CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 22, 1995
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10828
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10828
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10829
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10829
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10829
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10829
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10829
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10830
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10830
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10830
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10830
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10831
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10832
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10832
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10832
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10833
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10833
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10833
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10833
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10834
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10835
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 173; Nays, 34 10838
Bill C-77. Motion for second reading 10839
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 171; Nays, 35 10846
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 10847
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 164; Nays, 34. 10848
Consideration resumed of motion 10849
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10856
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 74; Nays, 93 10857
10825
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 22, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1966 the United Nations declared March 21 the International
Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Since 1988
this date has been officially recognized and celebrated in
Canada for this purpose.
While that date has passed, it is important for us all to
remember that the purpose of this day is to promote racial
tolerance and understanding. There is no place for racism in
Canadian society. Prejudice and discrimination are problems
that must be acknowledged and addressed. They must be
stamped out. As Canadian citizens, we must take individual
responsibility in the elimination of racism and racial
discrimination.
Our greatest legacy to the world, if we so choose, is to develop
a model bilingual and multicultural society where each
Canadian is valued, where each and every one of us learns to
work and celebrate together in a spirit of harmony and unity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
October 1945, Hector Racine, then president of the Montreal
Royals, announced that Jackie Robinson was joining his
baseball team. This signalled the beginning of the end of racial
segregation in American and Canadian professional sport.
Yesterday, as we marked the International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Montrealers paid tribute
to Jackie Robinson, the first black to play baseball
professionally.
Mr. Robinson played one year with the Montreal club, in
1946, before joining the Brooklyn Dodgers for a remarkable
professional career.
On behalf of all those who remember Jackie Robinson, I
would like to pay tribute once again to this great adopted son of
Montreal, who led his team to victory in the international league
in 1946.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
gentleman, a hard working fellow cannot sleep one night. He
decides that rather than twist and turn in bed he would get up, go
to his jewellery store in a small Ontario town and get a head start
on the day's work.
It is dark at 3 a.m. The 81-year old jeweller is quietly working
in the back of his shop when suddenly a loud crash startles our
law-abiding shop owner. His heart stops as he turns and sees two
young, strong vandals coming in through the broken window in
the front of his shop.
He is frightened. He worries about physical harm and that his
private property will be stolen. The frightened shop owner
reaches for the revolver which has been inside his shop for many
years. Out of fear for his personal safety he fires it to scare away
the vandals.
The next morning the elderly shopkeeper has more to worry
about. He is now the criminal. He is now facing charges far
worse than those who were attempting to rob or possibly injure
him. The law says he has no right to protect himself or his
possessions.
Welcome to Canada in the 1990s. Just hope you never have to
protect yourself, your family or your property. Nineties justice
will say you are the criminal.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
budget the government decided to pay western landowners $1.6
billion as a partial offset to the decline in farmland values that
will result from the abandonment of the Crow benefit and the
Crow rate.
The minister of agriculture has decided in his wisdom to
include summer fallow in the calculation for the payment but
not the 10 million acres or more of cultivated lands that are
seeded to forage crops for hay and seed production. The
rationale for this breathtaking leap of logic seems to be that
grass seed was not listed in the Crow benefit schedule.
10826
Could the minister explain his version of fairness to one of my
constituents who cash rented a half section from an uncle,
seeded it to alfalfa and has been producing seed? How does my
constituent tell his uncle that his land is not eligible for a payout
because his nephew seeded it to alfalfa?
The uncle knows his land will lose just as much value as the
land across the fence which is not in alfalfa but there is no
compensation for him. How is that fair?
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Learning Disabilities Association for
Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to remind all
Canadians that this is Learning Disabilities Month. As a former
volunteer with the association in St. John's, I understand and
appreciate the work the organization undertakes.
It is estimated that one in ten Canadians suffers from a
learning disability ranging from mild to severe. They have
trouble receiving information through the senses and
transmitting that information accurately to the brain. It is much
like a bad telephone connection or a fuzzy photograph.
Students young and old who live with a learning disability are
able to achieve if given the right help. When assisted they can
become productive and valued members of society. Without
assistance, the social costs are high.
I am pleased to be able to take this moment to commend the
Learning Disabilities Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador and all community organizations for the many hours
they have spent to make a difference.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday at a symposium the Quebec Minister of
the Environment stated that Quebec's environment would be
better protected if the province withdrew from the absurdity of
the federal regime.
In 1990, when he was federal environment minister, the leader
of the Bloc said: ``A sovereign Quebec will not be able to solve
its problems alone, any more than Canada could find a solution
to the problem of acid rain on its own, without negotiating with
the United States. Nationalism has no place in a global
issue-''.
How does the Leader of the Official Opposition intend to
reconcile his earlier position with the statement of the Quebec
environment minister?
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the rail line system in Canada is the prairie farmer's
lifeline. Over the past week we have seen that lifeline severed by
strikes and by the stalling tactics of the NDP and the Bloc.
I appeal to those parties to take a long hard look at what they
have done to Canadian farmers. They have robbed farmers of
$100 million in lost revenues this week. Neither farmers nor the
Canadian economy can afford these losses.
This government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to
prairie farmers by introducing back to work legislation. I
commend the Minister of Labour for the leadership she has
shown, for her dedication to ending this strike immediately, for
doing everything within her power to get grain moving again.
Madam minister, prairie farmers owe you a debt of gratitude.
I urge the NDP and the Bloc to co-operate in the process to let
the government end the strike for the benefit of all Canadians
who depend on the rail service.
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to please address
the Chair directly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
promise made by Senator Rizutto, the Prime Minister's election
organizer, is still fresh in our minds. He told all the Liberal
candidates who were defeated in the last Quebec election: ``Do
not worry, we will find jobs for you''.
Like the Liberals say, a promise is a promise. Céline
Hervieux-Payette, who had been a roving candidate for the
Liberal Party for over a decade, is now set up in the Senate.
Some may argue she is more deserving than the others, having
bitten the dust on three occasions-in 1984, 1988 and 1993-in
various Montreal ridings.
In her new job, she will have plenty of leisure time to devote
to party politics and backstage manoeuvring. One has to find
something to do: 20 years in the Senate is a long time.
Senator Rizutto's promise will cost the Canadian taxpayers
nearly $2 million if you add up bonuses, incidentals and
inflation for the next 20 years. It pays to be defeated when you
are a Liberal.
10827
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Skeena and I and 13 host MPs
completed an aboriginal town hall series in B.C. last week. This
included eight communities and attracted over 1,600 people.
We delivered a distinctly different and welcomed point of
view to the public. Many British Columbians are concerned that
none of the negotiating parties in the process is vigorously
representing non-native interests and that the process is
secretive. Additionally, the total cost of the settlement based on
recent leaks would be at least $8 billion and may exceed $18
billion.
Federal responsibility for treaty Indians is clearly established
and there is also a federal obligation to ensure public interest is
met. The current process is built on sand and will fail.
Fundamental change is needed to create modern treaties that are
affordable and lead to native self-sufficiency, finality of
negotiations and equality of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's economic recovery is being threatened by a
nationwide rail shutdown.
We believe in the process of collective bargaining, however it
is clear the negotiations have not worked. Since Monday our
government has worked diligently to get the trains moving
again, only to be opposed by the official opposition party which
is playing self-interested political games which have harmed
our national economy.
Now is the time for action. In my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants major companies such as National Gypsum rely
on rail transport to ship their products and meet their deadlines.
For these companies the rail shutdown has severely harmed
business and will threaten many jobs.
(1410 )
For the sake of the commerce of Annapolis Valley-Hants and
across the country, I urge parties to support our efforts to bring
an immediate end to this dispute.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people
of Durham and Oshawa are concerned over the continuation of
the rail strike.
I have spoken today with General Motors and understand that
both its inbound and outbound production systems are close to
being curtailed. This will affect the jobs and the economy of the
whole region.
When I see the main reason for the Bloc Quebecois' blocking
the passage of this legislation is clause 12 regarding the
importance of economic viability and competitiveness, I know it
is the party of the status quo. Some of the collective agreements
still include blacksmiths.
It is the party that does not want change. It is afraid of the 21st
century and wants to cling to the past. It is so rigid that it would
force people across this country to lose their jobs and livelihood
so that the traditions of the past can be maintained.
This is really where the Bloc wants to go, not into the future
but back to the 19th century. The people of Canada do not want
to go.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rail dispute is a direct economic threat to
the auto, petrochemical and manufacturing industries so
important to Canada and particularly to my riding of
Bramalea-Gore-Malton.
The NDP and the Bloc are needlessly prolonging this strike, a
position that is clearly a threat to the economic recovery now
under way. The NDP supports the right to collective misery. The
Bloc must not allow its separatist agenda to put a stranglehold
on Canada. All Canadians will suffer.
I urge the Bloc and the NDP to end grandstanding and allow
the trains to roll.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
dismayed to hear about the passing of my friend Claude
Ducharme who died yesterday in Paris, where he was attending a
union convention. Mr. Ducharme was vice-president of the
FTQ, head of the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers
and member of the board of directors of the FTQ's compensation
fund.
He espoused the cause of the workers and fought relentlessly
for the implementation of decent working conditions. Fernand
Daoust said of him that he was a great unionist who helped give
the union movement a respectable and credible image.
All the members of the Bloc Quebecois join me in extending
their deepest sympathies to Mr. Ducharme's family and thank
him for having devoted himself with so much conviction to the
well-being of Quebec workers.
10828
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of members and all Canadians I would like to
express our deepest sympathy to the Okumiya family of
Edmonton.
On March 14 while playing with two friends, 11-year old
Hisaya Okumiya fell through the ice of Mill Creek. Emergency
personnel and divers were brought in to search for the young
boy, without success. The official search was eventually called
off.
Determined to find his son, Mr. Okumiya continued his search
alone, tirelessly picking away at the ice. His efforts were soon
joined by upward of 40 volunteers, police, firefighters and city
workers who on their own time helped in the search. On Tuesday
morning the body of Hisaya was found.
While there are no words that will ease the grief members of
the Okumiya family are feeling today, perhaps they will find
some comfort in knowing that the thoughts and prayers of all
members and indeed of all Canadians are with them. May I also
express our sincere appreciation to the people of Edmonton who
pulled together to help the Okumiya family in its time of
distress.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate seven high
school students from my riding who recently were named to
represent Ontario at DECA, the premier academic competition
in North America for high school business students.
The Markham students who qualified through the provincial
competition are Maha Hussain, Julie Ward, Alyson Pownall,
Seung-Oh Chung, Ian Tien, Chris Vollmar and Rebecca
Habashy. These elite students will now compete for top honours
at the North American competition to be held in St. Louis,
Missouri from April 28 to May 2.
The competition in St. Louis will feature 10,000 of the best
business studies students across America. It is a showcase for
student achievement and progress. These Markham students
will compete in a series of oral and written examinations in
numerous academic areas.
(1415)
On behalf of all members of the House I wish these students
success. I am quite sure these young women and men will
represent our country well in the competition.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General of the United States of America.
_____________________________________________
10828
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Conciliation commissioner Hope's report clearly states that
the main cause of the rail dispute is the attitude of the railway
companies which, throughout the negotiations, refused to give
any consideration whatsoever to union demands. It says that, at
most bargaining tables, union demands did not receive any
consideration, even though it is clear that these demands are
serious and have merit.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Why is the
government so intent on rejecting at all cost the official
opposition's offer to settle the rail dispute very quickly while
respecting the rights of workers, who could not be heard? Why is
the government so inflexible toward the workers?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bloc members seem to be overlooking the whole
process. Negotiations in this sector have been under way for
over a year, first with a conciliator and then with a conciliation
commissioner.
We stand before a fait accompli: Railway operations are
completely paralyzed. This has a huge economic impact from
coast to coast. Even in Quebec, more plants shut down today. I
am asking the Bloc Quebecois to be a little more sensitive to
Quebec's economy, if they are unable to be sensitive to Canada's
economy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to remind the Minister of Labour that if she wants to settle the
dispute without trampling on workers, we are ready to
co-operate right now.
It is not the official opposition but the conciliation
commissioner who said that union demands did not receive any
attention. The minister should read his report before opening her
mouth.
Does the government's insistence on imposing diminished
working conditions on CN workers at all cost mean that its
intention to privatize CN is forcing the government to settle the
matter of working conditions quickly and at workers' expense,
in order to attract potential investors?
10829
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at the facts. We should try to stay neutral in
this dispute-and I think that is what the government is trying to
do-and avoid siding with either the unions or the employers. I
think it is up to them to negotiate their collective agreements.
We want the unions to participate in the collective bargaining
process as well.
Let us be realistic: Kruger is closed, while Bécancour, Alcan
and Petromont are in the process of shutting down. Let us do
something, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Minister of Labour say so candidly that we should let the
parties negotiate among themselves? That is exactly what our
proposal calls for. We should let the employees go back to work
and negotiate with their employers. That is what we are asking
the minister. Did the minister not understand any of this?
(1420)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder who does not understand anything in this
case. Negotiations have been under way for over a year in this
matter. All the Bloc Quebecois can do is tell me to forget about
results, offer to talk some more and ask for mediation.
This government wants to achieve results. We are currently
facing a major crisis from coast to coast and the government has
a responsibility to take action instead of simply talking and
trying to avoid the real problems.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Obviously, the government's
commercial and financial interests are directly affected by the
CN strike. Indeed, in spite of the Prime Minister's claims, with
the rapid imposition of less favourable working conditions,
CN's market value is much higher in case of an eventual sale.
If the Prime Minister is serious when he claims that the
government's commercial interests do not have priority over the
rights of workers, why does he still reject the official
opposition's proposal, considering that a negotiated settlement
is much better than an imposed agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to the comments made by the
Minister of Labour. Negotiations went on for months and now
there is a strike. Thousands of jobs are affected throughout
Canada and that strike causes serious injury to our country's
economy. Our government is not concerned about its own
economic interests, but about those of Canadians, including
manufacturers of goods and agricultural producers, who must
ship their products to market. This is our top priority and it will
not change.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
Monday, we have been proposing conditions which would
ensure a quick return to work. Considering that conciliator Hope
states in his report that there is collusion between the
government and the employers, how can the Prime Minister
claim that the arbitration commissions will do justice to the
workers, since two of the three members will be appointed by
the government and the employers?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is quoting from a conciliation report
that did not resolve the problem. She is asking us to enter into
conciliation again, to have 60 more days of that. We have been in
a strike situation now for many days. We will start over in 60
days? No way. They have to go back to work right now.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today a meeting is supposed to take place between the
Government of Canada and Moody's, the bond rating agency, to
discuss Canada's credit rating.
Will the finance minister tell us when that meeting will take
place, where it will take place and who will be representing
Canada at the meeting?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the meeting is
taking place today. It has already begun. The officials from the
Department of Finance will be there and I will be meeting with
the agency later.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have a right not only to know who is
representing them at that meeting but what they are going to be
saying. If no timetable or plan is presented for deficit
elimination as distinct from deficit reduction, our credit will be
downgraded, our dollar will fall, our interest rates will rise and
thousands of Canadians will be hurt.
Who is talking to Moody's and what are they saying about
deficit elimination? Canadians have a right to know.
(1425 )
Mr. Speaker: Colleagues, I am having a little bit of difficulty
hearing and understanding the questions at this end of the
Chamber.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the
difficulty the leader of the third party has thinking up three
different questions.
I answered his first question. The officials of the Department
of Finance are meeting with the agency and I will be meeting
with the agency. I have not yet met with them. I will be doing so
this afternoon.
10830
Therefore it is quite difficult for me to tell the leader of the
Reform Party what took place in that meeting because it has not
taken place. You see, there is an order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question was quite simple.
When the minister meets with Moody's is he going to present
a plan for deficit elimination? If he is going to do that, why does
he not present that plan to the House and to the Canadian people,
not simply to an American bond rating agency?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded to this
question yesterday. I made it very clear the government's
ultimate objective is to go to zero. I also made it very clear, and I
will be confirming this to Moody's, we are going to be doing this
with a series of short term targets because we feel it is the best
way to get there.
I also told the leader of the third party yesterday that we would
be not talking with the doom and gloom he likes to indulge in but
about our productivity record, our inflation record, our job
creation.
There is something I did not say yesterday because the
information was not out. The volume of exports in January was
up 3.3 per cent. This is the eighth consecutive increase and the
trade balance has again set a new record.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: I love these Wednesdays.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Half a dozen Spanish
ships are now on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks off
Newfoundland, fishing for Greenland halibut or turbot, despite
the moratorium requested by Canada. Both Canadian and
Spanish armed vessels are now patrolling this area.
Since the Canadian government has stated repeatedly that it
would resort to seizures again if necessary, could the Prime
Minister indicate what his government intends to do to make
Spanish ships stop fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks off Newfoundland?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I had a chance to speak to President Santer of
the European Union, and Prime Minister Gonzalez of Spain. Mr.
Santer had indicated earlier that he hoped we would be able to
negotiate a settlement to the dispute as soon as possible. That is
what we intend to do.
It is true a number of ships are fishing at this time. There were
49 and now there are six. Yesterday I spoke to Mr. Gonzalez, and
I told him to ask the Spanish fishermen to withdraw, because we
have ordered our own fishermen to stop fishing and the same
should apply to Spanish fishermen. I will be talking to Mr.
Gonzalez again later today. Canada takes the position that a
settlement should be such as ensure that in the future, fishing
regulations will be complied with both outside and within the
200-mile zone. That is our goal, and in the interest of
conservation we hope to attain it as soon as possible.
(1430)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although apparently there was a cordial exchange between the
Prime Minister and Mr. Gonzalez, would the Prime Minister
agree that this defiant gesture by Spanish ships is a blow to the
Canadian government's strategy for resolving the dispute with
the European Union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the present time, I think I would rather talk to Mr.
Gonzalez and Mr. Santer, and try and find a way out of this. This
is a problem that has existed for some time. We took an historic
step a few days ago, and we now want to give negotiations a
chance. I hope Mr. Gonzalez will be able to convince the
fishermen to stop fishing so that a solution can be found.
If there is no change in the situation within the next few days,
we will have to see what we can do.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
one-week shutdown of our railways means an immediate short
term loss of $3 billion to $5 billion including $1 billion in
exports.
Canada's international reputation is damaged yet again by the
15th strike in 15 years with long term costs. At a time when
Canada faces a credit downgrading by Moody's, will the
Minister of Labour commit to a permanent solution with a final
offer of settlement for essential services?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking into the problem. We have had some
strikes that have caused a lot of damage to the Canadian
economy. We are looking to find a way so that we will not be
trapped in this situation all the time.
We have given the right to strike. On some occasions we have
accepted some strikes because the situation was justifiable, but
at this time the combination of strikes is too much for the
10831
Canadian economy to take. This is why we have a bill before the
House. We hope it will be passed by the end of the day so that
work can resume as soon as possible.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand the governing party is having trouble handling the
situation but the Canadian people do not have any patience with
it. We have had 15 strikes in 15 years.
My supplementary question is for the Minister for
International Trade. Forty per cent of Canadian exports depend
on railways to move to market. The government's inaction on
the issue last week led to significant financial losses for
exporters.
Will the Minister for International Trade impress upon his
colleague, the Minister of Labour, that Canada cannot afford
further damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has indicated very clearly
its position. If we had not been faced with the opposition of the
Bloc and the NDP, the bill would have been passed yesterday.
We will do everything possible for the bill to be passed today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Defence.
Yesterday, the Minister of Defence announced the creation of
a commission of inquiry on the deployment of the Canadian
Forces to Somalia. However, despite repeated requests from the
official opposition, the minister refuses to broaden the
commission's terms of reference to include other troubling
events that have occurred at the Petawawa base.
How does the minister explain that the commission's terms of
reference cover only the deployment of the Airborne Regiment
in Somalia and that they contain no other provision regarding
other events that have occurred at Petawawa and that have
considerably sullied the reputation and the honour of the
Canadian Forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
called the inquiry as promised to deal with the very serious
problems that occurred when our troops were deployed to
Somalia some two years ago.
The inquiry is public. It is headed by a civilian, a Federal
Court judge, and will look into all aspects of the deployment to
Somalia.
If the hon. member has other troubling questions that he
would like to pose with respect to any other aspect of the armed
forces, he should be specific, do it in the House, write to me or
put an order paper question down, and I will be pleased to
answer.
We are not going to have an investigation or an inquiry into
every aspect of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Ministry of
National Defence. We are restricting the inquiry to the events of
1993, the deployment of Canadian troops to that theatre.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given that the minister undertook to bring all of the despicable
events at Petawawa to light, are we to understand that the
initiation rites and the display of the flag symbolizing white
supremacy and the banner of the Klu Klux Klan openly and with
the knowledge of senior officers constituted preparation for the
mission to Somalia and will therefore be investigated?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there
is anything in the preparation of the Canadian airborne regiment
for its duty in Somalia that needs to come to light, it should be
investigated by the inquiry.
The terms of reference are exceedingly broad. The three
commissioners are civilians of great repute. I have no question
in my mind that they will get to the bottom of any question the
hon. member has or the Canadian public has.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of National Defence has
seen the wisdom of conducting the Somalia investigation under
the Inquiries Act rather than the National Defence Act.
My concern now is for members of the Canadian forces who
may have pertinent information but hesitate to bring it forward
for fear of career implications.
What provisions has the minister made to protect such
individuals?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
dealing here with a very serious matter. We have an inquiry
under part I of the Inquiries Act.
Any Canadian with any evidence has a right and a duty to
come forward to that inquiry and no impediment must be put in
his or her way.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not exactly answer my question.
I have a supplementary question. Should the inquiry reveal
that events involving the airborne regiment in and around
10832
Somalia resulted from individual rather than systemic
problems, will the minister reinstate the regiment?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a
little frustrated. For a year now members of the opposition have
asked for a public inquiry into these matters. They have their
inquiry. Will they please let the commissioners do their job and
report, and then we will look at it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of
Canada, Bernard Bonin, set a dangerous precedent when he
endorsed the analysis and conclusions of a prereferendum study
carried out by the C.D. Howe Institute which concluded that
Quebec's separation would provoke a serious economic upset
and a capital drain which would force Quebec to mint its own
currency.
Does the Minister of Finance feel that it is proper for the
senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada to become
publicly involved in a political debate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the senior
deputy governor did was mention a very well done study on a
topic being debated.
I must admit that I am very surprised that the first
francophone to occupy this position in the history of Canada has
been attacked by the Bloc critic. Personally, I intend to defend
Bernard Bonin.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the question is so important and serious that I will
direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister, who as he said yesterday is the only
one to have access to the ethics counsellor, intend to submit the
case of the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada for an
opinion and then report to the House on this important, serious
and grave issue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
Bloc should listen to the message instead of attacking the
messenger.
I am a little disappointed to hear what the opposition critic,
who, by the way, is an honest man, has to say. The separatists
have threatened to refuse to have anything to do with the banks
or currency traders that tried to make economic forecasts
regarding separation, they have stated that in their view
allophones should not have the right to vote, and they rejected
outright the C.D. Howe Institute's and Marcel Côté's analyses.
The truth is that all that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois want
is a monologue where the only voice which will be heard is their
own.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and
concerns pay equity.
Now that he has reached an agreement with the Professional
Institute of the Public Service, is the minister prepared to try to
reach an agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada
which represents most of the lower paid public servants, many
of whom are women?
(1440 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is solidly committed to equal pay for
work of equal value. We demonstrated that when after many
years of failed attempts we were able to reach an agreement with
the professional institute with respect to pay equity for nurses,
dietitians, occupational and physical therapists.
In relation to the public service alliance, we have had some
informal discussions to this point. I would welcome more
formal negotiations to try to bring about a resolution of the
matter.
We now have a new methodology as provided through this
latest of negotiations. We are committed to continuing on the
path of bringing about pay equity within the public service.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, following yesterday's announcement of two more
patronage appointments to the Senate, has the Prime Minister
completely abandoned any thought of having elections to the
Senate? Has he forgotten his red book promises of openness and
fair play on how we choose our political representatives?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was totally in favour of having elections to the Senate
and the Reform Party opposed it when it voted against the
Charlottetown accord.
We are naming senators in the other house to represent the
party that forms the government. We are in a situation at this
time where we have had a bill before the Senate for eight
10833
months. It is being blocked by a party that received only 3 per
cent support in the latest byelections.
I need some Liberal senators who will have more sense than
the ones who are blocking legislation that is very important and
in the interest of taxpayers so that we will not give more money
to the people who made a deal-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that the Charlottetown
accord was a package deal with many flaws.
I also remind the Prime Minister that with provincial
elections from time to time, in this case New Brunswick, the
cost factor would be low and democracy is worth it.
Does the Prime Minister still find it revolting to offer the
people of Canada a democratic vote on their choice of senator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a case where Reform Party members have thrown
the baby out with the bath water. They did not realize what they
were doing. They in effect blocked elections to the Senate. That
is all. That is reality.
Now my prerogative is to name senators. It is a prerogative
that I use and I name very good senators. The citizens who are
selected always appreciate it very much. I remember very well
the former Senator Manning.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said,
and I quote: ``Mr. Beaudry is a very respectable person who does
not engage in activities without first making sure that they are
compatible with his duties''.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he reconcile
this statement made by his heritage minister and the admission
by his personal ethics counselor, Mr. Wilson, that it was only
after the fact that the chairman of the National Capital
Commission consulted him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that question was answered yesterday. I am pleased to
see that Mr. Wilson's opinion coincides with what we said in this
House.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister must have misheard my question on
account of the noise, because I was actually telling him that Mr.
Wilson said just the opposite of what the heritage minister had
said.
I have a second question, a second chance, for the Prime
Minister.
(1445)
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the opinion given by
his ethics counselor, his personal counselor who maintains that
this behaviour is in compliance with the code of ethics, when
section 33 of the Public Service Employment Act states, and I
quote: ``No deputy head shall engage in work for or against a
political party''? I would like an answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been court rulings on this and I must add that
the Quebec referendum is not a partisan issue, but an
opportunity for every Quebec citizen to say whether or not he or
she wants to remain in Canada. This is not necessarily a matter
involving work for or against a political party.
I know full well that many people in the National Capital
Region realize that separation would be disastrous for those who
live on the Quebec side of this region, and I think that any citizen
has the right to express an opinion on the future of his country
without engaging in political partisanship.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister. We understand that he is today in
receipt of a letter from European Union president Santer
regarding the turbot dispute on the east coast. Will he reveal the
substance of the letter to the House and indicate what his
response will be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not read from the communication. I said he
expressed the view, as he did on the telephone, that we should
reach a settlement very rapidly. He is giving instructions to his
negotiator to do that very rapidly. I have given the same
instructions to my negotiator. I hope we will find a solution very
quickly.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would have
preferred a little more substance to the answer but I do
appreciate it nevertheless.
The minister of fisheries has repeatedly stated Spanish
vessels should not be fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks. Given that the Spanish often fish in waters 800 to 2,000
metres deep, it is uncertain where the minister is drawing the
line. Could he tell us where this line is drawn, the line beyond
which it is okay to fish?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the line is drawn in the water. It is
approximately what is referred to as the 1,000 metre line on a
NAFO map. The Spanish vessels know exactly where it is. It is
the area where most of the fishing activity has gone on.
10834
A CP wire story has just come into the House. I received a
copy and sent a copy to the Prime Minister as he sat down from
answering the first question. It says the president of the
European Union is indicating they are prepared to propose a
series of new measures in order to ensure this fishery is
controlled effectively. It goes on to say the president of the EU is
prepared to consider figures, quota-wise, lower than the
autonomous quota they have already set.
These are indications in the right direction; these are steps in
the right direction. We would like to see this matter resolved by
discussion. We have said that from day one. We do not want to
see negotiations, which have gone on for a number of days now,
trashed because a handful of captains want them trashed. It is
not in their interest to have effective enforcement measures, to
have lower and reasonable quotas that will sustain the stock.
We are waiting to see what comes out of these next days of
discussion. Canada will stand firm for conservation.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the farmers in my riding and right across Saskatchewan
are watching with extreme anger as the members of the NDP and
the Bloc hold up our settlement of the rail strike. Canada's
reputation as a reliable supplier of grains and oilseeds is
tarnished. We are in danger of losing our international markets.
The NDP and the Bloc refuse to co-operate for the good of our
country. What will the minister of agriculture do for Canadian
farmers?
(1450 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the full answer to that question
could take several days but I will try to shorten the point because
of the very serious issue before the House.
One week of lost rail service has the impact of holding up
500,000 tonnes of grain shipments through the Canadian Wheat
Board valued at $83 million. When we add in the non-board
grains the total goes up to very close to $100 million, plus $15
million in losses for domestic oilseed processors, plus another
$5 million in losses for flour millers. The cost of that is in excess
of $100 million for one week of lost rail service, not to mention
the damage to our reputation as an international supplier.
The government wants the problem ended. We want it ended
today. We implore the members of the NDP, who are so mouthy
from the backbenches, and the Bloc to solve this problem now.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister or perhaps the Minister of
Labour.
The record will show, if truth matters at all in this place, that
since early Monday morning it has been up to the Bloc and the
government to settle this issue, not the NDP.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the New Democrats had
been in the position of the Bloc we would have had a settlement
by now, as of old.
I ask the Minister of Labour whether she would be willing to
consider the following changes in the legislation as a way of
creating a context in which the legislation could be speeded up. I
ask the minister whether she is interested in any agreement, or
does she just want to play politics with this thing?
Would she consider changing the provision with respect to
when VIA workers go back? Why can VIA workers not go back
when CN workers go back? That is something all the unions
agree on.
Would the minister consider changing the language of
instruction to the-
The Speaker: I did hear a question. I am going to permit the
hon. Minister of Labour to address herself to that question if she
so desires.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the NDP gives its support to the legislation we can
discuss that in debate.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): That is
precisely my question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government open to
changes in the legislation like the things I have mentioned?
If it is perhaps there could be some understanding as to how
the legislation could be changed and support could be given for
pushing the legislation through, even though we object in
principle-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member understands the parliamentary
process, he knows that legislation must first go through various
stages. Then we can discuss any amendment which he may
propose.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
several measures were taken by federal and provincial
governments to allow the resumption of the commercial seal
hunt. As
10835
you know, the seal population is now close to four million, and
urgent action is required to restore a balance in the ecosystem.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since
the commercial seal hunt can resume only if international
markets offer adequate opportunities, which measures does the
minister intend to take to counter the boycott of Canadian
products getting under way in France to protest seal hunting?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would be well served
to do what most Canadians are doing, including the Canadian
sealers who live in the province of Quebec on the Magdalen
Islands; namely to go about their business and participate in a
modest and moderate seal hunt this year based on an adult
animal.
There is no hunt for a white coat. There is no ship based hunt.
It is a hunt by landsmen only. It is within the current quota that
has been established for the last five years; in fact less than the
quota of the last five years.
The way to respond to misinformation being propagated by a
handful of people who see an opportunity to raise dollars for
organizations that have been starved for those dollars for many
years is simply to speak quietly but clearly the truth about this
hunt.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in spite of the minister's assurances regarding the minor impact
of the misinformation campaign, in the past, European
campaigns against seal hunting have had a disastrous impact on
the Atlantic provinces, and especially on the Magdalen Islands.
Consequently, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
pledge to improve the seal products marketing policy by
conducting an awareness campaign among importers regarding
the consequences of the demographic explosion of the seal
population?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the member for raising the
question. It is an important one. The measures he is asking for
have already been undertaken for sometime now by the
government.
It is clear not only in North American but around the world
that the number one conservation issue before Canadians and
before people who care about sustainable harvest and
development is the question of turbot.
I am ironically pleased that Greenpeace is taking a chartered
vessel out of St. John's harbour tonight to protest the Spanish
fishing of turbot. That is the real conservation issue.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Natural Resources.
The Geological Survey of Canada recently announced that it
was moving its British Columbia office from Vancouver to
Victoria. This will involve transferring more than 30 geologists
and their support staff and breaking a 10-year lease worth about
$6 million on new quarters.
In these times of economic restraint, how can the minister
justify this boondoggle?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget all departments were
required to cut their expenditures considerably. The Department
of Natural Resources is no exception to that. It is no longer
possible for us to justify having two GSC installations in British
Columbia. Therefore we will rationalize and amalgamate.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that answer reminds
me of that old song by Stompin' Tom Connors, ``We'll Save a
Bunch of Money Spending Money We Don't Got''.
Most members of the mining fraternity who are still willing to
work in British Columbia are based in Vancouver. They use the
facilities of the GSC library, the map sales, and they consult
with individual geologists.
What is the point in having a geological survey in B.C. at all if
we are going to move it completely away from the people it is
intended to serve? There are exactly four potential clients for
this thing in Victoria-
The Speaker: The hon. minister.
(1500 )
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member yet again that
we are looking at all aspects of this move.
I make one thing absolutely clear. We will rationalize and we
will amalgamate the facilities of the GSC in British Columbia.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to
members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vazken
Manukian, a member of the Armenian Parliament and Chairman
of the National Democratic Union Party of Armenia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
10836
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. During question period the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, in making a comment with respect to the
appointment of two senators, aroused my ire to some extent.
I hope you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that we have had
some experiences recently with the Reform Party commenting
on the appointment of Acadians to various positions in
government.
I want to withdraw the remark I made to my colleague. I
withdraw it unequivocally.
_____________________________________________
10836
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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
17 petitions.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 20,
1994 your committee has considered Bill C-45, an act to amend
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal
Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories
Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. Your committee has
agreed to report it with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have the honour to
present in both official languages the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18,
1994 your committee has considered Bill C-41, an act toamend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts inconsequence thereof. Your committee has agreed to report it
with amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table the 68th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral
boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral
boundaries, with amendments.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
[Translation]
This report is about the nomination of Robert Fowler to the
position of ambassador and permanent representative of Canada
to the United Nations in New York.
Your committee reviewed the qualifications of the person
appointed and declared him competent to perform the duties of
his position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in light of the very serious crisis facing the country,
namely the national rail strike, that is ongoing and which the
government is seeking to end, I think you might find unanimous
consent in the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after the completion
of private members' business on this day, the House shall revert to Government
Orders for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-77, an act to
provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services at the
second reading stage, in committee of the whole, at the report stage and at third
reading stage, provided that the House shall not adjourn this day except
pursuant to a motion by a minister of the crown.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
want to make it clear that while there is opposition on the
opposition side of the House to the motion, it comes from the
Bloc Quebecois and the NDP and not the Reform Party.
10837
The Speaker: Colleagues, I asked for unanimous consent. I
did not get unanimous consent. The point of order of the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster was not a point of order. The hon.
member for Mackenzie, is this a comment on the unanimous
consent which I sought?
Mr. Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it is a comment concerning the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who is pretending to
speak for the NDP. He does not.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great honour and pleasure that I rise pursuant to Standing Order
36 to present a petition regarding the parliamentary prayer in
this House. The petition was originally signed by 20,593 people.
The majority are from my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick,
as well as from Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan, B.C.,
across this whole nation.
Due to various inaccuracies some were just certified today. I
am presenting a petition signed by 15,268 names. I find the
process to be a little questionable in that we decertify some
petitions because of a lack of an-
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member knows that we have
a procedure in the House which is followed. This procedure was
agreed to by the House of Commons. I would deem the petition
to be presented by the hon. member and I accept it as such. I
hope that the hon. member would keep her final comments very
brief.
Mrs. Wayne: These petitions state that the opening prayer in
the House of Commons should retain the traditional reference to
Jesus Christ and that the traditional Lord's Prayer be reinstated
at the closing of the opening prayer.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House to close the
prayer, ``through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'' They call on
the House to act on this request. I wholeheartedly agree with the
petitioners and would request-
The Speaker: Colleagues, last week I asked hon. members to
refrain from saying whether they agree or disagree with a
petition. That takes a little of the sting out of the petition for
some members who may or may not want to agree with it. I
would ask hon. members if they would please consider this when
they are presenting petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, question No. 142 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 142-Mr. White (North Vancouver):
What has the government determined to be the total number of immigrant
families residing in Canada who, (a) continue to earn their living abroad in
countries which do not have a tax treaty with Canada, (b) fail to report to Revenue
Canada their total income from international sources and (c) file for the federal
child tax benefit?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Revenue Canada is working with the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration to obtain information to facilitate
the development of enforcement programs and to better focus
client assistance and education programs so that new Canadians
are aware of their obligations.
Revenue Canada's data bases do not at this time contain the
information requested concerning immigrant families residing
in Canada. Whether foreign source income is reported for
Canadian income tax purposes would be determined through
verification and audit programs.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, pursuant to
Standing Order 39, I placed a question on the Order Paper on
October 4, 1994. That was 172 days ago.
(1510 )
As the question required a detailed response, I did not request
that I get the answer within the 45 days as the standing orders
allow. However, it is my understanding that with all Order Paper
questions the government tries to answer them within 45 days.
I am seeking information on the financial assistance provided
to each federal riding in Atlantic Canada by ACOA. One
hundred and seventy-two days is an unacceptable length of time
to respond-
The Speaker: The hon. member has made her point. I request
that notice be taken of the statement that the hon. member has
made.
10838
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that an agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing Order
78(2) with regard to an allocation of time to the second reading
stage of Bill C-77.
Therefore, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and, at the end of that
hour, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the
purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the
second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 174)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-173
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
10839
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caccia
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marchand
Parrish
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
(1550 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
10839
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.):
moved that Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of
railway operations and subsidiary services, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the
Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995. The primary aim
of this bill is to put an end to the work stoppage paralysing the
railway industry and to permit the resumption of activities in
this sector. The bill also provides a solution, through a
mediation-arbitration process, to the matters remaining in
dispute between the companies and various unions.
My colleagues in the House are certainly aware that a major
disruption in Canadian railway operations can have grave
consequences on various sectors of the economy and on the
thousands of railway passengers.
I had hoped we could avoid such a measure, but the
government hardly has a choice anymore. Government
intervention in this dispute has become unavoidable. We would
be lacking in our duty to the people of Canada if we allowed a
work stoppage in the railway sector to threaten the stability of
our economy and the jobs of the thousands of workers affected
by this dispute.
(1555)
During negotiations between the railway companies and the
unions concerned, it became clear that because of the position
taken by the employers that substantial cuts in labour costs were
necessary, it would be a long and arduous process. To cut costs,
the railway companies are seeking major concessions with
respect to job security and more flexibility in the distribution of
tasks.
Negotiations between the employers and the unions have been
going on for more than a year, and in most cases, the parties were
assisted by a conciliator and a conciliation commissioner. My
predecessor, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
appointed Mr. Allan Hope as conciliation commissioner for the
purposes of collective bargaining on eleven agreements
involving the three railway companies. The report prepared by
the conciliation commissioner was transmitted to the parties on
February 22, 1995. This report proposes ways to reach a final
settlement on issues on which the parties have failed to agree.
As I said earlier, the issue of job security was central to the
concerns of the employer during these negotiations. If we look
at the situation in the three railway companies concerned by the
bill before the House today, CN and VIA Rail have proposed a
gradual phasing out of this benefit, while Canadian Pacific
suggested restructuring the provisions on job security so as to
restrict employee eligibility.
The unions expressed their frustration with the emphasis
placed on this issue during the bargaining process and were
quick to point out that, from their point of view, job security was
an advantage that had been obtained through collective
bargaining in return for various concessions and trade-offs. The
representatives of the unions, who see this advantage as a way to
protect employees against loss of employment due to structural
and technological change, maintain that the employer wants to
remove this protection at a time when the job security of their
members is threatened.
On the other hand, agreements concluded recently by
Canadian Pacific with three of the unions that represent smaller
bargaining units within the company are a clear indication that
the process can work. The three unions-the Transportation
Communications International Union, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Rail Canada Traffic
Controllers-managed to agree with the company on wage
increases, conditions relating to job security and a number of
improvements to social benefits.
I have tried to give hon. members a quick rundown on the
events that have taken place so far and the situation we are now
facing, despite assistance provided on a massive scale to the
parties, in an attempt to avoid any disruption in railway
transportation and its consequences for Canadian producers and
manufacturers whose economic survival depends on this mode
of transportation.
10840
[English]
As hon. members may be aware, I met with representatives of
the rail companies and the unions in Montreal on Sunday
afternoon. At that meeting I acknowledged their efforts in
attempting to achieve a resolution of their respective
differences.
I expressed concern over the economic damage which was
being inflicted on the Canadian business and agricultural sectors
as a result of the work stoppages. I asked the parties to give the
negotiation process one final push in order to achieve either
tentative settlements of the issues in dispute, or agree on a
binding process to solve their differences and avoid the need for
legislated intervention on the part of the government.
(1600 )
Unfortunately the companies and the unions have failed to
reach any type of agreement on these matters. We are left with
no choice but to assume our responsibility to the Canadian
public and bring this feud to a conclusion.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill entitled Maintenance of
Railway Operations Act, 1995, is to ensure that railway and
subsidiary services continue or are forthwith resumed at
Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and VIA Rail.
With respect to the dispute resolution process, the bill before
my hon. colleagues calls for a mediation-arbitration
commission to be established in respect of each bargaining unit
prescribed. Each commission shall consist of one representative
appointed by the employer, one representative appointed by the
union and a chairperson appointed by the Minister of Labour.
Within 70 days after its establishment or such longer period as
the minister may allow, each commission must endeavour to
mediate all the matters referred to it, then hear the parties on the
matters on which it was unable to bring about an agreement and
render an arbitration decision on these matters. It must also fix a
date for the termination of the new collective agreement, which
date may not be earlier than December 31, 1997.
To ensure that each commission carries out its mandate with
impartiality, the bill requires each commission to be guided by
the need for terms and conditions of employment that are
consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a
coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term,
taking into account the importance of good labour-management
relations.
I am convinced that this bill will not make all parties involved
happy, but I know that it provides for a dispute resolution
process that is both fair and speedy. With this legislation, the
government sends a clear message to the railway companies and
the unions. It is telling them that, while believing in the
collective bargaining process, it is not prepared to let work
stoppages in the railway sector interfere with the normal
operation of the Canadian economy. I urge all hon. members to
support this position by ensuring that this bill is passed as
quickly as possible.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know that we currently bear a heavy responsibility, but it is
because the Bloc Quebecois takes its role as the official
opposition very seriously that it cannot support a special piece
of legislation that denies both the right to strike and the right to
negotiate. On Monday, we proposed amendments that would
have allowed the employees to go back to work without
undermining the ability to negotiate for those who exercised
their right under the Canada Labour Code.
Why must this special bill single out the workers and some of
the strikers? Why must it undermine negotiated settlements by
outlining a general and drastic worsening of working
conditions? Why is the government itself not acting on the
substance of the report by Commissioner Hope, who was
appointed to advise the government and did so by working hard
and producing a comprehensive report? Why did the
government actually undermine the significance of the Hope
report? Why is it satisfied with a hollowed-out Hope report?
(1605)
The Minister of Labour's position is certainly not impartial
and I will show that. Is the minister acting like a sorcerer's
apprentice because of inexperience, ignorance or bad faith? Let
us at least put the question.
The government is in a hurry, but it has difficulty hiding the
fact that it is taking advantage of a serious situation to protect
interests which are not the economic interests it is referring to.
The government does not care about establishing conditions
which would promote co-operation. It imposes a bludgeon law
which does not even leave room for mutually agreed
settlements. The government also treats differently the three
companies, at the expense of the workers affected by the strike
and the lockout.
The proposal which we made on Monday seeks to preserve the
future: everyone goes back to work; mediation takes place
according to the Hope formula; a public report is released and
recommendations are made to this House to try to restore a
balance which was destroyed for workers by the action and
inaction of this government.
Since the strike started, its settlement has become a national
issue. We feel that, in the context, the two sides may have a new
desire to reach a settlement. Such an example of conditions
promoting fair and healthy work relations would be a definite
asset for the future of the country that this government claims to
want to build. However, in the meantime, what Canadians and
Quebecers see, is a government taking advantage of a serious
10841
situation to promote its partisan interests. That is not from me: it
is from the Hope report.
We had to protect the interests of Canadian workers who used
their right to strike, as provided in the Labour Code. I said it on
several occasions:
[English]
If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canada Labour
Code then it should be said and something should be done in
order to avoid the sort of mess we are in. The workers will be the
ones who will pay and we know many persons who are not
responsible for that. The government and the House cannot have
blind eyes on that.
[Translation]
The right to strike is a fundamental right in every democratic
society. In the context of labour relations, it plays a major role in
bringing about a settlement between the parties, a mutually
satisfactory settlement through which the level of productivity
sought by companies and workers, and society as a whole, can be
achieved.
Never has forced settlement brought about innovative ideas to
deal with new situations. Solutions imposed on the parties only
repeat patterns that cannot be adapted any more to particular
situations. But there are no short cuts when it comes to looking
for solutions together. Every time we failed to do so-and, as we
know, this has been a problem in the public service-we ended
up paying a much higher price in terms of loss of productivity,
because it becomes impossible under such circumstances to
finds mutually acceptable solutions.
(1610)
This is not an attack on companies, on the contrary. But
businesses worthy of the trust the public puts in them must know
that they cannot claim to be reorganizing in order to compete if
they do not take their employees into account. There are no short
cuts.
It is extremely unfortunate that the new so-called ``labour''
minister's second move since taking office is to undermine any
chance of real corporate reorganization by putting in place
mechanisms, traditional mechanisms, that have already proven
ineffective in reforming the system. With these mechanisms, the
minister condemns Canada to live through situations we had
hoped never to live through again.
I am telling you this as a Bloc member, because we take our
role of official opposition seriously. After all, we could rejoice
over the fact that a position perpetuating problems and making
them worse can be put in place this way. But no, we are here to
play a positive role as long as we remain in this country and look
after the interests of the workers as well as the companies who
depend on a satisfactory settlement.
The Hope report contains a wealth of information. I will try to
give you a brief outline of the highlights that should have guided
the government in preparing its bill, if it had really sought what
it claims to be seeking. First of all, I will outline the main
elements of the Hope report. The report says this: ``In summary,
the dispute revolves around extremely complex collective
bargaining issues raised under circumstances that do not lend
themselves very well to negotiated solutions. Given the
circumstances, the purpose of this report is to determine the
possibility of initiating an ongoing process that would allow the
parties to deal with these very complex issues through binding
mediation or arbitration maximizing the parties' involvement in
setting the conditions''.
Mr. Hope took on the difficult task of defining the conditions
in which solutions can be found despite the difficult situation.
He reviewed the available literature on labour relations and
administration, after stressing the labour department's basic
tradition of neutrality and objectivity. That is what Mr. Hope
himself said. I think he would be disappointed in the current
situation. He noted that, according to the unions, the
government, through the Minister of Transport, delayed the
collective bargaining process, and that both the employers and
the government seem ready to attack the rail employees'
working conditions.
(1615)
It says that, in fact, the companies have already made
demands of this kind in the past. They have already tried to
obtain similar concessions during past rounds of negotiations.
Their demands are so controversial and provocative because of
the partisan role taken by the government, which supports the
position of the railway companies, and because of the tenacity
with which the companies have stuck to these demands. And, he
says, their points of disagreement are complicated because we
are now in a period of economic recovery and in a situation
which management, the management of companies, has let
fester for several years.
Having said this, what did Mr. Hope propose in his report after
reviewing the situation? He said that we could have let the strike
go on. Because we find ourselves before two reconcilable
parties. The minister says that there have been hours and hours
and hours of negotiation, but what she really means is that
people have been sitting at the same table for hours and hours
and hours. Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations
knows that people can sit down face to face, side by side, yet
negotiate nothing, put nothing on the table, because the parties
refuse to put anything on the table as long as they are uncertain
whether they will come out winners when they play their cards.
10842
It is true that the government has intervened so many times in
the railway industry that the employers, and in some cases the
unions, are just waiting for the government to step in. This
undermines the effectiveness of a strike.
By the way, the Hope report says that a strike cannot be
stopped just because of interruptions in service; the right to
strike can only be suspended in extremely serious cases. The
report states that the worst case scenario for the unions would be
if the government found itself forced to impose the railway
companies' demands as a prelude to the rationalization process
outlined in the reports.
We now find ourselves in this worst case scenario. Why? Once
the government decided to intervene, instead of following the
recommendations contained in the Hope report, it decided to use
a process which has already proven unsuccessful. In fact, what
does the Hope report have to say about the government
legislating employees back to work? The report indicates that
dispute arbitration must be avoided at all cost, because such
arbitration cases have prevented us from addressing the problem
and often led us to copy old systems instead of looking for new
solutions and making progress.
Under what conditions could we allow the parties to break the
current deadlock without a strike? We agree that the only means
of settling the real issues is the right to strike.
(1620)
Mr. Hope arrives at the following solution-he says there
could be other ones, but this is the one he proposes: first, a
mediation-arbitration stage to allow the parties involved to
reach a consensus on what he calls the parameters but that I
would describe as the overall situation of the companies.
Let me explain. Workers are convinced that the companies
make profits, but that they are mismanaged which results in
waste, that Paul Tellier's salary does not allow him to teach
lessons to others, that the government's plan-they hear about
it-to streamline operations is a threat to them, that the Minister
of Transport supports the companies and that he made offending
comments, to say the least, when he said that railway employees
with a grade eight or nine education should not be blamed for
negotiating overgenerous collective agreements.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mrs. Lalonde: Real negotiations require that the parties
meet. However, for the unions, the situation is the one which I
just described. The unions feel threatened and they feel they
have been had. They made major concessions in the previous
collective agreements to preserve job security, since everything
else was in jeopardy. Now, the companies show no regard for
that right, acquired quite recently in some cases, and they want
to eliminate it. In some cases, this job security, which is said to
threaten the survival of the companies, was gained in 1992.
Ultimately, and not just for the workers and the companies but
for all Canadians and Quebecers, the claims made by railway
companies should be thoroughly examined. They claim that
competition is fierce and that they can no longer continue to
operate under the current conditions, that something must be
done.
The Hope report says that this issue should have been
discussed first. Discussions should have taken place first, with
an arbitrator, the workers and the employers, on the survival of
the companies and on their competitiveness, taking into
consideration the workers' demands. In other words, the parties
involved should have tried to agree on the information. Again,
in the labour relations sector, whether through strike action or
through other means, if you cannot agree to share information,
you cannot negotiate.
The first phase of the mediation-arbitration process, which
commissioner Hope expected to last two months, and which
should have included a real debate to allow the workers to make
their complaints and claims of waste, lack of organization, and
to provide some explanations-because they got all the
blame-was totally skipped. Had these discussions taken place,
the workers might have agreed that, in some cases, some action
was required, thus paving the way for true negotiations.
The second phase proposed in the Hope report provided 120
days to implement, in the various mediation-arbitration
commissions, the parameters agreed on. The legislation only
retains the second part of the proposal made in the report. It does
not provide any means to try to reach a consensus, as proposed in
the first part. Certainly not, because what constitutes one of the
most serious attacks against the unions, who must feel that the
employers and the government are both out to get them, is
section 12. For some reason, the minister was very proud of this
section, but I think this is just another indication of her lack of
experience in labour relations.
(1625)
I will read it to you. Section 12 says: ``Each Commission shall
be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment
that are consistent with the economic viability and
competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short
and the long term, taking into account the importance of good
labour-management relations''. That sounds pretty good, or
does it? Anyone with any experience in labour relations knows
this provision has at least two major effects. First, it does away
with the arbitrator's customary mandate to abide by the
jurispru-
10843
dence. Basically, this paragraph is a substitute for the two
months of research to clarify the state of the railway system.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: This is because the government is in a hurry,
for the reasons mentioned during Question Period. It is in a
hurry because it wants to sell CN and can only sell CN if it
makes drastic changes in the terms and conditions of
employment. And because the government is in a hurry, it will
not give the process designed by Commissioner Hope a chance
to succeed. First, it says: You as arbitrators will have to ensure
that terms and conditions of employment are consistent with
employability in the short and long term.
For decades the railways have been allowed to deteriorate,
and now in a single collective agreement, as a result of section
12, employees will have to pay for the disorganized approach
and irresponsibility of the companies and the government. This
is outrageous. Those who would blame us for the impact on
small businesses and workers who suffer as a result of this right
to strike should realize that the real culprit is a government that
uses the situation to deal with problems it created in the first
place, at the expense of the workers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): The Liberals are to blame.
Mrs. Lalonde: But that is not all, it is not just by stripping all
power from the mediation-arbitration commissions in clause 12
that the bill completely sabotages the Hope report, on the
contrary. It is worse than that because there is a mandate and,
instead of doing what is customary and leaving the decision to
one arbitrator, who can exercise judgment and refer to the
jurisprudence, we teeter on the verge of the ridiculous either by
being totally oblivious to the Hope report's contents or by acting
in bad faith when we say that we accept the report. That is why I
call it the ghost of the Hope report-the two do not even
resemble each other.
The second objection is that everything must be settled within
70 days. The Hope report would give 60 days to hammer out an
agreement on the difficult basic conditions and 120 days to
apply them. But we are saying that the whole agreement should
be signed, sealed and delivered in 70 days, just like that! Why
the haste? Is it because we absolutely must have negotiated
settlements? We are creating conditions which make that
impossible. We are creating conditions under which arbitration
will be carried out by a commission which has no real power and
to which the government will appoint the arbitrator.
(1630)
The workers would not even be consulted on the choice of
arbitrator. So, what other clauses of this bill are utterly
unacceptable? Just imagine being so confident that the process
will be encouraged and adopted-by the way, a basic condition
for even having an arbitration commission is that both
management and the union appoint a representative to it-that if
the parties neglect to name a representative, the government, the
minister will intervene in their stead and name a competent
person.
Words fail me to describe such a situation. And that is not all,
that is not all. There is the issue of deadlines. I already said this,
but I must stress that the commissioner gave 60 days plus 120,
and he took care to stipulate that he is limiting it to six months
because it will be easier for the parties to come to an agreement
once they have agreed on the parameters. In the bill, 70 is the
total maximum. This means that the government wants a
settlement to be reached quickly, and once again I ask why? I
will finish on this note, Mr. Speaker.
Other provisions of this bill are also unacceptable. Among
others, there is the fact, and I must stress it, that the three
companies are not treated equally and, as a consequence, all of
the workers are not treated equally. Why? First, let us try to find
out. Take the first party, CN. It gets an arbitration commission,
70 days, a clause 12 which makes no sense, and a concluding
clause which says: ``This Part- shall come into force on the
expiration of the twelfth hour after the time at which this Act is
assented to''.
What about Canadian Pacific and Via Rail? ``This part shall
come into force by order''. This means that, at CP, where there is
a strike and a lockout, more importantly, at this point in time,
workers or those who obeyed the picket lines have been laid off
temporarily, punished, and the unions are no longer having their
dues deducted because workers crossed the picket lines. And
there is more: no one is saying that the working conditions will
return to normal and that the workers will be rehired. No. No one
is saying that.
No one said that because the company arranged to maintain
operations. It is working at 80 per cent of its capacity. At 80 per
cent. I will read you part of a notice I received today sent by the
company to its customers. It thanks them considerably for their
patience and understanding. It goes on to say that 12,888 railway
workers are working non stop. These railway workers include
some 2,888 managers, supervisors and other, non-unionized
employees, who were given special training to replace striking
workers.
Canada has no anti-strikebreaking legislation. This means
that Canadian Pacific, which took steps and is operating at
between 60 per cent and 80 per cent capacity-there is no
agreement on the exact figure-is not subject to such
legislation. There are examples of this in history. In 1987, in a
similar situation, 400 workers who had been locked out and were
therefore subject to a similar provision, waited four months
without being called back to work. This means that the workers
who were on strike were called back within 12 or 15 hours, and
those who had been locked out were not called back for four or
five months, since the company could operate. I have
confirmation of this here from the unions concerned. This
means that, when we say, by order, we let the company carry on.
10844
(1635)
As for VIA Rail, the minister says they are close to
agreement. No, before looking at VIA Rail, I have other news on
Canadian Pacific. Just a few small items.
In 1991 or 1992, when the company closed the Angus shops,
there was a serious problem, workers were in danger of losing
their jobs. So, in order to shut down the Angus shops, the
company promised, in a memorandum that was not part of the
collective agreement, but that seemed to be ongoing in
application, because otherwise it would have been meaningless,
that the workers would indeed be paid but that they would
remain in Montreal.
Now, the Canadian auto workers who are negotiating with
Canadian Pacific have been told-and I have confirmed this
with the company-that if they do not agree to the 250 workers
in question being moved to Calgary, first, that these workers
will lose their job security, and second, that the company will
not sign any agreement with the other workers. The workers in
the rest of Canada are being pitted against the workers in
Montreal. They want to find a solution to the dispute, but they
say they want to restore order in the rail system, and we see what
the conditions are.
And finally, VIA Rail. The minister said that everything was
fine at VIA Rail, that the negotiations were continuing. The
union leaders tell me that there is no more negotiation going on
here than anywhere else. They tell me that their biggest worry is
that this would be done by order in council, because everyone
knows that for reasons that are historic and that are explained in
the Hope report, the passenger rail system is operating at a
deficit, and that in reality when VIA Rail is not operating, it is
losing less money than usual.
So, on the one hand, the government is saying: ``This is
terrible, we cannot provide service to passengers''. But, on the
other hand, it does not ensure that the legislation makes it
possible to take action when something terrible happens.
All we hear is: ``This is terrible, simply terrible! We must
bring in legislation''. But those who are supposed to make the
terrible situation go away are not covered.
An hon. member: Incredible.
An hon. member: Terrible.
Mrs. Lalonde: It is terrible. But that is not all. This is not a
simple matter, either, because some of VIA Rail's striking
workers belong to the same local as some CN union members.
Therefore, if CN resumes operations but not VIA Rail, VIA Rail
workers on the same seniority list as their CN colleagues will do
what union members do in similar circumstances, that is, engage
in picketing. Just think about the consequences.
I can therefore strongly emphasize, once again, that the
government has used with malicious intent the dramatic
situation that some people are going through. A strike is never a
pleasant experience. It is not pleasant for the strikers, who are at
the end of their rope, nor for those who must suffer the
consequences.
Instead of seeking permanent solutions-even if we take
more time, as the Bloc Quebecois recommends-, the
government is using the situation to resolve its own problems,
which Commissioner Hope refers to as ``its partisan problems''.
If we, in the Bloc Quebecois, dared to stand up at the risk of
being unpopular, it is because we have a high opinion of what
politics is, of what a country is, and even of what Canada is, as
long as we are part of it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe it was Yogi Berra who said, and if it was not Yogi I am
sure he will not mind if I attribute it to him, it seems like déja vu
all over again.
Last week it was back to work legislation for the port of
Vancouver and this week it is for most of the railways. I suggest
the time has long past for the government to get serious about
labour issues and come up with a long term solution that does
not rest on the usual crisis management approach of back to
work legislation.
We can draw some comfort from the fact that Bill C-77 does
contain a guiding principle which allows the commissioners to
look at long term solutions. I am pleased to see that clause in the
bill. However, since they have 70 days to file a report, I hope
their suggestions are acted upon faster than those contained in
the Fraleigh report, the Hope report, or even the long delayed
and never seen Fraser study.
Perhaps I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have
said it so often in this House, and I think it bears repeating. I
want to impress upon this government that we have to look to the
future and find better ways to deal with work disruptions.
I want the House to know that the Reform Party is concerned
and that is why my colleague, the member for Lethbridge
introduced Bill C-262. That bill was specific in that it would
have applied to the grain industry but the principle of final offer
arbitration is one that can be applied in any labour dispute.
When the bill came up for a vote on Monday, we discovered
that the government has made an new ally with the Bloc and
even the NDP, the very people who are responsible for holding
up speedy passage of this bill, and as a result shot down Bill
10845
C-262. I was disappointed by the coalition that was formed
against that very sensible bill.
As is evidenced in Bill C-77, the government is putting its
agenda first and perhaps labour issues second. The difference in
the coming into force provision of CN, CP and VIA Rail,
perhaps indicates that the government is more concerned with
protecting the government's interest in CN than helping
Canadian shippers, manufacturers, farmers and workers. The
cost to the economy is maybe secondary. Securing a positive
atmosphere for the sale of CN might be the primary goal here.
Does it not matter as much that VIA is losing $1 million a day
or that passengers are inconvenienced? Does it not matter that
the transportation of goods in this country is paralyzed? Does it
not matter that our international trade reputation is in jeopardy,
suffering another blow that perhaps we cannot recover from this
time?
As we speak, container vessels are steaming out of Canadian
ports and off to U.S. ports. The whole time the Bloc and the NDP
are stalling, ports throughout Canada including Quebec are
losing port fees and pilotage charges. The American
longshoremen have been collecting the wages that Canadians
are missing.
The trucking companies are missing out on business that
helps them and their workers to survive, to pay their bills and to
feed their families. Our balance of payments with our free trade
partner are tipping further in favour of the U.S.
Now let us look a little closer at the real impact of this work
stoppage. On the east coast the port of Halifax estimates that it
has lost $1.25 million so far in this strike alone. Eight ships have
already left for New York. We all know that the economy of
eastern Canada just does not need nor can it sustain this kind of
setback.
On the west coast the port of Vancouver was just recovering
and getting back on stride after back to work legislation when
this disruption came along. Now the port of Vancouver is
effectively grinding to a halt again. At the moment 22 ships are
at berth in the port of Vancouver, four of which are grain vessels
waiting for loads of grain. Ten more are at anchor, three of which
are grain carriers. British Columbia coal miners are anxious to
see their four coal carriers now at dockside loaded so that mines
can keep operating and miners can keep working.
(1645)
The strike has tremendous spinoff and domino effects. It is
not only the people on strike who are suffering or all the
industries that depend on that form of transportation. The potash
industry will soon slow down if the two ships waiting at anchor
cannot load their cargoes.
Why is it that we still cannot get unanimous support to
provide speedy passage of the bill? Of course it is inevitable. It
is just delaying the inevitable to hold up the bill.
Vancouver's loss is Seattle's gain. Halifax's loss is New
York's gain. Job losses are the order of the day in manufacturing.
If car manufacturers cannot get their parts they have to lay off
workers. If they are not supplying cars, dealers do not have cars
to sell and have perhaps been laying off people in their
dealerships.
Farmers are extremely vulnerable to the whims of the
transportation system. The only option they have is to hope the
situation will be alleviated before it gets worse and worse.
About all they can do at the moment is hope and sit back and
watch their hard-won international contracts go down the drain,
contracts that may be impossible to get back. After all, why
would a buyer renegotiate a contract with a Canadian who could
not guarantee the product will be delivered for the promised
date? Buyers will go elsewhere, all because the government was
slow to react and because the Bloc and the NDP did not care
about the average Canadian worker.
We were asking for the legislation a week ago. If it had been
introduced a week ago we would be further down the path to
having it passed and assented to than we are at this point.
It is inevitable. I understand my colleagues in the opposition
making a political statement. I suspect the statement has been
made now. The real loser is the Canadian worker who gets laid
off from his job simply because the system is backed up.
We are putting the government on notice that the Reform
Party will be watching to make sure it has the best interests of
Canadians in mind and that it is not just out to protect and fortify
the sale of CN.
We want to know what criteria the minister will apply to her
ministerial order to put CP and VIA workers back to work. Will
she put them back to work when she thinks the levels of services
have dwindled, or will she listen to the people who actually use
the services such as the shippers and the Canadian Wheat
Board? Will she be listening to those people? We will be
watching to see that she does.
We expect she will take into account the impact continued
stoppage will have on the wheat board, car manufacturers, small
business people, grain producers, coal miners, lumber producers
and kids who will not get a new pair of shoes because their
parents have been laid off from their jobs. Many people are
having a very difficult time with their payments. Even a week
off work can be catastrophic to them.
10846
As a Montrealer I am sure the minister can appreciate the
problems faced by travellers and workers who are having
difficulty getting themselves and their goods in and out of that
city. When Toronto commuters are inconvenienced or late for
work, their business, productivity and families are affected.
We are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt.
We are prepared to believe the minister will do the right thing,
that she will order CP and VIA back to work before there are any
devastating disruptions if there have not already been some.
(1650)
The Reform Party intends to support the bill. I suggest the
other parties in the House have made their political statement
and have made their political point. Now we should all get
behind the bill and do what is right for Canada.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a Canadian I am disappointed that the Bloc
Quebecois and the NDP have not seen fit to support the
legislation. Perhaps they do not realize the economic impact of
their stalling from coast to coast to coast. It is affecting the daily
lives of Canadians. The economic condition of the country is
deteriorating mainly because a party interested solely in the
separation of Quebec is not acting appropriately. It is important
to note that in this process.
I will give some examples of the economic impacts Canadians
have experienced in various sectors of the economy. The
shutdown of CN paralyses approximately 60 per cent of the
country's freight traffic. The country's freight traffic capacity is
further reduced by the disruption at CP Rail, where services are
maintained with workers not on strike and 2,000 managers and
staffers at approximately 60 per cent of normal capacity.
General Motors and Ford Canada employ some 21,000
workers in the greater Toronto area. Two Ford plants have been
closed, putting 3,000 employees out of work. Others are
operating at half capacity due to a shortage of parts for their
production lines. Further layoffs are likely if the strike
continues.
It takes approximately five trucks to replace one freight car.
Ford Canada indicates that there are not enough trucks available
to replace the shortfall in railway services.
The core manufacturing sector is being affected to the tune of
$200 million to $500 million in economic losses per week. A
spokesman with the Canadian Manufacturers Association
estimates production losses to the economy if the strike
continues to the tune of $3 billion to $5 billion.
Numerous companies that rely on rail transportation to ship
both goods in the resources and manufacturing industries across
Canada are suffering. The economic impacts of the rail
shutdown are enormous.
I mentioned the major auto manufacturing locations in
Ontario. Some of the companies affected are in the province of
Quebec. Kruger Paper in Trois-Rivières is shutting down
Tuesday due to the lack of wood chips coming in. There is a loss
of $1 million a day and 500 workers are affected. Stone
Consolidated in Port Alfred was shut down on Monday.
Petromont in Varennes will shut down on Wednesday. Shell in
Montreal is burning the equivalent of four tank cars of liquid gas
daily. Port of Bécancour will shut down on Wednesday. Several
aluminium plants are experiencing a slowdown in production:
Alcan in Chicoutimi, ABI, Reynolds and Lauralco in Baie
Comeau.
This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois should be paying
more attention to instead of playing petty politics.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 4.54 p.m., pursuant to the
order made earlier today, in accordance with the provisions of
Standing Order 78(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second
reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
10847
(Division No. 175)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-171
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-35
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caccia
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marchand
Parrish
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
(1715)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
(1720 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing Order
78(2) with regard to an allocation of time of committee stage of
Bill C-77. Therefore, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services, not more than four hours shall be allotted to the
consideration of the committee stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the fourth hour,
any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment, provided that if the said bill is not
reported from the said committee during Routine Proceedings on March 23, 1995, the
said bill shall at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on that day be deemed to have
been reported from the committee without amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
10848
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 176)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-164
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bélisle
Caron
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caccia
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marchand
Parrish
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
(1800)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. In view of the fact it is now apparent
that committee stage of this bill will be completed this evening,
I
10849
wonder if I might seek unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, at the conclusion of Private
Members' Business this day, the sitting shall be suspended until the call of the
Chair, which shall come in order to permit the House to receive the report from the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on Bill C-77, an act to
provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, and
shall continue to sit in order to consider the report stage and the third reading
stage of the said bill;
That, immediately after disposing of the third reading stage of the said bill, the
sitting shall be suspended to the call of the Chair when it shall be reconvened for
the sole purpose of a Royal Assent;
That, when the House returns from the said Royal Assent it shall be adjourned
until the next sitting day provided that if a Royal Assent has not taken place by
nine o'clock a.m. on March 23, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the sole
purpose of being adjourned until ten o'clock a.m. on that day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that
the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Saint John-Base Closures.
_____________________________________________
10849
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 14 consideration of the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert has
three minutes remaining in his time.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to finish the speech I began some
weeks ago regarding the private members' bill of the member
for Red Deer on the motion regarding access to information. The
remarks I made I will leave at that point. I have concluded.
(1805 )
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this bill. It is a
pleasure to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the
member for Red Deer. His motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and crown agencies should
be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
This is a very appropriate motion as it would make these
agencies more accountable to Canadians. If one thing was made
clear by the results of the last election, it was that Canadians
demand accountability from their governments and their
institutions. They are no longer willing to accept governments
and institutions that help themselves to the public purse. They
are demanding value for their money instead of governments
and institutions that take hard earned tax dollars for granted and
make their deals behind closed doors.
One of the best mechanisms currently in place to give
Canadians some control over these institutions is the Access to
Information Act. This act lets Canadians take a look at
government books for themselves. This is only fair. In Canada
we pay a very high amount of tax and we have every right to
know how the government is spending the money.
In this respect the Access to Information Act serves as a
useful tool to keep an eye on the appropriateness of government
spending. All members in the House can show they support this
right of Canadians by supporting this motion. It would be a
gesture very much appreciated by Canadians.
As a farmer, I would like to use the example of the Canadian
Wheat Board in speaking in support of this motion. I was
shocked recently when I requested information on the pension
plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and
staff. Regarding the pension plans, I asked for a breakdown on
employer versus government contributions as well as the age at
which the commissioners and staff are eligible to receive
benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada on the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall
under the terms of the Access to Information Act.
As a grain farmer and a member of Parliament I was appalled
that I was refused information regarding pensions which I am
responsible for funding. I can inform the House that the level of
secrecy under which the Canadian Wheat Board operates is
increasingly viewed with resentment by western farmers.
It further makes me wonder why the Canadian Wheat Board is
so insistent on secrecy when a notice that compensation figures
for executives and managers of Canada's major banks was
recently released, presumably with no danger to the future
operation of these banks.
Financial figures are available for the upper levels of just
about every other corporation in the country and yet the
Canadian Wheat Board insists on keeping its financial data a
mystery. If banks can release this information, it shoots down
the argument that the wheat board needs secrecy to remain a
competitive player in the marketplace.
I wrote to the wheat board urging them to reconsider its
policy. At that time I stressed this would go a long way in
re-establishing the trust and confidence of other grain farmers
in dealing with the wheat board. In turn, I was contacted by the
wheat board. It provided me with some general salary
information, but not in the detail I originally requested.
Moreover, I was
10850
told that the general information is only available to wheat
board permit holders.
This experience shows how frustrating it can be for Canadians
if they are trying to get financial information about a
government agency that is not covered under the Access to
Information Act.
I am not alone in my frustration with the wheat board.
Recently a publication called the Prairie Agricultural Digest
featured an article that asked why things at the wheat board are
so secretive. This newspaper wondered what makes the wheat
board so different from virtually any other privately traded or
government corporation. The only answer they could come up
with is that the people running the wheat board are either
arrogant or out of touch.
The newspaper has embarked on a campaign to make the
wheat board more accountable. Grain farmers can fill out a card
directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The card
states: ``I am very opposed to the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat
Board, and the board's consistent refusal to answer questions
regarding the salaries, pensions and other benefits the wheat
board commissioners and other employees receive. I oppose the
Canadian Wheat Board being exempt from the freedom of
information act''.
(1810)
Apparently these clippings have been flooding into the
newspaper office. This sends a clear message that farmers are
fed up with the secrecy, but it is a sad comment that they have to
take this drastic action in order to try and get accountability
from an agency that is supposed to serve them.
The wheat board has advertised a position described as fitness
instructor. How much sense does it make to have a fitness
instructor on staff but not have an access to information officer
that could answer questions about how the board spends its
money.
The issue of accountability also becomes important when we
look at the pasta industry in the country. Pasta producers in
western Canada came to see me around the middle of November
claiming heavily subsidized pasta from Italy was coming into
the country and they could not afford to operate any more.
When I showed my facts and figures to the prairie pools, they
had no answers. The Canadian Wheat Board sells durum wheat
to the Americans for the pasta industry and we also sell it to
Italy.
The Americans bring in 40 million kilograms of pasta for a
value of approximately $84 million. This pasta costs about $2
per kilogram. The Italians ship 17 million kilograms of pasta at
$19 million, which is about half the price the Americans are
charging for their pasta in this country.
I asked the prairie pools if they could explain how we could
sell durum wheat to Italy, ship it over there, have it
manufactured and brought back into this country for half the
price. Is it not subsidized? They could not give me a reasonable
explanation.
It makes you wonder what is going on when you do a little
digging and come up with some of these figures. It creates a
stronger argument for openness and accountability at every turn.
The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange is a totally open process.
A public gallery allows you to actually watch the trading. That is
the type of openness the Canadian Wheat Board should be trying
to achieve, otherwise we are left wondering to whom it is
accountable.
It is not just Canadians who are upset with wheat board
secrecy. American farmers are getting very upset with having to
compete with this bureaucracy. It is not the Canadian farmers
they do not want to compete with, it is the large, secret dealing
wheat board they see as an unfair competitor.
I am not advocating the dismantling of the wheat board, but
this illustrates how, when when operating with a shroud of
secrecy, people automatically suspect that you are not playing
above the board. By dropping this shroud of secrecy the wheat
board could avoid many of these problems.
When the wheat board came into being, it was a dual
marketing system. That is what farmers want again. The time
has come for the government to give Canadians the
accountability it promised in its red book, and put an end to the
secret dealings of government organizations like the wheat
board.
The Reform Party has always stressed the need to be more
accountable and responsible to the people who elected us. We
have always stated clearly that the common sense of the
common people should be respected. They have the right to be
consulted on public policy matters. They have the right to
govern themselves through truly representative and responsive
institutions.
In the Liberal government's red book it states: ``People are
disappointed by and irritated with the poor quality of service
provided by many public institutions, given the cost of
government and the taxes the government are taking out of
citizens' pockets. A Liberal government will take a series of
initiatives to restore confidence in these institutions of
government. Open government will be the watchword of the
Liberal program''.
We have been waiting for evidence of that open government,
but so far it has been lacking. Canadians have watched in
frustration as billions of dollars were funnelled through crown
agencies such as the CBC, Canada Post and the wheat board, and
they are waiting for action.
10851
The time for that action is now. This non-partisan motion can
be supported by all members of the House because it goes
beyond party politics and achieves a purpose that is equally
important to Canadians from coast to coast.
(1815 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
address the motion raised by the member for Red Deer. I
compliment him on raising the issue of public access to
information held by crown agencies and Parliament.
It is obvious from the debate that has ensued from the motion,
and indeed from the voices of Canadians across the country, that
there is need for greater openness and accountability in
government. I agree with the spirit and objectives of the motion
of the member of the Reform Party. I cannot, however, lend my
support to it because I find it is lacking the comprehensiveness
needed to achieve appropriate improvements.
In keeping with our commitment to make government more
accountable, open and honest while at the same time controlling
costs, the justice minister fully intends to consult with
Canadians to develop more comprehensive and up to date access
to information legislation.
My constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore along with other
Canadians are calling for updated and forward thinking
legislation. It must involve a careful examination of the
complete framework of the Access to Information Act, with
careful consideration being given to each institution. By
expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act to
Parliament and crown agencies, as the member has suggested,
all practical implications must be taken into account.
In our efforts to control the deficit and achieve economic
recovery the government has had to modernize programs,
making them more effective and cost efficient. The values of
openness must be balanced with fiscal responsibilities. I believe
it is the government's role to assist Canadians in the evolution
that is currently taking place across Canada and around the
world. That is why the government is looking at ways to enhance
public access to information.
With the explosion of new technology and the evolution of
government policies greater openness and transparency are
needed to ensure that government structures and programs are
geared to the highest priorities of Canadians. The Liberal
government's policy defined in the red book is to promote more
open and accountable government. Our commitment to it is
demonstrated in the introduction of several initiatives aimed at
restoring government integrity. The review of agencies, boards
and commissions, the introduction of amendments to the
Lobbyists Registration Act, and reduced costs in the operation
of the House of Commons are just a few of the initiatives.
Canadians are demonstrating faith in Parliament. According
to an international poll conducted by the Times Mirror in the
U.S., Canadians ranked highest among the eight of the world's
richest countries in confidence in their legislative institutions.
Our Prime Minister has said that we have managed to restore the
prestige of this institution. It is a credit to all members of
Parliament who were elected, whatever their opinions and
options.
With this in mind I believe we should look beyond the motion
and support and participate in the justice minister's upcoming
review of the access to information legislation. The opinions of
access experts, the information commissioner and individual
Canadians who have an interest in the act should be taken into
account.
Numerous recommendations have been made since the act
came into effect in 1982 by the two successive information
commissioners. Its effectiveness as a supporting tool to
democracy has been monitored and assessed over the years
through the courts and by a parliamentary committee of the
previous government. Most recently recommendations have
been submitted to the information commissioner advising a
broadening of the access law. One by one the provinces have
been enacting their own access legislation, including Ontario.
This too must be assessed in the modification of this very
important legislation. In our review we must be sure to look to
the example of other foreign democratic governments that have
developed similar legislation.
The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore continually remind me
of the importance of incorporating new technologies into more
efficient and open government. They tell me to remind the
justice minister that his review must be sure to take into
consideration the advice of the information highway advisory
council and the blueprint for improving government services
with new technologies. This thorough review will go steps
further than the motion does. It is the best way to ensure
enhanced openness of government for Canadians.
(1820)
I also question the addition of other agencies to the existing
legislation. I agree with the suggestions of my constituents that
the government consider improvements to the existing
legislation rather than simply adding agencies to the current
schedule list.
The recent report of consultants to the information
commissioner has recommended measures such as increases to
request fees, swifter and more open responses, a reduction in
years for accessibility to cabinet documents, et cetera. The
recommendations should be considered, focusing on
government account-
10852
ability rather than, as the motion proposes, expanding the
legislation to cover more independent agencies.
Crown agencies independent of the government should be
subjected to scrutiny. This is provided for in other ways. In this
area of the legislation our priority should be planning for a
modernized access act that benefits Canada through open and
accountable government.
The hon. member for Red Deer stated in his motion that he
would like to see Parliament and crown agencies subjected to
scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. The motion would
give a general definition to crown agencies. This open ended
wording does not define exactly or take into consideration the
individual circumstances of the various agencies.
Modified access legislation should take care to carefully
define the specific relevance of institutions to the federal
government. We would be wise to follow the listing methods
contained in the majority of provincial access legislation.
Different laws apply to different institutions and the different
laws may constitute varying applications of the law.
The wording of the motion could also lead to increased
litigation in an already overflowing courts system. I can easily
foresee differing interpretations of the law being used by an
agency in an attempt to exempt itself from the access
legislation. This would eventually end up in the courts, further
burdening the legal system.
In this manner the motion would only serve to decrease the
efficiency of an institution while increasing the cost to
taxpayers. That is not the goal of the Liberal government.
Before considering such broad legislation suggested by the
Reform Party member, one must take into consideration the
implications of the motion on Parliament. It is important to
protect the personal information of a constituent when
considering applying the access act to the offices of members of
Parliament and senators. All sorts of questions arise and we
must ensure that greater thought be given to the privacy of the
individual taxpayer. Any legislation must therefore be precise in
its purpose and the motion is certainly not precise.
I believe the motion was an excellent stimulant for initial
debate on the subject of access to information and government
openness. The motion offered general amendments to an act that
requires more detailed reworking. Knowing that the justice
minister is planning a more full and comprehensive review of
the Access to Information Act I cannot support the member's
motion. Further, I cannot emphasize enough the value I place in
a thorough consultative process with the Canadian people.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion M-304
brought forth by the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to
the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
The objectives stated by the hon. member for Red Deer tend to
be very similar to those of my own party. As a matter of fact, in
our view of democracy, it is very important that public financial
management be characterized by transparency and openness.
(1825)
All the hon. members of this House were elected by people
who want and have a right to know how their money is managed,
this money we take off their pay cheques every week for taxes of
all kinds. The people of Quebec in particular want to know what
the Canadian government is doing with their money and what
they get back in return.
The Access to Information Act is one of the tools available to
them and I think it should be amended to apply also to crown
corporations such as Air Canada and Canada Post Corporation,
government agencies such as the Senate as well as public office
holders who report directly to Parliament, like the
Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General of
Canada.
As I said, the Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that public
administration should be as transparent as can be in a
democratic regime. But this is not always the case here. Too
many government institutions are still not subject to the Access
to Information Act and I think that it is high time that the scope
of this act be broadened to force these institutions to operate in a
more upright and honest way.
The government continues to hide far too much information
that could be useful to the public. Take the Senate for example.
Partisan appointments to some of the best paid positions in the
government are made by the party in office. The public has no
say in the process, nor does it have access to the information
circulating within the ranks of the government. That, in my
opinion, is not very transparent.
Yet, transparency is essential to regain the confidence of
taxpayers who are increasingly wondering about the way their
money is spent, considering the national debt and the numerous
cuts to social programs and other government services.
In his Throne Speech made in January of last year, the Prime
Minister said, and I quote: ``The Government is committed to
enhancing the credibility of Parliament. Changes will be
proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide
Members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to
the development of public policy and legislation''. The Prime
Minister also
10853
said that, to achieve this agenda, integrity and public trust in the
institutions of government were essential.
It goes without saying that a relation of trust between the
government and the public is vital. However, we realize that no
such relation exists when we see the resentment shown by
Canadians toward the federal government.
This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to give weight to
his words by taking concrete legislative measures to ensure
greater transparency within the public institutions and agencies.
Of course, the Access to Information Act plays an important
role in providing information to which the public is entitled.
However, we must not forget that certain types of information
must remain confidential so as not to prejudice the competitive
position of certain Crown corporations.
The relevant legislation, the Privacy Act, is particularly
important because it has the effect of protecting information, the
disclosure of which might be injurious to national security. That
is why this confidentiality has been recognized by means of
exemptions provided under the Act. It also protects the interests
of individuals, both with respect to personal information and
information of a commercial nature. However, it is probably
true that the corporations and institutions exempted from this
legislation are not necessarily motivated by concern that
information might be disclosed to competitors but may be
simply reluctant to reveal to the public certain threatening
aspects of their activities.
In any case, the complexities of a system for access to
information on government administration are well beyond the
scope of the motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Here the concern is not, as it says in the motion, to require that
Parliament and crown agencies be subject to scrutiny under the
Access to Information Act. As we have seen, there are two sides
to this issue: providing access to information while reinforcing
measures to protect privacy.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois, in the name of our
democratic principles and in its resolve to increase the
transparency of the present system, agrees with the report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General released in
March 1987, which recommended that the Access to
Information Act should apply to all federal institutions,
including administrative tribunals and the Senate.
(1830)
The Bloc Quebecois insists above all on the importance of full
transparency, especially with regard to the Senate. As I said
earlier in this House, people are entitled to have access to
information issued by this non-elected level of government.
Quebecers and Canadians are dissatisfied with the present
government, which keeps important information from them and
which ignores them by not taking their views into consideration
and dealing with important public matters in secret.
They are unhappy with the treatment they receive from
federal institutions, public servants, politicians and the
government machine. This is why the Bloc Quebecois agrees
with the essence of Motion M-304 and believes the Access of
Information Act should apply to all publicly funded government
institutions. It is time to get on with it and implement real and
effective access to information legislation that will reflect our
concern for true and just democracy.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Red
Deer for putting this motion forward.
At a time when Canadians are losing trust in their political
institutions, all of us must be active in finding ways to promote
more open and accountable government. However, in searching
out these various ways to promote more open and accountable
government, we must recognize that our institutions face a
variety of other challenges equally important to Canadians.
People in my riding of York-Simcoe and Canadians from
across the country want government to cost less, to be more
efficient and to operate in a more businesslike manner. In some
cases, it may be necessary to balance the value of openness with
these other values. Although I find the objectives behind the
motion laudable, I cannot support this motion for three reasons.
First, we must be concerned about the impact the motion will
have on the competitive position of crown corporations. I do not
say the impact is great or small, merely that before adopting this
motion I would want to hear directly from those crown
corporations on this issue.
Second, in these times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask
what this motion will cost the taxpayers and how those costs will
be paid. Processing access requests requires an access to
information bureaucracy and costs money.
The third reason I cannot support the motion is that it fails to
distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and
different institutions of Parliament. The motion is too broadly
worded. As such, it disagrees with the findings of the 1986
parliamentary committee report ``Open and Shut'' and with the
most recent report of the information commissioner.
Returning to my first reason for opposing the motion, I am not
convinced it has struck the proper balance between the compet-
10854
ing values of open and accountable government on the one hand
and the smaller, more efficient government on the other hand.
The motion asks that crown agencies be subject to the scrutiny
of the Access to Information Act. There are presently more than
130 crown agencies subject to the act. I assume the hon. member
means by crown agencies, those crown agencies not yet subject
to the act. I assume he is referring at least in part to crown
corporations.
It is with respect to crown corporations that the balance
between efficient, competitive businesslike crown agencies and
open accountable enterprise becomes most important. The basic
question is whether crown corporations which have mandates to
operate in a businesslike fashion, sometimes in competition
with the private sector, should have to work under different rules
than their competitors.
If we believe that crown corporations should act like
businesses then why would we impose a different set of rules on
them? Of course, if we believe crown corporations should not be
competing with the private sector at all, that is a completely
different question. Subjecting the crown corporations to the
scrutiny of the Access to Information Act will not terminate the
crown corporations, if that is the goal. It will simply make them
less competitive, more expensive and less efficient.
I would not want to make a decision on the motion before the
House until I know more about the implications. I am not
prepared to support the motion at this time.
Also, I do not support this motion because we do not have
enough information about what the potential costs to the
taxpayers will be. Processing access requests costs taxpayers
money. The most recent report of the information commissioner
says that the annual costs of processing access requests is $20
million and that the current fees are not designed to recover
costs but merely to deter trivial requests.
(1835)
Adding institutions to be covered by the Access to
Information Act is saying that the government needs to spend
more money. Where will this money come from? How much will
it cost? Whatever it costs, we know it is a cost that private
business does not have to incur. Therefore it will make crown
corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of the cost of
processing access requests.
I do not say that the costs of processing access requests cannot
be justified. The information commissioner says that the $20
million is a bargain for such an essential tool of public
accountability and I think he is right. We should not adopt
motions based on good intentions without first asking the basic
questions of how much it will cost and who will pay.
As well, I am reluctant to support the motion is because of the
report of the parliamentary committee that examined the Access
to Information Act in 1986. Its report is called ``Open and
Shut''. That committee considered a broad range of entities
which might be made subject to the Access to Information Act.
The committee concluded it would not be appropriate for all
crown agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a
definition of crown corporations should be developed and
should be limited to corporations where the crown has a
controlling interest and which provides goods or services to the
public on a commercial basis.
The committee thought there should be special exemptions
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to
program material.
With respect to Parliament, the parliamentary committee was
of the view that the offices of senators and members of the
House of Commons should be excluded from the scrutiny of the
act. It said that the relationship between such elected and
appointed officials and the electorate is sometimes described as
akin to solicitor-client privilege. Parliamentary privilege is
involved and therefore the committee suggested their continued
exclusion from the scope of the act.
The committee thought that the Access to Information Act
should not apply to the judicial branch of government and
therefore not to the Federal Court, the Tax Court or the Supreme
Court of Canada. Perhaps surprisingly, the committee thought
the act should apply to administrative tribunals which perform
quasi-judicial functions.
The committee recognized that the federal government is
involved in joint ventures with others, notably the provinces. In
those cases it thought it would be best if there were negotiations
with the provinces before making such joint ventures subject to
the Access to Information Act.
Here we have a parliamentary committee that studied the
issues very carefully. The committee's considered conclusion
was that it would go too far to include all crown agencies. At
least in the case of the CBC, it saw merit in examining the
special circumstances of crown corporations that would become
subject to the act. It saw merit in excluding courts, MPs' offices
and federal-provincial joint organizations.
I am not prepared to say that the parliamentary committee was
wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in
a sweeping statement that Parliament and all crown agencies
should be subject to the Access to Information Act.
I support a comprehensive careful review of the Access to
Information Act. I will support amendments aimed at improving
access to government information. I may well support extending
10855
the application of the Access to Information Act to crown
agencies not yet covered by the act.
However, I cannot support a motion that fails to distinguish
between various kinds of crown agencies that might make the
correspondence I receive from my constituents automatically
subject to the act and that is voted on without hearing from
executives of the crown agencies not presently subject to the act.
The better approach is to take the Minister of Justice at his
word that it is time for a review of the Access to Information
Act. Let him draw upon all the expertise we can acquire and use
the full parliamentary procedures, including committee
hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to take part in this very important debate on
Motion No. 304. This is a motion which I believe everyone in the
House should support. What better way to show Canadians that
we got the message the people sent a little more than a year ago?
If we can ever say that when Canadians go to the polls they
speak with one voice, it was in the results of the 1993 election.
The electorate wanted fundamental changes to the way politics
are conducted in this country. Canadians took great pains to
ensure that a message was sent throughout the political world.
If politicians ever thought they were above the people or in
some cases above the law, that election proved to be a great
leveller. Now that we are here, it is important we do not breach
the trust which was placed in us.
(1840)
Parliament is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.
How can Parliament and the crown agencies establishes and is a
shareholder in not be subject to the Access to Information Act?
A committee in the last Parliament studying the Access to
Information Act likened it to the charter as one of the
fundamental tenets of our society. Therefore it seems to me that
if we are bound by one we should be bound by the other.
I know the Access to Information Act is used by opposition
MPs and the press to dig up as much dirt as they can in order to
embarrass the government during question period. The concern
on the government side must be that if the access net is cast even
further, that it will simply involve more work being put into
question period presentations. The potential for embarrassment
will simply be enlarged. That could happen.
Is the answer not simply to ensure there is no potential for
embarrassing matters to be brought to light under the access
procedure by assuring that crown corporations are run in a sound
and efficient manner? The answer is not to limit the application
of the Access to Information Act but to ensure MPs and crown
corporations act in a responsible manner with taxpayers'dollars.
We are here to exercise a trust. That trust has been placed in us
by the people of Canada. We are to be good stewards of the
taxpayers' dollars. The money collected by Revenue Canada is
not our money to do with as we please; it belongs to the people of
Canada. If we keep this in mind every time we do something on
this hill or in our constituency offices, then we have nothing to
fear from the Access to Information Act. We have everything to
gain.
Suppose that tomorrow we all became subject to the act, then
weeks go by without any stories in the press about
mismanagement of public moneys or about trips being taken
which could not be justified. Think about how that would raise
the opinion of the electorate in this group it elected in 1993.
Surely the same reasoning applies to crown corporations.
With them not subject to the act, there is a perception that
something is going on behind closed doors. All of us have been
here long enough now to have participated in in camera
meetings of committees. The perception is that once the doors
are closed and the sound recording is turned off, real and
momentous decisions are made which affect the life of this
country.
Those of us who have participated in those in camera
meetings know that nothing is further from the truth. However,
the perception is that we should open up the process; open up the
process for both parliamentarians and crown corporations.
Between us and the crown corporations billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money are spent, presumably for the good of the
country. If this is the case, then the public has a right to know. If
it is not the case, then surely letting the public know becomes a
first step along the road to cleaning up waste and
mismanagement.
The rule of law is the foundation upon which our system of
government is built. It was established hundreds of years ago in
Great Britain during the reign of the Stuart kings that no one, not
even the crown, is above the law. This is the cornerstone of the
rule of law. We are all equal under the law and no one is above
the law. We are equal in that the law applies to every one of us in
the same way. Be we rich or poor, white or black, it applies
equally.
Again, no one is above the law. No matter how high you have
scaled the corporate ladder, no matter which political office you
occupy either federally or municipally, when you look up, the
law of the country is still above you.
If these beliefs are true, and we all know they are, then how
can we work here knowing that a law which is designed to open
certain parts of government to public scrutiny does not apply to
us and to the crown corporations? I do not believe we can justify
this situation. We must act to ensure that laws such as the Access
to Information Act apply equally to all, including politicians.
10856
This will send an important message back to the electorate. It
will show that we have learned from the mistakes of the past. We
have learned to listen to the people of Canada and act upon what
we have heard.
We have a message and the message is loud and clear: We are
to be frugal stewards with taxpayers' money. We are not to
receive anything more in the way of benefits than the ordinary
taxpayer. And we are not ever to assume that we are above the
law.
Parliament must act and let the sun shine in. It must act in a
positive way to tell Canadians it has nothing to hide. We have
been good in this Parliament in this regard. We have opened up
to scrutiny the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy which
would have been unthinkable in years gone by. It is important
that we send out the message that we are open to scrutiny
ourselves. If we have nothing to hide then why put up barriers?
If there is something to hide then we and the crown corporations
are not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. This deserves
to be exposed.
I urge all members from all parties to support the motion. The
end result will be a strong message sent to the government to
amend the Access to Information Act. It will then be up to the
government to show that it still stands behind the promise of
openness it made in the last election.
I seem to remember the Liberals promised openness and fair
play in that red book they keep talking about. They promised
openness and fair play to the Canadian people. Passage today of
motion 304 will help to do this.
We on this side of the House will be waiting and watching.
The people of Canada will be waiting and watching. If the
government does not act on this matter we can rest assured the
people of Canada will act at the next election and elect a group
that will let the sun shine in on Parliament and its workings.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly a
pleasure to stand today to close the debate on M-304, a motion
to extend access to information to Parliament and crown
corporations.
This will demonstrate the openness of Parliament and the
accountability and transparency of government. I have been
very impressed with the quality of the speeches and how many
people have spoken positively about the motion.
Basically four concerns have been raised which I would like
to address very quickly. The first concern is that members'
private business and budgets would come up for more detailed
scrutiny. Mr. John Grace, the access to information
commissioner, assures me there are protections within the
present act so that would not be threatened.
The second concern is that there will be changes to the Access
to Information Act and that it is on the justice minister's
timetable. The justice minister is extremely busy right now and I
would question how soon access to information would come up.
The third concern which has been raised is that the motion did
not have enough detail in it. That concern was addressed
probably better in the last Parliament when a number of Liberal
members said that we did not need to have all that detail.
Besides, this is a motion and the details can be added.
The fourth concern mentioned was that the competitiveness of
crown corporations would be affected. I would like to read this
from the access commissioner to assure members that it would
not be the case. It states:
It is my view that the existing exemption provisions provide the necessary
protection for sensitive information in the hands of crown corporations. Sections
18 and 21 provide ample opportunity for crown corporations to provide valuable
information as well as corporate strategies and plans.
Therefore I do not believe that is a concern.
Because those things are not a concern and because this is a
non-partisan issue, I strongly ask that all members consider
voting yes for M-304.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.49 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 93, the time provided for this debate has now
expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1905 )
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: As is the practice, the division will be
taken on a row by row basis starting with the mover and then
proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the
same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the
10857
motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called.
Those opposed to the motion will be done in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 177)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chatters
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-74
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Baker
Barnes
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Robichaud
Rompkey
Serré
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-93
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caccia
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marchand
Parrish
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
(1915 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
_____________________________________________
10857
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I should
like to take this opportunity to pursue a question that I asked of
the minister responsible for ACOA last week.
I asked him if he would explain to the House why he cut
millions of dollars from a national defence program set up to
help Atlantic Canadian communities hurt by base closures.
10858
The Department of National Defence transferred the $30
million program to ACOA because the regional agency is
believed to be in the best position to deliver such programs in
Atlantic Canada. The ACOA minister has turned around and
slashed $10 million from the program.
When I asked the minister to explain the cuts, the
parliamentary secretary to the ACOA minister said that the
government would take my concerns under advisement.
That is not a good enough answer for the people's whose lives
will be affected by the minister's actions. Maybe the reason the
minister cannot offer an explanation is that he knows there is no
way to justify what he has done. He is playing with people's
livelihood. Even members of his party are appalled by his antics.
The hon. members for Dartmouth and Moncton, just to name a
couple, are on the record in their opposition to the ACOA
minister's actions.
The Minister of National Defence has said:
The $30 million is for base closure. The $30 million was given by defence to
ACOA for base mitigation. Thirty million will be spent for base mitigation.
The money was given to ACOA in trust to help people hurt by
the base closures imposed by the government. It was supposed
to help hard hit towns and cities attract industry to replace lost
armed forces jobs and military spending, which is known as
permanent infrastructure in the communities.
The Prime Minister made a commitment to help these
communities. It is not ACOA's money to take away, even if the
finance minister has asked ACOA to make cuts to its own
budget.
In fact an editorial in an Atlantic Canadian paper put the
minister's actions in very clear light. It said: ``If your father
gave you $30 for your brother, you would have no right to keep
$10 for yourself because your father also asked you to cut back
on your own spending''.
(1920)
The same is true of ACOA and the minister responsible for
ACOA. ACOA was asked to do a task and does not have the right
to redefine the terms of that task after the fact. However, it
seems the minister believes he does not need to answer to
anyone, at least not to the people who will suffer at his hands.
The minister has cut the ACOA board, which is supposed to
represent all of Atlantic Canada, and has put the focus of the
board in his own riding of Cape Breton-East Richmond, known
as the Cape Breton Enterprise Board. According to reports, he
has handed out over 183 projects to his riding, totalling at least
$15 million last year. He did that before he announced a change
to the ACOA funding to allow for repayable loans.
The minister has refused to tell the Saint John Telegraph
Journal the findings of a 1992 company by company job survey
for ACOA, even though the federal information commissioner
ruled in the paper's favour. Perhaps the minister believes that
taxpayers do not have a right to information paid for with their
dollars.
I placed a question on the Order Paper about the financial
assistance provided to each federal riding and Atlantic Canada
by ACOA on October 4, 1994. That was 172 days ago and I have
yet to receive an answer.
Does the minister responsible for ACOA believe he should be
accountable to anyone? Does he believe he should be
accountable to Canadian voters who are also taxpayers? If he
does believe this, then he would not only explain to Atlantic
Canadians why he cut $10 million from a fund designed to help
communities hurt by base closures, but he would also tell them
how he plans to rectify the situation.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has
been a tough time and a tough budget. After 10 years of
Conservative economic and fiscal management, or perhaps I
should say mismanagement, these measures were long overdue.
It was a fair budget. ACOA's continued existence is a
testament to this government's commitment. The bottom line
nevertheless is that ACOA was cut. Of the overall $562 million
cut to regional development, ACOA was asked to absorb over 30
per cent of that, or $173.5 million over the next three years.
Consistent with the overall reduction, the base closure
adjustment fund was reduced by $10 million, or 30 per cent. It is
completely incorrect to refer to the base closure adjustment
program as a trust fund. The base closure adjustment program is
administered by ACOA and was thus included in the budgetary
review process.
Let us remember that after reductions there still will be $20
million available to address adjustment measures in the affected
communities. ACOA will take a leadership role in working with
the communities affected by base closures and by these tough
but fair budget measures. ACOA will strive to maximize
benefits with the remaining $20 million. It will ensure that every
effort is made to apply its full array of other program
instruments to address economic development programs in
these communities.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.)