CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 1, 1995
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 16059
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 16060
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16061
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16062
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16063
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16064
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16064
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16064
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16065
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16065
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16065
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16066
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16066
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16066
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16066
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16066
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16067
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16067
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16067
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16067
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16069
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16069
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16070
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16070
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16070
Bill C-355. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16079
Motion moved and agreed to 16080
Motion for concurrence in 96th report 16080
(Motion agreed to.) 16080
(Motion agreed to.) 16080
Bill C-61. Motion for third reading 16081
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 16082
Division on motion deferred 16095
Bill C-88. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16095
Bill C-339. Motion for second reading 16096
16059
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 1, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Monday's events in Quebec showed us that in fact the
glass is half full.
During the past few weeks we have witnessed an outpouring of
emotion from Canadians across the country who went from passive
observation to active participation in the affairs of their country.
We should all be struck by the depth of their feelings and their
willingness and openness to change. This will is generous and the
challenge for Parliament is to facilitate the development of this
expression of commitment to Canada. As parliamentarians we
must strive to nurture and encourage Canadians who want to be
involved in the process of reshaping Canada.
Canadians need to be thanked for their willingness and openness
to change. They must be valued and implicated in the process of
redefining their country.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the past
two years we have sat in this House with members of the Bloc
Quebecois who have made no secret of their agenda. While we
profoundly disagreed with it, I treated these members with respect,
and I must add, they treated me with respect. Such is the nature of
democracy.
I was absolutely shocked by Mr. Parizeau's comments on
referendum night and those of Mr. Bouchard a few weeks ago. The
leaders of the separatist movement should be more concerned with
equality within and outside Quebec and not the ethnic origin of the
voting public.
That Mr. Parizeau has now resigned does not alter what he said.
Nowhere has he apologized for his remarks. He has resigned and
that is good, but even his resignation is clouded in duplicity.
In the days ahead one hopes the vast majority of Quebecers will
distance themselves from Parizeau's and Bouchard's narrow view
of Quebec's position and-
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members that while we
are members in this House we should address each other by our
ridings and not by our names.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great sadness that I bring to the attention of the House the
passing of a notable Canadian journalist and author, Dave
McIntosh.
Mr. McIntosh served valiantly in World War II as a bomber
navigator, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1946 he
joined Canadian Press where, for the next quarter century, he
earned a reputation as a remorselessly inquiring and rigorously
honest journalist. He was a well-respected authority on defence
matters and a delightfully mischievous reporter of Ottawa's and
Parliament's foibles.
The Parliamentary Press Gallery honoured Mr. McIntosh when it
named him an honorary life member as he left journalism. He
published a number of books, including a lighthearted but
chillingly honest account of his war service Terror in the Starboard
Seat as well as a highly amusing collection of his governmental
anecdotes Ottawa Unbuttoned.
We join his wife, Jean, his children, his grandchildren and his
many friends in mourning the passing of an outstanding Canadian.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, a Quebec riding
that is representative of the Canadian mosaic-its composition
being 30 per cent allophone from a total of 52 different ethnic
groups, 40 per cent anglophone, and 30 per cent francophone-,
not only was I shocked by the deliberately chosen and well thought
out words of
16060
the Premier of Quebec concerning who was responsible for the
defeat of the referendum, but I was also offended by his refusal to
retract his words.
This attitude must be vigorously denounced, for Quebec, like
Canada, offers a warm welcome to all of the world's citizens. The
Premier of Quebec's words are a serious matter, having been
spoken after careful consideration by a first minister, but I wish to
reassure my colleagues in this House and the people of Canada that
they are far from representing reality. Quebecers of all origins are
proud people, and newcomers from anywhere in the world will
always find an open door in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
recent referendum the Quebec electorate set off an alarm. People in
Quebec and indeed all of Canada demand change to the Canadian
federation that does not involve constitutional wrangling.
The Prime Minister's outdated, outmoded, traditional political
practices of stuffing the Senate with patronage appointments is
unacceptable. He must begin a transition to a new Senate which
would be effective, elected and equal. And the first
non-constitutional step to validate that place is to elect members to
the upper house.
The Reform Party demands changes based on the model of the
1989 Alberta senatorial selection act which allowed the election of
the late Senator Stan Waters.
The referendum has issued a wake-up call to the federal
government. The Reform Party stands as the only federal party
with answers to that wake-up call. Canadians note that while the
alarm has gone off, the Prime Minister continues to hit the snooze
button.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to thank all those Canadians who travelled to the
no rally in Quebec this past weekend, particularly those from my
riding of St. John's West.
My office has been overwhelmed with letters of support
expressing kind regards to all Quebecois and a hope that Quebec
will remain within Canada.
I would like to read an excerpt from one of the letters that was
written to me by a woman from Argentia in my riding which
expressed her feelings on returning from the no rally in Montreal:
Dear Jean:
I have never felt more Canadian than when we arrived in Montreal last weekend
and were greeted with such expressions of love and appreciation for attending the
rally. The people we met were the same-their expressions of gratitude for our
presence was really heartwarming.
``Thank you so much for your consideration'', said one woman. ``We need it;
we don't want to be separate from Canada; we are suffering very much at this
moment''.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the wake of the Quebec referendum the message from Quebecers
could not be any clearer. Quebecers want sweeping and rapid
changes. I have made a promise to my constituents in
Brome-Missisquoi to bear the torch of change to Ottawa.
From the floor of this House, I would humbly request that the
Government of Quebec provide us as quickly as possible with the
studies on duplication and overlap in their possession, so that we
may set to work immediately.
Let us get moving right away, so that very soon, from one end of
the country to the other, we can all together tell the people of
Canada: Here is the Canada of change you have demanded.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on November 1, 1987 we lost the founding father of the
Parti Quebecois and of the sovereignist movement, René Lévesque.
More than anyone else, Mr. Lévesque incarnated Quebecers'
confidence in themselves. He was one of the key figures who
shaped the quiet revolution through his lead role in the Lesage
government and he contributed to the creation of modern day
Quebec, particularly by nationalizing our electrical power.
As the Premier of Quebec, he has left a lasting heritage. We need
only think, for instance, of the charter of the French language and
the recognition of aboriginal right to self-government.
His legacy to us was a faultless sense of democracy and healthier
politics; his proudest accomplishment in this area was enactment of
the legislation on political funding.
I am sure that René Lévesque, great democrat that he was, would
have been proud of the 94 per cent turnout, as Quebecers exercised
their right to vote this past Monday.
16061
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Nigerian author and environmentalist Ken
Saro-Wiwa, the winner of the 1995 Goldman environmental prize
for Africa, was sentenced to death by a special tribunal after a show
trial. There is no right of appeal.
Saro-Wiwa is a founder of Nigerian PEN, an honorary member
of PEN Canada, president of the Nigerian Association of Authors,
president of the Ethnic Minority Rights Organization of Africa and
leader of the movement for the survival of Ogoni people.
For 37 years these people have been exploited and their land
ravaged by international oil interests which have taken more than
$30 billion in oil and left an ecological disaster area.
I join with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and
PEN Canada in condemning this death sentence. I call on the
government to condemn the death sentence in the strongest
possible terms, impose sanctions on Nigeria and call for the
immediate and unconditional release of Saro-Wiwa, who has
always flatly denied any involvement in these killings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
fundamental question is being asked today by millions of
Quebecers who voted in the referendum on Monday.
What kind of soil nourishes the deep roots of Quebec's
sovereignist movement? Territorial nationalism, mentioned so
often in the past few months, seems increasingly difficult to
reconcile with the many intolerant statements from various
spokespersons for the yes side.
The time has come for solidarity and co-operation. Quebecers
from every part of the province expect their governments to pick up
where they left off several months ago.
We must now meet the challenge of continuing to build a strong
and dynamic Quebec within a united Canada. This kind of blueprint
for society cannot afford the invariably disastrous impact of
segregation and intolerance.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday
night, the leader of the yes side put the blame for the defeat of his
option on the ethnic communities. Yesterday, when he announced
his resignation as premier, he did not even have the decency to
apologize and in fact repeated and attempted to justify what he had
said.
This throws a troubling light on the very foundations of a
Quebec nationalism that apparently shows contempt for the
election rules prevailing in Quebec, according to which only age,
citizenship and place of residence are used as criteria for being
eligible to vote.
(1410)
This troubling statement, made at a crucial moment in the
history of Quebec and Canada, forces us to reflect on the
democratic nature of the question by which it was inspired. We
want to say today that Canada is and will always remain the
country of all Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we were very moved yesterday when we heard the news of
Mr. Parizeau's resignation. All Quebecers recognize of his
outstanding contribution to the building of a modern Quebec.
As an adviser to several Premiers, he took part in the
development of a number of projects of which we are particularly
proud. From the nationalization of electric utilities to the creation
of the Quebec Pension Plan and the Caisse de dépôt et de
placement,Mr. Parizeau forged the tools that are indispensable to Quebec
society.
His outstanding contribution to our economic development was
particularly apparent in the stock savings plan, the solidarity fund
and, more recently, the regional development funds. He was known
as an innovator and a man who held strong convictions.
On behalf of all Quebecers, Mr. Parizeau, I want to say a
heartfelt thank you.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Atlantic Canadians are wondering why the Liberals are going down
the same old path with talk of giving Quebec distinct society status.
All Canadians recognize Quebec's cultural, social and historic
distinctiveness but they do not want one province given special
powers and status in the federation.
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward
Island are equally proud of their social, historical and cultural
distinctiveness. In fact, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were two
of the four original founders of our country, along with Ontario and
Quebec.
16062
Every single province in Canada should be an equal partner in
this federation. Every single province in Canada is proud of its
unique history and distinctiveness. Every single province should
participate in our country on an equal footing.
Reform will vigorously defend the right of the Atlantic
provinces to be given the same powers and entitlements as every
other province. Our Constitution should never be changed to rob
them of equal status.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to thank all those New Brunswickers who travelled to
Montreal last week for our rally. It was absolutely marvellous.
I also want to thank all the members of Parliament and all the
senators who helped me to get 6,000 flags to take down to the
harbour station. Members should have heard them when I asked
them to sing ``O Canada''.
They sang it so you could hear it in Victoria, you could hear it in
Newfoundland and in the Northwest Territories. The walls of the
building started to shake. I say to my hon. friends from the Reform
Party, the people in Atlantic Canada are being well looked after. We
are looking after them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada owes its excellent reputation on the international scene to,
for instance, its high standards of tolerance, freedom and respect.
We encourage debate because the clash of ideas generates the spark
of understanding.
These fundamental values which are the pride of our country
were crudely trampled yesterday in a caricature published by the
Ottawa Sun. This caricature is not only in poor taste, it is insulting
and offends any sensible person who sets moral values above
basely partisan considerations.
I know I am speaking for all my colleagues when I clearly and
unequivocally condemn this attack on our colleague, the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I hope that in future we will take an
even firmer stand and show we will not tolerate this kind of
degrading caricature that attacks an individual's physical integrity.
* * *
(1415)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-St-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to offer a tribute today to the Premier of Quebec,
Jacques Parizeau. Through his exceptional contribution to the
development of Quebec, he has been one the shapers of the
self-confidence the people of Quebec have now acquired.
An hon. member: What?
Mr. Bouchard: A little respect for a great man who is leaving
politics, if you please. There is no one here worthy of holding a
candle to him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there will be a special place
reserved for Jacques Parizeau in the annals of history-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: As is usual in the standing orders this is the time
for members to make statements. We have always and we will
continue to respect one another in the House.
[Translation]
I again recognize the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and am
prepared to listen to his statement.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, history will reserve for Jacques
Parizeau a special place along Quebecers' path toward sovereignty.
A pillar of the sovereignist movement, he-
Mr. Young: All Quebecers, or just some of them?
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I again hear the Minister of
Transport starting up his insulting comments.
A pillar of the sovereignist movement, Jacques Parizeau also
rebuilt the Parti Quebecois in the aftermath of a particularly
difficult period. It is in large part due to him that Quebecers will
soon have their own country.
A man of integrity and profound convictions, he has never
doubted the necessity of sovereignty for the people of Quebec.
Mr. Parizeau, the people of Quebec will never forget your efforts
to finally bring Quebec recognition within the family of nations.
You will now be acknowledged, along with René Lévesque, as one
of the great builders of the country of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister wishes to speak.
* * *
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short statement I would like to make, with leave
of the House.
16063
Obviously, in public life we cannot always agree with everyone,
and sometimes this leads to difficult situations.
I know Mr. Parizeau well. I have known him since 1968 and I
have had the opportunity to work with him. Despite our significant
political differences, I can say he is a man who has given his life to
politics. He is a man of considerable talent, who has worked with
governments for many years. He was even an adviser to the
Government of Canada, to the Department of Finance, when I was
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
One day, our paths separated, and he became a sovereignist, a
separatist. I respect his opinion and always have, even if I do not
completely agree. Now he has decided to retire. I would have
hoped it could happen under circumstances less controversial for
him and for everyone, but I have no control over circumstances.
I would like to point out that, here, in Canada, we have one of the
finest democracies in the world. It is an example. Few countries in
the world would tolerate the raising of passions as deep as those
involved in wanting to break up a country and use part of it to make
a new one.
(1420)
It is an example for the world that this sort of passionate
discourse cannot be permitted without a surprising amount of
control. I have travelled with Mr. Parizeau. We have been
travelling companions. He could be a most pleasant companion, at
times, when we were not talking politics. Obviously, when we
started talking politics, breakfasts or dinners were rather
tumultuous, but interesting, I must say.
Today, he has decided to retire after serving the public for many
years, and we must thank him for serving the public as he did.
Unfortunately for me, he did not remain an ardent federalist. He
decided not to remain one, and I did. I am very persistent. He
became persistent after that and he remained the most persistent
sovereignist or separatist of the group. He did not hide his opinion.
At one point, he even left Mr. Lévesque, because he did not agree
with the ``beau risque''. He is retiring, and the people of Quebec
should thank him for his contribution to the public debate, even if
we did not agree. That is what is so great about Canada: we can
disagree and yet serve the public to the best of our knowledge and
abilities.
[English]
The Speaker: We started with Statements by Members and the
hon. Leader of the Opposition made his statement. I recognized the
Prime Minister who evidently was joining in and I believe we have
turned it into tributes.
I will recognize-I believe that is why he is on his feet-the hon.
House leader and then I propose to begin question period.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
intervention of the Prime Minister. Would the Speaker ensure that
we have the full amount of allotted time for question period?
The Speaker: The answer is yes.
_____________________________________________
16063
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think both Mr. Parizeau and we in the Bloc are grateful
to the Prime Minister for his fine gesture in speaking these words. I
thank him for it. With the permission of the House, I would like to
table the preliminary report of the count of Monday's voting.
The Speaker: It is a bit different today. Perhaps the hon. Leader
of the Opposition could table it at the end of question period. We
return to question period again.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we, the people of Quebec,
whatever our political stripe, are delighted at how democratically
the recent referendum debate was carried out. In fact, the only hitch
in the democratic proceedings we might criticize came about
because of Ottawa and very high up in Ottawa, namely the number
one guardian of Canadian democracy, the Prime Minister of
Canada. We will recall that he said in this House he reserved the
right not to honour a narrow yes majority in favour of sovereignty.
(1425)
My question is for the Prime Minister. Knowing now that the no
majority is only six tenths of 1 per cent above 50 and in view of the
fact that the sovereignists have set an example by bowing to a very
narrow majority, does he not think he should withdraw his remarks
and apologize in the name of Canadian democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely not. I should say first that, indeed,
49.4 per cent of Quebecers voted yes. However, probably between
30 and 40 per cent of them voted yes thinking they were going to
stay in Canada. They did not all vote for Quebec's separation.
I was in the car a few minutes ago, and people were calling an
open line show saying they did not know, they did not suspect the
mandate was to separate.
The word ``separation'' was never again heard from the lips of
the Leader of the Opposition after he was obliged to use it in front
of the Americans to make himself understood.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada, as part of his duties in the
16064
House of Commons, is permitted to distinguish between votes, if I
understand properly, when the votes were for the yes side.
What would the Prime Minister of Canada say if, as Leader of
the Opposition, I did not recognize the very slim no majority?
What would he say? He would be right in accusing me of not being
democratic.
Nearly 2.3 million Quebecers opted for a sovereign Quebec on
Monday. For a Prime Minister who promised us we were going to
take a beating, it is quite a comeuppance.
The Quebec reality continues to escape him, however, because
he now thinks he can meet Quebec's expectations with an
unimportant resolution in the House paying lip service to Quebec's
distinctive nature.
Can the Prime Minister be so ignorant of the reality in Quebec
that he imagines he can halt the irresistible sovereignist advance
with such a horrible mockery?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, Quebecers have spoken. I hope the Leader of the
Opposition will accept the verdict of Quebecers, who have decided
to remain in Canada. On the night of the verdict, he was saying he
was going to start again right away, whereas the people had spoken.
He is the one who lost and should have accepted the verdict.
As for me, my job in this country is to ensure observance of the
Canadian constitution, only I did not have to use all the powers
vested in the government, because the people of Quebec spoke and
chose to remain in Canada. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will
understand that Quebecers want all elected officials, both here and
in Quebec City, to serve the people and look after economic growth
and job creation; they are sick and tired of all the talk about
constitutional problems. They want the governments to get back to
the real problems: the dignity of workers in Quebec.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for people who are fed up, a 94 per cent turnout in a
popular vote is not bad.
After Monday's vote, the Canadian federal system is enjoying a
respite, the result of a few tenths of points of popular vote. In this
context, does the Prime Minister not see that the only realistic
solution for Quebec and Canada is a new partnership negotiated
between equals following the next Quebec referendum, which will
follow inexorably?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people have spoken. Democracy has spoken.
Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with
democracy. DidMr. Johnson, who lost the election last year with four tenths of 1
per cent-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Was Mr. Parizeau's government
illegitimate because they won by only four tenths of 1 per cent?
(1430)
The people have spoken and they have decided to remain in
Canada, despite all the unbelievable propaganda, in which people
were told that, if they voted no, there would be no more
unemployment insurance and their pensions would be cut, without
it ever being proven. These were absolutely gratuitous statements.
Despite this, despite all these lies, they failed to win.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it did not
take more than 24 hours after a No win based on a fraction of a
percentage for the Prime Minister to consider tabling a resolution
in the House of Commons recognizing the fact that Quebec is a
distinct society. And all this while hastening to add that such
recognition confers no special powers or status on Quebec. He
seems to agree with the Premier of Ontario who said that now was
not the time to react hastily and promise things one might not be
able to deliver.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he agree
with the Premier of Ontario that any changes that would be
significant in the eyes of Quebec would not be acceptable to the
rest of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to me, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is
important. It is something that the Parliament of Canada has
already accepted, it was voted on in a referendum, and we voted in
favour of a distinct society-
Mr. Bouchard: That is not true.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): While the Leader of the
Opposition-
Mr. Bouchard: Everyone knows it is not true.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -and the House leader of the
opposition voted against Charlottetown. Then they went around
Quebec blaming us for not delivering on Charlottetown when they
all voted in favour of recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has conveniently overlooked the fact that he killed the
Meech Lake Accord-
Some hon. members: He did. He did.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I myself asked the Prime Minister
what kind of distinct society he favoured. He never answered the
question. Today, I will ask him. Considering his-
Would you ask the Deputy Prime Minister to be quiet,Mr. Speaker?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
16065
The Speaker: The question, please. The hon. member for
Roberval.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, considering his sterile and
meaningless draft resolution, will the Prime Minister acknowledge
that his positions are identical to those of the Premier of British
Columbia, and are we to understand that this Prime Minister has no
trouble recognizing Quebec as a distinct society but only in so far
as this does not really mean anything and does not change the status
quo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has not seen the resolution. I do not
know where he got his text.
Mr. Gauthier: Which resolution?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): He said there was a resolution,
and he does not even have it.
An hon. member: It is in the papers.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): My point is that the Parliament
of Canada has already spoken. And the Parliament of Canada could
speak again, but as far as we are concerned, we have always been in
favour of a distinct society. And now very shortly, Quebecers will
again see the members of the Bloc Quebecois, like the separatists
they are, vote against distinct society in this House of Commons.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, almost two days have passed since the Quebec
referendum and as yet no one has accepted responsibility for the
mismanagement of the federalist strategy which brought the
country to the very brink of disaster, mismanagement which simply
cannot be repeated in the future.
Seventeen months ago the Prime Minister was strongly urged to
clearly define the costs of separation by answering 20 questions on
the negative meaning of a yes vote. The Prime Minister dismissed
those questions as hypothetical and did nothing. As a result he
almost lost the country to Quebec voters who thought they could
vote yes and still be Canadian.
Canadians want to know who is responsible for those
miscalculations in that campaign. Was it the Prime Minister's
advisers, was it the no side strategists, or was it the Prime Minister
himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only person more disappointed than the Leader of the
Opposition that the no side won is the leader of the Reform Party.
During the whole campaign, every day and every week, he was
trying to bring in some new twist to create a problem for those who
were fighting to keep Canada together. The leader of the third party
was always there saying we should do this and we should do that,
while the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal
Party of Quebec and I were working out our differences to keep
Canada together.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister can question the loyalty of millions of
Canadians who disagree with his-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: Nothing will change the fact that it was his lame
brain strategy that brought the country-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: The Prime Minister did not wake up to Quebec's
profound demands for change until the last week of the campaign.
For months and months in the House and outside the House, he
insisted the status quo was good enough, plus a little administrative
tinkering. It was not until the last days of the campaign that he
belatedly recognized the need for change and began to talk about it.
(1440 )
I ask the Prime Minister, given the obvious desire in the country
for change, who was the genius who decided that status quo plus
administrative tinkering was good enough? Was it the Prime
Minister's advisers? Was it some fossilized senators, or was it the
Prime Minister himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party again is trying to do the
same thing. He is just trying to build himself a position from
extremely difficult circumstances which we were fighting for.
When it was very important, the leader of the Conservative Party
was there, I was there and a lot of members of Parliament from this
side were there, but the leader of the Reform Party was not in
Montreal last Friday. He was just criticizing us like he has done
during the whole campaign. We have won. Canada has won despite
him.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to compound the errors of the no side campaign, we now
have the crowning miscalculation. Apparently the federal
government is responding to the demands for change in Quebec by
falling back on the tired old cliches of distinct society and a
constitutional veto for Quebec, asking Canadians to wallow once
again in the stagnant waters of Meech Lake.
This Liberal-Tory approach to national unity with its top down
process, constitutional mumbo-jumbo and hollow symbolism has
not worked for 30 years, and Canadians know it. They ask the
Prime Minister, who in their right mind is responsible for this
16066
misguided strategy? Is it the same people who devised the no
strategy? Is it his new constitutional adviser from Sherbrooke, or is
it the Prime Minister himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when there was an amending formula accepted by all the
provinces at the time of Victoria, the party of the father of the
leader of the Reform Party, the Socreds, was in power in Alberta. It
accepted the amending formula at that time.
The Speaker: I wonder if we might shorten the questions and
answers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after a crushing repudiation by his own constituents in
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister has lost all credibility to
propose any constitutional change whatsoever, because it is
obvious that he is out of touch with the Quebec reality.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his inability to understand the
Quebec reality renders him unfit to properly translate the needs of
Quebec to the rest of Canada, and as long as Canadians and
Quebecers speak to each other through him instead of as equal to
equal, the misunderstanding will continue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Parliament of Canada will speak on behalf of all
Canadians when it is presented with a resolution concerning this
problem. This I have promised and this I will do. Then the
pretences will be over. The separatists have always been saying that
they had not obtained their distinct society. But they do not want it.
Another vote will be held, and you will see that they will again
vote against a distinct society for Quebecers.
(1445)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, even the voters of Saint-Maurice feel that the Prime
Minister has never supported a distinct society. The Prime Minister
does not understand the people in his constituency and the people
in his constituency no longer believe him.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that he is wasting everybody's
time by pretending to Canadians that he understood what
Quebecers wanted?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is worrying the Bloc Quebecois is that they know
very well we are going to act. But this time they will be forced to
vote. There will be no fine words. They will vote against the
distinct society, and the truth will out. They are separatists who do
not want to admit it to Quebecers frankly and honestly.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It seems that the Prime Minister is preparing to offer Quebec a
special deal that consists of the old traditional federal chestnuts of a
distinct society and a constitutional veto. For 20 years the
separatists have been saying that because Quebec is a distinct
society and people it should therefore become a sovereign state.
Why does the Prime Minister think that by conceding the first
part of that proposition he can prevent the second? I think the
Prime Minister would like me to repeat that question.
Some hon. members: No, no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at that time the member for Lethbridge was a member of
the cabinet in Alberta, which accepted a veto for Quebec. Mr.
Strom was the premier and the member for Lethbridge was a
minister at that time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, rather than comment on the non-answer, let me go on to
the most unbelievable aspect of the federal strategy, this makeshift
strategy for unity.
The government seems to be seriously considering giving a
constitutional veto to the Government of Quebec, a separatist
government committed to breaking up the country. Perhaps the
Prime Minister intends this as a parting gift to the Leader of the
Opposition if he goes to Quebec City.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would beg hon. members not to impute motives
one way or another. I would ask the hon. member to please put his
question.
Mr. Manning: Let me put the question and let the Prime
Minister listen, because it is really simple.
Is the Prime Minister really serious in saying that he is willing to
give the separatist Government of Quebec a veto over the
Constitution of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party should take the time to
read my speech. I said it would be a veto for the people of Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, less than 48 hours after the Quebec referendum, there is
no longer any agreement in English Canada on the nature of the
changes that everybody was willing to offer Quebec a few days
16067
before the referendum vote. The promises for change and the
outpouring of love appear today less and less sincere and credible.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Where are those
thousands of people who last week were claiming they loved
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thousands went to Montreal and, last Sunday, tens of
thousands of citizens met in cities all over Canada to tell all
Quebecers: ``We want you to remain Canadian citizens''. This
happened in every provincial capital, in cities and villages all over
the country. But, of course, the Bloc Quebecois is only interested in
separating.
(1450)
It is not interested in meeting the needs of the people, but rather
in having bourgeois ambassadors at the UN, in Paris and elsewhere,
whereas people want Quebec citizens to have jobs and economic
stability.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand, less than 24 hours after the
referendum, in the midst of all the contrary statements by premiers
in English Canada, that all the promises for change and
declarations of love were nothing short of hypocritical?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the Bloc members who agree with the
statement made by Jacques Parizeau on referendum night to rise in
this House.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
sure thing that came out of this referendum is that Canadians from
every province are demanding change. They want more of a say in
the decision making process that will determine the future of their
country. They have given up and they are sick to death of the
politicians and their deal making, trying to resurrect Meech Lake
and Charlottetown.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians that they will be
involved in any decision that affects the future of their country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they are always involved. They have members of
Parliament who are here in this Parliament all the time who
represent their constituents very well.
If the hon. member does not think she is able to represent the
interests of her constituents, that is her own judgment. But I know
that the members of Parliament who have been elected generally
feel pretty good when they get up that they have a mandate to speak
for the people of their riding. I believe that is the way democracy
works. If our judgment is bad, there will be an election.
When I campaign during the next election in the ridings of the
Reform Party, the people will remember what the Reform Party
members did in the last week of October 1995.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
assure the Prime Minister that if he comes to my riding he will
know that they and I voted no on the Charlottetown accord. It was
dead then and it is dead now. No distinct society status ever more.
All Canadians must be involved if we hope to avoid defeat in
another Quebec referendum. It is an idea that can work. It is an idea
that has support from the provincial premiers, such as
Newfoundland's Clyde Wells.
Is the Prime Minister willing to hold citizens assemblies across
this country, or is he determined to resurrect Meech Lake and
Charlottetown one more time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have no intention of doing any of the three things the
member mentioned.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
The Canadian government is now negotiating a free trade
agreement with the Israeli government. Current negotiations are
expected to lead to an agreement that would eliminate all tariff and
non-tariff barriers between the two countries as of January 1.
(1455)
Could the minister give us a progress report on current
negotiations and indicate what steps he intends to take to, for
instance, give give Quebec bathing suit and lingerie manufacturers
a chance to prepare for the advent of the Israelis on the Canadian
market?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussions with Israel are progressing.
They were undertaken some six or eight months ago. They are still
at a stage where various details are being considered, including
manufacturing, garment manufacturing for example. There are
some aspects of the agricultural trade between us that need
clarification.
I cannot give the member any definitive report other than to say
the negotiations are proceeding.
16068
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister ought to know that the Israelis enjoy privileged access to
the European textile market, unlike Quebec manufacturers.
Since manufacturers in Quebec are concerned about any
concessions the federal government might make, does the minister
or does he not intend to discuss the matter with the Government of
Quebec as requested by the Deputy Premier of Quebec on October
23?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we will see.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada
Post.
Canada Post is about to enter into a $300 million sale and lease
back for all of its outside furniture. The government's partner in
this deal is a consortium headed by SNC Lavalin, a name well
known as friends of the government, which in fact contributed
$73,000 to the Liberal election campaign in 1993.
Will the minister responsible for Canada Post make available a
cost benefit analysis of this lease back deal? And will the minister
make public the tendering process that is used to put this deal
together?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given the absence of the minister of public works who is also
responsible for Canada Post, I will take this question under
advisement and a written answer will be given.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not a nickel and dime deal. I am surprised the
minister's representative is not aware of this.
My supplemental is directed to the minister responsible for
Canada Post. Georges Clermont, the CEO of Canada Post, is a
well-known name to this House as a result of his involvement with
the developer José Perez. Apparently a major figure in the
consortium that is putting this deal together as the partner of the
government is in fact related to Mr. Clermont through a marriage
arrangement. Can the minister confirm if in fact the CEO of
Canada Post is related through marriage to the head of this
consortium? Does he feel it might-
The Speaker: I am not sure that relates to the administrative
responsibility of the minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: If this continues, we are going to be into marriage
counselling. Put the question please.
Mr. Harris: Does the minister feel there may be an appearance
of conflict of interest, given the relationship of the individuals
involved in this deal?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given the fact that the hon. member alluded to the Perez-Clermont
affair, it should be mentioned again in this House that the matter is
in court and it would not be advisable at all to comment on such a
situation.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Newfoundland's select committee on children's interests
heard how devastating domestic violence can be for children. There
is the horror suffered by one family when a woman was stabbed 33
times by her husband and left for dead.
(1500 )
Could the Secretary of State for the Status of Women tell the
House what action the government has taken to help eliminate
violence against women?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's
question demonstrates quite clearly the tragic incident that
two-thirds of the cases of domestic violence, homicide, involve
women. The government is well aware of the concerns around
sexual harassment and race and concerns with respect to the effect
of violence on women.
We have acted to address these instances with the firearms
control legislation, with the elimination of extreme drunkenness as
a defence, with the increased effectiveness of the peace bond, with
legislation on criminal harassment or the stalking issue, and with
the sentencing reform that includes tougher sentences against hate
and abuse of positions of trust, recognition of gender persecution,
the whole question of the dangerous offenders and DNA.
The government has moved to ensure there will be safe streets,
safe homes and a safer workplace. We shall move some more in
this area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
16069
On October 26 the minister, in an attempt to confuse the Bloc
Quebecois, said in this House, and I quote: ``In August I received
a document from the Government of Quebec that pointed out the
number of people on welfare had been reduced, not increased''.
He forgot to mention that between August 1994 and August 1995,
the number of welfare recipients increased by 20,000, and that at
least half of this increase was due to cuts in unemployment
insurance.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development satisfied that
thanks to his cuts in unemployment insurance, Quebec has at least
10,000 people more on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have with me the actual
detailed statistics from the Government of Quebec which show for
example, that between the month of June and July there was a net
decrease of 4,000 people on the welfare rolls. It continued to go
down to the point where there was a reduction of 7,000 people on
the welfare rolls over that four-month period.
That was acknowledged as well by Premier Parizeau in the
National Assembly where he again admitted that there had been a
decline. He took some satisfaction from that figure. So did we.
It puts into question the continued allegation by the Bloc
Quebecois that these changes have resulted in increased welfare
rolls. How can we have an increase when the numbers are going
down?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is time
the minister understood the basis for these statistics. The increase
in the number of people on welfare is calculated from year to year.
And from year to year, we see 20,000 people more on welfare. I
would like to table this report in the House after a while.
Does the minister acknowledge that it is entirely unacceptable
that, during a period of so-called prosperity, the number of people
on welfare in Quebec increases by 20,000 in a single year, as the
minister prepares to introduce new reforms that will increase this
number considerably?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the past year
specifically in the province of Quebec-and I do not want to
exclude actions we have taken in other provinces-with the
changes we introduced last year to the unemployment insurance
system, we brought in a special family benefit that enabled over
130,000 Quebecers, primarily women, to receive an additional
$1,000 per year over and above their normal payment.
In addition we signed an agreement with the Government of
Quebec because we believe in co-operating to help those on low
income, especially those with families. It was an $81 million
special agreement this summer with the Government of Quebec
that would provide an income top up for 27,000 families on low
income. This once again demonstrates that when we work together
we can finally do something as a government to help people who
really have needs.
* * *
(1505)
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We are over $550 billion in debt and every day I ask questions
pertaining to the minister's serious mismanagement of his
portfolio.
Information I have received today indicates that the minister is
purchasing 150 quill pens in black velvet cases. They are engraved
in gold with the words Minister of National Defence, for the price
of approximately $2,000. This is pure balderdash. Could the
minister explain the expenditure to Canadians?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an Order
Paper question. If the hon. member would like a pen, I will send
one over.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is because of this incompetence that we are $550
billion in debt. I would like to ask the minister: Could you please
send me a pen so I can hold it up to Canadians-
The Speaker: I appeal to all hon. members to direct questions
through the Chair. I do not know if the minister heard the whole
question or if he would like to answer.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no reply is
necessary.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was delighted to learn this morning that we had reached
our 1994-95 deficit reduction target.
During the 1993 election campaign we proposed bringing our
finances under control in a balanced fashion while building
economic growth and jobs in Canada.
16070
Will the Minister of Finance tell my Carleton-Charlotte
constituents and the House if we are still on target for next year
and still to reach our interim deficit reduction goal of 3 per cent
of GDP in 1997?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon.
member that we are on target. Deficit reduction is an essential
component of our job creation plan because deficit reduction
means lower interest rates and lower interest rates mean more jobs
for Canadians.
I assure him that we will hit our interim target of 3 per cent. I
assure him that we will hit this year's target of $32.7 billion. I am
delighted to say to him that not only did we hit our target for
1994-95, we in fact beat it by $2.2 billion.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance and concerns the
Conference Board of Canada report of a week or so ago, which
indicated that productivity and profits are up but that wages are
standing still.
Given that this is exactly the kind of economy critics of
globalization and free trade predicted would be the case with this
new kind of economy, what does the Minister of Finance intend to
do about it? Is this the desired state for the Canadian economy? Or,
does the government have some plan to make sure that at some
point not just profits and not just productivity but wages and the
standard of living go up for ordinary Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure there was a
bit of a slip when the hon. member asked his question. I am sure he
realizes that productivity is an essential element to increasing our
real incomes in the country.
From 1973 on, for about 20 years, we had declining productivity
throughout the western world and that is why real incomes went
down.
Nonetheless the hon. member's question is to the point. That is
why there is so much effort on this side of the House to increase
Canadian skills, to increase Canada's involvement in the newer
economy, to make sure that Canada is not only toiling in those
industries where other countries are more competitive because of
lower standards of living but that we are the most modern economy
possible to create.
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, maybe I
could ask for the consent of the House in order to table, on behalf of
the Leader of the Opposition, the preliminary report on the results
of the counting of Monday's votes. I ask for the consent of the
House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the document to
be tabled?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
also ask for the consent of the House on behalf of my colleague, the
member for Mercier, to table statistics on welfare recipients, as
compiled by the Quebec department of manpower and income
security, to help the Minister of Human Resources Development. I
ask for the consent of the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order under citation 487(1) of Beauchesne's which states
that threatening language is unparliamentary. I bring to Your
Honour's attention comments of the hon. member for York
South-Weston who said very clearly in the House in earlier
debate: ``You should be tried for treason, Preston''.
Those remarks are absolutely threatening and unacceptable. I
ask that they be withdrawn from the record of the House.
The Speaker: The hon. member who is mentioned is not in the
House now. Your Speaker did not hear the remarks.
We will take the point of order under advisement. We will see if
it appears in Hansard and we will deal with it at the earliest
possible time.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last evening during the taking of various divisions the chief
government whip proposed during the division on Bill C-103 that
the vote on Motion No. 19 of Bill C-61 be applied to the motion
that was then before the House.
This is verified by a review of the video from last night's
proceedings. However this reality is not reflected in Hansard, as
recorded on page 16056 where it shows the government whip
applying the vote in reverse.
The video also shows that it was you, Mr. Speaker, who
following the House's decision later sought clarification from the
chief government whip, although this fact is also missing from
Hansard.
16071
My first concern is that Hansard, the official report of the
proceedings of the House of Commons, does not reflect the
realities of last night's proceedings. While it is true that members
are permitted to make slight corrections to Hansard such as
grammatical corrections, this type of alteration completely
reverses the intent of what the chief government whip clearly
stated, which has been verified by a review of the video.
(1515 )
My second point is that unanimous consent was sought to apply
the result of report stage Motion No. 19 to the concurrence motion
at report stage of Bill C-103. This was, in fact, agreed to by the
House as verified on the video.
It was only later that you, Mr. Speaker, noticed the government
had applied a vote which resulted in the defeat of Bill C-103 and
then asked the government whip if he had meant to apply the vote
in reverse. You asked him yes or no.
It is my contention that the House had clearly given its
unanimous consent to apply the vote as first specified by the chief
government whip. If this was to be changed, it was incumbent upon
the Speaker to ask the entire House for its unanimous consent, and
not simply engage in a personal dialogue with the chief
government whip. If you review the video, Mr. Speaker, you will
find the evidence to support my submission.
In summation, I would first like to say how disturbing it is to see
that the official record of Parliament does not reflect the reality of
last night's proceedings. Second, the video clearly shows that the
House gave its unanimous consent to apply a vote which resulted in
the defeat of a government bill. If it was a mistake on the part of the
chief government whip and he wanted to reverse the decision of
this House, then he ought to have sought its consent and not simply
told you, Mr. Speaker, what he meant to have said, if it was only
that easy.
It is not that easy and it is dangerous to engage in such practices.
My reason for raising this point of order is that the most important
protection that we as members of the opposition have in this House
is you, Mr. Speaker, and the rules of the House.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised a point of order that on its face sounds
reasonable.
I urge him first of all to have regard to the practice of this House
in relation to the words spoken in Hansard. If I am making a speech
and I say words that I do not mean to say, that are incorrect, such as
when I say a not when I did not mean to say a not, and then repeat
the sentence correctly, Hansard does not print two sentences, one
with a not in it and one without. They print it the way I intended it;
it is corrected and printed as one sentence.
Similarly, if I repeat words for emphasis I get reported in
Hansard, but if I repeat them because of interruptions that might
come from hon. members elsewhere in the House, those additional
words are not printed in Hansard. The editor takes those words out.
I submit in the case that the hon. member has raised there is
clearly a misunderstanding as to what happened, as to what the
chief government whip said. When it was corrected by a
subsequent intervention by Your Honour in asking the chief
government whip whether he intended it to be in reverse and he
confirmed that he had intended it to be in reverse, there was simply
a correction made by the editors to make it appear that there had
not been that misunderstanding. The question was not replaced in
Hansard.
First, Hansard has never followed the exact words spoken in the
Chamber word for word on every occasion. That has been a
practice in this House for as long as I have read Hansard, which is
over 30 years. I think the hon. member will recognize that fact.
Second, last evening after the vote was applied in accordance
with the request by the chief government whip, there was a
misunderstanding on the part of the Chair, which I submit was the
correct understanding. If the hon. whip is correct in his submission,
the thing that should have happened is that the bill should have
been defeated because there were more nays than yeas on the
division cited. I know that is his point.
My recollection is very distinct. I have not looked at the video to
check it but after the vote was applied, Your Honour said: ``I
declare the motion carried''. My recollection is that on Bill C-103
we were dealing with concurrence at the report stage. Your Honour
then put the question: ``When shall the bill be read the third time?''
The answer was, at the next sitting of the House.
(1520 )
The Chair understood the way the chief government whip
intended to have the division applied, which was to carry the vote.
Everyone in the House understood that the government was going
to win the vote and that it was intended to be applied that way.
All the Hansard editor has done in this case, in my view quite
correctly, is excised the questions that resulted in the clarification
and made it appear that the chief government whip did it right the
first time. He apparently did make that slip. The Chair, in my
submission, understood what he meant and the correct procedure
was followed, the bill was concurred in at report stage and third
reading was ordered at the next sitting of the House.
Had the Chair correctly heard the chief government whip and
applied it the way the hon. Reform whip is now suggesting, that
would not have been the result and we would have had a clarifica-
16072
tion in an awful hurry because I was listening to the proceedings
and I heard it go. I was satisfied that third reading had been ordered
at the next sitting, otherwise I would have been on my feet.
While I sympathize with the Reform whip in his submission, I
submit that the Hansard editors have acted very correctly in this
case. The hon. member really has nothing to complain about
because everything was clarified last night. Nothing was done in
secret between the Chair and the chief government whip. It was
done on the floor of the House where everyone could see. If there
were objections to the procedure the hon. member should have
raised them then.
The Speaker: I am going to come back to the whip of the
Reform Party. I am now going to go to the whip of the government
party.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Chair and all hon. members will know, some time
ago informal discussions were held among whips-I know it was a
different whip for the Reform Party then-toward arriving at an
informal system of accelerating the voting procedure, thereby
saving considerable overtime and taxpayers' dollars for votes that
would have traditionally taken sometimes seven or eight hours in
the evening. They can now be collapsed into a few minutes.
I hate to interrupt this private conversation, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I would appeal to all hon. members, because this
point of order affects all of us and is a serious one, that if they have
discussions to please have them behind the curtain.
Mr. Boudria: As I was saying, this system was established
informally with the previous whip.
May I suggest there have been a number of occasions in the past
when whips have sometimes indicated that they were voting yea as
opposed to nay. Whips across the floor of the House would heckle
informally or indicate informally: ``No, that is not what you want
to do'', in an effort to assist each other because this informal
understanding has been established with the stated purpose of
condensing a process which formerly took several hours.
In order to make the system work even better, an informal
document is exchanged among the various whips and given to the
Table so if there is an occasional slip-up in the process, it is
corrected.
Again, the then whip for the Reform Party would recognize how
this was established co-operatively among all whips. I am referring
here to the member for Calgary Centre.
The point I am making is that this is an informal system which
was established among the whips. Whips have traditionally
assisted each other in order to accurately reflect the intention of
each respective party in the House and it was done that way.
We could revert to the system which existed before. The system
which was in place before costs approximately $25,000 an hour. I
believe it costs approximately $17,000 an hour to work regular
overtime and $25,000 an hour for extended time. Even the process
we used last night could have cost perhaps $100,000 to $150,000
and instead cost nothing to the taxpayers of Canada because we had
developed this informal system with all the goodwill that had, up
until now, been there. I only wish that the goodwill we have had
may prevail after today as it has over the last year since
establishing the system.
We had an extremely effective working relationship in the past
with the previous whip. I hope it will remain identical with the
present occupant of that position on that side of the House. It is my
considered belief that when members cease to be able to function
with each other, where there are disagreements-and there have
been some of those today-that the whips can quickly rally behind
the curtain, find out what the disagreement is among members and
then hopefully assist each other in making the House work better
and assisting Mr. Speaker in his job of serving all of us. That is the
system under which we have all operated individually and
collegially as a group of whips in the past.
(1525)
I hope we can continue to assist each other in order to reflect the
intention of the House and not try as whips to trip each other up at
every possible opportunity.
There is the cut and thrust of debate in the House. That is fair
game. I appreciate that. Heaven knows I was a member of that
group for longer than many. However, in our role as whips there is
also the very close working relationship we have had with each
other. I hope and pray that will continue, not for my good, but for
the good of this institution and for our country.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since I am
the one whip previous to whom everybody is referring, I thought I
should make a quick intervention.
The point our party whip is making, and I checked it with our
assistant, is that there was an intervention made by you in the Chair
with a member of the House. It is that intervention which is not
included in Hansard. That is the point. We respect, and I certainly
do, everything that has been said here, including the intervention
by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
It is okay to correct words and that is what the member for
Kingston and the Islands was pointing out. But when an entire
intervention is left out, it is a serious omission. I do not believe we
are trying to trip up the government; we are just saying that an
intervention is missing. That is the concern because what if at some
time in the future it is an important intervention? That is the point.
16073
We do intend, hope and will always try to make sure that we
continue in the same spirit of co-operation that we have
established over the course of time.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, there are several points I hope to
clarify. First, I endorse what my colleague has just said to the chief
government whip. By all means we should continue the system we
have for getting on with business. There is no other way to do it.
I would like to clarify too that there is no allegation here
whatsoever of secrecy going on. That is not part of it.
I would also like to address one point made by the member for
Kingston and the Islands, which is that the correction in Hansard
was not a result of member's statements but was the result of
another vote being taken. So there is quite a difference between the
two.
Finally, I must maintain my point of order because my principal
point is that we in opposition rely totally on you, Mr. Speaker, and
on the rules of the House. Without that we are nowhere.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have heard both sides and I think
your Speaker has to accept some responsibility here, of course. As I
recall and if I might just explain, I believe the hon. whip of the
Reform Party asked me for a clarification. Upon hearing the whip
of the Reform Party I asked the whip of the government party for a
clarification. When he gave me the clarification, I looked over at
the Reform whip. That cannot be seen in Hansard but can be seen
on the video. The whip nodded to me, yes he was in agreement, so
we went on.
The point that the Reform whip makes is, of course, very valid.
The rules should be adhered to. I believe that by and large we have
adhered to the rules in this particular circumstance.
Would members permit their Speaker to perhaps make an
observation? I have been here for decades and it seems to me that
the system the whips of the three parties have worked out, with the
independents as well, makes the House work much better in terms
of time and understanding. Usually these things are all ironed out
before these votes take place.
(1530)
From my perspective as a long time member of Parliament and
also as the Speaker, I think it is good for the institution that we can
work together in this way.
If by some oversight your Speaker has failed to ensure this was
in Hansard I assure the House now that should something like this
occur again, I will take it upon myself to see that exactly what is in
accordance with the rules is done. I encourage my colleagues to
persevere in a system which is new but which does work.
I salute the whips from all parties for what they have done for
this institution to make these votes proceed a little more quickly
but fairly, which is the important thing here.
I thank you for your comments. I agree with the Reform whip
that of course the rules will be adhered to. As your Speaker, I assure
you this will be done.
_____________________________________________
16073
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General of Canada
transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year
ending March 31, 1996 was presented by the President of the
Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
* * *
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 three
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today,
in both official languages, the 1996 immigration levels.
* * *
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have tabled the
immigration levels for 1996. This package is a legislative
requirement. It is something we have to do by or on November 1
each year. These packages, and this year's is no exception, are
always much more than a legislative requirement, much more than
something we simply have to do. Simply put, this is a map to the
future, a chart which will hopefully guide us into our tomorrows.
(1535)
One year ago today I stood in the Chamber and unveiled the
government's 10-year immigration plan. This plan was the result of
an unprecedented and extensive consultation with Canadians from
all backgrounds, from all walks of life, in every region of our
country. It laid out a clear path which we are following and
honouring today.
16074
The levels before the House also demonstrate our commitment
to a partnership with both provinces and territories as well as our
continued covenant with the people of Canada and those who
would call Canada home. They also underline the government's
commitment to economic growth but not at the expense of our
humanitarian mission.
In 1995 the level range was set at between 190,000 and 215,000.
The projection for the end of this calendar year is about 198,000 to
200,000. For 1996 the government has set the level range at
between 195,000 to 220,000. The levels are slightly up from last
year. This is as we expected and predicted.
Last year we took stock of our immigration program. We made
some decisions and made some serious changes. We have
reinforced the foundation and now we can begin to grow that
program. The levels also show we have achieved what I believe is a
healthy balance. We have a large influx of economic immigrants
because this is where we said we would increasingly focus our
attention through promotion and recruitment around the globe.
We also have preserved a strong family class component. The
rebalancing of the economic and family immigrant components
introduced in last year's plan is on track. Economic migrants and
their families will account for 50 per cent of the overall total of
immigrants in 1996. The family class component will make up 46
per cent. The remaining 4 per cent will be accounted for by
humanitarian and compassionate landings in Canada.
Canada needs immigrants.
[Translation]
Our country needs workers and investors to maintain and
improve our standard of living. We need them to help us keep
sparking our economy and to create jobs.
As I have said many times in this House, and even more times in
communities across this country, maintaining and improving the
standard of living of every Canadian relies, in part, on keeping a
vibrant and dynamic immigration system.
[English]
The Canadian experience shows that immigrants as well as
refugees become some of the best, brightest, most self-motivated
and hard working Canadians. These are the people who will work
with us to build a stronger, more economically dynamic country,
which is why we are actively promoting Canada as a place in which
to settle. We are back in the business of promotion and recruitment
internationally, something we have lacked for a number of years.
We are getting the message out that Canada was, is and will
continue to be a land of opportunity.
In 1996 economic immigrants will include three categories:
skilled workers; business immigrants; and a new category called
the provincial-territorial nominee class, which is individuals
sponsored exclusively by provinces and territories.
We are aware that for people to succeed in today's rapidly
changing labour market they have to be adaptable. For this reason
we will also be introducing changes very soon to the criteria for the
selection of skilled workers. A revamped point system will
emphasize the skills needed for long term success in this nation:
experience, linguistic skills, education and adaptability to the ever
changing global economy.
(1540 )
Business immigrants represent another classification of the
economic category. In this regard we expect that between 18,000
and 20,500 business immigrants will come to Canada next year.
Over the past year we have worked with our various provincial and
private sector partners to examine the two components of our
business immigration movement, our investor and entrepreneur
classes.
Since it started in 1986, the immigrant investor program has
attracted more than 13,000 business people who have invested over
$2.5 billion in approved businesses and funds and who in the
process created 17,000 jobs for Canadians. The government wants
to build on these successes. I want to ensure an even stronger
source of risk capital to support growth and job creation,
particularly in the small and medium size sector.
Last year the Minister of Industry and I appointed a private
sector panel to examine the program and make recommendations
for improvement. The report was recently made public and we are
considering the responses, advice and comments submitted by
Canadians across the country. A new program will be in place by
Canada Day of next year.
Like the immigrant investors, the entrepreneur program has one
overriding goal: to create jobs and stimulate growth. We want to
attract additional business people who can contribute to the
Canadian economy through their hands on management of a
business entity in our country. In 1996 we will also be introducing
changes to enhance the overall economic benefit of the
entrepreneur program.
As I mentioned, a new provincial-territorial nominee category
will recognize the simple truth about our country, that the
employment needs of one province may not be the same as another.
It also acknowledges that Canada is a big country. Not only does
it have six time zones, but the kinds of jobs needed in the
sub-Arctic will not necessarily be the same in a seaboard
community, on the prairies or in downtown metropolitan Toronto.
Consequently the nominee category would allow each province or
territory to identify a limited number of economic immigrants each
year, which will be negotiated and flexible, to meet these special
provincial and regional economic needs.
16075
This category is built on the premise that both federal and
provincial governments must work closer together, more than ever,
if we are to keep pace with an economy changing with lightning
speed.
The economic component of our immigration program, however,
is only one piece of an intricate tapestry. Woven throughout is our
continued commitment to the family and to those in need of
Canada's protection.
With respect to immigration policy, the Liberal government has
long recognized the importance of the family. We fully and simply
appreciate the importance which family plays in the life of an
immigrant and in the very life of our country. Let me assure the
House that family reunification is and will continue to be a vital
component of Canada's immigration program. The concept of
family runs through every single category I have spoken of in the
last few minutes.
In the 1996 levels plan, the arrival of 78,000 to approximately
86,000 family class immigrants will take place. The majority of
these individuals are immediate family members: spouses, fiancés
and dependant children of Canadians.
I would like to think our commitment to keeping families
together is a good indication of what kind of country we truly are, a
country that cares, a country that values compassion and
humanitarian values. It is those same virtues which shine through
in the refugee policies of not only our government but historically
of our country.
(1545 )
When confronted with suffering and atrocities, Canadians do not
want us to turn away.
[Translation]
Again this year, refugee levels are highlighted separately from
the immigration figures, reflecting our belief and practice that the
refugee program is best managed in partnership with other
interested stakeholders and separately from the immigrant
program.
The changes we envision will require greater cooperation
between ourselves and members of the private sector. We want to
continue to revitalize private sponsorship of refugees and
encourage more people to get involved and make a difference.
[English]
I am happy to say that we are already making progress on this
front. Recently the government and a number of non-governmental
organizations formed a partnership to respond to the appeal by the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees for the resettlement
of some 5,000 refugees internationally from the former
Yugoslavia. Canada has agreed to take 10 per cent of that number.
We have agreed to share the cost of settling a minimum of 500
people in Canada. The government will cover the crucial first three
months of financial assistance for refugees and private sponsors
will then take responsibility for the remaining nine months or until
the refugees are self-sufficient, whichever comes first.
At this point I would like to thank organizations and Canadian
families across the country as well as members of Parliament from
all sides who have inquired about the program. I give a particularly
warm thanks to those individuals and organizations who have
acted. A church in New Brunswick is prepared to sponsor a family
of four from Yugoslavia before Christmas. On top of the 500
Canada has committed to, the province of Quebec is prepared to
take an additional 100 refugees from the former republic of
Yugoslavia.
Those are examples of what people of goodwill, compassion,
and courage can do when they put their minds and their hearts
together. Thanks to this Parliament and to a number of government
initiatives, we have made a good number of accomplishments in
the world of immigration.
We have strengthened the integrity of our immigration system
through the passage of Bill C-44 and ushered in changes to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. We have been able to obtain
agreements with various countries with respect to travel documents
for the purposes of removal.
We have worked with communities throughout Canada to help
refugees from around the globe. We have co-operated with other
departments and Canadians to make sure that Canada's voice at the
world population conference in Cairo and at the Beijing conference
was both forceful and eloquent.
We have initiated improvements in application processing
domestically and around the globe. We are improving our
structures continually, as well as looking at how we do settlement
and integration of newcomers, not only for their advantage but for
the advantage of Canada.
Of course there is always more to do. There are still other items
on our agenda that need to be realized, and they will be. As I said at
the outset, we have a plan and we are staying the course.
I am an optimist. I believe in immigration. Canada's cherished
position in the world today is testimony to the undeniable fact that
immigration has served our nation well. There is no reason to
question, no reason to have doubts about whether immigration
cannot continue to give Canada that strength and that dynamism.
In mapping out our immigration levels for 1996, our destination
is very simple. It is a tomorrow that tempers economic growth with
care and compassion, a tomorrow that is welcoming and
accommo-
16076
dating for our newcomers, a tomorrow that builds a stronger
country, in essence a tomorrow that belongs rightfully to Canada.
(1550)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a few comments on the immigration levels that the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just tabled before the
House under the Immigration Act.
The minister has announced to us that Canada will take in next
year a total of 195,000 to 220,000 immigrants and refugees, that is,
between 171,000 and 187,000 immigrants and between 24,000 and
32,000 refugees.
He has just mentioned the efforts that Canada is making in
favour of refugees. I have taken note of the fact that we have made
some efforts regarding nationals from the former Yugoslavia. I
would also like the minister to make additional efforts in the case
of other countries and other continents, particularly in assisting
women and children in distress. I think that we should put an
emphasis on women and children in distress, who represent the
majority of refugees in the world. Quebec will accept 27,000
immigrants and refugees next year, a quota that was established by
the province in accordance with the Canada-Quebec agreement.
We generally agree with the number determined by the minister
and his government. In fact, it is almost the same plan as the one he
submitted to us last year, except for slight changes. The first
change is a small increase of 5,000 new immigrants; the second one
is that 3,500 immigrants who are subject to a removal order that is
not yet in effect will be admitted for humanitarian reasons; the
third change is that a new category has been established, that is,
candidates sponsored by a province or a territory. A thousand new
immigrants are expected in this category.
The minister has just shown his willingness to work in
partnership with the provinces and the territories, but he only
foresees 1,000 immigrants for the nine provinces and the two
territories. That is not much. That is not a serious effort of
decentralization and co-operation with the provinces. We know that
the provinces, except Quebec, which already has very definite
powers in that field, are also asking for powers concerning
immigration. Manitoba and Saskatchewan come to mind, in this
regard.
The Minister's 1994 figures indicated Canada would receive
between 190,000 and 215,000 immigrants in 1995. In fact, for the
first eight months of this year, Canada has had only 132,000 new
immigrants. I estimate that the total will not exceed 200,000 by the
end of this year.
It must be pointed out that potential immigrants are less attracted
to Canada, particularly those from many Asian countries. Many
naturally prefer to go to the U.S. or Australia, or other countries
with a high rate of economic growth. This is the case despite the
considerable Canadian government investments in advertising,
promotion and the recruiting of new immigrants in many countries.
(1555)
The greatest obstacle, however, without a doubt for new
immigrants is the $975 entry tax on top of the $500 up front
processing fee. This tax represents an enormous barrier to people
from poor countries.
In addition to setting immigration quotas, the minister ought to
have announced measures to reduce delays in processing
immigration files. Despite some efforts by the minister, which I am
prepared to acknowledge, an application for permanent residence
in Canada sometimes takes 18 months or more. So refugees who
have been here a year or two awaiting refugee status have to wait
another year or more to gain resident status, when they can bring in
their spouse and children. It is inhumane to keep families apart for
such long periods of time. The minister will have to take the
appropriate steps on this.
I would also like to denounce the abusive use of DNA testing to
prove parent-child relationships. Many members of the Haitian
community in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North and in all
of Montreal complain that departmental employees, particularly in
the Canadian embassy in Port-au-Prince, require tests which they
feel are discriminatory.
I should add that a DNA test costs $1,000 and, naturally, they
often cannot afford it. It should be enough to present a birth
certificate to prove kinship.
I would like the minister to tell us what justification there can be
for this to be made a practice of in the case of Haitians. Why are
European immigrants not subject to the same requirement, except
in rare instances? These measures often work against the family
reunification program just mentioned by the minister as being a
priority for this government.
I would like to talk about the immigration tax in particular. Since
its implementation in the last federal budget, the Bloc Quebecois
has repeatedly expressed its opposition to this tax, and has opposed
this $975 fee immigrants and refugees have to pay to become
landed immigrants.
Numerous organizations in Quebec and in Canada have
condemned this discriminatory measure and have campaigned
against it. Last October 28, which was the national day against the
head tax, the Montreal refugee services organisations round table
reiterated its opposition to the settlement fees for refugees,
immigrants and their families. This very respectable organization
said this tax imposed an intolerable and discriminatory burden on
these people.
16077
Canada is the only country in the world which has decided to
impose such fees on refugees recognized as such under the Geneva
Convention. It should be pointed out that the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees has voiced very serious concerns
about this dangerous precedent.
Bob White, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said
that the head tax is basically contrary to Canadian values of equity,
equality and progress.
(1600)
He added that rich immigrants are able to pay this tax, but that
most African, Asian or Latin-American people who want to
immigrate to Canada or come as refugees cannot afford to do so. I
seize this opportunity to ask the Minister why the number of
immigrants and refugees from Latin America keeps on getting
smaller year after year. For a number of years now, it has been
almost impossible to come to Canada from Latin America.
The loans system established to help those who have to pay this
tax did not work. A moment ago, an official told us they have no
way to assess the impact of this tax abroad. A lot of loan requests
are rejected because the candidate will not have the money to repay
the loan.
Once again, I ask the minister to put an end to this tax, at least
for refugees. I remind him that even some of his Liberal colleagues
made such a request regarding refugees. My wife, my two children
and I came from Chile in 1974. If we had had over $4,000 to pay in
landing fees in order to have our application examined by
immigration authorities, we would never have been able to come.
Worse still, all the money collected, estimated at $146 million
for 1995, goes into general revenue instead of being used for
settlement services for immigrants. Of course, despite the
immigration tax which, as I just said, will bring in $146 million in
1995, the transfer of responsibilities to NGOs for immigration and
integration of new arrivals will mean a drastic reduction in funds
and services.
Already, hundreds of civil servants have lost their jobs with the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In 1996 alone, the
government will cut the number of civil servants by 20 per cent at
headquarters and in the regions. Once again, I denounce these
massive cuts of civil servants.
In short, I am asking the minister to pay more attention to the
reports issued by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration. It has issued several reports which were tabled in this
House, but we never had any feedback from the minister. Although
many witnesses have come before the committee and much effort
was spent on this, the minister has not bothered to respond to these
reports.
I will conclude by saying that the minister should take additional
measures to launch an education and awareness campaign, directed
at the Canadian people, on the contributions and other positive
influence of immigrants in our society.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to respond to the minister's
statement on immigration levels for the coming year, I am not
particularly reassured by the minister's glowing picture of the state
of Canada's immigration policy.
The minor increase in actual immigration numbers is somewhat
irrelevant, as the actual number of immigrants who will be arriving
this year is closer to the lower levels of projections for this year and
will probably be the same next year. However, by announcing a
modest increase of 5 per cent, the government can say it is moving
closer to its red book promise.
(1605)
The Liberal red book states: ``We would continue to target
immigration levels of approximately 1 per cent of the population
each year''. That works out to approximately 300,000 immigrants a
year, and we are only at two-thirds of that total. I would suggest
this is a much more reasonable number than the red book promise,
but a number that is still likely to cause difficulty.
Part of the problem with these numbers is that the minister's own
department is having difficulty handling and processing the
applications. Last month one of the managers from the Vegreville
office spoke to MPs' staff in the Vancouver area. At that time he
announced that the Vegreville office had a backlog of over 15,000
files, with 7,000 of those files being over a year old. If we have that
type of backlog now, what is going to happen if the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration proceeds with its proposed cutbacks
of up to 25 per cent of its staff?
Another interesting aspect of this announcement on new levels is
the new category of provincial-territorial nominees. This new
category will give the provinces and territories, with the exception
of Quebec, the ability to share a grand total of 1,000 immigrants.
As I said, with the exception of Quebec. Under the Canada-Quebec
accord, Quebec already has sole responsibility for the selection of
immigrants destined to that province. This applies only to
economic immigrants. Nevertheless, last year Quebec had the
ability to choose more than 11,000 economic immigrants who
came to that province. In a sense of fairness, the federal
government has decided to permit the rest of the provinces and
territories to have a say in selecting a total of 1,000.
The numbers show another interesting aspect of the
Canada-Quebec accord. Under this arrangement Quebec received
$90 million to spend on settlement in that province. The federal
16078
government in turn spent about $270 million in the rest of Canada.
Thus, Quebec's share was about one-quarter of the total allotment,
which was fairly consistent with Quebec's one-quarter of the
population in Canada and was fairly consistent with Quebec's
intent to settle 47,000 of the immigrants to the country, or
one-quarter. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the
forum. Quebec settled only 26,000 immigrants last year, which is
only 13 per cent of the total. Yet it still received $90 million, or
approximately one-quarter of all settlement dollars.
Next year Quebec will settle only 27,000 immigrants and
refugees, or approximately 12 to 13 per cent of the total. Yet it will
still receive $90 million, or 25 per cent of the funding.
Given Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote in
Quebec, I can understand why immigrants are reluctant to move to
that province. However, the reality is that the federal government is
now funding the settlement of immigrants in Quebec at a rate twice
that of the rest of Canada.
Levels, numbers, and dollars are only one part of the equation.
Canadians are just as concerned about the quality of the immigrants
we are receiving as we are about the number of immigrants we are
receiving. Polls show there is not a great deal of public support for
Canada's current immigration in this nation. The government likes
to say it is because of the Reform Party that such support is down.
While I appreciate the government's acknowledging our influence,
I must inform its members that our party is just reflecting the
concerns of ordinary Canadians.
Ordinary Canadians get upset when they hear that 14 per cent of
sponsorship obligations are in default, to the tune of $700 million
in 1993. They get upset when they read in the September 30 edition
of the Ottawa Citizen that 19 per cent of welfare recipients in the
Ottawa-Carleton region are immigrants and refugees. They want
this government to get tough on sponsors who default on their
obligations. Instead, they hear about cases like Mohammed Assaf.
(1610 )
In 1989 Mohammed Assaf sponsored his brother and family to
settle in Alberta. Within two years his brother's family went on
welfare. The Alberta taxpayers have had to shell out $40,000 in
welfare payments. Despite attempts by the Alberta social services
to collect the money from Mohammed, the sponsor, he ignored
them. He then wanted to sponsor his second wife to come to
Canada. In their wisdom, the immigration department officials said
no, he could not sponsor her because he had an outstanding
sponsorship obligation already.
Mohammed Assaf paid back $8,000 of his $40,000 obligation
and then came up with a better idea: He would appeal to the IRB.
Guess what happened? The IRB members said: ``Do not worry
about your debt to the Canadian taxpayer, we will let you sponsor
your second wife here anyway''.
What kind of message does this send, not only to the immigrant
community but to the Canadian public at large? Outrageous IRB
decisions like this one undermine everything the minister says he is
trying to do to rectify the problem of defaulted sponsorship.
It is not good enough to blame the IRB. The members of the
board are patronage appointees the minister installed. It is
somewhat ironic that everything the minister is trying to
accomplish through his department is being undone by the political
hacks he appointed to the IRB.
While the percentage of immigrants who arrive in this country
via the family reunification aspect of immigration is being reduced,
it is still a major problem area. Most Canadians will acknowledge
that the reunification of family members is a valid goal. However,
this reunification must be limited to immediate family.
As reported in one of the studies incorporated in the book
Diminishing Returns, over recent years each individual who has
immigrated to Canada under the family class has had a multiplier
effect of an additional seven immigrants. Unfortunately, many of
these are solely done for money, be they arranged marriages for a
large dowry or outright sham marriages. I have been informed of
one case in which a woman was upset because she was having
difficulty sponsoring her fourth husband in four years. Shams like
these contribute to bringing the whole system in disrepute.
On the plus side, we have those immigrants who do make a
positive contribution to Canada's economy. Studies consistently
show that these people make more money than native-born
Canadians.
Last year the minister proudly announced that the percentage of
economic immigrants will rise from 43 per cent to 55 per cent of all
immigration. While this may sound good, it is somewhat
deceptive. In fact the majority of immigrants who come under the
economic class are not those high income earners but the
dependants of high income earners. In reality, only 17 per cent of
those in the immigrant class are these high income individuals.
When we add refugees to the equation, only 14 per cent of all
newcomers to the country are economic immigrants.
Unfortunately, many of these individuals are becoming
disillusioned with what they find here. Media reports from
Vancouver recently indicated that many of these immigrants who
arrived from Hong Kong are returning to Hong Kong. They cite the
high and numerous taxes in Canada as well as endless government
regulations that tend to discourage the creation of wealth as the
main reasons they are leaving. Is it not ironic that these individuals
believe they will be better off from a business perspective under the
16079
communist regime of the People's Republic of China in a couple of
years than they are under the Liberal government today.
Finally, I would like to discuss Canada's acceptance of refugees.
We have always been generous in accepting legitimate convention
refugees, and we should continue to receive our share of those
fleeing persecution from conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the former
Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, convention refugees are not necessarily
what we are getting.
(1615)
One of my staffers recently met with a young Somali refugee
currently attending Ottawa University. The only problem is that
this individual is neither a refugee nor a Somali. Rather he was
born in neighbouring Djibouti and while a resident of France he
came to Ottawa to go to university. When he started to run low on
funds he went to a local Canada immigration office, claimed to be a
Somali refugee and now the Canadian taxpayers are funding the
rest of his education.
How about Tejinder Pal Singh, a convicted airline hijacker? He
arrived in Canada, claimed refugee status under an alias and is now
free on bail in Vancouver while the IRB hears his case.
If the government wants Canadians to openly accept refugees,
then it had better make sure we are opening our doors to legitimate
convention refugees and not murderers, hijackers or scam artists.
If the government wants all Canadians to support its
immigration policy, then it had best make sure that it is bringing in
people who want to make a positive contribution to our country,
and not in the minister's own words the ``wretched refuse'' from
``teeming shores''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 96th report to the House
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the
membership of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons and the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move the adoption of
this report later today.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (arrest without warrant).
He said: Madam Speaker, this will not take very long. It is a
short bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It
would allow police forces throughout the land to arrest without
warrant a person who is in breach of a condition of parole or
statutory release. It has been stated to me by a number of police
officers throughout the country that if they had the ability to do
this, they would be able to prevent a number of crimes from
happening. I believe that prevention is a major concern and a major
goal of all parties of the House.
When the idea was presented to me by the police forces, it was
thought that it would be an extremely useful preventive tool. It
would prevent death, injury and harm to property and lives of other
Canadians. I hope this will become law soon.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1620 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to
introduce a motion concerning referral of the estimates.
I move:
That supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996,
laid upon the table on this day, November 1, 1995, be referred to the several
standing committees of the House, in accordance with the detailed allocation
attached.
Madam Speaker, in accordance with our normal practice and if it
is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
suggestion of the hon. President of the Treasury Board. Is it
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
16080
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1a and 15a
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, L21a, 25a, 30a, 45a, 80a, 130a and 145a
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment, Votes 1a and 10a
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 1a and L30a
National Revenue, Vote 1a
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Vote 1a
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 16a and 20a
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Canadian Heritage, Vote 140a
Privy Council, Votes 1a and 5a
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 20a, 21a, 31a and 41a
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 20a and 25a
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
Human Resources Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 25a, 30a and 50a
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disable Persons
Justice, Vote 15a
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 35a, 45a, 46a
and 55a
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Vote 1a
Finance, Votes 45a and 50a
Industry, Votes 1a, 25a, 65a, 75a, 80a, 85a, 90a and 95a
Western Economic Diversification, Votes 1a and 5a
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1a, 5a, 40a and 45a
Solicitor General, Votes 1a, 10a, 15a, 25a, 30a and 45a
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 10a, 15a and 20a
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Natural Resources, Votes 1a, 20a 30a and 35a
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a
To the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Privy Council, Vote 25a
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move that the 96th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
That is the one I tabled earlier, changing the names of members
of various committees.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119(1)(i), authorize the Standing
Committee on Industry to televise its meetings with banks and other lenders
during the week of November 6, 1995, in accordance with the guidelines
pertaining to televising committee proceedings.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a
petition dealing with the tendering practices of the Department of
National Defence.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if Question No. 223 could be made an order for return, the
return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 223-Mr. Frazer:
Concerning the Department of National Defence and appeals of Court
Martial decisions it has initiated for the period of January 1970 through June
1995, (a) by year, how many appeals of Court Martial decisions has the
Department of National Defence initiated during the period specified, (b) what
are the details, including names and dates, of those Courts Marital which were
appealed by the Department of National Defence, (c) what was the initial Court
Martial verdict and sentence in each case, (d) for what reason did the
Department of National Defence appeal each Court Martial decision during the
years specified, (e) what was the final outcome in each of the Court Martial
appeals initiated by the Department of National Defence?
16081
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16081
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-61, an act to establish a system
of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the
Canadian Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection
Act and the Seeds Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak for a very few minutes this afternoon at the final stage of
consideration given to Bill C-61, the agriculture and agri-food
administrative monetary penalties act.
(1625 )
I am very pleased to be able to report to the House, as has been
noted earlier in our debates, that this legislation enjoys the solid
support of key Canadian agri-food industry associations. Members
of the House have already had ample opportunity to consider the
bill in detail. Members are well aware of the benefits of Bill C-61
and there is very broad support in the House for the principle of
what we are trying to accomplish. Therefore, my comments today
will be brief and to the point as I reiterate just a few of the
highlights of Bill C-61.
First, this bill will provide my department's officials with a
broader range of measures to effectively enforce food safety and
quality regulations. For example, they will have the authority and
the power to impose monetary penalties and to negotiate solutions
to violation situations rather than over-reliance, which has been the
case in the past, on the only tool available to them, criminal
prosecution.
The bill allows the government to meet industry demands for a
system that applies equal and consistent enforcement practices
against both importers and domestic companies that market
products which do not meet Canadian health, safety or quality
standards. This will help to create a level playing field for the
domestic food industry.
Bill C-61 will strengthen our enforcement at border points. It
will do so by allowing us to issue monetary penalties at ports of
entry for violations committed by the travelling public who attempt
illegally to bring meat and plant products into Canada that could
introduce animal or plant diseases that do not naturally occur in our
country.
Bill C-61 is fair and it is expedient. It allows for negotiated
solutions for non-compliance. Administrative monetary penalties
can be reduced to zero if a violator takes immediate corrective
action to come into compliance. After all, that is the objective, to
achieve compliance. This results in a better product and more
effective enforcement. In this way the system emphasizes
compliance and not punishment.
Finally, Bill C-61 will improve the competitiveness of Canadian
industry while helping to maintain Canada's well-established
international reputation for high quality health and safety
standards.
The use of monetary penalties is not a new concept in the federal
regulatory system. It is consistent with initiatives that are being
undertaken by other departments. Similar systems to the one we are
proposing in Bill C-61 are in use by the Department of Transport
and by the Department of Human Resources Development.
One point was raised in the committee discussion of Bill C-61,
and was raised at the report stage here in the House, which I should
deal with for just a moment is the erroneous suggestion that my
parliamentary secretary might have in some way misled members
of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with
respect to the letters of support my department received from
industry associations during the consultation process related to this
bill.
Industry stakeholders have been kept fully informed of the
progress of Bill C-61 right from day one. They will continue to be
informed until the legislation is ultimately enacted.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada started the consultation
process on the bill in early 1992. That was during a regulatory
review process. The regulatory review confirmed that there was
very broad industry support for the concept of an administrative
monetary penalty system.
16082
(1630 )
Later in October 1992 a letter was sent by Dr. Art Olson, the
assistant deputy minister in my department for the food production
and inspection branch. That letter went to all affected industry
associations, including those referred to in the list of industry
associations which was provided to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food during its consideration of Bill C-61.
The letter from Dr. Olson informed all of those industry
organizations of the department's intention to introduce a system of
administrative monetary penalties. The department also during that
period engaged in face to face negotiations with a number of
relevant groups. After that initial contact and consultation with
industry, my department received a number of letters of support
from industry organizations.
On the day Bill C-61 was tabled in the House for the first time in
December 1994 another letter was sent by my department, this time
to 132 industry associations to inform them specifically that the
process had moved beyond the consultation stage, beyond the
drafting stage to the point at which there was now a formal bill
printed and ready to go. It was important to inform the industry of
that progress.
In addition to the letter to the 132 industry associations, included
in the package was a four-page background document outlining all
the important provisions of Bill C-61. The letter in December 1994
specifically invited representatives of the industry to follow up
with the department if they had any questions or concerns. A few
inquiries came in for further detail.
It is important to note that during that process not one of those
organizations, the 132 industry associations consulted, indicated it
had changed its position of support for Bill C-61. At the same time
the second letter went out a news release was sent to more than
1,000 media and industry contacts to make sure they were informed
as well.
Since December 1994 until now the process has moved along
through the various parliamentary stages. In recent weeks
departmental officials have contacted 10 of the industry
associations that had originally indicated support for the
legislation. These are the associations referred to by the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster when he raised questions as to
whether these organizations were still supportive of Bill C-61.
Those organizations have been contacted once again to
reconfirm their position. Of those 10 organizations mentioned by
the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster only three said they had
ever been contacted by the Reform Party. Nine said they fully
continue to support this legislation. The tenth involved a person
who had just come on to the job in the last number of weeks and
was not yet in a position to express an opinion.
The department is making arrangements to ensure the individual
in that important position will be fully briefed by the department on
all the details of Bill C-61.
It is quite obvious the consultative effort here has been lengthy
and thorough. The information provided to the committee and to
the House by the government and representatives of the
government with respect to this consultative process has been
complete and accurate.
(1635 )
The process of bringing Bill C-61 now to its final stage in the
House has been a good process. There has been ample time for
good discussion. Many ideas have been brought forward in that
process, either informally in the drafting stage or formally in the
form of amendments in committee and in the House which have
been very useful. The government has demonstrated openness and
flexibility in dealing with all of these ideas. A number of those
proposed amendments were accepted by the government and have
been incorporated into what is now the final draft of Bill C-61.
The bill will provide for a system which will deal with violations
and potential violations of health and safety rules and regulations.
It will be faster, fairer, more cost effective and more flexible in
order to increase compliance with all of our health and safety
regulations pertaining to agriculture and agri-food and also to assist
Canadian agri-food businesses in winning and maintaining a
competitive edge.
With the thorough discussion we have had with respect to this
legislation and all of the proposed amendments, I urge my fellow
members of the House on both sides to support Bill C-61 and to
give it speedy passage on its way to the other place.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was not present during last week's debate on Bill C-61. It is my
friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Lotbinière next
to mine, who participated in the debate in this House on the official
opposition's amendments to Bill C-61.
As you know full well, I had to work hard in my riding of
Frontenac to campaign against my colleague who sits on the
opposition benches in the National Assembly in order to obtain a
yes majority in that riding. I take this opportunity to thank my
constituents for supporting the option of sovereignty with
partnership.
I, however, read these proceedings carefully and I must say I am
surprised by the government members' frivolous comments on our
amendments. Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Bill C-61
will allow the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to meet
several of its objectives, in particular relieving pressure on the
courts and the resulting savings for taxpayers. In this regard, the
16083
Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of administrative
monetary penalties.
We, however, cannot support the bill as tabled by the
government for a very simple reason, namely that the federal
Department of Transport implemented a system of monetary
penalties without allowing offenders to negotiate these penalties
with the department. We in the official opposition see this
opportunity to negotiate penalties as the Achilles heel of the bill.
Yet, the federal department of agriculture did not consider the
amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and continues to
support the principle of penalty negotiation.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois thinks that this bill could have a
major impact on the way justice is served.
(1640)
The judicial power differs from the legislative one. Here, in the
House of Commons, we can discuss, improve, analyze and review
bills, but when it comes to implementing them, the judicial system
takes over. In a self-respecting society, the judicial system must
never have a close and direct link with the legislative power.
Otherwise, what kind of society would we be living in? Does the
government seek to have a totalitarian society in which our fellow
citizens would be accountable to their elected representatives, and
in which the judicial system would lose its authority? I certainly
hope that we will not live in a totalitarian regime.
Consequently, it is very unfortunate that the federal government
flatly rejected the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
These amendments sought to eliminate the risk of arbitrary
decisions in the administration of penalties.
The Minister of Agriculture should recognize that the
compliance agreements and negotiations which he will allow to
reduce the penalty imposed to an offender are not indispensable to
reach his objective, which is to reduce the workload of the courts.
As his colleague, the Minister of Transport, knows from
experience, it is much more beneficial for an offender to
immediately pay a fine than to go to the courts, particularly if he
knows that his is a lost cause. The monetary penalty system is, in
itself, a good enough incentive to encourage the offender to settle
the issue outside the courts. Any compliance agreement to reduce
the penalty does not do anything more, except create a major risk of
unfairness in the administration of penalties.
The amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, through the hon.
member for Lotbinière, sought to abolish any form of compliance
agreement or negotiation between the department and the offender.
The Minister of Agriculture has not convinced us, far from it, that
there is no risk of arbitrary decision in this monetary penalty
system. We still feel that the negotiation process allowing a
departmental officer to reduce the penalty of an offender is unfair
and, more importantly, dangerous for a democracy.
The member for Brandon-Souris justified the quick rejection of
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois by saying, and I
quote: ``The important thing in these matters is that compliance is
achieved. Whether or not there is a reduced or an increased penalty
is secondary in most cases to bringing about the change by the
perpetrator of the infraction''.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food fully agreed with
that earlier when he said that compliance is more important than
enforcement.
I was talking with the chief of police of a small community in
my riding who had to go to Sherbrooke to testify. To show how
ridiculous the fines and penalties have become, he told me that
people indicted on seven or eight charges for offences at their
summer cottages passed him on his way back to his community,
such was the speed with which they had been able to settle the
fines. Despite the jail sentences provided for in the case of such
offences, they were dealt with so fast that they passed the chief of
police at high speed, and made gestures I would not dare make in
the House.
(1645)
Our police forces are so dispirited that often they wonder
whether they should do their job or close their eyes and pretend not
to see, because our justice system is going downhill and bankrupt.
In other words, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris feels what
matters is compliance, not whether the law is enforced fairly or not.
He cannot answer that question. I am sorry, but in Quebec we do
not buy that kind of justice.
Make no mistake, the amendments put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois were not to abolish the monetary penalty system. As I
said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this principle which
will help to reduce the caseload of the courts.
However, this is a new and intelligent approach, especially in
times of financial crisis. Having said that, the caseload of the courts
should not be reduced and a parallel justice system should not be
created if it means the implementation of an arbitrary justice
system. The possibility of negotiating the penalty with civil
servants introduces an unacceptable bias in the penalty process.
More specifically, after noticing an offence, officials of the
Production and Inspection Branch will recommend to their director
the appropriate penalty to impose. We therefore have a centralized
decision process and the department maintains that the regulations
eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions. But that is not true. It is
not true and indeed the government has not even seen fit to
introduce the regulations, even though they are very important in
16084
this case, to assess the relevancy of a negotiation system to reduce
the penalties.
A departmental official is authorized to reach an agreement with
the offender to reduce the penalty by $1 for every $2 the company
will invest to improve its procedures, buy new equipment or train
its employees. We are against such a principle. In our justice
system, penalties are not negotiable. I repeat: in our justice system,
penalties are not negotiable.
I look at my colleague, the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi, who once was the president of the bar in his
district. He knows full well that someone who has been found
guilty of an offence does not have the opportunity to negotiate his
or her penalty or sentence, far from it.
Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are on highway 401 going to
Montreal and that an OPP officer stops you for speeding, for
example. You start to negotiate with him. You are guilty, you were
doing 140 kilometres an hour and you negotiate with the OPP
officer: ``Look, I was doing 140, I was going down a hill, the car
started to go faster, so be indulgent with me. I am the Deputy
Speaker of the House of Commons. Write down on the ticket that I
was doing 121 kilometres or just let me go.''
(1650)
Would that kind of double-standard justice be acceptable? No. I
do not think, Madam Speaker, that Quebecers would accept that
you negotiate your speeding ticket with an OPP officer, let alone
with an officer of the Sûreté du Québec, because it would not be
appropriate for a member of Parliament, especially for the Deputy
Speaker of the House of Commons, to do so. And it is possible with
this legislation that agricultural producers and people in related
industries could negotiate, by mutual agreement, an unprecedented
reduction of their penalty.
This could have an adverse effect on the viability and also on the
reliability of our agricultural products here, in Canada. I heard that
it was possible to negotiate a speeding ticket, but you certainly
understand as well as I do that it is not an ideal situation. In this
case, an offender who is better off financially and who would be in
a position to invest in order to correct a particular situation would
be rewarded for that through a reduction of his or her penalty. For
each $2 invested, the penalty would be reduced by $1. This way,
the person who has enough money could have the penalty reduced
to zero, whereas the person who does not have that much money
could not settle the matter in the same way. Therefore, this
proposal would put some inequity in our justice system.
People or businesses would not be treated equally; they would be
treated according to their spending power. Moreover, who would
assess the cost of the efforts made by a person or a business to
correct a particular situation? For instance, training may cost more
in a particular region, and the same applies to equipment, which
means some individuals and companies will be penalized.
Will they be informed of all the approaches available to them to
correct the situation? What happens in the case of padded invoices
involving collusion by suppliers? If we are looking for incentives
to step up training and investment in a company, we should
improve on methods that already exist, such as fiscal or other
incentives, but these should not be used to negotiate a penalty.
The bill also calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the penalty if the
person who commits the violation pays the fine without
challenging the decision or requesting a review by a tribunal. I
repeat, we are opposed to this concept. Under our legal system, the
presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. Madam Speaker,
I would like to go back to the example I mentioned earlier. You are
clocked at 140 kilometres per hour, and your fine is $225. You get
your ticket, you pay on the spot or within seven to ten days, but
under this particular system, if you pay without challenging your
ticket, the fine is halved.
So $225 divided by two is $112.50. To avoid clogging the courts,
the fine will be reduced by 50 per cent. This is ridiculous. Unless of
course the government has a brilliant idea and decides to double the
fines while at the same time introducing incentives. In that case, it
is misrepresenting the enforcement of this legislation.
Under our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a
fundamental right. For instance, in a situation that could go either
way, the company or individual is given to understand that they are
better off paying the fine without further ado.
(1655)
The individual is entitled to a review but is told: ``Listen, you
have a gun at your head''. He will be told he has already been found
guilty and that if he wants to reduce his penalty, the best thing is to
pay up without a fuss. And what about the right to representation?
The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to ensure that the
president and members of the tribunal who are responsible for
reviewing decisions made by departmental officials are able to do
so. The person who committed a violation could, if he so desires,
have a hearing before the tribunal in order to request a review of his
penalty. However, the tribunal-listen to this, Madam Speaker, this
is very important-is appointed by the minister and the mandate of
its members is renewable. Members are to assess decisions made
by departmental employees who obviously are answerable to the
minister. Is there not a conflict of interest here?
16085
People sitting on this tribunal who would like to see their
mandate renewed for a second term would be more inclined to
do the department's bidding, while someone who refuses to do so
would not see his mandate renewed.
In any case, I was looking at the procedure used to appoint the
president of the UI Board of Referees in Thetford, in my riding.
The person appointed to chair this board and rule on UI disputes
was probably a good choice politically speaking, because she is
connected with the Quebec Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of
Canada, but she has never seen a worker or an unemployed worker
up close. Why not take someone who knows about unemployment
insurance, other than in books, someone who has had experience
with it? This is patronage. In any case, it would appear to be a
recommendation from the Frontenac riding Liberal association,
which was accepted.
I hope that we are not going to go the same route here in
appointing people, that the appointees will already have had a close
look at the system they are being asked to work on-in short,
competent individuals. Maybe competence will mean having
campaigned in the Liberal Party at both levels, in Quebec City and
in Ottawa-this is what make competent people.
To ensure greater transparency in the appointment of the
chairperson and the members of the tribunal, we in the Bloc
Quebecois have suggested that they be appointed by the minister
with the approval of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-food. However, the members of this government represent the
majority on the agriculture and agri-food committee, as elsewhere;
they control it and always get their way.
We in the opposition, with our colleagues from the third party,
simply ask questions. We propose resolutions, obviously, motions
that are usually relegated to the shelves, because the government
party makes use of its majority. They could have circulated their
list of chairperson and tribunal members, and have the committee
validate it at least. They refused. And they say their party is
democratic.
(1700)
You all know that the world of agriculture is a very small one.
However, once again, our amendments have been quickly
dismissed with a wave of the hand. The government also showed it
paid little attention to the proposals put forward by the official
opposition. As the Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic in this House,
I note that the government has never taken amendments proposed
by the Bloc Quebecois into account in this area. Although we
support the basic principle of a system of administrative monetary
penalties, we are well aware that there was no need for the
government to add a penalty bargaining system.
In fact, this is what officials from the department confirmed
during their appearance before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-food. On its own, the monetary penalty
system is enough of an incentive to freeing the courts.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore vigorously opposes Bill C-61,
because it establishes a system for penalty bargaining between
officials and those who have committed violations. This new form
of justice is not currently practiced in Quebec. It seems to me to be
contrary to Quebec traditions and to our system of justice. I suspect
that this sort of consideration was not taken into account when the
bill was drafted. I would be curious to see whether the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food would be prepared to revise this
legislation if, on implementation, it proves to be in conflict with
the traditions and values of Quebec society.
In short, this bill on monetary penalties has an interesting
purpose: to relieve pressure on the courts.
What we in the opposition disagree with is the opportunity to
negotiate penalties. This will, I am sure, lead to abuse, to
negotiations under the table, to questionable negotiations.
Mr. Robichaud: No, no, no.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Yes, questionable. This bill may
hurt agriculture instead of helping it.
Mr. Robichaud: That will not happen.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): My colleague from Beauséjour
knows full well that when a fisherman is caught red-handed in
violation of federal legislation, we do not negotiate on the size of
the fish he caught on the sly, or on anything else. The individual
guilty of fishing off his riding will be caught and prosecuted.
As I said, the judicial and legislative branches of government
must not sleep in the same bed. Never. Yet, there are many lawyers
in this party. They should be the first ones to denounce Bill C-61
because it is flawed.
Mr. Robichaud: No. Jean-Guy, you just said that you would
support it.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): No, we will not support it. I find it
disturbing, Madam Speaker.
Its purpose is commendable. To take your own example, Madam
Speaker, you get a $225 speeding ticket for driving 140 kilometres
an hour and you pay it. If you pay it, will your fine be cut in half?
No. And that is a good thing.
(1705)
As my colleague who was president of the Bar in his region, the
hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, knows full well, the
substance of the bill is valid. However, the possibility of
negotiating fines-not up, of course, but down-raises serious
questions regarding the viability of administering Bill C-61.
16086
For these reasons, I will, in closing, remind you that the Bloc
Quebecois will not join the government in supporting Bill C-61.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will
be extended today by 43 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order
33(2).
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to talk about Bill C-61, the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
Plans for administrative monetary penalties have been on the
books in the department of agriculture for at least a couple of years.
Under a system of administrative monetary penalties, or AMPS, an
inspector who determines that a violation of an agri-food act has
been committed can impose a fine on the offender rather than go
through the judicial system. The main goal of AMPS according to
the department is to obtain compliance rather than to punish. The
United States and some countries in Europe have been using an
administrative monetary penalty system for some time.
The Reform Party is not opposed to the concept of
administrative monetary penalties. We like the idea of a penalty
system that is more efficient and cost effective, a system that helps
individuals and companies to comply with regulations. In addition,
most of the organizations I have talked to support the concept of
administrative monetary penalties. However there is a difference
between supporting the concept of AMPS and supporting an AMPS
program as proposed in a piece of legislation.
Before I discuss the problems associated with the legislation, I
believe it would be helpful to the House to give a short account of
the history of Bill C-61 since it started some time ago. On
December 5, 1994, Bill C-61 was given first reading in the House.
Second reading of the bill was given on February 10 and 13 of this
year. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food for consideration, and the standing committee
reviewed the legislation on March 15, 23, 30 and April 4 of this
year.
On March 15 departmental officials explained the bill's
provisions and answered questions. On March 23 Transport Canada
officials explained the administrative monetary penalty system
introduced in 1985 under the Aeronautics Act and answered
questions. On March 30 Ghislaine Richard, former vice-president
of the Civil Aviation Tribunal, provided evidence to the committee
on the function of the tribunal particularly as it related to the
implementation of Transport Canada's administrative monetary
penalty system, and she answered questions.
On April 4, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials returned
to respond to concerns expressed by the members about
disincentives to contest charges, the burden of proof criteria for
adjusting the penalty amount and other issues raised during
discussion of the bill. The bill was then put to bed and because of
the criticism of the bill we thought it may never come to
prominence in the House again.
I raised a point in committee and in the House which the minister
of agriculture commented on a few minutes ago. In committee the
parliamentary secretary for agriculture handed out a list of industry
associations that he claimed had personally endorsed Bill C-61. He
also suggested there were letters available that would verify this
endorsement and that we were welcome to request copies of the
letter if we chose to do so.
We requested the letters of endorsement and found that a
majority of the letters had been written two to three years before
the bill was tabled in the House last December. We acknowledge
the fact that the department of agriculture consulted with the
industry associations. However we have some qualms about the
way the parliamentary secretary for agriculture presented the facts
or lack of facts to me and my colleagues with regard to the
endorsement of the legislation.
Most of the letters to the department endorsed the concept of an
AMPS but not necessarily the bill as it exists before the House
today.
(1710 )
The minister of agriculture suggested that we had only contacted
three on the list of organizations that we were given indication had
endorsed Bill C-61. The minister is wrong. Since the list was
submitted by the parliamentary secretary to the committee, we
have contacted directly presidents or government relations people
from eight of the eleven organizations on the list.
In several cases the signatories of the letters were no longer with
the organization. This presented a problem in tracking down the
appropriate spokesperson. The eight organizations that we directly
contacted included those on the list of the parliamentary secretary
that he distributed to the committee. We were unable to speak with
some of the people because they were no longer in the
organizations they used to represent.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that these were the letters
of endorsement he had on file for Bill C-61, and that was not true.
Bill C-61 was not in existence when the letters were written.
Perhaps, as the minister suggested, there was some other
correspondence with these organizations. He certainly has not
given us copies of any further endorsements of Bill C-61 and what
date the endorsements came about. He told us he issued press
releases and had communications with 100-odd organizations but
he has never given us any hard copies that would validate his
claims.
When we contacted the people whose names had been given by
the parliamentary secretary, they were quite surprised to find out
there was a Bill C-61. On a few occasions they asked for a copy of
the bill and said that if they are supposed to have endorsed the bill
16087
they should at least see what it is, what it is all about and what are
the details of the bill. They were rather shocked.
The minister did not clearly respond to our concerns. Specific
letters were given to us that were alleged to have been support for
Bill C-61. That was not true. They were not letters of support for
Bill C-61. They were letters written before the Liberal government
was even elected to the House of Commons.
The information we were given was wrong. If that is any
indication of how the department of agriculture runs or any
reflection on the capabilities of the minister of agriculture and his
parliamentary secretary, those of us who are farmers certainly have
a great deal to be concerned about.
As I have already mentioned, the Reform Party endorses the
AMPS, but we want to know if the department of agriculture
consulted the industry associations one time and then did whatever
it pleased, or if it actually took the time to address some of the
industry's concerns. The industry had some concerns that it put
forward in letters that were not letters of support for Bill C-61 but
were letters that said they supported an AMP concept.
Only after we raised a stink in the House did the minister's office
call industry associations for approval. As the minister readily
admitted in his speech, he had to go back and contact the
organizations. I think we hit a raw nerve or created a bit of a stir.
We actually followed up the leads and caused some problems for
the minister because he had not done his homework and he did not
know what was going on.
In talking to some industry associations about Bill C-61 there
was substantial concern regarding its implementation.
Associations, producers and processors want assurances the system
will be applied fairly, uniformly and consistently across all
programs and regions.
When department of agriculture officials appeared before the
committee they repeatedly made reference to the importance of a
safe food supply for Canadians and the impact AMPS would have
in ensuring that it was possible.
While some of the violations will undoubtedly touch the issue of
food safety, many of the other violations will be of a technical
variety. For example, the printing on a label may be a centimetre
too small or there may be problems importing a certain type of
herbicide that has been used in the United States for a number of
years without complications.
One of the national industry agencies we consulted had
reservations about the application of penalties due to technical
violations of regulations such as the examples listed above. There
were concerns and these organizations felt their concerns had not
been properly addressed by the minister.
It would be good if the minister would clarify the situation and
give us proof of recent communications with these organizations.
He should give us some letters dated 1995, not 1992 or 1993.
On March 23 and March 30, 1995 meetings of the committee
raised some serious concerns for members on this side of the House
as well as on the other side. At that time I was not part of the
agriculture committee but I have had the opportunity to review the
minutes from the proceedings in question. One of the main
concerns raised by committee members was the issue of due
diligence.
(1715)
Under the original legislation as it appeared before the
committee the clause in question, clause 18, read as follows:
A person named in a notice of a violation does not have a defence by reason
that the person
(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or
(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true,would exonerate the person.
This clause explicitly left out due diligence as a defence for
individuals served a notice of violation. This provoked questions
delving into whether the system of AMP should operate on a strict
liability regime or an absolute liability regime. Strict liability
means it has to be proven someone committed the violation with
intent. Absolute liability does not consider the intent with which
the person committed the violation and therefore does not allow for
defence under due diligence.
Mr. Mazowita, director of legislation and compliance for
Transport Canada, who appeared as a witness before the
committee, commented on this question with respect to the
aviation environment:
In the aviation environment we find it appropriate to provide for the defence
of due diligence-there can be all kinds of circumstances in which a pilot or a
commercial operator or manufacturer has done everything reasonable that a
pilot or air carrier manufacturer could be expected to do, and in our program we
don't believe it is necessary to punish individuals or companies who act in good
faith in such a manner.
The question was then raised of why would a defence of due
diligence be workable under the Aeronautics Act but not under the
agriculture administrative penalty?
This is not the first time concerns about due diligence were
raised. In a memorandum dated February 16, 1995 from the general
counsel to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of
Regulations, these concerns were outlined. Edgar H. Schmidt, in a
memo quoted the following principle which was made by the
Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Reference re Section 94(2)
of the Motor Vehicle Act. It stated:
16088
It has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent
not be punished. This principle has long been recognized as an essential element of
a system for the administration of justice which is founded upon a belief in the
dignity and worth of the human person and on the rule of law.
In my view it is because absolute liability offends the principles of
fundamental justice that this Court created presumptions against legislatures
having intended to enact offences of a regulatory nature falling within that
category.
Indeed, as I said, in penal law, absolute liability always offends the principles
of fundamental justice irrespective of the nature of the offence.
Mr. Schmidt, in commenting further on the question of absolute
liability, said the following:
Since the advent of the Charter, certain principles take precedence even over
the enactment of the legislatures. With respect to offences of absolute liability,
the Supreme Court of Canada has held that section 7 of the Charter-
-which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, the security
of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice-
-prohibits the creation of absolute liability offences that may be punished by
imprisonment. In essence the Court held that while all absolute liability
offences offend the principles of fundamental justice, only when such offences
interfere with the right to life, liberty or security of the person do they offend
section 7 of the Charter. Since the violations contemplated by Bill C-61 cannot
result in imprisonment, it is not likely that they offend the particular interests
protected by section 7. However, that does not change the fact that in making
violations matters of absolute liability, the bill offends the principles of
fundamental justice.
Clause 18(a) of Bill C-61 effectively places violations in that
category which the Supreme Court of Canada characterized as
absolute liability offences. It is worth noting that violations under
the bill would for the most part be a contravention of the act or
regulations that would also constitute either summary conviction
offences or indictable offences.
The effect of the bill is to permit the minister to transform any of
the matters which are presently solely strict liability offences into
matters which are also absolute liability violations by simply
designating them under clause 4 of the bill. These are not my
observations, but the observations of Mr. Schmidt who certainly
knows what he is talking about.
(1720)
The office of the minister of agriculture responded toMr. Schmidt's concerns by suggesting that an absolute liability
standard was ``to ensure high standards of care for regulatees, in
light of the risk that non-compliance may have on human health
and safety''.
The Reform Party is also in favour of ensuring high standards
and protecting human health. If there are concerns that human
health is at risk, I would classify that as an offence. If an individual
is to be charged with an offence, that person would have the option
of using the defence of due diligence, a right that is not available to
individuals served a notice of violation. If someone commits a very
serious offence, there is the right of due diligence as a defence. If a
lesser violation is committed under Bill C-61 there is no right of
due diligence as a tool of defence.
I should make it clear that not all violations under agriculture
and agri-food acts can be classified even as a threat to human
health and safety. The Liberals and the department of agriculture
have repeatedly said that absolute liability is the only way this
system can work properly. I am sure the government across the
floor is saying that there are provisions within the legislation to
take account of the intent of the individual served the notice of
violation.
In committee a week and a half ago we raised the point with
regard to this issue. Both Mr. Phil Amudsen, director general of
mid-west region food production and inspection branch and Mr.
Reg Gatenby, chief, legislation, food production and inspection
branch addressed the point rather haphazardly. I quote Mr.
Amudsen:
In the penalty matrix, intent is part of the evaluation of what the penalty will
be-.So it is part of the penalty process, but it is not a defence for getting out of
the whole violation.
For example, in the penalty matrix, intention falls under the
gravity of misconduct and there are four levels of intention. The
first level says: ``Unknowingly or inadvertently committed a
violation or voluntarily disclosed and took steps to prevent
reoccurrence''. There are zero points charged for this category.
The second category is: ``Degree of negligence (assess degree of
control in place of precautions, feasibility, knowledge of hazards,
degree of expertise)''. For this type of violation three points are
docked.
The third category is: ``Intention unknown''. It is a violation
resulting from negligence and is docked three points for that
category.
The fourth and final category is: ``Knowingly committed a
violation'', for which five points are received.
A penalty matrix including intent is not a defence under due
diligence. For example, an individual who exercised due diligence,
depending on the gravity of the misconduct, will pay slightly less
than the individual who knowingly committed a violation. This is
not a fair system. There should be some sort of recourse for
individuals to take that exercise due diligence. I am in favour of
coming down hard on those individuals that intentionally and
knowingly committed a violation, but we should be more lenient
with those individuals who have exercised due diligence.
16089
I will give an example. Under the Pest Control Products Act
it states that farmers are to compensate for drift when they spray
herbicides or pesticides. Every farmer knows that when the wind
comes up they have very little control over the spray. Wind
velocities and directions change in a matter of seconds. Under this
legislation farmers could be charged even if they exercised due
diligence in spraying. Later I will discuss a motion that we put
forward regarding due diligence at report stage.
I also want to talk briefly about the time line of Bill C-61. When
committee members reviewed the bill during the early part of this
year, there were some serious concerns. I have only in the past few
minutes addressed one of the many concerns that all parties had
with the bill.
After April 24, 1995 this bill went into hiding. Why did the
legislation go into hiding for over half a year? Were the Liberals
waiting for the smoke to blow over? The committee had some
serious concerns with the legislation. They put forward a number of
amendments in committee that were to be considered. Instead,
when the committee resumed this fall with a number of new
members on the committee, the amendments were from the
department of agriculture. Although the department adopted a
couple of what I would call token amendments, the major concerns
were not addressed adequately, including an amendment dealing
with due diligence.
What is the purpose of the committees if any well thought out
amendments are tossed to the side in favour of departmental
amendments only?
(1725 )
The red book on page 22 states: ``In the House of Commons a
Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting
legislation through House of Commons committees''. That is what
it said but it is certainly not what it is doing.
Last week when Bill C-61 was at report stage, the Liberals
accepted three amendments from the Reform Party. We brought
amendments forward at report stage simply because we knew there
was no way these amendments would have passed through
committee.
It was quite funny to watch the clause by clause debate at
committee a couple of weeks ago. A number of new members
appeared at the committee. They were imported especially for
clause by clause study. The meeting was set up for a Monday
evening, which is very strange for clause by clause. Actually only a
couple of committee members really knew what was in the bill.
One of them, to his credit, was the member for Malpeque on Prince
Edward Island and the other was the parliamentary secretary, the
one who had given us the information that turned out to be
incorrect.
However, the rest of them were simply voting machines. In fact,
the member for Dauphin-Swan River had the list of amendments
from the department of agriculture that it had approved and at the
appropriate time she would insert a duly approved amendment
from the department. It was obvious that any other amendments
that would have been put forward would have been summarily
dismissed without due consideration.
That does not speak very well for the committee process in this
House. It tells us the attitude of the Liberal government. It tells us
that committee work for the most part is a baby-sitting service for
Liberal backbenchers and not a place to deal with meaningful
legislation.
Although the amendments that were accepted at report stage
provided some well-needed clarification to the legislation, the
government failed to accept the amendments that would not only
make the AMP system better but more palatable to the industry,
producers and those responsible for enforcement.
The Liberals, and in particular the member for
Regina-Wascana, the minister of agriculture, patted themselves
on the back suggesting they had exhibited a spirit of co-operation
in accepting three Reform amendments. This government
constructs the facade of democracy but inevitably disregards the
constructive aspects of the consultative process.
I would now like to address the amendments I put forward at
report stage. As I just mentioned, the Liberal government is
unwilling to consider amendments that would have had a
substantive bearing on the implementation of the act. The
amendments were an attempt to quantify and qualify the powers of
the minister, the powers of the tribunal to which the violators can
appeal and to clarify certain parts of the acts and the rights and
responsibilities of both the violator and the minister in enforcing
and administering the monetary penalties and forming compliance
agreements.
The first amendment that the Reform Party put forward at report
stage under Motion No. 1 was to set out some guidelines with
regard to the minister's powers. As it now stands, there is nothing
in the legislation that determines the differences between violations
which the AMP system addresses and an offence which the judicial
system addresses.
This amendment would have required the minister to put
forward some criteria. In committee, witnesses from the
department of agriculture suggested that an extremely serious
violation would be considered an offence and prosecution would
fall under the court or justice system, whereas a very serious
offence would fall under the AMP system.
The question I would like to ask is at what point does a violation
cross the threshold and become an offence? There should be some
sort of consistency across the board. To arbitrarily determine on
16090
the basis of each case whether the infraction is a violation or an
offence is not fair and not reasonable.
Individuals and companies should be given a clear indication
what procedure the department is following in the implementation
of the AMP program. It is a disappointment when members
opposite disregard an amendment that would provide greater
clarification.
The way the act now reads the minister can use his power to
prevent his friends from receiving the justice they deserve while
throwing the book at political opponents. He can also go soft on
violations in his own riding but be overly aggressive on alleged
violations from an NDP or Reform riding. This can digress to the
politics played at lower levels in the administration. There are no
checks and balances, no criteria and no parameters to restrict this
type of biased administration of the AMP program.
The second amendment put forward by the Reform Party under
Motion No. 3 set out to lower the fines by half for first time
violations with subsequent violations being subject to the original
fines set out in the legislation.
While the hon. member for Malpeque suggested at report stage
that the Reform Party, in dealing with the violations of law or
quasi-law, wants to go all out and go for the jugular, I would beg to
differ.
(1730 )
The Reform Party believes that some leniency should be shown
to small business producers and processors for first time violations.
Most of the violations that fall under the agriculture and agri-food
act do not require that substantial fines be levied. Remember, we
are not talking about serious indictable offences. We are talking
about a small business, a producer or a processor. Given the
economic situation they face today, they could easily be put out of
business with the levels of fines proposed under the legislation.
If the parties offend for the second time it is then that we throw
the book at them. It is only reasonable that this amendment should
have been given consideration.
It is ironic that when we deal with violent offenders, serious
criminals, the members on the Liberal side are so compassionate.
They want to be so careful and protect the rights of those people,
some of them vicious and malicious and repeat offenders. When it
comes to small business, when it comes to people who make their
living in agriculture or the processing industry, the Liberals want to
be so strict. They want to come down with harsh monetary
penalties, even on a first offence, and not even allow those people
the right of due diligence in offering a defence.
You wonder about the priorities of this government. Sometimes
it just makes you sick.
The third amendment we proposed at report stage, under Motion
No. 4, was another one of common sense. It set out to identify the
designated person serving notice of the violation. As I stated last
Thursday, this is a common procedure that is useful, valuable, and
will also protect the person who is alleged to have made the
violation. I want to stress once again that this amendment was a
common sense one and I thought the Liberals had enough common
sense. Unfortunately, they did not even have that minute amount to
accept the amendment we proposed.
The fourth amendment we put forward, under Motion No. 5, was
to improve the legislation by giving the person served the notice of
violation at least 45 days to pay or ask for a review by the minister
or the tribunal. The legislation outlines that the minister can
prescribe any regulations in the act that require prescribing, in
other words, a blank cheque. The minister can do whatever he
wants.
I believe that some of these regulations can be put within the act.
The Liberal members keep repeating that including time frames in
the legislation is impractical because it is very difficult to make
future changes. The amendment put forth requires only a minimum
time period to pay or ask for a review by the minister. The intent is
to prevent the minister from arbitrarily and unreasonably setting
the time period in which the individual served notice of violation
has to pay.
This and similar amendments are necessary parameters to allow
for industry confidence in the AMP system.
The minister under this act in two days can say either pay or ask
for a review by the department or by the tribunal. Two days is
unreasonable. There are no parameters. It is just a wide open field.
It is hunting season year round in Bill C-61.
The fifth amendment that we proposed was put forward under
Motion No. 11, setting out to prevent the minister from taking
security above and beyond the gravity of the violation. This
amendment provides clarification as to what is reasonable security.
It parallels the acceptance of the Reform amendment to clause 10
which reads: ``include a provision for the giving of reasonable
security''-and that was an amendment accepted by the
minister-``in a form and in an amount satisfactory to the minister
as a guarantee that the person will comply with the compliance
agreement''.
This amendment is an incentive for the individual to comply
with the agreement while at the same time it prevents abuse of the
system by the minister.
I would also like to comment on the sixth amendment we
proposed. This amendment would have required the review
tribunal to complete the review within six months of receiving the
person's request for a review. This would have prevented reviews
16091
from taking longer than six months to complete. For the sake of
expediency of the review process we put forward this amendment.
As I stated at report stage, cases could drag on for quite some
time. This is certainly not fair to the accused, to the individual who
is waiting for a review of his or her case. Most of all it is not fair to
taxpayers to bear the cost of an ongoing review that could never
end because there is no restriction as to how long it can continue.
All individuals who are affected by this legislation want a
system that is expedient and cost effective. It is in the best interests
of this House to make legislation that way and it disappoints me
when the government refuses to accept constructive amendments.
The seventh amendment, proposed under Motion No. 19, was the
most important amendment we put forward. This amendment
sought to allow for the defence under due diligence and an
individual should be exonerated if the person reasonably and
honestly believed in the existence of fact that if true would
exonerate the person.
(1735 )
I talked about this earlier in my speech and it was raised in
committee. If our amendment had been accepted by the
government, the concerns raised in committee by the general
counsel and by industry officials would have been put to bed.
However, they are still out there. Excluding due diligence from this
legislation makes the bill flawed and not supportable for me and
my colleagues. This is one of the main reasons we cannot accept
Bill C-61.
The final amendment I will mention was Motion No. 23, which
was proposed in the House at report stage. It deals with conflict of
interest and appointments of the review tribunal. That amendment
went one step further than the conflict of interest clause in
stipulating that no government lobbyist or a person who has
contracts with the federal government may be appointed to the
tribunal.
When the governing party was the official opposition, when the
Liberals sat over on this side of the House, there was an outcry
from Liberal members almost on a daily basis about the Tory
appointments to boards and tribunals. Guess what? Now that the
Liberals have moved from this side to that side of the House, the
Tory status quo seems to be okay.
We have been going through a time of crisis in our country with
the threat of Quebec separation. It is time to start putting solutions
on the table. One of the solutions to our problems, which is gaining
some momentum and acceptance right across the country, is to
move toward a more decentralized government.
One of the ways this federal government could put its money
where its mouth is would be by not becoming so involved in
appointments of every position it could possibly control from
within the privy council. This government has not chosen to do
that. It has chosen to have a hands on approach to every
appointment on every board and quasi-judicial whatever.
That is offensive to Canadians right across the country. It has
created incompetence. It could have a great negative impact upon
the carrying out of administrative monetary penalties. It could have
been corrected in this bill if strict conflict of interest guidelines had
been placed in it. However, the Liberals chose the status quo. They
chose to have their hand in the bag handing out the goodies to their
friends. They wanted that option. They refused to shut the door on
patronage and on being directly involved with patronage
appointments.
We want this legislation to be clear and concise with regard to
appointment practices. Convoluted legislation opens the door to
abuses and downright confusion, as with the Income Tax Act. The
Income Tax Act has become so complicated it has become a
vehicle for loopholes, abuse, and tax avoidance. The more
government tinkers with it, the worse it seems to get.
That is why the member for Calgary Centre, the member for
Capilano-Howe Sound, and other of my colleagues are pushing
this country to accept the flat tax. They are talking with Canadians
from coast to coast about tax reform that will take away the
confusion, take away the complexity, and reduce the cost and the
bureaucratic red tape. That is the way the department of agriculture
should be moving as well.
If we could clean out some of the garbage in the bureaucracy and
clean out the hands on approach to appointments, we would
simplify the administration of monetary penalties, just as we would
clean up the Income Tax Act if we implemented the flat tax.
The last two amendments I would like to speak about come from
the less than loyal official opposition. It may seem strange, but it is
true that we supported amendments put forward by the hon.
member for Lotbinière. We were considering the same
amendments, but the hon. member was able to table his
amendments prior to ours.
One amendment requires that any governor in council
appointment to the review tribunal be approved by the agriculture
committee. The Reform Party fully supports this type of process. In
fact the Liberal government supported it as well. The government
supported it on paper. The Liberals supported it before the election.
On page 92 of ``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for
Canada'' it was stated: ``We will establish mechanisms to permit
parliamentary review of some senior order in council
appointments''.
Where are they? Where are those reviews? Where are the
parliamentary committees involved in reviewing these
appointments? We were told that the minister and the privy council
had appointed somebody to be the chair of the CBC. It never came
before the House of Commons. We turned on the news and found
out that Perrin Beatty, former Tory MP, former member of the
16092
previous government that helped run up a debt of some $500
billion, was the president of the CBC. There was no input from us.
(1740)
This piece of legislation allows for the formation of a tribunal,
with no input from parliamentarians. We are sidelined. We are
spectators. We are not participants in pulling the levers of
government. We are just supposed to sit back and watch the action.
If you are on the government side you have to politely applaud. If
you are on the opposition side, the Liberal strategy is to ignore you
and barge on and hope they can buy the next election. Of course we
know the dollars are gone and they cannot buy things any more.
The chickens will come home to roost, just as they did for the
Tories.
The Liberals are going to have big problems ahead justifying all
these order in council appointments with no review whatsoever
outside of the privy council, outside of the ministers and their
deputy ministers.
I would like to ask the members opposite if anything has been
accomplished lately with respect to parliamentary reviews of
appointments. I would suggest that having the agriculture
committee approve any appointments to the review tribunal would
have been an excellent starting point.
I want to conclude by making one last point. The intent of the
AMP program was not only to ensure compliance but to have a
program that was consistent with those of the United States. It does
not do much good if there is a harmonized AMP program with the
U.S. while having two countries that lack harmonization or
equivalency in requirements.
It is time for this government to pursue harmonization standards
with countries it trades with. A number of farmers and biotech
companies are expressing discontent with this government for
disallowing or slowing the registration process for certain seed
varieties or for certain herbicides.
One biotech company came to me and suggested that it was
thinking of pulling out of Canada and taking the jobs it provided in
Canada back to the United States if there were no changes
forthcoming in the current process.
Millions upon millions of dollars are at stake here, not to
mention the employment opportunities. If Canada is not willing to
co-operate, companies will set up shop where the environment is
more friendly.
The department of agriculture should have good reason when it
refuses to authorize the use of a product or harmonize regulations
with any of our major trading partners. At the present time it is
extremely slow. It is bogged down and does not seem to come up
with the goods very often.
In conclusion, as I already stated, incorporating the amendments
put forward by the Reform Party in this piece of legislation would
have made the bill better for all stakeholders. The Reform Party
believes that an AMP system could be an effective way to increase
compliance and be a much fairer way of addressing
non-compliance than through the prosecution route. However,
without the changes the Reform Party proposed we cannot support
this legislation.
We are being heckled on the other side.
Some hon. members: No, no, no.
Mr. Hermanson: They are saying: ``No, no, no. We do not want
your reasonable approach; we do not want to be accountable''.
They are saying they just want to be left alone to go on their merry
way and try to keep as much information from the public as
possible.
I want to assure this House that we on this side will not let that
happen. That is why we are exposing the flaws of Bill C-61. That is
why we cannot support Bill C-61. It is time to start building a
country that is ready to operate in the 21st century. This bill could
have helped us do that, but it did not finish the job. I would ask that
in future when members opposite start drafting legislation that they
think a little more clearly than they did when they drew up Bill
C-61.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was not going to rise on debate until I heard the hon.
member from the Reform Party talk about Bill C-61 and try to
suggest that somehow colleagues on this side of the House, because
they are governing members, decided to finally pass this legislation
after almost a year.
I know the hon. member came onto the standing committee on
agriculture a little late. I still do not remember his taking part in
any of the committee meetings dealing with Bill C-61, even though
he was on that committee. The hon. member should know-and if
he does not know he could talk to his colleagues who would tell
him-that when the bill came in it was thoroughly debated by the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Committee
members from the government side were the ones who put forward
problems they had with the bill. The bill is a good example of how
the committee system around this place has worked. It goes to
show how government backbench members on a committee can
have some sort of say and input into the legislation.
(1745)
When the bill came forward to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food government members on the committee
had many concerns. We had concerns with the bill and we informed
the minister of those concerns. We outlined to the minister a
number of different amendments that we wanted to the bill before
we were prepared to proceed with it.
16093
The minister, in his wisdom, took that back to his departmental
officials. If we go through Bill C-61 we see a number of
amendments proposed by government members, not opposition
members who chose not to show up for most of the meetings.
Subclause 4(d) states:
respecting the circumstances under which, the criteria by which and the
manner in which a penalty may be increased or reduced, including the
reduction of a penalty pursuant to a compliance agreement-
That was not in there before. Government members felt it was
important enough to put in there. Subclause 4(3) states:
Without restricting the generality of the paragraph-in making regulations-
Again it talks about the degree of intention or negligence on the
part of the person. That was put in there by government members
on that committee.
Clause 7 deals with the issuance of a notice of violation and
states that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe. That was
not in there before. Government backbenchers felt it was
important. We went through the legislation for months and months
and months, and the Reform Party was not there to help us.
The hon. member also has the audacity to say that the
government would not even look at reasonable amendments. The
Reform Party's Motion No. 20 to clarify the burden of proof is the
hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 28 to clarify expenses is
the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 10 is to provide
assurance that a security requested by the minister in respect of
compliance be reasonable. He uses the word reasonable, but the
government accepted opposition amendments on this point. We
have gone a long way in trying to allay the fears of members on the
other side that we were not listening to their concerns on the issue.
The hon. member talks about orders in council and Standing
Order 110 which he should read. It states that committees have a
right to review orders in council. It is a very important right for
individual members of Parliament who can review orders in
council. All of us in our role of checking the executive should have
the power to review. The hon. member knows that.
In terms of the legislation I had concerns, as I said. However I
sat down as a chairman of a committee with the minister and with
the department. They went further than I expected them to go in
terms of putting forward proposals to alleviate some of my
concerns and the concerns of members on the committee and
members outside the committee in terms of the House committee
on procedure.
We sat down with government officials at a number of different
meetings and came forward with amendments that we thought were
reasonable. I thank the minister of agriculture for accepting the
amendments. It goes to show how well this place can work when
all hon. members work together.
(1750 )
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Liberals get excited and
give us some recognition.
As I pointed out a number of months ago, I used to have a red
combine. It was the colour of the Liberal Party and it always
seemed to give me grief. That seems to be the way the Liberal
government is going with its bills. It seems as if its red combine has
run out of cash and it has found another bill to get some extra cash.
The combine might be beyond repair so I do not know how the cash
will do it by itself. The Liberals do not have much to trade off. I do
not think the money raised through the bill will buy them another
election.
It seems queer to me. I have been trying to get the Liberal
government to put some teeth into some of the investigative powers
of the grain commission and the wheat board. When farmers
complained that somehow one of the organizations had dumped 1.5
million bushels into the U.S. at half price, that there was an
anti-dumping violation, it seemed strange the minister of
agriculture would not even respond. That is Liberal justice.
The bill worries me. The Liberals want to increase fines from
roughly $1,000 to $250,000. As far as I am concerned that is
designed for big multinationals or some of the bigger corporations
because they can negotiate and persuade the government to say that
they will draw a lot of votes in the next election and it better go
easy on them or it could backfire. That is not the type of justice we
need.
It is important to start realizing that small players need some
protection. Due diligence is not included. There is no recourse but
to pay the fine or negotiate. If people have any money left over they
might be able to go the courts, but that is usually not the way small
players work.
It is interesting to note the bill is designed so that the minister
has the power over eight acts and not just one. I remind the House
that when I started the investigation into the irregularities and
illegalities of some of the acts the first thing I looked at was the
smuggling of Grandin wheat into Canada. Snowflake is well known
for that trade. If it does not happen to be wheat, it can be done with
alcohol or cigarettes and it seems to be very successful.
When I insisted that an investigation be done on the smuggling
of Grandin wheat, it was interesting to see that customs officers
were willing to testify, willing to come before the courts. However
for some reason the agriculture department claimed no wrong was
being done. Suddenly I hear the government is very interested in
protecting the quality of wheat and the quality of our meat through
16094
monetary funds. The court system could not prevail because it was
told simply, more or less, to take a side glance and not prosecute.
I will read a statement I received through an information officer
on the issue:
In 1993 when the issue became public through an article in the newspaper, at
the same time agriculture made a statement that Canada Customs erred in not
stopping the wheat from entering Canada. As a result, Canada Customs no
longer allows the importation of wheat into Canada.
There was proof that it was smuggled and the government
allowed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to avoid the law.
(1755 )
How will the AMPS fix that problem? All it will do is put more
money into a cash strapped Liberal government when its red
combine is dilapidated and ready to fall apart. The Liberals are
trying to get more funds to buy another election. I do not think it
will work. To do that they should probably make it legal to smuggle
liquor too, because there is more money in that than there is in
Grandin wheat. Why avoid the small funds? They should go for the
big cash because they will need a good combine to win the next
election. I do not think it will be done with the faded old red
machine I saw in the last election.
The big problem with the AMPS is that it will not deter any of
the violations or minor infractions. The big players will use Bill
C-61. They do not really care about the money they pay because
they usually make more by violating or trespassing the law.
When the last Farm and Country paper came into my office I
was very interested in watching what was going on as far as
chemical harmonization with the United States was concerned. It is
amazing that $10 million worth of chemicals are being smuggled
illegally into Canada to be used by farmers. What did the Liberals
do about it? The parliamentary secretary said that they just did not
have the manpower to stop it. If they do not have the manpower to
stop this type of violation, how do they think the AMPS will stop
it?
They tried to stop the smuggling of cigarettes by opening the
borders 24 hours a day. The customs officers were there lighting
candles and making sure the roads were clear. I have news for
them. At least in the Snowflake area these violators do not usually
use customs offices. They usually find a little road through the
bush. That is where they seem to do their best business. How will
the AMPS provide protection against those fellows? I do not know
how we will enforce it.
When we have a bill like this one which tries more or less to
make monetary funds do the trick instead of the justice system,
usually it backfires. That is why I am leery of the bill. It will take
some pressure off the courts, but it will probably increase the
violations and the violators who are able to afford it will become
richer instead of poorer.
I will not continue too long on the subject. My colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster touched on pretty well everything. We
need a justice system that is equal for all, a justice system that
imposes a certain fine for a certain violation or infraction.
The Bloc member pointed out very vividly that there is a set
price for a speeding ticket for going 20 miles an hour over the limit.
That is the way the program should work. There should be some
guidelines that stipulate the fines to be paid by violators and they
should be enforced.
Maybe someday there will be a different combine. Maybe when
we get green machinery on the other side we will also have
violations and infractions decrease because we will have a system
of legal authority that will look after violators and transgressors in
a fair and equitable way and the little guy will be protected the
same way as the others.
(1800)
Madam Speaker, I appreciate these few minutes and I hope that
some of the amendments that Reform has proposed will be
supported.
An hon. member: It is too late.
Mr. Robichaud: It is too late for amendments now.
Mr. Silye: He has been doing some good field work.
Mr. Hoeppner: It is too late for that. I was under the impression
that we should do a little bit of ploughing before we start harvesting
because the crop would be better.
The Liberals do not realize that we have to put in a crop before
we can harvest it. They like to pluck the plums from the tree after
they are ripe. We will continue to allow them to do that and hope
that maybe in the next election we can change things around.
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 to the
motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
16095
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is requested that the vote on
the motion be deferred until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until tomorrow at 10 a.m., at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[Translation]
The House resumed, from June 19, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on
Internal Trade, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-88
deals with internal trade in Canada. The bill frequently refers to the
Agreement on Internal Trade, which includes several hundreds, and
even thousands of articles. Since Bill C-88 expressly refers to the
agreement, it makes sense to give an overview of the bill and of the
agreement itself.
The agreement includes six major parts: a general section on the
major application principles; a section reaffirming constitutional
rights; a section dealing with the definition of rules and general
obligations; a section on the specific rules for the eleven sectors
affected by the agreement; a section dealing with dispute
settlement procedures; and, lastly, a section on exceptions.
The agreement is based on three general principles. The first one
provides for similar treatment of persons, goods and services,
regardless of their origin in Canada. The second principle concerns
the harmonization of standards and regulations, so as to eliminate
certain practices which could impede internal trade in our country.
The third general principle provides that we must ensure the free
movement of persons, goods and capital.
(1805)
The articles of the agreement to which Bill C-88 refers are
essentially those relating to the dispute settlement process. Articles
1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 deal with the establishment, mandate
and membership of the Committee on internal trade and its
secretariat. The committee must, among other things, supervise the
implementation of the agreement and facilitate the settlement of
disputes.
Article 1705 is of particular interest. It concerns the appointment
of a panel when disputes arise. The parties to a dispute may, after a
period of mediation and conciliation, ask that a panel be
established. This five-member panel must rule on the validity of
the dispute and on the retaliation measures the aggrieved party is
entitled to take. This article defines the phrase ``one of the parties''.
According to the agreement, ``a party'' is a province or territory, or
the federal government itself. The parties may act on behalf of
natural or artificial persons, provided there is a direct and
substantial link with them.
In the case of the provinces, it is said that a link exists with a
person if this person resides in the province and if the losses
suffered have economic consequences for the province. In the case
of the federal government, a link is supposed to exist with a person
if this person is federally incorporated or if it does business in an
area of activity under federal jurisdiction. In this regard, we feel
that the bill is very, even excessively, generous because, as we
know, the federal government has a tendency to get involved in all
areas of activity, and even to encroach on areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Since, in this case, the federal government may be regarded as
one of the parties and may even represent a person doing business
in an area of activity under federal jurisdiction, we must proceed
with caution. Otherwise, the federal government could become
involved in all spheres of society, according to the proposed
definition of its own role.
It must be clearly understood that the decisions of the special
group are not binding, of course, but it does determine whether the
measures in dispute are indeed contrary to the wording of the
agreement and if they have caused prejudice.
In addition, the Committee must make recommendations to
facilitate settlement of the dispute. And if the party concerned by
the complaint does not comply with the recommendations of the
special group, then Article 1710 applies, which sets out the
sanctions which may be imposed upon the party affected by the
complaint.
But the true scope of the bill is as follows: the primary objective
of the bill is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. The
Bloc has always been in favour of the liberalization of trade. The
proof of this is that the Bloc and all other Quebec politicians, in
particular the members of the Parti Québécois, had defended
NAFTA. However, even if we agree in principle and support the
principle behind this bill, we cannot accept the wording of clause 9
which permits a far broader interpretation, which might allow the
government in Ottawa to intervene and impose retaliatory
measures even when not a party to the dispute.
16096
(1810)
The federal government could interfere because it is said that
each time a third party has some connection with the federal
government or with an activity under federal jurisdiction-and as I
was just saying, we are familiar with the federal propensity to horn
in in all areas-then the federal level could be all-pervasive. This
clause is far too broad for us to support.
According to the terms of the agreement, still in reference to this
clause, the federal government shall equip itself with the
possibility of imposing retaliatory measures where it might be the
injured party. The wording of clause 9 of the bill, however, leads us
to voice two serious objections.
The first is to the text, which reads in the first sentence of clause
9 as follows:
For the purpose of suspending benefits, or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following-
So here clause 9 of the bill allows the Governor in Council to
``suspend rights and privileges granted to the province, modify or
suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the
province, extend the application of any federal law to the province
or take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers
necessary''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, who will have 11 minutes remaining when we
resume debate on this bill.
It now being 6.13 p.m., the House will proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16096
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) moved that Bill C-339, an act
to provide for funding for intervenors in hearings before certain
boards and agencies, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today and
speak in support of my private member's bill, C-339, an act to
provide for funding for intervenors in hearings before certain
boards and agencies.
Intervenor funding, also known as participant funding in the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, seeks to fund those that
speak in the public interest at hearings held before government
agencies or appointed boards.
As politicians we often wax eloquent about the need to consult
our constituents. We encourage citizens to stand up and be counted
to make sure their voices are heard. I ask this House as I have
asked myself: What have we done to make sure Canadians are
heard by their legislators and by those who govern them?
As the Minister of the Environment said during debate on the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is one thing to say that
people have a say, it is another thing to give them the tools to
exercise their right. I believe the bill before us today will give the
average citizen, regardless of his or her financial assets, the tools
needed for them to be heard in the decision-making process.
Intervenor funding has been known to me for years because of
my interest in conservation and he environment. However, it
became particularly relevant after a number of my constituents
who are members of the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association,
the OPLA, told me of their difficulties in wanting to appear before
the National Energy Board.
These landowners were faced with the prospect of having to
raise a large amount of money in order to hire experts to oppose a
change in the lease agreement of the pipeline crossing their land.
Faced with evidence that the pipeline could contaminate the soil,
could pose a safety risk, and could saddle them with clean-up costs
if the line were ever abandoned, they wanted to make sure the NEB
heard their concerns.
To make a convincing case, the landowners needed the
assistance of lawyers and experts to appear as witnesses on their
behalf before the National Energy Board. Such qualified
professionals must be paid. The executives of the OPLA appeared
on their own time, but they had to mortgage their future returns to
pay the lawyers and engineers who appeared on their behalf and on
behalf of the other signatories to the leases.
What would have happened if they were not able to raise the
money to make an adequate representation? The National Energy
Board would have had to make a decision without the input of those
who faced the most risk, in this case the landowners.
It is my contention that the Ontario Pipeline Landowners
Association was speaking out in the public interest. If the pipeline
posed an environmental or health risk it would be to the public as a
whole, and they would be the ones who suffered.
In a recent article sent to me by Mr. Stuart O'Neil, president of
the OPLA, a pipeline explosion is documented in the rural
community near Williamstown, Ontario. Is it not in the public
interest for these concerns to be heard by the National Energy
Board?
As can be seen by looking at the National Energy Board's
finding in this case, the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association
presented valid concerns. I have that finding here, and I would seek
unanimous consent to table this document during the hours of this
debate.
16097
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Finlay: Intervenor funding will assure the public that those
with a valid interest will be heard at future hearings. For many
years the public has been saying that they want to have an input in
government decision making. Intervenor funding guarantees their
access.
I am not introducing a new concept to this Parliament.
Intervenor funding was granted to environmental and native groups
and municipal councils during the Mackenzie River pipeline
inquiry, also know as the Berger commission, in the mid-1970s.
Mr. Justice Thomas Berger determined that funding would be
necessary to ensure that the many diverse interests would be
represented at the hearings.
Justice Berger said in announcing the funding: ``These groups
are sometimes called public interest groups. They represent
identifiable interests that should not be ignored. Indeed, it is
essential that they should be considered. They do not represent the
public interest, but it is in the public interest that they should be
heard''.
The Ontario government proclaimed the intervenor funding
project act in 1989 as a three-year pilot project. This program has
been extended through to the spring of 1996. In introducing this
legislation to the Ontario legislature the then attorney general Ian
Scott, who had served as counsel on the Berger commission, stated
that a regularized system for intervenor funding is an essential
component of an accessible justice system. My Bill C-339 is
modelled after the Ontario act.
It is interesting that members of the Ontario Pipeline
Landowners Association, who have discussed their situation with
landowners who had appeared before the Ontario energy board,
found that process to be fairer and more inclusive for both the
landowner and the proponent. The success of this act in Ontario
augurs well for the success of this legislation I am introducing
today.
(1820 )
Further to experience with the Berger commission and the
Ontario legislation, the federal government has had experience
with intervenor funding through the CRTC and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Krever inquiry into
Canada's blood supply, which is currently funding a number of
intervenors.
The federal Liberal Party made a very clear commitment in the
red book to provide for intervenor funding within the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. This commitment was honoured
when Bill C-56 was passed last December. At that time the
Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister, the
Reform member for Comox-Alberni, and the New Democratic
member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake spoke in favour of this
type of funding. Today I seek the same consensus of all colleagues
in this House to move this legislation forward so that it can be put
before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for further
study.
I would like to share with the House a statement made by the
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake during the debate on
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: ``Without adequate
intervenor funding there cannot be adequate assessment, quite
simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not
have the same access to capital as the proponent does''. In effect,
what the hon. member is saying is that we have to level the playing
field so that both the proponent and the intervenor have the same
ability to put forward evidence that will allow the best decision to
be made.
In 1992 the province of Ontario conducted a review of the
intervenor funding project act. This review, entitled ``Access and
Impact: An Evaluation of the Intervenor Funding Project Act,
1988'', states this on the need for intervenor funding:
``Participation is necessary for reasons of fairness. It also makes
for better decisions, as broader information, values, and opinions
are canvassed by those required to make decisions in the public
interest. But those purposes cannot be achieved if the resources of
participants are severely limited in relation to the case they are
required to meet''.
There are those who feel that people who would like to intervene
before federal boards and agencies should raise the funds
themselves in order to make a representation. Some feel that even
if the intervenor is clearly representing the public interest, they
should pay all costs. Are we then to tell our constituents that only
the wealthy have a right to be heard? We cannot tell Canadians to
mortgage their homes and their futures in order to make a
representation in the public interest.
Am I to say with a straight face that governments make the best
decisions after hearing only from those wealthy enough to afford
the best lawyers and technical experts? As the member of
Parliament for all the people of Oxford, it is my duty to ensure that
they have an opportunity to influence government decision
making. This bill not only provides that opportunity, but also will
result in better decisions being made.
At this point I would like to discuss a number of key sections of
this bill. Clause 2 says that the purpose of the act is to require any
person proposing a project that would affect the public interest or
the environment and that is required by law to be reviewed by a
public process before being approved by government or an agency
of government to provide funding to assist organizations that
represent a relevant public interest and that wish to intervene in the
review process to represent that interest.
I have been asked why the proponent should fund the intervenor.
The Ontario government review, ``Access and Impact'', states that
more effective monitoring of the costs and benefits of the process
will be achieved if those who are the focus of these decisions, the
16098
proponents, are made to bear the cost. It is they who are the
centrepiece of the regulated activity.
(1825)
It should be noted that paragraph 4(3)(f) in my bill calls upon a
funding panel to consider any representation the funding
proponents make concerning the application of an intervenor. This
paragraph allows the proponent to make a presentation about the
public interest the intervenor purports to represent and about the
proponent's own ability to fund the intervention.
In drafting the funding criteria for intervenors, I have used the
criteria set out in the Ontario legislation. The Ontario legislation
was in turn developed using the criteria set forth by Justice Berger,
which has been the model for intervenor funding at both the federal
and provincial government levels.
The member for Comox-Alberni stated during third reading
debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act:
``Guidelines for participation should consider whether the
applicant represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be
heard at the hearing and whether separate representation of the
interest would assist the panel and contribute to the hearing''. I
believe that the funding criteria within Bill C-339 clearly live up to
the standards my hon. colleague set out during the CEAA debate.
Subclause 4(4) of the bill states:
A funding panel shall not order funding to be provided to an intervenor
unless it is satisfied that the issues the intervenor intends to present are entirely
or mainly issues respecting public interests rather than private interests and that
(a) the intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant to
the issue before the review authority and that should be represented at the
hearing;
(b) the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to make the
representation without funding;
(c) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other
sources;
(d) the intervenor has an established record of concern for and commitment to
the interest;
(e) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to cooperate with other
intervenors that represent similar interests;
(f) the absence of funding would adversely affect the representation of the
interest; and
(g) the intervenor has a proposal that specifies the use to which funding would
be put, has the ability to record the expenditure of the funding, and has agreed to
submit an accounting to the panel for the expenditure and allow the panel to
examine its records to verify the accounting.
It should be stated that paragraph 4(5)(b) of the bill allows the
project proponent to appeal a funding order to the review authority.
I strongly believe that the bill will improve the way government
works and makes decisions. The Standing Committee on Natural
Resources may feel that some amendments are in order. I and other
witnesses who may be called would be happy to work with the
committee to improve and then pass this important piece of
legislation.
In conclusion, let me say that it is time to tell the people of
Canada at this important time in our history that they can have a
say and that this federal government believes that their
interventions will improve the quality of decisions that must be
made.
I ask all members of the House to support the bill and thus give
all Canadians a means by which to participate responsibly in our
future.
It was some 18 months ago that I stood at the last seat of the
fourth row, the farthest I could get from the Chair, to give my
maiden speech as a backbencher and as a member of the class of
'93. One thing that concerned me the most when I came to Ottawa
and to Parliament was how does the backbencher, the individual
member of whatever party, influence government policy? How do
we have some effect? How do we go back to our constituents and
say we did this or we did that or we were able to modify, mediate,
change, suggest something that became law because you told me
that was what you wanted. I do not pretend to know all the answers.
I do suggest and I do feel very proud to be able to present this bill
today because it is one way in which the individual MP can
influence government decision making.
(1830)
I suggest to all hon. members that committee work is another
way. I appreciate that work. It allows me to work with and learn
from my colleagues on all sides of the House on important issues.
Bill C-339 is a votable item and I look forward to further debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
first like to say that I am pleased to participate in this second
reading debate on Bill C-339 proposed by the hon. member for
Oxford. I must congratulate him for his goodwill, for trying to
enhance democracy here in Canada, so that some groups can give
their opinion on environmental matters concerning natural
resources.
This Bill C-339 is quite simple. It has virtually only two pages, if
we take out the ones containing the terminology and the definitions
used in the bill. It establishes the principle that the proponent of a
project that requires review and approval under federal legislation,
for example, Bill C-56, the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, and that affects the public interest or the environment, should
fund intervenors in public hearings on that project.
16099
On the face of it, we could be in favour of the principle of
funding groups who want to participate in public hearings, because
often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society
do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for scientific
studies, transportation, research studies or efforts needed to prove
their good faith. I am thinking here of studies needed, for example,
in my region, Abitibi, or in Northern Canada or the Arctic circle,
where intervenors certainly do not have sufficient financial
resources to pay for their travel and their stay when defending the
interests of people they represent.
We have seen in the past citizens who were penalized in their
rights because, unlike large businesses or developers, they did not
have the financial resources to defend their view on a project. So
we are in favour of the principle that proponents pay for
administrative costs related to the reviews.
But after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize that it
has a much greater scope than it purports. There are a number of
questions. First of all, whether this bill was drafted to complete the
program that already exists at the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency created under Bill C-56, an act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
It is clear that the government, by using the procedure suggested
in Bill C-339, can save on the funding it now has to provide to
groups that are interested in taking part in public environmental
hearings. If that is the case, why not simply amend the legislation
instead of drafting a whole new bill? It is difficult to determine
which agencies will benefit under this program and how
proponents will react. And besides, this bill would institutionalize
duplication, because provincial governments often already have
their own structures for evaluating the projects of proponents.
So why add to the duplication in procedures for analysing the
impact of natural resource development on the environment? This
bill would create one more commission that would propose further
administrative constraints, in addition to the far too numerous
existing ones which the industry has criticized as jeopardizing
project development and hence employment.
For instance, on October 18, when the mining industry, through
its national organization, held its open house, one of its principal
demands was that the government streamline the many unwieldy
administrative structures restricting the development of this
industry.
(1835)
Bill C-339 would merely create one more administrative level
instead of making intervenor funding the responsibility of a
decision making level that already exists.
If we look at the two pages in the bill that provide a list of
definitions, it is not quite clear what is meant by the term ``public
interest''. In fact, a large number of frivolous interventions could
be made claiming a ``public interest'', which would cause delay
and add to the cost to the proponent of studies or the actual project.
The bill would also assist intervenors with a record of
responsible representation of a facet of the public interest to put
their arguments respecting the project before the approving
authority. In this situation, doubt could be cast on the objectivity of
the funding panel, which determines the groups to be funded by the
proponent.
Clearly, in no case, should the fact of forcing the proponent to
provide financial assistance threaten the feasibility of a project.
However, it could happen that the proponent is the government
itself. This is the case with the Irving Whale.
Thus the SVP group opposed to refloating the Irving Whale, as
proposed by the government, receives no assurance from this bill
of being considered an organization the federal government does
not want to recognize as an intervenor with a record of responsible
representation, because the panel is appointed by the government
itself.
A question arises: Who benefits from representing these public
interest organizations? There is cause for concern that some may
find personal interest in the process and will not hesitate to
specialize in defending public interest organizations.
The question could arise, for example, during a study on the
opening of a new mine, if the representative of a local group, with
no expertise, but wishing to protect the environment, and having an
opportunity to develop their region through new jobs, ran up
against a group like Greenpeace, which could defeat the local
group through its expertise and international reputation.
In clause (7)(b), contrary to what the bill proposes, funding
should not be available to cover lawyers' services. The aim of
public hearings is to help the government make a public and not a
legal decision.
It has generally been observed that, when lawyers represent
certain groups, the other witnesses are intimidated and refuse to
express their viewpoint. The hearings then take on legal overtones.
This opinion is what officials who are used to this sort of hearing
have to say.
In clauses 3 and 4, the funding panel should also ensure that
studies witnesses want funded have not already been undertaken.
For example, the panels set up by the federal environmental
assessment review office, if we refer to Bill C-56, which has this
instrument already, have many scientific studies done, in addition
to having witnesses testify at public hearings.
The witnesses must not be funded for doing the same studies as
the panel. Bill C-339 contains no provision for such an eventuality.
16100
In conclusion, we feel this bill has good ideas and that it is
innovative, but it also contains a number of serious failings.
It should therefore be amended before submission to the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources so that its objective of
enabling groups of intervenors to defend their point of view with
funding may be possible.
Furthermore, given how open Bill C-339 is in its present form to
encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, such as natural resources
and the environment, we must vote against it in its present form.
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Madam Speaker, a point of order. During my speech
I asked for unanimous consent to table the document of the hearing
held at London, Ontario, on Monday, January 10, 1994, in the
matter of applications by Intercoastal Pipe Line Incorporated and
Interprovincial Pipe Line Incorporated, pursuant to sections 52 and
58 of the National Energy Board Act.
(1840 )
Madam Speaker, I seek your advice. I thought that received
unanimous consent. Perhaps it did not. I am asking again.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to table the report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You have unanimous
consent.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today the member has brought forward Bill C-339 dealing with
intervenor funding.
In this country we have established independent quasi-judicial
panels and agencies to make decisions about land use. This bill
deals with intervenor funding in that land use process. For instance,
if a large oil company wants to work on a pipeline that runs through
miles and miles of farmland, the company must first make an
application to the National Energy Board. The board will consider
the effects of the pipeline on other people and on the environment
before allowing the company to do the work.
This bill attempts to deal with a problem that occurs when a
project has the capacity to hurt people or their assets. A large
company can afford to hire all sorts of lawyers to make its case and
minimize the effects of its agenda so the full truth may not come
out at the hearings. The board members may make a decision based
on incomplete information at the board hearings which is certainly
detrimental to the public interest.
There is a policy interest here. I acknowledge this problem
exists. Bill C-339 seeks to correct this imbalance by requiring a
large company, such as an oil company, that brings an application
before a quasi-judicial agency to pay for certain other groups to
oppose its own application. This is one way to provide intervenor
funding.
Provincial acts exist in several provincial jurisdictions, two of
which are Ontario and Alberta. Ontario's act requires the company
making the application to fund its opponent. The member
mentioned this is the act that he modelled his private member's bill
on.
I want to applaud the intentions of the member for Oxford in
putting together this bill because the proposal arises out of a
difficult experience of a number of his constituents. The bill speaks
to a situation in the member's riding in May 1994 in which 130
farm families had to get together to oppose an application to the
National Energy Board made by Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. to
convert pipelines running through their properties.
The farmers were able to fight the action but not before it had
cost them $365,000 plus interest. To oppose the pipeline they had
to form a coalition across a wide geographic area and put up a lot of
personal cash to get the job done. In strict economic terms, without
dealing with the human side of the equation, no intervenor funding
was necessary in this case. The company that brought forward the
application and another body, in this case a group of farmers, had
the resources and were able to marshal them together to oppose the
application.
In other words, because the farmers were able to put together the
money and win the case, it proved no intervenor funding was
required. However, strict economic theory would say that the
greater the number of people the decision might affect, the greater
the pool of money that would be available to oppose it. The number
of people increases as more and more people realize the decision
will negatively affect their interests. This would be the case if we
were talking strict economic theory.
Unfortunately, the pure world of the economist is not the real
world we must live in. Many of these applications do not get a lot
of coverage in the news so the people that should be concerned do
not hear about it until the problems confront them personally,
sometimes years later.
A large company like an oil company also has the advantage of
superior information. It has been around for a long time. It has had
time to develop a lot of expertise and information to present to the
panel. Most big companies also have a lot of money to finance
research, pay a slew of lawyers to do their work and make slick
presentations before boards. They can afford to drag out the
hearings over a long period of time. All the advantages are in their
ball park.
This subject is very appropriate but I also have questions about
this bill. For instance, I question whether it is fair for a private
company to be required to finance the very group that may kill its
16101
application. This part of the bill would almost certainly be
challenged in court by the companies that stand to suffer from it.
There is also an unfortunate, perhaps inadvertent, assumption
made by the bill that all companies that appear before boards and
agencies are large ones which can afford to fund their opponents.
The bill makes no provision for the small business that has to get
federal approval for some small development and would therefore
find itself subject to all provisions of the bill.
For example, in my riding a very small outfit wanted to put
together a silicate sand mine. It was called a mine but it was really
a travel pit. It was a mine because it involved silicate sand. The
company jumped through all the hoops and did all the things it
could think of to receive provincial approvals, but then it was told
that it had to go through the federal approvals because it was a
mine. The people finally gave up. They said: ``This will cost us
another $100,000 and we cannot afford it''.
(1845)
Imagine if a neighbour was worried about sand blowing off the
silicate sand pit and wanted intervenor funding. There would be
only a couple of people involved but there was no way they could
ever afford to pay for the intervenor status.
Clause 4(7) of the bill states that the level of intervenor funding
would not be set according to the company's ability to pay, it would
be set according to the going rates of the lawyers. That would be
enough to kill some companies in a matter of hours.
My second major concern is the scope of the bill, which is very
broad. It applies to any project on any land, public or private, that
needs approval by any federal authority, including a board or
agency, or even a civil servant, where the approval process requires
or even permits public input. Can you think of any project of any
size at all which is started today without a raft of federal
government approvals? I cannot. If intervenor funding was
available for all government approvals the program might quickly
become unmanageable.
Finally, the bill tends to invite litigation from all manners of
groups which would demand funding through the courts if rejected
by the funding panel created by the bill. Indeed, the bill tends to
create groups which might not otherwise exist because of the
promise of either federal funding through court challenges or
funding through the intervenor act. We know that the federal
bureaucracy has in this way created a demand for its own services
for decades and I am sure that some government departments
would love the extra work.
These are difficult problems. While I agree with the member's
intentions, I have not been able to think of a way to change the bill
to minimize the abuses about which I have spoken. I fear that if the
proponent funding measures did not fly, that is, if private
companies successfully challenged the fairness of having to fund
their own opponents, or if they were unable to provide the funding
in some way, that government, as usual, would have to take up the
slack. It would become a typical government cash cow, milked by
many different interest groups with varying degrees of
responsibility and various political agendas. As we know, this
particular cow at the federal level is a dry cow and there will not be
any milk in it for a long time to come.
As I said before, if the panel did not like the group's agenda and
refused to support it, perhaps the courts, which have become very
sympathetic with intervenor groups in recent years, might force
them to do so.
I wonder if the problem could be addressed, at least in part, by
having intervenor groups respond to the concerns of their particular
constituencies by the government allowing them to have the
equivalency of charitable status with Revenue Canada. Therefore,
they could receive partial assistance from the federal government.
This would require a measure of financial commitment and
responsibility by the intervenors and it would not require any
panels or acts of Parliament to make those decisions.
I am concerned that the intervenor funding act, if it develops as I
fear, may make it very difficult for companies to push forward with
new projects in Canada.
Recently we met with the mining companies during the ``Keep
Mining in Canada'' week. They told us that it takes up to three
years to get all the approvals from the provincial governments and
then the federal government to do the initial environmental
assessments and so on to start up a mine.
The industry minister has also mentioned the problems of
overlapping of jurisdictions, provincial and federal, that make it
very difficult for mines to open. The industry minister is
attempting to bring together some co-ordination to reduce the red
tape for companies. I fear that the intervenor act may add another
level of problems for companies which are trying to create jobs,
wealth and opportunity within Canada. Something which we do not
need at this time is another layer of problems.
(1850 )
I would like to talk about the basic principle of the bill. We have
recently put forward a 20-point proposal on how we can realign
federal-provincial obligations in this country. The very first point
in our 20-point proposal is that natural resources and the care of
natural resources is constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction and
whenever possible should be left in the provincial realm.
I mentioned earlier that two provinces already have addressed
the problem in their own realm by allowing intervenor funding
through provincial legislation. I believe it may be best to leave that
natural resource issue with the provinces and allow the other
16102
provinces to bring forward similar legislation to address it at the
provincial level.
I recognize that the member for Oxford has brought to light an
existing imbalance in the system. However, I am not convinced that
the bill he has proposed would deal with the problem without
creating new problems in itself. I would be pleased, however, to
suggest to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on which
I sit as a member, that the committee invite the member who has
brought this bill forward and other witnesses and try to suggest
ways of either altering, improving or finding ways to accomplish
the purpose behind the bill.
While I would like to thank the member for his effort, I am
hesitant to give my support for this bill for the reasons I have
stated. I will be listening to the other speeches to see if I can
approve it.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to second Bill C-339, a
private member's bill dealing with the subject of intervenor
funding. This is certainly a subject that deserves the attention of
members of this House and of the government. I thank the member
for Oxford for bringing it forward.
Intervenor funding is, as he has indicated, not a new concept for
governments or for this House. It was last dealt with seriously
when we debated the merits of including an intervenor funding
program within the Environmental Assessment Act legislation in
the previous Parliament. At that time, members will remember that
I was a strong advocate of a comprehensive intervenor funding
program.
Today, Bill C-339 asks us to approve the principle that a
proponent of a project that requires approval by a federal board or
agency should financially assist those who are intervening in the
public interest before the board and it sets out a few guidelines
about how this funding program would work.
Specifically, Bill C-339 states that before receiving funding,
intervenors need to meet a number of very specific criteria: that the
intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant
to the issue; that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial
resources; that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain
funding from other sources; that the intervenor has established a
record of concern; that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts
to co-operate with other intervenors; and that the absence of
funding would adversely affect the representation of the interest.
The criteria also requires the intervenor to have a proposal that
specifies the use to which funding would be put, has the ability to
record the expenditure of the funding, and has agreed to submit an
accounting to the panel for the expenditure and follow and allow
that panel to examine its records and verify its accounting.
According to the mover of the motion, the primary objective of
the legislation is to give all those who speak in the public interest
the opportunity to be heard before federal boards and agencies. The
goal is admirable and the criteria is strict, perhaps too restrictive,
but there are a few things that I think should be said in the debate
before us today.
First, I want to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. I and
my New Democrat colleagues are strong believers in the principle
of intervenor funding. We are well aware that when the proponent
of a project wants to obtain a permit or a licence to construct
something that proponent generally has the funding in place to
make the necessary application which may require the inclusion of
an environmental assessment.
Obviously the proponent wants that project approved and the
information they bring forward will undoubtedly portray that
project in a positive light.
On the other hand, there may be others acting in the public
interest who want other information considered prior to the
proponent's application being approved by the respective board or
agency. These others may not have the resources to adequately
research, prepare, or deliver this alternative presentation.
Therefore, without an adequate intervenor funding program there is
no guarantee that the alternative view will ever make it in front of
the group considering the licence or the permit that would finally
approve the proponent's project.
(1855)
When Parliament was examining the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act a few years ago, the Canadian Bar Association
supported the inclusion of intervenor funding. I quote from the
Canadian Bar Association presentation: ``Interim funding should
be provided to groups or individuals who wish to participate in
public hearings and who have demonstrated a sufficient interest in
the process and the ability to make a contribution to it. It is a fair
and efficient mechanism to level the playing field between
parties.''
The Canadian Bar Association also said that intervenor costs
should be paid. They suggested that a process be established to
review and possibly order one party at a hearing to pay the costs of
any other party to the same hearing.
Another witness at the same time, the law firm of McJannet
Rich, a well-known environmental law firm, argued firmly for an
intervenor funding process and set out some rules they thought
were important. In their presentation to the parliamentary
committee the law firm said: ``Intervenor funding is extremely
important and should be made available for participants in public
reviews in accordance with the following principles: (1) the
government has the responsibility for assuring the availability of
funding and for its
16103
allocation; (2) whatever the source of funds, the proponent must
not exercise any control over the allocation; (3) eligibility criteria
for intervenor funding must be developed and made known early;
(4) a funding allocation committee independent of the panel should
be established; and (5) funding should be made early enough to
allow receiving groups sufficient time to organize themselves,
prepare submissions, and where appropriate to undertake necessary
investigations.''
Presentations by two environmental lawyers, Mr. Steven Hazell
and Mr. Brian Pannell, also stressed the need for intervenor
funding. Again I quote from their presentation to the parliamentary
committee: ``Public participation in environmental
decision-making is essential. A community has a right to
participate in decisions affecting its interests. Public involvement
is the best way to introduce into the process relevant information
and values that would otherwise be excluded. Moreover, the public
can provide independent scrutiny of the basis for a proponent's
actions. This allows for a full exploration of all alternatives and
makes the decision and process better and more credible and
ensures greater accountability of decision-makers.''
Pannell and Hazell go on to say that the effective participation by
the public requires funding. They say: ``The disproportion of
resources between proponents and the public necessitates the
establishment of an independent funding body to provide adequate
amounts of funding to allow full and meaningful participation at all
steps to committed members of the public.'' They say intervenor
funding should be levied from the proponent and allocated and
administered by an independent body.
I cannot stress enough that an adequately funded clear and
agreeable participant funding or intervenor funding program must
be put in place as soon as possible. With an ever-increasing
emphasis being put on resource development, with an
ever-increasing number of projects being proposed, and with an
ever-increasing lack of public confidence in government programs
dealing with environmental issues, this has never been more
important. We must be very careful though in what we do.
I do not think we should let the government off too easily. There
is a need to establish an adequately funded program that has some
certainty to it. Although Bill C-339 requires virtually nothing from
the federal government and puts too much onus on the proponents,
we should be looking at a program that has a little more onus on the
federal government.
Second, we have to be careful that the specific rules about
funding the program not totally focus on the proponent. I am
concerned, as the previous speaker was, that community and
co-operative proponents of smaller more locally based projects
may be unable to complete their project applications and otherwise
community friendly proposals may never become a reality if in fact
the bill goes through as is.
(1900)
There will be times when the proposal put forward today by my
friend from Oxford will actually threaten to increase proponent
costs in cases like this one to such a degree that community
proponents, especially in rural and northern Canada and perhaps on
First Nations communities, will simply give up. I would hate to see
that happen.
However I stress to the House that I will support the bill before
us today. The member for Oxford has done us a great service in
bringing the issue forward and bringing it to the attention of the
government. We need a clearer and more defined intervenor
funding process that perhaps has more independence to it. I look
forward to the opportunity to address the issue more fully in
committee.
I commend the member for Oxford for his initiative in this
regard. If he is successful in achieving full parliamentary review of
the legislation, I urge him to look more carefully at the process and
perhaps conclude that the next step would be an amendment to
establish an independent funding agency rather than leave the
decisions to the boards and agencies that actually have to hear the
applications.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on private member's
Bill C-339, the intervenor funding act, sponsored by my hon.
colleague, the member for Oxford.
The purpose of the bill is to require any person proposing a
project that would affect the public interest or the environment, and
that is required by law to be reviewed by a public process before
being approved by government or an agency of the government, to
provide funding to assist organizations that represent a relevant
public interest and that wish to intervene in the review process to
represent that interest.
Intervenor funding is certainly not a new concept in our country.
The province of Ontario currently has the intervenor funding
project act and serves as a model for Bill C-339. The Ontario act
was in turn modelled upon the funding provided for intervenors
before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry known as the Berger
commission in the mid-1970s.
The commission charged with the duty of investigating the
appropriateness of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley in the
Northwest Territories determined that the many diverse interests in
the region should be represented in the hearings. In order to level
the playing field to compete with the finances available to the
proponents of the pipeline, it was deemed necessary to provide
money for citizens' groups so that they could properly research
their intervention.
While funding for the Berger commission was provided by the
federal government, Bill C-339 does not call upon the Canadian
16104
taxpayer to provide funding for intervenors. Instead the proponent
of the project would have to provide the funding.
This is an interesting and unique proposal. It is based upon the
contention that if the proponent is required to bear the cost of
intervention, it would motivate the sponsor of the project to work
with the potential intervenors in finding solutions before
submitting the proposal before the relevant board or agency. The
Ontario experience has already shown the effectiveness of the
funding.
After witnessing the recent proceedings of the National Energy
Board hearing that involved a bid to convert an unused oil pipeline
running from Sarnia through my riding of Lambton-Middlesex to
Milton, Ontario, I am more convinced than ever that a system of
intervenor funding should also be available when federal boards or
agencies are involved.
Since this converted pipeline would have run through prime
agricultural land in southwestern Ontario the landowners of the
region were understandably concerned with the proposal. After
several months of hearings the National Energy Board sided with
the landowners, clearly taking the interest of the public safety to
heart. While happy with the decision, the landowners also spent
over $300,000 of their own money participating in the hearings
process which had come under the jurisdiction of the National
Energy Board.
Had the companies involved in the proposal been registered as
Ontario businesses, the hearings would have fallen under the
provincial jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board and the legal
costs associated with participating in the hearings would have been
covered by the applicant company. Unfortunately for the
intervening land owners the applicant company was from Alberta.
Therefore the intervenors did not qualify under the Ontario act.
(1905)
I certainly agree with the landowners' spokesman who correctly
stated that the state of affairs was prohibitive for landowners or
anyone else to defend their rights and interests in an application
that falls under federal jurisdiction.
On a number of occasions over the past year my southwestern
Ontario colleagues and I have been in touch with the particular
landowners association. Collectively we have searched for
solutions and we have all come to the same conclusion, that there
must be changes to the National Energy Board Act whereby
landowners or other parties intervening in NEB hearings and acting
in the public interest should be granted intervenor funding prior to
NEB hearings.
We have also concluded that the granting by the proponents of
intervenor funding at the federal level would yield at least three
favourable results. Intervenor funding would, first, allow for equal
treatment of all interested parties; second, ensure greater public
safety by opening up the process to the public; and, third, save
public money in the long run.
The more than $300,000 spent by the landowners' association
would be minimal compared to the current practice of maintaining
a much larger government agency to scrutinize pipeline proposals.
While the National Energy Board Act presently allows for
limited intervenor funding for detailed route hearings, certain
technicalities in the act preclude intervenors from receiving
funding for natural gas pipeline matters. Unfortunately for the
landowners in southwestern Ontario, the Alberta company had
proposed a conversion of the unused oil pipeline to natural gas.
Therefore the landowners were out of luck under the terms of the
NEB act.
In communications with the Minister of Natural Resources I
have been informed that the department is currently engaged in an
exercise with the NEB to review a variety of NEB functions and to
address a number of deficiencies in the NEB act. I have been
assured by the minister that the issue of intervenor funding has
been included in the exercise. At the same time I have been
informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that the
government's fiscal situation strongly suggests that any intervenor
funding would likely be on a proponent pay system.
This is precisely where Bill C-330 could fill a void in federal
policy. It would dovetail nicely with the current review of the
National Energy Board.
The bill is designed to assist those with bona fide concerns. It is
certainly not meant to provide funding for special interest groups.
The bottom line is that it would improve the way in which the
federal government and its agencies and boards make decisions
that affect all of us. Perhaps best of all, by calling for the proponent
of a particular project to provide funding for the intervenor it would
take the onus off the government to empty its pockets every time
there is a hearing. Instead the government board or agency would
devote 100 per cent of its efforts into judging the soundness of the
proposal at hand.
Bill C-339 calls for the relevant authority to appoint a funding
panel to determine who will benefit from the project. It would hear
applications for funding from intervenors and the panel would
determine who should be funded. Before receiving funding the
intervenor would have to satisfy a number of important criteria.
The intervenor would have to represent a clearly ascertainable
interest that is relevant to the issue before the review authority and
that should be represented at the hearing. It would have to be
established that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial
resources to make the representation without funding. There would
have to be reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources.
The intervenor would have an established record of concern for and
commitment to the interest in question. Reasonable efforts would
have to be made to co-operate with other intervenors that represent
similar interests. It would be incumbent upon the intervenor to
demonstrate the existence of a proposal that specifies the use to
which funding would be put and to submit to an examination of all
records by the panel to verify the intervenor's accounting.
16105
These are more than ample safeguards to ensure that no
application for intervenor status would be made on frivolous
grounds.
I am deeply impressed with the bill. Not only would it allow for
a responsible means by which intervenors could put forward their
perspective in a way that would allow the board or agency to make
a decision with the best information available, but it would do so
without making onerous financial claims on the government.
I can certainly understand why the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs decided to make this private
member's bill a votable item. It is because it fills a void in federal
government policy and offers a unique means to address a pressing
public interest issue without extending a hand for more government
dollars.
I urge all members of this House to give this bill the support it
deserves.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and
speak on Bill C-339, as introduced by my colleague representing
the riding of Oxford.
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my
colleague from the great riding of Oxford for the impressive
amount of work and research he has put into this bill.
The primary objective of this legislation is to give all of those
people who speak in the public interest the opportunity to be heard
before federal boards and agencies. With this bill, federal boards
and agencies will make better decisions with a higher level of
public input, consultation and participation.
Bill C-339 is designed to assist those with bona fide concerns. It
is not meant to provide funding for special interest groups. It is in
the interest of each of us for the public interest to be heard. This bill
will ensure that the public interest is heard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. The hon.
member will be able to resume his remarks the next time the matter
is debated.
It being 7.13 p.m., the time provided for consideration of private
members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order
93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the Order Paper.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)