such as the
environment, a bill permitting passive euthanasia, the
enhancement of Canada's international ties and the promotion
of B.C. business opportunities with the federal government. He
also was strongly anti-abortion and supported family values.
Bob and I met after the election and in the sincere and open
approach for which he was known, he was kind enough to help
me in those early days. For that I shall be ever thankful. He was a
popular individual and active in our community. He was
respected by all people and shall be missed.
Bob's contribution has made Canada a better country in which
to live. I join with my Reform colleagues and all members of the
House to express sincere sympathy to Mr. Wenman's family and
friends. We thank Bob for his unselfish contribution.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would also
like to extend my sympathies to the family of Bob Wenman. Mr.
Wenman was a very likeable colleague over the years that I
worked with him. We regret his passing and we offer our
condolences to his family.
_____________________________________________
14094
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission for 1993-1994.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
16 petitions.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian
Mint Act, without amendment.
I would like to add a few more words on behalf of the
committee. In the deliberations on Bill C-82, an act to amend
the Royal Canadian Mint Act, the Standing Committee on
Government Operations heard two separate messages from both
government and industry on the introduction of the new $2 coin.
First, the Government of Canada is introducing the new $2
coin because of the savings it will generate for the taxpayers.
Within 20 years more than $254 million will be saved for
Canadians with the introduction of the coin. Further, the
government is expected to accrue an additional $449 million in
seigniorage to the consolidated revenue fund within 18 months
of the issue. The savings for taxpayers are significant indeed.
(1525)
We also heard a second message loud and clear from industry,
small and medium sized businesses in particular. Although
industry supports in principle the introduction of the new coin
because of the associated savings, business has expressed
serious concern over the timing of the move. The affected
businesses and associations clearly stated that the 12-month
notice is not adequate time to prepare for this adjustment.
Given the fact that a delay in the introduction of the coin
would cost the Government of Canada an estimated $109
million in the fiscal year 1995-96, the committee recognizes the
need for the Government of Canada to balance both the
requirements of industry with those of fiscal responsibility and
budgetary prudence.
The committee recommends that the Royal Canadian Mint-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The standing
orders provide for a brief intervention. I would deem this
intervention to go beyond the letter and the spirit of that
standing order.
I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James to
conclude.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the one paragraph I have left
contains the major recommendation. Perhaps I could seek the
indulgence of the House.
The committee recommends that the Royal Canadian Mint,
the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada work with
14095
industry, small and medium sized businesses, in particular, to
ensure a smooth and least cost integration of the new $2 coin
into the marketplace. The government should further consider
participation in a public awareness campaign with the affected
stakeholders to minimize any possible disruption in trade and
commerce.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31, the form and the
content of the attached petition have been certified.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from
approximately 850 Canadians from the Montreal area. The long
and turbulent history of humanity has, at times, concealed far
reaching events of tragic proportions.
Eighty years ago the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by the
Turkish government of the Ottoman Empire, claimed the lives
of 1.5 million innocent Armenian victims.
Resolutions of the United Nations subcommission, the
European Parliament, South American countries and in Canada,
the legislatures of Quebec and Ontario have condemned this
monumental crime.
Hence, the petitioners request that Parliament change its
policy of indifference toward the Armenian genocide and
actively initiate and promote international efforts to persuade
Turkey to recognize its crime against humanity.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians of the Islamic faith want the government to consider
guardianship as an option to adoption. They point out that
guardianship, as they see it, would include the same legal and
moral obligations as adoption.
The petitioners point out that guardianship, as they would
want it, is in accord with their religious beliefs. They would like
the government to begin discussions to see how this might be
done.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
second petition is with respect to violence and abuse in all
forms, be it verbal, physical or other in society in general. It is
not seen as necessary to educate, to inform or to entertain.
The petitioners call on the government to ensure that the
CRTC regulates the amount of violence and abuse. They point
out that there have been some gains made. They applaud that but
they want even more for the future.
(1530)
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I should like to table three
petitions.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure of presenting
to the House a series of petitions.
The first is a petition signed by 100 residents of Toronto
calling on Parliament to make a firm commitment to supporting
the Harbourfront Centre. I am sure they look forward to the
government's answer.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also tabling six petitions signed by almost 1,800 Canadians
calling on Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
to include sexual orientation as a prohibitive ground of
discrimination.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
bushel of petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of
Vegreville.
In two petitions the petitioners recognize that public safety is
a number one priority in the criminal justice system. They also
recognize that the existing controls on law-abiding responsible
gun owners are more than enough to ensure public safety.
The petitioners are requesting that Parliament support laws
that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons
in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code
firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right
of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms, and support
legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws
that have not improved public safety.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
third petition the petitioners request Parliament to hold a
binding referendum to accept or reject two official languages.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have six petitions to present wherein the petitioners are
requesting that Parliament not increase taxes.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition to present. It asks Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the human rights act or the charter of rights and
freedoms that provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual
orientation.
14096
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two further petitions to present which ask Parliament to oppose
any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine the
family.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.
The first two petitions are signed by 77 people who ask
Parliament to enforce the present provisions of the Criminal
Code respecting assisted suicides and that no changes in the law
be contemplated by Parliament.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also table the wishes of 96 people who humbly pray
that Parliament not amend the human rights code to include in
the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a further petition signed by 200 constituents who
pray that Parliament target for all gun control in the Criminal
Code of Canada the criminals who are either a danger to the
safety of the public or those who have a criminal intent, not
law-abiding, responsible firearms owners.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 51 constituents in full
support of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers with
relation to marketing wheat and barley for export.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions to present today. The first is
from an area in my riding known as boundary country.
These 42 petitioners are concerned that the rights and
authority of parents over their children have been eroded by
legislation and other acts of the Government of Canada.
Therefore they are asking Parliament to ensure the rights of
parents, teachers and people in authority to exercise judicious
control over the actions of their children.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with section 745 of the
Criminal Code. The 25 petitioners request that the section of the
Criminal Code be repealed.
I have two petitions dealing with the same matter, another 25
signatures calling for the repeal of section 745.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition has a total of 69 petitioners.
The undersigned citizens of Canada draw to the attention of
the House that dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles should
be locked up for life, that statutory release should be revoked,
that stiffer sentences should be imposed on violent offenders,
and that violent criminals should serve their full sentence and
have time added for bad behaviour.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to return the
rights to the citizens of Canada from the criminals and ask that
Parliament honour these requests.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is dealing with doctor assisted
suicide. I have 151 petitioners from my riding who are calling on
Parliament to ensure the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits
assisted suicide and to ensure that no changes are made in the
law that will allow euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, 78 residents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
call on Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
(1535 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I only have one petition to present.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise
in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of 108 individuals from the riding of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider, if the $2 bill
is to be discontinued and replaced with a coin, that it depict the
face of Terry Fox, a Canadian who has done more than anyone
else we can think of to bring Canadians from coast to coast
together in a single endeavour.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
four petitions to present on behalf of my constituents today.
The first is on the subject of abortion. The petitioners are
opposed to abortion and they request that Parliament consider
amendments to the Criminal Code.
14097
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is about the subject of the family.
The petitioners request that Parliament oppose any legislation
that would redefine family, including the provision of marriage
and family benefits to those who are not related by ties of blood,
marriage or adoption, as marriage is defined as the legal union
between a man and a woman.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41.
The petitioners are extremely concerned about including the
phrase sexual orientation for the first time in federal legislation.
They believe this sets a dangerous precedent for society.
The final petition is on the subject of sexual orientation. The
petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges
as married people.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions from residents of Fraser Valley West.
The first 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 that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, 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 Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of
presenting a petition on behalf of 31 Manitobans, most of whom
are Winnipegers and some of whom are from my riding of
Winnipeg St. James.
They bring to the attention of the House that the Income Tax
Act discriminates against custodial parents by requiring them to
declare child support payments as taxable income.
The petitioners call upon parliamentarians to introduce new
legislation to end the requirement of the custodial parent to
declare child support payments as taxable income.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by numerous
residents of Ontario, some from the Kingston area and
surrounding districts, and some I note from Toronto and other
parts of the province of Ontario.
The petitioners are concerned about the possibility of milk in
Canada being treated with BST. They call upon Parliament to
ban the use of BST in Canada and not accept dairy products from
countries where BST is used to treat cattle.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
December 1, 1994 I placed a question on the Order Paper and I
am still awaiting a response.
I was wondering what the hon. member has to say about when
I can anticipate a response to my question. It is Question No.
117.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member has
put is one that requires answers from numerous government
departments and agencies and that is part of the reason for the
delay.
(1540 )
I understand two departments have not been able to get the
material required to the central place where these answers are
gathered. Work is continuing with respect to that and as soon as I
am in a position to answer the hon. member's question I will be
more than happy to furnish the reply.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to
table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise
Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
14098
14098
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of
the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and on their destruction, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, from the killing fields of Passchendaele to the bloated
corpses of Kurdish people in Iraq, to the people we have seen
dead and dying in the streets of Japan, chemical weapons have
come to each and every one of us in our lives.
Bill C-87 is something we as Canadians should be very proud
of as it enable us to implement our convention on the banning of
these weapons of mass destruction. It also shows a unique
amount of leadership that Canada and Canadians have
demonstrated, a degree of leadership I might add that shows
what we as Canadians can do in foreign policy if we put our
minds to it.
I thank those members in the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade who have worked extraordinarily hard
to implement this very important piece of legislation, not only
for Canada and Canadians but also for people across the world.
As I hearken back to my original example, all of us in the House
today and all Canadians hope that such tragedies will not occur
in the future.
This is a landmark deal. I also thank a couple of members of
the riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Mr. Bob McCrossen and
Mr. Ken Conrad, who have given me invaluable information on
these and other policy matters.
This convention had a number of sectors and dealt with
schedules 1, 2 and 3 dealing with various chemicals. Schedule 1
deals with chemicals that are known to be chemical weapons
such as tabun and sarin. Schedules 2 and 3 deal with precursors.
There are varying degrees of compliance among them but it
enables our country and other countries to monitor each other in
a co-operative fashion to ensure that no country within the
international community is building up chemicals or precursors
to chemical weapons that can be used for aggressive and
belligerent purposes.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the bill is the degree of
co-operation. If we look at just one aspect of it, it enables
countries to look at other countries and demand spot checks on
the countries if they are suspected of developing, producing or
stockpiling chemical weapons for aggressive and military
purposes. It enables the international community to go in there,
investigate and demand the chemicals be apprehended and
destroyed as is.
The consequences of not doing so are significant for the
country that chooses not to obey. In this instance when the
implications of using chemical weapons are so severe it is
important to see that the international community finally has its
act together and is able to penalize countries that engage in these
activities.
The industries that produce chemicals have appeared before
the committee on foreign affairs, on which I sit, to give their
wholehearted support for the bill. That is important to know. We
in the House do not want to impede or compromise in any way,
shape or form the ability of the chemical producers of Canada to
engage in the peaceful production of chemicals for industrial
purposes, a very important aspect of the industry.
There was a level of co-operation shown in the production of
this convention that has not been seen since the end of the
second world war. My hope is that we can learn something from
this in the application to other aspects of threats to the
international security that are occurring in the world now.
(1545)
I have two examples on the aspect of the international stage
that are a major threat to the international security not only for
countries half a world away but also, believe it or not, for our
country.
One example is the trafficking of small arms. The trafficking
of small arms in this world of ours moving from one area of
conflict to another has fanned the flames of ethnic discontent. It
has given the fuel to enable people to fight ethnic conflicts
where 90 per cent of the time it is the civilians who bear the
brunt of these wars. They serve very little purpose.
Although people might say they have a right to buy and sell
weapons, it is not the same as buying and selling wheat. These
seemingly innocuous trades have an enormous impact not only
on the conflicts in question but also on countries such as ours
which are not directly involved in it. Why is that so? Because it
causes the migration of individuals away from conflicts to areas
that do not have conflict. It means that people are going to move
to our country. I am sure if we put ourselves in those people's
shoes we would see that they want to live in their homeland.
They do not want to move to an area half a world away. These
people in moving to our country will then cause an economic
stress on our social programs.
The second thing is that conflicts half a world away put a
stress on our military and on our foreign aid dollar. No matter
what we do, if we go into a country and spend decades building
up its infrastructure and a civil conflict occurs in that country,
all of what we and other countries have done to build a peaceful
and productive society will be dashed on the rocks for
generations to come. We can see that now in the former
Yugoslavia, in
14099
Angola and in Mozambique. The list goes on and on. In fact the
list is getting longer all the time.
There were over 40 ethnic conflicts in the world last year. The
numbers are not getting lower they are getting higher. In part,
small arms are what fuel the flames of that. I ask if Canada can
take a leadership role, the same leadership role we demonstrated
in producing the convention on banning chemical weapons, in
developing some restrictions or framework in the trafficking of
small arms for our benefit and for the benefit of countries the
world over.
A disturbing thing came across my desk late last week. It
shows that in Rwanda the French in collusion with the
Government of Zaire have been selling arms to the former Hutu
government living in the camps in Zaire. This means that the
French are selling arms to the rebels and the rebels, over 50,000
strong, are getting ready to go into Rwanda to continue the
killing.
I say that because it is very important. They are not only
destabilizing Rwanda but they are destabilizing the eastern part
of Zaire and are fuelling the flames of ethnic discontent in
Burundi also. What we have seen for the last two years in central
Africa is going to repeat itself unless we ask the international
community through the United Nations and the Organization of
African Unity to get involved and defuse the situation before it
gets out of hand.
The other aspect in which I would like us to take a leadership
role is the banning of land mines and anti-personnel devices.
These devices have no significant role in fighting a war. They
are primarily meant to destabilize the civilian population and
are not meant to kill but to maim. Usually they are meant to
maim civilians who work in the fields and children. Many of
these anti-personnel devices are in fact designed to look like
toys. When the children pick them up they get their arms or legs
blown off. That is what they are used for.
I would ask that we take a leadership role in asking for the
land mines and the anti-personnel devices to be put in the
convention for conventional weapons and put in a similar
category to chemical weapons. If we did that we would do a
great service by saving hundreds of thousands of lives and
preventing injuries. We would also be able to prevent the
situation we see now which is that after a conflict finishes large
areas of many countries are left completely uninhabitable. I will
give a couple of recent examples.
(1550)
In Chechnya there are literally millions of mines seeded
around the country and absolutely nobody knows where they
are. Therefore large tracts of land in Chechnya are going to be
completely uninhabitable.
In Mozambique thousands and thousands of square
kilometres of land are completely uninhabitable. People cannot
go into the fields to grow crops to get their economic house in
order because of the land mines. That completely diminishes
the ability of a country to get on its economic feet after a civil
conflict is over.
In Croatia the Croatians say that over a quarter of a million
hectares are completely uninhabitable because they are seeded
indiscriminately with land mines and anti-personnel devices.
The justification is as I have described before. Let us get
together and work with the United Nations to look at those two
areas. This is not only in our interests but in the interests of the
international community as well.
As I said before, the model we can use is this convention, the
convention on banning the stockpiling, use and production of
chemical weapons and the degree of international co-operation
we have seen here. It is a truly remarkable degree of
co-operation. If we as a country can work with our Nordic
compatriots to influence other multinational organizations, such
as the United Nations, and the regional groups, such as the OAU,
the OAS and the OSCE, and show them it is in their
self-interests to put restrictions on the purchase, sale and
production of small arms and look toward banning
anti-personnel devices and mines, then we might be able to
make some headway in this area.
I would also like to address the aspect of preventive
diplomacy. I have spoken to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
about this on a number of occasions. The minister said that yes,
we will get involved by sending some of our diplomats across
and that we will try to influence other countries and in
co-operation with them send rapid deployment forces into areas
where fighting has started. I would say that is too late. We
usually find that the antecedents to conflict are on the boards at
least two years before a conflict blows up.
There are things we can do to prevent these conflicts from
occurring. Let us use the UN crisis centre more effectively. We
need to build up a network all across the world of groups,
individuals and NGOs that can funnel information into the UN
crisis centre. The UN crisis centre could then produce briefs
which would be made public every month as to what is occurring
in the hot spots. The United Nations, which again would require
a new level of co-operation, could then act on these situations to
try to get a diplomatic solution rather than having them solved at
the end of an assault rifle.
There are some things which we have not looked at
aggressively. One of the things is to use the IFIs as an economic
lever to bring belligerents to the table before they start fighting
it out. These are things which have not been looked at before.
The other aspect is to withhold non-humanitarian aid from
countries. By doing that we can force them to engage in
behaviours consistent with common international norms. Again
we try to offset the conflict by engaging in a diplomatic solution.
If we allow a conflict to occur the seeds of ethnic hatred are
sown for generations to come. It does not end at the end of the
14100
conflict; rather, it continues for generations to come. We will all
collectively pay for it in the future.
We cannot keep getting involved in conflict after conflict. We
do not have the power, we do not have the will, and rightly so,
and we do not have the money or the resources to do it. Perhaps
through the leadership which we have demonstrated by
implementing the convention on chemical weapons we can use
the lessons we have learned here and bring Australia, New
Zealand, Sweden and Norway together to influence the
multinational organizations. If multinational organizations are
going to continue to function in the way they have been since the
end of the second world war, we will get the same results we
have been getting since that time which are totally unacceptable.
(1555)
We need a paradigm shift in the way we deal with the new
threats we are going to have in the international community in
foreign policy. As one of the few countries in the world that can
take a leadership role in this, I ask that we engage in this not only
for the benefit of the international community but also for the
benefit of Canadians.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a
minute of the question and comment period to compliment the
hon. member on his vision of a safe, secure planet for all. I heard
this in committee and in the House. I compliment the hon.
member for that vision and I hope he never loses it.
As he mentioned in his speech the most successful thing about
this bill is the co-operation experienced in developing the
convention and when the bill was being worked on to put it
through the House before the summer recess.
I want to take the opportunity to thank the Reform Party and
the official opposition.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak on third reading of Bill C-87 on the
prohibition of chemical weapons. It is a particular pleasure
considering that Bill C-87 seems to be one of the few
government bills that has not been slapped with time allocation
by the government.
It is a sad indicator of the state of our democracy that our
government feels there should not be free and open debate on all
the bills of substance that come before the House. When the
Liberals were in opposition they went insane every time the
Mulroney government imposed closure, especially on
controversial bills like C-68, C-41 and C-85. Unfortunately,
now that they have formed the government their tune has
changed. As the Liberals and BQ were voting for closure and
silencing democratic debate, they were laughing and joking as if
they were having a grand old time. This behaviour is
reprehensible and I would not have believed it if I had not seen it
with my own eyes.
The use of closure on these highly controversial bills was
particularly ironic considering that the government was willing
to spend as many days as necessary for debate on things like the
$2 coin. If there really was a time problem in Parliament, then
why would the government not limit debate on that sort of bill?
If there was a time problem, then why did it not resume debate
on the controversial bills months ago, rather than ramming them
through in the last two weeks before the summer break? The
answer is simple: Time is not the problem. The problem is that
the government is putting forward flawed legislation and a free
and open debate would expose this to everyone.
Does the government really think the people of Canada do not
see what it is doing? Do the Liberals think that if they stifle
debate Canadians will not notice they are lining their own
pockets with the outrageous MP pensions? Does the government
think citizens do not realize it is giving special status under the
law to sexual orientation? Will gun owners not notice their
legitimate rights are being trampled on? No, on all counts.
Even though there is a temptation to play the government's
ridiculous game, the Reform Party does support the chemical
weapons convention which Canada signed in 1993. We will
support the bill which allows Canada to be among the first group
of countries to implement the convention's terms of agreement.
As all members of the House know, the Canadian commitment
to peace is second to none in the world. This country invented
the concept of peacekeeping and we have given strong support to
the UN for many decades. Because of our history, Canada has
also strongly supported international agreements and regimes to
limit the dangers of war. The bill we are dealing with today falls
into this category.
The chemical weapons convention deals with a category of
weapons that are a blight on the world. Since the use of these
weapons is considered illegitimate by almost everyone, the
chemical weapons convention is dealing with a virtually
universal norm. When I say universal, we must remember that
there are notable exceptions which serve to remind us exactly
why Canada must support the chemical weapons convention.
(1600)
Everyone here in this House will remember with horror the
terrible scenes of Kurdish villagers gassed by Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s. A reoccurrence of this truly
evil act must be prevented in the future. By ratifying Bill C-87
Canada will be doing its part toward that end.
14101
More recent events in Japan again reminded Canadians about
the threats posed by lethal chemicals. In Japan we had the tragic
circumstance where a fanatical cult was able to manufacture the
deadly nerve gas sarin and then use it to poison hundreds of
people in the subway system.
Once the signatories to the chemical weapons convention pass
their own enabling legislation and the convention comes into
force, hopefully this kind of tragedy will become preventable.
With stricter controls of chemical warfare agents and their
precursors, it seems unlikely that a group would be able to
stockpile the kinds of chemicals hoarded by the Japanese cult
leaders. Hopefully this would be detected and the appropriate
officials could respond to head off trouble before it got out of
hand.
Bill C-87 prohibits the production and use of chemical
weapons and provides for the regulation of certain chemicals
that can easily be turned into chemical weapons. Over the
summer and early fall similar pieces of legislation will be
prepared throughout the world and hopefully by late this fall the
chemical weapons convention will officially come into force.
Currently the vast majority of countries have signed this
convention and the Reform Party is quite hopeful that this
worldwide effort will be a long term success.
With few countries outside the convention there will be
significant pressure on signatories to adhere strictly to the
convention's goals and provisions. Unfortunately the Middle
East is one part of the world where several countries are refusing
to join the convention. These Arab states argue that because
Israel is unwilling to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,
NPT, they cannot sign on to this convention. I do not agree.
While I share the hope of these countries that the Government of
Israel will consider joining the non-proliferation treaty, I also
believe that this chemical weapons convention is serving the
best interests of peace everywhere and it is a separate matter.
Both the chemical weapons convention and the
non-proliferation treaty are agreements in the best interests of
all the people and governments of the world. Therefore neither
should be used as a bargaining chip by governments.
Too many times in this world countries abuse international
instruments of peace and selfishly use them to their own
advantage. The most ready example of this is the current
situation in Bosnia with which we are all familiar. Let me review
what has occurred in Bosnia to illustrate my point.
Canadian troops first went to Bosnia over two years ago,
hoping they could provide assistance and humanitarian relief to
the people there. They also tried to keep combatants apart and
facilitate a negotiated peace for the region. Unfortunately these
laudable goals were not backed up by a UN mandate that could
get the job done. With no leadership from Ottawa, our
peacekeepers have been left twisting in the wind.
The warring parties in Bosnia have manipulated and abused
the peacekeepers who were sent there to help them. For
example, we all know about the ridiculous hostage takings by
the Bosnian Serbs. This has not happened once or twice but time
and time again. It is an insult and an outrage to all Canadians.
However the problems go deeper than the abuses by the
Bosnian Serbs. Let me quote from an article in the Toronto Star
on June 9. It states: ``Canadian peacekeepers were dealt a double
blow of life threatening harassment yesterday, not from the
Bosnian Serbs but at the hands of the mainly Muslim Bosnian
army. In one incident, in a trigger finger stand-off, the Bosnians
pointed rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and pistols to
prevent Canadians from reaching and retrieving a bulldozer
stuck on a remote mountain road.''
(1605)
A second article states that on May 22 Bosnian military police
supported by Bosnian soldiers ambushed two Canadian UN
armoured vehicles near Vares. The police demanded that the
vehicles be opened, a right they do not have. Canadians refused.
Suddenly a truck moved from behind a building and 15 heavily
armed men hit the ground. The Bosnian bandits took radios,
walkmans, personal items, smoke grenades and a number of
fragmentation grenades.
These articles show clearly the kind of abuse I am talking
about. The Canadian government and the international
community must work hard to ensure that this kind of ridiculous
and flagrant abuse will not occur in the future and will not occur
with the enforcement of the chemical weapons convention.
Moving on to the substance of Bill C-87, the Reform Party
supports this bill although we have a few concerns for which we
would like assurances. First and foremost, Reform is concerned
about the cost to the taxpayers and to Canadian industry. While
we acknowledge that this bill has legitimate costs, according to
our information the government does not yet know the price tag
on Bill C-87.
We would like the government's assurances that it will spend
the taxpayers' money with the utmost discretion and that it will
present the actual costs associated with Bill C-87 to the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs once these become
available.
Reform wants to ensure that the implementation of Bill C-87
will be as cost effective as possible. For example, the
government must avoid the creation of a huge new bureaucracy
to monitor and regulate the Canadian chemical industry.
Officials at Foreign Affairs have notified Reform that a full
time staff of five as a ``national authority'' plus one additional
staffer at foreign affairs might be needed. The Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs should be mandated to ensure
that it does not go beyond this.
14102
Since Reform has agreed to move this bill speedily through
committee we would also like assurances that the government
will use the inspection powers in Bill C-87 most judiciously and
cautiously. Reform does not want to see a recurrence of the
scope of inspection powers granted in Bill C-68. Provided we
receive this assurance and the government ensures that
inspectors will treat legitimate Canadian industry with all the
respect it deserves, then we will be satisfied.
Most important, when it comes to the inspection of industry
the government must take all reasonable steps to ensure their
privacy. Industries subject to inspection must fully comply with
the inspectors or be subject to either summary conviction or
conviction on indictment.
Under the more serious category of an indictable offence
persons would be subject to up to five years in prison and a
$500,000 fine. In the face of these rather serious Criminal Code
penalties business people will be compelled to comply with
inspection requests even if they feel their legitimate rights to
privacy are being violated.
Under paragraphs 14(1)(b) and (c), the inspectors can
examine:
. . .any thing in the place being inspected; . . .make copies of any information
contained in the records, files, papers or electronic information systems kept or
used in relation to the place being inspected and to remove the copies from the
place;
Although I know the intent of the legislation merely aims to
fulfil the obligations of the convention, this wording could be
interpreted more widely and Reform does not want to see this
happen. Investigations could be used as fishing expeditions by
the government to examine companies under a microscope. This
would be totally unacceptable. The government must guarantee
that all inspections are required to directly investigate whether
companies are breaching the chemical weapons convention.
Fishing expeditions should be specifically prohibited.
(1610)
Under subclause 15(3) the bill states that search warrants
would not be required, even if an inspector were refused entry to
the premises, if there are ``exigent circumstances''. I would like
to assume this clause is merely precautionary and is not intended
for regular use. Under all circumstances except an extreme
emergency, the government should obtain a search warrant
where entry is refused. As we all know there are not many
industries in Canada that currently make or use chemical
weapons, so it seems very unlikely there will be any
circumstances so pressing that a warrant cannot first be obtained
before an inspection is conducted.
Moving to clause 20 of the bill we find the penalties for
breaking the convention. I would like to hear from the
government what exactly this clause means. It states:
Every person who contravenes any provision of this act is guilty of an offence
and liable
It goes on about either an indictable or a summary conviction.
I would like to know who would be subject to punishment in a
large company where there was an offence committed. If a clerk
made a reporting error through negligence would that employee
be convicted? Would the owner? Would the board of directors?
Would the clerk's supervisor? This must be cleared up. I would
appreciate the government's comments on this.
Other than the aforementioned cautions and the suggestions
for government, I have no doubt Canadians will support the
intent of Bill C-87. Canada has always been a strong supporter
of multilateral efforts to promote peace and restrict arms
proliferation. This is especially true with respect to the
prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. By asserting
leadership in this area Canada is standing up for the extension of
a rules based, multilateral system to defend our interests and
promote common norms and values with like-minded countries.
In conclusion, Reform would like to give its strong support
for this bill. I am glad the Liberals in this House are not
imposing closure on C-87 as they seem to be doing with every
other important bill that goes through this House.
Once Bill C-87 is passed we hope the government will make
its implementation as pain free as possible for industry while
still upholding Canada's commitment under the chemical
weapons convention. If it does this I am sure all Canadians will
for once be proud of something we have accomplished in this
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will take
only a few minutes to speak again to a bill I consider very
important and which I also had a chance to discuss at the second
reading stage.
I think the importance of this bill cannot be overestimated. Its
purpose is to implement a convention that was signed by several
countries. The fact that we are now about to pass this bill bodes
well for the future, because I am against all kinds of weapons.
But I am also realistic. I think weapons of all kinds will be
around for a long time. However, chemical weapons above all
should be absolutely prohibited because they are cruel and
inhumane.
I hope such weapons will never be used again, but we cannot
ignore the fact that these weapons are used and have been used in
the past and that they kill adults and children who are innocent
of any involvement in wars or conflicts.
These weapons could also be used against groups who are
against a given religion, for instance.
14103
(1615)
A whole congregation of Christians, Jews or Muslims can be
destroyed with these weapons. They are not just used to wage
war but also to defend all kinds of ideologies and, in the process
to attack innocent people. That is why today I again want to take
a few moments to condemn these horrifying weapons.
These weapons can make people chronically ill. People are
attacked physically, and their health may suffer for the rest of
their lives. They are very dangerous in that respect as well.
These weapons can also contaminate soil and water, damage the
health of animals and destroy plants. They have a disastrous
impact on the environment and human beings.
These weapons can also breed further hostility, as the memory
of the suffering and ill health they caused will linger, possibly
generating further conflicts in the near future. I think that is why
it is so important to destroy these chemical weapons as quickly
as possible and thus prevent recurring conflicts between peoples
and nations.
Bill C-87 says we must prohibit the stockpiling, sale and
production of these chemical weapons, and I certainly agree
with this bill. I hope that the agency responsible for enforcing
the provisions of this convention will take all necessary steps to
do so using diplomacy and also bringing trade pressures to bear
on countries that do not comply with the convention or refuse to
sign the convention. They should be punished by means of trade
sanctions, and the agency should use diplomacy to ensure they
ratify or comply with the convention.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the
people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak on Bill
C-87, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
The chemical weapons convention is an extremely important
treaty for the international community and has special
significance for Canadians. It was just over 80 years ago in April
1915 that Canadians were one of the first victims to experience
the gas of the Ypres salient. It was only three years ago that
allied soldiers in the Persian Gulf had to face the threat of Iraq
using chemical weapons in defiance of the international
community.
Ever since chemical weapons were used on that fateful day in
1915 the international community has tried to come up with an
effective treaty to contain and eliminate the use and stockpiling
of these weapons of mass destruction.
The first attempt to control chemical weapons was the Geneva
protocol of 1925. Sadly the Geneva protocol was as fatally
flawed as the many nuclear weapons treaties of the 1970s and
1980s.
It was an agreement to ban the first use of chemical weapons
only. It failed to limit or control the manufacturing of these
weapons and many nations felt obliged to manufacture and
stockpile chemical weapons for retaliatory purposes if attacked
first.
The quest to ban chemical weapons outright continued and I
am proud to say that Canada played a major role in the
negotiations that resulted in the chemical weapons convention,
the first multilateral weapons treaty to ban a whole category of
weapons of mass destruction.
This treaty could not have come at a better time. As I
mentioned earlier, at least one state has used or threatened to use
chemical weapons on its neighbours and on its own people. In
Japan a religious cult is currently under investigation for its role
in placing deadly chemical agents in the Tokyo subway system
killing scores of innocent civilians. This treaty I believe is a
significant step forward in reducing such threats to the
international community.
(1620)
Since the chemical weapons convention was open for
signature in Paris in 1993 it has been signed by almost 160
countries and will be ratified after 65 nations enact it. Canada
will be one of the first.
This is significant in itself. However what really makes the
chemical weapons convention a major success is the substance
in the treaty. The convention obliges all states parties that
manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons to destroy all
stocks and manufacturing facilities within a set timeframe. This
is accomplished under the close scrutiny of international
inspections, effectively banning the future development and
stockpiling of these weapons. The system of verification and
inspection is the most rigorous to ever be imposed in a
multilateral agreement.
Of major significance is the safeguard this convention has
against the clandestine manufacturing and stockpiling of
chemical weapons through international monitoring and
inspection of all such facilities that could be used for that
purpose.
The convention does not stop there. It also extends
international monitoring into the global civilian chemical
industry. To facilitate the international monitoring of civilian
chemical industries, three schedules of toxic chemicals which
have been used as chemical weapons or are known as chemical
weapons precursors have been drawn up.
Schedule 1 chemicals are known as chemical weapons. These
include chemicals such as sarin, which was used by terrorists in
Japan, and mustard gas which Canadians faced in the trenches in
World War I. These are not widely available in Canada aside
from applications in some research facilities. Under Bill C-87
these research facilities will be required to obtain a licence and
undergo two annual inspections.
14104
Schedule 2 chemicals are more widely available in Canada.
Many chemicals in this schedule have numerous commercial
applications but can be directly used to produce chemical
weapons. Manufacturers of Schedule 2 items will have to
undergo two annual inspections if their production exceeds a
listed threshold.
Chemicals listed on these two schedules will be banned for
export to nations not party to this convention.
Finally schedule 3 chemicals are widely manufactured and
used in Canada. These chemicals could be used as chemical
weapons if present in large enough quantities. Companies
manufacturing these chemicals will be eligible for occasional
inspections.
Industries that work with the chemicals outlined in the three
schedules will have to report on their own activities to their
governments which will in turn disclose this information to the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. A group
of international inspectors will have the authority to inspect any
facility it deems necessary. In addition to the scheduled
chemicals, the convention also provides for an overview of
facilities which produce discrete organic chemicals that could
be adapted to produce chemical weapons.
These producers of pesticides, fertilizers, paints, textiles and
lubricants will be subject to report on their production activities
and will be required to allow random inspections of their
facilities.
This convention will also ensure that all states parties will
abide by the convention.
A provision in the convention allows any states party to have
the right to demand a challenge inspection or no right of refusal
inspections of the facility it believes is not acting in accordance
with the convention. In addition, states not signing the
convention will find themselves affected. States parties will
have restrictions on the export and import of scheduled
chemicals with states not party to the convention.
While the substance of this convention is important and I hope
it will assist in making the international community a safer
place, I have two concerns I would like to raise for members'
consideration.
(1625 )
First the convention is going to be expensive to implement. It
can cost up to 10 times as much to destroy chemical weapons
and their manufacturing facilities as it did to initially
manufacture them.
While the cost in this regard to Canada will be minimal due to
the fact that we do not stockpile or have manufacturing facilities
for schedule 1 chemicals, less developed nations are going to
have difficulty destroying their arsenals. Take Russia, for
example. Russia has 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes of chemical
weapons to destroy. This will cost billions of dollars that Russia
does not have. International inspectors will have to be diligent
to ensure that states like Russia are not taking shortcuts to
dispose of their arsenals.
At the same time, Canada must take care not to be dragged
into paying other nations' destruction expenses given our own
financial circumstances.
Second the international community, Canada included, must
not be under any illusion that this convention will result in the
absolute elimination of the threat of chemical warfare. While
important, this convention is only one step in that process. Its
true success is to reduce the threat only. It must be remembered
that a number of states will not sign nor adhere to the
convention. These states, which will remain unnamed, can still
stockpile, produce or obtain, through the black market, weapons
of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. In addition,
terrorists will still pursue chemical weapons as a means to fulfil
their goals.
While the convention may assist the international community
in preventing these states or terrorists groups from acquiring
these weapons, it does not guarantee that they will succeed. It
must also be remembered that states that will destroy their
stockpiles also have the knowledge to produce these deadly
agents again if that international community changes.
I would like to conclude by stating that this convention, while
a contribution to international security, does not mean that we
should lower our defences. Canada must remain vigilant in
maintaining a strong and well armed military capability of
engaging in combat in a variety of theatres, including the
chemical weapons theatre.
We must recognize that rogue states and terrorists will try to
obtain or produce these chemical weapons. We must keep a
watchful eye on those intent on this destruction.
The Reform Party therefore supports the intent and the spirit
of Bill C-67.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-Postal services.
[English]
I also wish to inform the House that under the provisions of
Standing Order 30, I am designating Tuesday, June 20, 1995 as
the day fixed for the consideration of private member's Motion
No. 425 standing in the name of the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni.
This additional private members' hour will take place from
11.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m., after which the House will proceed to
the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.
14105
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was good of you to tell me that my private member's bill
tomorrow night will be at a rather late hour. I am sure the
audience will be enraptured.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-87, an
act to implement the convention on the prohibition of the
development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and on their destruction. It is the enabling legislation
for the chemical weapons convention which Canada signed in
1993.
This convention prohibits the production and use of chemical
weapons and provides for the regulation of certain chemicals
which can readily be turned into chemical weapons. The
convention is the result of over 20 years of negotiations.
The international community has been trying to outlaw
chemical weapons and their use for over 100 years. This is the
first time the whole category of weapons of mass destruction is
to be eliminated.
(1630)
Under international supervision all stockpiles of chemical
weapons will be destroyed along with the facilities that produce
them. This convention also enables a system of international
supervision and inspection which will work to ensure such
weapons will not be developed again. Under the terms of this
convention, state parties are obliged to pass legislation that not
only encompasses activities on their own territory but also
prohibits their citizens from undertaking prohibited activities
outside their area. States that own chemical weapons will have
10 years to destroy the weapons and production facilities.
Twenty-eight countries have ratified the convention to date
and 65 countries will need to ratify the convention before it
comes into effect. Canada will be among the first 65 countries
out of approximately 132. The chemical weapons convention
will take effect 180 days after the 65th state ratifies the
agreement and tables it.
It is unfortunate to note however that the United States and
Russia, the two countries that have the largest stockpiles of
chemical weapons, have yet to sign on. Also, several middle
eastern countries such as Iraq and Libya as well as North Korea
have refused to participate because Israel will not join the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is of great concern given
the recent use of chemical weapons in the gulf war by Iraq and
more recently the use of chemical weapons to commit genocide
within Iraq against the Kurds.
Chemical weapons continue to be a threat to world security.
The need for international agreements to remove these weapons
of massive destruction is very critical indeed. Chemical
weapons are not only a threat to troops in times of war but also to
civilians at all times. Only a few weeks ago we witnessed with
horror how chemical weapons were tragically unleashed on
unsuspecting Tokyo commuters. Shortly afterward, stockpiles
of sarin, one of the chemicals scheduled in this bill, were found
in Japan.
This convention may not prevent individual incidents of
chemical weapons attacks. However, the implementation of the
act will make it more difficult for such weapons to be created. In
this way it may deter future incidents.
Eighty years ago, on August 15, 1915, Canadian soldiers were
the first to be subjected to a systematic gas attack in the trenches
in Belgium. On that day Canadian soldiers choked and fell to the
ground writhing from chlorine and mustard gas released by the
Germans. Many Canadians died that day and many would suffer
lifelong ailments as a result of being gassed. My grandfather
was among those to be gassed during the great war and he
carried the scars for the rest of his life.
Mustard gas was one of the most effective gases used during
the first world war. When the vapour touched the skin it
immediately caused huge blisters, then blindness and when
inhaled, the gas blistered the lungs resulting in death. Only
recently the Kurds suffered this same fate from mustard gas.
Canadians are fortunate to live in a country that does not
possess chemical weapons or have chemical weapons
production facilities. Provisions in the treaty related to chemical
weapons or chemical weapon production facilities therefore do
not apply to Canada except in the area of trade. The main impact
of this convention on Canada comes from provisions relating to
industrial activity contained in the three schedules of this bill.
I was going to briefly outline these schedules but I will bypass
this section. My colleague outlined the schedules in his speech
which will be recorded in Hansard.
The Reform Party supports this bill. Canada has always been a
strong supporter of multilateral efforts to promote peace and
restrict arms proliferation, especially with the prohibition of the
use of chemical weapons. Canada's participation in this treaty
will encourage other non-participating countries to hopefully
follow suit.
A few issues need to be addressed by government before the
legislation is implemented. For example, although the
government has been consulting with industry for years on this
topic, the government still cannot provide any figures regarding
the cost of implementing this bill. It is difficult to determine
exactly what the government is proposing to do without seeing
these figures.
(1635)
The government has also not been able to provide any specific
details regarding the exact size of the new bureaucracy which
will be associated with the implementation of the legislation.
Canadians need to know the size of the bureaucracy and exactly
what is being proposed. It would be useful if the government
would supply these items before tabling bills rather than
expecting Canadians to simply sign a blank cheque.
14106
Members opposite mentioned on second reading that the
legislation represents the most balanced and cost effective
means of implementing the convention. However, those
statements are meaningless because we simply cannot assess the
legislation without first looking at the figures. It is important
that we not create another huge level of bureaucracy. Officials at
foreign affairs said that it may take as few as five or six staff, and
this sounds reasonable.
There are also problems with section 15(3) which need to be
worked out. This section states that exigent circumstances
would make it unnecessary to obtain a search warrant when an
inspector is refused entry. We need to clarify what is meant by
exigent circumstances in the bill. As it stands, this could be open
to very broad interpretation and may infringe on the rights and
liberties of individuals if a definition is not clearly provided.
There are also problems with section 20 which states that
every person who contravenes any provision of the act is guilty
of an offence. That sounds like a presumption of guilt and given
this presumption the implications in section 23 are far too broad.
It also states that where a person has been convicted of an
offence under the act, anything seized by means of which, or in
respect of which the offence was committed, is forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of Canada and shall be disposed of as the
minister sees fit. The provisions for confiscation are
particularly open ended and it is unclear what is meant by them.
Is the minister taking liberties to confiscate possessions,
property, illegal chemicals or is he merely gathering evidence
needed for a trial? I am concerned about these areas and we need
some clarification.
We must ensure that individual rights and liberties are
protected when we set out powers of inspection. Sections 13(c),
14(b) and 14(c) warrant close examination and careful
clarification before they are set into law. Protection to ensure
that authority for inspection is not abused must be included in
the bill.
There are also questions about who will pay for the costs of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This
large worldwide organization will have up to 1,000 staff and will
operate with an annual budget of $150 million to $180 million.
Members will also have to contribute to international inspection
expenses and costs of elimination of chemical weapons and
facilities.
It is unclear where these overall costs will come from and how
much Canada will have to commit to. It is important that given
our current fiscal situation Canada not be too generous in its
contributions. We must be frugal because we just do not have the
money.
There are several areas of concern in the bill which must be
addressed before it becomes law. However, Canada's
participation in the convention should and will be absolute.
Despite the need for clarification in the bill, I am pleased to say
that I agree with its spirit and intent and I am pleased to support
the bill before the House today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to make a
personal note with respect to the remark made regarding private
member's Motion No. M-425 tomorrow evening being from
11.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. Of course that would be prime time in
Comox-Alberni.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this much needed bill. I am also pleased to
hear about the treaty and the signing of it. The legislation is a
real motherhood and maple syrup issue. No one can disagree
that chemical weapons are a danger to our planet Earth and must
be controlled.
Once again the government has shown its failure to
understand the situation. The government is not proposing
banning chemical weapons because it is the right thing to do, it
is proposing to rush the legislation through for political reasons.
Canadians should not confuse the government's intentions in the
process the bill is receiving. This government wants passage of
this bill because if Canada is one of the first 65 governments to
ratify the convention the government will receive political
favours.
(1640)
Just as this government has told Canadians that the firearm
control bill was for public safety and the sentencing bill was a
deterrence on crime, this government will tell Canadians this
bill makes the world a safer place. Just as Bill C-68 was not
about public safety and Bill C-41 was not about a deterrence for
criminals, this bill is not about world safety in the eyes of
government. This bill is about giving this government bragging
rights.
Recent events have shown that chemical weapons are
becoming the weapons of choice among terrorists. The sarin
attack in Japan has shown that terrorists can do the maximum
physical and psychological damage at low cost. The attacks on
Kurds in Iraq have shown that civilian populations are at the
mercy of those who control chemical weapons.
We on this side totally agree that measures must be put into
place to monitor and detect those who could easily obtain
chemicals to spread terror. Canadians must understand this bill
will not guarantee that terrorists cannot obtain, combine and
release certain chemicals upon an unsuspecting public. This bill
only approves monitoring of certain chemicals that could be
dangerous, just as Bill C-68 only monitors law-abiding
firearms owners.
14107
Just as Bill C-68 cannot prevent criminals from using
illegally obtained firearms to wreak havoc upon Canadians, this
bill will not prevent determined terrorists from illegally
obtaining the chemicals they need. The justice minister
continually told Canadians that the gun legislation was
necessary for public safety but later admitted no legislation
could prevent those criminals truly wishing to use an illegal
firearm from using one in the commission of a crime. Let us not
hear any talk from those opposite that this bill will make public
safety certain. This bill will not do that.
What could have prevented those wishing to use chemicals as
a weapon is tougher sentencing. Unfortunately the justice
minister did not do that in this bill or in Bill C-41. Instead of
sending a message to terrorists and would-be criminals that
Canada will take a tough stand to stop the use of chemical
weapons by imposing severe sentences on dangerous criminals
who consider this, the government offered alternative measures
in Bill C-41 and no measures in this bill.
We on this side of the House readily admit and know one
important fact that the government either cannot or will not
admit. We know there are criminals who cannot be treated or
rehabilitated. These criminals are the kind who would use
chemical weapons. Those are the individuals who require severe
sentences up to and including life in prison. Life in prison for
those opposite means life: no review, no conditional release, no
end of sentence release. Life means incarceration until the
criminal is no longer able to threaten Canadians. It means the
criminal never returns to society.
The government had the opportunity in Bill C-41 to enhance
this legislation by including severe sentencing. The government
instead rushed this bill through the House to enhance its
reputation rather than to send a message to criminals in this bill
or in Bill C-41.
Instead we get legislation that makes it a severe crime to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but no increased
sentencing for those who use chemical weapons upon helpless
victims. This government always puts legislation together that
promises more than it delivers. Just as the government would
tell Canadians this bill is to enhance public safety, the real
reason for this bill is so some of those opposite can bask in the
limelight of world opinion.
If this government wanted to deter the use of chemical
weapons, it could have and should have included sections in this
bill to change the Criminal Code, to put in punishing long
sentences for anyone dealing with or using chemical weapons.
This government states it is bound by international obligations
to include punitive criminal sentences in Bill C-7, an act
respecting the control of certain drugs introduced by the
Minister of Health.
This government states international obligations obligate it to
pass this legislation. I do not see any punitive sentencing
measures in this bill. As I said, the bill is the right thing to do but
the reason the government is doing it may not be so.
(1645)
Instead of introducing legislation for public safety and the
public good, the government is introducing the legislation for its
individual praise from the world community.
If the government wanted to send the message that the use of
chemical weapons will not be tolerated instead of simply
pushing an inspection bill through the House to gain personal
glory, it should have included measures that will deter criminals
from even thinking about using chemical weapons.
If the government can increase sentences for users of soft
drugs it can increase sentences for users of dangerous chemicals
weapons, but it has not. I will support this inspection bill even
though it has no measures that deter criminals. The government
has failed in that respect.
The government joins the United States in the failed attempt
of its war on drugs by removing civil liberties by allowing
inspectors to read medical files of Canadians. It increased jail
sentences for casual soft drug users because the United States
told it so. The government will not legislate increased sentences
for the use of chemical weapons.
Half measures and dreams of glory on the international stage
fuel the government's desire to rush the bill. Perhaps now that
the voters of Ontario have chosen Reform principles of justice
the government may change its bleeding heart ways not because
it is the right thing to do, not because it may lose votes if it does
not; it will do it because it is the right thing to do. It is too bad the
government once again chose the wrong reasons.
We fully support the bill as an initial step in deterring the
crime of the use of chemical weapons of any nature.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this afternoon if
for no other reason than the temperature in the Chamber is
bearable.
It is an honour to speak on third reading of Bill C-87, an act to
implement the prohibition of the production and use of chemical
weapons. I join most members of the world community in
abhorring the use of chemical weapons.
This proposed legislation takes into account many concerns
and tries to establish a compromising balance between these
concerns. It acknowledges the devastation caused by the
horrendous use of chemical weaponry as well as the ongoing
studies and testing of these substances for future development.
The convention modernizes the 1925 Geneva protocol which
was an international attempt to limit the use of chemical
weapons after the first world war. This protocol was brought to
present day standards by having observed past experiences and
having learned from them. We now realize that putting a ban
solely on the use of chemical weapons left many areas open and
14108
allowed the stockpiling of such weapons but closed the doors for
use and further study.
Bill C-87 is the act to implement the more recent convention
of 1993 and realizes there are many uses of chemicals and
outlines both the positive and negative aspects. The 1993
convention ensured states would not stockpile chemical
weaponry for retaliation against future attacks or to instigate
war. If they did they would face the condemnation of the world
and sanctions as well.
Canada has always been among the first to initiate peace. In
1983 Canada made large contributions to the committee that
developed and outlined a treaty on disarmament leading to the
conclusion of discussions in 1992 when Canada was urging a
ban on all warfare to be accepted internationally. There is now
such a ban on the use of chemical weapons which caused such
brutality. It is this ban we are discussing in the House today.
The convention involves not only those who engage in war but
also those industries using chemical substances in their
production and testing. This is where Canada assumes its role in
the convention.
(1650 )
Canada will primarily be enforcing the legislation when it
comes to the importing and exporting of chemicals listed in the
three schedules. Canada does not own chemical weapons nor do
we contain any manufacturing facilities that do so. Therefore
our role in implementing the convention is fortunately not very
complex.
In 1915 Canadian soldiers were victims of the first gas attack
during World War I. The 1925 Geneva protocol had a certain
amount of control on the use of these weapons but was not able
to completely rid their usage.
Recently we have seen chemical weapons used in the
Iran-Iraq war, in Japan and by Iraq against its own civilian
Kurdish peoples, among others. This convention, which will be
headed by the organization for the prohibition of conventional
weapons, will enforce legislation in all the signatory countries
prohibiting chemical weapon usage and will hopefully have the
international support and pressure to impose greater sanctions
against those contravening these policies.
Areas of legislation included in today's convention include
verification policies, creation of an organization to implement
them, specific guidelines with regard to levels of chemical
ability as well as processes for destroying weapons and their
plants.
The verification regime, which is global, is to ensure these
weapons of mass destruction will never be developed again. The
international monitoring system will safeguard against weapon
production by inspecting all facilities which are or were used for
these purposes. This system does not affect Canada as there are
no facilities here. This verification process will also be extended
into other chemical industries.
Three schedules are to be used in ensuring no chemical
weapons are or can be manufactured. Industries using such
chemicals will be required to report annually and each
government of the signatory countries will be required to report
to the international organization, the OPCW.
In Canada the Minister of Foreign Affairs will designate
officials who will act as Canada's national authorities. Canadian
officials will collect information from Canadian industries and
transmit it to the OPCW for inspecting purposes. However
international inspection teams have the right to conduct
inspections without warrant in accordance with the provisions
of this convention. It contains appropriate provisions for
inspection and keeps them in accordance with the need to
protect privacy.
As will be a requirement of other countries, Canada will enact
legislation in the Criminal Code providing penalties, fines and
imprisonment for warlike use or production of chemicals.
Legislation will protect but keep a close eye on usage of these
chemicals for medicinal purposes as well as for pesticides,
fertilizers, paints, textiles and lubricants.
The convention will also require state organizations to
enforce restrictions on the export and import of schedule
chemicals with states that have not signed the convention. All
chemicals on the list will therefore be subject to the Import and
Export Permits Act. Although there are restrictions which will
be imposed on exports to suspect states, the legislation has
balanced these restrictions with the desire to liberalize trade for
industries and medicinal purposes.
The schedules which will be used in identifying chemical
legality are in three groups. The first contains chemicals such as
mustard gas. Some other chemicals in this same group are used
in pharmaceuticals and in cancer research. Schedule 2 consists
of chemicals which are precursors to schedule 1, chemical
weapons. Schedule 3 contains the least powerful of the three
groups, often used in industry but can also be used as weapons
when in large quantities.
Each group will be under scrutiny, whether it be checks and
balances, limited amounts permissible or whether they must
obtain a licence and pay a fee to use them.
Under international supervision all stockpiles and producing
facilities of chemical weapons will be destroyed within a given
time frame. Given this, the legislation will have to consider
economic implications. There will be a 10-year limit for states
to destroy their stockpiles and facilities. However a 10-year
extension is also allowed which has stricter controls. I have a
problem with this 10-year extension because if we continue to
allow extensions on the destruction of these facilities we are
allowing them to remain for greater use.
14109
The Reform Party supports Bill C-87 and would like to see it
implemented immediately. Canada has always been a strong
supporter of multilateral efforts to promote peace and restrict
arms proliferation.
(1655)
By accepting the convention on the prohibition of the
development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and eventually on their destruction Canada is
promoting common norms and values with like minded
countries.
Reform acknowledges the government has consulted for
many years on this topic but still does not know how much it will
cost to implement nor the exact size of the bureaucracy to be
created. Foreign affairs has speculated a full time staff of five as
a national authority plus one staffer at foreign affairs might be
needed. We would like to make sure the bureaucracy does not
expand beyond this.
Section 15(3) states exigent circumstances would make it
unnecessary to obtain a search warrant when an inspector is
refused entry. This should be clarified. The wording in section
20 also seems too broad. Section 23 states:
Where a person has been convicted of an offence under this act, any thing
seized by means of which or in respect of which the offence was committed is
forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and shall be disposed of as the
minister directs.
Exactly what could be confiscated under this provision is
unclear. The powers of inspection should not be allowed to get
out of control. Reform does support this legislation and hopes
there will be some accountability in its enforcement to see it is
not used unnecessarily.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal
trade, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and
of the amendment.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-88, a bill to implement the
internal trade agreement signed last July by the various
participants.
Last July the Prime Minister and the premiers came together
in Ottawa to announce an agreement had been reached to break
down the barriers of internal trade between provinces.
Canadians were hopeful that at last barriers would come down
and they would have free access to goods and services, jobs and
the competitive marketplace because the trade barriers between
provinces would be broken down.
The agreement reached was said to be an important part of the
Liberal promise to build an innovative economy within which
all Canadians would benefit. It was touted as a vision for the
future and it reflected well on the premiers and the Prime
Minister. Canadians were happy.
Today, almost a year later, the euphoria has died and
Canadians are questioning the vision they saw one year ago.
Last July the premiers and the Prime Minister held up the
internal trade agreement as a reflection of unity but Quebecers
did not see it that way. They responded by electing a PQ
government in their province. The premiers and the Prime
Minister held up the agreement saying: ``This is what we can do
for one another''. The then premier of Quebec was defeated in
the subsequent election.
They said the agreement was a reflection of growth, but the
inadequacy inherent in maintaining the status quo saw little job
creation. Within the last five months job creation has dwindled
to practically nothing.
Last July the premiers and the Prime Minister held up the
internal trade agreement as a reflection of stability, but months
later Moody's bond rating service put Canada on the alert then
downgraded our credit rating because our debtload remained too
high.
(1700 )
Today this House is being asked to ignore those undercurrents
and put that internal trade agreement into practice by passing
Bill C-88. The Reform Party of Canada cannot do this. We
cannot support an agreement that so blatantly ignores the
necessity to pull this country away from the edge of permanent
economic instability. We came to Ottawa to prevent that. We
came to champion the right of Canadians to a balanced budget,
to deficit reduction, to more effective government, to a
productive and stable economy and to national unity.
Despite the rhetoric that flies across this room every day, we
have made every effort to keep that promise. By challenging this
bill we remain true to that mandate given to us by our
constituents who have asked again and again for freedom from
internal trade barriers.
By not supporting this bill we know we run the risk of being
accused of not supporting free trade in Canada. I ask Canadians
to recognize that kind of accusation is a political move and not
the truth.
Let us make it absolutely clear this afternoon that the Reform
Party of Canada is committed to the removal of interprovincial
barriers to trade through agreements among the provinces but
we will not support any so-called agreement under the guise of
freer internal trade when that agreement does not achieve this.
14110
The Reform Party cannot support any internal trade
agreement that does not once and for all recognize that the
barriers to internal trade in this country are killing our
marketplace. Higher taxes, a higher cost of living and an
uncompetitive marketplace create a heavy and unnecessary
burden on Canadians and guarantee the deterioration of our
economy.
Bill C-88 I subdmit is a disguise for a non-agreement which
purports to improve internal trade in Canada and improve our
economic stability but does neither.
The Liberal government won an election on a promise to build
a better Canada, to get Canadians employed and to ensure a
stabilized economy. If this government truly seeks
revitalization then it must admit that this agreement fails to keep
that promise because it fails to eliminate internal trade barriers
in this country.
I would like to believe that the government is committed to
the future of this country but I cannot as long as politically
motivated agreements like this one are held up as agreements.
Canadians are looking for strong leadership, not the kind of
leadership that is acted out every night on television, but real
leadership, the kind that works hard behind the scenes at
achieving what is best for our country. For months we were led
to believe that this was happening and last July we had hoped to
see the effects, but it did not materialize. What we witnessed
was a photo opportunity and nothing more.
Canadians did not see progress. The government did not
realize our goals. It did not put our economy on a better footing
and Canadians continue to pay the price.
Some may think it is easy for me to stand or to sit on this side
of the House and criticize the government for failing to produce
an effective agreement. I am well aware of the difficulties
involved in negotiating with many different parties. I know it is
important to ensure fairness and the democratic process and that
these be observed and to avoid dictating what is best. However
when the stakes are high, when the best interests of the nation lie
at the mercy of the government leaders, then I know that the time
has come and the place has been arranged for strong and
courageous leadership.
If I have one criticism this afternoon it is that the Liberal
government failed to provide the necessary leadership. In an
effort to avoid creating enemies it opened up a nothing lost,
nothing gained, be happy approach. What we got was nothing
gained and almost everything lost.
This country is threatening to break apart. Canadians no
longer have that sense of unity they should have. Now more than
ever we need leadership that will bring us together at every
possible opportunity. Failure to bring about a good internal trade
agreement only serves to enforce our differences, create more
barriers and reveal a lack of confidence in ourselves.
(1705 )
The internal trade agreement was a failure. The blame must
lie squarely and we must lay it squarely on the federal
government. I believe the government failed in its mandate to
first and foremost preserve the country. The government not
only had an obligation to the future of the country to see that this
happened, it had a vision to carry out, a vision that was created
many years ago when the nation was first born.
In 1867 Canadian leaders saw fit to entrench within the
Constitution these wise words: ``All articles of the growth,
produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from
and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other
provinces''. That is section 121 of the Constitution Act. In that
section there was an agreement that was a true reflection of unity
and a commitment to growth and stability.
Perhaps in those days it was easier to recognize the danger. In
those days, in our bid to resist American pressures and maintain
a distinct culture, we could see that strengthening our internal
economic ties would be the foundation of our identity and our
unity. In the Constitution was laid the reflection of courage and
co-operation, of government doing what was right and fair for
the Canadian people and an example of strong leadership.
Today we face a greater danger. It is a danger because we
failed to recognize it ourselves. We are spurred on by
protectionist attitudes that really serve no one. We have reached
a critical point and it is time for strong leadership to prevail.
We are a big country, a beautiful country. We have a small
population. We are a wealthy country. However we are not an
economic power in the world. We are a vast land of people with
different orientations. That is our identity. However we have
lost sight of the common ground: our economic alliance, one
with another.
In 1867 the leaders of the day recognized the need for
leadership and an economic alliance. They added section 91,
which declared that the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada extends to the regulation of trade and
commerce, the very essence of what we are talking about in Bill
C-88 and the internal trade agreement.
The Constitution recognizes that government leadership must
begin by assuring economic stability to ensure the survival and
unity of our country. That is why the Reform Party of Canada has
made it the foundation of its mandate and why every day in the
14111
House we fight for economic stability. It is why we debate the
bill and why we cannot support it, because the government has
failed to see the urgency in removing internal trade barriers for
the good of the economy and has failed to reaffirm the objectives
of section 121 of the Constitution, the free flow of articles of
growth, produce and manufacture.
By ignoring the precedent of section 121 of the Constitution
the successive governments of the country have assured an
atmosphere of protectionism, disunity and almost certainly
economic vulnerability. That is why this agreement and this bill
fall short.
My colleagues have stood during this debate and pointed out a
number of deficiencies inherent in the agreement and in the bill.
One emotion that has prevailed throughout is frustration. Their
frustration comes from not being able to say Canada is a nation
of free trade. Many are embarrassed to acknowledge that there is
freer trade north and south between Canada and the United
States than there is east and west among the provinces and
territories of Canada. They are frustrated, as are all Canadians,
because they can see the way toward economic rejuvenation
being thwarted. They can see the opportunities that exist for
them in their ridings and in their home industries if those
barriers are removed, as local industries are given a fair and
competitive chance to become national industries. They are
frustrated because they must answer the difficult questions of
constituents who want to know why their industries are not
doing better and why those industries are laying off people in
times when the government purports that jobs are being created.
If this nation would commit to breaking down internal trade
barriers Canadian industries would flourish. Entrepreneurs
would find a reason to create innovation. Investors would find a
reason to support the innovation and innovation would build the
economy.
(1710)
Once we have created an innovative economy internally we
will be poised to enter into the global marketplace and we will
succeed there. In the process, we will have obtained many
things: a strong economy and more importantly pride in
ourselves and confidence in our abilities.
Canada has the potential to be more than just a collection of
small protected markets, but governments must implement the
means that will change what currently exists. I believe
Canadians deserve that chance. Canadians deserve the rewards
of an open market, job mobility and economic stability, not the
provincial protectionism that creates high taxes, low
productivity and unemployment. This agreement will not
provide those rewards and this bill will not implement an
agreement that will provide them.
It is time to stop hiding behind regional development
schemes, equalization payments and cost sharing agreements. It
is time the inefficient government policies were thrown away
rather than contributing to the financial burden on Canadian
taxpayers. It is time the provinces stopped working on the false
premise that exclusivity will protect their own markets. It is
time the inherently weak marketplace created by protectionist
policies gave way to vital marketplaces, strong, self-sufficient
industries and real job creation.
The bond markets have made it clear that we can no longer
continue the premise of borrowing more and more and creating a
perpetual debt. The demise of our economy will not come some
day, it will come soon because we have failed to act as a nation
and correct the wrongs that pull us down. It is time to revive our
nationality so we can say we have our wealth in common not our
debt.
It is time for strong leadership to set in motion the process of
eliminating internal trade barriers. The strong leadership we
want will pull together the commitment of governments at all
levels, business, labour and taxpayers, all the contributors.
Together we can build a common market, establish compatible
standards of licensing, certification, education and create the
mobility and open markets that will become the fertile ground
for new industries and generate innovation.
It is time to shut out the protectionists, the naysayers and
weak leadership, the businesses built on protectionism provided
by internal trade barriers and the governments with poor,
ineffective policies which cost the taxpayers. Those things
should be stopped.
The plan has been laid out for us. In 1992 the committee of
ministers for internal trade adopted these guiding principles,
which we should note carefully: one, that governments treat
people, goods, services and capital equally irrespective of where
they originate in Canada; two, that governments reconcile
standards and regulations to provide for the free movement of
people, goods, services and capital within Canada; three, that
governments ensure that their administrative policies operate to
provide for the free movement of people, goods, services and
capital within Canada.
Those are strong, good, solid principles. These were the
guiding principles necessary to ensure a successful agreement
but they were not implemented. It is time for this government to
show leadership that is necessary to enact these principles.
I say to the Liberal government, tear up Bill C-88, go back to
the bargaining table, apply the principles of the CMIT and the
spirit of the Constitution and build something meaningful,
something we can support. Fashion an agreement that will build
trust among the provinces and give them the courage to break
down the barriers. Let us do what is right for Canadians and
rebuild trust in our democratic process. Let us acknowledge
Canadians' right to economic unity and their desire to declare
their sovereignty.
Canadians will not be served well should this bill pass. It does
not reflect the government's commitment to building an
innovative economy, except for one exception which is the
deletion of part III of the vehicle and transportation act. This
particular section within the proposed bill is the only section
that was not part of the internal agreement negotiated a year ago.
It is also the only provision in this act that does in fact put into
practice the provisions of sections 121 and 91 of the
Constitution Act. Other
14112
than that this bill does not reflect the process which begins on
the right footing.
(1715 )
It does not reflect a country built on the principles of freedom,
democracy and unity. In fact it goes beyond that. There is a
provision within the bill which allows the governor in council
under certain conditions to amend and to suspend application of
any provision legal or otherwise of another province or
department.
It is unpardonable to think that Parliament should be able to
tell another government: ``The particular law that you passed,
you cannot have it any more because we are going to suspend its
operation''. It does not inspire a sharing of ideas, products,
technologies and people. There is no structure for innovation in
it and nowhere for the talents and skills of the people of the
country to grow and provide stability.
We must try to do it now and not later. Canadians deserve the
chance to develop into a nation of free traders before their
industries are exposed to the larger global market. If we do that
Canada will be ready to take advantage when the moment
comes, and that moment is coming quickly.
I urge the government to go back to the bargaining table. I
urge the government to show a strong leadership and not just
political rhetoric. I urge the government to provide Canadians
with a free interprovincial trade agreement and begin the
process of economic rejuvenation.
It will symbolize to Canadians and everyone in the world, but
more important to us and our young people in particular, that we
are a confident people, strong and self-assured. We are an
economically stable, united nation with the ability and skills
required to face the challenge of a modern world.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. I have
to say I am not exactly sure what the hon. member really wishes
to do to try to get free trade within the country.
On a number of occasions the hon. member was urging the
federal government to abandon the consultative process which
resulted in the bill before us today. One year ago July 13 senior
governments in Canada-the 10 provinces, the federal
government and the two territorial governments-arrived at a
consensus.
A little later in his speech he talked about the government
using its heavy hand because there was a section in the
legislation that may allow it, given certain circumstances under
the Constitution by the way to disallow provincial legislation.
He cannot have it both ways. What does the hon. member find
so offensive about a process that has finally arrived at a
framework under which all governments in the country, federal,
provincial and territorial, have agreed to reduce internal barriers
to trade? What process would he want to put in its place? This
process has been under way since 1987. The agreements that
were reached in July of last year were agreements that were
reached after seven years of negotiations.
Would he have the federal government use the heavy hand, the
constitutional powers he says we have, to completely abandon a
moral requirement for consultation in these areas? Would he
have us roll over the rights of provincial governments? Would
he have us abandon the consultative process? Would he have us
abandon the basics of the agreement on internal trade,
specifically the section that deals with the affirmation of
constitutional rights and responsibilities since he spoke a lot
about them, the general rules section which sets out the
obligations for activities governed by the act, a special rules
section which sets out the particular ways in which the rules
apply in the 10 sectors covered by the agreement, and the section
that sets out administrative provisions and the dispute
resolution mechanism?
Surely the hon. member opposite knows that when we are
dealing in the area of trade it is not as easy as walking in and
saying: ``Here is what I want; therefore that is what I get''. This
is a process of negotiation similar to what was done with the free
trade agreement with the United States. It was probably a little
easier in the free trade agreement with the United States because
we were only dealing with two governments. Indeed when we
were dealing with the NAFTA we were dealing with three
governments. In Canada, because of our constitutional
structure, we were dealing with 13 governments.
Should we abandon the consultative process which he seems
to have condemned in his remarks and use the available tool
albeit blunt in our Constitution, or does he say that we should
abandon the process and start again? Which does he want? Does
he want consultation or does he want heavy handed federal
action in this area?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, that is probably one of the most
thought provoking questions I have heard in the House for a long
time. I appreciate the question. It is a good one.
(1720 )
In no way do I wish to suggest that the consultative process is
not a good one. It is a good process and one that should be
observed, absolutely. However there comes a time when the
consultative process breaks down and does not result in an
agreement. Then senior government has to come in and make
some essential changes.
14113
Another point I recognize is that the primary criticism is not
in the process. There is no criticism of the process. The criticism
is in bringing to the House a bill which says we have an
agreement. It is not an agreement. There are major parts of the
economy of Canada that are totally exempted from the
agreement.
Let me mention one area. The whole energy sector is
exempted from the agreement. It is not a complete agreement.
Yet it was presented as if it were.
I say again that consultation is essential, but leadership is also
essential in a country when the consultative process breaks
down. The three principles in my speech are the ones we ought to
take forward. The responsibility lies with the Parliament of
Canada to say that we have to solve the question. We can go this
far and then we have to say that we have consulted so long but
there is an end to the process.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask my hon. colleague for Okanagan Centre, whom I have
the pleasure of meeting regularly on the Standing Committee on
Industry, how he can question not only the bill before us, C-88,
and clause 9, which the Reform Party condemns with us, but also
the agreement reached by the provinces, the territories and the
federal government after seven or eight years of negotiations?
Is is not rather presumptuous of the Reform Party to question
something that all these elected officials and all these
governments agreed on, with such difficulty, I might add? Is this
not the extent to which Canadian leaders had agreed to agree in a
certain number of areas? Is it relevant to tear up the agreement,
as my colleague puts it?
It stands to reason he would condemn the bill. However, it is
another matter to tear up the agreement and reject the efforts of
the premiers or ministers of trade who worked on this
agreement. Is it not going too far to call the entire process into
question?
[English]
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I think that was a very thoughtful
question.
No, I am not calling into question the fact that the premiers
got together to work on things. That is commendable. However
to suggest that what they agreed to was meaningful and actually
resolved some of the trade barriers is false because the trade
barriers were not eliminated in many instances.
We are supposedly being presented with a breakdown of
internal trade barriers in Canada, but I submit to the House that
is not the case. We are being led to believe something which is
not complete. We should not be led to believe that it is complete.
It is not.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
gave away a little of my firepower in questions to the hon.
member opposite. I indicated to the hon. member that it was
very clear when I read the documents relating to the bill that
nobody on this side of the House believes this is the be all and
end all.
The Prime Minister in his remarks last year when this was all
done clearly indicated that he thought it was a step, albeit a
small but very necessary step, toward the full removal of
internal trade barriers in Canada.
I understand what the hon. member was speaking about. I also
understand that sometimes we have to crawl before we walk and
walk before we run. There is no question the bill is long overdue.
There is no question that the internal trade barriers perpetuated
by various provincial governments, with the blessing of the
federal government because perhaps in the past the federal
government has not shown the necessary leadership, have
caused a real mishmash of provincial trade barriers not just in
the movement of goods and services but also of people. It is fair
to say to individuals watching that the bill is a step in the right
direction.
(1725)
The hon. member opposite mentioned that it did not apply to
the energy sector. That is exactly right. By the time the
agreement was signed last year there was no agreement among
the 13 players on how we should treat the energy sector. If my
reading of the memorandums of last year is correct, it was
agreed that there would be some framework to deal with the
energy sector by the end of this month.
The hon. member raised some good points. If he waits 10
days-and perhaps we could wait 10 days-he will see the
process concluded and there will be some guidelines, rules and
framework for the energy sector.
It is clear the bill is long overdue. It does not impose anything
on the provinces. It simply reaffirms the requirement in
legislation of the federal government to fulfil the commitments
made last year when the agreement was made. The bill provides
a federal legislative framework. It does not impose anything on
anyone. It encourages the type of debate that has taken place in
the past and the consensus building that has arrived at the
framework of today.
I mentioned that perhaps it was easier to conclude the free
trade deal with the United States because there were only two
partners, or the NAFTA because there were only three partners,
than it was to deal with the Canadian provinces and territories.
Everybody knows there is a problem within Canada.
Everybody knows there are certain things that must be done to
make us more competitive. One only has to look at some of the
areas that are covered. The agreement covers 10 very specific
areas: procurement of goods, services and construction;
investment; labour mobility; consumer related measures;
agricultural and food goods; alcoholic beverages; natural
resource processing;
14114
communications and transportation; and environmental
protection. It is a step in the right direction.
I want to focus my speech a little away from the bill per se and
at a microcosm of some of the problems in Canada. I want to
specifically focus on Atlantic Canada. There are four Atlantic
provinces including the three maritime provinces of P.E.I., New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is very clear to me as a student of
history and a student of Murray Beck, a political scientist who
has written some very good and thought provoking accounts of
the political history of Nova Scotia, that Nova Scotia has always
felt it was at a disadvantage in Confederation.
Prior to Confederation we were free traders. All one has to do
is look at our location. We are stuck out on the northeastern
coast of North America. We have the closest deep water, ice free
port in Halifax to the great circle route. We were great world
traders. When we got into Confederation it started to change
because the trading patterns were forced by regulation and by
legislation to be east-west when we normally should have been
trading across the ocean and north-south.
My friends from the Bloc Quebecois might be interested to
know that the first secessionist movement in Canada did not
happen in the province of Quebec but in the province of Nova
Scotia. There was great debate shortly after Confederation on
whether or not the province should stay. We chose the right
course and we chose to stay even though there were some
restrictions to our growth. We decided the way to deal with it
was to stay in a larger unit and to try to address the problems.
Since the 1970s the Council of the Maritime Premiers realized
that three small provinces, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island
and New Brunswick, had less than two million people and had
far too many barriers to internal trade in that small region. Each
of those provinces had its own professional accreditation
boards. A pipe fitter in New Brunswick may not have been able
to work on a job in P.E.I., or a barber in P.E.I. may not have been
able to cut hair in Nova Scotia. Those were the barriers to trade
set up during that many decade period of protectionism in an
effort to create jobs and keep them in each area.
We have had much talk in Atlantic Canada about how we must
become more competitive and less reliant on government. If we
go back to 1989 there was a gentleman by the name of Dr.
Charles McMillan who wrote a very good document called
``Standing Up to the Future'' in which he talked about the need
for maritime Canada to take up the challenge of integrating our
economies. He said very clearly that governments must pursue a
strategic program and that economic integration is a key to
economic prosperity. He said:
The strategy must be based on eliminating trade barriers, encouraging new
investment and being outward oriented.
(1730 )
Back in 1989, after almost 19 or 20 years of having the
Council of Maritime Premiers, it was clear we recognized the
requirement of reducing internal barriers to trade.
In 1991, after Dr. McMillan's paper had been around for about
a year and a half, the Council of Maritime Premiers responded
very forcefully and effectively. It came up with the Maritime
Procurement Act which stated that for goods tendered for
$25,000 or more, for services of $50,000 or more and for
construction contracts of over $100,000 there would be no more
discrimination based on where the company that bid for those
contracts came from in Maritime Canada. Clearly the movement
had begun to reduce those barriers to trade.
In 1992 the council came up with the Maritime Economic
Co-operation Act. It has been working on a number of major
projects since then. The Council of Maritime Premiers has a
number of boards, organizations and bureaucrats working for
the continued removal of barriers to the mobility of
apprenticeship trades people. The primary goal of this whole
focus in maritime Canada is to become more competitive.
Everybody in maritime Canada knows one of the stumbling
blocks to removing internal trade barriers has been the free
movement of beer in Canada. Although this may not seem like a
big deal to some people it is a big deal in Atlantic Canada for two
reasons. We had come out of a period when individual provinces
had restrictions on the movement of beer between provinces.
They did that to protect brewing industry jobs in their areas.
With some of the agreements in the past, we found products
were flooding into Nova Scotia but perhaps Nova Scotia or New
Brunswick products did not have equal access to the most
lucrative market which is in Ontario.
My point in all of this is the maritime provinces, the
traditional have nots, the ones which seem to be left out of the
economic cycle when it is on the up swing but always first
included when it is on the down slide, have long since
recognized the key to competitiveness is to remove internal
barriers to trade.
I have always been a free trader. People in my area and all
over Canada will only prosper and be able to recognize their
potential and our potential as a nation if we work aggressively to
remove those barriers to trade.
This is not a perfect bill, but it is closer to perfection than
anything I have seen in the six years I have been here. I urge
members of the Reform Party opposite who seek a perfect bill to
support the direction of the bill and to work with us on this side
and with members of the Bloc Quebecois to ensure the people
we represent have access to markets unfettered by regulatory
and non-regulatory barriers to free trade.
14115
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
find it odd that the hon. member made no mention of clause 9 of
Bill C-88, which is the heart of the bill, the key, and which was
totally unexpected.
The opposition informed the Government of Quebec of clause
9 and Bill C-88, and, in turn, the Government of Quebec
contacted the Government of Ontario to see if it was aware of
this provision. Apparently, nobody in Canada was aware of this
bill, even though close to a month earlier, on April 10, 1995, the
trade ministers met in Calgary and there was never any question
of the federal government's intention to go ahead with the bill.
I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks of clause
9. How can he justify that the federal government has
unilaterally declared itself the referee, when nobody was
consulted, when nobody mandated the federal government to
take on this role, and on top of this and perhaps most
importantly, when the bill goes against the spirit of the
agreement which provided for conflict resolution mechanisms
based on the good will of each party, and not on judicial
mechanisms?
(1735)
Now, the federal government is bringing in a judicial
mechanism, announcing to everybody that, in the future, its
actions will be based on the spirit and the letter of clause 9 of
Bill C-88. It will issue orders and ultimately will take all of the
measures in paragraph 9d), do everything it deems appropriate
to bring any province it feels is reluctant in line.
Can our colleague explain to us how the position that the
federal government has taken on this issue in clause 9 of Bill
C-88 is justified?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
within its own area of responsibility clearly feels if there is a
dispute settling mechanism and the dispute is settled but a
province is stubborn and decides after one year of going through
the two bodies, the joint co-operative committee and the
processes outlined and agreed to by all 13 parties, that it will not
to be party to the dispute settlement mechanism finding, to the
resolution, and still refuses to act in compliance with the
agreement, the government will take some actions.
Those actions are extremely limited by the very section of the
bill. It does not say the Government of Canada can take straight
retaliatory action. It outlines clearly the actions that can be
taken and the actions that cannot be taken.
I understand the member opposite would be worried that the
federal government can use its heavy hand to impose a
settlement. Clearly after 10 provinces, two territories and the
federal government agree on a dispute settling mechanism and a
province or territory refused to adhere to the rules of the game,
the government believes it is justified to use within its
jurisdiction certain economic means.
I do not think it is unjustified. It is like telling my children
over and over again there are rules but if they violate the rules
there will not be any penalty. If my children violate the rules
there is a penalty. It is a penalty of last resort after consultation,
after communication and after dispute settling in my house.
At the end of the day if they continue to violate the
agreements in our house-it would be the same in the federal
House-I reserve the right, as would the federal government, to
take reasonable means in response to that.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this
debate on the agreement on internal trade which will come into
effect on July 1.
The agreement may not be perfect, in response to the Reform
Party's comments, but it represents an improvement from where
we were before that agreement. Bill C-88 is intended to make it
possible for the federal government to comply fully with its
obligations under the agreement.
It is important the House proceed expeditiously in its
consideration of Bill C-88. For years businesses and private
sector groups have complained to both the federal and
provincial governments about domestic trade barriers and
impediments to a free and open internal market.
We have had numerous studies going back as far as the 1937
Rowell-Sirois commission which recognized the issue and
documented the broad scope of the problem.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1991 estimated
the cost associated with barriers and economic inefficiencies to
be approximately $6.5 billion annually. The most recent
statistics indicate interprovincial exports of goods and services
in 1990 were worth $141 billion annually and responsible,
directly or indirectly, for 1.7 million jobs.
A recent study by the chamber of commerce underlined that
the Canadian internal market is the most interdependent of any
area in the world today.
In agreeing to negotiate the agreement, Canadian
governments recognize how well our domestic economy works.
It is key to how we will prosper as a nation and how we will
compete in the international economy.
(1740 )
An open domestic market and economy will allow Canadians
and Canadian companies to strengthen their internal
competitiveness and develop new opportunities for growth and
prosperity. The alternative offers only and ultimately
self-destructive protectionism which benefits only special
interests at the cost of the country as a whole.
14116
When they agreed to negotiate the agreement on internal trade
the federal, provincial and territorial governments all
recognised and accepted the importance of working together in
the national interest. In concluding the agreement Canadian
governments have demonstrated they are prepared to work
together both now and in the future.
As my colleague, the Minister of Industry, has said in the
House, the agreement is a consensual agreement. Some
members opposite have criticized the agreement as inadequate
and insufficient. As I said before, the agreement may not be
perfect but it is an improvement over where we were. It reflects
a consensus on the principle of an open and efficient national
economy. It establishes a detailed rules framework for internal
trade. It provides a consistent and defined process for
preventing and resolving disputes which may arise over specific
issues or measures.
All the parties have accepted, to a greater or lesser degree,
disciplines which in the sectors covered will improve how the
national economy functions in the future. It will be possible and
it is the government's intention to work to improve the
agreement in the future and to expand its scope and coverage.
I call on all colleagues in the House to work together with us
as we proceed into the future to expand the scope and coverage
of the agreement. For the moment this is a start, a point from
which to work. We can and should build on that.
Some members have also criticized the government for not
exercising its constitutional authority over interprovincial trade
to open the internal market more forcibly. The national economy
has become considerably more complex than it was when the
constitutional powers of the different levels of government were
agreed on in 1867. In the context of today's economy and
modern Canadian federalism the views of those critics, frankly
speaking, are simplistic.
If anything is clear it is that the country operates most
successfully when all levels of government work co-operatively
in the national interest, not unilaterally and certainly not by fiat.
Governments were not negotiating constitutional changes in the
agreement on internal trade; rather, they were developing the
basis for working together with their respective powers and
responsibilities to make the national economy operate more
efficiently and effectively.
Unilateral action may be a theoretically possible method to
achieve the same ends. Some of us may consider it to be a
desirable way of proceeding. However it is simply not an
effective or acceptable way to make Canada's federal system
work.
Some members opposite have suggested the government has a
hidden agenda in Bill C-88, that it conceals a power grab and
that it is intended to provide a means to force provinces over to
the will of the federal government. That is purely and simply
wrong. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has responded at
length and in detail to those allegations.
Bill C-88 does not deal with the responsibilities of provinces
or provincial measures, only federal responsibilities and
measures. It is intended to make it possible for the federal
government to comply fully with its own obligations under the
agreement and to play its part in making the agreement work.
Bill C-88 gives the government specific authority to make
changes to certain parts of legislation to enable it to act in
accordance with its obligations. It also changes some existing
legislation to make it easier for provinces to comply with some
of their specific obligations under the agreements.
(1745 )
We should be clear in our understanding that Bill C-88 does
not by itself legislate or give life to the agreement on internal
trade. The agreement has been signed by all its parties: the
federal, provincial and territorial governments. When it comes
into effect, as agreed on July 1, all those governments will be
bound by the obligations of the agreement. Each government is
responsible for complying with its obligations and for living up
to its responsibilities under the agreement.
Two provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, have already
passed their implemented legislation. As I said earlier, it is
important that we proceed expeditiously in our consideration of
this legislation. The federal government has played a leading
role in getting all governments to work together in the interests
of all Canadians on internal trade issues.
Bill C-88 does what is necessary to ensure the federal level of
government will be able to continue to play its role in the
co-operative intergovernmental process.
We should not delay this further. I call on all colleagues to
join with us in ensuring that Bill C-88 gets swift passage
through this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a bit as
I did with my colleague earlier, how she can justify the
government's action in this regard. She knows very well indeed
that the federal government cannot legitimately take this action,
since it has neither the mandate nor an invitation to take it and it
consulted no one in its action. It is giving itself powers of
arbitration so it can act as a disciplinarian, without anyone
having asked it to intervene. It has led, and here the seriousness
14117
of the situation and the all the scheming behind the bill become
apparent, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, to denounce the
bill as a trade war measure.
I would like further explanation. Oddly, and this is in keeping
with the way the government works, nobody is referring to
clause 9, the keystone, the source of friction, the heart of the
bill. To us, this is indicative of the government's desire to
meddle in a number of areas of jurisdiction in the operations of
the future Canada where the Government of Canada will be the
sole government. Canada will be a unitary country, a centralized
country. Bit by bit, in this House, the government is giving itself
what it needs to ensure that, increasingly, governments that
claimed to be, were seen to be and considered themselves
provincial will become regional, because bills like this one are
being adopted.
I would ask my hon. colleague to talk more about clause 9 of
this bill, which is exceedingly pernicious.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is presuming
quite a lot in his interpretation of section 9. Perhaps he has
misread the section. In that section there is a principle
underlying the concept of retaliation. My colleague spoke quite
clearly to this by giving some real life examples within his own
family situation.
It has to be understood that subsections 9(a) to (d) do not give
the government greater freedom of action. To suggest that it
does ignores the headnote of the section. I would ask the hon.
member to go back to the headnote which limits the degree of
possible action pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement.
Article 1710 would limit retaliatory action only to cases where a
province has been found to have an impartial panel which
violated the agreement and has refused to comply within the
period of a year or more.
(1750 )
It spells out quite clearly that the government would have to
discuss whatever it proposes to do with the committee on
internal trade which is composed of representatives of all the
parties to the agreement. Any action to be taken has to be
equivalent to the economic impact which led to the original
violation.
There is much within the section which must be read with
article 17(10) in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this debate as the official
opposition critic on regional development. I want to show very
clearly that, with this interprovincial trade agreement, the
Canadian government is indeed giving itself powers which
largely exceed what is provided in the agreement reached by the
parties.
We just heard the hon. member explain clause 9, in reference
to articles 1705 and 1710. I intend to show unequivocally that, in
this agreement, the federal government is giving itself extensive
third party powers, without informing those involved.
What is the purpose of this bill? It is simply to implement the
provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade, which was
signed by the provinces last summer. To that end, the federal
government must pass the required legislative provisions before
July 1, 1995, when the agreement will take effect. This is
basically the purpose of the legislation.
First, I want to show that, with Bill C-88, the Liberal
government is assuming powers which were never mentioned
when the agreement was negotiated or signed, thus showing a
very centralizing attitude which is also noticeable in relation to
several other bills, and which is part of an overall centralizing
legislative strategy.
I also want to show some elements of the current international
trade dynamics which point to the need for the political
autonomy of the regions, as well as the establishment of
economic unions, rather than large federations with a rigid and
centralizing constitution, such as the Canadian federation.
The clauses of the agreement to which Bill C-88 refers
essentially deal with the dispute resolution process, as if the
federal government could do anything but regulate. I want to
point out to this House the context in which the interprovincial
agreement will operate, by going over a few provisions of the
Agreement on Internal Trade.
Articles 1601 to 1604 deal with the establishment of an
internal trade committee and its secretariat. That committee will
supervise the implementation of the agreement and facilitate the
resolution of disputes. Article 1705 deals with the setting up of a
panel, following a request by the parties involved in a dispute.
The panel is composed of five members who will decide on the
validity of the request and on the retaliatory action which may
be taken by the aggrieved party. We are talking here about a
dispute involving two parties.
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of article 1710 provide that, if the
matter has not been resolved within one year of issuance of the
panel report, the complaining party may request a meeting of the
committee. The committee shall convene within 30 days to
discuss with the complaining party the option of taking
retaliatory action in respect of the party complained against.
So, the complaining party may, until such time as a mutually
satisfactory resolution of the dispute is achieved, impose
retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against the party
complained against. This is important: the retaliatory measures
must be of equivalent effect.
14118
(1755)
We must understand that the panel's decisions are not
binding, which implies that the committee governing the
interprovincial trade agreement has no power. If the party
complained against does not comply with the panel's
recommendations, article 1710 applies. As we saw, article 1710
deals with retaliatory action that the complaining party may take
in respect of the party that did not comply with the agreement.
The main purpose of this bill, as we said earlier, is to
implement the agreement on internal trade. The Bloc Quebecois
has always been in favour of freer trade, which is the context in
which states do business today. We support the principle of the
agreement.
However, what we understand is that, if the federal
government is the aggrieved party under a trade agreement
referred to in the agreement, it can impose retaliatory measures
that are unprecedented.
However, that is not what is said in Bill C-88. In fact, clause 9
goes well beyond the spirit of the agreement reached by the
provinces last summer. Clause 9 reads as follows: ``For the
purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory
measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to
Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by
order-'' By order, no less.
This is a method commonly used by a totalitarian
government. This bill clearly shows that the Liberal government
wants to govern by order. Are we again facing Liberal
totalitarianism? In fact, clause 9 means that if a party is at fault
pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement, then the federal
government, whether or not it is party to the dispute, assumes
the right to impose retaliatory measures against all the
provinces without distinction.
The parties were agreed that it was a matter between two
parties: the injured party and the party at fault. The government
however, assumes the rights of all parties so it can interfere in
the dispute. Bill C-88 clearly indicates that the federal
government intends to interfere in interprovincial trade and be
both judge and judged, to provide through this agreement the
power to act by order, a power it alone can exercise, and to
extend the application of any federal law to the provinces, as
mentioned in clause 9(c).
Governing by order in council, setting oneself up as the
arbiter of interprovincial trade, are measures that go way
beyond the spirit of the agreement signed with the provinces last
summer and are an indication of the clearcut centralist strategy
of the federal Liberals.
Nowhere in the 13 paragraphs of article 1710 of the agreement
is there mentioned any right of the federal government to
intervene in a trade dispute when it is not itself one of the parties
to the dispute, contrary to the retaliatory measures described in
clause 9 of Bill C-88, which it may impose, by order, on any of
the parties concerned.
The range of retaliatory measures that the federal government
has given itself in this clause is too broad. The attitude reflected
in recent federal bills concerned with regional economic
development, such as C-46, to establish the Department of
Industry; C-88 on interprovincial trade; C-91, to redefine the
Federal Business Development Bank; C-76 on certain
provisions concerning transfers to the provinces is a clear
indication of the ultra-centralist strategy of the present Liberal
government.
As the official opposition critic for regional development, I
want to warn provincial governments against interference by the
present federal government in matters concerning regional
economic development. I urge them to be extremely vigilant.
They must not downplay their autonomy and jurisdictions or
give up certain responsibilities, just because of an impending
referendum.
I say to Canada's provincial governments that supporting
Quebec's demands means supporting the development of the
regions.
(1800)
Among other things, the 1982 Constitution, the famous
Canada Bill, instituted provincial egalitarianism, an
egalitarianism which denied the Canadian duality and the
existence of the Quebecois people. The current face of Canadian
nationalism was formed on the basis of this egalitarianism. Do
not forget that, at the end of the 1960s, Pierre Elliott Trudeau
came to power with a vision for the nation in which he persisted
despite the sharp criticism it drew. He set out to build a more
closely integrated Canadian economy by rationalizing the
government's activities and by centralizing power.
In June 1978, during the unilateral patriation of the
constitution, the federal government published a detailed
statement by Pierre Trudeau, called ``Time for Action''. It was
in fact an elaborate constitutional reform proposal. Under that
proposal, even though Canada is a patchwork of different
sociological and historical influences, for example aboriginal
peoples whose legitimate rights we must respect, the two main
linguistic communities, the many different multicultural
communities, the federal Liberals' approach to the constitution
has always been based on the primacy of the citizen and of the
rights of the individual. I would like to quote a passage from the
publication: ``The unity of Canada must transcend the
identification Canadians have with provinces, regions and
linguistic or other differences-Each must feel that Canada, and
the federal Parliament and government acting on his or her
behalf, are the best guarantors of the security-''
14119
Such was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's grand statement on
centralization. This is the federal Liberals' grand statement on
centralization.
As a Bloc member, I say to my fellow Quebecers that such a
statement of intentions significantly threatens the existence of a
Quebec state, a Quebec nation and the means it needs to develop
economically. Ottawa is counting on the marginalization of the
provinces. This same objective is reflected in the federal
position in all other matters of importance to do with shared
jurisdiction. This unitary state spirit of centralizing federalism,
which opposes provincial peculiarities, is an obstacle to the
development of the people of Quebec and is also the spirit of Bill
C-46.
We must remember that this enabling legislation of the
Department of Industry increases duplication and overlap in
Quebec and denies its government the complete control over
regional development it has so long sought.
In the same centralizing vein, under clause 8 of this bill, the
Minister of Industry is responsible for regional development in
Ontario and Quebec. This bill simply confirms regional
development overlaps, because it confirms federal government
and Department of Industry intervention in an area of
jurisdiction Quebec has long sought as its own.
Quebecers have a very different view of regional development
requirements. Decentralization of funds and powers advocated
by the Parti Quebecois are what the regions have long waited for
in order to take charge. This is a democratic vision of regional
development that has nothing to do with the centralist vision of
the Liberal government in Ottawa.
In Quebec City, we do not want the development of the
province's 16 administrative regions to be driven by the purely
sectoral vision of the federal Minister of Industry. Regional
development is the cornerstone of a vision of society that
requires the intimate understanding of all the needs of the
various environments that only regional stakeholders have.
I say to my fellow Quebecers that when, in the referendum,
they are asked to decide on the political autonomy of Quebec, a
no to the Quebec government's proposal will signify acceptance
of Canadian federalism as defined by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and
the death of Quebec. Bill C-91 is another example of the denial
of the State of Quebec. In this bill, the government's stated
objective is to streamline and modernize the Federal Business
Development Bank. The vocabulary is undoubtedly meant to
reflect the reality of late twentieth century markets, but nobody
is in any doubt about the federal government's real objective,
which is to meddle further in the regional development of
Quebec and increase its presence in the most important
mechanisms of Quebec's economic development.
(1805)
The state of Quebec exists. It is trying to develop its own tools
of economic development in spite of the federal government's
intrusive presence in regional development. And the Federal
Business Development Bank remains a parallel structure, an
unacceptable administrative duplication.
Finally, I would like to remind this House, by way of
illustration, of some of the extremely centralizing and
anti-Quebec provisions of Bill C-76. This bill, which concerns
the implementation of provisions of the 1995-96 budget, sets its
sights much further than that fiscal year. In fact, clause 48,
which requires no prior negotiation with the provinces, would
result in a shortfall of $2.5 billion, $650 million of it in Quebec
alone. Furthermore, implementation of the Canada social
transfer for health care and social programs will result in a
shortfall of $4.5 billion for the provinces in 1997-98. The Bloc
Quebecois also condemns this bill because it introduces a
mechanism that the federal government, which according to the
constitution has no jurisdiction over social programs, will use to
intervene to a greater extent in this area and impose national
standards on Quebec.
Bill C-76 maintains national standards for health care and
provides for adding new national standards for social assistance
and post-secondary education. If the provinces fail to abide by
these standards, funding will be cut accordingly under C-76.
This arrogant federalism bears not the slightest resemblance to
decentralization. These national standards will limit the
provinces' autonomy within their own jurisdictions.
Furthermore, distinct as they are, the people of Quebec will not
see their demands reflected in the new national standards
applied from coast to coast in an area that is crucial to its
cultural identity: education.
As for Bill C-88, it is eminently centralist. It reflects a
retrograde view of trade relations between the regions of one
and the same continent. Today, the trend is towards
globalization, removing tariff and non-tariff barriers and free
trade, not using orders in council to regulate a continental
market led by a unitary state like Canada.
The decisive levels at which we can be competitive are
increasingly located at the local, regional and provincial levels,
all of which does not fit Ottawa's centralist mould. The new
international model for regional economic development reflects
the globalization of our economies which, in turn, means that
regional economic spaces are gradually becoming absorbed into
a single global economic space.
Fernand Martin, of the Faculty of Economic Science at the
University of Montreal, is very emphatic about this
international regional reality, and I quote: ``Local businesses
now realize that they are not only competing with domestic
competitors but all the others as well, without the benefit of the
protection afforded by national borders''. This new reality of
international
14120
markets gives rise to a second economic phenomenon: economic
concentration by businesses to remain competitive. As a result,
regional economies are becoming an important part of the
overall strategy.
In this context, intervention through a national government
structure is no longer required. The State of Quebec, by giving
the regions unprecedented powers in its blueprint for society,
has shown it has a very sure grasp of the new problems it faces as
a result of international trade, unlike the Canadian federal
government. NAFTA would help to further diminish the federal
government's power to intervene in economic matters. Where
international trade is concerned, agreements like GATT already
prevent Canada from imposing tariffs and subsidizing
exporters. These international agreements tend to accelerate the
globalization of our economy and, like the dynamics of regional
economics, to diminish the federal government's control over
the national economy.
In the nineteenth century, globalization of trade was sparked
first of all by the new multinationals. It was the multinationals
which initially caused countries to shift towards a new economic
space like NAFTA. Today, their ability to restructure an
economic space has been illustrated many times over. In fact,
they confer international status on the cities or regions where
they are located.
(1810)
In conclusion, we are not opposed to this bill because we do
not care about the globalization of markets and international
trade. We oppose this bill simply because, to the detriment of all
other parties, the federal government granted itself the ultimate
power, the power to govern by order without making any
agreement with any of the parties beforehand.
I say to my fellow Quebecers that a vote for a sovereign
Quebec is a vote for the elimination of the federal government's
interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and for the
elimination of many overlaps and duplications, which will
result in real savings. A yes vote for a sovereign Quebec would
permit Quebec to put job creation, labour force training,
education, health and social assistance policies in place which
meet its needs and are geared to its priorities.
In addition, a yes vote would help protect Quebec from being
the victim of federal manoeuvres like the 1982 constitutional
patriation and would help put an end to the federal government's
unilateral cuts to transfer payments.
To sum it up, it would be a yes to adulthood, to confidence,
and to the open-mindedness and pride of the people we already
are.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe
right off for his excellent and edifying speech, which rattled the
Minister of Transport so much he was forced to leave the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. We must
remember that we never draw attention to the presence, and,
more particularly, the absence of anyone in the House. We are all
familiar enough with the requirements of our work on the Hill or
in committee.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that
this was the Minister of Transport's way of standing out.
All those who have carefully examined Bill C-88, and in
particular clause 9, can see that the legitimacy of the
government's action is seriously in doubt. There was no
consultation, and the government was given no mandate to act
this way. The legitimacy of its action is questionable.
We must also ask what was the intent-and this question is for
my colleague-of the federal government in striking such a
blow against all the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has
reacted strongly. All the provinces, however, are reacting
similarly. What is going on in people's heads in Ottawa? What is
going on in people's heads in the Langevin building? What is
this Canada of tomorrow to be? I will let my colleague for
Richmond-Wolfe elaborate on this.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question. First, I want to put clause 9 in
perspective as regards Articles 1705 and 1710 of the agreement,
so as to show how the federal government, with this legislation
and other bills, is giving itself very centralizing tools. It is
giving itself instruments which, since Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
have been part of the Canadian political philosophy, whereby
the Canadian constitution is a document which the federal uses
to make its partners toe the line, instead of using it to promote
co-operation and sharing.
Originally, an agreement was reached between various parties
to open up interprovincial trade as much as possible. All the
parties involved approved and signed the agreement, which
provides that, if there is a trade dispute, a panel with
non-binding authority will be set up to hear the aggrieved party.
(1815)
That party will submit the issue to the five-member panel.
These five people hear the aggrieved party and decide that, if
there is no redress of the injury, the aggrieved party can take
retaliatory measures. Everybody agrees on that. One party takes
retaliatory action against another.
Everybody agrees and the agreement is signed. Then the
federal government arrives on the scene. It drafts a bill to give
concrete form to the agreement but, surprise, it decides, in the
legislation, that it is not subject to the rules agreed to. As far as
the federal government is concerned, these rules simply do not
exist. The federal government feels it is the central power, the
14121
leader, the ``Canadian''. It must look after the interests of all the
smaller entities in Canada and, if some of them are too strong
compared to the others, it must hit them on the head.
This is why, through this legislation, the federal government
is giving itself a power, not just any power but a power by order,
to take retaliatory measures against any party. With this bill, and
even though it is not a party to the dispute, even though it is not
an aggrieved party, the federal government is giving itself the
right to hit on the head those it identifies as the culprits.
When the government member referred to her government,
she chose her words carefully but, at the same time, she
described this centralizing reality by saying that the government
of Canada must fulfill its obligations. The federal government
must be the one running the show, the one taking action to make
this country go in the right direction, that is toward the
development of national standards. In order to do so, that
government must give itself extraordinary tools.
The hon. member even referred to a specific authority. She
alluded to a specific authority to even make changes to the
legislation. In order to meet its responsibilities and fulfill its
obligations, the federal government must, at the expense of its
partners, be the one which calls the others to order, even though
all its partners negotiated in good faith, agreed that everyone
would be on an equal footing, and approved the process
provided in article 1710, whereby a five-member panel with
non-binding authority would hear the complaints of the two
parties involved and allow one of them, after 12 months, to take
retaliatory measures.
The parties were never advised. This is a very significant
demonstration of what the federal government is all about and
an indication of the federal Liberals' ultimate goal in playing
the part of a centralized government: to make laws without
telling anybody and to adopt laws one after the other giving
themselves exceptional centralized powers.
Where does this all lead? I wanted to talk about the issue you
raised regarding this mechanism because this same mechanism
comes up in other bills. For example, in the act to amend the
Department of Industry, the minister unilaterally gives himself
the power to directly intervene in all of the provinces.
He can enter into agreements with anybody whatsoever in
each province: individuals, organizations, municipalities, etc.
My colleague for Trois-Rivières was right. This position is
strictly constitutional because it has to do with recognized
jurisdictions. But in this case, this government, which is an
extension of the Trudeau government, is furtively, law by law,
arming itself with small, very centralized mechanisms in
preparation for the post-referendum period-because they think
that Quebec will vote no in the referendum even though we know
that Quebec will vote yes-in preparation for a time when they
think that they will be able to impose on Canada a vision similar
to the one prevailing in 1982, but more centralized, more
dictatorial, more controlling.
That, dear colleague, is where this government is going with
the bills that we have been careful to describe in the minutest
detail. You will note that the government members who rose to
speak about this bill never went into detail regarding clause 9 or
the mechanism in the provisions we identified, articles 1705 and
1710.
(1820)
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-88, an act to implement the
agreement on internal trade.
The issue of internal trade should be a priority for this
government. However it has taken almost one year to introduce
this legislation after the deal was struck between the federal
government and the provinces. We as a country trade almost as
much between provinces as we do with foreign countries. To put
it another way, this agreement should mean as much as if not
more than GATT and NAFTA. However we hardly hear it
discussed.
As we have already heard from our colleague opposite,
interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians $6.5 billion
annually. Because of these internal barriers it is easier to trade
with Mexico and the United States than within our own
boundaries. The elimination of these barriers will only
strengthen our economy, which would enable us to get the
unemployed employed. It would provide greater freedom for
Canadians to work where they choose. It would also create a
single economic market in Canada, giving us economies of
scale. It would also help counter our nation's current regional
drift.
With that said, the internal trade agreement, which C-88
would implement, does little else for free trade. The signing of
the document almost went unnoticed. Perhaps that is because it
is an agreement that can best be described as a political facade.
This agreement among provinces did a little to break down a few
barriers but it has left much undone. The federal government
and the provinces had a chance to solve what is perhaps one of
Canada's most solvable economic problems and for the most
part unfortunately failed.
Internal restrictions on trade are not imposed on us by foreign
governments; they are self-imposed. In a nutshell, we are
shooting ourselves in the foot. Since these restrictions are
self-imposed, they should be relatively easy to remove. That is
not always the case, as this agreement clearly illustrates. Instead
of removing the barriers and stopping the economic war that has
developed between the provinces, they agreed in essence to
reinforce the status quo.
14122
The removal of interprovincial trade barriers can be
accomplished without any monetary expense. It simply requires
those involved to have the political will to remove them. It is
obvious that we lack this will. Canadian politicians have to stop
protecting interest groups such as big business which will suffer
from free trade between provinces. They must start looking out
for the interests of ordinary Canadians.
A survey of businesses done by the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce states that only 5 per cent of businesses benefit from
these barriers while 95 per cent do not. Need I say more?
Apparently I do because it is clear this government has not
gotten the message.
I would now like to speak briefly to a few of the specifics of
the internal trade agreement. I will start with the positives, and
there are positives. This agreement prohibits provinces from
using subsidies to entice businesses to set up local shops. It
forbids preferential government procurement and improves the
mobility of labour, particularly in the trucking sector.
(1825 )
However the essence of the agreement seems to have
forgotten agriculture, energy or the financial sector. In other
words consumers will still have to pay too much for electricity,
eggs, milk and many other products. It also has loopholes the
size of our national debt that would allow any determined
government to drive through them.
As mentioned earlier, these 500 or so internal trade barriers
cost Canadians nearly $6.5 billion each year, which can be
broken down into approximately $3,500 a year for the average
Canadian family, according to the Fraser Institute. I cannot
speak for everyone, but I can say that I would love to have an
additional $3,500 in my pocket each year.
According to a recent Fraser Institute article, and I quote:
``The public debate has ignored that when a market grows
several things happen. Costs fall and producers become more
competitive. Japan is a fierce international competitor because
it has a large internal market. This market is like a school where
students learn from each other. Efficient producers pass into the
world market while bad producers fall into mediocrity or even
bankruptcy.'' I could not agree with this statement more.
If we look at Canada's world competitiveness, we ranked
third in 1987, sixth in 1991 and eleventh in 1992 out of the 22
OECD countries. These numbers are not surprising when we
look at the amount of trade that is done between provinces rather
than out of the country. Over half of all provinces'
interprovincial trade is more than their international trade.
Perhaps more to the point, over one-third of Canadian
businesses encountered barriers when attempting to do business
in another province. This is according to a Canadian Chamber of
Commerce study.
According to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, eight
out of ten construction companies encounter interprovincial
barriers. Some provincial governments are willing to pay local
firms as much as 10 per cent more than non-local firms for
procurement contracts. This must stop. Hopefully the bill will
allow us to move in that direction.
This agreement reached among the provinces does nothing to
put an end to the protectionist policies of the past. In relation to
C-88, clause 9 of the agreement is a cause of particular concern,
as was mentioned by my Bloc colleagues. It simply states that
for the purpose of spending benefits or imposing regulatory
measures, cabinet may take any measure that the governor in
council considers necessary. Not Parliament-cabinet.
Where is the openness? Where is the transparency this
government claims to be adhering to? Specifically, clause 9
confers on the cabinet a blank cheque for retaliatory measures
taken against a province, including the modification or
suspension of the application of any federal law.
Mr. Schmidt: You mean any law?
Mr. Hanrahan: That is what it says.
Cabinet should be accountable to Parliament in relation to any
decision concerning a change in federal law. While this
agreement does contain a code of conduct that restricts the tax
breaks and grants a province can use to attract business from
another province, it also provides a number of exceptions to the
code for the provinces and the federal government. The most
significant of these are the provisions that establish barriers
based on ``legitimate objectives''.
(1830 )
Most people agree that a determined province will find a way
around the intent of the agreement based on the so-called
legitimate objective. Other exemptions from the agreement
include agriculture, alcohol, energy, natural resources, culture,
regional development and, of course, crown corporation
procurement.
It is for this reason that the Reform Party believes that the
overall intent of the agreement does nothing more than reinforce
the status quo. In other words, the agreement is like a toothless
tiger, lots of noise and no bite.
A perfect example is how the premier of New Brunswick
recently lured UPS to his province from Newfoundland through
tax relief exemption plans. However there was an outcry from
the other provinces that claimed New Brunswick was breaking
the deal, even though the deal was not in effect as New
Brunswick so rightly pointed out, and was in fact poaching jobs
from other sectors of the country. These cries, of course, fell on
deaf ears.
14123
Reformers want to see the elimination of all interprovincial
trade barriers. We want to see economies of scale. We have
confidence that our country can compete with the best for the
benefit of all Canadians, especially in the global economy. We
feel this can be achieved by two methods: first, through
provincial agreement and, second, by constitutional challenges.
The agreement in Bill C-88 does not eliminate barriers. It
only reinforces barriers which already exist. The federal
government has the power under section 121 of the BNA Act to
eliminate these trade barriers. Section 121 states clearly that
``all articles of growth, produce, manufacture of any one of the
provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into
each of the other provinces''. This power can and should be used
unilaterally if necessary.
The federal government could enforce section 121 by striking
down any provincial laws which impede interprovincial trade.
Our colleague from Dartmouth mentioned that Nova Scotia,
when it came into Confederation, was an economically strong
province. It has been waiting 125 years for changes in the trade
barriers. This will not be what it wants. It must go farther. It
must go back to the original of section 121.
To enforce this the federal government could simply withhold
all transfer payments to those unco-operative provinces until
they have removed all barriers to interprovincial trade. The
process is there. We have it.
Bill C-88 is moving in a direction but not nearly far enough. I
hope that provinces such as Nova Scotia do not have to wait
another 125 years before it gets any movement.
The central question from the Reform Party point of view is
the speed at which the movement is occurring. I understand the
Bloc's position. It is a philosophically different position, but
ours is in terms of speed and process.
In conclusion, I think a quote from the book titled Common
Ground for the Canadian Common Market is quite relevant as it
states that:
If one province plays the restrictive game, it can do better than free trade, but
if they all play it, they do worse.
It is like one individual who stands up at a football game to see
better. When everybody does it nobody sees better.
This power can be used unilaterally and should be used if
necessary. The federal government could enforce section 121 by
striking down any provincial law which impedes interprovincial
trade or by simply withholding all transfer payments to those
unco-operative provinces until they have removed all barriers
to interprovincial trade. Therefore let us work to ensure an
agreement which will remove these trade barriers rather than
settle on one which simply reinforces the status quo.
(1835)
It is for these reasons that the Reform Party will not be
supporting Bill C-88.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am really amazed that the Reform member, in
speaking to Bill C-68, said he would not be supporting the bill.
At the beginning of his speech he indicated that this issue should
have been a priority for the government and lamented that it had
taken one year. Immediately thereafter he said it was a political
facade.
I do not believe the member who just spoke really knows
where he stands on the issue.
The government has fulfilled its constitutional
responsibilities very carefully. It has shown that the best way to
govern Canada is through consensus building, by bringing all
the parties together. It is an approach that ensures acceptance
and implementation of the agreement to its fullest degree.
It was only during the last 128 years of Confederation that
these barriers to interprovincial trade had emerged. Therefore,
we cannot expect by one stroke of a pen we can undo overnight
what happened over the last 128 years of Confederation.
The Reform Party has to recognize that the government has
demonstrated the triumph of practical statecraft that it is able to
achieve agreement not through constitutional confrontation but
through consensus building which truly will be more lasting in
its effect.
In conclusion and by way of comment, I would really like the
Reform Party to reconsider its position and support Bill C-88
which allows the freer movement of goods, services, capital and
people. We have to recognize that Canada is a history of
successive steps and this is an important one. We must build one
at a time on a solid basis.
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Winnipeg for his comment. It is a fair question. I do not really
see this as a political question to make points.
What we are arguing is the speed of the process. The member
has mentioned, as have I, the length of time Nova Scotia has
been trying to get agreement and the effect it has had on them.
That is also true of the other Atlantic provinces. As well, other
provinces at various times have been affected.
However, it cannot be done overnight. One of the previous
speakers stated that the government plans to expand the scope
and improve more. The question Canadians want to ask, when it
is costing us jobs and money, is when and what is the
government's overall plan. This is what we would like to see. If
we had something in that regard then you might find that there is
more co-operation from this side.
14124
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I can appreciate that
under these circumstances at this time, the disagreement is on a
rather cordial note. However, we well know that sometimes
there are more heated discussions and that is why we ask for all
interventions to be made through the Chair.
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my point. I do
apologize for not directing it through you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to thank the Reform Party for refusing to support Bill C-88.
(1840)
I myself worked hard for free trade with the United States. I
can tell you that the Free Trade Agreement with the United
States is much more open than the agreement we are trying to
establish at the moment. As far as the rules are concerned, the
tribunal established to resolve disputes is composed of the same
number of representatives from the United States and
Canada-the two countries are equally matched.
In this case, however, the federal government will unilaterally
decide on and dictate the resolution of disputes. It alone will
establish the rules. This is completely unacceptable,
particularly for Quebec.
In the past, the federal government has decided on its own to
promote one region over another. We have just seen this. Two,
maybe three years ago, huge sums of money were spent to
promote oil production in the great Hibernia project. As we
know, the experts say Hibernia will always be a money loser. For
Hibernia to make money, they say, oil would have to sell at $30 a
barrel; it currently sells for $20. As you can imagine, the federal
government will have to make up the difference between losses
and revenues.
Once again, with regard to this bill the federal government is
giving itself all the power, namely the power to decide. It is not
giving the provinces any power to negotiate or to resolve
differences. This is totally unacceptable. We have seen similar
examples in the past and we will see others in the future. For
example, the federal government has provided considerable
assistance in the development of uranium, by doing research
with the CANDU systems on atomic energy. We all know that
uranium is powerful and worth a fortune, however, it is located
in Ontario. Not a penny was spent in Quebec to help develop
hydro-electricity.
And now the federal government is going to decide on its own,
unilaterally, how certain areas of activity, how certain energy
sectors in the country are going to be promoted.
I agree completely with the Reform Party in saying that the
provinces and the regions must have a say in the resolution of
trade disputes in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I will
try to avoid the use of the word, you.
I understand where my colleague is coming from. I
understand where the Reform Party is coming from and I realize
that it is a philosophical difference.
The free trade agreement was between two nations. This is an
agreement between 13 individual groups and that can be very
complex. The one area we agree on is section 9. Decisions
regarding trade should be debated in Parliament at least. They
should not be finalized in an order in council. They should not be
finalized by cabinet. I am sure my colleagues from the Bloc
would agree with that.
Where we disagree is that they look at a separate Quebec and a
separate English speaking Canada. We see it as 10 equal
provinces. That is not something we are going to decide in this
debate. That is something that will be decided, I understand,
according to the Bloc's agenda, by the end of this year. We have
to wait until that decision is made and then perhaps we can
discuss this question further.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, overtaxed, hampered by political red tape, our private
sector is much beleaguered, especially nowadays in the era of
economic uncertainty. Wherever they turn, the private sector
finds very little recourse and no succour whatsoever.
With options limited, they have to cut jobs, decrease
expenditures and infrastructure. Ultimately they find
themselves pushed to the wall with very few options, one of
which is to fold completely and go bankrupt. The other is to
move to the United States. One only needs to look at Ottawa and
Toronto, eastern Canada, and to a lesser extent western Canada
to see the number of businesses which have been run by families
for generations that are now closed and boarded up. It is very sad
for me when I go home to Toronto and see businesses which have
been operating for generations closing up.
(1845)
Trade barriers hamper small businesses and the ability of the
private sector to be competitive. They function to relocate
scarce resources away from the efficient areas to inefficient
areas of the economy. They cost business, they cost the
consumer in increased prices and they cost the entire country.
They impede the free movement of goods, services, people and
capital all over this great country of ours.
Who are they supported by? They are supported by a small
number of businesses, perhaps 5 per cent to 10 per cent, yet they
14125
are paid for by the majority of the people in Canada. That is the
cost of having internal trade barriers.
Section 121 of the Constitution states that all articles of the
growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces
shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each and
every other province. That means that internal trade barriers are
illegal. They are contrary to our Constitution. I find it amazing
that we have not had a constitutional challenge, a judicial
challenge in our Supreme Court to the internal trade barriers
which exist in Canada. Clearly, if we try to abide by the
Constitution we will find that the trade barriers transgress it. It
is only a matter of time before that challenge is brought before
the Supreme Court.
The cost of trade barriers is extreme. My colleague from the
Reform Party mentioned that they cost $6.5 billion. The
Treasury Board has mentioned it is costing us at least $50 billion
a year to have these trade barriers, barriers which are benefiting
a very small number of groups in our country, which are in
existence only because successive governments have not been
willing to go against the wrath of a very small number of
companies. They have not been prepared to do that for the
benefit of the majority because they do not want to create
conflict. I would challenge the government to remove the trade
barriers. If it does, clearly it will get the support of the majority
of Canadians.
I find it passing strange that we have successfully managed to
be a leader in removing the barriers to international trade. We
have been a leader in bringing together the countries of the
world in the World Trade Organization. It is truly a magnificent
agreement and one which will clearly benefit our country, a
country which relies so heavily on exports for its well-being.
We did it with the WTO, with the FTA, with the NAFTA, and we
are continually pursuing an aggressive export market and
rightly so. Wherever we can we are trying to remove the barriers
to external trade.
We are doing that on the one hand yet on the other hand we are
not removing the internal barriers to trade. I find it absolutely
ludicrous. While we are decreasing the barriers to external trade
and supporting the persistence of internal barriers to trade, we
are hamstringing the industrial complex within our country. I
would submit that the government should take up the challenge
and aggressively try to decrease the barriers which exist
between the provinces.
(1850 )
In the eastern bloc with the iron curtain coming down we saw
with our own eyes what barriers to trade do to countries. We saw
what this did to Russia, Romania, Albania. We have seen that
when trade barriers are put up it only seeks to restrict, hamstring
and compromise the very economy they were intended to help.
This type of behaviour, the persistent pursuit of barriers to trade,
can only harm an economy regardless of whether we are
speaking about Canada, Russia, the United States or Chile.
This government bill, so-called to remove internal barriers to
trade, to decrease interprovincial trade barriers, has been a flop
to put it mildly. It is just window dressing. It does not touch any
of the major sections, such as alcohol, agriculture and many of
the other innumerable barriers to trade which exist within our
country.
The government should have taken the bull by the horns to
capture the moment to make the substantive and substantial
changes that are required to give our economy, our producers,
our exporters and our manufacturers the leg up they require.
Instead of doing this and significantly decreasing these internal
barriers to trade, the government has only sought to nibble
pathetically around the edges. Once again as we have seen in
other bills, it is an opportunity lost.
The Reform Party advocates a much stronger position to
decreasing the trade barriers in order to benefit this country and
in order to maximize the economies of scale that we can have
within Canada. By doing so we would decrease marketing costs,
increase efficiency, decrease management costs, improve the
speed and efficiency of the movement of goods, increase
employment opportunities for all Canadians and decrease public
procurement costs. In effect we would have a well needed
benefit to our economy from coast to coast. I suggest therefore
that post haste this government take it upon itself to rapidly
eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers. The Reform Party
would be glad to help the government if it needs any advice in
this area.
We also need to create common standards across the
provinces in licensing, certification and education. We need to
focus on some very important factors in competitiveness that
our country has failed to do, from provincial governments to the
federal government. In order for us to increase our
competitiveness there are a few things we must take hold of and
address right away. One of those is education.
We need to vastly improve our educational system and we
need to do it now. We need to turn out a student who is
self-sufficient, educated, competent, self-assured and well
versed in those skills that are going to be needed in the 21st
century. In many areas our public school systems fail to do this.
They are not all bad but certainly many of them are. That is
evidenced by the huge exodus we are seeing of people desirous
of putting their children into private schools. Why? Because
they are not finding that their children are getting the education
they deserve in this great country of ours.
A greater emphasis must be put on the basic sciences, reading,
arithmetic, the basic skills that are required. We need to build on
those the more technical skills that are going to be of value in the
coming century.
Against this backdrop is a world that is becoming increasingly
competitive. The mindset now in the schools is often to shield
and to insulate the student from competitiveness.
Competitiveness has a dirty name now. The reality in this
globalized world is that competitiveness is the name of the
game. It does our students a great disservice. It prevents them
from actually coming to terms with how to cope and deal with
competitiveness
14126
themselves and how to develop the coping mechanisms that are
going to be required in an ever increasing, ever more
competitive world.
That is also evidenced in some very interesting and sad
statistics that have come out of the OECD. Back in 1987 we were
the third most competitive country of the 22 nations in the
OECD. Sadly in 1992 we dropped to 11th. That is a telling
statistic and one we are not proud of. It is one we need to address
now if we are to give the students the opportunity they need to
provide for themselves, their children and their grandchildren
and to continue to build this great country. It is imperative that
we continue to invest in education. It is the single most
important determining factor for employability in the 21st
century.
(1855)
The government in its haste to try to balance its budget, which
we certainly agree on and will try to help it do, unfortunately has
decreased expenditures for education to the provinces. It can be
done if it is prepared to give the provinces tax credits which
would enable them to raise the money necessary to invest in
education. Unfortunately that did not occur. I would implore the
government, if it is going to take money away from the
provinces to give them the opportunity to raise the money
themselves to build the strong educational infrastructure needed
to train students to build a strong provincial economy.
In my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Royal Roads
Military College was cut in the last budget. That is fine if we can
make a better college and the opportunity is there. It has
enormous potential in terms of faculty, staff and the
infrastructure to train students in highly technical skills in
which Canada is a leader. Unfortunately it was given over to the
province and the province made it a dumping ground for
Camosun College and the University of Victoria.
Furthermore, the federal government has removed the
physical infrastructures. For example, the oceanographic
training vessel that belonged to the university was removed.
This basically guts and pillages the ability of the institution to
train students in the oceanographic skills in which Canada is a
known leader and which other countries desperately require.
That is but one example of the shortsightedness.
I also implore the government to aggressively pursue
international free trade agreements but again give our
manufacturers the ability to be competitive in the future.
Germany is an example of a country that has a very intriguing
relationship with the private and public sectors and the banks.
I am neither a banker nor an economist but I know there are
very bright people in this country who are well versed in this
and who could advise us on how to learn from some of the
interesting experiments in Germany. In particular, we could
learn how to get seed capital from the banks and provide it to
small and medium sized businesses that could aggressively
capitalize on trade options in international markets.
There are great opportunities within our manufacturing and
services sectors to capitalize on external trade opportunities.
However they are not getting the intelligence and information
necessary for them to capitalize on this. I put this idea forward to
the government to work with the internal trade ministry to look
at it as an area where we need improvement to give our exporters
a leg up.
In closing I would like to continue to support the government
in decreasing external trade barriers. However, I would implore
it to decrease and rapidly eliminate the internal trade barriers
that only seek to benefit a minority of businesses within the
country and seek to hamper and penalize the majority of
Canadians.
The government should take courage that by doing so it may
have to succumb to the wrath of a small number of vocal
businesses but I know it will have our support in doing this. The
government will have the support of the majority of Canadians
in pursuing this laudable goal. In doing so it will give exporters
and manufacturers within our country the necessary
wherewithal to pursue an aggressive economic and
manufacturing policy that will benefit Canadians from coast to
coast.
(1900)
I would also lastly ask this government to please get our
economic house in order and learn from our zero and three
program. By doing so we will be able to provide the tax relief
necessary for our companies in this country to again be
competitive.
One of the things that hamstring companies in this country
greatly is the overbearing tax burden that exists on their
shoulders. They find it almost impossible to be competitive on
the international stage with the tax burdens we have today.
I would again implore the government to get our economic
house in order, decrease the tax burden on companies and
Canadians and decrease the GST. Then we would not be 11th in
the world in competitiveness, but we would improve our
competitiveness in the world order to again regain the powerful
position we can in the first world nations.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
made a number of comments and I would like to respond to some
of them.
14127
He clearly stated we have to invest more in education. When
he stated that I hope he did not mean we have to put more money
into education because that is not what is needed. The reality is
that Canada invests more than any other country in the world in
the area of education. We spend close to $50 billion annually in
the area of education. What we have to do is spend wisely when
it comes to the resources we are putting into education. We have
to look at the educational system as a whole and bring all three
levels of government together so they can better manage the
resources they have at their disposal.
I quite agree with the hon. member that we have deficiencies
in terms of the number of people who are going into the area of
science and technology. We need to see more people going into
the area of science and technology. We have to involve the
industry more, that is true. We have to do all of that. We have to
embark on co-operative programs. We have to get the parents
involved. This is exactly what the minister responsible for
human resources is doing in terms of his initiative. In the area of
literacy, for example, this government has reintroduced the
literacy program. It has put back into the program the $20
million that was supposedly going to be taken out of the
program.
I also wanted to say for the record that this government has
not only addressed the issue of interprovincial barriers but it has
moved many steps forward in that area. On the external front,
the government is on record as being on the leading edge when it
comes to opening trade barriers and signing trade agreements
with other countries.
In fairness to this government and to the Minister for
International Trade, perhaps we have a Minister for
International Trade who has travelled the world more than any
other minister for international trade anywhere in the world. I
would say it has paid dividends. If we were to look at the results,
it has put Canada on the map internationally. The figures speak
for themselves. Canada in 1993-94 has been on the leading
edge. It has more economic growth than any industrialized
country.
Would my colleague not want to correct the record and clearly
state that this government has put Canada back on track in terms
of its economic growth? Would he not want to give this
government credit for making sure Canada is the leading
country in the industrialized world since we took office in 1993?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his intervention. He certainly made
some good points, but I would like to correct him.
Why do we now have an economy where our interest rates
have essentially doubled since this government came into
power? Why is that? Why has Moody's downgraded our bonds?
The reason is that our economy right now is in the worst state of
affairs it has ever been in. In point of fact, we are on a steep,
slippery slope to economic dislocation and economic disaster.
(1905)
Three years from now, if we pursue the economic principles
of this government, we will have $100 billion more on our debt,
our interest payments will climb from $40 billion to $50 billion
and our expenditures for government programs will decline
from $120 billion to $102 billion, an $18 billion shortfall.
What are we going to say to the Canadian public? What are we
going to say to people who are sick and who need their health
care? What are we going to say to the elderly who need their old
age security and cannot take care of themselves? What are we
going to say to needy people who through no fault of their own
need welfare? What are we going to say to them in the future
when that money is not there? That is the reality of the economic
plan this government has put forth.
I correct the hon. member that our situation economically is a
lot worse. However, the hon. member did put some good points
forth on education. I agree with him that we do not need more
money in education. The Reform Party has never supported that.
If the government is going to decrease money to the provinces,
which is what we said, then do it. However, it has to give the
provinces the ability to raise funds themselves by giving them
the tax points to do it.
This government has said: ``We are taking money away from
you, but we are not going to give you the ability to raise money
without penalizing you''. That is fundamentally and morally
wrong.
The hon. member did make a couple of good points on the
co-operative activities of education and how we should indeed
bring forth and use our education dollar to more efficient
standards to increase the standards within our schools today. We
do not need to spend more. In fact we can spend less because
there is a lot of money that is wasted within education.
He brought forth some interesting points about bringing
parents into the educational circle, something I have spoken
about on a number of occasions within this House. I would be
very interested at some time in the future in listening to what the
hon. member says this government is doing in this regard. It is
very important and I would be more than happy to help them
with this.
We in the Reform Party are very much in support of improving
the standards of education within this country without spending
more, making sure that our students in this country have the
skills that are necessary in the future to become competitive in
the 21st century. Many of our schools are failing to do this. The
tragedy for the students in this country is when they get out in
the working world and find out that when they are competing
against students from the Pacific Rim countries they are up
against some very hardnosed, highly competitive individuals.
14128
I hope we will be able to change our system somewhat and
give our students the information and skills necessary to be
competitive for them to be employed in the future and for them
to build the strong economy we need in this country.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had the occasion earlier this afternoon to compliment the
member on a well thought out and logical speech, but I have to
rise at this time and challenge him on what I thought was in
many ways a rather incoherent speech.
He kept talking about the need to do more to remove internal
barriers to trade within Canada. We on this side of the House
agree entirely with that. That is what the bill before the House is
currently about.
He went on to talk about the education system. I wondered if
he thought he was in a legislature at the same time as sitting in
the House of Parliament. He talked about the huge exodus to
private schools. That is a little bit of an exaggeration and not
worthy of the member. Clearly the vast majority of youngsters in
this country still attend a very high quality but still needing
improvement public system. I really would encourage him to
avoid that kind of hyperbole in the future.
I would like to talk so that people who have been listening to
the debate will know what this bill is about. We concede that it is
only a beginning, but we are trying to undo over a century and a
quarter of barriers that have been built up between the provinces
of this Confederation.
(1910 )
This agreement and this bill before us is only part of the
success to date because it only reflects the federal government's
obligations under the agreement, not the obligations other
governments provincially have undertaken to implement. It
does deal with the procurement of goods, services, construction,
labour mobility, consumer related measures, agriculture and
food goods, alcoholic beverages, natural resources processing
and so on.
We want to see faster progress as well but let me just ask the
member a question. This is a Confederation that was formed by
agreement, by consensus. It has always progressed by consensus
and agreement. This agreement has been achieved by consensus
among the parties. Is the member now in fact suggesting that the
federal government should dictate to the provinces the removal
of those internal barriers?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member brought up some very good points.
What we are saying in this party is that the government cannot
keep taking tentative little baby steps forward with respect to
internal trade barriers while the penalty is being paid for by 90
per cent of Canadians.
Furthermore, while we pursue the aggressive elimination of
external barriers to trade while continuing to keep our internal
barriers to trade, we are in effect significantly hamstringing our
manufacturing, industrial and service sector within our country.
So, yes, what we are saying is that you must be much more
aggressive in eliminating these internal barriers to trade. There
are many more that need to be addressed. In point of fact, Bill
C-88, which the hon. member is quite correct in saying is
intended to decrease and eliminate the barriers to internal trade,
when one looks at the bill one finds it is full of intent and very
short on substance.
I hope that when this bill goes to committee stage the
government, in co-operation with the official opposition and
our party, will in fact pursue a more aggressive role in
eliminating these internal barriers to trade, while speaking to
the provinces in doing so. She is right that these must come in
collusion with the provinces.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on this bill.
Trade is an important issue when it comes to agriculture. The
time has come that we have to get freer trade because we see it
happening with other countries. I think it is important that this
bill get some serious consideration and maybe move on.
I think exactly like my colleagues in the Reform Party. This
thing is going too slow, but then we are used to having this
House not proceed too fast. We would not want to set too many
records for speed. It could be dangerous.
It is only fair to say the position of our party is very clear: we
want to do away with trade barriers. We want to make freer
trade. We do not just want to trade between provinces. We want
to also trade more with foreign countries.
When I look at the cost of these trade barriers of $6.5 billion
to the economy of Canada, I wonder what we could do with $6.5
billion. One thing for sure is we in Manitoba could definitely
afford the Winnipeg Jets. It would really buy some Liberal
votes. However that does not seem to be happening too fast with
this bill.
When I look at $6.5 billion it also tells me that is about the
same price the infrastructure program costs and we would not
have to finance one cent of that. Six and a half billion dollars
less of interest a year would make quite a dint in the dollars we
do spend.
Canada's domestic market is seriously fragmented by these
provincial barriers. We support the removal of these interpro-
14129
vincial barriers through a negotiated process. I do not think it
can be done just by unilateral action. I think the provinces have
to have some input into it. If there is co-operation among all the
players this could be speeded up tremendously.
(1915)
An interprovincial trade agreement should include a domestic
trade dispute settlement mechanism to resolve future domestic
trade disputes. Dispute settlement mechanisms work in
international trade. Certainly it should also work in
interprovincial trade.
The dispute settlement mechanism provided in the bill is very
toothless. It reminds me a bit of a very soft hairbrush. One does
not want to stir up the fuzz too much but wants to brush it aside a
bit. That is one of the problems with the settlement mechanism
in the bill.
If the provinces fail to co-operate in the removal of
interprovincial trade barriers, the legitimacy of the obstacles
should be challenged under the Constitution wherever possible.
It could be quite a situation, enacting some of the constitutional
powers, but if that is the only way to do away with trade barriers
it would probably be worth its weight in gold.
Unfortunately we have seen over the last 100 years trade
barriers being set up between provinces because they wanted
little territories. Provincial premiers probably had a little more
power than they should have had and eventually after three or
four years could say to their electorate that they were going to
protect their territory by throwing up another trade barrier. They
could say: ``Vote for us and things are going to improve''.
So many trade barriers have been set up that we hardly know
we are a country any more. We try to resolve our disputes. We try
to more or less console each other by saying that one of these
days we will do away with barriers but that does not take place.
The former Tory government claimed to support the removal
of interprovincial trade barriers but it never used its power to
remove the barriers where possible. When the Conservatives
came into power in 1984 they had a lot of promises like the ones
we see in the government's red book. They were to clean up the
corruption and change the country.
We can see what has happened. Not only have more trade
barriers probably been thrown up, but we also had an almost
unbelievable debt put on us of another $400 billion or very close
to it while the Conservatives were in power.
We hope the Liberals will have learned from the mistakes of
the former government and will eliminate these problems. We
hope they will throw away trade barriers and start making use of
the $6.5 billion we could save.
It is important not to throw up trade barriers between
members on one side of the House and the other. Sometimes we
have some good advice for our friends across the way. Some day
they will acknowledge that maybe we were right on occasion
and that they could have learned from us as well as we could
learn from them. The trade barrier problem is one that we should
work on together to eliminate barriers as quickly as possible.
What did the Liberals say in the last Parliament? They made
big promises that they were to do away with trade barriers. As
we have seen the red book has quite a few promises that are very
slow in coming. I hope they do not forget it. In the next election
we might use that red book as flags to the provinces to prevent
the Liberals from entering into power. Manitoba has almost
eliminated all of them. It is important they take some notice and
know what is going on. They better start honouring some of the
promises.
It amazes me with the new opportunities in the global
community how we can improve trade capabilities. The
possibilities are there and we fail to realize them in our own
country.
We can look at a $6.5 billion bill that could be cut very easily.
We could make use of the interest on it to help us rejuvenate our
industry and our economy.
(1920 )
We have to realize that we are human and things take some
time. As I said the other day, when I look at the pace the Liberal
government is going maybe we should go back to the horse and
buggy. That is about the pace it has been doing things.
I sometimes feel a little frustrated on the committees and in
the House that things do not get done the way we do it on the
farm. We have three weeks to put in the crop and if we do not we
are in big trouble. We have three weeks to take off the crop and if
we do not we are in trouble. There are a time limits and that is
exactly how I feel the bill should proceed. There should be a
time limit to get the bill passed. There should be time to make
amendments so that the bill is at least of some value.
The agreement does not represent a new vision for Canada
that is required in this area. We have to do away with barriers
faster. It is merely a rehashing of the status quo. If members
want an example of how far into the future the document
attempts to bring Canada's internal trade environment, they can
compare it with section 121 of the British North American Act
which states:
All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces
shall be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
I was just reminded of this when I was at home during the last
break. I was walking across the fields looking at the mud and the
puddles. I was very close to the border and I saw ducks going
back and forth from the United States to Canada free as birds,
with no problems; feathers were in the same order when they
came back. I said to myself: ``If birds can access boundaries
with no problem, why shouldn't we as humans be able to do the
same?'' We always feel we are much superior when it comes to
brain power, imagination and getting things done.
14130
Article 101 of the interprovincial trade agreement states that
the objective of the agreement is to reduce and eliminate to the
extent possible barriers to the free movement of goods and
services. I do not think the article has been fulfilled. We can still
improve a lot on it and maybe speed it up. Here we have an
agreement that is actually more restrictive and backward than
the BNA Act from the time of Confederation.
When I look at the problem of the Liberals in Parliament
climbing uphill on the debt problem, it reminds me a lot of a
slippery hill that I drive through most winters. I spin my wheels
a lot but I seem to go backward sometimes. If I do not get a push
from somebody I do not make it to the top. That is what we in the
Reform Party are trying to do. We are trying to nudge the
government along to act a little faster and maybe to make a few
decisions that will benefit the country.
Why do we continue to more or less reprimand, admonish or
encourage the Liberals? We want a federal government that is
working toward a clear and concise agreement. So far the bill is
kind of muddy. As I said in a speech the other day in my
constituency, we have to pay some attention to the Liberal
government. Its vision is very cloudy in some of these bills. If it
could get a clearer perspective things might work a little faster.
I am getting to the age where I have to use my spectacles at
times. I hate them. I wish my vision was more clear without
them, but as age creeps up I find that this is reality. That is what I
would like to say to the government. As it gets older and if it
does not start acting very quickly its vision will get more
blurred. By the time the next election rolls around it probably
will not even know what are the issues. I encourage the
government to pay heed to some of the Reform Party advice
because it has a clear vision and will keep reminding the House
what it is all about.
The agreement fails to meet all the goals we hoped it would
meet. We think it is ambiguous and it leaves areas untouched.
When a flour mill in Manitoba cannot export its flour into a
different province it makes me very sad. It is unbelievable that I
can process my wheat but I cannot ship it to another province as
flour. The wheat board can take my wheat and export it to
foreign countries without a problem. However as a farmer I
cannot process or value add and distribute it to another province.
If that is not hindrance, I do not know what it is.
(1925)
We have come of age in the country. We should start realizing
that if we are to have free trade with foreign countries it has to
happen here, or we will defeat the purpose, the time and the effort
spent negotiating free trade agreements with other provinces.
The failure to obtain a ban on interprovincial barriers to
agricultural products ensures that all costs associated with the
barriers will continue. When I look at the cost of $6.5 billion, a
lot of which is in agriculture, I am sad to see that farmers are
going bankrupt. Their incomes are such that they can use every
cent available. If we had freer trade it would make quite a
difference. It would encourage younger farmers to be more
aggressive and probably more entrepreneurial and to help
further develop the country.
Agriculture has always driven the economy, especially in the
western provinces. Any hindrance to agriculture is a hindrance
to the whole country. If we can speed up the process and break
down the trade barriers, we will be complimented for years and
years to come.
There are many powerful forces currently affecting Canadian
agriculture. Recent budgets have slashed the departments of
agriculture and transport. The western farmer has to bear the
cost of approximately $30 an acre in extra transportation costs.
Any savings created by doing away with trade barriers would be
very beneficial.
I talked to a farmer the other day who told me: ``You know,
Jake, it is amazing. I can own three sections of land anywhere
between the provinces, but if I want to farm half a section on one
side of the border and another half section on the other I run into
problems with delivery to elevators, with permit books and with
contracts. It is confusing''.
This is a why we need free trade. We need to more or less
dissolve the borders between provinces and make it a country,
not a nation of 10 little countries such as we have right now. It is
very important for future generations that we accomplish it very
shortly and do not let it pass on to the next Parliament.
I was encouraged to hear my colleagues in the Bloc agree with
us that trade barriers should be done away with. By doing away
with the trade barriers between provinces it might even
encourage people in Quebec and the Bloc to change their
attitude about being a part of Canada. A freer country, a country
destined to work and destined to remove inefficiencies, will
make things happen that will be beneficial not just for us in our
lifetime but for future generations.
We have to be encouraged that some progress has been made
in the House. We want to continue on that route. The bill could
be made valuable if it were given the benefit of some good
amendments. There are some being proposed. I would support
anything that would make the bill better, do away with the trade
barriers faster and give us a chance in the future to operate as
one nation, not as a nation with 10 little nations inside of it.
14131
Every day on the news we hear what is happening in the
former Yugoslavia. It does not work when a country is broken up
and there are more rights for individual groups. When barriers
are thrown up between people we run into problems. We create
hard feelings and we will eventually wind up with some
disastrous results.
(1930)
Agriculture is one of the occupations with the most trade
barriers. It is of the utmost importance that they be removed. I
encourage every member of the House to work toward that end,
to work together to make the country run, to do away with trade
barriers and to use every dollar wasted to build up the economy
so we can again have a healthy and prosperous country. When I
think of paying $1 billion of interest every week by 1997 it
scares me. That is why it is so tremendously important that we
save every dime we can. It is so simple to remove the barriers, to
increase production and to make things flow more easily.
I listened to my hon. colleagues speak about the oil issue. That
is a product every province needs. It flows freely in a pipeline.
There are no trade barriers. We do not always agree on the price
but we know it is beneficial to the country.
I urge Parliament to improve Bill C-88 with amendments, to
do away with trade barriers faster and to make the country work
again and make this a nation in which our children and our
grandchildren will be proud to live.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a real pleasure for me to stand in the House of Commons today to
address Bill C-88. I cannot say I am opposed to Bill C-88. That
would be like saying I am opposed to good intentions. Bill C-88
embodies the good intentions of governments, even if it does not
really address the major problems facing the country with
respect to interprovincial trade.
It would be very instructive to take a moment to review the red
book promise with respect to free trade within the country. It is
found on page 22:
Interprovincial trade within Canada is hampered by as many as 500 trade
barriers, according to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. These range
from preferential procurement to non-harmonization of environmental
regulations. The CMA has estimated that savings from the elimination of these
barriers could be as high as $6 billion, just under 1 per cent of GDP. A Liberal
government will be committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade
barriers within Canada and will address the issue urgently.
To compare what I have just read from the red book with Bill
C-88 we will find there is a bit of a discrepancy. Bill C-88
represents the good intentions of the government on this issue
and the good intentions of some of the provinces but it does not
meet the red book promise. I mark this as one more broken
promise of the government.
The government made a fundamental mistake when it laid out
this red book promise. I do not believe right from the outset it
was completely sincere when it put those words into the red
book. Although everyone would like to have interprovincial
trade barriers eliminated, the government was simply not
prepared in the end to do the things it should have done and
needed to do to bring about a more meaningful resolution to this
very important problem.
Like my hon. friend from Lisgar-Marquette, I am distressed
when I hear farmers cannot move their value added product
across borders.
(1935 )
We have talked many times about the need to diversify on the
prairies to allow people to go beyond being producers of
primary products and shipping them around the world in that
form. We need to move them about as value added products
within Canada. To me that is fairly obvious and it is very
important we start to move toward that by eliminating
interprovincial barriers.
Tradesmen also have similar problems not being able to cross
over boundaries and have their qualifications apply.
Professionals are another example, lawyers and doctors and
accountants who have to write exams in each province in many
cases if they want to practise in a certain province.
I will talk for a moment about some of the specific problems
with Bill C-88 and where we see some of the huge loopholes or
some of the ways provinces can escape from being bound by Bill
C-88.
When we look at the agreement fairly closely it really does
not represent any kind of a new vision for Canada. The
agreement is mostly a written text of the status quo. Compared
with the Constitution and section 121 of the BNA Act, it is quite
a bit weaker than what is already in the Constitution. Section
121 of the BNA Act states:
All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces
shall be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
That is the Constitution. Let me compare it to article 101 of
the provincial trade agreement which the government
negotiated last summer. The objective of the agreement is to
reduce and eliminate to the extent possible barriers to the free
movement of goods and services.
Let us compare that with what the minister set out in his press
release of March 31, 1994: ``The federal government is
committed to working toward an agreement which is clear and
concise; has a set of rules that will eliminate protective
measures; includes an effective and enforceable dispute
settlement mechanism''.
This agreement really fails in all of those criteria. If people
look at it they will agree it is ambiguous. It leaves entire areas
untouched-agriculture, certain government procurement and
regional government, to name some. It does not undertake really
14132
to eliminate trade barriers, only to the extent possible. There are
all kinds of loopholes and I will touch on those in a moment. The
dispute settlement mechanism is not enforceable and therefore
not effective.
Let me talk specifically about some of our major concerns
with the loopholes in the agreement. From part III, chapter 4,
general rules, the agreement allows for a party to exempt itself
from most of the constraints of articles 401, 402, 403 on the
grounds of legitimate objectives. Articles 401 through 403
really are the essence of that agreement.
It is very important that those articles have some teeth. Here is
what we find out. Under the agreement, legitimate objective is
defined on pages 6 and 7 as the following objectives: public
security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or
plant life or health; protection of the environment; consumer
protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of
workers; affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups
considering, among other things, where appropriate
fundamental climatic or other geographical factors,
technological or infrastructure factors, or scientific
justification.
We have listed almost every possible excuse under the sun for
allowing people to opt out of this agreement. That is the huge
fundamental flaw of the bill. I understand the government's
good intentions but it simply did not come anywhere near
meeting its red book promise of addressing this problem with
urgency, implying it would bring about an agreement as quickly
as possible. This comes nowhere near that.
(1940 )
Our party does not want to be completely negative. We would
like to offer some constructive alternatives. One of the things
the government can do, which it has not done and for which there
is a growing body of evidence that it should, is bring about a
court challenge and use its standing in the Constitution to
actually be more in charge of interprovincial trade barriers.
Section 121 gives the federal government control over
barriers within provinces. There is no reason that could not
happen. I heard some hon. members from across the way talking
about whether it might be preferable to get consensus, et cetera.
Of course it is. We want to work with the provinces. That is very
important in this day and age when our friends from Quebec, the
Bloc Quebecois, are saying they want to break up the country
and that kind of thing.
At the end of the day are we here to please certain special
interests in different provinces which make a tremendous
amount of noise and get the government's attention in those
provinces or are we here for everybody, for the common good? I
say we are here for the common good, to do the things we need to
do of the most benefit to every man and woman in the country,
not just to few who make a big noise when it looks like their
little area will be jeopardized and they will no longer enjoy
protection from the government.
The free market has to decide these things. If we let the free
market decide we end up in a situation in which we have the
cheapest possible services and goods being provided to
consumers and levels of government which means more money
in the pockets of consumers so they can spend on other things,
which means there is money for productivity, for the economy to
expand, et cetera. It is absolutely the best way to go.
That the federal government has finally come on board on the
whole idea of free trade underlines it is understanding that. It
fought against free trade in 1988 during the election but has now
come around and we are happy to have it on our side. The
government did not show the same change of heart in this bill or
at least it did not show a real will to bring about the demise of
interprovincial trade barriers. Unfortunately Bill C-88 has been
dramatically watered down from where it should be.
Some people may ask if this is something we really want to do
in the courts. I remind people listening, the government has
shown no hesitation to go to court on things like enforcing the
gag law legislation. It has shown no hesitation in taking
extraordinary measures to cancel deals like the Pearson airport
deal. I think it should show the same will when it comes to Bill
C-88.
Bill C-88 is for the benefit of all Canadians; if it would only
pound down interprovincial trade barriers. It has good
intentions, absolutely, but we have to ask ``where's the beef?'' It
is simply not in there.
I want to talk about how important an issue this really is. It is a
huge issue that is extremely important to the country. A good
article came out in the August edition of Fraser Forum by Filip
Palda. He talks about a study done in British Columbia about
interprovincial trade barriers:
The B.C. study is right, however, in pointing out that the CMA's estimate of
the benefits of free internal trade only focuses on three areas of the economy:
agriculture; alcohol and government procurement.
Somehow the $6.5 billion gain from liberating a few sectors of the Canadian
economy has become entrenched in the media as an upper boundary on the
benefits of free trade in all sectors. The public debate has ignored that when a
market grows several things happen: costs fall and producers become more
competitive. Japan is a fierce international competitor because it has a large
internal market. This market is like a school where students learn from each
other. Efficient producers pass into the world market while bad producers fall
into mediocrity or bankruptcy. The benefit of these intangibles is hard to put a
number on but the number is probably larger than the commonly cited $6.5
billion. Studies of the entire economy suggest that the annual gains could be
between 6 per cent and 9.5 per cent of GNP. This translates into gains in the
range of $44 billion.
14133
(1945)
Many hon. members have spoken about the $6.5 billion that
came out in the CMA study. I was amazed when I first heard it. I
could not believe how much money that was. I did not realize at
that time, and maybe other members did not either, that it was
only the CMA looking at the effects that dropping
interprovincial trade barriers would have on those three sectors.
If we extend it to the full economy, $44 billion is what this
gentleman is suggesting could be the benefit to Canadians. That
is a tremendous amount of money. When it is realized how big
that amount is and what it could do for the economy it gives us
an idea of how important this issue should be to the government.
I feel the government has failed us in Bill C-88. It has not
shown any urgency. It did not get the Prime Minister involved to
make this happen. It did not use its ability to push this through
the courts. Therefore the agreement is very much watered down.
Canada is no further ahead than it was before except that the
government can say it has dealt with the issue. However when I
look at this I have to say where is the beef.
I want to talk about the larger scope of competitiveness and
why it is important to have interprovincial trade barriers dealt
with. It affects our competitiveness in the world. The economist
I have just quoted, Filip Palda, pointed to that when he talked
about Japan and how its internal market is so large that it really
prepares people for selling around the world. That is only one
thing that comes out of knocking down trade barriers.
My hon. friend from Lisgar-Marquette mentioned this a few
minutes ago. The economy has problems. He talked a bit about
grain producers and people who would like to add some value to
the product they produce. If value added products cannot be
moved between provinces there is no way that producers will be
ready for the world. It is critical to be able to trade between
provinces freely so that a competitive edge can be developed.
This is only one in a long legacy of areas where the
government has failed to help provide that competitive edge to
Canadians. The most obvious one and the one that will follow
the government to its grave is the fact that it has never really
dealt with the debt and the deficit. That is what is taking the
competitive edge off for a lot of businesses that want to sell
around the world.
The debt at $553 billion and a deficit of around $32 billion, if
the projections do not go all out of whack because of a possible
coming recession, have led to all kinds of problems that make it
extremely difficult for businesses to get out into the world and
compete. With that debt and deficit come high taxes. High taxes
mean that costs go up. It also means that employees are the ones
who are bearing a lot of those taxes. Will they demand higher
wages? All of a sudden we have that burden to contend with. It
makes it extremely difficult to deal with other countries when
we have those burdens.
Another thing that happens with a big debt and deficit is all
that competition for money. Canada is in a situation where it has
to offer higher interest rates relative to the rest of the world. It is
a problem with our main trading partner, the United States. It
causes costs to go up for producers and businesses cannot be
nearly as competitive as they would like to be.
The government has failed people who want to export their
products, whether it is within Canada or without, on a couple of
fronts. First it has failed to knock down trade barriers. By not
dealing with the debt and deficit it has also caused us to be in a
situation where costs are such that it is hard to compete in the
world.
Another point I want to touch on briefly is the idea of training.
The government and the Minister of Human Resources
Development have gone to great lengths to talk about and hold
studies into training and what can be done to make us more
competitive in the world. The minister has created plans such as
the Atlantic groundfish strategy. We all know where that has
gone. There are whole towns in Newfoundland where the entire
population is training to be hairdressers. That is not going to
work.
(1950)
The problem is that there are no jobs there. The reason there
are no jobs is that the economy is so burdened with
interprovincial trade barriers, so burdened with debt and taxes
and interest rates that are higher than those in the U.S. for
instance, relative to some of our trading partners, that we do not
have jobs. Instead of worrying so much about government
programs to train people, let us start providing jobs by scaling
back the debt and deficit and scaling back the interest rates and
taxes.
Industry and small business will create the jobs. Do not worry
about the government creating them. Small business can do that
better than anybody.
Let me conclude by saying that I think the government had
good intentions when it brought in Bill C-88. It wanted to
eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. However that is all it is,
an ode to a good intention. It is something like teaching children
about ethics and morals by telling them: ``Never make a promise
you cannot keep''. The government made a promise in the red
book and I do not think it kept it.
I ask hon. members to improve the bill. I ask the government
to make another effort in the very near future to bring about a
meaningful interprovincial trade agreement.
14134
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member
talking in circles.
If he were to make suggestions on how the bill could be
amended and not just by going around what he thinks is in the
bill, what specific recommendation would he make to ensure
that we would have some internal agreements between the
provinces and territories in order to facilitate trade?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member
missed what I said in my speech. The key thing that has to be
done is the federal government has to use its constitutional
authority and demand at some time if a consensus cannot be
reached for the greater good of all Canadians, as opposed to the
special interest groups who like being protected by some of the
interprovincial trade barriers, that section 121 of the
Constitution be used. It has the authority. It is time to go to court
to determine that is the case.
While it is good to try and reach a consensus because it is
absolutely the route to go, in the end instead of thinking about
provincial politicians and special interests, we have to think
about Canadians. Let us do what is right for them. If it means
that commerce needs to reside in the federal area let us do that.
Our party has always championed decentralization. We have
always been in the forefront on that because in general it works
best.
However on some issues, and I would say commerce is one of
them, the authority more properly rests at the federal level. That
is why section 121 of the Constitution needs to reign supreme.
I believe there is growing support that this should be
challenged in the courts the next time the provinces try and
assert their authority in this area. I know I personally would
speak very strongly in favour of pushing the issue in the courts if
it comes to it.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to clarify if the hon. member said that provincial politicians
were special interests. That is the first point on which I would
like him to elaborate.
Second, did I hear him correctly when he suggested that the
federal government should impose a solution on the provinces
with respect to interprovincial trade rather than negotiate a
solution?
(1955 )
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, unless I made a mistake when
speaking, I really did not mean to say that provinces were
special interest groups. I am saying that people in those
provinces very often do constitute special interests and they do
want to protect their own areas.
I guess it is whether we allow the special interest groups to
impose their conditions on the rest of Canadians by making
them pay a higher price for goods and services or whether the
federal government uses the authority granted it under the
Constitution simply to bring everybody into line and play by the
rules that were laid out when the Constitution was set.
Therefore I do not think we are really imposing anything on
the provinces. We are simply asking them to play by the rules
that were agreed to when the Constitution was established.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he might
want to make a comment about the difference between
governing and leading. Is it the role of the government to make
sure that the laws of the land are obeyed and enforced or is there
a need to provide some leadership, to create a vision so that the
country can grow and develop and the economy can become
more innovative?
Would the hon. member make a comment about those two
aspects?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.
friend for the question.
He has hit the nail on the head. We need to have some
leadership in the country. First of all the Prime Minister has to
enunciate his vision of the country. Maybe he can talk about
competitiveness, interprovincial trade barriers and that kind of
thing.
He has to say that at the end of the day whatever we do has to
be for the greater good. It has to be something that benefits the
average taxpayer, the average consumer, not something that
protects a group that happens to be noisy.
We have to be consistent when we follow that plan. It should
be a theme that flows through all the things the government
addresses, all the legislation so we do not give into noisy
interests, complainers and whiners. At the end of the day, we
say: ``Let's do what is right for the greater good''.
My friend has really hit the nail on the head. We did cave in
this time to noisy special interests in many instances in Bill
C-88.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak in the House over the supper
hour. I see that we have more Liberals out than usual, therefore I
appreciate the opportunity to be able to actually speak to
members in the House on the other side.
I would like to speak to the motion and the amendment that we
have presented which reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-88, an act to implement
the agreement on internal trade because it fails to eliminate all interprovincial
trade barriers.
14135
Approximately one year ago, the Canadian people witnessed
the signing of a so-called and I use that term very loosely,
historical agreement on internal trade. The signing of the
agreement between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the
10 provinces and the leaders of the two territories was to
``reduce and eliminate to the extent possible barriers to free
movement of persons, goods, services and investments within
Canada and to establish an open, efficient and stable domestic
market''.
The Prime Minister called the signing significant, suggesting
that the provincial, territorial and federal governments have
taken a large step toward reducing internal trade barriers. A
large step is the same as a small step if one is on a treadmill. That
person is still in the same place. Likewise, we are not any closer
to freer trade within Canada with this agreement than we were
before.
Canada has signed the NAFTA trade agreement and the World
Trade Agreement. NAFTA will possibly be including Chile.
However we have failed to bring down the barriers within
Canada.
A study done by John McCallum, chief economist of the
Royal Bank and John Helliwell of the University of British
Columbia suggests that the value of the interprovincial trade
exceeds the value of trade with the United States, Mexico and
Chile combined. That is astounding. The trade within Canada
exceeds the trade we have in the North American continent and
Chile. According to McCallum and Helliwell, ``as a generator of
trade, the Canadian economic union is orders of magnitude more
powerful than either NAFTA or the European Union''. Canada
has entered into agreements with these countries to provide
greater access to their markets, while we are promoting
protectionism in the provinces and territories.
(2000)
The agreement on internal trade does nothing to break down
the walls of protectionism and allow the freeing up of
interprovincial markets for companies right across the country.
A study by the GATT published last year criticized the federal
government and the provinces for not moving far enough in
bringing down the interprovincial trade barriers. These trade
barriers are inhibiting economic growth and job creation.
The bottom line is, Canadian companies are losing their
competitive edge. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association and other business organizations
are telling the government to get rid of these barriers. We may be
able to hide under the shroud of protectionism in the short term,
but the long term prospects are dim for this type of trade policy.
Reformers are calling out clearly to Liberals saying it is time
to wake up and smell the coffee. Now is the time to bring down
domestic trade barriers. It should have happened yesterday
because as we know, tomorrow never comes. It is like preaching
democracy abroad and practising dictatorship at home.
I say to the House that we are no closer to free trade with Bill
C-88 than we are to having freer votes in the House of
Commons. The word freedom and the Liberals do not seem to
get along. The Liberals promised free votes but they reneged on
that promise. Now they are trying to imply that we are moving
toward freer trade in the country. However, when we look at the
bill it is not really there. It is an illusion. It is not true.
As already stated, the Reform Party does not like the trade
agreement, nor does the business community like this trade
agreement. It is a bad agreement which will continue to hurt
consumers' pocketbooks.
Let us talk about some examples. Within the supply managed
sector of agriculture we have seen arrangements which do not
make sense. For example, the province of British Columbia has
approximately 13 per cent of the population but it is restricted to
producing only 4.4 per cent of the industrial milk in the country.
It must rely on Ontario and Quebec to supply processed milk
products to consumers. Consumers of course must bear the extra
cost of transporting these products to British Columbia. I am
sure that dairy farmers in British Columbia would be quite open
to producing larger quantities of industrial milk. This is not a
level playing field and agreements such as the provisions
contained in Bill C-88 do not fix the problem.
The government is further deluding farmers by suggesting
that they will be able to maintain protectionist enclaves. Can the
government be open and honest with farmers? Under chapter
nine of the internal trade agreement the ministers have agreed to
``undertake a comprehensive review of the framework
governing supply managed commodities and implement an
action plan toward the development of sustainable orderly
marketing systems in the Canadian dairy, poultry and egg
industry''.
Do we need another comprehensive review of supply
managed commodities? The answer is an unequivocal no.
Reviews do little to prepare farmers for what they will be facing
in the next few years. The time is now to move and prepare
farmers for an open and more competitive market economy.
Farmers may reap the benefits of this myopic thinking in the
short term, but they will have to pay the price down the road if
we do not correct the situation soon.
Removing the restrictions on the movement of agricultural
products may be painful initially, but it will prepare farmers for
the increased competition from south of the border. It will also
make our domestic agricultural industry stronger rather than
weaker.
I would also like to talk about a couple of other consumer
products that are exempt from this trade agreement namely,
alcoholic beverages and electricity. I am not much of a beer
14136
drinker but beer drinkers will continue to be stifled when it
comes to buying beer from other provinces. What if a
Saskatchewan ex-patriot living in Ottawa would like a case of
beer from a microbrewery in Saskatchewan? Chances are he
would not be able to purchase the beer because of the trade
barriers that are in place.
This brings to mind a rather interesting incident that occurred
to a brewery located in my home province a couple of years ago.
The brewery wanted to market its beer in Alberta. However,
Alberta had placed restrictions on beers from outside the
province. Even Ralph Klein's Alberta wanted to implement
some trade barriers which I do not think was very good of Mr.
Klein. I think he ought to review these types of policies. It does
not speak well for his administration.
(2005)
The brewery in Saskatchewan was forced to sell its beer at a
higher price than that of the Alberta beer. To get around this, the
Saskatchewan brewery placed a $2 bill inside each case of beer
to offset the higher price it had to charge. Needless to say, the
company was told to stop placing the money in the cases. It was
a rather creative effort to market a product that was nipped in the
bud and not allowed to be competitive.
Our trade arrangements are preventing companies from
developing a competitive advantage by continuing this
absolutely disgraceful form of protectionism.
I also want to briefly touch on electricity. It was also a product
that was exempt from the agreement between the federal
government and the provinces, the agreement that is embodied
here in Bill C-88. The provinces and the federal government
were unable to make headway on this one as well. As a result
what happens? Consumers in Ontario will still be unable to use
the cheaper electricity from Quebec or Manitoba which in many
cases is available to them. In addition, higher rates for
electricity for manufacturers are passed down by the
manufacturers to the consumers in the products they produce.
Why should consumers and manufacturers be held hostage to
utility companies when less expensive sources are available?
Maybe such shortsightedness on the part of the Ontario
government concerning interprovincial trade barriers is part of
the reason that Bob Rae got dumped the other day and the people
of Ontario chose another government. People are not dumb.
They realize they are paying for these foolish trading practices
within Canada out of their own pockets. It is not the
manufacturers that pay in the long run. It is not the governments
that reap the benefits of these trade barriers. It is the consumers
across Canada in every province who end up being hit right in
the wallet, right where it counts the most.
I want to talk about my own province. The government in the
province of Saskatchewan has entered this agreement with the
largest number of exemptions. I am ashamed at the number of
exempt agencies in this agreement. The following government
entities will be exempt from the internal trade agreement.
Fasten your seat belt, Madam Speaker, because the list is long.
Treasury Board crowns include: the Agricultural Credit
Corporation, Agricultural Development Fund Corporation, the
Energy Conservation and Development Authority, Municipal
Financing Corporation, New Careers Corporation, Prairie
Agricultural Machinery Institute, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance
Corporation, Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority,
Saskatchewan Grain Car Corporation, Saskatchewan
Government Printing Company, Saskatchewan Housing
Corporation, Saskatchewan Municipal Board, Saskatchewan
Research Council and Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation
Corporation.
We then go on to the government enterprises, the crown
investment corporations themselves. We have the encompassing
CIC, the Crown Investment Corporation which is exempt from
the internal trade agreement. The Saskatchewan Government
Growth Fund Management Corporation is also exempt.
Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation;
SaskEnergy Incorporated, which provides us with our natural
gas; Saskatchewan Forest Products Corporation; Saskatchewan
Gaming Corporation; Saskatchewan Government Insurance,
which provides us with insurance for our cars and homes;
Saskatchewan Opportunities Corporation; Saskatchewan Power
Corporation; Saskatchewan Telecommunications;
Saskatchewan Transportation Company; and the Saskatchewan
Water Corporation are all exempt. This is a long list.
There are other boards, agencies and commissions which
include: the Board of Internal Economy, the Electoral Office,
the Liquor Board Superannuation Commission, the Liquor and
Gaming Licensing Commission, the Saskatchewan Arts Board,
the Saskatchewan Pension Plan, the Saskatchewan Power
Corporation Superannuation Board, the Western Development
Museum Board, the Workers' Compensation Board of
Saskatchewan and the Workers' Compensation Superannuation
Board. These are all exempt from Bill C-88 which is supposed
to restrict interprovincial trade barriers.
The Saskatchewan government will continue to be able to
procure products from local producers. The provincial
government argues that preferential procurement helps local
producers and lowers unemployment in the provinces.
Essentially the provincial governments are taking away money
from the taxpayers and returning it to local producers. Most of
the time the government ends up paying the local producers
more money than it would pay for the product from
neighbouring provinces.
14137
(2010)
Companies outside of Saskatchewan will not have access to
all the government agencies listed as exempt from the internal
trade agreement. We ask the question. Will those companies
lobby their provincial governments to use retaliatory measures
against Saskatchewan companies competing for government
contracts? This type of policy precipitates the building of trade
barriers, not free trade.
I want to give another example. Just a few months before the
last election I was at a trade fair in my province of
Saskatchewan. I was talking to people about the Reform Party's
policies and of course they were quite excited about that. They
were buying memberships and were enthusiastic about Reform.
They were saying that they certainly would not vote Liberal
when they compared Liberals with Reformers.
I was talking to one gentleman who told me he designed
security systems. He said he had been able to design a security
system for a customer in the province of Alberta. I thought that
was wonderful. It was good to see some entrepreneurial spirit in
my province of Saskatchewan. It was good to see that this person
had been able to do some work for a neighbouring province. He
said that his customer had been able to buy his expertise. He also
sells the equipment but he was not allowed to even put a tender
in on the contract for the security system. There is a trade barrier
between Alberta and Saskatchewan and his products cannot
even cross the border into Alberta.
I thought, my goodness what is wrong with our province?
Saskatchewan is putting up barriers not to let competitors from
outside Saskatchewan deal in the province. Other provinces for
example, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, British
Columbia are doing likewise and we are getting into a spitting
war. Who is being hurt? Of course it is you and I, Madam
Speaker. The Canadian citizens who have to pay the bills and
pay for the product are getting the short end of the stick.
Most individuals in my province agree that discriminatory
trade practices and protectionism are harmful to the province in
the long run. We may win the odd little battle in this trade war
but in the long run we all lose.
The current provincial government is of the opinion that it
must cushion the shock of external competition by continuing
the practice of preferential procurement. This will not help the
people of Saskatchewan in the future when the pressures of the
global community end the enclaves of protectionism. The
Saskatchewan government and this Liberal government must
realize that short term trends quickly become permanent
policies. The time is now to prepare companies and the
workforce for new opportunities.
What is the solution to the problems I have outlined? I have
been very critical. I think my criticism is fair and just. It is also
incumbent upon us on the opposition side to suggest some
solutions. We are saying that we should eliminate all
interprovincial trade barriers. It is absolutely ridiculous that it is
easier to trade internationally than it is within the borders of this
country.
It is insane that our trade barriers from province to province
are costing consumers $6 billion to $8 billion every year. They
are increasing our costs of surviving in this country. We are
making more progress with Chile, the United States and our
European trading partners than we are between our own
provinces.
Closed systems such as the one we have in Canada fly in the
face of recently signed international trade agreements. Modest
estimates as I said place the cost of these trade barriers around
$6 billion to $8 billion. One figure I ran across came to $6.5
billion per year.
Freeing up that amount of capital will result in market growth
which will in turn result in lower prices for consumers and
greater competition for producers. As I already mentioned,
greater competition will prepare Canadian companies for the
onslaught of freer international trade.
Reformers believe that a trade agreement can, and I want to
emphasize can, be brought to fruition preferably through an
agreement between the federal government and the provinces
but failing that through constitutional challenges. The federal
government has the power under the current Constitution to
eliminate the trade barriers. I want to read section 12 of the BNA
Act which states: ``All articles of growth, produce or
manufacture of any one of the provinces shall be admitted free
into each of the other provinces''. That is in our BNA Act. When
will this government be prepared to take the big step off of the
treadmill that is taking us nowhere and move toward freer trade
in this country?
I want to close with a challenge. I challenge this government
to not continue giving us nonsense like Bill C-88 which is just
window dressing and no substance. I am going to ask
government members to get off their hands. They have been
sitting on their hands on a lot of issues.
(2015 )
They are sitting on their hands on this interprovincial barrier
situation. I challenge the government members. They should get
off their hands, and do something about the problem, really get
down to brass tacks with the provincial governments. Should
they refuse to bring down these trade barriers that are hurting us
all, they are costing families in this country thousands of dollars
in increased costs. Get down to business. And if they cannot
come to an agreement with the provinces, then use some of the
constitutional clout they have in the BNA Act to get the job
14138
done. That is why we are here. We are here to work for
Canadians, not to sit on our hands and complain and bring
weak-kneed legislation like Bill C-88 before the House of
Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): At the request of the
government whip, the vote has been deferred until 11.30 p.m.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of the Environment) moved that Bill C-94, an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very happy to start off this debate on a bill concerning a fuel
additive called manganese.
[English]
In English it is referred to in technical terms as MMT,
nevertheless implying that we are dealing here with a substance
called according to a technical name, MMT. It contains a
chemical substance called manganese. It is well known in
chemistry as well as in geology and in the mineral disciplines as
being one that can be dangerous to human health.
(2020)
This bill aims very simply at bringing about a decision in
Canada that was launched and concluded successfully south of
the border well over 16 years ago, more precisely in 1978. At the
time the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington
concluded as a result of studies conducted there that it was
essential in the public interest to do away with manganese as an
additive to gasoline.
This bill attempts today to bring to the attention of members
and the public the importance to do the same now in Canada, not
just for environmental reasons but also for technical reasons,
not just for public health reasons but also because the
automotive industry has by virtue of technological change
reached a level where it actually depends on the elimination of
manganese from gasoline.
It must be said for the record that Canada is probably the only
country in the world that is still using manganese. As a result of
that, for the reasons I have just outlined, the situation has
reached a point where it is absolutely essential that we move on
this issue and deal with it.
The engineers in the automotive industry are telling us that
manganese impairs the performance of pollution control
equipment in cars and trucks. The automakers in Canada and in
the United States are now producing cars with systems that can
tell the driver how well and whether the pollution control
equipment is working.
Manganese in gasoline does not permit automakers to give the
driver of the vehicle the benefit of using the pollution control
equipment because manganese is incompatible with this kind of
equipment. I am told that automakers will have to disconnect
this kind of equipment in Canada if gasoline continues to
contain manganese.
The consequences for consumers are manifold. First the
warranty of the engine will be affected. It will not be extended as
far as it could be extended with this kind of equipment to the
benefit of the consumer. Second the performance of the engine
could be affected because of the inability of the driver to know
whether certain parts of the equipment are functioning. The
third consequence is complementary to the second point: the
driver will not know whether the catalytic converter is working
or not, whether the anti-pollution devices in the car are properly
functioning and therefore the driver will not know whether the
equipment installed in the car is working in the manner it is
supposed to in terms of pollution controls.
The scientists in our community are also informing us that
manganese in gasoline means risking greater pollution in the
form of smog, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Automakers in Canada have told the government they want
the elimination of manganese in gasoline. They are
technologically ready for it. Actually they are well beyond this
point. They all say that manganese adversely affects the onboard
diagnostic
14139
systems, which is a fancy word for indicating the types of
devices that inform the driver whether the anti-pollution
equipment is working or not. In other words, the driver will not
have the ability to tell whether or not the pollution control
equipment installed in the car is working or not.
(2025)
Members will quickly realize therefore the importance in the
public interest of this measure proposed by the Minister of the
Environment, who has been working on this initiative for some
time already and who has been behind the scenes pushing the
interested industries, petroleum on the one hand and the
automakers on the other-and the latter is being quite keen and
cooperative-to bring this matter to a solution without
legislation.
It is only fair to say that the federal government has waited for
the automotive and the petroleum industries to resolve this
problem without legislation. Unfortunately, the problem has not
been resolved.
The automakers at the very moment as we have this debate are
now manufacturing the diagnostic system for the 1996 models.
We are now debating this matter at the eleventh hour, and the
government finds it necessary to present and pass this
legislation in the speediest manner possible.
The government is doing this with three purposes in mind:
number one, as I mentioned earlier, to protect human health;
number two, to protect the warranty of the car to the benefit of
the consumer; and number three, to take advantage of
technological change and reap the benefits offered by these
diagnostic systems, which are higher efficiency for the engine,
lower consumption, and of course, quite important, pollution
prevention.
The question might arise as to who is opposed to this bill.
Obviously the only opposition at this stage can be identified
among those who are the suppliers of manganese, some
multinational companies, which do not really have at heart the
public interest.
Remember that MMT, the substance that contains manganese,
was banned already in 1978 and for very precise health reasons.
This issue has been on the agenda of publicly concerned
legislators for some time.
Members remember leaded gasoline. Lead is one of the most
poisonous substances which poses a danger to human health,
particularly to children. It has been removed therefore from
gasoline, from toys, from paints. Who was opposed at the time
when lead was to be removed from these products? It was the
very same people who now oppose the removal of manganese
from gasoline.
It can be said in conclusion that in Canada there are 18
automobile companies that view this bill as needed and
desirable. They see it of course from their perspective as being
involved in the motor vehicle production centre. As a
Parliament we have to take a view also to include health
considerations and consumer protection considerations. It is
therefore for these three reasons put together that we think this
is a bill that commands the attention and positive reception on
the part of colleagues and members of this House in the hope
that they will consider it in a favourable manner tonight and give
it speedy consideration so it can be passed and put at work for
the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.
(2030)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker,
today we start second reading of Bill C-94, an act to regulate the
provincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes
of certain manganese-based substances. More specifically, Bill
C-94 is aimed at banning the addition of a substance called
MMT to unleaded gasoline in Canada. This bill would allow the
Minister of the Environment to rid Canada of MMT, a substance
which, I would like to remind you, has been added to our
gasoline since 1977.
The minister is tabling this bill as the session is drawing to a
close, and she appears eager to have it passed as quickly as
possible. The minister's approach denotes a certain uneasiness
in this matter, an uneasiness that may be due to pressure from
automotive manufacturers who, coincidentally, are
concentrated in her region. Far be it from me to think that the
minister has decided to ban MMT in Canada for the sole purpose
of addressing the automotive industry's concerns. I am
convinced that she is acting in the public interest and that her
first concern in making decisions is for the environment. At
least, that is what we should expect from the minister.
However, in the case of MMT, the minister's intentions are
not clear and she appears unwilling to disclose the real
motivation behind this decision. Her arguments seem lame and
questionable. The minister also acts in similar fashion in several
other matters. What she is saying in this and other cases and the
information she spreads are not likely to reassure the public, let
alone environmental groups.
Her knowledge of the issues appears deficient and inadequate,
robbing her of the credibility that is needed if not essential in
such a position. This, incidentally, reminds me of the raising of
the Irving Whale, the barge belonging to the Irving company,
which has been lying at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence
since 1970 with 3,100 tonnes of bunker C fuel oil on board. In
this matter, the minister has said all kinds of things on how the
barge will be removed. Recently, the minister and her press
secretary even came up with their own raising technique, which
is not mentioned anywhere in the bidding documents.
I listened to a recording of an interview with the minister on
this subject on CBGA, a CBC radio station in the Magdalen
Islands. What I heard was utterly ludicrous. Informed people
must have shuddered when they heard the minister talk about
using something like a rubber dinghy, a sort of enormous
condom to enclose the barge 200 feet under water. That is totally
ridiculous. Who will tell the minister to stop saying the first
thing that comes to mind? Who will tell the minister to familiar-
14140
ize herself with the issues, to look at them before spewing out
incorrect information? Who from the cabinet or her department
will ask the minister to be more careful in her rhetorical
outbursts which are so nefarious for the environment?
I will now close my comments on the Irving Whale with my
sincere wishes that its salvaging, which will take place this
summer, will not turn into an ecological catastrophe. The
devastating effects would be felt for years to come and, by and
large, the minister would be held personally responsible. There
are similarities between the Irving Whale, the MMT issue and
many others. The links between all of these cases and decisions
are haste and a lackadaisical approach.
Add to that a rather murky transparency and a lack of will to
provide pertinent information, and we find ourselves in very
worrisome situations and we find that the Minister of the
Environment is increasingly challenged by specialists in the
field.
(2035)
Judging from the minister's actions, one would almost
conclude that she is in a leadership race and that she is feeling
ignored by the media. One would almost believe that she is
suddenly suffering from a lack of visibility and that it was
absolutely necessary for her to present us with something:
statements from the minister, bills and new policies
unexpectedly introduced in the House with no rhyme or reason.
They are presented to us piecemeal with no real indication of
any will on the part of the minister to draw up a game plan or to
create a cohesive environmental policy.
Why is the minister acting this way? Why does she always
want to introduce initiatives as if she were pulling a rabbit out of
a hat? The answer is simple: the environment is not on the
Liberals' list of priorities. The evidence is clear. Since the Grits
came to power, important environmental issues have not been
dealt with. The promises in the red bible have been thrown out in
the garbage, hardly appropriate in this case.
In fact, this comes as no surprise, since the whole red bible
has been shelved. The abdication of responsibility is deplorable.
The Liberals, starting with the Deputy Prime Minister, have not
done much to improve, preserve and protect our environment.
However, some hon. members opposite are very concerned
about the environment. We know them well. The hon. member
for Davenport, himself a former minister of the environment;
the hon. member for York-Simcoe; and the Quebec member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, former minister of PCBs in
Quebec, are all great environmentalists. Like us, they must be
aware of their government's abdication of its responsibilities.
But what can they do if their hands are tied and they do not have
the ear of the minister and the cabinet?
Yes, the minister did shout right and left, and she did spout
some high sounding ideas here and there. The minister even
went so far as to believe and to say out loud that Canada was a
world leader on environmental issues. Now that was rather
unfortunate, because when we consider the Liberals' record in
this area, it is clear all this is just window dressing. The minister
creates a diversion to camouflage the government's lack of
commitment.
For instance, the Sierra Club published its environmental
report card at the beginning of this month. The result: The
minister got a B+, the threesome consisting of the ministers of
Foreign Affairs, Finance and Industry got an F, for failing, and
finally, the Prime Minister got a D with a reprimand that he had
failed to instruct his cabinet to achieve the red book's objective
to reduce greenhouse gases 20 per cent by the year 2005.
All this confirms what we in the Bloc have maintained since
the very beginning, which is that the Liberals are all talk but no
action. The cabinet's strategy consists merely in putting the
minister on stage to make a lot of high sounding promises. The
cabinet has no compunction in sacrificing the minister and, what
is worse, the environment as well.
The minister should feel somewhat embarrassed about
playing this role at the behest of cabinet. In playing this role,
which suits her very well given her verbal facility-she might be
called a motor mouth-, the minister is losing a certain
credibility, however.
In addition, however, given the rather mixed results in
environmental matters, it is clear the minister is no cabinet
heavy weight. The ministers who got an ``F'' from the Sierra
Club are the uncontested leaders establishing the environmental
agenda. The environmental cause is certainly not advanced by
those with the lowest mark.
This inaction and lack of environmental will leads in the end
to trivialities, essentially no results. It started off well enough
with actions being chosen that required the government itself to
carry out internal measures, if I can put it that way, but we have
seen no external measures, which would have greater benefit.
Our government therefore shows little interest in the
environment and lacks an overall vision and policy. We have a
government and a minister that can act only within the system
and, on a few occasions, outside it, as in the case of the bill
before us today.
14141
(2040)
The Liberals are favouring a piecemeal environment policy,
which is a definite step backwards and a shameful reduction on
their part. The best example of their throwing in the towel is
undoubtedly their dropping the green plan. This plan, which was
introduced in 1990, was an overall action plan. It was
spearheaded by the Department of the Environment, which was
responsible for various aspects of its implementation, and
inspired by an environmental philosophy. The dropping of this
plan represents an unprecedented withdrawal. We are going
back many years because of the lack of sensitivity and will on
the part of decision makers who deal with the environment as if
it were a fashionable issue. Polls reveal that the environment is
no longer a hot topic. Decision makers react stupidly, putting
this issue on the back burner and withdrawing from initiatives
already under way.
By dropping the Green Plan, they are definitely saying no to a
co-ordinated approach. The minister is replacing a coherent
plan, which was spearheaded by a department with a specific
budget, by a system which leaves every department free to do
what it wants. It is as if someone had decided to scatter pieces
from a puzzle all over the place. There would no longer be any
relationship between them, and the final objective would
become unattainable. This is what the government is doing now,
it is dividing up the environment, much to its detriment.
I will remind you that the Green Plan, for which the initial
budget was supposed to be around $3.5 billion over five years,
never amounted to more than $800 million. This is far short of
the initial goal. Those responsible for backing away from this
ecological commitment are the people on the other side and the
Conservatives who preceded them. The ministers, whether blue
or red, did not have the will to pursue this innovative plan, to
modify it and to perfect it, to make it responsive to the needs of
the environment. Therefore, the budget melted like new snow in
May, without anybody paying any attention. What a pity. What
irresponsibility and lack of respect towards our environment.
Sincerely, I do not believe that this is the way to proceed if we
want to leave our children a sound and natural environment
capable of answering their needs. The nice sounding principles
of sustainable development, biodiversity, and ecosystemic
approach people use when they talk about environment, are far
from reaching the decision makers and therefore very far from
having a chance of being implemented.
The bill we are considering today deals with something that
will take place outside of government. With this bill, the
government will be able to prohibit the importation and
interprovincial trade of certain substances containing
manganese. The first targeted product is MMT, a chemical
added to unleaded gasoline to increase its octane rating. For a
start, the bill raises a number of questions as to its
appropriateness and timing.
Let us remember that on April 5 of this year, the Minister of
the Environment announced in a press release her intention of
introducing this bill as soon as possible. Indeed, it received first
reading on May 19 of this year. In her press release, the minister
said and I quote: ``This initiative will allow Canadians to
continue to enjoy the benefits of technical advances in the area
of car emission control, and to receive a protection equal to the
one received by citizens in the United States''.
With this bill, it is obvious that the minister is specifically
responding to auto makers who claim that MMT additive clogs
up the pollution control equipment. And to bring more pressure
to bear, auto makers said that if MMT was not banned, it could
cost $3,000 more to buy a car, warranties could be reduced and
the pollution control system could even be disconnected. We
might see in this some sort of blackmailing by the industry but,
according to the minister, it seems to be serious.
(2045)
The Minister of the Environment then decides to take this
prohibiting measure, not because of the polluting or toxic
effects of MMT, but because of its effects on an anti-pollution
system that will be incorporated into cars in 1996.
The proof that MMT in itself is not recognized as a toxic or
dangerous product is that the minister cannot regulate this
product under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the
CEPA, which applies specifically to toxic products. So, she has
no other alternative than to pass separate legislation.
In her press release of April 5, the minister indicated that this
decision was taken after almost two years of discussions with
the petroleum and automobile industries. We could question the
relevance and value of these discussions, since the minister told
the parties at the outset that failure to reach an agreement would
result in legislation to ban MMT.
By disclosing this intention, did the minister not introduce a
significant bias in the discussions? Had she not just told the
automotive industry: It is not necessary to discuss everything at
length, since I already support you and intend to introduce a bill.
The minister showed her clear bias in favour of the automotive
industry, which wants to get rid of MMT and all other additives.
In that regard, I wonder what will happen to ethanol, a star
additive for which the government has just launched a $70
million investment program.
If the automotive industry does not want any additives, why
does the government want to develop this product? Is there not a
flagrant inconsistency in the decision to ban an additive and the
intention of developing a different one, when the automotive
industry does not want any additives? Who can assure us that the
automotive industry will not soon ask the government to ban
14142
ethanol because of its negative effects on car parts and
equipment? I think that prudence is called for in the
development of ethanol.
Ethyl, the maker of this additive, has responded to the
automotive industry's arguments on MMT with its own
arguments, which seem quite valid. Let us have a look at them.
Removing MMT from gasoline would aggravate the urban
smog problem by increasing nitrogen dioxide emissions by 20
per cent. According to Health Canada studies, MMT presents no
notable danger to human health. Independent lab tests show that,
contrary to statements made by auto industry officials, the MMT
used in Canada is perfectly compatible with the new
anti-pollution devices, including the OBD-II diagnostic
system.
Again, according to Ethyl, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is about to reintroduce MMT in that country, following
a decision made on April 14, 1995, by the U.S. Court of Appeal
for the district of Columbia, which instructed the American
agency to lift the MMT ban and allow its use in lead-free
gasoline. The use of MMT at the refining stage results in fewer
emissions of some pollutants. Replacing MMT will cost
refineries about $100 million in capital costs, as well as tens of
millions in operating costs.
These are the arguments put forth by the producer of MMT
and the oil industry. Given all this, it is not easy to make a
decision in favour of one party or the other. The arguments used
by both sides seem valid. However, they are also hard to
evaluate and verify.
These arguments give rise to a series of questions, and the
answers to these questions are not obvious. This is why Bill
C-94 generates so much ambivalence and reservations.
The first question we must ask ourselves, and this is very
important, is whether or not the automobile industry will indeed
go ahead and increase the cost of cars, reduce the guarantees
provided, and disconnect the monitoring system and other
anti-pollution devices as early as August 1996, if MMT is not
removed from lead-free gas.
(2050)
You can imagine the harmful effects of such a decision on
Canadian consumers. That possibility is based on the position of
auto manufacturers, who feel that the MMT clogs their systems
and makes them less efficient. This malfunctioning of the
anti-pollution systems is said to result in more pollutants being
released, thus affecting air quality.
This is certainly not what we hope for, after making
encouraging progress regarding exhaust emissions. According
to a recent study sponsored by the Canadian Automobile
Association, the new emission standards helped to significantly
improve air quality. This study also showed that, over a distance
of 1 kilometre, a 1970 car caused more pollution than twenty
1995 cars.
The credit for part of the progress made must go to the
automotive industry. Through R and D, it has improved its
pollution control devices. The industry knows everything there
is to know about the devices installed on their products. So, if it
tells us that MMT is bad for its systems, then, we must certainly
agree with them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
But there is a snag. Ethyl Corporation indicates that some
independent tests performed on cars have shown that MMT is
not harmful to pollution control devices, despite what the
automotive industry has said.
In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency in the United
States has recognized that the automobile industry's concerns
over the fouling of the devices were groundless. So, what should
we make of the allegations made by the motor vehicle
manufacturers? To the question, does MMT make the pollution
control devices defective, the answer, Madam Speaker, is not
that obvious.
We should also ask ourselves the following question. Is MMT
a pollutant in itself and will its elimination from gasoline sold in
Canada increase smog in urban areas, as the Ethyl Corporation
would have us believe? First of all, according to a Health Canada
study, dated December 6, 1994, MMT does not have any adverse
health effect. Second, experts say that there is no evidence that
the elimination of MMT from gasoline would increase urban
smog. It seems that, in Canada, conditions contributing to urban
smog, including sunshine and temperature, are not combined
often enough for the elimination of MMT to cause an increase in
this phenomenon.
According to Ethyl, MMT reduces by 20 per cent nitrous
oxide emissions that contribute to the formation of smog. But
here, in Canada, it is not clear that increased nitrous oxide
emissions meet the necessary conditions to contribute to the
formation of urban smog.
If MMT is so effective in reducing smog, why is it banned in
large American cities where smog is much more of a problem
than in Canadian cities? I think we should ask ourselves this
question. Why would the United States ban a product that would
be beneficial?
On the issue of increased nitrous oxide emissions, it seems
that, thanks to a more sophisticated system, 1996 car models
will help further reduce exhaust gas emissions, which,
according to some people, would compensate largely for the
increased
14143
nitrous oxide emissions caused by the elimination of MMT, but
this has yet to be proven.
It must be noted that all these arguments are put forward by
the concerned parties. Therefore, it is not easy to make a fair
evaluation of them since it is in the best interest of the parties to
present them to us in a favourable light.
I mentioned earlier that urban smog is not a problem in
Canadian cities, but the temperatures we have had these past few
days certainly prove me wrong. Because of the heat wave, there
has been a smog advisory in effect in Toronto for the last two
days. The Montreal area has also been suffering from an
increase in air pollution. The present situation in these two large
cities is certainly food for thought.
If it were true that MMT reduces nitrous oxide emissions by
20 per cent, what would be the air pollution level in these large
cities if this additive was not present in gasoline?
(2055)
If Ethyl's argument turns out to be right, can we knowingly
and legally allow the quality of the air we breathe to be
adversely affected? Another important question is whether the
Environmental Protection Agency is going to reintroduce MMT
into gasoline in the United States in the very near future, as
Ethyl claims? Preliminary indications are that the EPA may
indeed allow MMT back on the market. In fact, the United States
court of appeal for the District of Columbia has issued a
mandate ordering the EPA to grant a waiver permitting the use of
MMT.
However, certain sources tell us that concrete action is still far
off and that, for a number of years now, Ethyl has been returning
regularly to the charge with the EPA. Until now, Ethyl's
demands were always turned down. This time, however, it seems
that the chances are much better. Ethyl conducted a battery of
tests on a significant number of automobiles and met the EPA
requirements. According to Ethyl, the tests carried out prove
that MMT does not clog the spark plugs, catalytic converters, or
exhaust gas oxygen probes, nor is it dangerous to public health.
It will be interesting to see where our neighbours to the south go
with this issue.
The impact on the petroleum industry raises another
important question. According to this industry, removing MMT
from their unleaded gas will result in relatively high conversion
costs. Furthermore, the industry claims that MMT is a good
additive which is easily mixed with gas and is making no bones
about its support for the additive.
Therefore, if we do away with MMT, what kind of additive
will take its place? This is another interesting avenue of inquiry
to consider. If we drop MMT, a very good additive according to
the oil industry, we will have to replace it with something else.
Currently, it appears that the Liberal government favours
ethanol as the replacement. We know, in fact, that a big plant is
being built in Chatham, in southern Ontario. This plant, which
will be built in two phases at a cost of $270 million, would have
a production capacity of 300 million litres of ethanol from corn
annually.
It would appear that this construction project is just waiting
for the go ahead from Treasury Board. An article which
appeared in the London Free Press on June 14 clearly said the
following: ``The paperwork sealing the federal government's
ethanol policy, essential for the construction of a massive
ethanol plant here, is expected to be signed imminently''.
There you have it. The ethanol plant in Chatham is waiting for
federal assistance. But is this plant which will produce ethanol,
an additive, connected in any way to the bill prohibiting MMT,
another additive? Is the government favouring ethanol produced
from corn grown in Ontario, the very red Liberal province in this
Parliament? Please note that producing ethanol from corn is
financially and ecologically costly. The government is cutting
taxes associated with ethanol and is considerably reducing the
production capacity of our land, all the while increasing
pollution, given the fertilizers and pesticides used to grow corn.
It is therefore most desirable that the Liberals make the right
choice when opting for ethanol.
After thoroughly analyzing all of the arguments regarding
MMT and all of the related issues, it is clear that we have to shed
more light on the whole issue. I firmly believe that all hon.
members who are evaluating this bill need more information,
more details from all of the parties concerned and also from all
concerned parties who have no stake in the issue. We would then
be in a better position to weigh the pros and the cons. At this
stage in the debate, despite everything, we look favourably upon
this bill. However, we have many serious reservations which
will have to be laid to rest when the bill is studied in committee.
(2100)
In concluding, I would like to add, after having spoken to the
hon. member for Davenport, that it is imperative that the
chairman of the committee, assisted by his clerk make every
effort to hear as many witnesses as possible, whether they are for
or against the bill, and to give us enough time with them so that
we can really find out what the best solution is from the
environmental point of view.
Should we use MMT? Should we ban MMT? Should we use
ethanol? Should we concentrate on another product? We need
clarification. I ask that we be given enough time to meet all the
witnesses concerned.
From what I have heard, it seems we will proceed with third
reading very soon. I do not think we will be ready to start third
reading unless we have shed some light on these issues and until
we are really convinced that banning MMT in Canada-the
United States may do so six months from now-is the right
decision and that we are not merely putting the oil companies or
14144
other businesses to additional expense just to pass a bill that
looks good to the public.
[English]
Mr. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to
inquire whether you are permitting questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The first three speakers
will have a maximum of 40 minutes with no questions and
comments.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, balance is needed and I hope this is what I can
represent as I respond to the government on Bill C-94.
It is amazing how quickly the bill got to this stage. I take it the
environment minister feels this bill is more important than Bill
C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, which was a red
book promise. I suppose large companies like General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler are not pushing to pass a bill that would create
a commissioner to the auditor general's office like Bill C-83
would do.
Every Canadian knows of the power of the big three auto
manufacturers. What they want they seem to get from the
minister. In this case they wanted the help of the minister to ban
the octane enhancer MMT from Canadian gasoline, and help is
exactly what they got.
When the minister held her press conference on May 19 she
said that the data the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
presented to her clearly convinced her that MMT was bad for
automobiles and for Canadians. She did not comment on the
evidence presented to her by Ethyl Corporation. When the
minister was asked to comment on that she simply stated that
she did not need to see Ethyl's data because what the MVMA
presented was correct and there was no refuting it. Essentially
what the minister was saying was that Ethyl's data was wrong
and the data from the MVMA was correct, but she would not
fully admit it.
The minister knows very well what the best solution would be
to this entire debate. She knows that a series of independent
third party tests are needed but she will not initiate it or facilitate
it happening.
As members of the House and more important as
representatives of all Canadians, it is important that we weigh
and pursue every available option to come up with an accurate
conclusion before we create any legislation. The Liberal
government calls itself responsible but I ask what is really
meant by the term responsible in view of Bill C-94. In these
technical matters it certainly does not hurt to demonstrate and
then legislate.
Some important questions should be asked on the banning of
this substance. First, was the evidence brought forward based on
accurate data and was it performed by independent testers?
Second, who paid for the evaluators and who are they
accountable to? Third, what will be the cost implications to
consumers both in financial and in environmental terms? I think
it is who pays is at the bottom of the government's capitulation
to the MVMA lobby.
I want to deal with how the minister came to the decision to
ban MMT. Apparently on September 12 last year representatives
from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler met with the minister
to discuss the banning of MMT.
(2105)
They told her that if MMT was still in gasoline in August
1995, a time when all new model cars were released, they would
do one of maybe three things. First they would raise the price of
each automobile by about $3,000. Second they would void
sections of their cars warranties and/or close down some high
tech Canadian manufacturing facilities.
The minister got spooked in a big way. This was the big three
as well as a few other importer tag-alongs telling her what to do.
They threatened to close up automotive plants and most of the
plants are located not too far from her constituency of Hamilton
East and certainly in southwestern Ontario.
The political decision apparently was not too difficult: ban
MMT. About a month following the meeting the minister told a
reporter that unless the fuel industry moved MMT from its
products voluntarily the government was going to impose a ban.
The MVMA could not have been happier: no more dealing
with Ethyl and let the federal government work the whole thing
out for itself. There was no need for a third party to come in to do
testing. Negotiations and industry collaboration went out the
window. This is where the minister failed.
There are two sides to the issue and she picked the one that
seemed politically friendly. The decision was not based on
science. It was based on short term political interest and money,
certainly not because there would be any gains for the
environment.
Both the MVMA and Ethyl have conducted tests. Both had
apparent credible statistics and yet they were contrary to each
other. Both sides were adamant that the tests they had brought
forward were accurate. I am not a scientist and the environment
minister has admitted the same in her background. I have seen
the detailed test data and the chemical charts and tables. I am not
going to stand here today to convince with a technical argument.
All I am trying to do is to provide a reasonable solution like any
responsible environment minister would do.
The solution should have been, and for that matter still can be, an
independent third party series of tests to determine if MMT
actually causes a problem to onboard diagnostic systems in cars.
Certainly MMT is not hazardous to our environment as it greatly
reduces knocks. Both sides were close to coming to a decision.
Both sides were about to approve a third party evaluation. Ford
14145
Motor Company recently did a test with MMT flavoured
gasoline to see how it would affect its onboard diagnostic
systems.
The minister has been touting the MVMA to be the expert and
most accurate in its data collection. Ford conducted an in house
fleet test composed of twenty 1994 Thunderbirds. Ten went to
Toronto and were driven for about 50,000 miles of city driving.
Five went to Florida and five to Nevada. Similar to the testing in
Toronto, the ten U.S. cars were also driven about 50,000 miles
each and were also kept to city driving. In the interim report
Ford asserted that catalyst monitoring ratios generated by the
OBD-II system in the vehicles were different in Canada and the
U.S. mainly because of MMT.
Ford claims that this was the only difference between
Canadian and U.S. vehicles. The U.S. EPA, on the other hand,
concluded ``it is difficult to distinguish small losses in catalyst
activity'' using existing OBT technology. The smallest change
in emissions which is technologically feasible to detect for
current production vehicles equipped with the OBD-II system is
a hydrocarbon emission increase or decrease of about .4 grams
per mile. Ford tests show an HE emission of only .02 grams per
mile. Apparently Ford has not released any data that would
verify if the OBD-II systems actually have the ability to
measure such small changes in emission performance.
The testing that Ford did was in three very distinct areas:
Toronto, Florida and Nevada. We are all aware that the
composition of fuel will vary from region to region. With data
provided by the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and
Environment Canada, basic differences in the gasoline between
the three test sites were rather considerable.
Let us use for example summer gasoline in Toronto. The
amount of sulphur in parts per million is about 400 and the
percentage of ether is about zero per cent. On the other hand in
U.S. gasoline sulphur content is about 248 parts per million in
Florida and about 80 parts per million in the west southwest. As
for ether, in Florida it is 1.8 per cent and in the west southwest it
is 1.6 per cent.
The reason for my explanation of these data is to show that
test parameters can vary significantly from city to city.
(2110 )
Why did Ford use these two U.S. cities to conduct its testing
when it knew full well of the differences in the composition of
gasoline? As politicians we are all very familiar with polls and
the use of polls. One poll says this and another poll says
something else. If one wants a polling company to get a
favourable answer it is possible to do so by the way one words
the questions.
I would assume the same was also true for the way testing was
done on MMT. On one side Ethyl wanted to see tests which
showed that MMT was not responsible for malfunctions with the
onboard diagnostic systems in cars. On the other side the
MVMA wanted to prove how MMT was hurting or interfering
with its systems. Essentially each party got the results it wanted.
How accurate are the tests and what are the implications for
public policy?
The bill bans MMT in Canada. The way I read it there is no
reference to Nevada or Florida in the bill, if the minister wants
to believe the data provided to her of tests that were not even
performed in this country on comparable fuels.
Some proponents of the bill will ask me for a better way of
doing the tests. I can only think of one logical way. The ban is in
Canada. Take cars and pair them up. Choose independent
locations across the country. Use two cars in each location. In
one car use gasoline added with MMT and in the other car use
the same type of gasoline without the addition of MMT. Drive
each car for the same distance and over the same terrain and in
the same climate. For instance, if one of the two cars is driven in
the city, the same should apply to the other. A wide variety of car
models should be used in varied Canadian climates and
conditions. This would seem to be the only available solution.
When people are charged with crimes and they know in their
hearts they are innocent, they agree to any test, any independent
investigation, lie detectors, DNA and so on. They are confident
and therefore they have nothing to be afraid of, nothing to hide.
Since the beginning the Ethyl Corporation has wanted to
settle the entire dispute using a comprehensive series of industry
wide, third party tests. It was confident in the outcome. The
same was not true for the MVMA. As soon as there was a hint
that the minister would back it up all future talks were cancelled.
Now it balks at the idea of independent testing. I guess its
lobbying paid off.
Early last week the United States Court of Appeals issued a
mandate ordering the EPA to grant a waiver to permit the use of
MMT in unleaded gasoline in the U.S. The court found that
MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission
control device or system. It evaluated the evidence placed
before it. I realize this does not mean that MMT will be in U.S.
gasoline tomorrow but it does mean one large step closer.
Ethyl Corporation still has a hearing before the same court in
September of this year to confirm final registration of MMT,
which would then allow for the sale of the additive. It is
interesting to note that in the above decision by the appeals court
14146
neither the auto industry nor the Environmental Protection
Agency appealed the court decision. Why? There was likely no
grounds for appeal.
On Friday I received material from the Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute that has been following the issue with great
interest. The CPPI official who was in attendance in Washington
for the decision stated:
EPA officials made it clear that, assuming Ethyl does win, the burden of proof
for any future attempts to have MMT banned will shift from Ethyl to the auto
makers. This is leading the auto makers in the U.S. to all of a sudden start talking
about a joint testing program. This is what CPPI has been proposing for the last
two years in Canada and what the auto makers have continually refused to
support.
Maybe the auto manufacturers' lobbyists are not so confident
of their position.
Even before Bill C-94 was introduced Reformers asked the
environment minister to conduct independent tests. She has
adamantly refused. Somehow the minister at least could have
facilitated it. The MVMA knew it had the inside track with the
minister. All it had to do was stall with Ethyl.
In the early stages I think the minister believed the U.S. courts
would maybe side with the EPA. The bill will become the
environment minister's legacy. There is a good chance that the
bill will pass through the House about the same time that the
U.S. begins using MMT in its gasoline again. What will the
minister do then? Will she stick to her legislation and continue
with the ban or will she flip-flop or succumb to some
international pressure?
(2115)
The industry minister has also said on numerous occasions
that the key to banning MMT in Canada is to create a uniformity
of standards between the U.S. and Canada so costs to the auto
makers rather than environmental concerns are behind this
move. According to this statement Canada will go back and
forth like a lost puppy or maybe a lapdog.
The minister introduced this legislation with hopes it would
get quick passage before the summer. She is on a deadline set by
the MVMA. The 1996 cars were about to be shipped and they
wanted to ship them with the OBD-II systems all hooked up.
It is clear now the bill will not get through all stages. The bill
will wait until the fall to be reopened for debate. Even if the bill
is passed before the end of the year manufacturers will have
already shipped their cars. The 1996 cars will not have gone up
in price and the warranties will not have been reduced, since all
the warranty manuals will already have been printed and
shipped with the cars. This is a perfect opportunity for the
environment minister since she knows the passage of the bill is
irrelevant to the timing of production for the 1996 cars.
It was once said the Liberal philosophy holds that enduring
governments must be accountable to someone besides
themselves, that a government responsible only to its own
conscience is not for long tolerable. This is befitting of the
government which occupies the benches today; to whom is it
accountable?
Before the government goes through with this legislation I
draw to its attention some of the information I have come across
during the last several weeks. I raise it for the sake of discussion.
On several occasions the minister stated in the House and at
the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development that if we do not curb global warming much of
Prince Edward Island will be completely under water. The
minister has stated that if action is not taken immediately
thousands upon thousands of jobs could be lost.
I still have a lot of questions on the whole issue of global
warming in relation to greenhouse gases, as do many Canadians.
In the reading I have done on the topic lately I have discovered
that according to scientists the biggest contributors to
greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxides, NOx.
Since we are dealing specifically with MMT we should
concentrate on the NOx emissions. I do not believe anyone will
deny that the additive MMT does reduce NOx emissions.
However, I suppose the only argument may come as to how
much NOx emissions are reduced with MMT in gasoline. It may
also be important to point out that at the 1988 international
treaty Canada committed itself to freezing NOx emissions at the
1988 level. This was all part of Environment Canada's NOx
VOC2 management plan.
Since the minister's own department feels it is necessary to
reduce these emissions it would be important for us to better
understand how much MMT actually reduces NOx emissions
and helps the environment.
This past June a month long cleaner air campaign was
launched in Toronto after results showed the outrageous levels
of smog in certain Canadian centres. The campaign was put
together by pollution probe and included some major sponsors:
Canadian Tire Corporation, Consumers Gas, Petro-Canada, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada,
to name a few.
B.C.'s lower mainland, where I come from, parts of New
Brunswick and the Windsor-Quebec corridor were found to be
the three worst areas in the country for smog pollution. The
people of Hamilton East, part of the Windsor-Quebec corridor,
need to know their member of Parliament, who happens to be the
Minister of the Environment, is banning a substance which
would help to reduce urban smog. The minister needs to be
14147
accountable to the well-being of Canada's environment. She
should also be accountable to those who elected her to office.
Ethyl Canada claims that removing MMT from Canadian
gasoline would increase NOx emission levels by up to 20 per
cent. The CPPI has added to this and made the claim that
removing MMT would be the equivalent of adding over a
million cars to Canadian roads. Those are pretty substantial
numbers for the environment.
On the other hand, Environment Canada did its own testing on
MMT and found that removing it from gasoline would increase
NOx emissions by only 5 per cent; again, two evaluations, two
substantially different numbers. Which one is correct?
I want to look at how Environment Canada came to its
conclusion of 5 per cent. Environment Canada used an EPA NOx
benefit of .08 grams per mile, based on John Holly's 1994
analysis of all Ethyl and Ford testing data. Therefore the .08
grams per mile was divided by the average of summer and
winter predicted emissions for a typical Canadian gasoline
without MMT.
(2120)
I point out something very important. John Holly's analysis is
based on MMT testing data for late model passenger cars only,
with vehicles accruing no more than 75,000 miles. Again
Environment Canada is taking data based on U.S. gasoline
which has completely different properties, most of which will
affect NOx emissions. This was something I explained earlier
when I referred to the testing done by the MVMA. We are
relatively clear that our gasoline is different than that in the U.S.
and that this would no doubt skew the results.
I am not a technical expert and so reading scientific data and
making interpretations could only be general in nature. When
we look at some of the ways MMT was tested it is clear there are
many intervening factors and uncontrolled variables, the
number one factor being the type of gasoline used in each of the
tests.
Each side has an argument about what the other side did
wrong, how its test design was inadequate or how unwarranted
conclusions were made from the available evidence. I am sure if
we were to bring both the MVMA and Ethyl together to debate
their individual cases each would have no problem finding fault
with each other's data and making circular arguments.
I now bring another player into this whole debate. All we have
heard about so far are the auto makers and Ethyl. However,
another key component to the equation is the refineries. Studies
show the removal of MMT would significantly add to refinery
costs for reformulating gasoline and increase the cost of the
refining processes.
Refineries are required to achieve cleaner burning fuels but
removal of MMT will cause refineries to increase refinery
emissions and consume a greater amount of fuel which would
require an expensive retrofitting process.
The Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment and Resource
Management stated in a May 1995 letter to Environment
Canada:
We are also concerned with the impact this decision will have on Consumers'
Co-Operative Refineries Limited in Regina. CCRL has Advised us that refining
costs will increase in the order of $500,000 annually if MMT is banned. We have
difficulty rationalizing this cost with no identifiable benefit to air quality by this
action.
This is a dollar amount from only one refinery. If we take into
account other refineries the number would be extremely high. In
the recent Kilborn study, which I understand the environment
department has still not released, it is estimated the cost to
refiners of replacing MMT in Canada would be approximately
$100,000 million in capital and tens of millions of dollars for
operating. Perhaps the minister will release this report as soon
as possible so all Canadians can see the real cost of the
implication of this legislation.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents
the majority of the petroleum refining and marketing industry in
Canada in the same way that the MVMA represents the
Canadian Automobile Manufacturers, states:
The MMT controversy is a technical issue between the auto industry and the
petroleum industry that should be decided on the basis of science-The CPPI
has repeatedly offered to participate in either a joint testing program or an
independent scientific evaluation program, and to abide by the results, but all
offers have been rebuffed.
Why should they when there is the appearance that the
minister is in the pocket of the MVMA?
I learned on Friday that the American Automobile
Manufacturers' Association is considering doing third party
testing. Apparently the recent decision by the U.S. court of
appeals has made it think twice. The Minister of the
Environment should put an immediate stop to her legislation and
let the key players work this out among themselves. I do not
believe anyone would consider the Minister of the Environment
a key player. Putting it simply, she appears to be an all too
willing politician at the behest of the MVMA.
I want to point out to the minister there is still time left before
she may become rather embarrassed. If all goes well for Ethyl
the United States may have MMT included in its gasoline by the
fall. If the minister decides to scrap the bill in the fall, she will
appear as the minister who has been hasty and not on top of her
responsibility to protect the public interest rather than the
interest of those who contribute to her election campaigns.
There will be no way of making amends at that time.
My suggestion is for the government to scrap this legislation
and begin immediately with independent third party testing. The
Reform Party would support the minister if she decided to do
this and would support subsequent government regulations
when science so indicates.
14148
(2125 )
It is time for the minister to be wise. However if the minister
continues the stubborn course and proceeds with Bill C-94 we
will have no choice but to oppose this legislation.
If the bill passes second reading the House standing
committee must hear witnesses and provide a public forum for
the scientific evidence to be displayed, not inside arguments
made within ministries but out in the open. The merits of the bill
must stand on their own. The bill must not be rammed through to
respond to the government's friends and against available
scientific evidence.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this debate tonight but I am
dismayed with what I heard from the Reform Party and from the
BQ. The fact they are not supporting our current producers of
ethanol is very sad.
Both members accused our minister of not doing a proper job.
I will probably clarify a lot of incorrect inferences they made
about our minister. I will speak to the BQ critic of the
environment from Laurentides. Are any cars produced in
Quebec?
She talked about the lack of consistency with ethanol. Ethanol
is a hydrocarbon. Petroleum comes from the Latin word petra,
which means rock, and oleum, oil. These substances are
extracted from the ground and cracked in refineries. My
colleagues from the west would know all about that since they
produce energy.
It has been said that one gallon of gasoline could actually take
an automobile 460 miles if all the energy were utilized during
that combustion process. We are moving closer to that kind of
situation as on board diagnostic equipment kicks in, knowing
how much fuel is coming in, exactly how to time the spark and
exactly how to control the combustion in the engine.
With reference to ethanol discussed by the member for
Laurentides, she was confusing an octane enhancer with a fuel.
The member accused the Minister of the Environment of not
acting in the best interest of the environment, which is exactly
the opposite of what the minister is doing. The minister is
protecting the environment. She is actually protecting
customers. She is protecting humans from contaminants.
Contaminants from automobiles in places like Los Angeles,
California, which is in a valley, are noticeable when there is a
temperature inversion that causes photochemical smog.
Photochemical smog is caused by an interaction of NOx gases
from automobile tailpipes and certain atmospheric conditions
with some sunlight.
If members opposite want to ask me a question I will be glad
to answer any and all, including technical questions. I would be
glad to tell them how a car works or exactly what the banning of
MMT means.
I will explain to the House why we are taking action against
MMT. It is a manganese based fuel additive used to increase the
octane rating of gasoline. It has been used in Canada since 1977
as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasolines. The lead was
phased out in virtually all Canadian gasoline engines by 1990.
Octane rating is a unit of measurement established by the
automative industry to determine the antiknock quality of a fuel.
When we talk about compression ratios in race cars it may be
up to 10:1 or 11:1. In diesels it is about 20:1. In a diesel the air is
compressed until it gets extremely hot, about 1000 degrees
Fahrenheit, then fuel is introduced into that engine. In an
automotive engine a spark plug is used to ignite fuel. In the case
of a high compression engine the fuel becomes very unstable
and will self-ignite.
(2130 )
If a car engine continues to run after the ignition has been
turned off, it is called dieseling. The reason it diesels is that
maybe a spark other than the gasoline in the combustion
chamber triggers it and allows it to run. It becomes very
unpredictable. In order to stop the unpredictability an octane
enhancer is used. That is partially what an octane enhancer does.
Who uses MMT? Just about every Canadian motorist does
because Canadian refineries use it. The exact amount of MMT
used may vary depending on the batch of gasoline. However,
premium grade gasolines generally contain a higher dosage than
regular grade gasoline. Canada is the only country that uses
MMT. The United States for example banned it from unleaded
gasoline in 1978.
The automobile industry is convinced that gasoline
containing MMT adversely impacts the operation of
sophisticated on board diagnostic systems. These OBD systems
are important because they monitor the performance of emission
control components in vehicles.
The automotive industry has made the decision that it will not
accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by
MMT related damage. Some companies have even indicated
they will disconnect the OBD systems in whole or in part and
may reduce Canadian vehicle warranty coverage starting in the
1996 model year if MMT continues to be used in Canadian
gasoline.
The cost of maintaining these systems are to be passed
directly on to Canadian consumers. This is where the federal
government comes in. Last October the Minister of the
Environment urged both industries to voluntarily resolve the
issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994 otherwise the
government would take action. This deadline was subsequently
extended into February of this year to review the automobile
petroleum industry proposals.
14149
The matter was not resolved so the federal government had to
step in. This action is Bill C-94. The MMT issue is no longer an
industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emission
programs we are putting into place. In the long term it could also
negatively impact the automotive sector.
Successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that the
environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most
advanced emission control technologies. It will ensure that
Canadians are offered the same warranty coverage as in the
United States and will ensure that Canadian motor vehicle
emissions control programs do not diverge from those in the
United States.
This means that Canadians continue to benefit from the cost
and technological advances in North American harmonized
fleets. It means good news to Canadians and jobs for Canadians
in the Canadian automotive sector. That is because diverging
emission standards and differing anti-pollution equipment on
Canadian cars will negatively impact the marketplace and
decrease the competitiveness of the automotive sector.
We would also be faced with a situation where cars built in
Canada that go south of the border could have more advanced
equipment than those sold in Canada with better pollution
controls on them giving better atmospheric conditions. That
clearly is not acceptable.
Let us be clear about the economic impact of removing MMT.
It will be small for the entire petroleum industry. Estimates for
the cost of MMT removal provided by the industry range from
$50 million to $83 million per year. Yes, it costs a little bit of
money to clean up the environment. It means an additional .1 or
.24 cents per litre increase at the pump. I may add that the on
board diagnostic equipment gives better mileage so that may not
necessarily affect the car. In fact the car may give better mileage
because the systems are designed to do that.
Permit me now to take a few moments to explain some key
highlights of the bill. Bill C-94 would prohibit the import or
interprovincial trade for a commercial purpose of MMT or
anything containing MMT. It will give the minister the power to
authorize exceptions for MMT that would not be used in
unleaded gasoline, subject to the monitoring requirement.
Coverage of the act can be expanded by an order in council to
cover other manganese based substances. The act is binding on
all persons and entities, including the federal and provincial
governments. The enforcement tools are similar to the ones in
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
(2135)
The penalties are strict. For the unauthorized import or
interprovincial trade of MMT, the maximum penalty on
summary conviction is a $300,000 fine and/or six months in jail
and on indictment the maximum fine is $1 million and/or three
years in jail. For knowingly providing false or misleading
information on the importation or interprovincial trade of MMT,
the penalties are the same but with a maximum of five years in
jail instead of three on indictment. On conviction, as in the
CEPA, a court can also order an additional fine equal to the
monetary benefits resulting from the offence, prohibit conduct
that may lead to a repeat offence and direct the offender to notify
third parties about the contravention.
That gives members of the House an idea of what the
government is proposing in Bill C-94. What does all this mean
to our constituents?
I do not mind saying that I come from one of the most
beautiful parts of Canada, the riding of Bruce-Grey.
Thousands of others have said they enjoy driving up to beautiful
Georgian Bay and visiting Owen Sound, Wiarton, Hanover,
Walkerton, Flesherton or going across to South Baymouth on the
Chi-cheemaun throughout the year. As happy as we are with the
tourism that our region attracts, we are also very concerned with
the toll increasing motor traffic is having on the fragile
environment.
The people of Bruce-Grey want the government and the
industry to take all necessary measures to make sure the
thousands and thousands of cars and trucks that travel our
highways and roads are operating as cleanly as possible. They
want us to make sure that increased tourism and increased
vehicular activity does not lead to an increase in environmental
degradation. In Bruce-Grey we want to protect all we have, not
just for our children but for their children, our economy and
future generations of Canadian visitors.
The views and concerns of my constituents are no different
from those expressed by other Canadians in all parts of Canada.
Canadians expect us to do what we can to preserve the
environment. They also expect us to protect jobs, consumers and
Canadian automotive technology. That is what Bill C-94 does.
I would be glad and willing to answer any questions. There are
no dumb questions on this subject because I know we are right to
protect the environment. We are protecting our plants and
animals. We are providing jobs in a sector that is extremely
important to us and we are protecting the environment. We are
protecting the air we breathe.
In California weather forecasting they talk about temperature
inversions and harmful emissions from automobiles. In many
forecasts people are told to stay off the streets because they could
14150
actually suffer from eye irritation. This will not happen here if
we allow these new technologies to be fed into the computer.
Just to recap, when we go into our modern cars and turn on the
ignition we have these on board diagnostic systems that
function. We have exhaust gas recirculation and a charcoal
container that captures the hydrocarbons. At a gas station when
someone puts the hose in the gas tank and drops of gas fall out,
that is hydrocarbon emission. In the old cars there was a vent so
they had to put in charcoal to stop it from getting into the
atmosphere. They have PCV valves. They have catalytic
converters. A catalyst is a device that will change the substances
so we can manipulate what comes out of the tailpipe.
We are trying to protect the environment with the best
technologies possible. We are trying to protect Canadian jobs.
That is what the minister is trying to do.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of
Senate amendments stage of Bill C-69, an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries, at the next sitting of the
House I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the
debate be not further adjourned.
* * *
(2140 )
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain managese based
substances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member gave a very eloquent dialogue on MMT. He
based most of his discussion on the environmental aspects of
MMT and said that it was banned in the United States.
Last week the United States district court of appeals issued its
mandate ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to grant
a waiver to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gas in the United
States because it is clearly not an environmental hazard. What
does the member for Bruce-Grey have to say about that?
Mr. Jackson: Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer and lawyers
have fun with these topics. This will be in the courts forever.
I do know that in the United States the EPA reasons are that
MMT will cause certain medical problems. That is the major
thing it is going with now. We have to understand that billions of
dollars are involved. I am sure there will be campaigns, full page
ads and what have you. It is the scientific community that has to
deal with this. Sure there will be things going back and forth.
The jury is still out on it. This dispute has been around for a long
time. It is a legal one and I do not have an answer to it. I am sure
that in the end the United States EPA will win out.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the member for Bruce-Grey talked about a
number of issues. He talked about standards and harmonization.
He talked about MMT being banned. I think he also touched on
the issue that Canada is the only country that uses it.
Our industry minister said in April: ``The member will know
that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It
is crucial that we have uniformity of standards''. The U.S. court
of appeals has now ordered the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl
Corporation's application for a waiver, paving the way for the
use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. Several
U.S. refiners have provided written notice of their intention to
use MMT. Uniformity of gasoline additives within North
America would now require Canada to maintain rather than
restrict MMT.
The member also talked about it being banned. The
environment minister on May 5, 1995 said: ``The United States
Environmental Protection Agency banned MMT in 1977 and
since that time Ethyl Corporation has consistently tried to turn
around the ban by court case after court case in which it
continues to fail''.
MMT was not banned by the EPA. It is still used in the United
States in leaded gasoline and after market products. It was used
in unleaded gasoline during the crude oil shortages of the 1970s.
In 1977 the U.S. Clean Air Act established a process requiring
new fuel additives not substantially similar to gasoline to obtain
a waiver by demonstrating compatibility with vehicle emission
systems.
Ethyl of course undertook the largest fuel additives testing
program in history which resulted in the EPA's conclusion in
December 1993 that MMT will not cause or contribute to the
failure of any emission control device or system. Contrary to the
minister's statements in May the U.S. court of appeals ordered
the EPA to grant a waiver approval to Ethyl Corporation on April
14, 1995. The minister was fully informed of this decision but
did not say anything to this House.
14151
Another comment was made by an Environment Canada news
release on May 19: ``Canada is currently the only country in the
world tht permits the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline''. MMT
is approved for use in Canada, Argentina, Bulgaria and Ukraine.
It is being actively considered for introduction in Australia,
New Zealand and other countries in southeast Asia and around
the world. These countries have closely monitored Ethyl's EPA
fleet testing program and have noted the U.S. court of appeals
ruling ordering the U.S. EPA to grant Ethyl's waiver
application. Several U.S. refiners have confirmed their interest
in using MMT in the United States.
If MMT is considered bad for automobiles and the
environment, why then does the minister not ban the substance
under the schedule in the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act? Why can we not use CEPA to ban MMT?
(2145 )
Mr. Jackson: Madam Speaker, first I would like to make a
point of clarification. I forgot that I was sharing my time with
the member for Simcoe North.
Some of the comments by the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby were contradictory. He said that in the
United States there is a court case going on with regard to the
banning of MMT, yet he says that MMT is used. If MMT is used
then we do not have a problem. I suspect that there are times
when we would have to do that. There probably are old
fashioned cars that do not use the highways as much. Certain
facilities are made in order for those people to operate their
vehicles. That may be one of the reasons they are using MMT.
The basic thing we are looking at here is as the member for
Davenport explained, there are 18 automotive manufacturers
that say that MMT will foul up the onboard diagnostic
equipment. We are talking about Canadian consumers, and we
must understand that the on board diagnostic equipment sends
messages to the computer. These are all little electronic devices.
If they become plugged and turn on the on board diagnostic
lights, it will cause these cars to be taken in for repair. The
manufacturer is going to get fed up with it and pull the plug,
which they said they would do, and stop using the light, which is
so important for these vehicles as the technology advances to the
stage where you know when your car is starting to pollute the
environment.
In the United States they have stickers and at certain times
cars go in to be fixed. But the on board diagnostics show right
away when there is a problem. The MMT will foul them up and
render them useless. By doing that it impairs the pollution
device it impairs the fuel economy of the car sputter, and it
makes the car sputter and not function properly. It takes away
that protection from the consumer.
That is what we are trying to do. The hon. member does not
want to spend any money. If the manufacturers of MMT want to
push this product and make it acceptable to the automobile
manufactuers then let them get their scientists to make sure it
works in a way that it does not do that. Let them do that, but the
Government of Canada should not be spending money for that
kind of stuff.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for
Bruce-Grey to comment on the fact that in 1991 auto research
laboratories did a study on various fuel formulations and tests
showed that an addition of a small amount of MMT to a 10 per
cent ethanol blend will significantly enhance environmental
benefits by reducing emissions that contribute to ground level
ozone and urban smog. The test demonstrated that with an
industry average fuel MMT and the 10 per cent ethanol it
reduced NOx emissions by more than 30 per cent. How would
the member respond to that piece of evidence?
Mr. Jackson: Madam Speaker, basically by using exhaust gas
recirculation. NOx emissions are caused by high combustion
chamber temperatures. Therefore by using exhaust gas
recirculation, which is triggered by the computer, it drops the
temperature in the combustion chamber and we can regulate
NOx that way through the standards that EPA expects.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-94, as most of my colleagues have
already well pointed out, is intended to prohibit the use of the
product MMT in the production of gasoline. This product is a
manganese-based additive used in practically all unleaded
gasolines in Canada since 1977.
Before I start, I think I should point out that the research done
by Health Canada indicates that the fears expressed by a number
of groups regarding the harmful effects MMT may have on
health are unfounded. On its own, this product does not harm the
environment. However, and this is the crux of the matter and the
reason the minister is putting Bill C-94 before us today,
automobile manufacturers claim that MMT in gasoline clogs the
anti-pollution devices, impeding their effectiveness and thus,
indirectly, of course, harming the environment.
I listened earlier to my colleague for Davenport say that the
only people with any interest in opposing the bill were MMT
producers or distributors. This, however, is not quite the case.
The major oil producers also have an interest in opposing it, and
we will see why in due course.
(2150)
The oil producers claim in response to the automobile
manufacturers that MMT means gasoline can be produced at a
considerably lower cost in environmental terms at the refining
stage. MMT requires less intensive processing and this means
14152
less carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and
sulphur dioxide from the smokestacks of gasoline
manufacturing plants.
In addition, MMT allows refineries to reduce the aromatic
cycles in gas and thus benzene emissions. Caught between these
two industry giants, the automobile manufacturers and the big
oil companies, which are fighting each other, is the product
distributor, Ethyl Canada, which, according to several analyses,
has passed all the required tests and is said to be ready to put its
product on the market in the United States where it was, as my
hon. colleague from the Reform Party put it, partly banned.
In fact, on April 14, 1995, the United States of America Court
of Appeal for the district of Columbia, rendered its decision in
the case involving Ethyl Corporation and the Environmental
Protection Agency, in which Ethyl contested the refusal of the
agency, on July 13, 1994, to meet its request to put an end to the
banning of MMT in unleaded gas.
The court decided and I quote: ``The administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency has broken the clearly
stipulated conditions of clause 211 by rejecting the request of
Ethyl to put an end to the banning of MMT for public health
reasons''. The court added that since Congress had given the
agency the mandate to evaluate, only in terms of emissions,
what is implied by some of the requests to stop banning a
product, and since Ethyl had met the requirements concerning
the emissions, the administrator of the agency had exceeded his
powers by rejecting the request made by Ethyl. Because of these
facts, the court sent a direct order to the agency which will, as
the court said, have to grant Ethyl its request to remove the ban
on its additive.
Therefore we can see that, in any event, the United States is
getting ready to put MMT back in circulation in a few months.
The court's explanation was as follows: ``As regards the
arguments made by the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association against the opinion of the Environmental Protection
Agency according to which MMT does not affect in whole or in
part the proper operation of the emission control system in
vehicles, the American court ruled that those arguments had no
value at all. First of all, the court emphasized that the agency
had established that ethyl used as an additive had easily passed
tests required in all the most stringent studies ever conducted''.
The court is referring here to statistics.
The court also noted that ``the Environment Protection
Agency has examined, using more restrictive criteria, Ethyl's
data on the use of the additive in more technologically advanced
vehicles'', and the court found that the agency had detected no
significant emission increase, that is no increase which could
reasonably be attributed to a sampling error.
As for the allegation by automotive manufacturers that MMT
interferes with the operation of OBD-II systems, the court said
in its ruling that ``the EPA had reasonably refuted the doubts of
the three automotive manufacturers concerning the effect of
MMT on these systems''. The court went on to say that ``under
the Clean Air Act, the EPA still has the authority needed to
establish these facts''.
(2155)
As a result, Ethyl intends to reintroduce MMT on the U.S.
market very soon, once registration matters have been settled.
Faced with this, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute
has recommended-as have the hon. member from Davenport
and my colleague from the Reform Party-that a committee of
independent experts be asked to settle the issue.
Not too long ago, Claude Brouillard, president of the institute,
said, and I quote: ``We have solid scientific and technical data
supporting MMT and its use in Canada''. However, as some
players question these facts, we are prepared to submit this issue
to an independent committee of experts and to abide by their
decision. We hope that the federal government, the automakers
and the product manufacturer will endorse this proposal''. This
comes from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute.
Therefore, the manufacturer of MMT is not the only one
dissatisfied with the decisions which are being made.
As well, Mr. Fisher, chairman of the board of this institute,
sent the following letter to the Prime Minister. I will read some
paragraphs in English. Mr. Fisher wrote this:
[English]
``The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents
the vast majority of the petroleum refining and marketing
industry in Canada, is strongly opposed to the announced plan of
the government to legislate a ban on imports of the gasoline
additive MMT.''
``We understand that the proposed legislation will be
presented to Cabinet soon. This proposal is being justified under
the banner of harmonization with the United States, but actions
currently under way in the U.S. are leading towards the probable
reintroduction of MMT into unleaded gasolines.''
``The MMT controversy is a technical issue between the auto
industry and the petroleum industry''-he is quite right-``an
issue that should be decided on the basis of sound science. It
does not require a legislative solution and it is not appropriate
for your government''-the letter was addressed to the Prime
Minister-``to be taking the action at this time. We submit that
the process followed by your government has been seriously
flawed.'' So wrote the petroleum producers, not the company
producing MMT.
14153
``When the Minister of Environment first spoke publicly on
the issue, she prbably stated that the issue should be resolved by
the two industries. The minister then went on, however, to
declare that in the absence of an agreement she would legislate
MMT out of gasoline. By declaring the outcome, any incentive
for the auto industry to cooperate in a joint scientifically based
testing program was removed.''
``The CPPI has repeatedly offered to participate in either a
joint testing program or independent scientific evaluation
program and to abide by the results''.
The chairman went on as follows:
``There are demonstrated environmental, economic, and
energy efficiency benefits from the use of MMT. We do not
believe these benefits should be lost to Canada without a sound
database on information to demonstrate that the allegations of
the automakers against MMT are valid. To date, this information
has not been forthcoming. Indeed, as the U.S. Court of Appeals
recently decided, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has accepted that automakers have not demonstrated their case
against MMT.''
``Given the probability of MMT being reintroduced in the
U.S., the lack of a sound scientific case against MMT, the
benefits of the additive and the flawed process of political
development, we strongly urge the government to not proceed
with the proposed legislation to ban imports of MMT.''
(2200)
[Translation]
Clearly, it is not only refining and marketing companies that
find this bill premature, at least in its present state, as is now
being submitted to us today.
In spite of all the adverse opinions, the minister is still
presenting her bill which settles, or tries to settle the question by
banning MMT. I think, as my colleague the member for
Laurentides said earlier, that they want to give a chance to the
ethanol program.
On December 21, 1994, the federal government announced a
new program that would promote the extraction of ethanol from
biomass. According to the Minister of the Environment, in
accordance with her policy on agriculture and with the
government's will to develop an innovative economy, the
government will implement the national program on biomass
ethanol to promote private sector investment in that industry.
Again according to the environment minister, the national
program on biomass ethanol shows that the government is quite
determined to encourage the production and the utilization of
renewable fuels wherever it is advantageous from an
environmental and an economical standpoint. Apparently, that
would be a step forward in setting up, in Canada, a renewable
energy industry. The program provides for the establishment of
a reimbursable line of credit guaranteed by the federal
government, to which a limited number of eligible applicants
would have access. A total amount of $70 million would then be
offered under certain specific conditions between the years 1999
and 2005. We can see that there is a real desire on the
government's part to promote ethanol in any way possible.
However, my colleague from the Laurentides asked a very
relevant question. What would be the point of banning MMT if
we are to spend money to use ethanol as a new gasoline additive?
I think that question deserves to be studied in committee.
Indeed, this little bill, apparently quite simple and quite
insignificant, might have an extremely serious and complex
impact.
I was listening to my hon. colleague opposite who was telling
us about technical considerations behind this project. The fact is
that there is a complex technical problem with various
consequences. My colleague was remarking that ``there are
billions behind this'', and he is absolutely right. When billions
of dollars are at stake, we should at least think about the reason
why the bill is put forward.
The Bloc will reluctantly support this bill at second reading,
with so many reservations that it will not be real support. We
hope to review it thoroughly in committee.
I hope the committee, both the staff and the members, will
take the time to make a careful study of this issue, as my
colleague from the Reform Party was asking for.
We will conduct a study that will be as exhaustive as the
government will allow, because there are too many different
interests at stake in addition to technical points about which
decisions must be made. To do so, we will need complete
explanations from some players who are independent, in some
way, in the analysis itself, because they are not part of it.
But during the whole time this bill is studied in committee, we
will keep in mind that Quebec as a whole has often been a loser
to date, in terms of investment in the energy sector, and in all
possible ways.
I would like to give the establishment of the Borden line as an
example. Those who sat in the House, or were interested in
politics at the time, remember very clearly that, in the early
1960s, international oil prices dropped so dramatically after
worldwide overproduction, that western Canadian oil prices far
exceeded oil prices on foreign markets. Refineries in the east
end of Montreal, almost all of which are in my riding or very
close to it, refused to buy oil from western Canada because it
was so expensive.
14154
(2205)
At that point, western oil producers complained and asked the
federal government to find a solution to their problem. The
government appointed the Borden commission. That
commission, which had no representative from Quebec, decided
that a line would be set, the Borden line, giving western Canada
a captive market, that is the region west of the Ottawa River, and
that a pipeline would come to Sarnia. It also decided that eastern
refiners, that is Quebec refiners, would have to get their oil from
that pipeline. Consequently, within a few years, the whole
petrochemical industry was transferred from eastern Montreal
to Ontario. Quebecers, who were refiners and sellers of finished
oil products, became buyers of refined products from Ontario.
This is a clear case, in the energy sector, of Quebec being
deprived of an economic activity which it had developed.
This morning, I was listening to the hon. member for
Longueuil. He was quite right when he said that all the major
investments made in recent years in the energy sector, including
CANDU research, amount to about $12 billion. Indeed, billions
of dollars are invested in projects such as Hibernia, but not one
penny was ever spent on hydro projects in Quebec.
Before concluding, I want to remind this House that 23 per
cent of the money invested elsewhere than Quebec comes from
Quebecers. We want to look at every side of the issue, and we
hope that the committee will give us the opportunity to meet all
those concerned with this issue.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member made reference to the District of Columbia
circuit court decision, as have previous speakers.
I have a fax statement I would like to read and ask the member
a question. It is fax from the EPA to Environment Canada that
reads:
EPA has just learned of the D.C. circuit's decision requiring the agency to
grant a fuel additive waiver for the manganese-based gasoline additive MMT.
The agency is disappointed in the court's decision that EPA cannot consider
health effects in deciding whether or not to grant these waivers.
This decision does not mean that unleaded gasoline containing MMT can
now be sold. The Clean Air Act also requires that all new fuel additives,
including MMT, must be tested and their health effects studied before they can
be registered for use.
In 1994 EPA issued rules implementing this requirement that will govern the
testing of MMT. MMT is not currently registered for use in unleaded gasoline.
The agency will therefore require the testing concerning potential health effects
of MMT be completed prior to its approval for this use.
[
Translation]
I would like to know whether the hon. member is aware that
tests will have to be completed before MMT can be used in the
United States.
Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of that. A
Health Canada study showed that MMT is not a threat to health
and the environment. We will find that report for my colleague.
Mind you, reports coming out of Health Canada are not always
reliable.
For example, UFFI was supposed to be fabulous. People had
to spend billions of dollars to remove the stuff from their homes.
Let us remember also the thalidomide and silicone breast
implant problems. I always take what comes out of Health
Canada with a grain of salt. Health Canada tells us that MMT is
not a health hazard.
My colleague's question underscores an obvious fact. We are
dealing here with an extremely complex issue that has
implications in health, technology, and chemistry. Those who
will examine this issue in committee will have to rely on experts
to understand all the aspects of it.
(2210)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to mention a rather interesting
phenomenon. Listening to this discussion in the House
concerning additives to the gas used in cars is a reminder of
where the federal government is at compared to Quebec. In
Quebec the electric car has been invented. An inventor in
Montreal by the name of Couture has reinvented the wheel.
He has developed an electrical system by equipping each
wheel with a motor, making this car the car of the future.
Pollutants will be eliminated because, as we know, the whole
discussion around MMT involves whether or not it pollutes,
whether or not it is detrimental to health. In Quebec, we will
eliminate pollutants. We will eliminate exhaust pipes. This will
be a car without an engine. This electronic car is a major step
forward for the entire world, and it began in Quebec.
Once again, this shows how Quebec has made progress in this
field, as it has in many others, in trying to come up with the best,
environmentally friendly solution for a healthier society. I was
curious to know if the hon. member agreed with me that Quebec
is already a frontrunner in the search for a solution to all these
questions of gas and pollutants.
Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's
remarks most interesting, as I was just speaking about this this
morning. In fact, whenever we look at gas and additives to it
such as MMT, ethanol or whatever, we are looking at chemical
roducts, all of which, in one way or another, pollute. Take
ethanol, which is not supposed to be a pollutant. Its manufacture
from corn and fertilizers will damage the soil.
14155
So the electric car, which needs no gas or other fuel, is an
unprecedented opportunity for Quebec to take the lead in
technology that does not exist anywhere else. I think that the
people who are asking us for our vision of society see this as part
of that vision. We could very well decide to electrify all our
public transportation in Quebec, the buses travelling between
cities and, gradually, all cars, and develop our own technology,
which we could eventually export, especially now that we are
the largest producers of electricity.
So I think my colleague is right, it is a key to the future, one
which, in our case, will mean that in a few years we will no
longer be wondering about chemical products, with their
inevitable repercussions.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies poses an
interesting question. I would like to ask him a question.
It is said that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can
only be changed from one form to the next. Nothing is free.
Electric technology is still in its infancy. Battery technology is
getting better but only for short runs. However, when we build
hydro dams there is environmental damage. If we move to
nuclear, there are costs as well. There are no free rides. We
cannot say that electric cars are a panacea. They may become
part of the mix of transportation systems but there are costs.
For instance, in the 1960s the demand for hydro power was
doubling every 10 years. There are costs. Nothing is free. The
automobile will still be there and we will still have to contend
with the way it performs and try to improve it.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. Bill C-94
proposes to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation
for commercial purposes of certain manganese based
substances.
(2215)
Before I go any further, let me clarify for the House what
MMT is. MMT or methylcyclopentadienyl manganese
tricarbonyl is a fuel additive. I am really pleased I had my two
years of organic chemistry in order to be able to fumble through
that. I will be using MMT for the rest of my speech.
MMT is a fuel additive which boosts the octane of gasoline
and increases its efficiency. It has been used since 1977 in
almost all Canadian unleaded gasoline.
MMT was introduced as an additive to gasoline when lead was
banned and its addition has proven to enhance the effectiveness
of fuel and has shown environmental benefits. This bill is
designed to eliminate the use of MMT which is a lead
replacement in unleaded fuels.
Bill C-94 allows the minister to authorize an exception for
MMT. It will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to
monitoring requirements. Coverage of the bill can also be
expanded by order in council to cover other manganese based
substances and the bill will be binding on all persons, including
the federal and provincial governments.
The penalties for unauthorized import or interprovincial trade
of MMT are harsh and range from a $300,000 to $1 million fine
and six months to three years in jail. That is pretty stiff.
I have several concerns with the bill. I am concerned about the
government initiative in this matter in the first place. The
government should not be interfering into private disputes
between businesses. That is what this is. It should be resolved
between the concerned parties and not by government
legislation.
I am also concerned about the lack of research behind the bill.
The government has refused to conduct an independent
technical reviews to address the issues in dispute, as suggested
by several provinces, gasoline refiners and the manufacturers of
MMT. Instead the government is legislating a ban on a product
without any proper investigation.
This is a technical industry issue which can only be resolved
through an independent technical review, not by subjective
government action. Reform has been very clear that it does not
want to take sides on the issue. It has met with both sides, Ethyl
and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associations, MVMA,
and both sides appear to have credible arguments. Both sides
have run exhaustive tests and come up with two different and
contradictory results. This is why Reform feels that there is a
need to run a third party independent test on the product before
any conclusions are reached.
I am concerned that the bill is going ahead despite the fact that
government does not have any conclusive evidence that MMT
has an adverse effect on the environment. The minister's claim
that MMT has been linked to increasing vehicle repair costs to
the engine and emission control systems are unfounded. There is
no external evidence to support any claim that the removal of
MMT will decrease repair costs to the motorists.
The minister also claims that MMT causes on board
diagnostic units to malfunction in the new 1996 cars. There is no
evidence to support this either. The MVMA claims to have data
to support this claim, but Ethyl says that test results from the
largest EPA approved fuel additives testing program in history
demonstrate that contrary to claims by the MVMA, MMT in
Canadian gasoline is fully compatible with the new on board
diagnostic catalyst monitoring systems.
Again, no independent third party testing has been conducted
in Canada on MMT and the 1996 on board diagnostics. There is
also no evidence to support claims that MMT damages the life of
14156
emission control equipment or that the use of MMT in gas
increases fuel consumption or pollution.
This legislatio is based solely on the evidence developed and put
forward by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, one
of the parties directly involved in the dispute. Again, none of the
evidence has been subject to third party analysis.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Associations has not made
their evidence available to the general public. One has to ask
why. Of what are they afraid?
(2220)
When asked in the House of Commons for evidence to support
this legislation, the minister side stepped the issue, refusing to
bring the evidence into the open. Why? Clearly because the
minister does not have sufficient evidence.
In fact there is evidence that appears to point to the contrary.
Health Canada conducted a study in December 1994 which
concluded that the current use of MMT does not harm
Canadians. The report stated: ``All analyses indicate that the
combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an
added health risk to the Canadian population''. Evidence
provided by Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, also
contradicts the conclusions of the MVMA.
It is important to note the method the government is using to
implement this ban. The legislation proposes to ban MMT
through a trade restriction, not an environmental ban. It is
important. Why? Because the government has no legislative
grounds to remove MMT for health, environmental or technical
reasons. If there is something environmentally wrong with
MMT then use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Do
not use a trade ban. There is something wrong with this picture.
If the government is going to ban a substance it should have
conclusive evidence that will support the ban which it does not
have.
I am concerned about the precedent set by this bill of
government interfering in business. The two concerned parties,
industry and Ethyl, are both making contradictory claims and
have been unable to smooth out their differences on their own.
Before the environment minister stepped in, the two sides
were close to negotiating an understanding to bring in third
party testing, which is what we want. However, the minister's
interference in this issue has brought matters to a standstill. As
soon as one side felt the minister was on its side, all talks were
broken off. Rather than helping the situation the minister's
interference hindered the course of events.
I am also concerned that Bill C-94 sets a precedent for
business to drive the government agenda. The MVMA has
threatened to raise automobile prices and to withdraw
automobile manufacturers across the border if these companies
do not get their way. This bill is clearly the response.
Government should not be responding to unfounded threats
from the business community with legislation. This is no way to
run the country, although it may now be the new way of Liberals
doing business.
My concern with Bill C-94 is not who is right or wrong. I do
not feel I can take a position on the issue because at this point
there is not enough evidence to support one side or the other. My
concern with the bill is the manner in which decisions are being
made by government. Government should not be making
decisions until there is clear third party, unbiased evidence on
the table. There needs to be a fair and independent technical
review of the facts.
Given that most automobile manufacturers are based in
Ontario it is clear why the government has chosen to support the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association in this dispute.
Lobbying is the issue here, not MMT.
Government should not base its legislative decisions on
lobbying or on where it feels its election interests may lie. MMT
is the only gasoline additive available in Canada that is capable
of reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by as much as 20 per cent.
Nitrogen oxide emissions cause urban smog. A ban on MMT
could have the equivalent effect of adding one million cars to
Canadian roads by the year 2000 if we do not have an equivalent
replacement.
If a replacement for MMT is not identified, its removal from
gasoline will prove to be more environmentally detrimental than
leaving it there in the first place. This should be of concern
because it appears that environment department officials do not
know what will replace MMT. This bill only allows six months
for its ban to be effective. Six months does not allow enough
time for industry to adjust.
Canadians should also be concerned about the cost of the
legislation on the individual consumer. It is estimated that
taking MMT out of gasoline will cost an estimated $109 million
in capital costs and tens of millions of dollars for operating
costs. These costs will be dumped on the consumer which will
mean an increase in gas prices.
(2225 )
Several provinces have voiced their opposition to this bill. I
wonder how the government justifies the restriction of import
and interprovincial trade of MMT with Bill C-88 which
proposes to remove interprovincial barriers to trade. Again it
does not fit.
The spirit and intent of Bill C-94 represents a unilateral
interference into provincial affairs. The province of Alberta has
stated that Bill C-94 contradicts the energy chapter of the
agreement on internal trade. Article 1209, section 1 states that
14157
no party shall restrict, prohibit or hinder access to its petroleum
markets or its petroleum products markets.
Alberta has questioned the environmental benefits of
removing MMT and has demanded a fair and timely process to
resolve the dispute. Saskatchewan's deputy minister of
environment has stated the MVMA has not convinced
Saskatchewan and the majority of provinces that there is any
evidence to show MMT has an adverse effect on the on board
diagnostic systems.
Why is the Minister of the Environment ignoring these
concerns shared by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick? Could it be that perhaps she is in the pocket of
the auto industry?
I am also concerned that the environment minister's actions
directly contradict what is currently taking place in the United
States. The Americans have recently overturned the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association's evidence, the same
evidence on which the proposed legislation is based.
Let me repeat that because it is important. The Americans
have recently overturned the MVMA evidence, the same
evidence on which the proposed legislation is based. The
19-year prohibition of MMT was recently lifted by an U.S.
appeals court because the evidence of its effect on the
environment has been shown to be inconclusive. Last week the
United States district court of appeals issued its mandate
ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver
to permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United
States.
This reaffirms the findings that MMT does not cause or
contribute to the failure of any emission control system or
damage the environment. The order to grant a waiver follows
from extensive program testing of the fuel additive.
I am concerned that the minister is jumping the gun with the
bill. It appears that MMT will probably be reintroduced into the
United States this fall. At the same time, the minister is taking
action to ban the product in Canada. It simply does not make any
sense.
Actions in the United States put a large question mark on the
efforts of the environment minister to ban MMT in Canada. We
have to ask again, why?
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that I do not
support this legislation. I do not support legislation based on
lobbying and threats, and I do not support legislation that fails to
obtain a fair and independent technical review of the facts.
If this legislation is to go forward, I agree with my colleague
that it must go to the environment committee. Extensive
witnesses from both sides should be called. The only way that
this can be solved is a clear third party independent study to find
out what are the basics.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member
for Westminster-Burnaby before him made the allegation that
the minister is in the pocket of the motor vehicle manufacturers.
If that is the case, I would like to ask the hon. member why it
is that MMT has been disallowed for use in leaded gasoline in
the United States since 1978? Was the EPA in the pocket of the
motor vehicle manufacturers as well?
Did he not hear the statement that was read containing the
facts from the EPA to the effect that the granting of the waiver
does not permit the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline? It was
simply a technical decision made by the District of Columbia
circuit court to the effect that the EPA could not consider health
effects in deciding whether or not to grant these waivers. The
issue of using MMT still will be the subject matter of extensive
testing on health effects.
(2230 )
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, on the first point, about the
minister being in the automakers' pocket, clearly this whole
process is coming forth through pressure from the automakers,
many of whom are in southern Ontario. The pressure is there.
The minister has bowed to the pressure, and that is unfortunate.
In terms of the waiver, the minister is making my point, in that
what we require is a third party independent look at this
situation. I will go back to my former life and use 2,4-D as an
example. The member for Davenport will understand the
background. No matter which side of the issue, whether the
banning of 2,4-D or the use of it, either side could get as big a
pile as they wanted of the evidence. It was very difficult to get a
clear, independent, middle of the road decision. This is what is
required. I believe this is what the Americans are fighting for on
this waiver. Again they are just bowing to saying this is exactly
what we want.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, to
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, for whom I have the
greatest respect, no matter where the automotive industry is
located, the industry serves Canadians from coast to coast,
regardless of their location.
Here we are talking, among other things, of meeting the
requirements of the customers in terms of warranty and in terms
of the ability of the car owner to determine whether through the
diagnostic system the anti-pollution devices can work or not.
The hon. member is shaking his head, but that is a fact. If he
has more information to add, I would be glad to listen to him in
this debate.
The member for Comox-Alberni spoke about the importance
of independent testing. I am told that independent testing has
been carried out by both sides of the debate, by the car
manufacturers as well as by the petroleum industry. How much
more independent testing does the member for
Comox-Alberni want? Does he realize that testing is
expensive, that it takes
14158
time? And while further tests are taking place, as proposed by
him, the manufacturing industry is in the process of producing
the diagnostic devices, which will then not be switched on or
connected if the MMT additive is not removed from gasoline.
Therefore everybody will be losing in the process.
Has the member for Comox-Alberni given any thought to all
the consequences of his suggestion flowing from further
independent testing?
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Davenport. We are on the same committee and I have a great
amount of respect for the member.
In terms of the diagnostics and the unit that is already being
made, I view this as industrial blackmail in that the automakers
are saying they already have it on board and since it is already
made we have to change the legislation. That is just absolutely
wrong. We cannot have the automakers or any industry in
Canada ruling the government which is what they are attempting
to do here.
Again I will go back to my independent study. The member
says that both sides have their studies. I agree but where is the
independent study that is in the middle?
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, if some months ago someone had come to me
saying that a political party in this House with a strong rural base
is going to be advocating a position in favour of prolonging the
use of MMT in Canada, I would have said to such a person that
obviously they were wrong, that could not possibly be true.
(2235 )
Tonight we have in this debate something rather unusual
happening. I submit this to the House and invite my colleague to
respond.
I represent an agricultural constituency where corn is
produced. With the use of ethanol there is little or no need for
MMT. I understand there are other substitutes as well that
produce octane enhancement.
The member opposite was challenging the hon. member for
Davenport a moment ago in advocating that we need further
independent tests. What kind of a reason do we have to prolong
this product, which is largely if not totally made outside of the
country, banned in the country where it is manufactured, used in
this country principally because it is banned where it comes
from, and furthermore damages motor vehicles, the health of
Canadians, and does no good for the agricultural industry in
Canada on top of that? With that kind of evidence, how much
more independent testing do we need before we realize there is
damage being done to cars, the health of Canadians and the
agricultural industry? Why is the member supporting it given
that kind of evidence?
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, the member simply backs up
my point. There is a U.S. ban that has been overturned by the
court of appeal and members on the other side fail to recognize
that. They just seem to think that it will go away, and here we
have an industry that is pushing forward.
The member was pushing the ethanol industry. Ethanol is
fine. It is one of the additions, but it is not the answer. It takes
more energy to make ethanol than it does to make gasoline. It is
certainly part of the formula, but it is not the answer.
The hon. member was saying that he was surprised to see a
member opposite stand up with this point of view. Again, it
simply shows that the other side knows very little about where
the Reform Party is coming from. They are going to see an awful
lot more of the Reform Party. I am putting them on notice.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if there is still time I want the
hon. member to respond to the following.
Last year I was forced to replace my car. As part of the new car
warranty I was told by the dealer that in Canada the oil in that
particular model has to be changed every 6,000 kilometres,
versus every 18,000 in the United States. I asked the dealer why.
The only reason I was given was that the gasoline additives we
use in Canada cause damage to motor vehicles.
I ask the hon. member how he could possibly be promoting
and supporting the production and sale of a product that has been
banned in the United States and somehow is still legal in
Canada, given the damage it does to cars as well as to all the
other things I mentioned previously? Does he not see that this
product is not desirable for our environment, for motor vehicles,
or for the health of Canadians? It does all this harm and the
member opposite, for reasons I do not understand, says that all
of this does not matter. It has not been used for years and years in
the United States, and now, just because there has been a recent
court decision, notwithstanding the fact that it has not been used
in heaven knows how long, all of a sudden he takes a position in
favour of this particular product which was banned south of the
border.
(2240 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): A very brief answer, the
hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Your time has expired.
Mr. Gilmour: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I will just sum
up. What can we expect from a member who is going to take his
advice from a used car salesman?
14159
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the privilege to speak to this Chamber about
Bill C-94, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act.
[Translation]
Before addressing specific elements of Bill C-94, I would
like to say a few words about some environmental concerns of
mine regarding what the government has already done and, more
importantly, what it is going to do in this area.
Allow me to underline a few facts supporting my concerns.
World population is increasing at the rate of about 90 million
people every year. In the last 150 years, it has climbed from 1
billion to 6 billion. According to projections, it will reach
between 10 billion and 14 billion in the years 2000 to 2050.
From 1960 to 1990, economic activity grew at a compounded
annual rate of 3.8 per cent. The growth rate in any given year
exceeded in absolute terms the global economic activity in
Europe in 1939.
[English]
Clearly at the heart of our environmental concerns lies the
historical trend of unprecedented expansion and acceleration of
human activities that now threaten vital components of the
earth's ecology. Major impacts include forests vanishing at the
rate of 17 million hectares per year, 6 million hectares of
productive dry land turning to desert each year, 140 plant and
animal species becoming extinct each day, and air and water
quality on a global scale is declining at an equally alarming rate.
The bottom line of all this is that the combined impacts of
population and these other pressures cause environmental
capacity limits to be exceeded locally, regionally, and globally.
It is now clear that without some major shifts in policies and
practices a continuation of these trends is ecologically
unsustainable.
Clearly with our current transportation practices we are not
winning the war. Canada has launched a number of initiatives to
limit pollution from motor vehicles. We have eliminated the use
of lead additives in gasoline. No longer will we have to worry
about the potential threat to health, especially to the health of
our young children, that the presence of lead in gasoline posed.
As of last fall we have reduced the sulphur content of diesel
fuel, which when used with more technologically advanced
engines will reduce the emission of particulates and black
smoke emanating from large trucks and buses.
[Translation]
In the red book, the Prime Minister supported the
development of renewable energy technologies. To this end, the
government has launched the national bio-ethanol program.
Announced last December, this program will support the
development of ethanol production through a refundable line of
credit to qualified candidates who want to establish bio-ethanol
fuel production plants in Canada.
The program, which will be managed by the Farm Credit
Corporation, will guarantee up to $70 million in loans between
1999 and 2005. In other words, the government will help only
those renewable energy companies that initially invest their own
capital and resources. There will be no subsidy, no megaproject.
The government will lend its assistance only after the private
sector has invested its own capital for five years.
[English]
This is the fiscally responsible way to help turn wood chips,
straw, grain, and other biomass waste into energy that can be
used to fuel our vehicles.
Properly blended ethanol gasoline can reduce carbon
monoxide emissions, which degrade urban air quality, can
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are the primary source
of greenhouse gases, and can also reduce benzene emissions, a
substance declared toxic under CEPA, into the atmosphere. The
program is targeted to encourage ethanol production in every
region of the country.
(2245)
This is a sound example of the concept of sustainable
development. We can deal with an environmental problem and
create jobs at the same time.
Our standards for exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of our
cars and trucks are among the most stringent in the world. These
standards set strict limits of nitrogen oxides which contribute to
acid rain and are a key component in the formation of smog.
They also set limits on the amount of hydrocarbons, another
major contributor to smog, cars can emit and on carbon
monoxide.
[Translation]
While pollution created by individual cars and trucks has
gone down significantly, these vehicles are still a major source
of air pollution, since their number has increased considerably.
They are said to be responsible for 60 per cent of carbon
monoxide emissions in Canada, 35 per cent of nitrogen oxide
emissions, and 20 per cent of emissions of carbon dioxide, the
greenhouse gas primarily responsible for climatic changes.
This is why my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of the Environment, is going ahead with a number of
initiatives, including a comprehensive program designed to
control pollution caused by motor vehicles. To that end, the
federal government is pursuing a strategy to control motor
vehicle emissions. That strategy includes, among other
measures, the implementation of more rigorous standards to
control exhaust emissions. This requires advanced technology,
such as the sophisticated systems developed by Diagnostic Inc.
14160
[English]
However there remains one obstacle to the introduction in
Canada of the next generation of emission control technologies,
the continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer presently
used in unleaded gasoline. Bill C-94 calls for a ban on the
import and interprovincial trade of MMT. MMT is not
manufactured in Canada but imported from the U.S.
In Canada the use of MMT as an octane enhancer is allowed in
unleaded gasoline up to the maximum of 18 milligrams of
manganese per litre. In the United States the use of MMT in
unleaded gasoline has not been allowed since 1978. We have
heard much discussion this evening about the case in the District
of Columbia where the waiver has been ordered to be issued by
the EPA to the manufacturers of MMT, but this does not allow
the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States.
The automobile industry is convinced MMT adversely affects
the operation of these advanced emission control technologies.
All the domestic manufacturers and automobile importers agree
that MMT adversely affects their sophisticated on board
diagnostic systems.
These systems are planned for introduction on new Canadian
vehicles starting in the 1996 model year vehicles. On board
diagnostic systems will monitor the emission control
components and alert the driver to a malfunction. This
equipment could ensure that automobiles are properly
maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and
improved fuel economy. In other words this is one more
important tool to help us address pollution, including urban
smog and climate change.
[Translation]
Clearly, reducing motor vehicle pollution requires a
concerted effort on two fronts: first, improvements in motor
vehicle emission control technology such as those allowed by
the advanced systems used by Diagnostic Incorporated, and
second, improvements in the composition and properties of
fuels.
[English]
Therefore the government cannot allow MMT to compromise
the ability of Canada's auto industry to design and deliver
vehicles to Canadians that can achieve important pollution
reductions. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers
have the right to the latest emission control technology
available. This is especially apparent when this same
technology will be offered to American consumers starting with
the 1996 model year because the United States presently has
MMT free fuel.
(2250)
[Translation]
To repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister stated, we cannot
wait any longer. It is now time for action. Any additional delay
would threaten the federal emission control programs.
[English]
In summary, this action is pro-consumer, pro-business and
pro-environment. Therefore, I urge all members to support this
action.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have listened to a number of speakers from
the government side and to their rationalizations and
explanations. I want to further respond because a lot of
questions remain unanswered. In my questions and comments I
will put some more questions and maybe we will get some
answers. I have a dozen questions.
Why has the government refused to conduct an independent
technical review to address issues in dispute as suggested by
Ethyl, Canada's gasoline refiners and several provinces?
Having refused an independent technical review, how can the
government justify removing MMT when the claims and
concerns of the MVMA about MMT and vehicle emission
systems, including the new OBD systems, have been considered
and rejected by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. court of appeals?
Why would Canada ban the import of MMT as it is about to be
reintroduced into unleaded gasoline in the United States? Why
would the environment minister have chosen to address this
issue by restricting trade?
How does the government square the restrictions of import
and interprovincial trade of MMT with legislation currently
before the House of Commons to remove interprovincial trade
barriers?
Why is the government ignoring opposition and concerns
expressed about this unilateral federal action by the provinces of
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?
How can the Minister of the Environment support an action
which studies conclude will result in an annual 50,000 to 60,000
tonne increase in smog causing NOx from Canadian vehicles?
If MMT is replaced, what will the replacement be and what
will the cost to consumers and refiners be? What are the
environmental and health impacts of potential replacements?
Why have the Minister of the Environment and all major
automobile manufacturers refused to meet with Ethyl Canada?
14161
What pre-1996 models have been impacted by these alleged
MMT related problems and what specific MMT related
warranty claims have been made and why have the
manufacturers not notified consumers before?
Why did the MVMA turn down a specific proposal for a
technical review of alleged MMT related problems made by key
executives representing petroleum refiners and automobile
makers at the joint industry task force in 1993?
How can the Minister of the Environment explain her
statement if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to
remove OBD systems? This would result in a tenfold increase in
vehicle emissions; lots of questions and no answers.
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct,
there are lots of questions. I will give him several answers. I do
not think I will be able to list them all because I could not write
them down quickly enough.
In answer to the first question about the government's not
ordering independent testing, for a party constantly telling us
there should not be government intervention in the business
affairs of the country, I find it very difficult to understand. This
is an issue motor vehicle manufacturers and petroleum
producers have been working on for quite some time. They have
not been able to come to an agreement or to an understanding on
it. Consequently the government is forced to act and I think that
is appropriate.
The hon. member asks why the ministry is acting on a trade
basis. It is not. It is on a consumer protection basis. CEPA is not
being used. The hon. member is a member of the environment
committee and knows the environment committee is completing
and will be tabling tomorrow its report on the five year review of
CEPA so that it is seen by many to be inadequate for the purpose
and a very long and protracted reason. That is why the minister
has chosen to take the course she has taken here.
Reference was made to the court case in the District of
Columbia, and several speakers have referred to it this evening.
The case does not guarantee or permit the reuse of MMT in the
United States. That was a decision on a technical basis as it was
read from the fax sent from the EPA on the technicality that the
EPA could not use health considerations. It could use only the
testing of the equipment in refusing to issue that waiver. Under
the Clean Air Act there is still much testing to be done on the
health issue. It is far from a given that MMT will pass all those
tests.
(2255)
On the question of substitutes, ethanol is a very acceptable
substitute to MMT. The government has taken the initiative to
assist with some tax considerations with the establishment of
ethanol plants throughout the country, including in areas
represented by our hon. friends in the Reform Party. That is a
very reasonable substitute and the government is acting
properly in allowing it.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have four questions which I was able to jot down while the
member for New Westminster-Burnaby made his intervention.
If MMT is replaced, what will happen then? Nothing different
than what happened-
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I
believe it was the hon. member from the government side who
was speaking. The hon. member for Davenport is asking the hon.
member from-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster is correct. The person we should be
asking our questions of or making our comments to is the hon.
member for Simcoe North.
Mr. Caccia: I would be glad to ask the member for Simcoe
North whether he would agree that the answer to the question
posed to him by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby in
relation to the removal of MMT has not been answered already
in the United States by the fact that it has happily functioned in a
very responsible way since 1978, the date when MMT was
removed. Therefore there would be no difference in Canada to
the pattern already established south of the border.
The question was also raised, and I ask again my hon.
colleague whether he would agree, as to CEPA. That is a very
legitimate question. The member for New
Westminster-Burnaby is a member of our committee. The
CEPA legislation does not permit at the present time to deal with
substances like MMT. An amendment would be required to
CEPA. He may want to take that initiative.
The other question was why move now when MMT is being
reintroduced. This is the strange notion tonight that has emerged
as a result of various interventions across the aisle. MMT is not
being reintroduced. There is only a technical procedure in the
courts that has been somehow upheld by way of a waiver. It has
nothing to do with reintroducing MMT.
It was asked why the Ethyl corporation was refused a hearing
by the government or by the minister. I can understand very well
why Ethyl would not be given an interview. It is one of the most
regressive and litigious corporations in North America. It has
never taken to heart public interest or public health. In that
respect Ethyl is out of luck with any good government.
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, out of deference and respect
for the hon. member for Davenport, I agree with all of his
statements.
14162
(2300)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, despite the late hour of 11 p.m., it is somewhat of a
pleasure to rise to address Bill C-94, the Manganese based Fuel
Additives Act.
For those members who have been told they must vote for this
bill and have therefore decided that they do not need to
understand the whole issue, I would like to give them a few of
the facts surrounding this lobby effort by the powerful auto
industry.
MMT has been used in Canada in unleaded fuel since 1977.
Contrary to some disinformation in the papers, MMT has also
been used in the United States since 1978 in leaded gas.
Congress passed laws that said that all additives for unleaded
fuels had to get a waiver from the Environmental Protection
Agency before they could be used-all additives, not just MMT.
In their previous applications to use MMT, petroleum
companies were unable to provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that MMT should be given a waiver. In the last
application the EPA reviewed evidence from both sides. Auto
manufacturers contend that MMT should be banned because
they believe that MMT gums up the new anti-pollution systems
mandated for all cars in 1996. The onboard diagnostic systems,
or OBD as they are called, apparently get coated with
manganese and the car companies claim this results in
inaccurate readings. They state: ``Manganese based additives
precipitate the degradation and failure of vehicle emission
systems''.
The petroleum companies ran their own tests and did not find
MMT adversely affected the performance of the OBDs. Further,
they point out that the auto companies' own tests prove that
MMT does not adversely affect the detection of emission
failures. When the system detected a problem, the failure light
went on.
This finding is important, because now Canadian auto
manufacturers are threatening to disable the dashboard light that
signals the control system is not operating at optimum. By
disabling the detection system, the car companies are
deliberately, and spitefully I might add, preventing Canada from
achieving pollution and emission targets.
The EPA, with its very strict standards, reviewed the evidence
from both sides. It found no reason to refuse a waiver for MMT
based on its effects on the emissions control equipment. The
EPA administrator first noted that ``use of Ethol's product in
unleaded gasoline at the specified concentration will not cause
or contribute to a failure to achieve compliance with vehicle
emission standards''.
However, she went on to cover other factors beyond her
mandate with respect to the waiver application. She found that
``there is a reasonable basis for concern about the effects on
public health that could result if EPA were to approve the use of
MMT in unleaded gasoline''. On those grounds the
administrator again denied the waiver. However, on April 14 the
U.S. Court of Appeals overturned this decision, noting that the
reasonable basis for concern that she applied was not consistent
with section 211(c) of the act, which deals with health factors.
Specifically there must be ``significant risk to public health'',
which was not found in this case.
I would like to know why the Minister of the Environment has
not addressed this aspect of MMT. It would seem to be her duty
to protect Canadians against airborne pollutants, which will
negatively impact on their health. Instead of pursuing this, the
main objection by the EPA administrator, she is passing
legislation to ban the importation or movement of MMT across
borders.
Why does the government not have the gumption to stand up
to blatant threats by the auto industry? It has warned that it
would slap an extra $3,000 on the price of all 1996 model cars,
void all exhaust system warranties and simply disconnect the
new anti-pollution devices if Ottawa did not act by August. I
want to know what the $3,000 would be used for. Is it going to
research and development to make slightly different pollution
control systems for Canada? Or, is it a fearmongering tactic by
the car companies?
We have had MMT additives since 1977 in Canada. Why were
the effects of MMT not built into the OBD tests over the last
several years?
Another reason the auto industry has given for its position is
to harmonize the North American market. It does not want to
invest in technology to meet Canada's requirements, only those
of the U.S.
(2305)
Harmonizing the North American market sounds like a great
plan during this age of NAFTA and free trade, except for one
thing: the EPA has been ordered to give a waiver to American
petroleum producers to start using MMT in unleaded gas. The
appeal date on that decision expired last week without an appeal
by the auto manufacturers or the EPA. If they felt their facts
were so solid, why did they not appeal?
Mr. Forseth: No evidence.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Even more
important for Canada, it appears that as a result auto
manufacturers are now considering a joint testing program
between the U.S. and Canada because MMT may be on the U.S.
unleaded gas market within the year. And note I said ``may be''.
What will Canada be doing as MMT fills gas stations across
the border? Preventing its movement to appease the current
whims of the auto industry. While the government commits
itself to eliminating internal trade barriers in Bill C-88, the
14163
Minister of the Environment is busy erecting them in Bill C-94.
Not only does this demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Liberal
commitment to freer trade between the provinces. It also
demonstrates the inability of the Minister of the Environment to
act decisively and responsibly on an important issue. Lacking
the hard evidence to defend the outright elimination of MMT in
fuels, she is caving in to the lobbying efforts of one group.
Instead of making her decision based on technical information
regarding the problems with the use of MMT, she is completely
sidestepping the issue.
Bill C-94 means MMT can still be sold and used wherever it
is produced. So petroleum producers could produce MMT in
southern Ontario, where most cars are driven, and they would
not be prohibited from selling it at the pumps. Somehow I do not
see how this addresses the real issue of whether or not MMT
contributes to pollution or should be used at all in Canada. This
merely prevents the transport of MMT across borders but does
not prevent its use.
If I were a suspicious and cynical westerner I might question
the regional economic impacts of this bill, which seem to far
outweigh any environmental concerns the minister might have. I
might wonder why the minister refuses to consider studies by
petroleum producers in western Canada or the United States. I
might wonder if she represents the interests of all Canadians in
all industries or merely a select few in Liberal territory in
central Canada.
If I were really cynical I might wonder at the timing of the
introduction of this bill, during the Ontario election campaign,
in the province most dependent on the auto industry. When faced
with an ultimatum by the auto companies to ban MMT use by
August, what did the government do? Did it get tough and try to
determine what the truth is regarding its effects? No, that would
be too much to expect.
The government has a very bad track record when it comes to
standing up for Canadians in the face of pressure from big
industry. Remember the powerful tobacco lobby last year, when
the government refused to look at a real solution to the
smuggling problem. Instead of raising export tariffs or beefing
up our anti-smuggling patrols, it gave the tobacco companies
what they wanted: lower taxes to add new teenage smokers to
their growing list of the addicted.
Instead of finding out the truth about MMT, the government is
acceding to the demands of the car lobby without independent
proof of its claims. What is more, possibly because they cannot
prove the harmful effects of MMT, the environment minister is
not actually banning it, just restricting its movement.
Something is not quite right here. Why is the Minister of the
Environment championing a bill that says and does absolutely
nothing about protecting the environment? Until we have an
independent study, the only things being protected here are the
interests of the auto industry.
What will some of the consequences of this legislation be?
For one thing, increased pollution from sulphur emissions in
western Canada, where the refineries must change their
processing. If MMT cannot be moved interprovincially,
producers will spend an additional $100 million to switch over
to another fuel additive and will have to refine the gas more for
higher octane levels, thereby increasing sulphur emissions. Is
that increase in pollution included in the minister's
calculations?
There will be up to a 20 per cent increase in nitrogen oxide
levels emitted by cars if we ban MMT. Of course now the car
manufacturers dispute the 20 per cent figure because of the
changes they have been forced to make with the new pollution
controls.
(2310)
Kicking and screaming, the auto industry finally started to
invest some research and development dollars into eliminating
pollution. Suddenly it has found that it can reduce nitrogen
oxide levels substantially. It does not dispute that MMT would
decrease nitrogen oxide levels further, only that it will not be as
much as 20 per cent because it has finally started producing
more efficient cars. However, no one has calculated how much
nitrogen oxide levels will go up once a final balance is reached
between more efficient cars and less efficient alternate fuel
additives.
Let us look at the other side of the equation. How much would
it cost auto manufacturers to develop a flushing system or
technology to deal with the effects of MMT? I think $100
million seems a little steep, but I am not a scientist or a chemist.
I do not pretend to understand why research to solve the problem
would cost more than $100 million. Either way, it is the
Canadian driver who is going to lose.
MMT has been in use in Canada for 18 years. There is no
guarantee that it will not be around for another 18 years. If the
auto industry had such grave concern about the effect of MMT
on emission systems, why was that not built into the original R
and D? Why should the federal government legislate a ban on
the movement of MMT because the auto industry did not deem
the Canadian fuel market important enough to consider it while
it was developing its OBD systems?
On the one hand, if we do not use MMT we have the potential
for increasing hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other smog
ingredients, with their various negative health effects. On the
other hand, if we keep MMT no one will know if or when the
emission systems fail because the detection systems will be
disabled.
I want to turn now to the second part of the debate, which
seems to have been buried in Canada but was the reason the EPA
initially denied the waiver for MMT in unleaded gas in the U.S.
That is the issue of airborne manganese and its effects on the
health of Canadians.
14164
We have known for more than a hundred years that airborne
manganese is harmful and results in neurological disorders
similar to Parkinson's disease. It has been an occupational
hazard in manganese mines, where workers breathe in an
extremely high level of manganese dust.
One would think that the Minister of the Environment would
want to ban MMT if it contributed to unsafe manganese levels in
our air. In light of the EPA statements, one would think she
would want to conduct tests to see whether Canada should
control airborne manganese. Why does she not? Why instead
does she go through a ridiculous loop to ban the interprovincial
trade of manganese based substances? Should she not as
Minister of the Environment be more concerned about
emissions?
Although Environment Canada has not conducted studies on
this issue, Health Canada has. Its findings are very interesting
and refute the EPA administrator's reasonable concerns about
the health risks of MMT with hard evidence. The Health Canada
study attempted to determine a safe daily intake of airborne
manganese. Our bodies can handle ingested manganese much
better than airborne manganese. It is an essential part of our diet.
However excessive intake of manganese can result in an
accumulation in the brain, which will cause the neurological
problems I mentioned. Infants and older people are particularly
susceptible to the negative effects.
What did Health Canada discover? After establishing a safe
daily intake level it studied airborne manganese, particularly
that related to MMT. Even garage mechanics fell well inside the
acceptable range of manganese inhalation. The major findings
regarding MMT are as follows, and I quote from the study:
Levels of respirable manganese in major Canadian urban centres have
remained constant or decreased from 1986 to 1992, and do not reflect major
changes in MMT use during that time, suggesting that MMT does not contribute
substantially to manganese concentrations.
The part of the study I found most enlightening was with
respect to why the minister might be reluctant to initiate a study
on the effects of MMT related specifically to airborne
manganese in particular industrial towns. The study reads:
Inhalation exposure to manganese has been assessed for residents of cities
with large manganese-emitting industries such as steel mills. Current mean
ambient air manganese levels are at, or substantially above, the acceptable daily
intake. Inhalation uptake from all age groups approaches or exceeds the total
daily uptake. This raises concern regarding chronic exposure to manganese for
residents in these cities and recommendations are made regarding this issue.
(2315)
If we had an environment minister truly concerned about the
effect of emissions on Canadian health one she would be right on
top of trying to control manganese emissions from steel plants
in towns like Hamilton. Perhaps that is expecting a bit too much.
Obviously we need an independent review or study to
determine the truth. Each side has studies supporting its
particular view. The petroleum industry has been pushing for
such an independent study but the auto industry has balked. I
wonder why that would be. Why has the Minister of the
Environment not proposed an independent study? A number of
reasons come to mind.
One reason might be the power of the auto industry in
southern Ontario, a veritable Liberal stronghold. Maybe she
does not think we need an independent study because she only
believes the studies by the auto industry and not the ones by the
petroleum producers.
Before putting this ban in place, the Minister of the
Environment must act responsibly and commission an
independent investigation into the environmental effects of
MMT and its use in cars. This must include pollutants such as
the expected increase in sulphur and other emissions at
refineries and the increase in nitrogen oxide levels estimated at
the equivalent of one million additional cars on the road.
Then it should look at the other side of the equation that might
result from the removal of MMT, at the increase in airborne
manganese levels, verification of a Health Canada study which
indicated there was not a health risk linked to MMT use, the
failure of emission control systems and the overall failure rate.
Car manufacturers have not provided such numbers to my
knowledge.
When all these factors are considered perhaps the government
could make a rational decision based on hard evidence rather
than just cave in to the auto industry and the jobs and votes they
represent in Liberal ridings.
The main objective of the car companies appears to be to
standardize fuels in North America. They could not care less
about pollution or emissions in Canada. Because they cannot
change the American market, they will get their wish by
coercing the Canadian government. Do we not have a right to
our own standards in this country? Why should any industry be
able to dictate terms to us?
In conclusion, the Minister of the Environment by passing
this bill to block the interprovincial trade of MMT is not acting
in the best interests of the Canadian people. If there are
significant health risks and pollution problems associated with
the use of MMT, I would be the first to stand behind her, back her
up and support her. However she refuses to conduct an
independent study.
A reduction in nitrogen oxide levels for every car may far
outstrip any potential pollution from a few failed OBD systems.
It is time the minister starts acting like the Minister of the
Environment for Canada, not the minister of the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association.
14165
The minister should do the right thing and order an
independent study.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member, as did the other two speakers on behalf of the
Reform Party, called for an independent study. I am a little bit at
a loss to understand what is going to be accomplished by this
independent study.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association issues
warranties. It is to the benefit of consumers that we have
warranties with our motor vehicles when they are purchased. If
an independent study was done and the petroleum industry was
proven right, what would that do toward compelling the auto
industry to change its opinion and issue warranties? As far as I
am aware, this is done strictly as a business decision by the
manufacturers. There is no legislation compelling them.
What would be accomplished by the result of an independent
study favouring the opinion of the petroleum industry?
(2320 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
thank the member for his question.
It is my understanding that the OBD systems on these vehicles
were requested by the American government, obviously to
control pollution.
One of the biggest problems with the whole issue has been the
inability of the petroleum industry on one side and the car
manufacturers on the other side to get together and develop
something that would benefit both industries and all Canadians
and Americans. I hope that would be the outcome of an
independent study. If the two sides could agree who should
conduct the study and to abide by the results of the study, that is
the kind of thing Canadians are looking for.
Suffice it to say that the two sides should be brought together,
which has not been the case in the past. We have been getting
these constantly conflicting statements from one side versus the
other.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
imagine that the Reform Party had the same experience as us last
week. The Minister of the Environment came to our offices to
brief us on MMT.
As the official opposition critic on environmental issues, I
asked to see the studies conducted by car makers to find out why
they oppose the use of MMT. We were told that these studies
were not available because they were secret.
It is very difficult to take a stand on an issue when we cannot
have access to documents and when we are not informed. It is
true that the department's position was explained to us and that
officials from Ethyl Canada also came to present their own
position. Yet, we cannot get a clear picture of the real situation.
I certainly understand the position of the member for Simcoe,
as well as that of the chairman of my committee, who are
environmentalists, but they are also members of the Liberal
government. What we are asking for-and I agree with Reform
Party members, this is a rare event, but it sometimes
happens-is a clear, independent study, conducted according to
the rules of ethics.
I want to ask the hon. member if he agrees with that and if he
had access to the studies by auto manufacturers to the effect that
MMT is really harmful to the anti-pollution system in cars?
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it is
quite an occasion for me to completely agree with a member
from the Bloc Quebecois. I thank her for the kind comments on
this subject.
It is indicative of the difficulty that Canadians and industries
have trying to deal with the issue. We agree that we require a
neutral third party to look at the issue rather than forge ahead
based on the information on one side of the argument.
It is interesting to note her comments about the studies the
automobile industry says it has done and yet these studies are a
secret. If the studies support their side of the argument, why
would they not bring them forward? To me that would be
obvious.
I support the position of the Reform member for
Comox-Alberni who earlier said that at the very least if the
government is intent on forging ahead and ramming through the
legislation as it has done with so many others in the past month. I
would hope, following the vote at second reading, that the issue
would be referred to the environment committee with a mandate
to do a very intensive study and hear the various sides.
(2325 )
I certainly prefer, as does the Bloc obviously, to see an
independent neutral study done but at the very least the
environment committee should be given the mandate to look at
this issue.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
fascinating to hear the member for Prince George-Peace River
insisting on this question of an independent study.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the
hon. member on questions and comments or is this on debate?
The Speaker: It is questions and comments.
Mr. Caccia: I will make it short. The member admits that
there are conflicting opinions on this matter. They are
conflicting because these are industries with diverging if not
conflicting interests. Therefore the study would have to be
carried out by an independent source.
14166
Is the hon. member willing to have these studies, which are
rather expensive, conducted by the government at the expense of
the taxpayer? That is my first question.
My second question has to do with the statement he made
earlier about the cars costing $3,000 extra. This is a cost,
assuming the figure is correct, that would be levied on the
Canadian consumer in his riding as well. Would it not make
sense to the hon. member to support a measure that would
prevent an additional cost being charged to the consumers in his
own riding?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I feel
the premise is that we just assume this $3,000 figure. I have not
seen evidence to support it. That is fear mongering on the part of
the auto industry to get its way with the government.
I have not seen the evidence that would support the $3,000. I
used it because it was a threat that the automobile industry used
to get its way with the government and the government bowed to
that pressure.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
know we are running out of time, but I cannot stand by when
threats such as these are made. I must say these threats that we
would have to pay an additional $3,000 in insurance are
somewhat ludicrous when we are talking about the environment.
Quite frankly, a great environmentalist like the hon. member for
Davenport should not even mention things like that.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for
Davenport, because I think he has done some excellent work on
our committee, but if it is a matter of politics, and I have a
feeling this is strictly political, a conflict between the industry
and the auto makers. It involves Ethyl Canada and the new
ethanol plants in which the minister is about to invest $70
million. A number of levels are involved here, and it is very
political.
Now, I want to see this matter discussed at the environmental
level, starting today, and for heaven's sake, let us get serious and
start considering the environment, once and for all. The
government got rid of the Green Plan, and in its stead, we got a
commissioner for the environment. The government eliminated
a number of things that were very important for the
environment.
We should stop digging in our heels about a matter that is
purely political. I would like to see this referred to committee,
with as many witnesses as possible, so that we can get a really
clear picture of what is at stake here. Right now, the amount of
lobbying going on is incredible. I have never seen this with other
bills, especially not on the environment.
I think the environment comes first. I hope all members in this
House who work on environmental issues will get together and
make an environmental decision, not a political one just because
the minister has decided to invest in a certain issue.
(2330)
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member from the Bloc is quite right: We have to
depoliticize the whole process and get it back on sound technical
grounds. That is what the opposition in unity is calling for.
On who should pay for the independent review, the two
conflicting positions should equally pay for the independent
review.
* * *
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion
in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69,
an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries; and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary
North relating to Senate amendments to Bill C-69, an act to
provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
Call in the members.
(2345)
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the division on Bill S-7 and Bill C-295
be taken after the other votes we will be proceeding with; in
other words that they be taken out of sequence and at the
completion of other votes.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 300)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
14167
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -193
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2355 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
lost.
* * *
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of Bill C-89,
an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian National
Railway Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act
and for the issuance and sale of shares of the company to the
public, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report
stage on Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the
Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada
Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of
shares of the company to the public.
14168
(2400 )
We will now vote on Group No. 1. The first question is on
Motion No. 4.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all members of
Parliament who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House and in the
following manner. Liberal MPs will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members will vote yea, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will vote
no, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yes, except for
those who wish to vote otherwise.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 301)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-50
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
14169
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young-192
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to co-operate and
perhaps accelerate things here, you might find unanimous
consent to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and
17. For Motions Nos. 14 and 15 you might find that same
consent, but I understand that New Democratic Party members
might be voting otherwise on Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we would give unanimous consent
to applying the vote just taken to Motions 8, 9, 10 and 17. On
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 the NDP votes no. On Motion No. 11 we
vote yes.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 301.]
Mr. Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 lost.
We have it all straightened out. The only thing we had not
talked about in the last series was Motion No. 11. The question is
on Motion No. 11.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is
unanimous consent for applying the result of the vote just taken
on the previous motion to the motion now before the House.
Members of the Liberal Party will vote against Motion No. 11.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of
the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yea,
with the exception of members who wish to vote otherwise.
(2405)
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yea on this motion.
Mrs. Maheu: I would like to add my vote to that of the
Liberal members on Motion No. 11.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 302)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-96
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
14170
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 303)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-47
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
14171
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young-195
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 303]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 301]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find consent to apply the vote taken on report stage
Motion No. 4 in reverse to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There not being unanimous consent, there will
be a recorded division.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 304)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray
14172
(Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young-193
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Sallaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Woolfe)
Leroux (Shefferd)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pommerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-50
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2415 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried and the bill read
the second time.
* * *
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C-85,
an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report
stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a
certain provision.
We are dealing with Group No. 1. The first question is on
Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent that members who have just voted be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote yea,
except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be abstaining on all
the report stage motions on Bill C-85.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
14173
(Division No. 305)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-93
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare the Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the same result to report stage
Motions Nos. 6 and 40.
(2420 )
Mr. Duceppe: Oui.
14174
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Speaker: I understand the New Democratic Party will be
abstaining.
Mr. Blaikie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 305]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 6 and 40 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 3.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
I believe the same result could also be applied to Motions
Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 35 and 39.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote against this motion and agree to have the votes apply to the
motions mentioned by the government whip.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will vote yea to all
the report stage motions as outlined by the government whip.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 306)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-46
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-Y
14175
ork-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -194
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 lost.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 306]
The Speaker: I also declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 35
and 39 lost.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 307)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -193
14176
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-47
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2430 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules and related acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the
third reading stage of Bill C-70.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that the vote taken on report
stage Motion No. 11 of Bill C-89 be applied in reverse to the
motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 308)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -147
14177
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-96
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(2435 )
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion of Mr. Gray under Government Business No. 24.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members oppose
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote no,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise. I would
like to be recorded as voting yea on this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yea on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 309)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
14178
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young -153
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-90
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the deferred division at report stage of Bill
C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House. Liberal members will be voting nay on this motion.
(2440)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members oppose
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Reform Party members will be voting yea, except
for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yea on this.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 310)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
14179
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -194
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
The Speaker: I declare the Motion No. 1 lost.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By
unanimous consent now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, are you asking for consent for
third reading of Bill C-86?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. However,
we feel that the next few days should provide ample time for
third reading. Our critic on agricultural issues would like to
speak in support of the bill.
The Speaker: Now?
14180
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: At the next sitting of the House.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
amendment of the member for Simcoe Centre to Bill C-88, an
act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.
The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted
on the previous motions be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to the motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will vote
yes, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes no.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 311)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-46
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
14181
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -197
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2445 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
_____________________________________________
14181
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill S-7,
an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor
vehicles, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: This vote will be a bit different and I will tell
you why. It is on Bill S-7 and we are going to be voting by row.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed
to the deferred divisions at report stage on Bill S-7, an act to
accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles.
The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motions 3, 5, and 6.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row, as I
said, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in
favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other
side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion
will be called in the same order.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 312)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-42
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
14182
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -196
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2455 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost. I therefore declare
Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 lost.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.) moved that the bill, as
amended, be concurred in.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that you
ask the House to consider applying the vote just taken in reverse
on concurrence.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, most members of the Reform Party
will vote no except for those members who wish to vote
otherwise.
The Speaker: Those in the Reform Party who are going to
vote please stand. We have Mr. McClelland and the clerk will
record the following: Mr. White, Mr. Ringma, Mr. Frazer and
Mr. Hart will vote yea.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party votes
yes on concurrence at report stage.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 313)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLau
14183
ghlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -196
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2500 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that you take the
vote just taken and apply it to the motion for third reading.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Mr. Boudria: Agreed.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find the vote we just
had can be applied in the same way. If members of the party
agree, I agree.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 313]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian
peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the
National Defence Act in consequence thereof, as amended, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Friday, June 16, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on
Bill C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian
peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the
National Defence Act in consequence thereof.
As this is a private member's motion, we will proceed as we
did with the other private member's motion. We will begin on
my left.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 314)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
14184
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-93
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso) Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -145
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Gaffney
Langlois
Patry
(2510 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have paid
close attention to the number of votes taken tonight with
members of the House participating and I want to check with the
Chair to see if we could be informed why the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada has not participated in the voting
tonight.
_____________________________________________
14184
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1995, I put a question to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage about budget cuts affecting a program
designed to subsidize the distribution of magazines and
publications. At the time the minister told me he would check
with his officials and find out how effective the cuts were.
However, I may recall for the benefit of the minister that
cutting a job in the cultural sector has a more significant impact
than it would in other sectors. For instance, it is said it costs
about $20,000 to create a job in the cultural sector. Reducing
subsidies for magazines and publications would have a far more
significant impact in terms of jobs lost than similar cuts in other
sectors.
14185
The cultural sector is very sensitive to reductions in subsidies.
In the current context it is clear the government must make cuts.
However, one always wonders whether the cuts are appropriate
and if it would have been possible to avoid them by raising
additional taxes in some way, to avoid having to cut this kind of
program.
In this particular case the current government's decision is not
one with which we can feel comfortable, considering the impact
this decision will have on cultural industries. Furthermore, this
decision adversely affects the dissemination of Canadian and
Quebec culture. The publications and magazines that receive
these subsidies tend to have a fairly low circulation and may as a
result of this decision be forced to stop publishing, which is a far
more drastic impact than what the minister had in mind.
I would like to know whether since my question was put, the
government received additional information it could use to
analyse the situation or perhaps find alternatives so that the
cultural sector would not be penalized by the government's
decision.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
respond to the concerns of the hon. member.
As announced in the finance minister's February budget, the
postal subsidy will be reduced. This cut follows earlier cuts
already announced in the previous government's December
1992 economic statement and in the finance minister's April
1994 budget.
These cuts have been planned as follows: 10 per cent in
1993-94; 10 per cent in 1994-95; 15 per cent in 1995-96; and 20
per cent in 1996-97.
This breakdown explains the difference between the 8 per cent
reduction reported in the latest budget and a 24 per cent
reduction mentioned in some newspaper articles.
Despite the extent of these cuts, we are happy to point out
once again that the postal rate increases for 1995-96 have been
restricted to 5 per cent for paid circulation periodicals and to 10
per cent for small community weekly newspapers.
Also, we have successfully participated in the effort to reduce
the deficit while protecting minority language weekly
newspapers and ethnic newspapers. It is a success that deserves
special recognition.
With regard to the overall evolution of the budget for the
postal subsidy, it was first reduced from $220 million to $110
million by the previous government by excluding certain
categories of beneficiaries and by moderately increasing the
rates for the existing beneficiaries.
The previous government had decided to eliminate all foreign
publications, periodicals distributed free of charge and dailies
from the program. In April 1993, $25 million was devoted to the
creation of a replacement program for the Canadian book trade.
Access to the postal subsidy is now reserved for paid circulation
periodicals, for library books and for small community
weeklies.
I hope this response will reassure the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup regarding the short and
medium term future of the postal subsidy.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion
to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.19 a.m.)