CONTENTS
Monday, October 2, 1995
Bill C-277. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15073
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 15078
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.) 15078
The House resumed at noon. 15078
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15088
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 15097
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 15098
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15100
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15100
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15103
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15103
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15104
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15105
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15106
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15106
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15106
(Motion withdrawn.) 15109
(Motion withdrawn.) 15109
Bill C-101. Consideration resumed of motion 15110
Division on motion deferred 15119
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15122
Division on motion deferred 15133
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.55 p.m.) 15133
The House resumed at 6 p.m. 15133
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15133
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 26 15133
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 15134
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15135
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 25;Nays, 147 15135
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
amendment. 15136
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 125 15136
Bill C-101. Consideration resumed of motion 15137
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 120; Nays, 52 15137
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 15138
Bill C-84. Consideration resumed of motion 15138
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 120; Nays, 52. 15138
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 15138
15073
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 2, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genital mutilation
of female persons), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-277 is technically an amendment to the
Criminal Code of Canada dealing with the subject of female genital
mutilation. This issue raises a wide variety of concerns: legal,
medical, immigration and multicultural. All of these issues must be
addressed when dealing with Bill C-277.
The most important issue the bill raises is that of clashing
cultural values. How tolerant is a multicultural country like Canada
supposed to be in accepting the cultural values of immigrants? As a
general rule, Canada has been one of the most tolerant nations in
accepting and encouraging differing value systems.
However, this acceptance has not and cannot be absolute. For
example, Canada has not accepted polygamy as an acceptable way
of life, even though it is common practice in many nations. Some
might argue our refusal to accept polygamy is discriminatory. My
response to such criticism is simple. If you do not like the rules we
play by in Canada, do not come to our country.
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees come to our
nation every year to start a new and better life, but when they come
to our country they agree to play by our rules. Our rules say one
cannot have more than one spouse and, more important, that one
does not mutilate little girls. Female circumcision is just that,
mutilation.
There is no religion in the world that prescribes female
circumcision as part of its doctrine. It is rather a cultural tradition
in some countries in northern and eastern Africa. Because Canada
accepts immigrants from all over the world, it is an issue that now
is a concern for Canadian law makers.
During the first hour of debate on this bill, members from all
parties provided examples of why this is an issue in Canada. While
I will not repeat the examples, suffice it to say there appears to be a
body of evidence that female genital mutilation is taking place in
Canada today. While there appears to be a fairly substantial body of
evidence that female genital mutilation is occurring in Canada,
there has never been a prosecution of anyone involved in such a
procedure. Why?
The bill presented to the House by my colleague from Quebec
would make anyone who commits genital mutilation guilty of an
indictable offence. As well, anyone who aids, abets, counsels or
procures the performance of female genital mutilation would be
similarly guilty of an indictable offence.
The members from the government who spoke on the bill believe
more counselling is needed and if criminal charges are necessary
they can be covered by existing legislation.
(1105 )
What better way of counselling anyone who comes from a
culture that practises female genital mutilation than by having a
section in the Criminal Code by which if anyone commits female
genital mutilation or even aids, abets, counsels or procures such an
act he or she is guilty of a serious crime?
If we are serious about eliminating this practice that is the
message we should be sending to these communities. I ask the
government members who say current legislation already covers
this act why there has never been a prosecution of such an act in
Canada. If there ever is a prosecution under the assault causing
bodily harm provisions of the Criminal Code, the defence would be
arguing there never was any criminal intent to cause bodily harm.
By making this a specific offence, as laid out in Bill C-277, all
the crown would have to prove is that those charged knowingly
participated in female genital mutilation.
I have to agree with the members for Calgary Southeast and
Bellechasse who called for an increased maximum sentence. If, as
15074
Liberal members suggest, charges could be laid under the assault
causing bodily harm provisions of the code, the maximum penalty
for committing this specific crime of female genital mutilation
should be the same as the 10-year maximum that exists for assault
causing bodily harm.
Let us not make any bones about it, female genital mutilation is a
serious offence committed against young girls in the 10 to 12-year
range. It is, in effect, extreme child abuse.
While I am generally reluctant to give the provincial legislatures
any advice on how to run their affairs, I will make an exception
here. I strongly believe that once Parliament passes Bill C-277 or
similar legislation the provinces should make amendments to their
child protection acts. These amendments should make the reporting
of female genital mutilation mandatory for those employed in
health, education and social service professions.
It is important the House send a clear and strong message to
everyone in Canada that anyone involved in the practice of female
genital mutilation is committing a serious crime. However, I
believe that before we get to that stage, Bill C-277 should be given
a complete hearing at the committee stage. I would like someone to
appear before the justice committee and explain why female
genital mutilation should not be criminalized. I would like to be
there and hear somebody attempt to defend this practice. I would
like to hear someone explain to Canadian parliamentarians why
such acts should be allowed to continue in Canada.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion the committee would be
unable to find anyone who would publicly justify female genital
mutilation. How does one possibly defend the indefensible?
While I believe the issue should be reviewed by the committee, I
will not even attempt to give the pretence that my mind can be
changed. Female genital mutilation is a violent sexual assault
committed against young children under the pretence of a cultural
value.
Whether it is a traditional culture value is irrelevant. Can anyone
imagine if descendants of the Aztec or Mayan cultures came to
Canada and wanted to revive the old cultural tradition of human
sacrifice? How about the old tradition of 17th century North
Americans of burning women suspected of being witches at the
stake? Of course Canadians would never support such things. It is
outrageous to even think about it, as is the ritualistic, violent sexual
assault of little girls. Some cultural traditions deserve to be
extinguished. This is one of them.
Bill C-277 is a good step in making sure this practice never gains
a foothold in our country. By supporting Bill C-277 we send a
message to those communities that still practise this terrible
tradition that such acts will not be tolerated in Canada.
I am happy I do not share the guilt members opposite seem to be
racked with when dealing with cross-cultural conflicts. I take pride
in having this opportunity to denounce the barbaric act of female
genital mutilation and I will stand with those members who support
this legislation at second and third reading.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for
Québec, for her courage and tenacity. Courage because she rose to
demand new legislation on the practice of genital mutilation.
Tenacity, because she continued to push for her bill despite a
negative response from the Minister of Justice, since she was
convinced that it was both appropriate and necessary.
I am therefore pleased to speak in this debate in support of Bill
C-277, since I share the belief of my colleague and the large
majority of women and men across Canada and in Quebec that the
current legislation must be clarified and reinforced in order to
protect women from these barbaric acts.
I share her conviction that the Minister of Justice's great sense of
responsibility will lead him to concur that such a modification to
the Criminal Code will be beneficial and to revise the decision he
reached in April 1994.
The Minister of Justice's decision not to criminalize excision
was based on two arguments: charges may be laid against those
practicing excision under the present provisions of the legislation,
and the intent is to focus on prevention.
I feel that those two arguments are too weak to justify the
decision not to make any changes to the Criminal Code. I have
nothing against prevention and information, far from it; one cannot
be against what is right, but as Machiavelli said many, many years
ago, virtue alone has no effect on man unless it is reinforced by a
degree of deterrence.
Prevention is fine, but above all specific legislation needs to be
passed to prohibit the practice of mutilating the genitals of women
and girls. After all, what is there to prevent after the harm has been
done?
At present, the Criminal Code prohibits anyone from assaulting,
causing bodily harm to or killing another human being. The
minister contends that these provisions are enough to prohibit all
kinds of genital mutilations. I think not, because this legislation is
too vague and does not deal specifically enough with excision. A
person who performs or causes this kind of mutilation to be
performed could use religious and particularly cultural arguments
to justify this practice. Legislation such as the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms require that the various cultures be recognized and
promoted.
It so happens that genital mutilation is a standard in many
cultures, including Africa and Asia.
15075
I do not think we all have to be lawyers to understand that the
existing legislation is not as efficient as the minister would have
us believe. Several provisions are likely to discourage a crown
prosecutor from preferring charges or a judge from convicting to
the full extent of the law in such instances, however few they may
be.
Education and prevention are fine, but that is just not enough.
Monitoring needs to be instituted to find, denounce and, more
importantly, punish offenders for real.
Action is required. Existing provisions do not prevent such acts
from being committed. Also, one can seriously question the
effectiveness of a prevention policy consisting merely in
information. The only choice left is for the legislator to make a
special law to unequivocally criminalize the practice of such
mutilations.
Bill C-277 is not that complex. It does not call for a complete
overhaul of the system. It is just a few lines long. And let me quote
the proposed amendment to be added after section 244. It reads as
follows:
A person who:
(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia
minora or clitoris of a female person; or
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any
of the acts described in paragraph (a) is guilty of an indictable offence andliable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(1115)
That is all. Two small paragraphs. That is all we need to settle
this matter once and for all. I do not understand why the minister is
reluctant to pass a bill that is so short but that would reinforce the
current Criminal Code and make it much more of a deterrent.
Allow me to speak of this issue in a little more detail. According
to studies published in 1993-94, between 85 million and 114
million of the women alive at that time had undergone genital
mutilation.
According to some figures, the number of genital mutilation
cases has increased by 2 million a year in nearly 40 countries in
Africa, Asia and the Middle East. These procedures are performed
on girls aged 4 to 10 on average. That is appalling.
Although impressive, these figures do not say anything about the
trauma experienced by these girls, most of whom are quite young.
They do not say anything about the pain suffered both during and
after these mutilations or on the health problems many of the
victims will face for the rest of their lives.
Often performed in unsanitary conditions by people without any
real medical knowledge, these mutilations can have many adverse
consequences, including haemorrhages, incontinence, abscesses,
infections, traumas, shock and infertility.
Those who perform these procedures use improperly sterilized
tools, if not plain kitchen knives. According to a document from
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, sugar,
eggs, thorns and palm ribs are also used.
Very painful and often performed without anaesthesia, these
irreversible procedures often result in traumas as well as sexual and
psychological complications for the victims.
I do not think I need to continue describing this practice to give
members a good understanding of what we are dealing with.
This practice is clearly unacceptable and should never be
condoned. We must also ensure that those who perform these
procedures are severely punished. Unfortunately, as I pointed out
earlier, current legal provisions do not have enough teeth to be 100
per cent effective. We must ensure that this practice is no longer
used in our society. The current legislation does not achieve that
goal; prevention alone is not enough. However, Bill C-277 would
certainly do it.
We could talk for a long time about the benefits and the merits of
such a bill. But what is important is to understand that, in a country
that claims to be democratic, these religious, cultural or other
traditions are indefensible and reprehensible. As a self respecting
society claiming to protect its individual members, it is immoral to
condone such shameful atrocities.
Yet, and unfortunately so, this is what the Minister of Justice did
by rejecting the suggestion to amend the Criminal Code so as to
explicitly prohibit excision.
Bill C-277, which was introduced by the hon. member for
Québec, provides an opportunity to correct the situation, once and
for all, in a simple and efficient manner. France, Great Britain and
Sweden have already outlawed that practice, while Norway and
several American states have strengthened their legislation to that
effect. The time has come for us to take concrete action. It must be
made clear to Canadians and those who come to our country that
genital mutilation is not only unacceptable as a matter of principle,
but also not accepted and severely punished, since it is in fact a
crime.
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House regarding Bill
C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to the
genital mutilation of female persons, proposed by the hon. member
for Québec.
The bill aims to make persons who perform female genital
mutilation or who aid, abet, counsel or procure the performance by
another person of female genital mutilation guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years.
15076
I state from the outset my personal repulsion of this practice.
It is without a doubt a practice which causes great harm. However,
we must not allow our disgust with the practice to cloud our
reasoning about the member's proposed bill as an effective means
of addressing this problem.
As for the cultural practices in other lands it is out of our scope
to dictate what should or should not be included in their criminal
codes. Societies practising female genital mutilation will change
their behaviour only on understanding that the intent behind their
action can be achieved by other less harmful means.
Female genital mutilation is a practice which inflicts harm on an
estimated 85 million to 115 million girls and women, with about
two million girls being subjected to this ritual annually worldwide.
There is no doubt that the practice can prove very harmful to the
health of a baby girl and eventually of the woman. There is an
indisputable medical link between female genital mutilation and a
myriad of short and long term health consequences. Some have
already been mentioned such as severe haemorrhaging, shock,
infections, infertility, urine retention, sexual dysfunction,
difficulties with child birth and even death.
As I mentioned earlier, this well intentioned bill poses certain
problems. The Minister of Justice indicated in March he was of the
opinion that an amendment to the Criminal Code was not necessary
at this time. The minister informed members of the House that
there are those who are knowledgeably involved who believe
amending the Criminal Code at this time could inadvertently drive
the practice even further underground, and the government agrees.
Instead the government prefers to engage in a comprehensive
educational campaign which outlines the health risk of the
procedure and the criminality of the practice.
All hon. members should be made aware the Criminal Code of
Canada does have a provision which could cover those who
practice female genital mutilation. Presently sections of the code
which apply include assault causing bodily harm, section 267,
unlawfully causing bodily harm, section 269, and aggravated
assault, section 268, all of which are indictable offences with
maximum sentences of between 10 and 14 years. Section 268 refers
to the situation in which a person wounds, maims, disfigures or
endangers the life of the complainant.
There are other sections of the Criminal Code which could be
used to prosecute either the person performing the procedure or the
parents for their part in arranging for it to be carried out. Also, a
recent amendment to the code aims to address situations in which a
Canadian resident is taken from the country with the purpose of
committing an act against him or her which would ordinarily be an
offence if committed in Canada. This section of the code provides
for a maximum sentence of five years for an indictable offence.
Over and above existing Criminal Code provisions, the hon.
member should know Ontario and Quebec have child protection
laws which allow for a child to be taken into the custody of the
province should reasonable suspicion exist that she may be
subjected to female genital mutilation either in Canada or abroad.
It is apparent that the Canadian Criminal Code already provides for
the necessary measures to prosecute those persons perpetrating
female genital mutilation.
(1125)
Instead we must concentrate on educating the public but we must
also educate the police, crown attorneys and the medical
professions by informing them that female genital mutilation
constitutes criminal behaviour and as such must be dealt with
accordingly. We will work together and we must work together
with the above stakeholders in order to ensure existing laws are
enforced in this respect.
On the practice of female genital mutilation from a global
perspective, I firmly believe we must not lose sight of the fact that
denouncing the practice can make some of us feel better and
self-righteous but certainly does not solve the problem worldwide.
The director general to the World Health Organization's global
commission on women's health indicates that the purpose of the
organization should not be to criticize and condemn; however, nor
should we remain passive.
We know female genital mutilation is painful and can have dire
health consequences. However, we must also take into account that
human behaviours and cultural values, no matter how senseless or
harmful they appear in light of our personal and cultural
perspectives, do have a meaning for those who practice them.
The key is to convince people they can give up a certain practice
without compromising the important ideals cherished by their
cultures. Also instrumental is the need to impart on adherence of
the practice the great health risk that can result from this diabolical
practice.
Parents across the globe are similar in that ultimately they want
what is in the best interests of their children. If they are presented
with credible options, an alternative to female genital mutilation in
a way that takes into account their own social, cultural and
economic environments, we will then be able to find a global
solution.
I thank the member for Quebec for bringing this crucial issue to
the attention of the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
ask you this question: If the justice minister were a woman, do you
not think that we would already have a bill amending the Criminal
Code and explicitly prohibiting the genital mutilation of female
persons?
15077
Were it not for the initiative of the hon. member for Québec,
women would still be waiting for a bill to protect the victims of
such a barbaric and cruel practice. Genital mutilation of female
persons is one of the most harmful forms of violence against
young girls and it is a terrible violation of their fundamental right
to physical integrity.
Just thinking of such an atrocity totally overwhelms me with
horror and disgust and I must warn the Minister of Justice that he is
likely to find the description I am about to give extremely
disturbing. Perhaps after hearing it he will better understand the
kind of butchery being practiced throughout the world, including
Canada and Quebec.
There are three forms of mutilation carried out. I will present
them in order of degree. The first, removal of the prepuce of the
clitoris; the second, excision, which involves removing the entire
clitoris and often the adjacent portions of the labia minora; the
third, infibulation, which involves excising the entire clitoris, the
labia minora and a portion of the labia majora.
When infibulation is performed, both sides of the vulva are
closed over the vagina, leaving a small opening for the passage of
urine and menstrual blood. In infibulation, the vaginal orifice is
closed either with thorns or catgut sutures. The gaping raw edges of
the labia majora are held together until scar tissue forms, thus
closing up the vagina except for a narrow orifice which is kept open
with a small piece of wood or reed.
(1130)
The child's legs are then bound together. The little girl is
immobilized for several weeks or until the tissues have healed. To
enable infibulated women to have sexual relations, it is necessary
to open the orifice with an incision which is further enlarged when
they give birth. Often they are sewn up again afterwards, at the
husband's request.
There is none so deaf as those who will not hear. The Minister of
Justice was definitely not listening when in December 1994, on the
tragic anniversary of the massacre at the École Polytechnique, I
and several of my colleagues emphatically condemned this odious
practice.
This barbaric procedure has now been imported to Canada and
Quebec. Our doctors are seeing an increasing number of young
girls with health problems related to genital mutilation. It will soon
be one year since we last discussed this in the House, and so far the
Minister of Justice has done nothing to stop this practice. I hope
that he will at least support the representations of my colleague, the
hon. member for Québec, who has taken the trouble to table a bill
prohibiting genital mutilation.
The Minister of Justice lately mentioned a series of bills tabled
by his government to help victims, and the list goes: C-37, C-41,
C-42 and C-45, and so forth. An impressive body of legislation,
whose effectiveness remains to be seen.
The agenda of the Department of Justice is quite full. But I warn
the minister that: ``Grasp all, lose all''. Some of the legislative
measures are so far off the goal set by the government that we
might be led to believe that the Minister of Justice has undertaken a
Sisyphean task.
In November 1994, the Quebec Minister of Justice, Paul Bégin,
demanded that his federal counterpart prohibit genital mutilation
and amend the Criminal Code accordingly. Sweden, Belgium,
Norway, the United Kingdom and some American States have
already passed legislation prohibiting genital mutilation.
The Minister of Justice had the gall to answer that the sections of
the Criminal Code dealing with assault were sufficient to condemn
a person guilty of practising excision. Genital mutilation is much
more than just assault, it is torture, butchery and an unqualifiable
violation of a human person.
The House managed to pass on the double a bill to protect
victims and facilitate the arrest of the guilty parties. Thanks to the
support of the official opposition, Bill C-104 on DNA passed
through all stages on the same day, June 22 of this year. The
Minister of Justice is always willing to play Lancelot when he
knows that a bill will get unanimous support. It is easy to preach for
virtue. It is something else to make political hay out of it.
Where is the fearless Lancelot in today's debate? He is dragging
his feet, he is consulting. Last summer our Don Quixote of public
security thought that it would be useful to organize an information
session on mutilation of women's genital organs for interested
members. Guests of the Minister of Justice were Eunadie Johnson
and Fadumo Dirie, cochairpersons of the Ontario task force on the
prevention of genital mutilation of female persons.
The minister expected that Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Dirie would
concur with his views on the risk of unilateral legislation dealing
specifically with genital mutilation. He was reluctant to introduce a
bill because he thought such an action would push that practice
further underground.
But, lo and behold, both guests answered yes to the question of
whether a specific piece of legislation would send a clear message
to communities which practice mutilation. A criminal code
amendment would demonstrate that our society considers that
practice unacceptable and that if it is deemed acceptable in other
countries, it is not so in Canada or in Quebec.
After the meeting, the Minister of Justice admitted he was not so
sure any more about his position. Today, the bill before the House
is not a government bill, but a bill introduced by one of my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues. That speaks for itself. On this side of the
House, we dare to act according to our beliefs. I urged the Minister
of Justice to at least support the bill presented by the hon. member
15078
for Québec, if he did not have the courage to introduce an
amendment to the Criminal Code.
I request the same thing from all members. We should rise above
partisanship and indeed do as we say, as we began to do some time
ago with private members' bills.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Accordingly, this bill is
referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you
would find unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until twelve
o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent
to suspend the House until twelve o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at noon.
15078
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
On the Order:
June 20, 1995-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-101, An Act to continue the
National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to
consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway
Act and to amend or repeal other Acts as a consequence.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-101, An Act to continue the National Transportation Agency as
the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National
Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other Acts
as a consequence, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on
Transport.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I recognize the hon.
Minister of Transport to begin this debate I remind the House that
under this standing order, members, including the minister, will
have 10 minutes to make their interventions without questions or
comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the government's vision for the future
of transportation is clear and attainable. Our commitment is to take
Canadian transportation into the 21st century on a more viable,
integrated and competitive footing.
We are commercializing federal airports, the air navigation
system, Canadian National Railways, Marine Atlantic and the
department's Motor Vehicle Test Centre.
We have introduced a new international air transportation policy
and concluded a landmark Canada/U.S. bilateral air services
agreement opening up the skies with our biggest trading partner.
The government will unveil this fall details of the new national
marine and ports policy. This policy will set the stage for a more
efficient, competitive and fiscally prudent marine transportation
and port system and eliminate subsidies except where
constitutional obligations require us to continues to pay for
services.
We have already eliminated most transportation subsidies and
greatly reduced the financial burden of Canadian taxpayers.
On June 20, we introduced Bill C-101, to enact a new Canada
Transportation Act. The reason for introducing this legislation last
spring was to encourage meaningful dialogue between industry and
the government. We have had extensive consultation with CN and
CP, other railway companies, shippers, and representatives of other
transportation modes.
We have considered reports by the Standing Committee on
Transport and, most recently, the recommandations of Task Force
on Commercialization led by Mr. Nault, the member for
Kenora-Rainy River, now the Parliamentary Secretary for the
Minister of Labour.
The rail elements of the legislative package complement our
strategy to commercialize CN, but they are far broader than that
initiative. They are about enhancing the long term viability of the
15079
entire Canadian rail industry. This bill will affect the operations of
CN, CP and some 30 other railways that currently operate in
Canada, and it will also benefit shippers.
[English]
Some shippers expect levels of rail service to be dictated by law
rather than by the significant negotiating leverage they have in the
market. They talk about competition but they insist on regulatory
protection.
The extraordinary rights shippers had won through the National
Transportation Act of 1987, the so-called competitive access
rights, are retained. The NTA 1987 included the right to have rail
rates regulated under certain conditions. It also included the right
to final offer arbitration for a wide variety of disputes between
shippers and the railways. This protectionism has benefited
Canadian shippers and there has been a reduction in rail freight
prices but there has also been a substantial erosion of CN and CP
revenues.
Bill C-101 takes aim at regulatory red tape by shortening the
length of the arbitration process by one-third, from 90 to 60 days.
The bill extends competitive access rights to shippers located on
any federally regulated rail line sold to a provincially based rail
operator. U.S. shippers in the United States do not enjoy similar
provisions.
While we have protected shipper rights we have made
amendments to give more precise direction to the regulatory
agency in its decision making process. The government's view is
that regulated solutions should only be a last resort.
A shipper demand with which we did not agree was for the
provision of mandatory running rights for provincially regulated
railways. Unlimited running rights would undermine a major
objective of the bill which is to foster the growth of a vigorous
short line industry across Canada.
(1205)
Every short line operator in Canada stated that unrestricted
running rights were undesirable with the exception of one operator.
In the United States, where unrestricted running rights are not
available, a thriving short line industry has developed based solely
on commercial agreements. There are hundreds of voluntary
running right agreements now in effect in Canada, letting the
marketplace decide.
The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Western Canadian
Shippers Coalition, the Canadian Industrial Transportation League
and the Canadian Manufacturers Association have all been
lobbying hard against certain elements of Bill C-101. Apparently
they believe in competition based on protectionism, an interesting
approach for the CMA which in the past aggressively supported
open, competitive free markets.
Bill C-101 will modernize and streamline rail regulation to
enhance the viability of our major carriers and thereby attempt to
ensure rail freight service from coast to coast. Both CN and CP will
benefit from a new, transparent, well-defined rationalization
process that focuses on the sale of underused lines to other
operators. The process will be free of archaic, adversarial and
lengthy regulatory proceedings and government interference.
Shippers should benefit from more efficient, lower cost rail
service and the entry of new participants in the railroad industry.
The legislative package will clean up outdated regulations. It will
reduce the number of matters which need to be brought to the
agency by the railways by about 200 to some 40. For example,
10,000 confidential contracts per year will no longer need to be
filed with the agency. This should reduce railways' administrative
costs. It will help attract capital back to an industry that has
suffered during the economic downturn by shippers to other
transportation modes, particularly trucks.
Some provincial legislatures, B.C. and Nova Scotia among
others, have recently passed legislation which significantly reduces
provincial taxation on railways. The New Brunswick government
has put in place a very simple mechanism for the establishment of a
provincial short line requiring only an agreement between the
transportation minister and the perspective railway.
The Ontario government has indicated its willingness to
encourage the creation of short lines by repealing current statutory
provisions that have so far discouraged short line operators setting
up in that province.
Bill C-101 also removes unnecessary regulation of other
transport modes. In future applicants to operate Canadian air
services will have to meet minimum financial requirements as well
as our stringent safety requirements before they can obtain a
licence.
[Translation]
In the wake of deregulation of other modes, access to final offer
arbitration has been extended to our northern marine shippers and
operators of rail passenger and commuter rail services who must
negotiate with mainline carriers for track usage and other services.
The new legislation will put in place a policy that is consistent,
transparent and fair and will enhance competition. Canada's
transportation system must be modern, dynamic and as unrestricted
as possible while maintaining the world class safety record we have
earned over the years.
I ask members of all parties to join with me and support the
motion to refer Bill C-101 to the Standing Committee on Transport
before second reading. This will give the committee an early
opportunity to study the bill with its usual care and diligence.
The proposed Canada Transportation Act is one more step this
government is taking towards modernizing this Canada's trans-
15080
portation sector. It will enable Canada and Canadian businesses to
compete worldwide in the 21st century.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-101, whose
primary objective is to modernize rail transportation legislation,
redefine the mandate of the National Transportation Agency and
further deregulate air transportation.
As we estimate that nearly 75 per cent of this bill concerns rail
transportation, you will understand this important subject will be
the focus of our intervention.
(1210)
For that reason, as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, Bill
C-101 will need definite improvements. I can assure the minister
that it will be possible to work much more effectively if there is
some kind of openness on the part of his colleagues on the Standing
Committee on Transport-and I am talking here about his
colleagues representing the Liberal majority.
One of the first points that has to be criticized is clause 89, which
says that the bill applies to any railway, whether or not constructed
under the authority of an Act of Parliament, that is ``owned,
controlled, leased or operated by a company wholly or partly
within legislative authority of Parliament''.
This means that Bill C-101 applies to any SLR, which stands for
short line railway, owned or controlled by a national railway,
whether it be CN or CP. We recently saw an example of a short line
controlled by CN in the La Tuque, Abitibi and
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
Moreover, these railways are declared to be works for the
general advantage of Canada. You will understand that, in the
current referendum debate, our party will want to change that
all-encompassing approach which includes everything that can be
for the general advantage of Canada.
We will also ask clarifications about clause 90, which authorizes
Parliament to pass legislation declaring any railway owned by a
company registered under a federal or provincial statute to be a
work for the general advantage of Canada. In these circumstances,
provincial railway acts, like the one we have in Quebec, no longer
apply and the company is regulated by the federal government. I
am sure you realize this is totally unacceptable to us.
Moreover, in clause 99, the agency is not required to conduct an
environmental study before authorizing the construction of a
railway line. Again, Quebec is on the leading edge as far as the
environment is concerned. Therefore, we will have to obtain
amendments to clause 99.
Clause 104 of the bill says that if an owner's land is divided as a
result of the construction of a railway line, the owner must pay for
the construction and maintenance of a crossing. We think this is
ridiculous. Why would the owner of the land have to pay when it is
the railway company that is using the land? The railway company
should pay.
Clause 113 provides that rates and conditions of service
established by the agency must be commercially fair and
reasonable. We think that this provision is there to please railway
companies which often have had to buy equipment to service a
client without benefitting from a contract that was long enough to
allow the company to write off the cost of such equipment.
The list could go on but, since this is only a ten-minute speech, I
would not have enough time to say all I want to say in this, my first
speech since the House reconvened in September.
Bill C-101 will have an effect on Quebec with regard to the new
process for transferring or discontinuing the operation of a railway
line. I have had the opportunity before to say in this House that the
abandonment of railway lines used to be almost automatically
approved by the National Transportation Agency. Now, the
company will have to demonstrate that it took all the necessary
measures to offer the railway line on the market and if nobody is
interested-We see the beginning of a solution, but it will have to
be improved on.
Of course, we received from many shippers requests for
clarification of this legislation or for changes to it, specially in
relation with the introduction of running rights for short line
railways, provided that reciprocity not be given to main railway
carriers.
I therefore open the door to shippers for an alliance with our
party, the Bloc Quebecois. They will have an opportunity to defend
their views in the Standing Committee on Transport.
(1215)
I would like, of course, to conclude my remarks by referring to
the referendum. It goes without saying that when Quebec has full
power, it will not have to rely on a national transportation agency
filled with friends of the party in power. Even though the
composition of the National Transportation Agency has been
reduced from nine members to three, we are still caught in the same
vicious circle of having to deal with friends of the government.
I do not want to be disrespectful to Mr. Rivard, a very competent
lawyer from Quebec City who was appointed by the Conservatives,
but I can predict today, October 2, that Mr. Rivard's mandate on the
National Transportation Agency will probably not be renewed and
that we will see, as was the case with the members of the Port of
Quebec's board of directors, some good friends of the government,
some Liberals of good standing, appointed to head the National
Transportation Agency.
15081
So this is just shifting the problem. Our party will of course
keep on denouncing such partisan appointments.
Mr. Nunez: Patronage.
Mr. Guimond: Such patronage. I thank my hon. colleague for
Bourassa for suggesting the word patronage. So, the only way out
is sovereignty, otherwise Quebec will remain a rebellious minority
within the Canadian federation, constantly waiting with the no side
for a no which would mean a yes, and vice versa. I do not know
what, nor when nor where. If not Quebec, finally in touch with its
identity and its potential, will become a country.
There are in fact two countries: yours, Canada, and ours,
Quebec. There really are two countries north of the 45th parallel:
one which is frantically searching for its identity-Canada-and
the other, which can and should no longer deny itself-Quebec.
Yes, in order to reach its full potential, Quebec must be sovereign.
Quebec deserves to be sovereign because it is made up of a people
that must not only survive, but grow.
Saying no means denying us the means to develop in the way we
want to. It means continuing to mortgage what we have, and
continuing to complain. By saying yes, we will make others respect
us and we will stop being crushed. Just like so many other Quebec
ridings, Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans will say: ``Yes, we are
ready and we will win''.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Bill C-89 was in committee I was told by the
government's underwriters, Nesbitt Burns, Scotia McLeod and
Goldman Sachs, that CN Rail had an accumulated debt of
approximately $2.5 billion and that in order for CN to achieve an
investment grade bond rating of BBB it would have to reduce its
debt load to $1.5 billion.
They then went on to explain that CN had excess cash reserves of
$300 million to $400 million as a result of recent subsidiary
company sales and actual cash reserves, plus $400 million to $600
million in non-rail real estate assets. At the upper end of these
figures was the amount by which the underwriters were telling us
the debt had to be reduced. The lower value of these figures
indicated that the government might be faced with a cost of up to
$300 million in order to reach the debt reduction target that was
stable.
It was the stated plan of the government to purchase CN's
non-rail real estate assets. In response to my question on how the
value would be set, government officials who also appeared before
the committee testified that a full appraisal would be completed
and that would set the price the taxpayers had to pay to purchase
the assets from the company which they already owned.
The wording of the debt reduction clause in Bill C-89 concerned
me in that it allowed the Minister of Transport to reduce CN's debt
by any amount he chose. I attempted to have the legislation
amended to tighten this arbitrary power of the minister but the
amendment was defeated.
On May 17, 1995 I wrote to the minister requesting answers to a
number of questions which were not clearly answered by the
minister in committee. One of the most important questions was
the amount of money the minister was going to give to CN to
reduce its debt. In his response the minister stated: ``The
government will undertake only the minimum, if any, debt
reduction necessary to facilitate an investment grade rating of CN's
debt''.
(1220 )
My concerns about the minister's real debt reduction plans were
well founded. On August 28, 1995 the government announced that
it would be injecting $1.4 billion into CN Rail to reduce its debt.
This amount includes a $500 million payment for real estate assets
with a book value of $235 million and no appraisals to the contrary
forthcoming.
The government pushed Bill C-89 through the House and into
committee after first reading. I supported this with the
understanding this was meant to make it easier to examine and
amend the bill in committee where it is theoretically less partisan.
This turned out not to be the case.
I presented many amendments, none of which were accepted in
spite of little argument against them. One of my amendments
dealing with Atlantic Canada did have the support of one Liberal
on the committee but was defeated by a tie breaking vote by the
committee chairman.
Given the lack of co-operation that we were led to believe this
procedure of sending legislation to committee after first reading
would provide, coupled with the deception that took place on the
debt reduction, I would be very reluctant to trust Liberal intentions
on transport issues in the future.
When Bill C-101 was first proposed I was approached by the
parliamentary secretary to the minister seeking my co-operation in
not only sending it to committee after first reading, but reducing
the first reading debate time to one hour. At that point I had not yet
received a copy of the bill nor was I aware of its contents. He
informed me that it was not available yet but it was fairly
straightforward and simple, essentially nothing more than enabling
legislation allowing necessary changes to occur on an as needed
basis. We now all know that Bill C-101 is a massive piece of
legislation with major ramifications for both the rail and shipping
industries.
It seems that this deception also continued into the summer. In a
telephone conversation with the chair of the Standing Committee
on Transport, I agreed to request submissions from interested
15082
parties over the summer as long as it did not restrict anyone's
access to testifying before the committee in the fall. I was assured
it would not and that the intent was only to allow us to obtain some
of the material during the summer instead of having it all bunched
together when we returned in September.
Subsequent to this, several affected groups complained to me
about the tight timetable for getting their submissions to the
committee. I obtained a copy of the notice sent out from the
transport committee under the signature of the chair advising that if
they wished to appear before the standing committee regarding Bill
C-101 they must send in 25 copies of their submissions to the
committee not later than August 31.
At the end of August I sent the following fax to the committee
chair:
It has recently been brought to my attention that the notice sent out to
interested parties regarding Bill C-101 is written in such a way that has caused
many of them to believe that August 31 is a cut off after which we will not accept
any submissions. It also implies that if they do not submit a written submission
within that time frame, they will not be allowed to appear before the standing
committee on this issue.
Neither of these positions were agreed to by myself either as a regular
committee member representing the Reform Party or as a member of the
transport steering committee. You and I discussed early submissions by
telephone and I agreed that it was not a bad idea to request early submissions to
be made so that we might be able to review some of them during the summer. As
it has turned out, if any such submissions were made, I have not received a copy
of them. When I gave my agreement to this early start, it was with the clear
understanding that this early submission request would not impede any party's
right to appear before the committee.
I trust that this is a misunderstanding on the part of concerned parties and
anyone wishing to appear before the committee and/or provide written
submission may still do so. After all, we are attempting to determine all the facts
and concerns available. Surely, we will not do anything to impede this
information gathering process.
The reaction I received from the chair's office is interesting.
Through follow up inquiries my office was informed by an
assistant in the chair's office that they were preparing a response to
my letter which I finally received on September 26.
Verbally and later in writing we have been informed that there
has been a tremendous response which makes me curious why
these were not forwarded to me as a committee member. I did
receive a huge stack of submissions when Parliament reconvened,
the very situation summer submissions were meant to avoid.
We have also been told that all stakeholders interested in
appearing before the committee are welcome and not subject to a
deadline. They advised that 800 letters were sent out, too many for
a second letter to retract the false message that had been received
and it was up to us to notify any parties concerned with the
previously stated deadline and tell them it was not in effect.
As far as the bill is concerned it is long past the time that
Canada's archaic rail legislation was revisited. To continue with the
existing legislation is simply to ensure economic failure which will
affect rail companies and shippers alike. We must move quickly to
a market driven competitive system able to compete with the U.S.
companies unencumbered by restrictive and uneconomical
government regulations.
(1225 )
In the late 1970s the American rail industry was suffering from
many of the same problems currently faced by the Canadian rail
companies. In 1980 the U.S. Congress passed the Staggers act
which deregulated the industry. Since that time the American rail
industry has prospered.
Bill C-101 is a half Staggers bill which addresses some parts of
the need to simplify rail line abandonment but does not address
many of the other necessary components for rail industry
prosperity with proper consideration for shipper needs.
The rail industry is quick to point out that we cannot compare
ourselves directly to the United States because of differing taxation
and labour laws. While that is not incorrect, our approach would be
to harmonize these differences instead of bowing to them as
unsolvable and tinkering with our problems instead of dealing with
them head on.
Rail transportation is essential to get Canadian goods to their
markets and to get supplies and materials to Canadian companies.
Likewise, economic survival of these same Canadian companies is
essential to the rail companies.
Many years ago I remember seeing a cartoon dealing with
nuclear war. A single picture showed the president of Russia and
the president of the United States both with their heads in
guillotines each holding the release rope of the other. If either of
them released the rope the blade would fall which would cause the
other to release his rope in the ultimate no win situation. That is
similar to what would happen in Bill C-101 if the legislation does
not consider both sides fairly and pushes them into hard adversarial
roles.
Shippers' products must be able to compete internationally with
those of their competitors from the United States. A significant
component in their cost structure is transportation. If their cost
component for transportation is substantially higher than that of
their American competitors, shippers are operating under a severe
handicap. The potential is that these shippers will use the American
shipping system affecting the Canadian economy through job
losses not only in the rail sector but at Canadian ports as well,
15083
moving their operations to the United States, or folding their
operations if they are unable to market their products at a profit.
The first thing the bill should examine is the reduction or
removal of unreasonable cost factors to rail companies. This
includes such items as federal fuel taxes, lengthy capital cost
allowance terms, application and renewal fees and cabinet
authority on rail line abandonment.
We must also address problems at the provincial level.
Provincial fuel and property taxation as well as labour legislation
impact on the competitiveness of federal rail lines and their ability
to divest themselves of low density lines without loss of that rail
infrastructure. This issue will not be resolved by ignoring it.
The other main problem with the bill is the lack of a clear sense
of direction. The ultimate goal of rail deregulation is to establish a
market driven and market regulated industry which can compete
with the United States. I recognize this may be a huge single step
but Bill C-101 not only fails to allow the market to be the final
arbiter over price decisions, it also attempts to block access to the
present arbiter through clauses like 27(2) and 34(1).
I could provide much more detail on the deficiencies of this bill
and solutions for the problems faced by both the rail industry and
Canadian shippers, but the action of the Liberal government to
eliminate second reading debate severely restricts the amount of
time available.
Be assured I will deal with these solutions in detail at committee
hearings and I will ensure that all interested parties have the
opportunity to bring their concerns before their elected
representatives. I call on the Liberal members to co-operate with
this process and agree to deal with the needs of the Canadian
transportation industry instead of their own partisan agenda.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. Reform
Party critic that it is the intention of the government and the
committee to get some positive and constructive comments from
the Reform members who seem to always criticize and have
absolutely nothing good to say about anything.
I rise today to lend my support for Bill C-101 and the Minister of
Transport's motion to refer Bill C-101 to the Standing Committee
on Transport before second reading.
This is an important bill. Transportation touches all our daily
lives and has far reaching ramifications in today's business world.
The government is advancing a comprehensive program and a
vision to overhaul the large unwieldy framework of regulations,
outright ownership and specific involvement in transportation
particularly as it pertains to rail. While the bill deals with all
modes, there is no doubt that the most talked about provisions deal
with the rail industry, so I will address myself to that aspect in
particular in these remarks.
In this regard I see the 30 or so railways now operating in this
country as being at a critical juncture. CN and CP are two mainline
carriers that dominate the rail freight sector and have, as have other
railways, managed to weather the recent economic downturn.
(1230)
CN and CP have done this by introducing new marketing
initiatives and operations more closely tailored to the 25,000
shippers they serve. They have also expanded intermodal links with
the trucking industry and have implemented new technology and
operating methods.
Stringent cost cutting measures have been taken and since 1983
CN and CP have abandoned 20 per cent of their rail lines. Total
employment has decreased by 40 per cent.
To move into the 21st century, however, I believe CN and CP
must further adjust to changing trends, increased competition and
the need to reduce costs. CN and CP cost cutting efforts have been
stifled by the regulatory hurdles they must jump in order to tailor
their rail line networks to their core markets. While the Minister of
Transport has made reference to the proposed rail line
rationalization process, I will build on his comments.
Like shippers' rights, rail line rationalization can be
controversial. I will first set the issue in the context of the current
rail environment. The main line rail network is vastly over built.
Even after efforts by both railways in recent years to reduce
trackage, 84 per cent of CN and CP traffic travels on one-third of
the network.
The adversarial nature and the length of the process can deter the
sale of underutilized lines to short lines and some say can lead to
the downgrading of a marginal line on purpose. A line must be
uneconomic or near so for abandonment to proceed. It is the
creation of short lines that we wish to foster in the legislation now
before us.
The process for sale of a rail line under current legislation can be
long and drawn out. In one instance the owner and the potential
purchaser had agreed to the sale, in other words the continuance of
a line, but under the existing NTA process with its convoluted
regulatory approvals the prerequisite abandonment proceedings
took two years with a cost of $10 million per year to CP before the
sale could be finalized.
In the U.S. the sale of a line, not an abandonment, to another
operator can be accomplished in as little as seven days. Purchasers
are required only to prove public need and that they have the
financial capability to purchase and operate the line.
The most important means by which the federal government can
help our rail carriers to reduce their cost is through regulatory
reform, and that is what we intend to do.
15084
The new proposed Bill C-101 will do this and will focus on the
encouraging of the sale of rail lines to other rail operators. The
process will require a railway to set out for all interested parties
its intention for its network in a three-year rolling plan.
The owner railway will not be allowed to abandon a line unless it
has made every effort to negotiate the sale of the line for rail
purposes. The negotiating phase has a finite limit of seven months.
This phase could take as little as two months if there is clearly no
buyer interest.
If no private sector buyer comes forward, governments at each
level will in turn have 15 days to exercise an option to buy for
public purposes. They will have had ample notice of the possibility
through the plan at the start of the whole process.
No abandonment of a rail line will take place unless no one,
neither the private sector nor governments, is interested in
acquiring that line.
The process advanced in Bill C-101 is not as radical as that
adopted in the United States but is instead a made in Canada
approach that gives every interested party ample opportunity to
acquire the line. It allows CN and CP to rationalize their track
within a specified time frame. It allows for a more planned
approach to the future of the Canadian rail system, which will be a
benefit to the railways, shippers and communities alike. It also
promotes the creation of a short line industry which will benefit all
and which is key to keeping the most extensive network possible.
The experience in the United States under its deregulated
environment has shown the high potential for rail lines to be
acquired by short lines, providing hundreds of jobs.
Today there are over 500 short lines in the U.S., of which 263
were created since 1980. Conversely, there are only 12 Canadian
short lines in operation. I believe under our proposed new
regulatory process many more will emerge. Short line railways
typically operate under a less burdensome cost structure than the
main line railways and pass much of the savings on to their
customers.
(1235 )
In addition, through more focused marketing and closer tailoring
of services to customer needs, short lines can both recover traffic
previously lost by the main line railway and generate traffic that
was not previously present.
It is in the interest of main line carriers to sell to other railways
rather than to abandon. The main lines get both the proceeds from
the sale and a new partner that can act as both a generator and a
feeder of traffic.
The proposed legislation not only eases exit but makes getting
into the railway business less onerous. In future all railways under
federal jurisdiction will simply require a certificate of fitness to
either operate or perhaps even to construct a railway. Shippers and
railways agree this is a significant improvement over the process
now in place.
While no one can guarantee continued rail service in every
corner of the country, the law will create the right environment so
that wherever possible service should be maintained it will be
maintained.
Rail is the only mode of transportation in Canada whose business
decisions can be easily and often delayed, varied and sometimes
even reversed by public authorities. Everything from sales to
bookkeeping is subject to regulatory permission, sanction or
appeal, with some regulations dating back to the turn of the
century.
Under the proposed legislation, treatment of the rail freight
industry will be brought more in line with other Canadian
transportation businesses and U.S. rail counterparts, thereby
enhancing competitiveness.
Transportation has historically been highly and intricately
regulated. I was amazed at the mass of the build up on the
economic side. For rail alone it filled over 1,000 pages of statutes
spread over eight different acts.
With the passage of Bill C-101 we have the opportunity to help
our railways, large and small, and ultimately their customers in
their efforts to improve competitiveness.
Under the proposed amendment to the Transport Act, regulation
of non-safety matters will be condensed into just over 100 pages.
This reduction in volume alone will make the regulatory burden
less onerous and costly, fostering a more commercially oriented
basis for the provision of rail service. It will also make the
legislation governing transportation much more logical and
understandable.
I hope I have not given the impression that the bill is good only
for the railways. On reflection I believe listeners will recognize
that what I have outlined for the railways can easily be seen to
benefit shippers as well. Once the railways have their house in
order, the benefits will surely flow to their customers.
The Minister of Transport has made it clear that the bill
preserves key rights now enjoyed by the shippers. A balance
between the needs of shippers and railways must be found or our
railways will continue to suffer. That outcome ultimately will not
serve their customers either.
The sweeping nature of the regulatory housecleaning for all
transportation modes will necessarily have an effect on the
National Transportation Agency. The proposed legislation defines
a streamlined and more focused regulatory body and renames it the
Canadian Transportation Agency. Its role and powers will be
clarified and brought into line with the reform of rail regulation and
changes to the other transportation modes.
15085
In future the agency will concentrate on core quasi-judicial and
administrative functions such as the issuing of licences and the
setting of regulated rail rates. Regulation is always a poor
substitute for market discipline. We need regulation only when
there are no practical transportation alternatives.
The federal government is aggressively examining the way it
does business on all fronts. It is regulating only where needed and
leaving the private sector to activities it can do better and at less
cost to taxpayers. Regulatory reform in the transportation sector is
one very important part of all these efforts.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is said that the road to Hell is paved with good
intentions, and the same goes for Bill C-101, which revises the
National Transportation Act, especially with regard to rail
transport. It is this issue that I will address.
The intention announced by the government in this bill is a good
one. In a nutshell, its purpose is to modernize, streamline and
deregulate. No one can criticize this, as no one is against virtue.
Unfortunately, as is its habit, the government could not resist its
usual temptation, which is to encroach on provincial jurisdiction,
with an added bonus in that this bill significantly increases its
opportunities to engage in patronage.
(1240)
Plain common sense and efficiency concerns should have led
lawmakers to split the rail network clearly and willingly without
exception between national railways under federal jurisdiction and
intraprovincial railways under provincial jurisdiction. But this
would have been too simple, too logical. And how could they resist
grabbing a few more powers that should normally come under
provincial jurisdiction? That is just unthinkable.
Under this bill, intraprovincial and other short line railways in
which national railways have an interest will come under federal
jurisdiction. In addition, Ottawa will still have the right to place
any short line railway under federal jurisdiction.
Therefore, depending on where their capital comes from and on
Ottawa's wishes, intraprovincial short lines will come under two
different jurisdictions. How logical can you get?
Clauses 140 through 146 dealing with the abandonment and sale
of railway lines could, in return for some improvements, facilitate
the establishment of more short line railways, which should revive
our dying rail network. From now on-and this is great-, rail
companies will have to prepare three year plans specifying which
lines they intend to continue operating, which they intend to sell,
and which they wish to abandon. When this provision will be fully
in effect, short line railway companies will be able to determine
which lines they are interested in and to plan accordingly. It seems,
however, unrealistic to hope that these plans will be of any use for
1996.
Another thing: some of the deadlines set for potential buyers to
make up their minds are surprisingly short. If no private buyer is
interested, the company must offer the railway line to the
governments. Do you know how many days public authorities will
have to make a decision? Exactly fifteen days. This is totally
unrealistic.
Finally, it means no more public hearings, where people could
explain why a specific line should be kept in service for the benefit
of the public, and should therefore be bought by a government,
when there is no interested private buyer, given the market
conditions. Indeed, how will public authorities have the time to
hold hearings and consult the public before making a decision, if
they only have 15 days, not to mention the fact that people will also
not have time to prepare submissions?
Obviously, the federal government could not care less about the
development of those regions which could be affected by the
foreseeable reduction in railway services.
I said at the beginning that Bill C-101 provides interesting
opportunities for lobbyists and those who rely on patronage. The
National Transportation Agency, which will now be called the
Canadian Transportation Agency, currently includes nine
permanent members and must provide national representation.
Under Bill C-101, the agency will only consist of three members
and will not have to ensure national representation. The reduction
in the number of members will obviously make it easier to lobby
and to exert political pressure. I am not making accusations, I am
just stating the obvious.
Let me summarize my position. I criticize Bill C-101 for a
number of reasons. One is the fact that intraprovincial short line
railways are not clearly and unhesitatingly left under provincial
jurisdiction. There is also the lack of provisions to truly promote
the establishment of regional railways and thus help put the rail
transport industry back on track. Another flaw is the fact that, for
all intents and purposes, public hearings are excluded, since the
unrealistic short time frame given to public authorities to decide
whether or not to buy does not allow them to hold such hearings.
Finally, there is the composition of the new Canadian
Transportation Agency.
These are the four aspects which we will try to improve on
through our amendments in committee.
In conclusion, the time had certainly come to streamline the
railway legislation and to reduce the responsibilities of the agency.
However, the priority given to unstated political motives, over the
rational objectives stated, once again results in the government
partly missing the target. My colleague, the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, and myself will propose, in
15086
committee, amendments designed to put this exceedingly political
legislation back on track.
(1245)
I am most willing, however, to admit that I should be thanking
the Minister of Transport instead of criticizing him. Thanking him,
yes, for providing new evidence that under the federal system
Quebec has no hope whatsoever of one day seeing an end to the
subordination of the logic of public interest to political interests.
This will be possible only in a sovereign Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour and a privilege to be able to enter the debate on Bill
C-101, a rather large omnibus bill.
I was interested to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary suggest
that it was a straightforward, simple and small bill. This is not a
small bill. It has at least 120 pages and it is a rather far reaching and
overarching bill that covers the three modes of transportation in
Canada.
The bill makes some progress toward levelling the playing field,
especially in the railway sector with the United States. It makes it
easier to abandon some short rail lines, which is an important issue.
It also makes it easier to establish short lines under provincial
control.
There are some positive developments taking place in the
legislation that we need to recognize. However it seems the chief
purpose of the bill is not so much to enhance the investor interest in
the particular railways but rather to facilitate the selling of CN Rail
or the privatization of the Canadian National Railway.
The bill continues to treat railways as a service rather than as a
business. The bill is clearly not about rail renewal. Canada remains
15 years behind the American system. Instead of levelling the
playing field for the U.S., the federal government has chosen to
deregulate in a piecemeal fashion rather than in a consistent,
logical pattern.
Bill C-101 fails to ensure true competition between the railways.
The competitive line rates and final offer arbitration provisions
only highlight an artificial competition that benefits neither
shippers nor the railways in the long run. Under both these options
the ultimate arbiter of freight prices is the National Transportation
Agency rather than the marketplace.
In other words, competitive line rates and final offer arbitration
are actually a hidden form of price regulation or managed
competition. The bill has no guaranteed access provision or even
study regarding the rail infrastructure in terms of further
development and competitiveness in the industry.
In spite of these sorts of statements the whole business of
transportation and shippers needs to recognize they need each other
to sustain the economy that is there. The railway business exists to
support shippers and shippers need the railway to send their
materials and products to market. Each needs the other to be
successful.
Let me list a couple of the major shippers that use the railway
system rather extensively. I refer in particular to the Western
Canadian Shippers' Coalition, which includes companies like
Agrium Inc., Alberta Forest Products Association, the Canadian
Oilseed Processsors Association, Canpotex Limited, the Council of
Forest Industries, Luscar Ltd., Manalta Coal Ltd., Novacor
Chemicals Ltd., Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Sherrit Inc.
and Sultran Limited. These companies are significant customers of
the Canadian railroad system. The products shipped tend to be bulk
in nature and must travel substantial distances to distant markets.
For many products highway transport does not present an
effective, competitive alternative to rail transportation and water
transport is not a practical alternative. Hence for the majority of the
transportation requirements of industries like the ones named the
only economical way of accessing the markets is through the
railway.
There is a need for the railroad system to be reformed. There is
excess track. There are impediments to the productivity
improvements and there are too many threats to the profitability
and long term viability of the railroads.
We must admit there have been improvements in the last couple
of years in the productivity of railways and the net revenues of both
CN Rail and CP have increased. These rationalizations, however,
should not jeopardize the benefits of competition in the railway
industry. I will refer to that in just a moment.
(1250)
In the meantime we need to indicate as well that the Canadian
railway system is not like the American system. The American
system has many more railroads, to begin with. The distances to
market are shorter. They have an extensively developed highway
system and inland water routes. Therefore it is not valid to argue
that Canada should have a regulatory system directly comparable
to that of the United States.
We should recognize that rails are not like the trucking industry.
Trucking regulations restrict vehicles by the availability of
trucking services and limit shippers' freedom of choice.
Accordingly the deregulation of major carriers has a
pro-competitive result. We should also recognize that the
capitalization required in that area is not nearly as great as it is in
the railway business.
Railway regulation protects captive shippers against the
excessive monopoly power of the railway. Herein lies the crux of
the issue. The imposition of statutory provisions which limit or
deter
15087
accessibility to the competitive access provision will be
anti-competitive by permitting the railroads to more rapidly and
more extensively exploit their monopoly power.
We come back to the business of competitiveness. Are the
railroads competitive? The conclusion of the group of industries we
referred to before is:
It has become apparent to railway customers during the past eight years that
Canada's railways have refused to compete for rail traffic which would become
available by virtue of a customer's utilization of the competitive line rate
provisions.
Page 131 of the National Transportation Act Review
Commission report states:
CN and CP Rail have effectively declined to compete with each other through
CLRs and as a result the provision is largely inoperative in Canada.
It is suggested that the failure of railways to compete through
CLRs should now be shifted and, rather than be treated under the
Transport Act, should now become subject to the provisions of the
Competition Act.
There is a provision in Bill C-101 that there be an appeal to the
National Transportation Agency. However shippers will have to
prove that they suffer from significant prejudice. It is interesting
that significant prejudice is not defined. Neither is suffering.
If this phrase is not defined in the bill it lends itself to all kinds of
problems. First, it is difficult for shippers to be able to prove what
is happening. Second, because that is difficult there will be a
defence and the result will be extensive litigation proceedings that
mitigate against the expeditious and objective determination of
relief. That is precisely what is needed to get this business going
and to get the economy rolling along smoothly.
Those terms are not defined in the bill. They have never been
used in transportation legislation before. Consequently there would
be very little, if anything, to go on in the way of precedent. The
agency serves as a price regulator.
Another part the agency deals with is that the rates shall be
commercially fair and reasonable. These words are used in the bill
but are not defined. Hence they are likely to result in uncertainty,
delay and contention which reduce the effectiveness of the level of
service and competitive access provisions.
A further provision in the bill states that the clarification of these
kinds of terms would come from the governor in council and does
not help at all. It will introduce into the decision facing the council
the politics of the day in preference to the economic considerations
existing in the marketplace.
A further development is that a complaint, if one is issued by a
shipper against the transportation agency, should not be vexatious
or frivolous. These terms are not defined.
It is a very difficult situation. It is all very well to talk about the
agency as being able to act as the final arbiter and to get
agreements in place, but the result will be that litigation of one kind
or another will come into play and the courts will become the
arbiter.
(1255 )
There are two other parts of the bill that also need to be looked
at: the idea of the interchange and the interswitch. These words
have to be defined as well as the words limited running rights.
While the provisions of the bill go far they do not go far enough.
Neither do they create a regulatory system which will provide an
economic system that will look after the interests of transportation
and shippers, so that together they can both meet their needs and
we as Canadians will benefit from sound transportation and
manufacturing systems that can deliver their products easily to the
marketplace.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to enter into the debate on the Bill C-101,
amendments to the National Transportation Act, now called the
Canada Transportation Act.
The bill is to be referred to committee after first reading. I
believe opposition members as well as the public in general will
have ample opportunity for input into how the bill could possibly
be amended in other ways. This shows the dedication the
government has toward making the system of government more
open and more visible by allowing people to be directly involved in
legislation that affects them.
This is basically another bill that realizes that governments
should be steerers and not rowers of the economy. What do I mean
by that? Basically most people have come to the conclusion that the
government should act as a referee, a regulatory agency, but not be
directly involved in the actual operation of businesses.
The Oshawa Municipal Airport is in my riding. I am constantly
reminded the airport is operated by the city of Oshawa and why that
is not the best interest of the local economy.
I will deal with two aspects of the legislation, both of which deal
with air travel. It is surprising that previous speakers thought this
was entirely a railway bill. In fact it involves all sectors of
transportation in Canada, not the least of which is air
transportation.
I cannot underestimate the value of the whole transportation
sector to Canada. Canada is the third largest country in the world
geographically and yet we have one of the smallest population
bases. It does not take long to realize that transportation has a
major impact on how we develop our country.
I should like to talk about the north which we seem to have
ignored. We have mostly spoken about transportation systems that
occur in the southern parts of our country. In a recent study the
15088
Royal Bank discovered that Canadians were the second wealthiest
people in the world if we take into account natural resources.
I do not have to tell members or other Canadians that we cannot
quite see where that fits into our bank account at the end of the
week. Very few of us feel that we have been able to access those
resources so that we spread the wealth across the country. The
transportation sector is one major aspect of why in some ways
Canada has not been able to access all its natural resources to the
benefit of all its people.
Industries such as tourism, metal extraction and forestry are big
factions that use the transportation networks. Due to the regulatory
burdens that often occur in this area, northerners often feel
victimized by the transportation sector. Let me illustrate this by a
very simple analogy.
Last summer I visited Kenora which some people do not
consider as being north. Certainly it is in northern Ontario. I was
surprised to discover that the cost of air fare to and from Kenora
was twice as much as it would have cost me to go to London,
England, and back. When I saw the bill come up for debate, I was
very interested in why such things occur.
I discovered a very interesting aspect of the old National
Transportation Act. Basically it divided Canada in half and not
consistently in half either. It took the 50th parallel from
Newfoundland to the Ontario-Manitoba border, then took the 53rd
parallel in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the 55th parallel in
Alberta and British Columbia and created a designated area. What
did that mean? It means we treated businesses in the northern part
of our country differently than we did in the southern part.
(1300)
Here are some of the aspects of competition that occurred in the
airline areas in northern Canada. A test was used called reverse
onus. Basically it allowed interested parties such as air carriers and
communities to argue that the licensing of new services could lead
to a significant decrease or instability in domestic service already
provided.
Basically this meant a barrier to new carriers that wanted to
compete with existing airlines. It also created in my mind artificial
monopolies. Many people in the north suspect that these artificial
monopolies acted as impediments to transportation in northern
regions.
Bill C-101 serves to do away with that aspect. It allows the
competition that exists in the southern parts of the country to apply
in the north. Hopefully this will eventually result in lowering air
fares to some of our northern communities.
Every once in a while we feel there is inappropriate business
activity in the area of monopoly. This act also provides for a review
of the fair pricing schedules of some of the airlines in the north,
such that we could even affect a rollback if it were thought the
monopoly that sometimes occurred due to the small number of
users and smaller communities could be rolled back if gouging and
price fixing et cetera had occurred.
Another aspect of the act which has not been mentioned to date
is consumer protection. I am sure members are aware of the horror
stories of people who travel south or even within our country. They
buy airline tickets and show up at the airport on the day of
reckoning and suddenly discover the airline has gone out of
business. There has been no real mechanism for some of these
people to get their money back. I am sure members are aware of
horror stories of retired people who have saved for the trip of their
lifetime to travel around the world and who discover they were
jilted by the airline system for whatever reason and lost their
money.
This legislation provides for a system whereby new carriers will
have to be approved not only from a technical point of view as to
whether they can fly planes but also from a financial one. These
airlines will have to submit financial statements, et cetera, to show
their fiscal ability to conduct their business. This can be nothing
but good for consumers.
These two aspects as they affect air transportation in Canada are
nothing but positive. It is one more step in the government's
agenda of realizing we can do things better by making our
regulatory framework simpler and more easily understood and,
similarly, allowing small and medium size businesses to do what
businesses do best, to compete in an open and fair market.
At the same time, the government realizes there is a need to
protect consumers from possible unwarranted business activity and
has put that in this legislation as well. There is an underpinning
protection for the consumer and an ability to allow the industry to
fully compete. Hopefully the benefits to this will be transportation
at no financial risk to the general public. More important, hopefully
it will reduce the cost of air fare in northern communities.
(1305)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill
C-101, known as the Canada Transportation Act.
This long awaited bill is the outcome of numerous independent
and government studies concluding that the Canadian government
must take steps to restore the viability of Canada's railway
industry. The most recent of these studies was conducted by the
National Transportation Act Review Commission. In 1993 it wrote:
If Canada is not prepared to pay the price of serious deterioration in
the rail sector as the decade progresses, it is indispensable that
15089
carriers be authorized and encouraged to make the changes
necessary to becoming competitive.
The Commission also said that Canadian railways will be unable
to contribute to making the national economy more competitive
without major changes to their cost structures.
The Bill the government is proposing to us today was therefore
very much expected. Essentially, its objectives are to modernize
railway legislation, to redefine the mandate of the National
Transportation Agency and to rename it the Canadian
Transportation Agency, and to further deregulate the airline
industry.
Although some of the proposed changes had been requested for
some time, other proposals miss their target because of these
measures are incomplete.
For instance, one of the main provisions of this bill is to allow
large national corporations like Canadian National and Canadian
Pacific to get rid of rail lines that are no longer viable. Potential
buyers would create so-called short line railways.
This has been very successful in the United States. In fact, like
us, the Americans have had to revamp their legislation and
regulations on railway transportation. They did so in 1980, when
they passed the Staggers Act. One of the measures included in the
bill was the development of short line railways. Since the Staggers
Act was passed, more than 250 short line railways have started
operating in the United States. This proliferation of regional
railway companies made it possible to recycle more than half of the
surplus rail lines abandoned by the large railway companies.
According to information provided by Canadian Pacific, these
short line railways, and I quote: ``co-operate with the main rail
carriers to provide efficient transportation for shippers located
along lines with a lower traffic density''.
In Canada, railway overcapacity is a major problem. In fact,
according to CP Rail and I quote: ``more than half-53 per cent, to
be exact-of the 20,000 kilometres of CP Rail tracks in Canada
carry only 5 per cent of railway traffic. The situation is similar at
CN''.
The railway company adds: ``As far as CP's system is concerned,
we are looking at more than 10,000 kilometres of rail that bring in
insufficient revenue and on which millions of dollars in land taxes
must be paid. -Establishing short line railways is one way of
resolving the excess capacity problem. With their smaller cost
structures, these railways are able to provide services that are not
viable for larger railways''.
The government claims to want to foster the establishment of
short lines. In the background paper on this bill, the Canada
Transportation Act, the government states that the new process was
designed to encourage the sale or lease of rail lines to short line
railways.
To this end, the government suggests that major railway
companies develop a three-year plan in which they will identify
how they intend to dispose of their railway lines. CN and CP will
be required to put up for sale those lines they no longer want to
operate before they can abandon them.
(1310)
Interested short line railways will have five months to come to
an agreement with the national company, after which time, if no
short line railway has come forward and no agreement was reached
by the parties, the government, whether municipal, provincial or
federal, will be entitled to exercise the option of operating the line.
And, if no interest is expressed by any government, the company
will then be allowed to just abandon the line.
This is a simpler procedure than the one in place until now. It has
the advantage of fostering the establishment of local and regional
rail transport companies. However, the government went only
halfway, failing to stimulate the development of these short line
railways which could become major players in regional
development. Moreover, the process provided in the bill to allow
national railway companies to dispose of their railway lines is
flawed in a number of ways.
For instance, the establishment of short line railways will require
huge capital investments on the part of those interested in such a
venture. However, the federal government does not include any
measure to facilitate the funding of these new ventures, unlike what
the Americans did with the Staggers Act. For example, the
government could have included loan protection measures to help
establish these short lines.
Also, it appears that, between the time when this bill is
proclaimed and the time when CN and CP's three-year plans are
available, there will be a gap during which railway companies will
be able to divest themselves of part of their surplus lines, without
any interested party having time to review the potential of these
lines, or find the required capital to buy or rent them.
Finally, the bill provides that, if no company is interested in
operating a line declared to be surplus, or if no agreement is
reached between the potential buyer and the railway company,
governments will only have 15 days to decide whether or not to
acquire that line. Such a deadline is definitely not reasonable, in
my opinion. In imposing such a short time frame, the federal
government adversely affects the regions, since they will simply
not have time to inform their officials of the situation that will then
prevail. These three flaws in the bill could jeopardize the
establishment of short line railways. The government must make
appropriate changes before the bill is passed.
15090
As for airline transportation, the government is proposing a
measure which gives me great concern. I am referring to clause
70(2), which reads:
The Minister may, in writing to the Agency, designate any Canadian as
eligible to hold a scheduled international licence and, while the designation
remains in force, that Canadian remains so eligible.
That clause must be repealed. Indeed, it is common knowledge
that this government favours Canadian Airlines, at the expense of
Air Canada, which is based in Montreal. To grant the Minister of
Transport the discretionary power to decide who can hold an
international licence when a transportation agency was established
for that purpose is just plain unthinkable.
Air service licensing should be open and impartial. The licensing
process must not be subject to pressure from lobbyists, like it was
last winter, when the Liberal government granted Air Canada only
partial access to Hong Kong, while Canadian was granted
unlimited access to the U.S., designated secondary carrier for
Frankfurt as well as licensed to service Vietnam, the Philippines
and Malaysia.
As the official opposition's critic for Canadian heritage, I am
baffled by the fact that this bill gives such discretionary power to
the Minister of Transport. I am afraid that this could create a
dangerous precedent and become standard practice in all federal
departments.
It worries me to think that such power could be given to, say, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Industry
regarding the CRTC. Imagine for a moment what could happen in
Canada if, just by sending a memo to the CRTC, either of these
ministers could make people eligible to hold a telecommunications
or broadcasting licence. One can easily infer that, given such
power, the government would not have had to issue an order in
council to favour Power DirecTv.
(1315)
Consequently, the Prime Minister's son-in-law would not have
had to appear before the CRTC and American T.V. would have
flooded the Canadian airwaves.
Giving discretionary power to a minister jeopardizes collective
good and interests. That is why I ask the government again to
delete clause 70(2) from Bill C-101.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the
motion to refer Bill C-101 to committee prior to second reading.
This massive document is supposed to be the first step in moving
toward a rail system that will survive into the 21st century. It falls a
little short. The rail transportation system has undergone major
changes in the past decades but nothing compared to what is
needed to ensure its future contributions to Canada's transportation
needs.
The end of the Crow signalled the end of federal government
subsidization of the railway companies. The rail companies must
now be wholly dependent upon consumers paying for their services
which is a novel idea in a country that has historically fostered
government dependency.
We commend the Liberal government for realizing that changes
must take place in the rail industry, however there must be more
than just a realization that changes must be made. Tinkering with
the rail system will not get to the route of the problem.
In the spring session we saw a number of bills rammed through
the House without proper analysis.
Bill C-89, the commercialization of CN Rail, was sent to
committee directly following first reading. In theory this should
have allowed the committee to seriously examine the legislation
and make amendments prior to second reading. In practice, this
was smoke and mirrors and referral to committee was a ploy to
allow rapid passage of the bill by short circuiting debate.
There should have been an opportunity to analyse the bill in
detail but that never happened. The Liberal majority had no interest
in even debating proposed amendments, much less giving them
serious consideration. It now appears that Bill C-101 may be
following the same fast track taken by Bill C-89.
Other bills that followed a similar process in the spring session
were Bill C-64 on employment equity and Bill C-69 on electoral
boundaries. There were some amendments on that one but they
were only Liberal amendments and then it was fast tracked
through. Another was Bill C-91, reorganization of the Federal
Business Development Bank, and on and on.
The Reform Party will not be conned again into supporting this
devious strategy. Bill C-101 has enormous implications for rail
transportation in this country and it deserves serious assessment
which it will not get if the government spirits it away to one of its
neutered committees where the Liberals and the Bloc can, as usual,
collude. They do not have to take seriously or even consider the
smallest changes which we in the real opposition might propose.
The Reform Party has categorically stated numerous times that
distortions in the marketplace caused by subsidies and regulations
must be removed. Although subsidies to the rail companies ended
with the death of the Crow, many of the regulations will remain in
place.
I am going to briefly outline a number of concerns that Reform
has with Bill C-101 with regard specifically to the agricultural
sector. The legislation as it now stands calls for statutory review of
the freight rate cap four years after the act comes into force. It will
then be determined by the minister whether or not to repeal the cap
and move toward a more market oriented system. It has been
15091
suggested that because a cap is a double edged sword, rail
companies will automatically charge the maximum freight allowed
for as long as they can.
The Reform Party supports the move away from a regulated
system toward a system where freight rates are freely negotiated
between shippers and carriers. Having a maximum rate does little
in the way of promoting efficiencies in the industry.
(1320)
We accept the need for a transition period between regulated
rates and those determined through competition. This should be
accomplished in the shortest possible time. Four years as originally
proposed is ample, more than ample.
A less regulated system will allow for more efficient rail
transportation. Rail line rationalization of high cost, low volume
branch lines will permit an overall reduction of system costs.
Several grain companies and farmer owned groups are already
preparing for this type of system by building high throughput
elevators on economically viable rail lines.
With respect to the creation of short lines, these should operate
without government funding in locations where they will provide a
viable cost effective alternative to other means of transportation.
Short lines must be allowed to compete with other carriers on a
level economic playing field. If they cannot compete, then they
should not exist.
There are competitive short lines in Canada. The line operated
by Railtex between Truro and Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Cape
Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway, carries coal, steel and
general freight. Last year it had a profit of more than $3 million
which was shared among the owners and employees. A second
success story is the 70-mile Goderich-Exeter Railway, also
operated by Railtex.
Efficient cost conscious short lines work even when they are
grain dependent. A couple of good examples are the little Southern
Rails Co-operative in southern Saskatchewan and the 114-mile
Northeast Kansas and Missouri line south of the border.
A glaring fault in Bill C-101 is that under the proposed process
for discontinuance, a railway company abandoning a branch line
will be able to stifle competition by refusing to negotiate seriously
with prospective buyers who want to operate a short line,
notwithstanding section 144(3) which is window dressing.
Canadian taxpayers, having financed these branch lines through the
rehabilitation program in the 1970s and 1980s, have a very
legitimate stake in this process.
In order for a competitive transportation system to develop,
cumbersome regulations and restraints must be lifted in all sectors.
This is very evident in the marketing and transporting of grain. A
large number of producers and shippers close to the United States
no longer want to be held captive by Canadian rail companies.
Many farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan want to see more
Canadian grain shipped on the U.S. rail system in order to take
advantage of the efficient and economical elevation and terminal
facilities south of the border. This would indirectly result in a more
competitive environment for Canadian railways especially where,
as in my riding, one carrier has a monopoly.
In summary, there are a number of stakeholders with legitimate
concerns about the proposed legislation. It is essential that these
concerns be heard, reviewed and assessed accordingly. If the
referral process to committee is just more smoke and mirrors on the
part of the Liberals, then there is very little reason for the bill to go
to committee.
The Reform Party wants the consideration of legislation to be
meaningful and open to all stakeholders. It therefore opposes the
fast track ploy.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-101, the Canada
transportation act.
It is important to note that the opportunity to speak on this bill
prior to its going to committee is different from what the previous
speaker from the Reform Party has indicated. It has really given the
public a greater opportunity to put forward their concerns and to
hopefully have them addressed and acted upon.
(1325 )
Since the House was informed under Standing Order 73(1) of the
intention to refer the bill to committee before second reading, there
have been a lot of letters and submissions coming in to members of
Parliament from provincial governments, organizations and
individuals. I have found them in the main to be well thought out
and well researched. This gives us the opportunity to investigate
their concerns and apply some forethought to the bill from a
number of different perspectives.
Today I will address my remarks to some of the points being
raised in some of those submissions, particularly points relative to
the grain transportation industry and its impact on agriculture.
Mr. Morrison: In P.E.I.
Mr. Easter: The member from Reform indicates in P.E.I. I have
found the people from the prairies continue to come to some of us
who did live out there for a while because they cannot get the kind
of response they want through the Reform and they naturally have
to come to the Liberals in other areas of the country.
I bring these points up partly because of my past experience in
this area and my identification of transportation as extremely
important to the development of agriculture and the development
of this country.
15092
During extensive hearings last spring the subcommittee on grain
transportation which I chair, in reviewing the impact on
agriculture of changes to the WGTA, ARFAA, MRFA and feed
freight assistance, we heard a lot that relates to some of the
Canadian transportation act points. We are currently awaiting a
response from the government on some 14 recommendations.
The minister was able to highlight the positive aspects of the
legislation. I will try to highlight those aspects of the legislation
which may-and I underline may-require adjusting and
amendment.
In April, Transport Canada briefed the provinces on the
impending transport legislation. The four objectives outlined at
that time were: one, allow the railways to dispose of surplus
trackage by offering lines for sale to short line railways prior to
initiating abandonment; two, maintain provisions in NTA 1987,
which have improved bargaining of shippers and extend these
provisions to shippers served by short line rails; three, provide for
limited running rights for short line railways over CN and CP lines;
and four, reduce regulatory controls on CN and CP providing the
railways more freedom to manage. These objectives are sound but
we must ensure the legislation actually meets these objectives.
In a submission by the ministers of transportation for the three
prairie provinces on Bill C-101, they claim the legislation does not
meet these objectives. Although I will raise a number of points
discussed by the prairie governments, I also want to indicate that a
number of other submissions from prairie pools, UGG, NFU and
others have raised similar concerns. I will table them to ensure the
committee looks at them and considers them seriously.
Having been a farm leader in the past I might say it is very, very
important for the committee to develop an understanding of the
people who are most affected by these changes. I would very much
encourage the standing committee to get out of Ottawa, get away
from the bureaucracy and go where the people are to hear their
concerns relative to this bill. It is only in that way the committee
will really understand the impact of this bill including how it will
affect the lives of people especially those in the agricultural
community.
The three prairie provinces are specific in addressing their
concerns the first of which is the role of the National
Transportation Agency. The three prairie governments indicate in
their submission: ``Bill C-101 significantly changes the scope and
authority of the NTA. The Canadian transportation agency will no
longer have the authority to initiate enquiries''. The prairie
governments' submission continues: ``The result is greater
restrictions on shipper access to the agency and a weakening of
legislative provisions intended to address and/or redress situations
where competition is weak or absent''.
(1330 )
The committee has to go out to the prairies so it can understand
where the prairie governments are coming from on that point of
view and in order to get some balance so that there is fairness to the
railways and to the communities and players involved.
It is critical that the committee study these concerns to
determine the possible amendments that may be required to
address any shortcomings in the creation of the Canadian
Transportation Agency.
The second point is rail line abandonment. Prairie provincial
governments in their submission outline their concerns as follows:
Bill C-101 allows a railway to change its three-year plan without providing
advance notice. A railway could indicate its intention to continue operating all
of its lines and modify its plan each time it decides to sell or abandon a line. This
would provide interested buyers only a minimum of 60 days to consider
purchasing the line. This may not be sufficient time to develop a business plan
and arrange suitable financing.
That point should be looked at by the committee to ensure the
public has the time and that part of the bill does not jeopardize
efficiencies in the system. Bill C-101 must ensure the issues of
notice and disinvestment by the major railways are addressed.
The third point is legislative review. The prairie provinces and
others have outlined that the review at the end of the four year
period must address three specific issues besides the overview
provided in the legislation: review financial performance of federal
railways; assess the new line conveyance and abandonment
procedures; assess provisions affecting the development and
viability of short line railways. Those are important points.
The subcommittee tabled its report in June. Included were a
number of recommendations. A very important recommendation
relates to short lines which really could create some efficiencies in
western Canada and could ensure that if the short line were brought
into place on lines targeted for abandonment, the farmers would
have to haul their grain longer distances as abandonment would
likely cause.
Some key points raised in the report are: one, the appointing of
an independent ombudsman to monitor freight rates; two, process
of consultations with all affected parties prior to major decisions
respecting grain handling and transportation; three, that there be
appointed a consultant to undertake a special study to identify rail
lines potentially operable by short line railways; four, that federal
and provincial ministers meet to consider alternatives for
approving branch line takeovers; five, that the cost benefit review
of the NTA of grain dependent lines take into account total
transportation efficiencies.
I want to review the points in the act that the committee has to
give serious concern to regarding submissions coming from the
agriculture community, particularly the west. I will not elaborate
15093
on the points but simply indicate the clauses. Clauses 27.2, 34 and
113 require extensive investigation by the committee.
I hope the committee gives serious consideration to travelling. It
should go out and develop an understanding. This bill has major
implications. It can develop our future in a positive or a negative
way. The government wants to develop it as positively as possible.
To best do that we need input from the people most seriously
affected.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleagues for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes and Rimouski, I think
this bill lacks both transparency and clarity. This is why I will vote
against it.
In introducing Bill C-101, the government said it had three
goals. First, it was to modernize legislation on rail transportation.
Second, it was to redefine the mandate of the National
Transportation Agency, which, in the future, would be called the
Canadian Transportation Agency. Third, it was to further
deregulate air transportation.
(1335)
With your permission, I will start with this last point, which, I
must admit, causes me considerable concern. Clause 70 of the bill
specifically provides that the minister must give his approval for
the Agency to issue a licence to operate a scheduled international
service.
Thus, the minister is given full discretionary power in the issue
or non issue of licences. This is a lot of power. I do not want to
impute motives to the minister, but we have to admit that, in certain
circumstances, a minister might well act a little less than rigorously
and risk striking a nasty blow to this government's integrity and
transparency.
By way of example, we might recall the awarding of
international air links and the treatment given Air Canada and
Canadian Airlines International in this area. Is there some bias in
favour of Canadian? I do not know. All I know is that these two
companies do not compete on an equal footing.
That same clause stipulates that the Minister shall also issue the
same type of authorization to all non-Canadians wishing to hold
this same type of licence. At this time, with Quebec sovereignty
imminent, we have doubts about the Minister's ability to remain
impartial despite all his good intentions. What guarantee do we
have that Quebecers will be treated with the same concern for
fairness and equality as anyone else? Might there not be another
repetition of the double standard to which the federal government
has accustomed us Quebecers ever since 1867?
This is important. Last winter we were all in a position to see
what solely political considerations and powerful lobby groups can
accomplish, how they can influence government decisions. Keep in
mind how Air Canada and Canadian Airlines contracts were
awarded. Moreover, can we have any certainty that the minister's
decisions will place public interest above everything else and, if so,
how can we have that certainty?
The government would have been far wiser to have taken
advantage of the opportunity available in this bill to mandate the
Agency to assess proposals from carriers and to decide on
allocation of international routes through an impartial public quasi
judicial process.
Bill C-101 also affects the railways, and some of its provisions
would benefit from a review. Clause 90 is a perfectly beautiful
example of flexible federalism. While this government is
unceasingly singing the praises of Canada with this bill, it is once
again exhibiting an extremely unhealthy tendency to interfere in
provincial jurisdictions. This government's flexible federalism
means that the provinces give in and the federal government
invades their jurisdictions.
Take the short line railways, for instance, which are a purely
provincial matter. Nevertheless, clause 90 of the bill authorizes
Parliament to pass legislation declaring any railway, including
short line railways, a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Basically, this means that provincial legislation no longer applies
and that the company is regulated by the federal government.
While Quebec is doing everything in its power to encourage the
creation of short line railways, the federal government, with its
continuing tendency to interfere with the business and jurisdictions
of the provinces, is doing everything it can to discourage or prevent
Quebec investors from investing in short line railways.
(1340)
Clauses 140 to 146 refer to the sale of railway lines. We read that
potential investors have only 60 days to indicate their interest.
Sixty days to indicate their interest, to make an assessment of
and collect the capital required to purchase the lines available. This
is hardly encouragement, unless it is supposed to encourage them
to drop their plans.
As a member from a region-the riding of Champlain-where
railways are practically non-existent, I think I can say that this
government gives no consideration to the development of the
regions which, you may recall, were severely affected by the
abandonment of branch lines. The federal government is letting the
regions die a slow death.
While the Quebec government supports decentralization towards
the regions, the federal government is interested in the regions only
15094
insofar as that they give it an opportunity to interfere in areas
under the jurisdiction of Quebec.
As I read this bill, I wondered whether the Minister of Transport
consulted his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, when the
bill was being prepared. At a time when the Quebec government
invests millions of dollars so people will ``think green'', when
Quebec schools teach our children at an increasingly younger age
about protecting the environment, the bill before the House today
does not provide that the agency shall conduct an environmental
study before authorizing the construction of a railway line. Why
give more power to the auditor general under Bill C-83, if we
cannot even ensure protection of the environment in an area
relating to transportation?
Is it not our duty as lawmakers to protect the future of our planet
and, therefore, any legislation that could have an effect on the
environment should contain clauses to ensure this protection.
I cannot support this bill because it is unclear. It is totally vague.
Is this government's trademark not its lack of clarity? The fog
settles in without clarifying anything about the new Canadian
transfer. And yet, the government was saying a few months ago that
this was the key that would unlock Quebec's claims. The same was
said about unemployment insurance reform.
One thing is sure, Quebecers know the sort of society a yes vote
will take them into. Whereas a no vote does not reveal what sort of
Canada we will be in. No doubt it will be a foggy Canada, because
discussions on this keep being put off.
For these reasons, I will vote against Bill C-101.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to address the motion to refer Bill C-101 to the Standing
Committee on Transport prior to second reading. As we are all
aware, in the past a number of bills have been sent to committee
prior to second reading. Bill C-45, Bill C-64, Bill C-89 and Bill
C-91 are a few of the bills which have gone through that process.
Originally Reformers supported this new process since we
believed the government when it said MPs would play a much
greater role in shaping legislation within committee. However,
committee reform has come to represent yet another broken
promise within the Liberal red ink book. That faulty document
states that MPs will receive a greater role in drafting legislation
through committees. It goes on to say that committees will also be
given greater influence over government expenditures.
It will come as no surprise to anyone who has sat on a committee
that none of these things has come to pass. In most cases the
opposite is true; the role of MPs at committee has been diminished
or their efforts have been deliberately obstructed by Liberal
committee members.
The best example of this is the fiasco which arose over the
committee hearings surrounding Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity. As I mentioned earlier, this bill was sent to
committee prior to second reading under the premise that it could
be more easily studied there and amendments could be brought
forward and discussed at length.
(1345 )
However the proceedings were completely mismanaged and the
whole examination of the bill was so skewed in favour of the
government's position that Reformers boycotted the hearings. For
instance, only four of the fifty witnesses to be called before the
committee were accepted from the list submitted by the Reform
Party.
Furthermore, debate on each clause within the bill was limited to
five minutes. This meagre five-minute allotment included the
introduction of amendments, debate on the amendments and time
to ask questions of departmental officials. Government members of
the committee refused to accept amendments printed in only one of
the official languages, and it is reported that numerous voting
irregularities occurred. This was the new and improved committee
process we were promised in the red book.
Before referring Bill C-64 to committee prior to second reading
on December 12, 1994, the minister of human resources stated that
the process represented: ``innovation on the part of the government
to turn over a bill after first reading to a committee so it can help in
the actual drafting of the bill''.
As we have heard, MPs from my party were allowed almost no
input in the final drafting of Bill C-64. However the futility of
committees is not constrained to that one example. If we turn to
Bill C-89, a piece of legislation that would see the privatization of
CN Rail, we can also point to instances whereby opposition MPs
were simply ignored with respect to amending legislation.
The Reform Party put forward a number of non-partisan
amendments to the bill that were in the best interests of the
Canadian National Railway, the industry and the taxpayer. Again
these amendments were ignored and the bill was ultimately fast
tracked with no amendments being introduced. MPs who were
promised input into the legislative process were thwarted.
Further, it comes as no surprise that the government fast tracked
Bill C-89 and is now attempting to do the same with Bill C-101.
Bill C-89 permits shares of CN Rail to go on sale this fall. Bill
C-101 is an attempt to bring the Canadian rail industry into a more
competitive position with respect to its U.S. counterparts. Bill
C-101 attempts to make it easier to establish short line railways and
abandon lines. It reduces the number of regulations and taxes
15095
imposed on the rail industry. Should Bill C-101 be fast tracked, CN
Rail shares will look more inviting to potential investors.
In all, Bill C-101 is a huge piece of legislation which shippers,
railways and provinces have serious concerns over. All these
parties have a right to be heard and that right should not be denied
because the government wants to ensure CN Rail shares will sell
this fall.
In August the minister of agriculture stated that the legislative
process surrounding Bill C-101 would be open and amendment
friendly. However, as I understand it, the Standing Committee on
Transport has imposed arbitrary deadlines for submissions by
stakeholders.
Further, I am told that while submissions have been received by
the committee, the committee has yet to make them available to
committee members. Why should we believe the minister of
agriculture or anyone else with respect to the promises of openness
and thoroughness at the committee stage?
The minister of human resources promised the same in relation
to Bill C-64 and Reform MPs were shut out of that process as well.
The government is long on promises, awarding MPs greater powers
at committee stage. However it is short on delivering on promises,
as we have already seen in a number of bills.
Therefore it will come as no surprise to members of the Chamber
that I cannot support the government's motion to refer the bill to
committee prior to second reading. Reformers will not assist in fast
tracking such an important piece of legislation to spruce up CN
Rail's profile for sale of its shares this fall. Reformers will not help
the government limit access to committee hearings under any
circumstances.
All parties affected by Bill C-101 have a right to come forward
and be heard. We gave the government the benefit of the doubt and
supported its promises of parliamentary reform through the
committee reform system. It has done nothing to revamp the
process and its promises amounted to nothing but so much Liberal
hot air, of which we have had enough in the Chamber, let alone at
committee.
(1350)
I guess committee reform will just have to be added to the long
list of Liberal broken promises. Accordingly I will not support the
motion presently under debate.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak to Bill C-101 respecting the Canada Transportation Act. In
my capacity as chairperson of SCOT I had originally planned to
speak to the bill after committee review. I believe it is my first duty
to hear and evaluate the concerns and issues raised by various
stakeholders who may be affected by the legislation to ensure an
effective legislative process.
Speaking of process, I was listening very carefully to the
misleading statements made by the member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke and felt compelled to respond. A full seven
minutes of the ten-minute slot allotted to the member to speak to
Bill C-101 were devoted to procedural matters that were not at all
relevant to the substance of the bill. Plain and simple, the member
chose to play politics, something the third party promised not to do
when elected to the House.
Bill C-101 was introduced in the House by the Minister of
Transport on June 20. Privileged to be the chairperson of the
Standing Committee on Transport, I attempted with the consensus
of committee members, as stated in my letter to the stakeholders
dated July 17, 1995, to ``solicit written submissions throughout the
remainder of July and August in order to ensure that you and other
stakeholders have ample opportunity to apprise committee
members of your concerns prior to formal consideration of the
legislation in the fall''.
In other words, I first appealed to the opposition members of
both parties to proceed with a pre-study of the bill. The notion was
flatly rejected. Step two was to make an appeal to the stakeholders,
as previously stated, to send along their written submissions to give
committee members, especially members of the third party, an idea
of the concerns raised by stakeholders as early in the process as
possible.
I asked them to prepare not 25 copies as alleged by the member
for Kootenay West-Revelstoke earlier this day but 15 copies, if
possible, to cut down on committee expenses, something else the
third party preaches ad nauseam. We also asked that submissions
be sent in both official languages. Unfortunately many were not.
Therefore, before the clerk could circulate the submissions, we had
to have them translated and that takes time.
Mr. Stinson: No.
Mr. Keyes: Tell your colleague from Kootenay
West-Revelstoke that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand that at all times
matters of importance bring out strong views and strong feelings.
However I remind all members to make their interventions through
the Chair.
Mr. Keyes: There was no secret agenda to hold back
submissions as the hon. member for the third party has suggested. I
explained all this to the member verbally last week. I went over
there, sat down, explained it all to him, and then I followed it up
with a formal letter addressing each and every one of the concerns
he raised in the House today.
That did not satisfy the member opposite, not at all. Finally and
quite frankly the chairperson, committee members, the
government-
Mr. Fontana: And the parliamentary secretary.
15096
Mr. Keyes: And the parliamentary secretary, the member for
London East. We are doing our level best to produce effective
legislation.
Because of my appeal to the stakeholders backed by the
consensus of the committee in July, our committee clerk has
received over 70 written submissions and close to 100 requests to
appear before the Standing Committee on Transport. We have done
our homework.
(1355 )
I assure the House and all my colleagues that, as I stated in my
letter to the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, every
stakeholder who has contacted the committee clerk to appear
before the Standing Committee on Transport is being provided with
the opportunity to do so with or without a written submission.
We look forward to working on Bill C-101 as put forward by the
Minister of Transport to create the effective legislation the country
needs to go into the next century with a transportation system that
will be unmatched by any other country in the world.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to commence, albeit briefly, debate on the
bill. I recognize that in only a few minutes we will be adjourning to
commence proceedings under Standing Order 31.
However, in the few moments afforded me, I want to talk about
the bill in question respecting the Canada Transportation Act.
I guess it is now time for question period.
The Speaker: We always welcome astute comments.
[Translation]
It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
15096
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to announce that the Fleetwood trailer facility in the
town of Lindsay, Ontario, has won the customer satisfaction award
for the fourth consecutive year.
The Prowler trailer plant competes against 15 other factories in
North America every year and it is the only facility located in
Canada. Its rating was over 95 per cent.
It was my pleasure to present a Canadian flag to our friendly
American vice-president of operations who attended from
California to help congratulate the Lindsay plant employees on
their championship.
I say congratulations to the Lindsay management and employees
on their success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, 40,000 people, including 25,000 in Montreal,
took part in the walk against AIDS. The purpose of this third Farha
Foundation walk-a-thon was to collect funds for those
organizations that assist and support people with AIDS.
With serenity and respect, the procession observed a minute of
silence to pay tribute to AIDS victims so that no one will forget
them or forget that this disease is still causing too many tragedies.
Saint-Exupéry used to say that everyone was responsible for all.
The walkers showed this kind of solidarity. As for the federal
government, it is still waiting to assume its responsibilities and
take real action against this disease. Will the federal government
finally listen to reason? It is worth repeating that ``everyone is
responsible for all''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the city of Quesnel, British Columbia, in my riding of
Cariboo-Chilcotin was a finalist last weekend in the Canada-wide
competition called ``Communities in Bloom''.
Each year proud community minded citizens across the country
are pleased to show off their towns and cities to the judges. The
finalists were judged on the quality of their green space, the
diversity and originality of landscape, general tidiness,
environmental awareness, and the level of community
involvement.
The people of Quesnel are very proud of the natural beauty of
their city at the confluence of the Quesnel and Fraser Rivers. They
have worked hard to make it beautiful for themselves and very
attractive to all visitors.
I am proud that Quesnel was awarded the prize for originality in
floral plantings.
I ask my colleagues to join me in warmly congratulating the
citizens of Quesnel for this outstanding achievement.
15097
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn
legislation passed by the House regarding the advertising of
tobacco products is the latest evidence of a shifting balance of
power away from Parliament toward the unelected and
unaccountable Supreme Court.
In this and other decisions the court has extended the rights of
individual citizens to business corporations as presumed legal
individuals. This presumption has transformed the charter from a
guarantor of individual rights to a political lever that allows
corporations to evade the legitimate regulatory actions of a
democratically elected government and House of Commons.
In addition, the court has also in some cases interpreted laws or
extended them in ways deliberately not articulated by Parliament at
the time the law was passed. This growing shift in power toward
the court requires new measures to improve the accountability of
the court.
I call on the government to consider a royal commission to
propose measures that would add transparency to and wider
participation in the process of selecting Supreme Court judges in a
manner consistent with our parliamentary system of government.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again New Brunswick is on the cutting edge of the
emerging new economy. It is leading in the area of making
governments more user friendly and making it easier for Canadian
businesses to compete in the global economy.
The federal and provincial governments will combine efforts on
trade promotion and will share information on export programs.
The program being announced today in Fredericton is to be known
as ``Trade Team New Brunswick'', the first of its kind in Canada.
This program will simplify the process of helping exporters
develop new markets.
Under the trade team concept an entrepreneur will be able to get
information on both governments' programs from any economic
agency of either level of government. The trade team concept is a
result of ten months of work by eight different government
agencies.
I congratulate Premier Frank McKenna and the federal Minister
for International Trade on this great achievement. I also extend my
best wishes to the Canadian Exporters Association which is
meeting in my riding today for its 52nd annual conference.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to welcome a group visiting the nation's capital region today.
The Federation of Sterea Hellas represents over 15,000
Canadians who descended from the central part of Greece known as
Roumeli. The federation is involved in many worthwhile projects
and is primarily concerned with issues of an ethnocultural nature.
This year the federation has unanimously decided to recognize
the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for his longstanding
commitment and service to our nation. It also commends him on
his efforts of national unity, world peace and his undying belief in
democracy and human rights.
I wholeheartedly support the federation in its decision and
congratulate the Prime Minister on this well deserved recognition.
I also extend a warm welcome to the federation, its president,
Mr. Constantin Bikas, and Mr. Chris Geronikolos. I hope their stay
in Ottawa will be an enjoyable and informative one.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
representatives from all political parties gathered this morning in
the rotunda of the Manitoba legislature to unveil a plaque to
commemorate Father Noël Joseph Richot.
Father Richot was an adviser to Louis Riel and led the delegation
that negotiated the terms of the Red River Colony's entry into
confederation. Through his arguments, the colony obtained
provincial status and bilingual and bicultural institutions. Father
Richot worked to expand the francophone population in Manitoba.
With this 125th anniversary of Manitoba's entry into
confederation, it is appropriate to honour Father Richot at the
Manitoba legislature, a provincial institution he helped create.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
majority of members of the Fédération des femmes du Québec
support sovereignty. An exceptional proportion of 83 per cent of
them have said yes to change. Each day, more and more women
consider Quebec's sovereignty as a prerequisite to the progress of
equity and justice in our society.
15098
(1405)
Whether it is for pay equity, parental leave, preventative
withdrawal of work or child care services or to prevent regressive
federal reforms of old age pensions and unemployment insurance,
the women of the Fédération des femmes du Québec are convinced
that only a sovereign Quebec will fulfil their needs.
The Bloc Quebecois invites all Quebec women to participate
actively in the debate on Quebec's future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this fall is an anniversary of sorts for the Liberal
government. It will be two years since the controversial cancelling
of the Pearson airport contract.
For two years the government has claimed the process was
corrupt and yet for the same two years it has not produced one
substantive piece of evidence demonstrating its alleged corruption.
For two years the government has claimed it was not a good
financial deal for Canadians in spite of government documentation
to the contrary, and yet for the same two years it has not come up
with an alternative plan.
For two years the government has claimed that failure to pass
Bill C-22 has resulted in its inability to deal with the problem in
spite of the fact there is no injunction standing in its way and the
Pearson Development Corporation has not requested specific
performance in its court action.
Witnesses under oath at the Senate inquiry made allegations
which indicate the cancellation of Pearson is nothing more than a
snit by the Prime Minister against the principal partner in the deal
who had the audacity to donate to the Prime Minister's main
opponent in his leadership campaign.
After two years the Liberals should not be celebrating; they
should hang their heads in shame.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's official announcement
confirming October 30 as the date of the Quebec referendum brings
us a step closer to the certainty that the people of Quebec will
overwhelmingly vote to stay in a united Canada.
I thank Premier Parizeau for giving the citizens of Quebec the
opportunity to decisively say yes to a united Canada. Each and
every eligible voter now has the opportunity to reject the false
premises and unrealistic expectations of the separatist movement
in Quebec. The destiny of millions of Canadians is now in their
hands. I am convinced they will choose the no option.
Having spent the past four weekends in Quebec meeting with
numerous committee organizations, I believe a stronger and united
Canada will emerge on October 31. I urge every member of the
House to work toward achieving a united Canada. Our efforts will
make a difference in keeping Canada together.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
school children from around the world love contests, and last June
Canadian school children got their chance to enter one.
At the request of cartoonist Ben Wicks newspapers from across
Canada and the Schoolnet asked our children to depict how they
felt about their country. They could submit letters, poems,
drawings or paintings.
The response was overwhelming. More than 50,000 replies were
received and 300 were selected for a new book called Dear
Canada/Cher Canada-A Love Letter to My Country.
Today Mr. Wicks and 20 children from across Canada are in
Ottawa to launch this book. The proceeds from the sale will go to
needy mothers and children in Haiti and to the Boys and Girls
Clubs of Canada.
Through this book the children of Canada are telling us what the
rest of the world already knows, that Canada is the best country in
the world.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, Mr. Wicks and the children are here. I
would ask them to stand and be recognized by Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
national infrastructure program put in place by our government
will soon be two years old. All regions of this country have enjoyed
the significant benefits of this program, which not only made it
possible to modernize municipal facilities but also created an
impressive number of jobs.
In Quebec, this program created over 25,000 new jobs in
connection with 1,882 projects. To date, in excess of $436 million
was injected into the various projects by federal, provincial and
municipal governments.
15099
(1410)
The national infrastructure program also showed that the various
levels of government can co-operate when they really want to. It is
a good example of a successful and effective program, and we are
quite proud of it.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Parti Quebecois Premier made use of something said
by one of the executives of the Bank of Montreal to reaffirm his
confidence in the economic future of an independent Quebec. It is
paradoxical, to say the least, to see the head of the Parti Quebecois
using the words of a representative of the Bank of Montreal to
support his separatist pretensions. In June 1994, the same man was
publicly inviting Quebecers who did business with the Bank of
Montreal to pull out of the institution because its chief economist
had dared to say that the election of the Parti Quebecois would
make the money markets extremely nervous.
This is a fine example of the separatists' double standard. If you
make a statement in favour of Quebec independence one day, you
are quoted publicly. Then, another day, if you say something
against separation, you become the target of the PQ's big guns. So
much for intellectual impartiality.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, historically Quebec has been the biggest loser
by far when it comes to federal expenditures for job creation. A
study commissioned by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission
concluded that the current level of federal expenditures for job
creation in Quebec is far below the average. Since statistics have
been available, Quebec has not received its share of funding from
Ottawa aimed at bolstering the economy, whereas Ontario has had
the lion's share, whether federal purchases of goods and services,
capital investments, research and development, defence spending, I
could go on and on.
With the cuts that were announced in the last federal budget not
only will development continue in Ontario, but Quebec will not
even receive the amount of social transfers it was receiving in the
past. That is an excellent reason for a yes vote this coming October
30.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, three weeks ago the Adams River bridge was torched by
an arsonist during the Gustafsen Lake confrontation, also with
Shuswap Indians, forcing some 90 residents previously blockaded
by the Adams Lake Indian Band to use a temporary ferry as their
sole access to every service from medical health to the mail.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has said the salmon
resource will prevent bridge demolition and reconstruction until
mid-August 1996. Because the court ruled the private road belongs
to the Adams Lake Indian Band, nobody knows who owns the
bridge and therefore who has the responsibility to rebuild it.
I will present a petition today from Indian Point residents that
the government buy out their homes at the assessed value.
On behalf of Adams Lake residents, mostly seniors seeking
peaceful retirement, whose lives have been so terribly disrupted by
federal and provincial government mismanagement, I urge the
minister to buy out their homes now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
three countries that are party to the North American Free Trade
Agreement have not yet been invited to comment officially on an
independent Quebec's membership in NAFTA, and yet already
anxiety is being felt in government headquarters in Quebec City.
Today's
Globe and Mail reveals that the Parti Quebecois
government has prepared a list of 31 different subjects or areas for
negotiation with the future partners before an independent Quebec
joins NAFTA.
This list of preferential acts and regulations Quebec currently
enjoys as a province of Canada would no longer be covered by the
terms of the present agreement should Quebec separate. Quebec
would be best assured of protecting these various sectors of activity
by remaining in Canada, and this is what the people will say on
October 30.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we
now call the Le Hir studies will not go unnoticed in the current
referendum debate. After delivering separatist tinted studies and
after hiding studies that did not fit with PQ orthodoxy, the minister
responsible for reworking information has just tabled in one fell
swoop the last 26 studies he commissioned.
Furthermore, these studies are available for consultation only at
government offices. Anyone wanting a copy pays 25 cents a page.
15100
(1415)
The people of Quebec have already amply paid for these
separatist propaganda studies. The Parti Quebecois government's
attempt to impose an information tax on them is unacceptable.
_____________________________________________
15100
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, the Prime Minister refused to take part in a
four-way public debate on the political future of Quebec and asked
the official opposition to give him one good reason to vote Yes on
October 30. Here is one good reason among many others, and I am
referring to Ottawa's ongoing under-investment in research and
development spending in Quebec, which is otherwise a preferred
way to create new jobs. I may recall that Quebec receives only 18.6
per cent of federal funding, as opposed to 50 per cent for Ontario.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What explanation
does he have for the fact that the federal government is depriving
Quebec of its fair share of research and development and has done
so for nearly 20 years?
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, Quebec receives more than its share of research and
development funding. The figures quoted by the Leader of the
Opposition assume that money spent within the national capital
area only benefits Ontario, while in my riding, I have 1,700 people
who work in research and development institutions on the Ottawa
side.
This is the wrong way to look at spending. In fact, when we
exclude the National Capital area, we see that nearly 30 per cent of
research and development spending goes to Quebec, which
represents only 24.9 per cent of the population.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if we exclude Ottawa, if we forget that Ottawa is in
Ontario, if we overlook the fact that jobs created on the Ontario
side benefit Ontario, that taxes are paid in Ontario, that contracts
are awarded in Ontario and that research networks are created in
Ontario, then he is right. However, Ottawa will not go away.
It so happens that Quebec receives only 13.8 per cent of Ottawa's
research and development spending in its laboratories within the
national capital area. Only 13 per cent is done in Quebec and the
rest on the Ontario side.
Will the Prime Minister, and my question is directed to him since
he is ultimately responsible-since he will not go on television, he
can at least answer me here-will the Prime Minister-unless he
sends his ineffable minister who just replied-will the Prime
Minister at least admit that the federal government systematically
discriminates against Quebec when distributing funding for
research among its own laboratories?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is getting a bit upset.
The answers given by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
were quite clear.
Here in the national capital, some people live in Quebec and
work on this side of the river, while some people on this side of the
river work on the other side. The minister just said that in his
riding, Hull-Aylmer, on that side, 1,700 residents work on
research and development in laboratories on this side, in the
national capital. If we exclude the national capital, in other words,
if we compare Quebec with the other provinces, Quebec receives
more than its share.
It has 24 per cent of the population and receives 30 per cent. That
is clear, if we compare Quebec with Saskatchewan and Ontario
with Quebec. Here in the national capital, we share and share alike.
We have lived together for more than a century and will continue to
live together for another hundred years.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all but a few-three, four or five-research centres are
located on the Ontario side. Dozens of federal research centres are
located in Ontario. The Prime Minister should at least acknowledge
this basic truth, which is that Quebec has always been denied its
fair share in research and development. Many have acknowledged
this before him, so he could make a gesture today and admit it.
(1420)
We know that Quebec receives federal help on social assistance,
unemployment insurance and equalization, but this spending does
not create jobs or stimulate the Quebec economy in any way.
Does the Prime Minister admit that Ottawa's chronic
underinvestment in research and development, which creates jobs,
is the reason why Quebec is so dependent on unproductive federal
contributions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada developed in such a way that today, for example,
the aeronautical industry is concentrated in Quebec. It could have
been elsewhere in Canada, but that is the way things turned out.
Some sectors are concentrated in Quebec, some in Ontario, some
in other provinces, so that Canada manages to develop in an
equitable way. But there is always room for improvement.
15101
I am not saying that Canada cannot be improved; it can always
be improved. But one should not separate from a country simply
because of petty quarrels on approximate budget levels on one side
or another. One can find all kinds of justifications. For example,
Quebec naturally receives money for national ports but, because
it is in the middle of the Prairies, we have not yet dug a river in
Saskatchewan so that we can give that province its share of the
national ports budget. That province does not receive anything for
national ports but it does not complain about it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what an
extraordinary leap of logic.
The federal government is about to sign with GM, in Ontario, a
major contract worth as much as $2 billion for the acquisition of
armoured vehicles. Despite the intergovernmental affairs
minister's attempt to reassure Oerlikon in Quebec, a GM
spokesperson clearly indicated that Oerlikon was not a contender
for the armoured turrets subcontract, in spite of the fact that
Oerlikon is the Canadian center of excellence for this kind of work.
Given that, in the past 15 years, Quebec has been shortchanged
by at least $10 billion in the distribution of federal military
expenditures, why would the Prime Minister not give Quebecers
the assurance that they will get their fair share of the economic and
technological benefits associated with the generous contract which
was awarded to General Motors instead of Oerlikon?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to date, no
contract has been signed with General Motors, and the question of
content will be addressed as part of the contract negotiations.
As for Oerlikon, there have been discussions between officials of
my department, other departments and General Motors to examine
the possibility of including Oerlikon in GM's plans for
manufacturing armoured personnel carriers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
prime ministers have been promising for decades to remedy the
situation. Yet, no corrective action has ever been taken.
How can the defence minister explain the statement he made
about this contract on Radio-Canada's television program Enjeux,
that the federal government cannot afford to be fair to Quebec?
How does he justify making such a statement?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual
but the hon. member has taken the words I used on that television
program entirely out of context. What I stated was that the mandate
of the Canadian Armed Forces is to deliver its services in the
fastest, most efficient way possible.
We have to do that sometimes without having regard to the
expenditures of national defence being equitable in every single
region. Part of that problem harks back to the second world war
when a disproportionate amount of Canadian forces infrastructure
and spending was in the Atlantic provinces because it was a staging
area for war. This has tended to disfavour certain regions.
(1425)
In spite of that, I would like to point out to the hon. member that
in the 1994-95 fiscal year 20 per cent of military spending and 27
per cent of the capital expenditures were made in the province of
Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Media reports today maintain that documents received from the
Department of National Defence through access to information
have been falsified. One of these documents had entire sections
deleted and the Department of National Defence did not indicate
any omissions but presented it as an accurate copy of the original.
Another document had not only been edited but entire sections had
been rewritten in order to misrepresent statements which were
damaging to the Department of National Defence in the original.
I demand that the Minister of National Defence explain the
actions of his department to Canadians.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a review of
certain access to information requests made of the department, it
was discovered that certain errors and omissions had occurred.
Immediately when that was made known to senior officials, I was
informed. An investigation has ensued. The information
commissioner has also been informed and we would like to know
why this state of events has occurred.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Prime Minister assured the House and
all Canadians that the government takes responsibility for making
sure that the Somalia commission has all the facts. Today's
revelations call into question the government's commitment. The
Department of National Defence has turned over mountains of
material to the commission.
If the Department of National Defence is capable of falsifying
documents to the media, how can Canadians be sure it is not
altering evidence to the commission of inquiry in a similar fashion?
15102
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): I certainly do not accept the
premise in the hon. member's question.
It is quite obvious that some erroneous thing has happened which
is being investigated. Certainly we stand by what we have said
repeatedly and what the Prime Minister said Friday, that all
documentation will be made available and all co-operation will be
given by the Department of National Defence to the inquiry.
We would like to know why these omissions did occur. We acted
responsibly by informing the information commissioner. As soon
as we know why this happened we will certainly make that public.
It was the department officials themselves once they found the
errors who called in the person who had originally made the
request. They were quite open and honest about this particular
mistake that had occurred.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has consistently
expressed confidence in his department officials despite recurring
charges of mismanagement, poor judgment and misconduct.
Another internal inquiry is utterly unacceptable. The DND
hierarchy is absolutely unable to investigate itself. The evidence of
these documents suggests possible criminal behaviour.
Will the minister treat this as a criminal matter within his
department which is separate from the Somalia inquiry and
immediately call in the RCMP to investigate the Department of
National Defence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would not
preclude any measure that might be taken with respect to this
matter. Initially we are investigating it ourselves. Should it warrant
investigation by an outside agency such as the RCMP, that will
done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of National Defence.
In order to lessen the consequences of the closure of the base in
Chatham, New Brunswick, the minister forced the bidders for the
program of refurbishment of armoured vehicles to do the work in
Chatham, where there is no expertise in the field. Yet, in
Saint-Jean, Quebec, the government closed the Military College,
reduced the staff and the activities of the base, with dire
consequences for the region's economy, but offered no
compensation whatsoever.
How does the minister justify, on the one hand, compensating
Chatham for the losses while, on the other, refusing to give
Oerlikon of Saint-Jean the same incentives he gave GM, and this
despite the fact that Oerlikon has unique expertise in the area of
gun turrets?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the armoured
personnel carrier contract, the refurbishment of the old carriers and
the direction of part of that work to Chatham-and the hon.
member conveniently forgot to mention that most of the work on
the refurbishment would be done at the defence workshops in the
east end of Montreal-do not constitute any reparation or
compensation for base closures. We have categorically ruled that
out.
If we can assist a community, whether it is Chatham, Saint-Jean,
Quebec, Calgary or anywhere else where base closures have been
announced, by directing or encouraging suppliers to do business
with a base or make purchases or manufacture in certain regions,
then we would do so.
What we have said because of all of the closures-the one at
Chatham being the most devastating in terms of its regional
impact-is that any contractor who wishes to carry out a small part
of the work of refurbishment would have to stipulate that the work
be done in Chatham, New Brunswick. I think that is fair and
equitable.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did
not forget the whole business of refurbishing the armoured
vehicles, but I remind the minister that he specified that contracts
would be in Chatham, whether there is expertise there or not.
Should I understand that when it comes to Ontario and New
Brunswick the Minister of National Defence does not hesitate to
compensate for closures, protect jobs and even create new ones,
whereas for Quebec there is no maintenance work provided for the
old armoured vehicles? The Prime Minister wants us to give him
good reasons to vote yes, here is one.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is quick to criticize the government, especially on defence
reductions.
First, I have to remind the hon. member that it was his party in
the last election that called for a 25 per cent reduction in defence
spending.
Second, the hon. member has the Canadian forces base
Valcartier near his constituency. He conveniently forgets to tell
you, Mr. Speaker, that actually defence expenditures at Valcartier
have
15103
been increased in the last couple of years when other regions have
suffered.
Third, he conveniently forgets to say that the majority of the
refurbishment work is going to be done in an area of very high
unemployment, the east end of Montreal, because the defence
workshops there are the most able to perform that work. He does
not tell us all of that.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry says that a question on
race is included in the 1996 census because a specific question on
racial origin would be beneficial for a wide range of purposes.
However, question 19 is inconsistent as it confuses race,
nationality and geographic location. It would allow the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration to claim to be a visible minority
because of his Latin American birth.
Can any minister advise the House of one purpose this question
will benefit other than providing targets for the government's
employment equity program?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
her question. Every five years Statistics Canada gathers important
information to allow the government to fulfil its programs and
commitments to Canadians.
In this context, the questions which have been developed for the
1996 census are eminently reasonable and sensible.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians filling out this question will have
the option of stating whether they are one of the following
nationalities: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese or Korean. However,
most immigrants, or descendants of immigrants from these
countries, consider themselves to be proud Canadians but they
cannot indicate that.
Is the government prepared to stop the practice of creating
hyphenated Canadians by adding another nationality to the list,
Canadian?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has omitted
to read question 17. Question 17 asks to which ethnic or cultural
group does this person's ancestors belong. In Question 17, one of
the answers is Canadian.
(1435)
Question 19 is different. I point out that the census document
will quite clearly allow people to show that they are of Canadian
origin.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for
regional development in Quebec.
When it was first announced that the Canadian space agency
would be located in Saint-Hubert, we were told that federal
aerospace research would be conducted in Quebec. However,
aerospace research centres, which have a combined budget of close
to $45 million, have remained in Ottawa.
Does the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for regional
development in Quebec, agree that maintaining space research
activities in Ottawa, rather than centralizing them in Saint-Hubert,
close to the space agency, favours Ontario at the expense of
Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the aerospace
industry employs over 32,000 people in Quebec, thanks to the
federal programs in that sector. The fact is that the agency is there.
It is not in Ottawa. As a Montrealer, the hon. member should know
that there is a great deal of work in research and development. The
agency is located in her riding. The member should be very proud
of that and she should know that there is a lot of R and D being
conducted, that a lot of work is being contracted out, and that many
jobs were created thanks to federal activities in her riding.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister claim that Quebec was treated fairly by the federal
government regarding federal research centres, considering that
these centres employ only 3,000 people in Quebec, compared to
11,000, or almost four times more, in Ontario? Is this not another
good reason to vote Yes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
pharmaceutical industry exists thanks to federal programs. The
aerospace industry exists thanks to federal programs. As for the
computer industry as a whole, Quebec entrepreneurs are successful
in these sectors thanks to federal programs.
If we look at R and D grants, Quebec gets over 40 per cent thanks
to federal programs. The truth is that the federal government has
built on the enormous capabilities of our entrepreneurs and, instead
of criticizing us, the hon. member should take pride in their
success.
15104
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, billions
of dollars are required to finish construction of Canada's
information highway. Right now those billions of dollars are stuck
at the U.S. border. The reason they are stuck there is because of
archaic foreign ownership restrictions that have been upheld by the
government. Even its own advisory council is asking for change.
When is the government going to do something for consumers
instead of catering to special interests and bring that much needed
investment into the country?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon.
member has highlighted the importance of developing the
information highway in Canada. It is important to note that it is
recognized in the telecommunications area that our structure in
terms of foreign investment is appropriate. They are looking at and
have recommended changes in other areas.
Quite frankly we think the investment potential is here. It is a
very exciting investment for the Canadian area and it is occurring
with the existing rules in the area of telecommunications.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard those speeches for two years in this place. If they keep
up with this kind of attitude, the information highway will become
an information goat path in Canada.
Thousands of jobs are waiting to be created in the country. Why
is the government stifling the creation of all those jobs, those 21st
century jobs, by maintaining 19th century protectionist policies?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon.
member that Canada's telecommunications infrastructure and
programs are seen as among the leaders in the world.
(1440 )
We are moving very quickly to open up a very competitive
environment. Investment in this area is increasing dramatically and
the investment in research and development, which has been the
particular question today, is very substantial. It looks like a bright
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance,
responsible for regional development in Quebec.
The Prime Minister asked us to find good reasons to vote Yes in
the referendum, and here is another one. Research and
development is a fundamental tool for developing the economy and
employment in Quebec. Ever since statistics became available,
Quebec has never had its fair share of federal spending in this area.
Will the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for regional
development in Quebec, admit that the federal government has
done nothing in the past two years to redress a long standing
injustice with respect to research and development in federal
laboratories, which leaves Quebec with a meagre 15.8 per cent of
the R&D budget although it represents 25 per cent of the
population?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the
hon. member, these figures are entirely inaccurate. They are not
correct.
In the past ten years, the federal government built ten new
research centres in Quebec.
An hon. member: Really?
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Yes, really. Furthermore, six
research institutions were established jointly with the province. All
these institutions are involved in areas that are vital to the
development of Quebec and Canada: biotechnology, energy, the
environment, aerospace, optics, and many more.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, no mistake, it is absolutely too good to be true.
A study released in 1992 reported and I quote: ``Moreover,
research and development expenditures by the federal government
in Quebec must account for a fairer share than the disgraceful 13
per cent they now represent''. The author of that study-the Prime
Minister says Le Hir-no, no, if you just look to your left you will
see the author, the Minister of Finance, who was quoted in the June
8 1992 papers as saying so. He is the author.
It was the Minister of Finance who wrote ``the disgraceful 13 per
cent'', when he was-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure that we are getting to the question right
now.
15105
Mr. Duceppe: Yes. It is far from being too good to be true,
nothing has changed. Is this not, based on the words of the minister
himself, a good reason to vote yes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that was written
when we were not in government. We have made a complete
change in direction since then.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member, the
one quoting Le Hir, for at last quoting someone credible.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, day
after day we hear Reform members criticize regional economic
development especially in Atlantic Canada. I am an Atlantic
Canadian and I would like to know the facts.
My question is for the minister responsible for the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency. Can the minister tell the House and
my constituents what ACOA's success rate is, what concrete
benefits it brings to the region and what is his response to the
criticism from the third party?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, the government committed itself both in the throne speech
and in subsequent budgets to developing strong regional
economies.
Regional development agencies by their very nature are
decentralized institutions committed to working with the private
sector, provincial governments, universities and other community
organizations.
In Atlantic Canada, ACOA has been able to facilitate the private
sector and its success rate is approximately 94 per cent.
I said to committee members that there are bound to be setbacks.
There will probably be setbacks in the future, but at a success rate
of 94 per cent when the federal government contributes one dollar
under that particular agency it generates $4.20.
* * *
(1445)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
criminal element in Ipperwash has led insurance companies to
declare that the whole area of Ipperwash is an area of insurrection
and rebellion. The solicitor general has decided to pass the buck
and lay blame at the feet of the Ontario Provincial Police.
Now the provincial police is on a heightened state of alert
because of a potential land grab by militant natives at the
2,000-acre Pinery Provincial Park this Thanksgiving weekend.
Will the solicitor general declare these renegades a national
security threat and deal with them immediately? When will the
minister put the safety of Canadians ahead of the interests of thugs
and criminals?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the matter is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Ontario provincial
government through its police of local jurisdiction, the Ontario
Provincial Police.
If the Ontario government through the Ontario Provincial Police
feels that it needs assistance, there are recognized procedures in
place to request such assistance. If a request is made it will be
given very active and immediate consideration.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general should do his job and make sure that the law is
applied equally. Ipperwash is just one example of organized
criminals getting out of control.
Since he does not believe it is a national security threat, how
about the biker wars in Montreal and Toronto? These wars are
being waged over the control of the drug trade, gun smuggling,
prostitution and other contraband. The pipeline for this contraband
is Akwesasne, Oka and Kanesatake.
If he does not believe this is a national security threat, will the
solicitor general tell Canadians what is a national security threat,
what is organized crime, and his reasons for not acting?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under our Constitution the administration of justice is a provincial
responsibility. The federal government cannot simply walk in and
tell the Ontario Provincial Police or the Quebec Provincial Police
to leave and let somebody else do their job. If they feel they need
assistance there are provisions in place for that assistance to be
requested and, if so, it will be responded to in a quick and effective
way.
We are there to help law enforcement across the country. We
want to see the laws enforced in an equitable and firm way across
the country, but we are not in a position to tell, like the hon.
member, that we do not think the Ontario Provincial Police or the
Quebec Provincial Police can do its job. I am sure he should have,
as a former member of a local police force, more respect for and
confidence in similar police forces across the country.
15106
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Since the last federal election, Quebec has been awarded only 13
per cent of the research and development contracts of the
Department of Natural Resources. Turning the clock back a little,
Quebec has received under 10 per cent of research and
development contracts for the past six years, a shortfall for the
Quebec laboratory industry and Quebec researchers of tens of
millions of dollars. Another good reason, Mr. Prime Minister, for a
yes vote.
Because the Minister of Natural Resources has long been aware
of the situation, what steps has she taken to ensure that Quebec
obtains its full share of research and development contracts from
her department?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me provide the hon. member this afternoon with
some very good reasons why Quebecers should vote to stay in
Canada.
In the Department of Natural Resources we have a substantial
presence in the province of Quebec. Let me share with the hon.
member some examples: our annual contribution to Forintek
Canada, which recently established its eastern office in Quebec
City; funding provided to the Centre canadien de fushion
magnétique; the establishment of the Canadian Centre for
Geomatics in Sherbrooke; and let us not forget the work done at the
Varennes laboratories pertaining to energy efficiency and
alternative energy.
The financial infusion of my department into Quebec is strategic
and represents targeted investments that will ensure not only
Quebec's long term economic future but the future of our nation.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that only amounts to 13 per cent, which is peanuts. You
know very well that Quebec is being had all down the line.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you must always address the
Chair.
Mrs. Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the minister knows very well that Quebec has been had all
down the line in research and development. Ten or thirteen per cent
is far from our share. She could give us a long list; we would not be
impressed.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Prime
Minister, how do you justify-
Mr. Bouchard: No, no. ``How does the Prime Minister
justify''-
Mrs. Tremblay: Pardon me. I should address you, Mr. Speaker.
I got it wrong. I am all mixed up today.
How does the Prime Minister justify his minister and his
government's inaction in a matter in which Quebec is clearly
wronged?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources clearly showed a few
minutes ago that she was not at all mixed up.
In Canada, we always try for a balance in all areas possible, but it
is mathematically impossible for the proportions to be the same in
each area for each province. Some provinces are smaller, some are
bigger. It depends on circumstances. On the whole, however, the
distribution of laboratories, research and development in Canada
has been very fair. When I visit Quebec, I realize some sectors have
benefited enormously from research and development in Canada.
Aeronautics, as I said earlier, is concentrated in Quebec. In the
Montreal region, Canadair is expanding considerably. Pratt &
Whitney is another of the major specialty firms. It has gained a
reputation for manufacturing engines not only in Canada, but
throughout America.
So we do a lot and we will do even more in the future, that is
certain, because once the situation in Canada becomes extremely
stable, as it will on October 31, Canada will enjoy a new period of
prosperity, and we will be able to share even more.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government subsidizes VIA Rail to the tune of
over $800,000 a day.
Last spring VIA ran a 50 per cent off special. The consequences
of this action were twofold. First, privately run bus companies were
forced to lay off workers due to the fact they could not compete
with twice subsidized rates. Second, the Canadian taxpayer ended
up paying for the 50 per cent cuts. Now VIA is at it again offering
50 per cent off rates for the winter and the fall.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. When will he do
the responsible thing and put an end to this grotesque abuse of
taxpayers' dollars?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the future of passenger rail in the country is certainly in
doubt. When we look at what the hon. member has just suggested
in terms of the overall subsidy paid to VIA Rail and to other
non-VIA passenger services, we have to be extremely careful about
15107
how we will handle the very strong demand on Canadian taxpayers
for a subsidy.
Surely even the hon. member would agree that since VIA is
running trains on a number of corridors throughout the country we
should try to keep them as full as possible and try to avoid as much
of a drain as possible on Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the government is competing against the
private sector and using taxpayers' dollars to do so. There is only
one way to deal with the situation: privatize VIA Rail and end the
squandering of public funds.
When will the Minister of Transport make the logical and ethical
decision and introduce legislation that will commence the
privatization of VIA Rail?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already indicated that as the budget called for last
year Transport Canada is looking at all its activities and all areas in
which we have subsidies.
I am glad to see the hon. member believes we should be
eliminating subsidies. I hope he will speak to some of his
colleagues who are having second thoughts about some of the
subsidies that have been eliminated so far.
I assure the hon. member that we will be taking into account the
need to look at the future of VIA.
(1455 )
Now that the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and
the Government of Canada have made public the report on high
speed rail, we believe the time has come to look very carefully at
what the future of VIA and other passenger services in the country
should be. Certainly, as has been the case in the past, we will be
looking at privatization as one of those options.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Canadians expect a lot from Canada Customs in its
responsibility for our international border. On the one hand we
expect it to keep our streets and communities safe from smuggled
guns, drugs and pornography. On the other hand we expect customs
to speed the passage of tourists and goods into Canada because
tourism and trade mean jobs in this country.
What is the Minister of National Revenue doing to improve
service at Canada's borders?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that we do expect a lot from
Canada Customs. Indeed it performs very well. It is one of the best
customs services in the world.
Recently we worked on the accord between the President of the
United States, Mr. Clinton, and the Prime Minister of Canada with
respect to making the border easier for people who are regular
travellers and those who pose no great risk to either country.
We have instituted a number of programs, CANPASS for the
airports, CANPASS for rail and land traffic, CANPASS for boats,
which allow people to get across the border substantially faster
than before. At the same time it frees up resources for special teams
where we feel there are areas of higher risk. It is this weeding out
areas of higher risk from those of lower risk which we think will be
the future of our services.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, a group of
Quebec organizations, including the Union des municipalités du
Québec, is demanding $80 million from the federal government to
compensate for its complete withdrawal from the funding of the
private forestry sector by April 1996.
Does the Minister of Natural Resources intend to agree to the
Quebec partners' request and to compensate the thousands of
Quebec forestry workers abandoned by the federal government?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows because of his interest
in the forestry sector in Quebec, it was the previous government
that decided to cancel FRDA or Federal-Provincial Forest Resource
Development Agreements. Because of the sorry state of the
finances of the nation left to us by the previous government, we had
no choice but to confirm that decision of the previous government.
Therefore FRDA will expire across the nation as their due dates
come upon us.
Let me say that because of program review my department had
to reassess its priorities. The Department of Natural Resources is
not a department of regional economic development. It is primarily
a department of science and technology. We are working very
closely with our provincial counterparts and industry to ensure the
forestry sector has the science and technology base it needs to
compete with the best in the world.
15108
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the investigator working with the commission de la
jeunesse into allegations of sexual abuse at Lac Barrière reserve is
expected to present a draft report to the band today.
The total cost of this is anticipated to exceed $300,000. There is
concern that the investigator will provide a copy to the band but
present only a verbal whitewash to the public. A verbal report is not
good enough.
Could the minister assure the House that the public will get a
written report rather than the most expensive speech it has ever
paid for?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice must have been very encouraged when
close to 300 guns of various descriptions were voluntarily turned in
recently to authorities in Ottawa-Carleton in exchange for free
triple A baseball tickets.
(1500 )
Would the Minister of Justice consider some similar form of gun
amnesty on a national scale as a way of flushing out unused and
unwanted guns in our society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I first of all acknowledge the
hon. member's interest in the whole area of gun amnesty. I am
grateful to him for his focus on that subject.
The government is fully aware of the value a gun amnesty can
provide. Unused guns for which people no longer have a purpose
and indeed illegal guns could be turned in without consequence and
without questions being asked. An amnesty can only make
communities safer.
I can tell the hon. member that the government is considering an
amnesty coincidental with the proclamation of Bill C-68 when that
occurs.
Once again I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this
point again.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has to do with the
fact that the Government of France has proceeded with another
nuclear test in the Pacific.
Given the government's oft-stated desire to have Canada be
more of a part of the Pacific rim, I wonder if the government is
prepared to show solidarity with the opinions of the governments
and the peoples of the Pacific rim and call in the French
ambassador and tell him just how objectionable the Canadian
people and the Canadian government find this continued nuclear
testing.
Will the minister tell the House today not just what he is going to
say but what the government is going to do about France
continually flouting the opinion of the international community on
this and the future of the planet?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the view expressed by the hon. member.
The test is the second in a series of tests France has announced. I
have expressed our regret on behalf of the Government of Canada.
We hope that by 1996 all countries that have the capacity to have
nuclear armament will cease these tests. In the meantime I believe
our position is well known by the Canadian public, by the French
authorities and by the public at large. I do not think the hon.
member should be excited today since this was announced some
time ago and we missed his first reactions when the first test took
place.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of order
is very brief.
We have agreed in this House to stand by your rulings. You have
ruled that signs and symbols are not to be worn on the lapel. I draw
to your attention the fact that the member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville has such a device. Today he
was even on camera when he made a statement. I think it would be
correct for you to censure him.
The Speaker: I did not see the sign. I cannot see it from here.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sign I am holding reads ``One
Canada''.
We have from time to time worn a lapel symbol which shows the
unity of the country. It is not advertising something. From time to
time we do display our support for good causes. This sign is a sign
that we believe in a united country and-
The Speaker: Colleagues, you usually leave these things to my
discretion. Would you mind if I took time to have a look at this
particular sign.
15109
I would point out to hon. members that your Speaker would be
hard pressed to have members who carry the identification of a
member of Parliament on their lapels remove them. I would be
hard pressed to have those members who wear them remove the
Canadian flag pins. I am just saying that to say I would not in
any way be able to indicate all possible things you could or could
not wear on your lapels.
(1505)
I have listened to the hon. member's point of order. I said that I
would look at it and take it under advisement. If necessary, I will
get back to the House.
_____________________________________________
15109
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 two
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw my Private Members' Motion M-4 from the Order Paper.
At this time the matter seems to be redundant. It has been a
considerably long time since I submitted the motion.
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to withdraw it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official
languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources in relation to Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives
Act, without amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if you ask, I think you will find the unanimous consent of
the House to withdraw Motion M-404 in the name of the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and replace it
with Motion M-494 in the name of the hon. member for Verchères
on the Order Paper and especially on the House's priority list. I
think we will have the unanimous consent of the House for this
proposal.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, just one small item in
connection with that matter. Motion No. 494 in the name of the
hon. member for Verchères should be transferred into the name of
the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. That
would be part of the same order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we still have
unanimous consent for the change?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from British Columbia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically, ill
or the aged.
15110
(1510 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, is from
a group of B.C. citizens, including many in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap, asking Parliament to stop the native land
claim negotiations and to start treating native Indians exactly the
same as all other Canadians.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is my sad duty to present a petition duly certified by the
clerk of petitions from the residents trapped on the far side of
Adams Lake where they can no longer have access to their homes
safely and reliably due to government mismanagement.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present two petitions
to the House.
In the first petition, students from St. Michael's High School in
Bell Island call on Parliament not to cut CIDA's funding for its
public participation program.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from the Tenants' Action Association from
Brophy Place, Hunt's Lane and Kelly Street in St. John's who call
on Parliament to retain the Canada assistance plan in its present
form.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, consistent with Standing Order 36, I wish to present three
petitions from my constituency.
The first petition asks and petitions Parliament not to amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter
of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make
no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition petitions 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.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15110
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I had just started to make my remarks a few
moments before two o'clock. Before I got into full flight I was
interrupted for question period. I want to resume where I left off by
applauding the Minister of Transport for bringing forward Bill
C-101.
Bill C-101 is there to modernize Canada's transportation system.
This task has not been easy to undertake but this minister is up to it.
He is certainly someone who is not afraid of these challenges and
of dealing with issues involving our transportation sector.
Transport is one of the largest if not the largest departments of the
Government of Canada.
The constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has a number
of rail lines running through it. The Ottawa to Montreal CN rail line
obviously runs through through Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Perhaps I should not say obviously but virtually the only way of
getting between the two cities is to travel through my riding. The
train goes through such communities as Alexandria, Maxville and
others between Ottawa and Montreal.
15111
(1515)
Some years ago I was very concerned because of a fear that CN
would attempt to close down the rail line between Ottawa and
Montreal.
[Translation]
This fear was justified as one CN document called for the closing
of the rail line between the communities of Glen Robertson and
Ottawa in Ontario, so that there would no longer have been a
railway line for VIA passenger trains between Ottawa and
Montreal, except if VIA had wanted to acquire the line abandoned
by CN.
[English]
The second concern in my constituency was that if the line was
abandoned there would not be enough interest or possibility of
converting part of what was left of that line into a short line
railroad.
This was particularly disconcerting at the time because we had at
one point an NDP government in Ontario, although luckily we are
rid of it now. I invite my colleague from Winnipeg to listen to this
attentively because he will realize the damage that government was
doing in Ontario.
It passed the successor rights bill. If someone wanted to start a
short line railroad, if the previous company had four people doing
the job-it did not matter that it only needed one to do the task in
that short four, five or ten-mile piece of railroad-that person was
forced to hire the amount of people who were there under the
previous regime because of those so-called successor rights.
This was done probably in good faith in an attempt to protect
jobs. What the government was really doing was making
everybody lose their jobs because if the short line railroad was not
viable, it could not be operated at all. Therefore everyone lost their
employment rather than some of them keeping it.
Maybe that made sense at the time or prima facie may have
made sense. Maybe it was some dictate from the socialist agenda
and seemed reasonable in that respect.
In any case, there could not be a short line railroad in Ontario.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who is
very knowledgeable on these issues, will be discussing this issue
with the member for Winnipeg, Bird's Hill and will be briefing him
and straightening him out so that he fully understands this issue. I
have good reason to believe he is doing that as we speak.
The bill we have today will address a number of issues. It will
address provincial running rights. It will address rail line
rationalization and short line railways, as I have been discussing,
rail transportation issues generally, and economic regulation
regarding grain and rail. VIA Rail issues will be addressed along
with mergers and acquisition, air transport and a number of other
important topics related to the transport industry.
I end by expressing a note of sadness regarding one issue. I know
the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke shares my view
in this. He and I have discussed this issue before.
A couple of years ago there were plans whereby CN and CP
wanted to jointly own the rail line linking Coteau junction and a
location in northern Ontario, the Montreal to North Bay rail line.
[Translation]
Now I notice that negotiations between CN and CP broke off and
this joint ownership of the rail line will not come to be.
(1520)
The reason why I am concerned about this is that, in my view, to
ensure its long term viability, traffic should be increased on this
particular railway line. I viewed favourably this effort on the part
of the two railway companies to jointly own the line.
I am disappointed that the whole thing seems to have failed. To
conclude, I urge CN and CP to combine their efforts again so that
this line connecting eastern and western Canada that the people of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell benefit from can be saved in the
medium term and even the long term.
[English]
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in this
debate. I ask all colleagues to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Bill C-101 to amend the National
Transportation Act, 1987. As the member representing
Trois-Rivières, I would just like to point out that our region,
Trois-Rivières in particular, makes extensive use of the railway
system, with the northern part of the Mauricie using the CN, and
the southern part, including the city of Trois-Rivières, mainly using
CP.
It is obvious that the government is trying to harmonize this
legislation to draw attention to the bill to privatize CN and make its
acquisition more appealing to potential buyers.
Many of the amendments in connection with the National
Transportation Agency are designed to remedy regulatory
deficiencies which hinder CN and CP's profitability and cause
operating deficits that these companies have to absorb in order to
maintain existing lines.
It may seem commendable to strive to improve on the National
Transportation Agency so that both companies can become
profitable, but at the same time it is dangerous to try both to
achieve these objectives through more flexible regulations for
operators like CN and CP and preserve the intent of the law, which
is to protect public transportation. It is dangerous to change the
15112
perspective of the legislation which is intended to foster the use of
public transportation, and particularly rail transportation, for the
development of people and businesses.
The role of the National Transportation Agency should be to
ensure proper balance between the CN and CP monopolies,
commercial users and passengers. Since this bill is only at first
stage, we can assume that heated discussions will take place when
it is reviewed by the transport committee, which will hear many
witnesses who will debate these amendments, including railway
unions, commercial users and railway companies. These groups
will not all agree with the new mandate that this bill proposes for
the National Transportation Agency.
In that respect, I want to mention some of the concerns that will
surely be raised by various stakeholders during the hearings which
will be held regarding this legislation.
First, there is the ability for shippers to call upon the National
Transportation Agency to block a rail monopoly. I am referring
here to the approach used by Canadian Pulp and Paper Association,
but the same could apply to all shippers of raw materials, such as
the mining and forest industries which, by nature, ship enormous
quantities of materials, usually from remote areas located far from
the main industrial centres.
The 1987 act allowed commercial users of railway companies to
call upon the agency to circumvent CN and CP's excessive
monopoly power. These provisions are maintained, but new
hurdles will limit the ability of shipping companies to use them.
Indeed, the shipper will now have to prove that he will suffer a
serious prejudice in order to convince the agency to keep CN or CP
from unduly raising its prices. We are not saying that the industry
should not pay its fair share for the transportation of its products.
The problem is that the notion of serious prejudice is not defined in
Bill C-101, thus leaving open the possibility that a shipper may
resort to political or court action to win his case before the National
Transportation Agency.
(1525)
It is difficult for the industry to prove the degree to which an
increase in rates would be harmful to it, and more difficult still to
prove that there would be serious prejudice or material injury.
It is vital to discuss what is meant by serious prejudice;
otherwise it can be anticipated that too often the decision will have
to be made in the courts, after time-consuming discussions have
failed.
I would also like to discuss the issue of competitiveness in
remote regions. It is essential that all regions have access to a
competitive and affordable rail system in Canada that will permit
them to compete in the export market.
How will the new changes to the National Transportation Act
allowing rail carriers to raise charges or simply discontinue
unprofitable branch lines take regional economic realities into
consideration by spreading operating costs over the entire system
instead of dividing it up into more profitable and less profitable
branch lines?
For too long now, the cost of developing remote regions has been
calculated without taking into account on the positive side of the
ledger the development natural resources confer to the more
urbanized regions.
Here again, the concept of serious prejudice might be sustained
provided it is given a fairly precise definition in order to prevent
rail rates from being raised, thus cancelling out the profitability of
industries dependent on this mode of transportation, without any
consideration of the wages earned by workers in these industries.
Another provision, which will probably raise questions, deals
with agency membership. The bill proposes to cut from nine to
three the number of members of the National Transportation
Agency. This reduction could lead to a lack of understanding of
regional issues across Canada and, in turn, to a misappreciation of
any significant risk that shippers may be at a disadvantage because
of the monopoly enjoyed by CN and CP.
It will be more difficult for shippers to draw attention to their
needs and their regions if the agency is composed of three members
instead of nine. Listening to witnesses at the hearings held by the
Standing Committee on Transport will surely help us strike a
balance between a reduced agency of three members and an
expanded agency of nine members.
My comments will also deal with the establishment of short-line
railways. The financial difficulties experienced by CN and CP in
recent years have led to the recent establishment of short-line
railways.
Since these small organizations enjoy higher profits, smaller
management and fewer constraints in the distribution of work
through their collective agreements, we will see more and more of
them. Unfortunately, the phrase ``short-line railway'' is not defined
anywhere in this bill. Furthermore, in many clauses of this bill, it is
unclear whether short-line railway operators should be regarded as
railway operators or simply as shippers.
Clauses 130 through 137 of this bill concern the identification of
competitive lines. In the past, railway operators had their own
systems and, already, the two antagonists do not like the idea of
using the lines of their competition in return for fair compensation.
Public interest requires better co-operation in the management of
CN and CP. For example, CP could pay a price to use CN's tracks,
15113
and vice versa, without the tracks' owners being able to prevent
such an arrangement.
This would promote free competition, while also giving a more
accurate idea of the actual costs of transportation in a particular
region.
Since my time is running out, I will immediately move on to the
issue of regional development. In the past, under the act governing
the agency, railway companies wanting to close or abandon a line
had to comply with an elaborate process. Now, these companies
will only have to announce their intention to dispose of a line.
(1530)
The new process to transfer and discontinue the operation of
railway lines will be very quick: a 60 day notice, a 15 day period
for each level of authority, for a maximum of 105 days. This time
frame will allow railway companies to dispose of their lines very
quickly, without having to justify their decision on either economic
grounds or grounds of public interest.
However, this new transfer and discontinuation process hardly
encourages the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to find a potential buyer in just 60 days.
Quebec, and the same goes for any other province, will only have
15 days to decide whether or not to buy a line and continue to
provide the existing service to the public.
In conclusion, I can only hope that, this time, the government
will have the vision that it has been lacking so far, and think in
terms of the future, including as regards the interests of Quebec. In
this case, as in others, we find no reasons to vote No, but many
reasons to vote Yes, and I hope that Quebecers realize this.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I might say just by way of beginning that it is interesting
to notice how the members of the Bloc Quebecois are using every
opportunity in the House of Commons to make the point about why
they think their fellow citizens in Quebec should vote yes in the
coming referendum. I was interested in question period today when
they were going on and on about alleged injustices to Quebec. It
struck me that if the people of Quebec vote yes they are going to
have a heck of a lot less of what the Bloc Quebecois were
complaining they were not getting enough of.
The same of course is true with respect to transportation matters.
I heard people in the Bloc refer today to the privatization of CN. I
think I can say with some certainty that if there is a yes vote in
Quebec the provision in Bill C-89 guaranteeing that the
headquarters of this new privatized CN will be in Montreal will not
continue very long past a yes vote. At least if I have anything to do
with it, it will not. I would imagine that would be true for a lot of
western Canadians, particularly people I represent, who from the
very beginning felt that if CN was to be restructured in such a
radical way, the headquarters of CN should be in western Canada,
in particular in Winnipeg, because most of the traffic this new
privatized CN will be directing will be in western Canada. This is
just by way of making that point to the Bloc.
There are two things I want to get on the record with respect to
Bill C-101. First, I do not think I have to tell anyone in the House
that I am in general opposed to the overall agenda of the
government with respect to Bill C-101, the privatization of CN, the
deregulation of the transportation system in this country, going
back to fights we had in this House against the former transport
minister, Don Mazankowski, and going back before that.
Sometimes people tend to forget, in particular people in
Winnipeg, that this deregulation business really started under a
former Liberal Minister of Transport, who is now the Minister of
Human Resources Development. There is a tendency to blame the
origins of this agenda on the Conservatives when in fact it goes
back beyond that to this fascination the then Minister of Transport,
the member for Winnipeg South Centre, had with deregulation at
that time, prior to the defeat of the Trudeau government.
I was interested to hear some of the things members said. The
point I want to make here, and I do not think it has been made to
this point, at least not to my satisfaction, is the process by which we
are doing this, if I understand the origins of this procedure by
which we refer matters to committee before second reading.
I had a lot to do with parliamentary reform in previous
Parliaments and we considered this at one point. The goal of that
procedure as it was first imagined was that this would be something
that would be applied to bills that were held to be of a non-partisan
nature. It would not be something that was available to the
government alone. It would be something that could only be done
with some kind of agreement in the House and therefore it would
be a mechanism whereby parties could say this is a bill we do not
really have much to fight about in, so we want to take it into
committee and we want to go over the details.
(1535 )
I have noticed something that may be related to the fact that this
procedure was adopted, I believe, after the beginning of this new
Parliament, when the government only had to deal with rookies on
the opposition side in committee. This has now become a
procedure that is available to the government whenever it wants to
use it, not something that requires a certain amount of co-operation
on the part of the opposition. In my judgment, this goes against the
spirit of the reform intent. When I say reform I do not mean
Reform Party, but reform in the best sense of the word, reform of
the House of Commons. This procedure has become a kind of a
fast track
15114
procedure. In my judgment, it is not being used for the intention for
which it was originally designed.
We have here a massive bill, which represents a major
reorientation of the way transportation decisions are made with
respect to rail line abandonment, the creation of short line railways,
relationships between shippers and the railway companies, a whole
host of things, all of which deserve a major second reading debate.
We are reconceptualizing the transportation system of the country.
We should be having a debate about that, in which I would want to
argue very strongly and at length, hopefully being open to
questions from colleagues in the House.
Instead we have this very prescribed, circumscribed three-hour
debate in which people have only ten-minute speeches, after which
the whole thing is whisked off to committee. There is never really
any significant debate on the principle of the bill. That is fine if
there is agreement to do so and if it is the kind of legislation that
lends itself to that procedure.
With respect to my Bloc and Reform colleagues, I think they let
the government get away with something when they agreed to
move ahead with this kind of procedure. They allowed it to go into
the standing orders without the kinds of safeguards that should
have been required. That is, there should have been some provision
that there had to be opposition agreement in order for this
procedure to be followed. I believe their inexperience did not stand
them in very good stead in that respect.
I want to register once more my opposition to this bill. My
opposition has been longstanding to an agenda of which this bill is
the latest stage. I know my Reform colleagues were saying earlier
that it does not go far enough, that it should be absolute, utter I
suppose, comprehensive, total deregulation. However, I think
deregulation has not served this country particularly well. It
certainly has not served the transportation system very well. It
certainly has not served my constituents very well, those who work
at the railway and others, and the economic spin-off that used to
exist in Winnipeg as a result of the presence of railway jobs there.
A couple of weeks ago another 266 people were laid off in the
CN shops in Transcona. This is a far cry from the kinds of promises
that were made during the 1993 election campaign by members
opposite about how the many terrible things that were happening
under the Tories were going to cease if only a Liberal government
were elected: NAFTA would not go through, Winnipeg would be
returned to its former glory as a transportation centre, rail jobs
would return from Montreal and Edmonton, and no one would ever
be laid off again. Well, that is not the way it has turned out. In fact
we have a Liberal government doing what no Conservative
government ever contemplated in public: privatizing CN Rail and
devastating the community I come from.
We see here an intention on the part of the government and the
railway together to basically dismantle CN Rail as we have known
it and to have basically tracks and trains, that is it. Maintenance,
repair, stores, and all kinds of other things the railway used to do
for itself will all be contracted out, pieced off here, there, and
everywhere. As a result, a lot more good-paying jobs will be lost.
In the end, this is also about good-paying jobs. It is not just about
railways.
(1540)
I listened earlier to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the government whip, talking
about the impediment to short line railways. One of the reasons for
successor rights was to make sure that short line railways are not
used as a way of union busting, are not used as a way of laying
people off and then hiring them back at half of what they used to
make. I do not think that is such a bad sentiment. I do not think that
is something for which the NDP government in Ontario or
anywhere else should have to apologize.
Those good paying jobs are disappearing. I do not think that is
good for Canada. It is not good for the middle class, which is being
eroded at both ends. It is not good for the revenues of the
government. It is part of the reason we have a deficit in this
country, because a lot of the good paying jobs are going, and with
them is going the ability to pay the kind of income tax that would
help pay off the deficit.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
always a joy to rise in this House and follow the member for
Winnipeg-Birds Hill. Excuse me, it is Winnipeg Transcona; I
apologize for that. I would not want to confuse him with the
member for Birds Hill, who is a Liberal and represents his
constituents very ably and helps them understand the needs of
doing business in the 20th century and not the 19th century, as the
member for Winnipeg Transcona does.
It is passing strange to me to note how the NDP, once a leader in
social justice in this country, has become a conservative party,
simply refusing to accept any kind of change or acknowledge that
any kind of improvement should take place anywhere, anytime.
Like the previous member, I want to briefly comment on the
process. I am delighted that the government has chosen to go this
route with this bill. I am somewhat astounded at the remarks from
the Reform Party, who seem to be opposed to this.
What has happened in this Parliament since the new government
arrived in 1993 is we changed the rules of the House in a manner
that allows the people of Canada to participate in important debates
on public policy prior to the government making up its mind finally
on a piece of legislation. It is an opening up and an inviting into the
process, rather than a fast tracking, as the member for Winnipeg
Transcona would have us believe.
15115
I think the minister has done a great deal in a very short period
of time to deal with the regulatory burden that has been imposed
on this country, some of it for good reasons and some of it perhaps
we have outgrown. I think we owe the minister a vote of thanks
for allowing this debate to take place in this fashion and for
steering this debate.
We have the member for Hamilton West, the chair of the
transportation committee, who is well known to this House, who is
very experienced on these matters. I am assured he will give people
right across this country an opportunity to come before the
committee and put on the table their issues on this very important
matter.
The parliamentary secretary, the member for London East, has
been working tirelessly to see that members of this House are
informed on this issue and are responding to issues that have been
raised by constituents right across the country.
I want to make a comment on an earlier change this minister has
brought in, the changes in the WGTA, which represented a stepping
back from subsidy and regulation on the part of this government.
Two days ago in my home town of Winnipeg there was an
announcement by Schneider's that they are going to open a very
large, two million hogs a year, meat processing plant. At last we are
doing what western Canadians have been calling for for a long
time: we are taking the false subsidies out of the rate structure and
we are allowing the development of secondary processing in the
prairies, where it should have been for a long time. We are all very
pleased about that, and we are pleased it is this government that
finally has the courage to challenge the burden that has been
imposed by regulation.
I am not going to stand up in this House and say all regulation is
wrong; it is not. Whenever there are imperfect markets, whenever
monopolies exist, for example, or whenever the public good needs
to be protected, there is a need for government to act, and act in a
manner that attempts to level the playing field between competing
interests. That is what this is all about.
The government has said that while it has owned the CNR it has
imposed burdens on the railway for reasons other than the
commercial interests of the railway. In an environment where
change is taking place so rapidly now and where there has been
such a tremendous evolution in transportation, it is time to revisit
that. It is time to ask whether or not these regulations are serving
the purpose for which they were intended.
(1545)
As chair of the western and northern caucus I can tell the House
that we take great interest in the particular matter. Transportation is
vital to all regions of Canada, but nowhere is that seen as vividly as
it is in western Canada with its tremendous distances and sparse
populations.
In addressing Bill C-101 this afternoon I cannot emphasize too
strongly the importance of rail transportation to western and
northern Canada. Commodities such as coal, sulphur, grain and
petrochemicals must be shipped substantial distances from points
of origin in western and northern Canada to markets around the
globe. For most of these movements highway transportation does
not present an effective competitive alternative to rail
transportation and inland water transport is non-existent. For the
great majority of the transportation requirements of western
Canadian industry rail is the only realistic way of accessing export
markets.
Canadian railways rely heavily on resource based products for
their revenues. Intermodal traffic handled by the railways is highly
truck competitive and has limited profitability. The eastern
Canadian operations of the railways by their own public statements
have not been profitable in recent years. Railways accordingly look
for their profitability to the resource based industries of western
Canada. It is essential that we do not endeavour to solve the
financial problems of railways by creating a bigger problem,
namely to give railways greater leverage to increase freight rates in
western Canada and thereby impair the ability of western Canadian
industry to compete on a long term basis in world markets.
There is widespread agreement on the need for railway reform in
the country. Railways are burdened with excess track and
impediments to productivity improvements. Bill C-101 will permit
CN and CP to sell or abandon unprofitable trackage without
regulatory intervention and will encourage lower cost short line
railway operations to be developed. We believe this makes good
economic sense and the legislation is to be commended for
enabling railways to become more cost efficient.
There is widespread agreement in the House that the
encouragement of a competitive railway environment in Canada is
the best way to achieve efficient and cost effective rail service.
This, however, is not achieved by complete deregulation as some
would allege because there are many industries in western Canada
that are essentially captive to rail transportation.
Railway regulation has historically served a different purpose
than the regulation of other modes of transport. Trucking
regulation restricted available trucking services and limited the
freedom of choice of consumers. The deregulation of that industry
had a pro-competitive result.
Railway regulation has served a different purpose. It protects
captive shippers against the excessive monopoly power of the
railways. Legislative provisions which give competitive options to
railway customers promote competition. It is the stated policy of
the government that those provisions, called the shipper relief
15116
provisions, will remain untouched in the present legislation. We are
in full agreement with that approach.
I do have grave concerns, however, with certain sections of the
proposed legislation that will make it more difficult for railway
customers to obtain access to the Canadian transportation agency
should the need arise. These barriers to agency access are
counterproductive to a competitive railway environment and are
unnecessary based on the experience of the last eight years.
The shipper relief provisions have been used by railway
customers on only a handful of occasions. Their principal benefit
has been to provide railway customers with some bargaining
leverage in negotiating rates and service agreements with the
railways. In this regard they have been particularly successful, as
virtually thousands of rate and service agreements have been
entered into between rail carriers and their customers and only
when agreements could not be reached has recourse to the agency
been required. Accordingly there is no need to construct barriers or
fences to prevent their continued utilization. This will only have
the effect of impairing their efficiency and making it more difficult
for commercial arrangements to be concluded.
Section 113 of the proposed legislation provides that all rates set
by the agency must be commercially fair and reasonable, while as a
general principle no one could reasonably argue that rates should
not be commercially fair and reasonable. The problem is that there
is no definition of what is commercially fair and reasonable in the
current bill.
Subsection 34(1) will enable the agency to order the payment of
compensation for any loss or delay as a result of a proceeding
which is found to be frivolous or vexatious. While this again does
not appear to be unreasonable on the face of it, I am not aware of
any pressing reason for its inclusion in the legislation. There is no
history of frivolous or vexatious applications being filed with the
agency and should a proceeding be initiated the agency has the
jurisdiction to assess costs against an offending party.
(1550)
I am concerned that this provision could operate as a deterrent to
a railway customer who has a valid proceeding to advance before
the agency. The chilling effect of a large damage award, should the
application be unsuccessful, could well cause a railway customer
not to proceed with a valid application.
A further area which I know the committee will consider
concerns the running rights provisions. The provision to allow
railways to sell or abandon lines will lead to, it is hoped by many,
the creation of a great many short line railways. Absent the right to
run as was originally proposed to the first competitive interchange
where they can receive two bids for their cost of transportation and
short line railways will remain captive in a less free environment
than they currently have.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on the bill. I
know the committee will take the time to hear from many
Canadians who are very concerned as we move to a new
environment for rail transportation in the country.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to voice our complete
agreement with the assessment of Bill C-101 as stated by my
Reform Party colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
During the last election campaign the Liberals outlined in their
infamous red book how they were to do business differently. Does
the House remember that? They could hardly control themselves
describing how they would do business differently once they seized
the reins of power.
The Deputy Prime Minister was so reckless as to claim the
Liberals would replace the goods and services tax within a year of
coming into power or she would resign. The GST is alive and well
and the Deputy Prime Minister shows no signs whatsoever of
voluntarily resigning her seat as she promised to do. Is this what
Canadians are supposed to buy as doing business differently?
My constituents are asking: ``Different from what?'' This type of
shenanigans is the same as the shenanigans of the Mulroney
government. They are all doing business differently and we all
know what the people did with Mr. Mulroney's party and its way of
doing business differently.
What are we looking for? What are we looking at? We are
looking at failed promises. The Liberals promised major changes to
the MP pension plan. They gave us minor changes which do not
reflect private sector pension plan standards.
The Liberals promised they would empower individual members
of Parliament through an increase in the use of free votes. My
goodness, free votes in the House of Commons. The Liberals have
reneged on that promise by enforcing a heavy handed control of
voting on their own party members.
The point I am leading to is simple. In the view of the motion
being forwarded by the government at this time, there is no way we
on this side of the House can trust the Liberal government. Neither
should the Canadian public. The Reform Party's transport critic is
quite right in the stand he has taken. British Columbians rely on
railway transportation. B.C. has relied on railway transportation
since the time of Confederation. Mining and forestry constitute a
substantial portion of the economy in British Columbia.
15117
We have contacted many companies in British Columbia
respecting the bill. Our solicitations for input have caused an
avalanche of information to flow to our offices. Detailed
amendments to the bill keep coming in from many industry
sources. All these companies make it very clear they feel strongly
that Bill C-101 is vital to maintain and enhance competition in
Canadian railways.
(1555)
However there exists a danger that the Liberals intend to use the
bill as a baby step in the right direction. Canadian railways are
infected with exorbitant taxes and regulations which have created
an unlevel playing field between us and our major trading partner.
If there is anything the federal government can do to improve
Canada's competitive advantage in terms of land transportation
policies, these companies would have us do it.
We all agree that the major accomplishment of Bill C-101 of
establishing a clear redefined process for line abandonment is
desirable. This would enable railways to establish short line routes
to be governed under provincial legislation.
The major flaw in the bill is that the free market is prevented
from establishing prices. The Liberals intended the railways to
continue to be treated as a service rather than as a business. They
will continue through the bill to allow the transportation agency to
regulate prices.
The Liberals are once again attempting to use policy as a means
of regional development. It is a shame. Canadian businesses are
sick and tired of this treatment being used on policy which affects
their livelihood. The bill gives cabinet the authority to decide
which rail lines will be abandoned in the next few years.
The Liberals are sealing their exclusive right to use these
abandonments as policy footballs in their pre-election campaign.
There is no reason for the bill to be sent to the committee directly
following first reading.
Such a move is only convenient to the Liberal political agenda.
We on this side of the House have seen many times in the past what
this kind of request from the government benches really means.
The Liberals would have us believe that this manoeuvre is another
example of doing business differently, using the Grits terms.
However we know differently. The Liberals are only interested in
facilitating CN's share offering due this fall.
The Liberals are circumventing access to the committee
hearings. The committee, suffering from a bad case of Liberal
dictatorship, has already affixed arbitrary deadlines for
submissions from stakeholders.
These deadlines were adopted by the committee as a result of the
domination of Liberal Party membership on the committee. We all
know what happens to Liberal Party members who do not vote the
way of the Liberal Party intelligentsia or the way they are told to
vote. We have seen it before in the House.
On this side of the House we know that the committee has
received numerous submissions over the summer. We also know
that the committee promised to circulate the submissions so that all
hon. members could take them into consideration.
Finally we know that none of the submissions have been
circulated. I might add that we know that the Liberals are doing
business differently. I remember the last government. I cannot see
the difference. Do you see the difference, Mr. Speaker?
Here is the different way of doing business that Canadians are
seeing. Bill C-89 and Bill C-91 were fast tracked through this place
by the Liberals. At that time the Liberals said that it would provide
a more amendable process or something like that. Both those
legislative proposals were passed without a single amendment.
That is doing business differently. They do not allow any
amendments whatsoever. It would be laughable if it did not concern
important legislation regarding the interest of Canadian
stakeholders.
I strongly urge the House not to vote for Bill C-101 which
requires due process. Let us make sure this piece of legislation gets
the due process this place should give it.
(1600 )
The Speaker: I would point out to hon. members that the
Speaker, as a rule, does not answer questions. I know hon. members
will know that.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
intend to share my 10 minutes with my colleague from
Souris-Moose Mountain.
The Reform Party insists on dealing with only the process and
not the content of Bill C-101. I would simply like to comment that
from our perspective here on the government side, we feel we are
complying with the new rule changes that were initiated by the
government. We intend to fulfil those changes.
Bill C-101 has had some interesting background. It attempts to
reduce the National Transportation Agency to some degree, from a
full complement of nine members down to three full time and three
part time. We are also hoping to reduce the number of employees
within that agency from 500 down to 200. We feel this is a move
that will initiate and respect our drive for efficiencies within the
system.
I might further comment that the structure of the rail industry in
particular and the laws that regulate it hark back to a time when
Canada was a self-contained internal market. That time has passed.
Canada's growth and the opportunities of our people now depend
on the ability of our industries to embrace and meet the needs of
global markets. Rail transportation is strategically important for
our exporters as the means that will keep us in those markets. A
15118
viable rail industry, one that can attract new capital and one that is
sensitive to shippers' needs, is crucial.
For many years the focus of the law has been on the network of
the two large railways and ways to prevent these two companies
from changing this network. The law was seen as a mechanism to
prevent abandonment and also to reduce service. The focus was not
on alternative ways to deliver local rail service.
As I read this bill, I am sensing that there are provisions whereby
rail abandonment, if it does occur, will be done on a much different
basis. There will be respect for the fact that the economics of
abandonment must be addressed and that there must have been
efforts put in place by the two major lines to actually show that they
have attempted to sell such railways in terms of setting up short
lines.
The Canada transportation act encourages these main lines to
restructure in a way that promotes the establishment of new rail
initiatives and alternative short lines. In the future, the law will set
in place a process that will allow private sector interests or regional
officials to intercede to take over lines they consider important for
regional rail transportation.
The framework under the new Canada transportation act sees our
rail industry and its future viability as crucial for long term growth.
It also encourages new participation at the local and regional level
to preserve rail service.
In conclusion, the Canada transportation act is good for Canada
because it reflects what a modern Canada needs. It is a framework
law that recognizes the global nature of markets and the strategic
importance of transportation, particularly rail transportation.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset may I point out that I was one of the nine
members of Parliament who voted in opposition to Bill C-68. I
want to go on the record here today as indicating to this House that
there was no action taken against any of us for the position we took
relative to that vote some time ago. Maybe that will clarify the
minds of some of the members of the Reform Party who said that
we were going to be held in some disdain for the stands we took.
Such was not the case.
With regard to the bill before us today, the federal government is
committed to a safe, efficient, affordable, and competitive
transportation system for Canada. This legislation is part of the
modernization process that is already under way.
(1605)
The constituents in my riding welcome a modernization and an
increase in efficiency in the system. They have a lot at stake in this
legislation. The entire riding's economy rises and falls on the
relative wellness of the grain industry. Many changes have taken
place in the grain farming industry in the past year. There is a
period of very dramatic adjustment that our farming community is
embracing and dealing with at this moment. The Canada
transportation act is one more adjustment. Hence, we must be very
careful as we proceed.
Let me say at the outset that I am concerned about short line rails
in the expansion. I am concerned about shippers so that they have
some degree of knowledge that they are going to be protected and
that their rights are preserved in this new competitive arrangement
under the new act. That is why I am pleased that this bill is now
being referred to committee. This will give the committee and the
public ample opportunity to review and debate the merits of each of
the aspects of the bill.
In my riding there are many groups with very good ideas,
constructive criticisms, and suggestions for changing and
finetuning on this bill. They want to look at these very carefully
and consider the impact of the bill for the long term. This can take
place on a detailed level in committee.
I know that this bill addresses the entire spectrum of
transportation issues, from rail to air to marine. In particular, my
concern is the modernization and increased efficiencies of the rail
sector. The legislation cuts red tape and eliminates administrative
costs. It restricts government involvement in the day to day affairs
of the rail industry.
Rail is the most highly regulated mode of transport in Canada.
The act reduces the number of actions that require regulatory
agency involvement from almost 200 to 40. This is in line with the
federal government's commitment to streamline operations,
eliminate duplication, and improve the way we deliver service.
The legislation makes it easier for short line operators to take
over lines by making the process more commercially oriented, less
adversarial, and more conducive to the sale or lease of surplus lines
to newcomers.
The legislation also contains details to preserve shipper rights
and protections. There is a lot of heated debate in this area. This is
what our government wants to hear. We want those people affected
by these changes to come forward at the committee stage and
contribute to the final version of the bill.
The CTA is one more step this government has taken toward the
modernizing of Canada's transport sector. It enables Canada and
Canadian businesses to compete in the 21st century. That, along
with our concern for the actions of the agriculture sector, can
contribute to a more sufficient and efficient system that is foremost
in the world.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
15119
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until 6 p.m.
today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
(1610 )
On the Order: Government Orders:
April 26, 1995-The Minister of Justice-Second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-84, an act to
provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of
regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related
amendments to other acts.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and
parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs following first reading, pursuant to
Standing Order 73(1).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed make that motion. I say that
Bill C-84, which is intended as a new regulations act, should go to
the committee, and members of this Parliament should have the
opportunity, before the House decides in principle on this approach
to regulation, to discuss its terms.
It may seem that the legislation that governs the making of
regulations in government is a technical or a dry subject, but in fact
it will surprise some of the members to know that indeed there is a
great deal of interest in this subject. There is a great deal of interest
among Canadians because that process, the process by which
subordinate legislation is made, has a direct effect on the way
business is done in this country, on the productivity, on the
competitiveness of business.
May I say that this proposed legislation is intended to increase
the productivity and the competitiveness of our economy, which
this government believes it will do.
I also observe this motion and indeed the regulations act, which
is being sent to committee after first reading, is another good
example of the value of Standing Order 73(1) of the House of
Commons, which was sponsored by my hon. colleague the House
leader at the opening of this Parliament.
The new regulations act to which I speak today is intended to
replace the Statutory Instruments Act, which for almost 25 years
now has governed the Canadian system of making regulations. Bill
C-84 offers important improvements to that outdated piece of
legislation, intending to streamline and reduce delays in the
process by which regulations are made at the federal level in
Canada.
The legislative reform is an important part of the regulatory
reform, part of the innovative economy initiative of my colleague,
the Minister of Industry. This legislation is intended to support the
bold, innovative, imaginative measures he is taking to strengthen
Canada's economy.
There can be no doubt about the need for change in the process
by which regulations are made. Problems are created by the current
regulatory process. They have been identified many times in the
past. There have been repeated calls for legislative improvements,
most recently during the government-wide regulatory reviews of
1992-93.
Permit me to touch on some of the key elements of this bill.
First, it is intended to provide a simpler and more principled
definition of what a regulation is in modern government so that the
scope of the act will be more clearly understood, so that its
application will be more readily determined.
Second, an effort has been made in drafting Bill C-84 to use
plainer language, to more directly communicate its meaning to
those persons who use it and who invoke the process.
Third, the statute divides regulatory documents into different
categories and provides for different kinds of review, depending
upon what category a document falls into.
(1615 )
Fourth, it provides for a revised exemption power that will now
be subject to an express public interest consideration.
Fifth, Bill C-84 codifies and I believe clarifies the law by
expressly authorizing incorporation by reference, whether on
international or other standards that are intended to be included in
Canadian regulations, always subject to an express requirement
that whatever is incorporated by reference should be made readily
15120
accessible to members of the public or any other interested party
who wishes to have them.
Sixth, Bill C-84 contemplates a modernized process allowing for
the creation of an electronic registry of regulations while at the
same time maintaining government accountability for regulations
through parliamentary scrutiny.
[Translation]
We know that in order to reform the Statutory Instruments Act, a
balance must be struck between the interests of the various
stakeholders. The new legislation is to streamline and expedite the
making of regulations. Yet, this will be done without overlooking
the requirement for advance notification, public representations
and a thorough parliamentary scrutiny of any related mandatory
legislation.
That is why I believe it is important to note that the changes
sought by the Regulations Act are, for the most part, material
amendments that leave the essence of the current process
unchanged. These amendments are designed to remove
ambiguities, simplify steps as required and generally modernize
the regulatory process.
But first and foremost the purpose of the new Regulations Act is
to maintain and strengthen the objectives and basic principles of
the Statutory Instruments Act, which contains the legal safeguards
required to make binding regulations. These objectives include the
rule of law, transparency, the publication of regulations and the
monitoring of the executive by Parliament as part of its legislative
power.
[English]
While the Statutory Instruments Act has generally served
Canadians well over the last two decades, over time the regulatory
process has come to be viewed both inside and beyond government
as an impediment to the timely and efficient making and repeal of
federal regulations. The current operation of the Statutory
Instruments Act makes it difficult for federal regulators to respond
in a timely manner to changing needs with new and improved
regulations because the regulatory process is too cumbersome and
time consuming. This is of concern to all Canadians, particularly
Canadian business because these regimes are not well tailored to
evolving circumstances.
Unnecessary delays in modernizing and improving regulatory
schemes can also reduce our ability to respond quickly and
effectively to new developments in areas such as health and safety,
environmental regulation, international trade or federal-provincial
relations. Outdated and inappropriate regulatory schemes can also
undermine respect for the law, economic growth and
competitiveness. They can also complicate the working
relationship between the government and the private sector.
We believe that the new act will improve the capacity of
government to respond quickly and effectively to changing
circumstances, reduce the overall volume of regulations and
provide for an expedited process. It will allow us to incorporate
important documents by reference. It will do all of that without
reducing the role of Parliament in overseeing government as it
makes subordinate law.
In moving today that this proposed statute now go to committee
for consideration, I express the government's conviction that it
represents a significant improvement in Canadian law. I know it
will receive the usual balanced and insightful commentary from
my colleagues in other parties. I look forward enthusiastically to
my own involvement in that important process.
(1620)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-84.
First of all, let me say that this bill will effect changes in more
than 60 acts or bills currently before this House. Its passage will
therefore have a very major impact on federal legislation.
Bill C-84 seeks to replace the old Statutory Instruments Act with
a new Regulations Act completely consolidated and revised. Like
the act it seeks to replace, the bill sets out the principles and
administrative procedures that will govern the four steps involved
in drafting new regulations: preparation, passage, enactment and
publication of regulations passed under federal statutes.
The bill also confirms the reviewing power of the Standing Joint
Committee for the scrutiny of Regulations, ensures better control
by Parliament and maintains governmental responsibility over the
regulatory process.
In short, Bill C-84 provides, first, a simpler definition of
``regulation'', second, an expedited process for regulations that do
not require legal review, third, a revision of the bases for
exempting regulations from the regulatory process, and, fourth, a
modernization of the regulatory process by providing for
consultation, registration and publication by electronic means.
Bill C-84 therefore aims at modernizing the current act and
correcting the problems encountered with the present regulatory
process.
I will now review some major items in Bill C-84 that I find very
important. First of all, the definition of ``regulation'' is simpler and
more principled than the current term ``statutory instruments''
found in Section 2. This legislation also specifies that regulations
15121
also include all kinds of lists and guidelines, putting an end to an
ambiguity in the current act.
It seems also that publication by electronic means will shortly
become an addition to regular printing of the Canada Gazette, but
it might be possible for the government to eliminate the printed
copy of the Canada Gazette by publishing only by electronic
means.
In this case, why not include a reference to the printing, even
though that might involve limited editions? Bill C-84 eliminates
the requirement of printing a specific number of copies of
regulations during the regulatory process, allowing for substantial
savings, even in the absence of electronic means.
One can only wonder why goals in the areas of security, health
and the environment are specifically mentioned like in Bill C-62. Is
it yet another backhanded way of intruding into provincial
jurisdictions? Criteria concerning the use of this exemption power
of the governor in council are not crystal clear.
Why not extend the prohibition in clause 64 concerning the
Defence Production Act to other federal statutes with a significant
impact on health and the environment such as big economic
development projects like pipelines, Hibernia, nuclear plants and
so on? To be able to answer that question, we need to have the
complete list of exempted regulations and of other regulations that
could be exempted later on if Bill C-84 is passed.
It also seems unthinkable that clause 11(4) should provide that
no regulation is invalid because it was not published. We need
more openness in this government. Regulations have force of law
and should always be published in the Canada Gazette. This bill
does provide that no penalty can be imposed for a violation of
unpublished regulations. We think that people in Canada and
Quebec have the absolute right to know which regulations are in
force. Why make regulations if there is no penalty when they are
disobeyed?
Sometimes, groups or businesses will find out about regulations
only when the quarterly index is published.
As a matter of fact, this bill introduces a publication and
distribution system for regulations that can be tailored to fit every
single case. Clause 15 should simply be dropped, in our opinion.
This new regulatory process would allow the federal government
to withdraw gradually from regulating certain industries through
the incorporation by reference of private or international standards.
(1625)
Clause 16(5) provides that an amendment made by a business or
a foreign government could have force of law in Canada as soon as
it is announced. This in spite of the fact that the amendment is not
published as a regulation in The Canada Gazette or in both official
languages, particularly in French where American standards are
concerned. Considering the context of free trade in North America
and eventually in both Americas, this may jeopardize the position
of the French language.
The purpose of having a regulation incorporate material by
reference is twofold. First of all, to remove the requirement for the
federal government to regulate every aspect of the sector
concerned. Second, to take advantage of the expertise of Canadian,
American and international organizations that set standards which,
sooner or later, will have to be adopted by Canadian industry. In
fact, industry is being asked to regulate itself. Incorporation by
reference means that standards can be updated directly by the
agencies or governments concerned, while the federal government
in Canada is not obliged to adopt them.
This ``privatization'' and ``internationalization'' of business and
industrial regulations, probably on the basis of American and
international standards, opens the door to the adoption of standards
that are drafted exclusively in English.
Even if the code is available in French, in accordance with clause
16(2), what assurance do we have that subsequent amendments will
be published in French by the American association or,
simultaneously, by the Canadian regulatory authority? Clause 17
on accessibility is not, in our view, a sufficient guarantee in this
regard.
It is possible to conclude that a number of documents
incorporated by reference in a regulation with force of law in
Canada will be neither published nor available in French from the
regulatory authority. Will Quebecers have access to regulations
wholly in French only after Quebec attains sovereignty? One must
wonder.
We are also proposing an amendment to clause 25 in the form of
a new paragraph (3) requiring the government to submit the draft
regulations to the regulatory committee at the same time as it tables
its bills in the House of Commons.
Also, subparagraph 26(g)(i) authorizing the making of secret
regulations concerning the conduct of federal-provincial affairs
must be struck out. Bill C-84 is suggesting here that provinces, like
foreign countries, are enemies of the federal government. This
same precaution probably does not even exist in European
legislation for the Fifteen.
How can an atmosphere of harmony, consensus and co-operation
between federal and provincial governments be created when even
regulations call for secrecy in federal-provincial affairs? Is such a
clause necessary in international relations today? We feel that the
defence of Canada is the only part of 26(g) fully justified today.
Bill C-84 uses the French expression ``autorité réglementante''
and there is no such word in French as ``réglementante''. The
expression that should be used instead is ``autorité réglementaire''
to designate the institutions, departments, organizations and
15122
commissions with regulatory authority, in keeping with the
definition found in the 1990 edition of Trésor de la langue
française.
In conclusion, we agree that Bill C-84 is modernizing the
existing regulatory process provided by the Regulations Act and
deserves our support, but let us support it only after the government
has adopted the many amendments we have mentioned today.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to join in debate with my colleagues on
Bill C-84. This is not a discussion on criminology so it will be a
nice articulation of the points today.
Bill C-84 is an act to provide for the review, registration,
publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other
documents and to make consequential and related amendments to
other acts.
Mr. O'Reilly: He is a legend in his own mind.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that I
cannot stand up in the House-
(1630 )
The Speaker: After hearing those opening remarks, I had to
check to see it was really the member for Fraser Valley West. I
invite him to debate.
Mr. Simmons: He has your number.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty bad
when even the Speaker has your number.
I want to say at the outset that it is the Reform Party's intention
to oppose this bill, not because of the legislative intent of the bill,
but instead we oppose the bill because of what we feel are
substantive flaws in the act put forward by the Minister of Justice.
In addition, there is equal weight in our opposition to this
document because of clauses which are not in this act.
Make no mistake. Reform members on this side of the House are
just as intent to see that the regulatory process in Canada functions
in an efficient manner. Clearly, this bill constitutes the other half of
the government's effort at regulatory reform.
In fairness and in stark contrast with the conclusions reached
concerning Bill C-62, the government has put forward a bill which
attempts to tidy up the regulatory process and replace the Statutory
Instruments Act. Yet for the reasons which follow, this initiative,
like so many others in the Liberal red book, is long on promise and
short on substance.
To begin with, this act should have been forwarded to the
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and not,
as has been done, to another government operations committee.
You need not take my word for it. It should be self-evident to even
the most partisan of members that the words ``parliamentary
scrutiny of regulations'' contained in the act's title should have
made referral academic. Indeed, the hon. government member
from Scarborough-Rouge River said as much in committee on
May 18.
My esteemed colleagues on the government side of the House
might argue that no precedent or provision exists for such a
referral. However, in a letter from the committee clerk to members
of the scrutiny of regulations committee there are indeed well
documented procedures. In addition, Standing Order 73(1) would
allow the government to make such a referral.
With all due respect, the fact that it was not referred to the
appropriate committee leads me to believe there may be something
untoward in the government's intention on the bill in the first place.
Also, I refer to the fact that the Reform Party would oppose this
bill for what it is not. In this case and as members from the scrutiny
of regulations committee will point out, there is no statutory
disallowance procedure put forward.
One way Parliament ensures that regulations are reviewed is
through the scrutiny of regulations committee. You will hear me
refer to that committee again and again in this speech. Its work is as
germane to this debate as is Bill C-84 itself.
In any event, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of
Regulations has had power since 1986 under Standing Order 123 to
recommend that a regulation be disallowed. Let me assure
colleagues that this is done in the rarest of situations and usually as
a result of a government department exceeding its authority.
The recommendation by the committee under Standing Order
123 is just that, a recommendation. It is up to the minister
responsible to address the disallowance. Sadly, there is nothing
which obliges him to act upon the committee recommendation to
disallow a regulation. Further, the disallowance procedure does not
apply to regulation made outside of governor in council or by a
minister.
Throughout the life of the previous Parliament, the then
opposition Liberals on the scrutiny committee saw the
shortcomings of this situation presented to them. In fact, in a 1992
report released by the Subcommittee on Regulations and
Competitiveness, they requested that the disallowance procedure
be replaced on a statutory footing.
The government responded that such a measure was not
necessary. The Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn stated that it was inappropriate
to proceed with legislation until the effect of the experimental rules
could be assessed. It is 1995, a full nine years of experimenting and
the only thing that has changed is that the Liberals are now in
power. I ask hon. members on the government side to join with me
15123
and amend this bill accordingly so that all regulations and deleted
legislation is subjected to full and effective parliamentary review.
(1635)
The definition of a regulation contained in clause 2(1) contains
the phrase ``are of general application''. This open ended catch all
is likely to be the source of debate for many years to come.
Granted, when placed alongside the dual version of what exists in
the Statutory Instruments Act the government has tidied up the
definition somewhat.
However in practice the definition could exclude a departmental
order which is specific in its nature. For example the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development makes an order with
respect to the Sechelt Indian Band concerning licensing. The
question then arises whether the order is considered a regulation
which is subject to examination as it represents a specific rather
than a general application. This is significant because it does
represent an anomaly over what presently exists. It is my hope the
situation will be clarified by the government at some point in the
debate stage.
In addition clause 5(1) modifies the exemption guidelines which
are presently set out in section 27 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
The problem is that the guidelines in section 27 appear to be
replaced with a general discretion. The only check in place is that
an order to exempt is itself a regulation and therefore is subject to
review.
Clearly this so-called safeguard is subject to interpretation and
as such should be considered suspect as it departs from previous
practices. The point here is that the Reform Party and Canadians
are fundamentally opposed to any kind of exemption power.
Somewhere along the way an exemption power has the potential to
be abused.
In no way am I trying to question the sincerity in which this
Liberal government has put forward this bill. I would never do that.
Yet if a government with less integrity were to come into the House
and for which we have an ethics counsellor-if members over there
remember the ethics counsellor who, as I keep repeating in the
House, is about as busy as the Maytag repairman-would they
exempt on the basis of a connection to the cabinet? Perhaps not,
though I say the potential is there.
Clauses 6(1), 6(2) and 7 are at the heart of the government's
initiative to speed up the regulatory process. This effort should be
applauded. The clauses could have a disastrous effect on the
regulatory process and I will explain why.
The clauses I referred to are supposed to ensure that each
regulatory authority, for instance the minister or a government
department, is responsible for drafting their respective regulations.
Only then can they be submitted to the privy council office of
justice for advice. This is thought to be an improvement over the
Statutory Instruments Act because in past practices the privy
council office drafted and reviewed its work on behalf of most
regulatory authorities. It did after all have the most expertise in this
area but unfortunately this situation represented a conflict of
interest.
Bill C-84 attempts to address that conflict of interest by taking
the drafting responsibility away from the privy council office of
justice and entrenching it with the relevant minister or department.
In doing this the government is turning over the drafting
responsibility to legal departments which heretofore have had
limited or non-existent experience in the drafting of such
regulations. The result is likely that poorer quality drafts will be
submitted to the privy council office of justice. In turn, that office
will probably end up doing the drafting from scratch.
(1640)
Again, the clauses represent a good intention but fail to consider
the reality of the regulatory process.
In closing out my remarks, I again call on my colleagues in this
House to enhance the provisions of this bill. This can best be
accomplished by placing a statutory disallowance procedure in the
bill. There will be ample opportunity to discuss and review this
request, but I ask my colleagues from the government side,
especially those who sit on the regulations committee, to push for
an amendment in this regard. Many of them pushed for this in
opposition and to do any less now would be indefensible.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-84. This bill is about
improving the regulatory process to the benefit of all Canadians.
The limitations and particularly the delays created in the existing
system result in hidden but very real costs to all Canadians. These
are in the form of increased expenditures of revenues spent in
enforcing outdated and inappropriate regulations and in reducing
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
The reforms proposed in the new regulations act will improve
the regulatory system without in any way sacrificing its basic
objectives. The government's improved capacity to update
regulatory standards faster will promote the public interest by
ensuring that health and safety standards are current and take into
account evolving technologies.
I would like to spend a few moments now dealing with the
provision of Bill C-84 which deals with incorporation by reference.
This is incorporation by reference of international standards and
other material into regulations. This is an important element in
achieving the objectives of our regulatory reform.
15124
First, it is important to understand that these provisions do not
create a new regulatory technique. Incorporation by reference is
a legal technique that is currently being widely used by
governments in Canada. It is a legal technique whose legitimacy
has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a legal
technique that is widely employed in Europe and has been
advocated by the Standards Council of Canada and many
international bodies, including the International Standards
Organization of Geneva.
Incorporation of materials into regulations particularly as they
are amended from time to time is an important way for government
to promote the goals of international and interprovincial
harmonization of regulatory standards. I want to stress that such
harmonization does not mean that Canadian standards will be
lowered. In many cases the standards adopted will be higher.
Reliance on the expertise and timeliness of international and
interprovincial standards writing organizations whose material is
typically incorporated on this basis is of significant value in
promoting Canadian competitiveness, particularly in the context of
rapid technological change. The usefulness of this technique in
promoting Canadian competitiveness was recognized in the 1993
report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and
competitiveness.
[Translation]
The provisions of the new legislation, which authorize
departments with regulatory power to develop and revise
documents incorporated by reference, also provide the important
opportunity to quickly revise and improve regulations. This form
of incorporation is limited to documents that are essentially
technical and the rules of conduct on substance, established by the
departments, remain subject to the entire regulatory process.
I stress once again that, in this area, we will not be amending the
legislation in use, we will be codifying and clarifying. It has
existed for years, and the new legislation simply incorporates the
current practice.
(1645)
However, we are proposing a significant improvement to this
practice, because the provisions of the new Regulations Act
establish the express statutory requirement for departments with
regulatory power to ensure the accessibility of the documents
incorporated.
To ensure effective parliamentary control over the technical
standards incorporated, the new Regulations Act provides that the
Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be supplied ex
officio with all the regulations.
Consequently, this committee could at any time call for, revise
and comment on the regulations into which documents have been
incorporated and by so doing review the documents in question.
The documents, which are periodically revised, are made available
in their form at the time of the request.
[English]
Like the rest of the new regulations act, provisions relating to
incorporation by reference strike what we believe to be the right
balance between the need to streamline and speed up the regulatory
process and the objectives of ensuring the legality and accessibility
of regulations and providing necessary oversight by Parliament.
The regulatory process is already overburdened. We cannot
afford to bring into the process documents that are not currently
subject to it. The bill will facilitate use of a legitimate technique
that offers opportunities for achieving the flexibility we need
without sacrificing legality, accessibility, or parliamentary
accountability. For those reasons, I urge the committee to review
the bill and I urge the House to ultimately pass the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased-well, maybe not exactly pleased-to speak to Bill C-84
now before the House.
I listened earlier to the minister of Justice when he addressed the
Chair to refer this bill to a parliamentary committee. I will come
back to this issue in a little while, but for now, let me say that we
know the party now in office, the Liberal Party, and the somewhat
contradictory objectives it is pursuing by introducing all the bills
we have seen lately. First, there was Bill C-43, the infamous bill on
lobbyists on Parliament Hill. In that bill, the government stated its
intention-probably because of the Pearson Airport fiasco-to
have an ethics counsellor, someone to oversee everything.
Soon after, they introduced Bill C-62, which I call the standard
substitution bill. That bill allowed civil servants to act on impulse,
to give in to pressure by their colleagues, and often by friends of
the government, as is still the case, and to change some statutory
standards. That was what Bill C-62 was all about. Now, we are
considering Bill C-84, an act to repeal the Statutory Instruments
Act.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, know that progress must be made,
and the Liberals are not stupid. They talk about great principles,
things like ``increased efficiency'', ``something good'', something
close to the citizens, close to the governed. Let us examine this bill
closely. It does contain interesting provisions that we cannot
approve blindly.
Let us take, for example, this legislation by reference. The Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is having problems with
15125
Revenue Canada about the incorporation by reference of material
in a regulation. We could have specified in the appropriate
provision that these incorporations by reference also include
material provided-as clause 16(1)(c) says-by a government.
(1650)
Can we incorporate in our legislation regulations passed by a
foreign government? It is possible. It is possible when, for
example, we want to figure out the income of a person, someone
who has done his military service in the United States or in another
country and is entitled, in that country, to compensation for his
involvement in the armed forces. We could possibly refer to
regulations or legislation from abroad. But we should specify it.
Here we are faced with total uncertainty; we are not sure.
And what happens if the regulations to be incorporated by
referral are amended? There again, we do not know. To come back
to my example, are we to amend our regulations every time the
State Department in the United States raises the pension payable to
American veterans? Will we have to amend our regulations? If so, I
start to doubt its efficiency.
This bill was motivated by good intentions, that could hardly be
challenged. Everybody is in favour of efficiency. Yet, it starts by
undermining the principles which, ever since the Bill of Rights of
1688, in England, have been part of the regulatory practices of our
constitutional monarchy.
As they say in Latin delegatus non potest delegare, you cannot
delegate something which has been delegated to you. However, this
is what the bill does. After some 300 years of implementation of
past regulations. I agree that we should make some changes, we all
want changes, especially if they are for the best, but are we going to
sub-sub-sub-delegate regulatory powers to the most junior clerk,
hired last week, that would have an interest-I know that we must
always assume that things are done in good faith-in, for example,
changing a regulation to benefit someone in his family, one of his
friends? There is no limit to sub-delegation under Bill C-84.
This is dangerous, especially when we refer back to Bill C-62 on
measure substitution. Although it started with good intentions, I
think the government is about to shoot through the bottom of the
boat, which will sink. The bills of the justice minister are always
like that. They always state fine principles. We have seen it with
the gun control bill. The principle was noble, the principle was
laudable, but watch out when it comes up in front of the courts. The
government wants to relieve the courts' backlog, but this type of
legislation will not help.
There is already too much pressure on the courts, and the
government keeps introducing bills that are based on principles but
not so much on reality.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that this bill should have
been referred to another committee. The Minister of Justice said
that it should be referred to a committee of members who would
examine its scope. We have a Standing Committee for the Scrutiny
of Regulations which has existed for at least 25 years. It is
composed of experts, and God knows the Liberals form the
majority on that committee. Are they afraid of themselves?
There are Liberal MPs and Liberal senators on that committee.
We know that all bills are sent to the Senate for review after they
are adopted in the House. We asked the Solicitor General of
Canada: Why not refer Bill C-84 to the Standing Joint Committee
for the Scrutiny of Regulations, where sixteen MPs and senators
spend a lot of time studying regulations? They would be the most
competent people to evaluate the scope of this bill.
The solicitor general thought it was a wonderful idea, an
extraordinary idea, but that there was no precedent in this House
where a bill was referred to a joint committee.
(1655)
But that is exactly what a precedent is all about; it is a first. If a
precedent is not a first, it is not a precedent. Why is the minister so
adamant in refusing to refer this bill to a committee which knows
the subject, which does that kind of work year in and year out and
which reviews thousands of regulations of all kinds annually, from
the diameter of nickels to the disposal of toilet waste from
airplanes.
There are all kinds of regulations and we study them all. And
then we become incompetent overnight because there is no
precedent. Another proof of this government's inability to go off
the beaten path. The government keeps its eyes on its narrow path
and fails to see anything outside of it. Therefore, I would ask the
minister to show some common sense and ask his colleague, the
Solicitor General of Canada, in the name of all Canadians and for
the sake of our regulations, to actually set a precedent. Now is the
time to act. Next year, it will be too late. The work will have been
done. Otherwise, I will ask him to define ``precedent''.
This was my point. Finally, if this government is trying to be
effective, why does it not give a response immediately, within the
time frame set out in the Standing Orders? When the committee
presents a report on amendments to regulations to the minister, why
does he ask for two or three extensions and why does the
committee have to go on writing for two years, finally giving up in
desperation for lack of results? If at least the minister responded to
the committee report, things would improve, and there would be
greater effectiveness.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when I
15126
was asked to speak on Bill C-84 I was quite interested and
enthusiastic, just as the member for Fraser Valley West was.
This bill affects small and medium-sized businesses. It is an
important bill. As a business person, I have experienced the
regulations at all levels of government that do not make sense
today.
Bill C-84 replaces the Statutory Instruments Act, which is
almost 25 years old. We have not had a serious look at it in 25
years. That is a long time. It was probably outdated 10 years ago. It
is something we should have looked at a long time ago.
Unfortunately, in government and in politics legislation that should
be reviewed frequently is often not because there is no political
pressure to review it. I hope we will look at opportunities to review
legislation more often and add some sort of sunset clause so that we
can modernize regulations on a regular basis.
I was disappointed to hear that the opposition is not going to
support the bill. They should actually be congratulating the
Minister of Justice for putting the bill before a parliamentary
committee before second reading, where the principles of the bill
can be examined. This is something members of the third party
have often asked for. They want more participation. They want
greater opportunities for members of Parliament to be involved in
discussions of the bills. This is a great opportunity. Since members
across the way asked for it, I thought they would be very
enthusiastic and would congratulate the minister for giving that
opportunity. Instead, the member for Fraser Valley West was very
articulate in talking about the fact that he was not in favour of the
bill.
(1700 )
This bill is 25 years old. It is complex, cumbersome, and a real
burden to Canadians. The minister is saying we want to simplify
and modernize it. We want to make sure that it makes sense for
today. What do we hear from the opposition members? They
cannot support it; they are not in favour of it. Are they not in favour
of simplifying the bill? Are they not in favour of modernizing the
bill? Are they not in favour of making sure that committees can do
their work and look at this bill?
We often hear in this House about how we have to simplify
regulations. We often hear how a lot of the legislation does not
make sense for today and that we need to have common sense. Here
the minister is providing that opportunity and the opposition
members are saying they do not agree with it.
I, and I presume many other members, have been confronted
with a regulation that often makes no sense for today. We then go to
some of the bureaucrats and tell them this does not make sense in
today's business climate, in today's environment, and in today's
technology. Often some of the bureaucrats agree with us but tell us
their hands are tied because the regulation is very old and has not
been reviewed and therefore they have to comply with the
regulation.
This is a very good opportunity for all members of Parliament to
participate in the changes that are required to have an environment
that is efficient. I know the members from the third party often talk
about creating greater efficiencies and an environment for
businesses so they can have a cost saving.
In terms of the environment, I toured a company in my own
riding, Pacific Meadows, that is involved in the recycling of metal.
They inform me that there are certain regulations that impede their
opportunity to recycle.
Often when government forms regulations it throws this huge
net out there and catches, just as it does in the fishing industry,
something it does not intend to catch. It becomes an impediment
for small and medium-sized companies to do their business. The
net was cast out to cover all sorts of things but not intended to catch
some businesses. That is why we need the opportunity, on a regular
basis, to review the regulatory process and regulations to ensure
that it makes sense for today's environment in terms of
international trade, changes in the environment, and changes in the
health care area. All those areas have to be taken into
consideration. The present act does not take those things into
consideration.
This bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have a
simplified, modernized bill. I do not know how anybody can be
against simplifying something. We have come to a new age of
communications and electronics. One of the things this bill
proposes is that we have an electronic registry where forms will be
filled out electronically so that we can become more efficient and
more cost effective. I believe that will go a long way.
I hope the members across the way will realize that small and
medium-sized businesses all over this country will be disappointed
with the stand they have taken to vote against modernizing a
regulatory process when business people all over this country know
we have to improve the way our regulatory process works. I think
Canadians across this country will applaud the government and the
Minister of Justice for bringing this legislation forward to
modernize and simplify our regulations.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-84 is an attempt to create confusion in Canadian regulations.
There is certainly no indication that this bill will lead to any
improvement.
(1705)
As my colleagues already pointed out, the bill will in fact allow
the government to hide its operational mistakes and waste. It will
make it easier for public servants and government officials to
15127
circumvent Parliament. My colleagues already explained that it is
creating confusion in the regulatory process.
This is one of the reasons why we will vote against the bill.
Contrary to what my colleague just said, I do not even believe it is
an important bill. It was merely introduced to keep the House busy,
to avoid dealing with the real issues, the real problems. This bill
will not help job creation. We know full well that this bill, like a
number of other insignificant ones, is being introduced to keep the
House occupied and avoid any debate on sovereignty or the future
of Canada. It allows the government to procrastinate and wait until
after the referendum to make cuts in Quebec. Social programs will
be drastically cut.
Next year, cuts will be more drastic than this year. This year,
$650 million will be cut in social programs. Next year, it could be
$1.2 billion and maybe more. The following years, it will be $2 to
$3 billion a year. These are the real problems. They affect
Canadians and Quebecers who would like their elected
representatives to address these problems. And yet, here we are in
this House talking about a piece of legislation which deals with
regulations and does not even improve the situation, creates
confusion and gives bureaucrats more powers to impose
regulations which might not be beneficial to small business and
business people.
As far as the real issues are concerned, this government has a
tendency to table legislation in keeping with a political philosophy
which is increasingly more right wing, favouring cuts and the
centralization of powers. What is happening to social programs
clearly shows that this government has no respect for the ordinary
citizen. When it makes huge cuts in social programs and reduces UI
accessibility, these are the real issues.
Why not talk about that, rather than about regulations which, for
all intent and purposes, are without any importance? It is because
we are waiting until October 30, to see whether Quebec will vote
for sovereignty. Personally, I hope that Quebecers will realize that
federalism is no longer profitable, that Quebec contributes more
and more to a central government which is less and less effective,
and Bill C-84 proves it, because again it creates confusion. It is
inconsistent and does not even abide by the Official Languages
Act.
We are giving powers to officials without making them
responsible to Parliament. This is what Canada is offering the
people of Quebec. Here we have a government which is less and
less effective, which creates confusion and which despises Quebec.
When we talk about cuts in social programs worth billions of
dollars per year, when we talk about cuts in unemployment
insurance, we are talking about things which impact on ordinary
people. Also, the government has shown that it intends to reduce
old age pensions. These are real problems, real issues which worry
people, at least in Quebec, and here we are, today, talking about
regulations, something that nobody understands.
(1710)
Reading through the bill, one cannot see its purposes nor its
basis, except perhaps to keep us busy here, in the House, talking for
hours on end about this worthless jumble. The real questions are
being avoided, or postponed to the end of October.
This bill is another example of the federal government's
tendency to centralize, of its policy shift to the right. This is
serious, because the trend was already evident throughout North
America, in Alberta, in Ontario, but now it reaches into the federal
government. It will soon make itself felt in cuts to unemployment
insurance and social programs, and many Quebecers will end up on
welfare.
Federalism is not profitable for Quebec any more. From now on,
Quebec will see itself paying more and more every year into the
federal system while receiving less and less. Incidentally, Quebec
has not been receiving its due share from all federal departments
for a very long time now. We did receive a lot of money through
equalization payments and unemployment insurance benefits, but
that will change in the next few years. Quebec will get less and less
and pay more and more.
In the case of unemployment insurance, the federal government
stopped contributing to it in 1990, employees and employers
paying for it entirely. This year, in 1995, the federal government
took from the UI program some $5 billion that will be used to other
ends than unemployment insurance payments. Not only are they
not giving money for those who lost their job, they are limiting
access to UI benefits. Next year, in Quebec, two thirds of the
people who will claim unemployment insurance benefits will be
found ineligible.
It has already been estimated that 40,000 unemployed will have
to go on welfare. These are the real issues that concern people. But,
this week, in the House, we will be talking about regulations which
do not make sense and only show that the government does not
know where it is going. This government is not addressing
fondamental concerns, because in the debate on sovereignty, it has
nothing to offer to Quebec; therefore, it is avoiding dealing with
issues.
In Quebec, we want to give confidence to Quebecers and to
encourage them to take their destiny into their own hands after
October 30. We want to give real hope to employers, to ensure
equity and justice. This bill concerns the justice department.
However, the best way for Quebecers to get real justice at home is
for Quebec to become sovereign.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must say
that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in the debate
this afternoon.
15128
Madam Speaker, when you and I were both elected in 1988,
among all of us who came into Parliament that year there were
probably a number of things we wanted to do here as
parliamentarians. A number of issues were of tremendous interest
to us: the question of the future of our wonderful country, the unity
of Canada, the continued thriving of one united Canada, and issues
relating to matters very close to my heart such as making sure
that violence against women is eradicated soon.
(1715)
It is a safe bet to say that the majority of members of Parliament
whenever they were elected do not necessarily become passionate
over tissues like Bill C-84, the Regulations Act. Yet these matters
are very important.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will take part in
the debate a little later. I think this is something the hon. member
understands full well. From his years as a high school student when
he wrote a paper about the pipeline debate in the House the hon.
member has been very interested in and perhaps one of the most
knowledgeable members of the House on questions of process.
When we talk about regulations and the Regulations Act we are
really talking about process, if I might wax somewhat hyperbolic,
read in tooth and claw, as I am sure the hon. member from Kingston
and the Islands would agree.
It is not the stuff of which romantic novels or poems are written.
It is not the stuff of overweening rhetoric, but it is the stuff of the
day to day operation of government. Most particularly it is the stuff
of the day to day operation of good government.
What are the objectives of the bill? There are a number of
objectives. It will simplify and streamline the regulation making
process because it will clarify existing legal uncertainties in the
regulatory field. That sentence probably does not strike huge
chords of interest in the populous in general. It probably does not
strike huge chords of interest in my colleagues on the opposite side
in any of the opposition parties. I would hazard a guess that, fond as
I know my colleagues on this side of the House are of me, it
probably is not striking huge chords of interest in the member from
Miramichi, for example. I do not think it is striking huge chords of
interest in my friend from Saskatchewan.
Mr. Milliken: Not at present.
Ms. Clancy: Not at present. That is all right too because this is
the stuff of good government. It also is the stuff of promise
keeping. One of the major promises in our red book in 1993 was to
simplify and streamline the red tape that affected small business
and this act will do just that. For example, it will replace the
antiquated and misunderstood phrase statutory instrument with the
word ``regulation''.
In my time practising law, teaching law and commenting on the
law in the media before I came to this place, there was the idea that
we had to demystify the processes of law and government for most
Canadians. It is certainly of great importance that we demystify
those processes for those Canadians working in the area of small
business.
The legislation will modernize the regulatory process for the
information age by providing a legislative framework for the
electronic publication of regulations and for public comment, the
electronic medium. That is yet another milestone for us on the
information highway, an area in which the hon. Minister of
Industry and the hon. Secretary of State for Science and
Technology have served us so well in recent days.
The act will make regulations more responsive to public
concerns by improving the scrutiny role of the Joint Committee on
the Scrutiny of Regulations.
(1720)
It was not necessarily one of those committees that members of
Parliament from either side of the House rushed to join, but it was
one very important to the smooth functioning of good government.
One of the reasons the government is in power is that historically
and currently we offer good government to Canadians.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Ms. Clancy: One of the ways we do it is by not electing empty
barrels.
By streamlining and simplifying the regulatory process and
making it more accessible to the public, the act supports
government efforts to make government more transparent and open
to Canadians, again a fulfilment of a red book process.
The legislation also supports the government's agenda of
promoting economic growth and job creation through a streamlined
and expedited regulatory process that will improve the capacity of
departments to respond rapidly to the changing circumstances of
the global economy.
One thing I find when I go back to my riding and talk with
people in small business is the question of not knowing what is
expected of them. The passage of the bill will make the problem
much less onerous for Canadian operators of small businesses.
I think, for example, of those people who opened small
businesses in the city of Halifax. I think in particular of those
people who are the most common openers of small business in the
country, women. Women start more small businesses in Canada
than men do. They tend to stay at it longer and they tend in the long
run to be more successful.
One of the problems I hear from women when I go to meetings
encouraging women entrepreneurs, talking with them about small
business and the relationship between government and small
business, is a fear to get into these areas because they are not sure
15129
what is expected of them. They feel they will have to pay
accountants and lawyers large amounts of money to interpret
government policy to make sure that their businesses are staying
within the realms of government regulation.
The bill will go a long way to easing those fears, to opening up
for entrepreneurs the ideas of government policy and to telling
them exactly what is expected of them.
The whole point of good government is to make the country an
even better place, an even more liveable place for the people who
live in it. I listened to my colleague from Quebec a few minutes
ago. He made the point over and over again that the federal
government had nothing to offer to the people of Quebec. I do not
believe that, Madam Speaker. I know that you do not believe it.
More important, the people of Quebec do not believe it either.
Just recently I had the very good fortune to travel right across the
country. As a matter of fact this summer I did it twice, once by
stopping off in various places with the immigration committee and
listening to people-my hon. colleague from Bourassa was with
me on that trip-and once again by returning from the fourth
women's conference in Beijing via Vancouver and Calgary to
Ottawa.
The ties that bind us together never cease to amaze me, whether
we are from Quebec or the maritimes, the north or the west;
whether we are from Southwest Nova or Kingston and the Islands;
whether we are from the beautiful province of British Columbia;
whether we are from the north or the prairies; or whether we are
from that beautiful province that is every bit as much my country as
it is yours, the province of Quebec.
It is good government that this government offers Canadians. It
is good government that will keep Canadians together. It is acts like
this one in their plainness that give us good government.
(1725)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker,
although in favour of the updating of the Regulations Act to
address the problem of the current regulatory process, the Bloc
Quebecois cannot and will not enter this venture blindly.
As it is, Bill C-84 does not give all the safeguards we should
expect. First, clause 5 provides that the Governor in Council may
exempt regulations from the application of the regulatory process
provided that the public interest is respected.
According to the same clause, the public interest includes
achieving goals relating to safety, health, the environment and
sustainable development and reducing regulatory costs and delays.
Why are the objectives of safety, health and the environment
mentioned? Is the government trying in a underhanded manner to
extend the federal jurisdiction over the environment sector? Is the
government once more trying to create unnecessary and expensive
overlaps?
Mr. Boudria: Come on!
Mr. Milliken: Nothing of the such.
Mr. Nunez: That is what the bill says, dear colleague.
Does this government want to take over provincial areas of
jurisdiction? Is this what they call flexible federalism? For me we
are rather going backwards. Another attempt to pull a fast one on
the provinces. This bill also questions the publication of
regulations. This bill calls into question many other aspects. It is
left to the Clerk of the Privy Council to decide whether all
regulations should be published in the Canada Gazette as is now
the case or in any other venue as he sees fit, either in special
interest magazines or through electronic means.
What openness. Only the people and organizations directly
concerned could have easy access to the regulations. This
procedure fosters inequalities between people and between small
businesses and large corporations, which, unlike small businesses,
can afford lobbyists to keep a close eye on what the government is
doing.
This kind of action is unconscionable. The clerk must be
required to publish an official notice in the Canada Gazette. And to
better spread the information, he may order that the regulations be
published in a different venue. I have no problem with that. That is
progress, that is transparency, and not a double standard policy
where the government tries to hide some information. But there is
worse than that in this bill.
This bill is indefensible, especially the clause that indicates that
failure to publish a regulation does not invalidate it. That is where
the shoe pinches. The government must at least be honest; people
have the right to know which regulations are in effect. The official
publication of the regulation must validate it. How could it be
otherwise, if we want to insure equity to the people in general?
To some extent, this bill allows the privatization of commercial
and industrial regulations, probably based on American standards,
which opens the door to the introduction of standards written only
in English.
(1730)
Who will be responsible for translating an American code on
screw and bolt strength requirements for the aircraft industry, for
example? If such a code were available in French, what guarantee
do we have that subsequent changes will be published in French by
the American association?
By providing few guarantees, Canada is using cooperating
agencies or countries to impose upon us standards and frameworks
that do not concern us. With this legislation, in particular clause 19,
15130
the federal government is trying, little by little, to minimize the
Quebec culture by eroding our identity.
In its opinion, there is only one multicultural Canadian culture
expressing itself in several languages, including French, but mainly
in English.
Parliament scrutiny of the regulatory process is maintained in its
existing form. The government should have taken the opportunity
given by this act to improve distribution of regulations to all
members of Parliament. The legislation should provide for the
right of every member to have access to regulations through
electronic means or at least through a printed copy. The whole body
of federal legislation must be available. Yet, at present, members of
Parliament do not have access to this work instrument.
In concluding, I would like to point out another anomaly the
government is not correcting in this legislation. As soon as a bill is
introduced in the House, the government has regulations drafted. If
members had access to draft regulations when legislation is
debated, we would avoid a loss of time in basic discussion and we
would be in a better position to assess the impact of new
regulations.
For all these reasons, I will vote against this legislation in its
present form, but I will vote yes in the upcoming Quebec
referendum.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon.
member for Bourassa, because it contained many good ideas. I
hope he will sit on the standing committee on government
operations, to which this bill will be referred. He will then have the
opportunity to move amendments because, as he knows very well,
the government introduced this bill and moved that it be referred to
committee today, before second reading, so that he and other
members on the standing committee can move all kinds of
amendments. That is part and parcel of the new procedure
introduced by the government at the beginning of this session of
Parliament, and I certainly hope the hon. member will be on the
committee with his ideas and amendments.
[English]
I think it is an extremely important procedure that is being
followed on this particular bill. I say so because I think the bill has
some deficiencies, some of which were pointed out by the hon.
member in his speech, which cause me concern. I am sure the
members of the committee will want to take a very careful look at
it.
As a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee who has
been working in this area for about two years now, I have my own
concerns about this bill. I am sorry that it is not being referred to
the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, which
has some expertise in this area among the members of the
committee who have worked on this. Many of the members of the
committee have worked on it a good deal longer than I have and are
far more knowledgeable. I am sorry they are not going to have the
opportunity to deal with it as a committee.
(1735 )
On the other hand, I strongly suspect some of us will attend the
odd meeting of the government operations committee and make
known our views in respect of certain aspects of this bill, which I
hope will help the minister as he deals with it in committee and will
help make the bill a better one for everybody in Parliament.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Bring Mary back.
Mr. Milliken: I know the hon. members want to hear more from
the hon. member for Halifax, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I too regret that her
speech was limited to 10 minutes. I was enjoying her speech too. I
also note her reference to hon. members opposite as barrels. I am
sure they were enjoying that.
Mr. Stinson: At least we're full barrels, not empty like the
government.
Mr. Milliken: Well, the hon. member says that they are full
barrels. I am not sure what they are full of.
I would like to deal with a few of the proposals in the bill. Rather
than being distracted by the comments from the other side, I would
prefer to stick to my own views on this bill today.
I want first to praise the minister for agreeing to allow the bill to
be referred to committee before second reading. I believe it gives
the committee maximum scope-notwithstanding the criticisms
we have heard from the other side about this-to effect change to
this bill should it find the provisions in the bill are unsatisfactory.
We know from the previous speaker's comments that the bill
purports to repeal the Statutory Instruments Act and replace the
definition of statutory instruments with a new definition of
regulation. It allows among its provisions for the incorporation by
reference of regulations or of descriptions in other documents
promulgated by other organizations or other governments.
I know the hon. member for Bourassa in his remarks referred to
clause 16 of the bill, which says that a regulation may incorporate
by reference material produced by a person or body other than the
regulatory authority, including a personal body such as an
industrial or trade organization and a government agency or
international body. He expressed some concern about that.
15131
I have an additional concern. In clause 19 of the bill it says
``Material does not become a regulation for the purposes of this
act because it is incorporated by reference in a regulation''. I have
a slight concern, because a regulation is referred to the Standing
Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Will the material
incorporated by reference also be referred to that committee? I
believe it is important that it be so referred. If clause 19 will be
argued as a means for saying that it is not before the committee,
I would have concerns. That is a point that should be clarified in
the course of the committee proceedings on this bill.
I note that clause 25 of the bill, which refers regulations to
committees, does constitute an improvement over the existing law.
There are certain statutory instruments currently now adopted that
do not come before the scrutiny of regulations committee. The
definition contained in this act widens the scope of the committee's
work to allow it to see more than was otherwise the case.
I have attempted through questioning to elicit the lists of the
kinds of things that would not now be referred to the committee,
but without a lot of success. I fully anticipate the government
operations committee in the course of its deliberations on this bill
will be able to get that information. I am looking forward to seeing
the list and I will review it of course with some care.
The fact that there is a wider definition of those things being
referred is significant. I believe it represents an advance in the law.
I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Bourassa
[Translation]
-and his colleagues, the hon. members for Québec-Est and
Chambly, expressing negative views on this bill.
Mr. Boudria: Very negative.
Mr. Milliken: Very negative, as the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is saying.
This is not necessary, because the bill is a good bill, with good
ideas. There have been a lot of changes in this area of the law, and
that is important. This is a renewal, and that is why it is important,
because nothing was done in this area for several years.
[English]
The other aspect of the bill I wanted to mention was the fact that
the changes the government is proposing in simplifying the whole
regulatory process one hopes-it is a hope that is fervent on my
part, but I am not sure I am fully expecting it to be fulfilled-will
result in more efficient use of the regulatory process.
(1740 )
As a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee, one of the
criticisms I have of the current process is the slowness with which
things move. I know that citizens I run into who are operating
businesses find it passing strange that it takes the government so
long to make changes to regulations that are shown to be out of date
and inapplicable in the circumstances.
I did not bring any horror stories with me today. I have not had a
recent incident. However, I am aware that over the years members
of the public have complained that a regulation is out of date,
should have been changed, the standards in the industry have
changed dramatically and the regulation no longer reflects
industrial practice and is simply not enforced because nobody is
obeying the regulation. Yet nobody gets around to making changes
to it. Part of the reason no one gets around to making these changes
is because of the time it takes to get changes effected in
government regulations. It is a process that takes months or years.
Because of that we have suffered.
The regulatory regime in Canada is nowhere near as good as it
should be. It could be improved drastically if change could be
effected more quickly. This bill will allow that. To that extent, it is
a beneficial change. We may want to look at the ways it allows it,
we may want to look at the safeguards built into the process, but the
fact is that the bill does allow more efficiency. For that reason
alone, I think it is worth supporting.
As I say, I am surprised to hear my colleague from Bourassa say
that he will not vote for the bill at this stage when we are not
approving it in principle. We are simply referring the bill to
committee before second reading. I know what has happened. He
has listened to somebody else in his party who decided that the
party should vote against it and he is going along with that. If he
had argued in the right places I think he could have convinced his
leader and the other members of his party that they should be
supporting the bill.
I am not sure of the position of the Reform Party. Unfortunately,
I missed their speaker on this bill. But I understand that the Reform
Party is also opposed to the bill.
Mr. Stinson: You missed more than that.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says that I missed more than
that. I did miss more than that, but I understand there was only one
speech made by the Reform Party on this bill. I do not know who
made the speech. I suspect it was one of the members who is sitting
here now. I am sorry I missed it. I am sure I would have enjoyed it.
But whether it would have illumined me on the subject of the bill is
another matter. Perhaps the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when he makes his speech, will be
able to comment on the pearls of wisdom, or otherwise, we heard
from the Reform Party earlier this afternoon.
I would like to thank the minister again and praise him for
bringing forward the bill. I believe it is important to have a look at
this area of the law. This bill will allow the committee responsible
to do that. I only hope that the members of the scrutiny of
15132
regulations committee will have an opportunity to have some input
on the bill during the course of committee deliberations.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak,
albeit briefly, on this bill.
[Translation]
Today, once again, we have seen that the Liberal government is
in favour of this democratic evolution, this modernization of the
legislation, and we can see too that the two parties on the other side
want to maintain the status quo. It is clear. Obviously, this is not
surprising on the part of the Reform Party, because we know that
these people are much like a species that disappeared millions of
years ago, and I do not think it is necessary to mention the species
we are talking about. However, we are a bit surprised by the hon.
members from the Bloc Quebecois, because they claim they want
progress, they want change.
Oh, well. Sometimes, they change things by going backwards,
but I must say that I am a bit surprised to see that they are in favour
of the motion before the House today. The motion now before the
House is interesting, because we are not passing this bill. We are
only talking about the House referring the bill to a parliamentary
committee without first having approved it.
(1745)
I could have read the exact motion. Pursuant to Standing Order
73(1), Bill C-84 would be referred to the Standing Committee on
Government Operations before second reading. The bill deals with
the registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of
regulations.
In other words, we are not asking members to tell us today if
they are in favour or against the bill. The only thing the government
is asking the House is for this bill to be discussed in committee,
without first getting approval in principle at second reading stage.
So, we are not asking members opposite for their approval. We
are asking for a parliamentary committee to consider this bill
beforehand, to determine if we should approve it, with or without
amendments. In other words, we want to find ways to improve the
way we do things.
The member for Bourassa and others are in favour of the status
quo. They are against progressive, flexible federalism as we see it
on this side of the House. They are uncompromising, they are dead
set on keeping the status quo and they refuse to let this bill go
through.
You can see how our colleagues opposite are acting. They are
very partisan and show a total lack of objectivity. We heard the
member for Bourassa say in his speech that he thought the
government could use this bill-and keep in mind that we are not
voting on the bill, but only referring it to a committee for prior
study-that this bill could be used against the French culture.
Imagine that, we are talking here about a bill aimed at modernizing
the regulations review process. Is the member not going too far?
[English]
The bill will do a number of things such as replace the rather
antiquated and misunderstood phrase statutory instruments with
something a little more modern like regulations. I must say that
some of these terms confuse the best of us.
A moment ago I was saying to my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary, that the term statutory instruments was about as clear as
a term used sometimes in real estate known as incorporeal
hereditament. My colleague, the member for Victoria-Haliburton,
who I think is a real estate agent by training, will know what I am
referring to. It is another way of describing curtain rods and such. It
can mean more than curtain rods, but that is the thrust of the debate.
I am told it can also mean sump pumps and the like.
The point I am making is that we have some terms in law that are
confusing at the best of times. In this process we are studying at
committee level the Regulations Act to modernize it. There could
be places in the bill where the committee will offer changes or
modifications to better the bill before it asks the House for
approval in principle.
The important and operative point to remember is that the only
matter being sought of the House right now is whether the bill
should be studied in committee, not should it be approved in
principle first and referred to a committee which is the normal way
of doing business. Today that is not even being sought.
What do we hear from across the way but systematic obstruction
that we are familiar with? Those members are married to the status
quo. They want no improvement in the federation, no improvement
in our laws and no modernization.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has informed us
that he is very much interested in the issue, as he should be,
because he is learned in the law. He will no doubt have an
important contribution to make to that effect in committee.
(1750 )
The Standing Committee on Government Operations is very ably
chaired by the hon. member for Fundy Royal. He is also a very well
known lawyer and will be able to deal with the issue along with
other members of the committee who will be studying the bill.
An hon. member: How many lawyers are there?
Mr. Boudria: A member across the way is asking how many
lawyers are on the committee. I think it is a grand total of one.
15133
Mr. Stinson: That is too many.
Mr. Boudria: A member across says that is too many to deal
with statutory instruments. Perhaps we can have the benefit of the
wisdom of the member who has made these utterances. In
committee he will no doubt enlighten the rest of us on how to
proceed with modernizing the statutory instruments of Canada.
I am sure the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau will be
listening attentively. He too is learned in the law and will be
listening to the immense contribution of the member across the
way so he can inform us on how to better the statutory instruments
or the regulations made pursuant to the laws of the land.
I know the hon. member across the way is just champing at the
bit. I know he will make a profound discourse on the subject. My
colleagues and I are all waiting anxiously to hear the comments of
the hon. member across the way in the Reform Party who is
heckling at the present time and who is obviously very anxious to
participate in this very important debate this afternoon.
I want him to tell us exactly what the position of his party is with
regard to referring the bill before second reading for a full study
prior to approval in principle in the House of Commons and why it
is his party is choosing to behave in that way, if not simply to say
that it has no interest in making things in the House better or more
modern.
[Translation]
I will say, in conclusion, that it is not too late for the member for
Bourassa, the member for Drummond and others to change their
mind and to vote in favour of this motion to refer the bill to
committee before second reading.
In doing so, we are showing our intention, our desire,
collectively and individually, to improve the laws of Canada. We
will see in a few moments if the members for Bourassa, Mercier,
Drummond and our other colleagues opposite are in favour of the
status quo or if they are in favour of improvement. We will see in a
few moments. But let us not hold our breath, because it is quite
likely that these people will want the status quo because it suits
their purpose in the current debate.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
The division on the motion is deferred until 6 p.m., at the request
of the government whip.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 6 p.m.
when the bells will start their 15-minute sounding.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House in agreement
to suspend until six o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.55 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
* * *
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the
motion 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 338)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
15134
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-26
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bodnar
Brien
Campbell
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Guay
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Manley
Ménard
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pomerleau
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
(1825 )
During the taking of the vote:
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
the clerk inadvertently referred to me as Ms. Phinney. I want to
make sure the record indicates Mrs. Payne.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The records do indicate
Mrs. Payne.
[Translation]
Mr. Assad: Madam Speaker, the clerk at the table just
mentioned my name. I did not hear him. I am in favour of the bill,
of course.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Yes, the hon. member's
name has been recorded.
[Translation]
I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
15135
(1830)
The House resumed, from September 28, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export
and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment from the hon. member for Medicine
Hat.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you
would find that the House agrees to apply in reverse the result of
the division on Bill C-94 to Bill C-93.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Reform, is it agreed?
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to reverse the vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 339)
YEAS
Members
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-25
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bodnar
Brien
Campbell
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
15136
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Guay
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Manley
Ménard
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pomerleau
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
negatived.
* * *
The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think 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 nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc members will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform will vote in favour of the Bloc amendment
to that bill, except for those members who might wish to vote
otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party present in the House this evening vote no on this
bill.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
Party will be voting nay.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting nay.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 340)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
15137
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-125
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bodnar
Brien
Campbell
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Guay
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Manley
Ménard
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pomerleau
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
negatived.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion of Mr. Young relating to Bill C-101, an act
to continue the National Transportation Agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House
would give its unanimous consent that those members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
currently before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, members of the Reform Party
will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party vote nay on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yea.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 341)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-120
15138
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
de Jong
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bodnar
Brien
Campbell
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Guay
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Manley
Ménard
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pomerleau
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
agreed to. The bill therefore stands deferred to the Standing
Committee on Transport.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to committee.)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion of Mr. Rock relating to Bill C-84, an act to
provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary
scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you ask me, I think the House
will give its unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous
vote on the motion on Bill C-101 to the motion on Bill C-84 now
before the House.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party in the House this evening vote no on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yea.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division):
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 341.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee
on Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. On Bill C-93,
I did not hear you asking for unanimous consent. It was my desire
to vote nay on Bill C-93.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.40 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)