CONTENTS
Friday, May 19, 1995
Bill C-82. Motion for second reading 12827
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12836
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12838
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12838
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12838
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 12841
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 12841
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 12844
Bill C-93. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12850
Bill C-94. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12850
Motion for concurrence in 78th report 12850
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12853
Bill C-313. Motion for second reading 12858
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 12858
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12860
(Motion agreed to.) 12862
Bill C-313. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12863
12827
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 19, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.) moved that Bill C-82, an
act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-82 is of wide ranging significance for
Canadians. The piece of legislation will enable the government
to modernize Canada's currency by introducing a new $2 coin.
The bill is part of a two-tier approach that will transform
Canada's currency system and save Canadian taxpayers a half
billion dollars over 20 years. The other element of the strategy is
the decision to change the metal composition of the 1-cent,
5-cent, 10-cent, 25-cent and 50-cent circulation coins. Such a
move has become necessary given the rising cost of producing
the coins.
For example, it now costs approximately 1.4 cents to produce
a 1-cent coin. In all, altering the metal content of the coins will
result in annual savings of $12 million.
[Translation]
These new measures, an important stage in the history of our
currency, are arousing a lot of interest throughout the country.
For Canadians, their currency is more than a mere payment
instrument. It is part of their heritage, a national symbol.
By deciding to replace the $2 bill with a coin and by changing
the metal composition of the lower denomination coins, the
government remains true to the principles it has always stood
for.
Since our government took office, it has been faced with
difficult choices. We have never shirked our responsibilities and
we always tried to face the music in cooperation with all
Canadians.
[English]
The savings to the people of Canada are considerable. I have
already discussed the savings that will accrue to the people of
Canada as a result of changing the metal composition of the
lower denomination coins. It is estimated that moving to a $2
coin will by itself save taxpayers $254 million over the next 20
years. This is because coins last so much longer than notes.
At present the $2 bill costs 6 cents per unit to produce, but
with all the wear and tear it takes a note only lasts one year. A $2
coin, on the other hand, will cost approximately 16 cents to
produce but will last 20 years.
The new $2 coin brings another benefit to the government:
within 18 months of issuing the coin the government will obtain
$449 million in seigniorage. The difference between the unit
cost to produce a coin and the face value of the coin is
seigniorage. Within 18 months of issuing the $2 coin $449
million in seigniorage will accrue to the government, thus an
additional $500 million for the government's consolidated
revenue fund within 18 months. This is not bad by any stretch.
This move also reflects the government's sense of priorities.
All Canadians understand that we have to get the government
deficit under control, which demands spending cuts in every
government department. As was stated in this year's budget,
Canadians want the government to spend money and secure
savings in ways that make sense and that reflect their values. To
do so it is essential that our efforts be guided by clear principles.
[Translation]
The proposed changes to our currency are a good example of
the savings that can be achieved with some determination and
creativity.
Let me also tell the House that the government is looking for
other ways to reduce spending in order to avoid tax increases.
The introduction of the new $2 coin and the proposed changes to
the other denomination coins will also meet our needs, since
coins are still widely used in Canada.
12828
In fact, despite the growing popularity of credit cards and
debit cards, coins are still used in over 75 per cent of all
financial transactions made in this country.
The third principle is frugality; each dollar matters. The
initiatives put forward today are probably the best way to
illustrate this principle. Some will argue that savings of $12
million a year, or half a billion dollars over 20 years, are not a
big deal, but on this side of the House, we think that every little
bit counts and as the old saying goes: ``Little streams make big
rivers''. This government thinks that a dollar saved is a dollar in
the pockets of the taxpayers.
[English]
By making these impressive savings in the production of our
coins we are helping Canadians avoid painful budget cuts in
other areas. Let me be perfectly clear. Our government is
committed to eliminating the deficit, which will require more
spending cuts in the years to come. Reducing the cost of our
currency is a good example of spending cuts that are fair to all
Canadians and relatively painless.
(1010)
Some people have expressed concern about the changes to our
national coinage, but the disadvantages which are mostly related
to the bulk of coins are far outweighed by the advantages,
especially the considerable savings.
I am convinced that if given the choice all Canadians would
choose a few more coins in their pockets or purses over fewer
dollars in their bank accounts as a result of tax increases.
Canadians understand that a $2 coin will add a little weight to
their pockets but will take a big load off the debt.
The government also understands the concerns of the vending
industry and is committed to giving this and other important
factors the time they need to adjust to the changes. The 8 to 12
months advance notice they have received should allow them to
convert their equipment to handle the new coins. One reason we
decided to introduce the new $2 coin at this time as we change
the composition of other coins is to assist the vending industry.
By pursuing the two initiatives at the same time the industry
will only face a one-time investment in recalibrating its
machines.
[Translation]
Not only will the new $2 coin be better adapted to the needs of
our trade and industry sector, it will also be more practical for
users. As more and more goods and services such as coffee,
snacks, laundromats, subway tickets and public parking require
the use of coins, the need for printing low denomination bills is
increasingly reduced.
By modernizing its currency in this fashion, Canada is joining
the ranks of the many countries all over the world that already
have higher denomination coins. The United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Japan and Switzerland are only some of the countries
which have recognized the practical value of coins as a method
of payment. Many countries have coins that have a much greater
nominal value than ours. For example, in the United Kingdom,
the one pound coin has approximately the same value as our new
$2 coin.
France is another country where low denomination bills have
been withdrawn. In fact, their smallest bill, the twenty franc bill,
is worth almost $5. Some European countries have coins that are
worth as much as our $10 bill.
[English]
The proposed coin is composed of a nickel outer ring with a
round aluminium bronze core. The use of bimetallic coins is
another trend that is growing throughout the world. Such
countries as France, Italy, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico and
many others are already using such coins. The government's
choice of a bimetallic $2 coin reflects another one of our
principles, that of helping Canada break into new markets with
new products. The capability of producing a bimetallic coin in
Canada will position the mint and Canadian suppliers to
compete internationally for the bimetallic coin business.
This is especially true given the Royal Canadian Mint's
worldwide reputation for unsurpassed quality, its markets and
its production expertise internationally. I am convinced that the
capability of producing the bimetallic $2 coin will give the mint
and potential Canadian suppliers another advantage in foreign
markets.
I have outlined many of the tangible benefits that will flow
from the changes. Canadians will benefit directly from the
immediate cost savings as well as from the more cost effective
method of producing coins. All this will result in a more
efficient and effective coin system that can only help our
economy.
The criteria for an effective coin system are that the system
will first meet the needs of trade and commerce, will be cost
effective, will have public acceptance and will meet public
preference.
(1015 )
I have already addressed the first two points regarding the
new coin. I would now like to address the issues of public
acceptance and public preference. As was the case with the
introduction of the ever popular loonie, I am confident that
Canadians will also come to enjoy the convenience, the
distinctive look, and the feel of the $2 coin.
The $1 coin may give us an idea of how popular its sibling
could prove to be. Since its introduction, more than 685 million
12829
$1 coins have been struck, which is more than double the
number of $1 bills that were in circulation when they began to be
withdrawn.
[Translation]
As a matter of fact, after seeing the success we have had with
our loonie, the U.S. general accounting office is looking at
reintroducing the $1 coin in the United States. That says a lot.
It is not necessary to wait and see if our $2 coin will be
popular. According to the information we have now, more than
79 per cent of Canadians are in favour of the new $2 coin
because of the savings it will bring.
Once they are informed of all the advantages associated with
the new coin and of the modifications that will be made to the
metal composition of other coins, I am convinced that
Canadians will support this project wholeheartedly.
Canadians in all the provinces have shown their support for
the new $2 coin by sending their ideas on the theme and the
illustration of the coin. The Royal Canadian Mint has already
received over 17,000 submissions from school children, artists,
coin collectors and other Canadian men and women.
I encourage members of this House who have received
suggestions from their constituents or who want to make their
own suggestions to send them to us, but they have to do it as soon
as possible because this cost-saving measure is progressing
very quickly.
Our government is making these changes in the interest of all
Canadians. The savings alone justify this decision but, more
importantly, these changes reflect our determination to prepare
for the future.
[English]
In making these changes we are also responding to the
message we received from Canadians from coast to coast and we
are putting into practice the message we sent out in the February
budget. They want us to spend money and secure savings in
ways that make sense and reflect Canadian values. We want to
carry out their wishes in ways that cause the least pain possible.
It is only a small step in our larger march toward the future,
but it is a symbol of our government's ongoing commitment to
reducing the cost of government while providing service to
Canadians.
Surely the people of Canada will benefit greatly from the
introduction of the new $2 coin. That is why I strongly urge all
members of the House to help us in passing Bill C-82.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-82, an act to
replace the $2 bill with a coin.
As the parliamentary secretary just explained, this change
would save the government some $12 or 13 million yearly for
the next 20 years. This measure will save us money. In fact, as he
explained, the production cost of a bill, which has a circulation
life of about 1 year, is 6 cents; the cost of minting a coin, which
has a circulation life of 20 years, is 16 cents. Hence, the savings
of $250 million over 20 years.
However, the parliamentary secretary neglected to mention
the costs, amounting to approximately $30 million, which will
be associated with the new coin. There certainly is the potential
for savings; that is the main reason the government tabled this
bill. When it comes to that pursuit, the Bloc Quebecois has
always striven to propose to the government ways of saving
money. This is always practical, especially for a government
facing a deficit.
(1020)
Some businesses, in particular bus companies, also support
this initiative because they are having problems with their
money boxes. All those $2 bills tend to get stuck in the money
boxes on buses. That is indeed a great problem, and perhaps one
of the arguments in favour of replacing the bill with a coin.
We can talk about savings for the government and for the
government only. That is where the savings end. Substantial
costs will be associated with making the transition to the use of
the coin.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, when a member has the floor, I
think his colleagues should at least give him a chance to express
his views and other people a chance to listen. The comments
being made right and left make it impossible for us to listen
undisturbed to what the speaker for our party has to say. I would
appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you would call my colleagues to
order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure that is what we
want, regardless of the topic or the member who is speaking, and
I hope hon. members will remember this, and that the debate
will proceed in a way that is acceptable to all members on both
sides of the House.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity
to thank the hon. member for Joliette for coming to the rescue. I
was so absorbed in my speech that I did not notice the other
conversations that were going on, but now, as I look around me, I
see people talking.
As I was saying, the purpose of Bill C-82 is to issue a coin that
will replace the $2 bill, as a money saving measure that, I agree,
will save approximately $240 million over 20 years. But that is
where the saving stops. When we consider the transition period
until this legislation can be implemented, we are talking about
substantial expenditures, because it is clear that the private
sector will again be stuck with spending several million dollars
during the transition. As you know, when the government issues
12830
a new coin, in this case the $2 coin, it means all cash registers in
every business in this country have to be changed.
At the present time, cash registers can accommodate coins in
denominations of 1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents and one
dollar, and now all cash registers will have to be changed to
accommodate the $2 coin. Who is going to pay? The merchants,
of course. We will have to change all the vending machines
across the country, at an estimated cost of more than $80
million. And yes, there is more. We will have to change parking
meters in our municipalities to accommodate the $2 coin, and
ticket counters and video games. And what about telephone
booths? There are a lot of those in Canada. Apparently, the
additional cost for the private sector in Canada will be $400
million during the first year, and that is a conservative estimate.
That is the minimum cost to the private sector.
These are very substantial amounts.
(1025)
It is nonsense to say, like the parliamentary secretary, that it is
painless for the business community. There is nothing painless
about obliging merchants to change their cash registers at a time
when many are already suffering as a result of poor decision
making by this government. Consider the GST and all the
paperwork small businesses have to cope with, businesses that
in some cases are on the verge of bankruptcy. Now they are
being asked to change their cash registers. This is not
necessarily good news for them.
We can hardly say this is painless and that the government is
acting in the best interests of a private sector that will have to
spend at least $400 million because a new coin is being issued.
I heard some comments from government members. Sure, this
will get the economy going. This will make a real difference.
Four hundred million dollars at least will be spent. That will
make a difference. I think this reasoning shows a lack of
imagination and I would even say a lack of intelligence on the
part of the government, because we know perfectly well that if
the government really wanted to boost the economy, it could do
it in a positive way.
If the government really cared about promoting private
enterprise and small business, it would make an effort to
simplify the paperwork, the forms and all the taxes imposed on
small business and forget about issuing a $2 coin.
Issuing a $2 coin is no help to small business or even
businesses in general in Canada. It complicates their lives. It
forces them to spend money for something they did not ask for.
Who, in the end, is going to pay for it? Businesses will pass the
cost on to the customer. It will have an inflationary effect,
perhaps like the introduction of the GST and all the other
government measures of the past. It will have an inflationary
effect.
We all know that, with the introduction of the dollar coin a
few years ago, a whole slew of things that sold for 80 cents, 85
cents or 90 cents suddenly started selling for a dollar. The same
thing will happen again. Everything that now sells for $1.75 will
now suddenly be selling for $2. It is not fair. This negative effect
is not fair for consumers who will have to pay a little more for
each purchase.
All the business people who will have to buy another cash
register will pass the cost on in the goods and services they sell
to their customers. Basically, the consumers will be the ones to
pay. On the pretext of saving $250 million, the federal
government is handing another bill to the consumers, who will
have to pay two or three times more. This is unimaginative,
would you not say, Mr. Speaker?
Besides, this is not a new approach. The federal government
has often passed a debt on to the provinces or the municipalities
in order to save money and reduce its deficit. In this case, it is
passing the debt on to the consumer.
Furthermore, this measure not only does not help the
economy, it may even have an inflationary effect on certain
items. It may even be said to have a slowing down effect,
dragging the economy down. Here again, this is not helping
private enterprise, which is being stuck with a needless
expenditure, one it never asked for. There is no money in this for
private enterprise.
(1030)
No business asked for this, except perhaps bus companies
which could benefit from the elimination of the $2 bill. There
would be no more $2 paper money. People would probably have
to use one dollar coins. In other words, what I am trying to tell
the parliamentary secretary is that there may be other ways to
solve the problem caused by $2 bills in bus fare boxes.
To introduce a $2 coin at this time, given the present
economic situation in Canada, with its crushing debt load and
cuts to social programs and elsewhere, could possibly slow
down the economy, because of the additional costs to the
system. The government is considering expenses the private
sector finds useless. It will cause consumers to spend more for
the sake of saving a few million dollars.
Again, we, in the Bloc, believe Canada should save money,
but not just any which way and at any cost. If, to try to save $250
million, you ask consumers to pay $400 million, what kind of
saving is it? The parliamentary secretary mentioned the fact that
the reaction from the public was very positive, that people were
enthusiastic, and that the $1 coin had become the ever popular
loonie. We were given the impression that the public agreed, and
so did associations and merchants, but this is not the case at all.
12831
The majority of merchant associations and consumer
associations were not consulted. Only a few were consulted, and
some said they felt the government was going too fast.
Consumer and merchant associations remember the costly
introduction of the $1 coin which was not readily accepted by
the public and is not quite entirely accepted yet. Its impact was
not very positive. It took some time to get used to it. Right from
the start, the coin was found to be too heavy, too big, and
unacceptable. This was a mistake.
The consumer and merchant associations I consulted told me
that the government was going too fast. It might make another
mistake and introduce a coin which might be heavier, bigger,
and even less acceptable for the public, and which will be of no
help to the private sector or retail business and will hurt them. It
will cost shopkeepers at least $400 million more to adapt to this
new coin and, in the end, consumers will have to foot the bill.
We have to ask ourselves whose interests the government is
defending? Who exactly are we serving here? For whom do
politicians work? To whom are we accountable? Is the
government taking these measures just to solve some small
problem of its own? By creating this $2 coin, we might be
solving problems only for the Royal Canadian Mint, while
ignoring those of the business people and the population.
(1035)
The parliamentary secretary argued that the Royal Canadian
Mint will have the opportunity to develop an industry and
compete with other similar industries over the world, even sell
$2 coins to the United States maybe. But can he explain why the
Royal Canadian Mint is unable to compete on the international
market right now? Why does it need a $2 coin? We already have
the nickel, dime, quarter, half dollar, and dollar coin; we could
mint 2, 5 and 10 dollar coins for other countries.
Is helping the Royal Canadian Mint compete internationally a
good enough reason to introduce a two dollar coin in Canada,
when in fact, the Royal Mint is quite capable of competing on
the international market as things stand right now? Are we
creating that coin just to please the Royal Canadian Mint?
Should we not first try to find out if the public wants such a
thing? Do shopkeepers and business people want that coin? That
is the question.
Before we implement a change as important as this one, it
seems to me we should get to the bottom of the issue and ask
ourselves who we are supposed to serve. I happen to think we are
here to serve the public. Therefore, before doing anything else,
we should consult the public. We should find out if Canadians
really agree with the introduction of a $2 coin.
The parliamentary secretary says that everybody agrees.
Everyone wants coins, they love the loonie, the ``ever popular
loonie'', as he said. Yet, when you look at the poll which was
conducted, you wonder whether it was not also orchestrated to
please the Royal Canadian Mint.
The were two polls, the one we are interested in was done this
year or at least the results were released this year. In fact, this is
the only poll done this year by Environics, although it was in two
parts. It shows that, deep down, there is a strong reluctance in
the public.
The company did one poll that showed that about 50 per cent
of the people said no, absolutely not, no $2 coin. Another 50 per
cent said maybe, they hesitated. And this was interpreted as a
positive response, 50 per cent said yes.
The parliamentary secretary did not talk about the people who
are against it. Environics redid the poll a second time and talked
to the same 1,000 people-because they only talked to 1,000
people in Sherbrooke, Toronto and Calgary. They repolled the
same 1,000 persons and they told them that the country would be
saving $250 million. That second time, of course, the
acceptance rate jumped to almost 80 per cent. Sure, everybody is
in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
Everybody in Canada wants to save money. Nobody in Canada
would refuse the government a chance to save. But did they take
the time to explain to these people that it will also cost a lot of
money to merchants and consumers? No, they did not take the
time to explain that. They did not take the time to explain the
other possibilities or to do a thorough polling to try to avoid the
mistake made when the $1 coin was introduced. There was a big
mistake made at the time. We know that.
When you look back at the history of our currency, you realize
that there was a very strong opposition to the loonie. People
were saying it was not real money, it was just a piece of metal of
the wrong colour and it was far too big and too heavy.
(1040)
But worst of all, the government did not take the time to
inform the people. It did not launch, let us say, an advertising or
information campaign to explain to citizens the need for this
coin. It could have consulted people and put some effort into
producing a coin that would perhaps be less bulky, lighter and
more original, but it did not do so.
Once a coin is introduced, we are stuck with it for the rest of
our lives. We cannot change it. The same thing can be said of the
loonie. A mistake was made and this is not the ever popular
loonie. Even in Kingston, as in cities everywhere, banks have 50
million loonies in their strongrooms, because this coin is not
circulating. People did not accept it.
12832
Here we are stuck with perhaps 50 million loonies which are
not in circulation, quite a load. Obviously, in Kingston as
elsewhere in the country, we will witness the same reluctance to
use the $2 coin and it is already happening. I sense it myself but
one has only to speak to people in the streets, on the buses and so
on to see that people do not want a $2 coin. People did not accept
the loonie, so why would there not be even greater reluctance to
use a bigger and heavier coin?
Of course such reluctance is normal, because the idea is new.
But if we decide to eliminate the $2 bill, for example, it will be a
new experience too.
The government lacks imagination and vision. It does not take
the time to really think things through. Even if, for some, the
introduction of a $2 coin will not change the world, one has to
take the time to do one's job. The Department of Public Works
certainly did not do its job in this case; besides the minister did
not even bother coming here to defend his bill this morning. Or
rather, the hon. minister is here in spirit, smiling through his
colleagues.
I note, however, certain factors that clearly indicate to me that
the minister is not particularly interested in defending his bill as
I would have liked him to.
Polls which unfortunately are made to serve the interests of
the Royal Canadian Mint, but polls which are also incomplete,
very incomplete, and which repeat the errors of the past, which
do not consider two other alternatives that must be considered,
that the government could consider, with the same regard for
economy and with a greater respect for the general public.
If, for example, the government took a close look at the
situation, maybe it would realize that this is not the right
moment to introduce a $2 coin. Maybe this is not the time.
Maybe we should maintain for some time the current system
with the $2 paper bill. Maybe the timing is not right. Maybe the
retailers do not want to be involved in another change, when
they are already being buffeted by changes in taxation and forms
coming from the government. Another government
requirement, more useless spending by the government. Maybe
this is not the right time. Maybe this is a lack of judgment on the
government's part, bad timing, and if the government really,
sincerely wanted to save money, it could do it elsewhere.
I could suggest many ways to save those $250 million. The
Minister of Public Works could himself abolish the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities agency, something that has been
suggested to him many times, because we know that this agency
spends its money very freely, making gifts to this one and that
one. We read in the newspapers that the minister, who does not
have the best reputation in the government when it comes to his
handouts, could, by abolishing the agency which spends
between $300 million and $500 million every year, have saved a
much greater amount that the savings that we are supposedly
making by issuing a two dollar coin.
(1045)
There are all sorts of reasons and examples that we can give to
encourage the government to save $250 million. Also, there is a
second alternative. First, we can maintain the current situation
and continue for a while, because the timing is bad for
merchants and consumers. The other alternative that the
government did not even consider and that I suggest simply
because I too am interested in savings, is to abolish the two
dollar denomination, whether paper or coin, as was done in the
United States.
In the past-I have a $2 bill, I had a $2 bill in my hand-there
was a $2 bill in the United States. I was in New York when they
abolished it. There was no problem with that. There are no $2
bills any more in the United States. It is not the only country in
the world that has abolished the two dollar bill. The
parliamentary secretary mentioned that a two dollar bill had
been introduced in Great Britain. But that is not true. In Britain,
it was abolished, and several other countries simply abolished
the two dollar denomination.
Some countries did convert it into a coin, but others did not.
The parliamentary secretary seemed to want to mention only
those who converted it into a coin. Many countries have
abolished the two dollar denomination, and if they did, so can
Canada. That could be very well received. It is not as if we
wanted to abolish the 1 cent coin or another denomination
essential to counting money. A $2 bill is not like a cent. To
abolish the cent would have a devastating impact because we
would be abolishing a unit essential to counting money. But the
$2 bill is not essential, for that purpose. The proof of that, I
repeat, is that other countries did it successfully.
That is what I am suggesting to the government. If we kept the
present $2 bill for a while or if we simply removed it for some
time, the government would save more money than by
introducing a $2 coin.
This way, private business would not have to spend another
$400 million to no real puprpose. Municipalities would not be
forced to spend money replacing parking meters, vending
machines, cash registers and all sorts of other business machines
all across Canada. We would save a lot of money, and even the
government would save.
If the government decided to eliminate the $2 bill, it would
still be possible to reintroduce it later, if it was considered a
mistake or if the public did not accept the change. By contrast,
once the $2 coin is introduced, we will already have spent $400
million. The damage will already have been done. If it were
abolished later on because the public did not accept it, the
private sector would still have made unnecessary investments.
Some say that perhaps the timing is wrong, since the
government is considering the introduction of a $5 coin. Some
coun-
12833
tries, Australia for instance, introduced a $5 coin. By the way, in
Australia, the $2 and $5 coins have not been accepted yet.
(1050)
At least the government understood that this is not the right
time to issue a five dollar coin. They have understood that at
least. They say: We may issue a five dollar coin in five or ten
years from now. Why not wait and issue the two coins at the
same time? Why now? What is the hurry? Why impose
unnecessary expenses on the private sector? Why not wait for
technological advances?
As we all know, we live in a rapidly changing society. I, for
one, pay my newspaper with a credit card. I do not use spare
change very often. People, at least in my town, use credit cards
or debit cards issued by their caisses populaires to make
purchases at their convenience store or supermarket. Plastic
may be the way of the future.
New technologies could make currency obsolete a few years
from now. Why should we have a bill which will force
unnecessary expenses on merchants and tax consumers even
more, when we know that in a few years from now technology
will make coins obsolete? I believe this bill shows a lack of
foresight, intelligence and vision.
This government is clumsy. Obviously they have not done
their homework. Even their argument regarding fare boxes in
buses is clumsy. They claim that there will be no more two dollar
bills obstructing fare boxes and that using two one dollar coins
instead will solve the problem.
Some say that, if we eliminate the $2 coin, we will end up with
a lot of small change in our pockets, with many more $1 coins.
We will keep them in our pockets instead of leaving them in the
bank. Obviously, if a $2 coin is introduced, we will have more
change in our pockets anyway. Having one $2 coin is no better
for us than having two $1 coins. What I am saying is that four
quarters are still equal to a dollar, but that in the end we are
forcing shopkeepers to spend considerable amounts.
My government colleagues disagree, arguing that people in
Canada are weak and vulnerable; that they do not know how to
count; that they are used to the $2 bill; that if this bill is
eliminated, they will have trouble counting to two. These
arguments come from the Liberals.
I think that people are smart enough to figure out that one plus
one is two. They do not necessarily need a $2 coin.
Another argument from the government-as the
parliamentary secretary put forward a moment ago-is that this
coin would be a symbol of our national heritage. Just imagine!
Some Liberal members also told me that a Canadian $2 coin
would enhance the Canadian identity and makes us different
from the Americans, who do not have a $2 coin. What an
argument.
The Canadian identity must be pretty fragile if we need a $2
bill to maintain it. That is a pretty weak argument.
The issue of future developments must also be considered.
The parliamentary secretary talked about all the other countries
in the world, listing a few-like England-that have introduced
a $2 coin. He said that England had issued a $2 coin which, in
fact, has been eliminated. He is showing bias in his remarks,
stating that several countries have issued a $2 coin, although a
number of them have eliminated it.
The way of the future is not so clear. Either we eliminate the
two dollar denomination or we introduce a coin. Both examples
can be found in this country. The other way is perhaps to act
prudently and wait for technological developments to see if
credit cards and plastic money could do the job instead.
(1055)
Perhaps now is not the time to make such a change, requiring
business and private enterprise to pay out up to $400 million for
the sole purpose of alleviating a government concern. You know,
many reasons militate against passing this bill, but the main
reason that I would like to call to your attention is the fact that it
was brought forward by the Minister of Public Works, who has
quite a reputation.
The minister has already introduced legislation, namely Bill
C-52, which had to be put off indefinitely because it was flawed.
The minister was trying to introduce through this legislation a
means of competing with private enterprise, in particular with
the Canadian architectural and consulting engineering sector.
There was a general outcry across the country and it was decided
not to go any further with this bill. Bill C-52 was never seen
again.
Perhaps the Minister of Public Works lacks good judgment in
his bills. Here is another example: this ongoing competition
with Canada Post, which competes unfairly with courier
companies. Again, the minister seems to encourage unfair
competition with private enterprise, which goes to show that
this minister does not care very much about the business and
industrial community. This is a minister who has, time and time
again, squandered the taxpayers'money. And the list goes on. If
I had more time, I could give you more examples of how this
particular minister diverts funds, wastes money and does not do
his job, because what we have here is a perfect example of a
minister not doing his job.
We, Bloc members, care about savings and there are great
savings to be made. Perhaps this is not the right time to be
introducing Bill C-82, as it entails major transition costs. This
measure will cost businesses and consumers a bundle, and
introducing a $2 coin will not solve the problem with the $1
coin. We suggest that the government do its job, that is to say put
out feelers to check whether or not the time is right to be
12834
introducing something like this or if other alternatives should be
explored, like eliminating the two-dollar denomination
altogether, which was not done. This should be done because we
stand to save even more by eliminating the two-dollar
denomination.
It would also add an element of flexibility, since a two-dollar
coin could still be introduced in the future, if need be. At least,
this would be a more prudent, economical move. All I have to
say to the Minister of Public Works is: ``Do your job, because
you have not done it so far''.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it being eleven o'clock, we
will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5).
_____________________________________________
12834
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from May 25 to May 28 I will join with constituents of
Annapolis Valley-Hants in celebrating our annual Apple
Blossom Festival.
This celebration signals the end of winter and offers the
promise of a new growing season. Since the first festival in 1933
there have been many changes in apple production. However,
one thing has not changed: the wonderful sight and breathtaking
scent of apple trees in full bloom.
This festival draws people from near and far. It is an
opportunity to showcase the beauty of Annapolis Valley and the
warmth and generosity of the people who live throughout my
riding.
I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating all
the people who volunteer their time to make this event so
special. They should truly be proud of their efforts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind our
colleagues from the maritimes and Ontario that, this year, trade
between Quebec and the rest of Canada will amount to over $70
billion in goods and services. In Ontario, hundreds of thousands
of jobs are tied to exports to Quebec. As for the maritimes, let us
just say that access to the Quebec market accounts for a large
part of their GDP.
Make no mistake about it: the Quebec market is the second
export market for the rest of Canada. Ontario's three largest
private employers, GM, Ford and Chrysler, would really suffer
if they were to suddenly lose the Quebec market, which absorbs
one quarter of their total production.
The federalists' bluff must be denounced. If Quebec becomes
sovereign, no politician from Ontario or the maritimes in this
House would be able to ignore these facts and what they mean
for the economy of their respective ridings. Negotiating the
maintenance of a common economic space will then be a
question of common sense and economic interest for all
partners.
I leave it to the members of this House to draw their own
conclusion.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, every May New Westminster, British Columbia
holds its annual Hyack festival, a Chinook Indian word meaning
``hurry up''. The May day celebration dates back to 1870.
This year marks 125 years of these May day festivities. The
celebration is an important part of Canada's heritage and
continues to be the longest running celebration of its kind in the
British Commonwealth. Children dancing with ribbons around
the maypole, parades, music and fun fill the week.
Dignitaries from many countries including Queen Elizabeth
II have joined the festival in past years which includes marching
bands from across Canada and the United States, as well as
traditional cannon shots in memory of Queen Victoria, done
with two anvils and gun powder between.
The royal city is proud to present the Hyack festival, a symbol
of west coast spirit within the Canadian family of communities.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recent estimates of the size of the underground economy range
from $20 billion to $140 billion per year. Even at the low end of
the range the loss of revenue to Canada is significant enough to
warrant the urgent attention of all Canadians.
When a consumer is offered a lower price in return for a cash
payment and no invoice not only are they condoning tax evasion,
they are also hurting honest taxpayers. Under the table
economic activity creates unfair competition to honest
businesses, resulting in bankruptcies and loss of jobs. It means
lost revenue necessary to sustain health, education and other
essential eco-
12835
nomic and social programs, and it means honest taxpayers must
bear the burden of those who do not pay their fair share.
The preferred approach to reducing the underground economy
is voluntary compliance. Therefore I call on all Canadians to
just say no to tax evaders. If everyone pays their fair share we
will all pay less.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Franco-Ontarian Games take place from May 19 to
22, at the André Laurendeau high school, in Vanier, which is part
of the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality.
Five hundred athletes, artists and performers from 60 Ontario
French speaking high schools, as well as 250 young volunteers
and community leaders are taking part in these games.
For the second year in a row, these games provide young
Franco-Ontarians with an opportunity to come together and
participate in friendly competition. This gathering of young
people reflects the vitality of the French language in Ontario,
while also giving us hope regarding the future of the French fact.
I join the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in congratulating
the organizers of these games and in wishing luck to all
participants.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand in the House today in order to raise an extremely
important but often ignored problem in Canada. Learning
disabilities presently affect between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of
the population, which translates into two or three children in
every classroom. With the proper guidance these Canadians,
with average to above average intelligence, are quite capable of
functioning normally in mainstream society.
Such guidance is increasingly provided by such organizations
as the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. Since 1963
this non-profit volunteer organization has been committed to
the advancement of people with learning disabilities. The
association serves Canadians from coast to coast in more than
140 different communities.
(1105)
It is my pleasure today to recognize the continuing
commitment of this organization in helping citizens afflicted
with this disability. With the aid of this association, Canadians
with learning disabilities will continue to be a vibrant and
productive part of our society well into the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
wonderful world of politics, it is not unusual to see signs of
government posturing after it makes dubious decisions or
budgetary choices that are in the very least debateable.
Yesterday, in a very clumsy attempt to deflect criticism, the
Prime Minister's behaviour was a prime example of this when
he tried to justify the federal grant for the construction of a new
arena in Winnipeg under the pretext that it was needed for the
1999 Pan American Games.
I would like to mention a few facts which should debunk this
myth. First, Winnipeg's designation as host of the games was
not contingent on it building a new arena. Second, the list of
competitive sports featured in 1999 will only be issued in
September 1995, and hockey is never featured at summer
games. Last, an arena with a capacity of 22,000 is not needed for
volleyball competitions: a capacity of 17,000, such as in the
current arena, suffices. So how can the government continue to
maintain that this grant is not an attempt to save the Jets?
People are not stupid. Confronted with these irrefutable facts,
the Prime Minister should have-
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I am now
giving the floor to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
date 81 of 87 members of a Chinese investment delegation who
came to Canada on visitors visas have disappeared and gone
underground. It seems they were well aware of the government's
let them all in immigration policy and the minister's generosity.
Now some of the delegates have turned up to make refugee
claims. Now they are entitled to free health care, welfare and
lawyers at taxpayers' expense.
This episode should serve as a warning. Next year the
immigration minister in his infinite wisdom will be issuing
visas and the health minister will be handing out $1 million to
bring to Canada 500 AIDS sufferers from the third world to
attend a conference in Vancouver.
12836
Since AIDS sufferers have been granted refugee status
already in Canada, the question is not if some of the 500 AIDS
sufferers will jump ship and make a refugee claim, but how
many.
I call on the government to use a little common sense. Enforce
the law. Do not give visitors visas when Canadian safety is at
stake.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Thursday, May 25, is missing children's day. Every
year in Canada police receive thousands of reports of missing
children. The overwhelming majority of these cases, about
45,000, are runaway children. Too frequently these runaway
children turn to the streets and engage in delinquent activities as
a means of support. This makes them extremely vulnerable to
further violence and exploitation while on the streets.
A cornerstone of the federal government's efforts to protect
Canadian children is the RCMP's missing children's registry. In
operation since 1986, the registry is the major source of
computerized information on missing children in Canada. It
supports the efforts of Canadian and international police and
concerned agencies in the search and recovery of missing
children.
The RCMP has also joined forces with National Revenue
Canada and citizenship and immigration in a joint initiative
called ``Our Missing Children''. This partnership has resulted in
a significant increase in the recovery and safe return of missing
children here and abroad.
Protecting our children is a collective responsibility.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May 22 to May 26 is Aboriginal Awareness Week. The goal of
this week is to heighten public awareness of the aboriginal
culture and to honour its contribution to Canadian society.
[English]
In keeping with the spirit of this event I am pleased to inform
the House that last April marked the 3rd anniversary of the
implementation of the federal government's first nation
policing policy. The policy provides a practical way to improve
the level and quality of policing services for first nation
communities through the establishment of policing agreements.
[Translation]
As of May 1, Canada and the provinces had reached and
signed 41 tripartite agreements with First Nations communities.
[English]
These agreements represent concrete progress and
partnership at work among First Nations, the government and
our provincial counterparts. I am sure all Canadians will join me
in celebrating aboriginal awareness week and congratulating the
Solicitor General of Canada for the ongoing success of the First
Nations policing policy.
[Translation]
I would invite all hon. members to acknowledge the
contributions of aboriginal people, which are all too often
ignored by the official opposition.
* * *
(1110)
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ``brotherhood of Bloc intolerance'' welcomed a
new member into the brood yesterday. It took him a few weeks to
do it, but the Bloc member for Chambly has joined ranks with
his colleagues, the Bloc members for Louis-Hébert and
Chicoutimi, who are demanding that newcomers to Quebec be
denied the right to vote because they fear that they will impede
Quebec's independence.
In fact, the hon. member insinuated that Quebec's
immigrants, who have contributed to the province's economic
and social development for years, do not have the same rights as
those Quebecers whose ancestors were among the first settlers.
This tendency among Quebec separatists to create different
classes of citizens based on their language or their cultural
origins cannot be tolerated and must be emphatically
condemned.
Quebecers do not want to create an independent Quebec
which promotes discrimination and racism.
* * *
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister said smugly that if Quebec City did not receive
federal funding to build a new arena it was because its separatist
mayor had decided to spend the money on something else.
Once again, the Prime Minister is so intent on putting
sovereignists in their place that he simply forgets the facts.
Construction of a convention centre in Quebec City was a first
and foremost a promise by the provincial Liberals that came to
fruition only because of the insistent lobbying by the Prime
Minister's current chief of staff and the present Minister of
12837
Foreign Affairs, in other words, because another Liberal
government got involved. The Prime Minister ought to know as
well that Quebec City is not investing a single penny in the
construction of this convention centre, which is being financed
strictly by the Government of Quebec and the government in
Ottawa.
Finally, I will repeat what was said by Mayor L'Allier and I
quote: ``We are penalized for not showing the flag. This is
hardly what I would call democratic, and the real republic-''
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are continuing to seriously bungle the finances of the
country, thereby threatening health care, welfare and
post-secondary education. Unbelievably, they are to give $20
million to the Winnipeg Jets professional hockey team with its
multi-million dollar, fast skating stick handlers.
The Manitoba Entertainment Complex applied to Revenue
Canada for special tax status which will allow it to create some
form of a crown owned entity which would be eligible to give
instant tax receipts. Canada's tax gathering system means every
Canadian will be supporting the Winnipeg Jets professional
hockey team. This is an unconscionable use of tax deductions.
I call on the revenue minister to immediately shoot down this
ridiculous Jets plan. The Liberals have stick handled their way
into a hat trick with their $20 million for the Jets, private luxury
boxes, new digs for the athletes and now tax deductions for
supporters. The result is penalties to the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
aboriginal groups from across the country have made
presentations regarding their concerns about Bill C-68, the
firearms legislation.
The James Bay Cree and the Council for Yukon Indians have
presented well documented briefs which illustrate the
government did not initiate the required consultation process on
this legislation. The onus was on these two groups to hold the
government accountable for the agreements which have been
made.
Given the CYI agreements were proclaimed in February of
this year, it is quite shocking that barely four months later the
Minister of Justice had not complied with certain aspects of the
agreements.
While these agreements are between two parties, it is
inevitably the First Nations that are expected to ensure
compliance with even constitutionally entrenched agreements.
Is it any wonder there is a high degree of mistrust of the federal
government by aboriginal peoples?
The Inuit-Tapirisat, the AFN and the Metis have all presented
their concerns. The minister has said he will consult. What he
has not said is what he will do to meet these specific concerns.
The minister has both a legal and a moral obligation to be
forthright and address these issues today.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
after listening to last night's Ontario leaders debate, there is no
question Lyn McLeod is the best choice for premier of Ontario.
She showed she has the intelligence and the integrity for the job
and the determination to do what needs to be done. With her
action plan she has the ability to achieve it.
(1115 )
Bob Rae was consistently put on the defensive by McLeod
over his dismal economic record. He failed completely to live up
to his billing as a champion debater.
Mike Harris failed to gain any ground, and the Liberal leader
was successful at proving that Harris could not defend his
unbelievable 30 per cent tax cuts. He failed to show himself as a
potential leader of the province.
Lyn McLeod used the debate to sell her plan to Ontarians. She
focused on the issue of jobs and highlighted the specifics of how
her government will create these jobs.
McLeod won the debate and the respect of Ontario voters
looking for credibility. She proved that her plan and her team
can capably guide the economy in these challenging times. She
will win the election on June 8 and restore growth and prosperity
to Ontario.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last night in the debate among the party leaders
running in the Ontario election campaign, we again had the
pleasure of listening to Lyn McLeod, leader of the Liberal Party
of Ontario.
With great eloquence and sincerity, she showed that she is
ready to take over the reins of the government in Ontario. Her
style, clear and forthright, reflects her firm resolve to serve the
people of Ontario.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lyn McLeod is worthy of
representing her fellow citizens. A few weeks from now,
Ontarians will at last be free and unencumbered by the savage
12838
constraints of socialism à la Bob Rae. At last they will be able to
put their trust in their leaders.
_____________________________________________
12838
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the context of the announcement of $20 million in direct
assistance to the Winnipeg Jets, Izzy Asper, the head of a group
of businessmen trying to acquire the hockey team, has
confirmed that discussions on federal funding for the Jets have
been going on for a long time.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm Mr. Asper's
statement that discussions have been going on for a while
between the federal government and the promoters trying to
save the Winnipeg Jets?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the
member is mistaken. There is no direct assistance for the Jets.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pardon
me if I laugh. Answers like that are a laugh for everyone.
Yesterday, the President of Treasury Board confirmed having
found funding for the Winnipeg Jets with the cancellation of a
$35 million highway contract. In the meantime, however, the
Prime Minister was stating in this House that the funding had
come from the cancellation of a series of small projects worth $3
million, under the infrastructure program.
My question is simple and straightforward and, I am hoping
for an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Would she tell us
clearly which projects were cancelled to pay for the
government's $20 million subsidy to the Winnipeg Jets?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very specific
project that was referred to was a $30 million overpass near a
CN mainline, and the member will know that the overpass
project was opposed by many constituents. I personally received
letters as Minister of the Environment in opposition to the
project. The decision was made by the local community not to
proceed with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
owners of the Winnipeg Jets will decide next Thursday whether
the franchise will remain in Winnipeg. The federal government,
for its part, yesterday agreed to pay $20 million toward the
construction of the new arena the Jets need.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the federal
government's funding is conditional on the Jets' remaining in
Winnipeg or whether it will still be provided to build a
22,000-seat arena even if the Jets leave Winnipeg?
(1120)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in putting the
infrastructure system in place, we gave municipalities and
provinces the option of making their own decisions.
We do not agree with the comments by the Leader of the
Opposition, Lucien Bouchard, who has a hard time believing
that Ottawa would spend public funds to refloat a hockey team.
In his opinion, the federal government would be wrong to invest
in Quebec City or in Winnipeg.
We do not agree with this approach, because we feel that, if
the mayor of Quebec City chooses a project, he should be
entitled to proceed with his choice. This is why we agreed to
fund the infrastructure program in Winnipeg, just as we did in
Quebec City.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister of Canada seems to be the only
one not to know that she has just given the Winnipeg Jets $20
million. The premier of Manitoba and the mayor of Winnipeg
both are not hiding the fact that they want to save the Jets
franchise.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister put $20 million in a
22,000-seat arena for the Winnipeg Jets, without any business
plan, whereas, last year, the attendance figure per game was
12,500 on the average and the team has lost $30 million over the
past four years?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did what people in
Winnipeg and Manitoba wanted, just as we did when we decided
to fund the congress centre in Quebec City, at the request of
Mayor L'Allier who said, and I quote: ``The congress centre has
been a regional priority for the past ten years. Economic
spin-offs are proven. We cannot sideline the centre which, year
after year, employs thousands of people in the hotel and catering
industry, for some infrastructure this area does not need, but
which is needed by one company to survive here. This is the
reason why I cannot support Marcel Aubut's approach''. This is
exactly what the mayor of Quebec City said.
We respect Quebec City's decision to spend money on a
congress centre, just as we respect the wish of people in
Winnipeg to spend infrastructure money on an arena.
12839
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
why is the Deputy Prime Minister refusing to admit that the
federal government uses double standards when it deals with
Quebec? Indeed, when asked to come to the rescue of MIL
Davie-the industry minister knows this well-and its
thousands of workers, who do not skate for one million dollars a
year, the government demands to see a business plan, but when it
comes to the Winnipeg Jets, the money is paid without
conditions or guarantees.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we respect the will of
cities to make their own economic decisions. Quebec City chose
a congress centre and received $25 million from the federal
government.
Similarly, Winnipeg chose to build an arena to promote
economic development; this is why we are giving this city its
fair share, just as we gave it to Quebec city for its congress
centre, the first project awarded under the infrastructure
program.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hockey fans and businesses in Winnipeg deserve a great deal of
credit. They have come together and are well on their way to
keeping the Jets in Winnipeg and in Canada.
What I have to question, however, is why infrastructure
money is being used to build luxury boxes and to subsidize a
professional hockey team. This program was supposed to
improve sewer systems and make Canadian highways safer.
Instead, it is going toward boccie courts, the Calgary
Saddledome millionaire club, and the Peter Pocklington bottom
line. The infrastructure program is a failure.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister justify Manitoba's
reallocation of infrastructure funding?
(1125 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): In the same way we justified the
decision by the city of Calgary to finance infrastructure funding
for the Saddledome.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister is quite right that it is up to the province
or the city and they make their request. However, the issue is
why the infrastructure program is designed in such a way as to
make hockey arenas, museums, and other sports facilities a
legitimate expense.
Canada's sewers and roadways are deteriorating. It will cost
taxpayers billions of dollars to replace them. Infrastructure that
benefits the maximum number of taxpayers should be the goal,
not political gain.
Where will the money come from for the real infrastructure
spending that will be required?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the
member for Calgary, the city that hosted the Olympics, and the
world had an opportunity to see his great city, is now saying that
infrastructure is a bad investment.
Infrastructure in sports is also about nation building. That is
why I am sure he would not want to turn his back on the
infrastructure spending that paved the way for the Calgary
Olympics, nor would he want to turn his back on the
infrastructure spending that made it possible for the
Saddledome.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, true
infrastructure spending is fine, but direct subsidies to the private
sector are not fine. The taxpayers are against that.
We learned yesterday that the save the Jets group in Winnipeg
is considering applying for charitable status. That would make
every donation tax deductible, and then tax weary Canadians
would be picking up even more of the tab. The Minister of
National Revenue said it was out of the question. However, the
Manitoba Entertainment Centre applied for charitable status six
weeks ago. Since the Jets have received so much government
money and will be receiving more now, they should consider
renaming themselves the Winnipeg Challenger Jets.
Will either the Deputy Prime Minister or the representative of
revenue and taxation assure the House and Canadians that the
Jets and their supporters will not receive charitable status?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member exhibits
what I hope is an unintentional misunderstanding of the
infrastructure program. He says there are direct subsidies. There
are no direct subsidies.
What we have done for Winnipeg is exactly the same thing we
did for Calgary at the request of the former mayor of Calgary,
Premier Ralph Klein, who endorsed the Saddledome funding.
Frankly, I did not see the member for Calgary stand up and
complain about the Calgary Olympics; he did not stand up and
complain about the Calgary Saddledome. Heavens, he should
not stand up and complain about the Winnipeg arena, which is
going to permit a Canadian national institution to stay in
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that $5 million out of the
$20 million spent on saving the Winnipeg Jets came from the
Pan American Games budget. Yet, no event featured in these
games requires a 22,000 seat arena.
12840
Since no event featured in the Pan American Games requires
building a 22,000 seat arena, will the Deputy Prime Minister
admit that, by taking $5 million from the federal contribution to
the Pan American Games and giving it to the Winnipeg Jets, the
government is in fact misappropriating public funds?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, just as we will
accept the decisions made by the Québec 2002 committee as to
the need for a renewed infrastructure, should that city be
selected, we accept the decision made by the Pan American
Games committee to set aside $5 million, precisely because it
wanted to put in place the infrastructure required for future Pan
American Games in Canada. We respect the committee's
decision, just as we will respect those of the Québec 2002
committee.
(1130)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's response makes no sense. This is
appalling.
Since Winnipeg hosted the Pan American Games in 1967 and
has just been selected as host of the 1999 games, in particular
because it already has all the facilities required, why does the
Deputy Prime Minister refuse to admit that the Prime Minister
was the first to authorize the misappropriation of $5 million
solely to serve the political interests of the human resources
development minister, who is the person responsible for
Manitoba and the member for Winnipeg South Centre?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find
unfortunate and dishonest-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: -about the opposition's stance is their claim that
what we did for Winnipeg, we are not willing to do in other
cases.
We simply respected Quebec City's decision, which was
supported twice by Mayor Jean-Paul L'Allier, to build a
convention centre in order to promote its economic
development.
In the same way, we have accepted the request made by the
City of Winnipeg and the Manitoba government, which feel that
this infrastructure is important to Winnipeg's economic
development.
If you agree with the principle that Quebec City is free to
make its own decisions, why do you not accept it for other
cities?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I must remind you that you
should always address the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to set
the record straight for the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon.
member for Calgary Centre publicly denounced the government
for the misuse of infrastructure funds on the Saddledome in
Calgary. To bring him into it is absolutely unfair and uncalled
for.
I want to continue to shed light on the Liberals' bailout of the
Winnipeg professional hockey team. She did not answer the
question. The Manitoba entertainment complex has asked for
charitable status. Will she, on behalf of her government,
unequivocally state that the government will not give the
Manitoba entertainment complex or any organization related to
this unconscionable bailout charitable status?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no bailout.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
ask the question again. Will the Deputy Prime Minister
unequivocally state on behalf of her government that there will
be no special status, no further tax grab from the Canadian
wallet?
Is there anything she does not understand about my question?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
basic premise of the member's question is false. There is no
bailout of any hockey team.
I am astonished the Reform Party, which swept into office in
western Canada on the wave of allowing people to have their say
locally, is now prepared to turn its back on the local initiative of
the city of Winnipeg that sees this is a priority. Who are you-
(1135 )
The Speaker: In the heat of rhetoric we sometimes get carried
away but I am feeling awfully lonely. Please address your
remarks to the Chair.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Mr. Gauthier: Perhaps we will finally get an answer.
Mr. Loubier: Since he itabled his budget on February 27, the
Minister of Finance keeps repeating that, next year, the cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces will represent only a $350
million shortfall for Quebec, mocking the $650 million figure
put forward by the official opposition.
Yesterday however, in his testimony before the finance
committee, Bill Murphy, a senior official at the Department of
12841
Finance, assessed this shortfall at $625 million, which is very
close to the amount put forward by the official opposition.
In light of the statements made by finance officials, does the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs still maintain, as his
colleague from finance does, that cuts in the Canada social
transfer will translate into a $350 million shortfall for Quebec in
1996-97, and not $650 million as suggested by the official
opposition?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are three factor affecting transfers to the
Province of Quebec: equalization payments, tax points and cash
payments.
When Bloc members or the Parti Quebecois finance minister
quote an amount of approximately $650 million, they are not
taking into account tax points or equalization payments, or both.
I repeat that the exact shortfall figure, when you factor in the
reduced transfers to Quebec and these three sources, is only
$350 million.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has control over its cash
transfers to the provinces and those are the transfers that were
cut back in the last budget. These cuts total $650 million for
Quebec. The federal government's own officials said so
yesterday. They are the ones who brief the Minister of Finance
and they should brief this government.
Why does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs persist in
denying the facts, if not to conceal from Quebec until after the
referendum the true extent of Ottawa's cuts to social program
funding? The shortfall will reach $650 million next year.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one cannot conceal the truth by playing with
figures. It was clearly set out in the agreements negotiated by
the federal government and the provinces-read them-that
transfers to Quebec would be in the form of tax points and cash
payments.
Also, equalization payments are not freebies given for one
reason or another to the provinces. These payments are made to
have-not provinces, so that all the provinces, rich or poor, can
offer comparable levels of public services. Consider that more
than 60 per cent of provincial expenditures are social
expenditures. So, equalization payments are clearly part and
parcel of the transfers designed to fund social programs.
Logic demands that the three types of transfers be taken into
account in determining that the shortfall is only $350 million.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry thinks that highly paid CEOs set a bad
example for ordinary Canadian workers. I think I have heard it
all now.
The minister is eligible to receive $1.5 million in pension
payments in a plan that is three times more generous than the
best private sector plans. What kind of an example does he think
this sends to the ordinary Canadian workers who are paying for
it?
(1140 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to explain exactly the point I made in a
speech I gave to the Canadian Association of Family Enterprises
last week.
At this stage in our economic cycle when corporate profits are
recovering, which is a very good sign, it is time for Canadians to
continue to invest in further productivity gains and further
competitiveness as we had through the economic cycle.
We have been very successful in gaining competitive points
vis-a-vis the rest of the world although much of it has
unfortunately been based on our exchange rate. We need to
continue to save and continue to invest.
Canadians from coast to coast have lived on no increase in
family income on average over the past 10 years. They will be
asked by their corporate leaders to continue to keep their belts
tight as federal public servants have and as all members of the
House of Commons have by not taking a wage increase in over
five years. The time is not yet to start raising wages. The time is
now to continue to invest and save.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
respectively suggest that the minister and the government
should save their managerial advice for the companies that
managed to lose over $35 billion last year.
I wonder what business the government and the minister think
they have commenting on the issue of private compensation
when yesterday the government, in alliance with the separatists,
decided that it would refuse to hear testimony from private
citizens, from private organizations and from ordinary
taxpayers on the issue of MP pensions.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think one point needs to be made very clearly. I made
the point in the interview I gave based on that speech. I really do
not have any particular interest in what any CEO is paid. I am
not a shareholder of any of the companies.
12842
However what is clear is that Canada stands poised to succeed
very well on issues of competitiveness in the world. Now is the
time for us to continue to save and invest.
This man wants to talk about pensions. That is all they really
think about. I will tell him something. When we deal with issues
of compensation in the House, let us talk about what it costs
many people to be here as well. Let us cost out what the forgone
opportunities are. Then we will put everybody on an even
footing.
At the same time let us also recognize that members come to
Ottawa to serve their constituents often at great cost to
themselves and their families. We are looking for a recipe for
continuing competitiveness in the world. In that way we will
benefit all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Once again, the minister has refused to grant entry visas to
three Algerian actors scheduled to participate in the Theatre
Festival of the Americas, in Montreal. At the same time, we
have learned that Mr. Abdennour who, according to the
Quebec-Algeria committee, is a lawyer close to the Islamic
salvation front, was granted a visa by the Canadian embassy, in
Paris.
How does the Minister of Immigration explain the fact that a
person close to the Islamic salvation front can come to Canada
without any problems, while Algerian actors who denounce
torture and fundamentalism cannot do so?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken
because the minister has refused no visitor visa to anyone. The
visitor visa is done on a processed basis. It should be done fairly
and not with any favouritism to anyone regardless of
background.
There are a million applications for visitor visas. Surely the
member does not expect a minister or a government to be
interventionist with visitor visa applications easily and loosely.
Eighty-five per cent of all applications are approved.
There is a process in place that if a visitor visa is refused, the
remedy is to reapply and try to address some of the concerns.
The member should know one of the three actors has gone to the
embassy today to make such a formal reapplication. The other
two actors have not seen fit to go back.
We should allow the individuals to do as they please, rather
than to force the issue and play politics on the backs of a visitor
visa program.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's explanations, but this is not the first
time that such a situation has occurred.
Given the obvious incompetence of his departmental officials
at the Canadian embassy in Paris, who make surprising
decisions almost on a daily basis, will the minister tell them to
shape up, so as to put a stop to these errors in judgment, which
have become too frequent?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, his leader used to be a
Canadian ambassador to France, situated in Paris. It was under
his leader's jurisdiction as well that some visitor visa
applications coming through France were accepted, some were
refused, and some were reviewed. That was the process when his
leader used to be a Canadian ambassador in France. That
continues to be the process today.
What I would suggest is that the situation in Algeria, by no
means easy or by no means orderly, should be solved by the
international community. What I would suggest to the hon.
member, however, is that to utilize a visitor visa program for any
one country is not the solution and it would jeopardize our
visitor visa program internationally.
There is a way to deal with refugee crises. There is a way to
deal with how to utilize a country's forces to address a
destabilized area. That solution, however, does not lie in a
visitor visa program.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question deals with international trade.
A recent study by the accounting firm KPMG has indicated
that cheaper labour, cheaper benefits, and a cheaper dollar make
Canada a very competitive place in which to do business, more
competitive in fact than the United States.
Would the minister please tell the House what this study
means to Canadian workers, to Canadian business, and to
Canada's role in the global community?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): The report to which the hon. member for Hillsborough
refers substantiates the conclusions of similar studies in the
recent past that have emphasized Canada's highly competitive
position in the global marketplace. Thanks to a number of
12843
measures that have been taken, including such factors as payroll
and benefits, material and energy inputs, taxes, research and
development costs, and distribution costs, as the report notes,
Canada has become increasingly competitive.
I would want to emphasize that in creating jobs through such
international competitiveness, the principal factor that is going
to play in the future is the excellent budget the Minister of
Finance brought down, which will increase further Canada's
competitiveness.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
phone lines have been lighting up in my office in Ottawa and in
my constituency over the Ebola virus. People believe that they
are not being protected by their own government. They are
frustrated with the health minister's non-answers to direct
questions.
Now that we have the minister in a forum where she cannot
run away, I ask the minister why she chose to withhold
information from Canadians regarding the number of people
who have been detained at Pearson because they were suspected
of carrying the Ebola virus.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no information has been withheld. We have been quite
straightforward about describing the two individuals.
The first individual arrived in Toronto. It had been three
weeks since he had been in Zaire. The period of incubation had
passed. The gentleman was nevertheless examined by a
physician and was found to be in very good health.
The second individual arrived in Toronto. He claimed that his
mother had died after visiting Kikwit. He has been detained, is
under quarantine. Nevertheless, he is in good health and has no
signs of illness.
These are the facts.
(1150 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is the same kind of babble we heard yesterday.
Canadians need to know if they have a Minister of Health and
a Minister of Immigration who have the wherewithal to take
direct proactive measures to protect the health of Canadians.
There is a simple solution to all of this. Will the immigration
minister put Canadians' minds at ease by stopping the threat at
the source? Will he place a temporary moratorium on visitors'
visas from Zaire and surrounding regions until this disease is
safely contained there?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this member of
Parliament irresponsible in the way he is trying to exploit the
situation.
What the member should do is take a page from the health
critic of the Reform Party, who yesterday said-and he is a
doctor-that the government's action and approach to dealing
with this dilemma were ``sensible''.
Today instead we have the immigration critic, who is not a
doctor and not responsible or respectful of what his colleague
said, saying his phone is lighting up and things are on the
downslide. You are fearmongering, that is what you are doing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Following a review of all outside research contracts awarded
by the Department of Natural Resources in the last five years,
we came to some pretty damning conclusions. Our study
indicates that Quebec research centres and companies got only
10 per cent of these contracts.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact the
Quebec gets less than half of its fair share of those outside
research and development contracts?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. Obviously, we are not responsible for
the contracts awarded by the previous Conservative
government. Obviously, we are not responsible for the funds
allocated in the last five years.
We will of course try to direct our grants on the basis of need.
For example, a national pulp and paper centre was set up in
Montreal, because that is where most of the interest and the
technology in that field can be found. I do not think we will start
to allocate funds according to regional development. We should
instead spend the money where the expertise is, such as for
mining in Abitibi and PAPRICAN in Montreal.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again, the Deputy Prime Minister just sold us a bill of goods.
The Minister of National Defence said recently that he could
not afford to be fair to Quebec in terms of the distribution of his
department's spending. Are we to understand that the Deputy
Prime Minister is in the same position and has neither the will
nor the means to be fair to Quebec?
12844
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where some of these people get their quotes. I never said
that at all. I would never say that.
I was pointing out a situation in which certain expenditures
are made across the country. Certain installations are built
across the country as a result of historic circumstances. To imply
that there was something discriminatory in this is completely
outrageous.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment.
The government has legislation ready to be tabled in this
House that would ban the importation of MMT, a gasoline
enhancer. The ban is based solely on evidence provided by only
one of the two vested groups, namely the Motor Vehicles
Manufacturers' Association.
The minister stated in the House on May 5 that ``any cabinet
decision to move on MMT is supported by all ministers of the
government''.
(1155 )
By making this ban, is the minister setting a precedent of bias
for the process of decision making for all the industries within
the purview of government, including natural resources?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is for the same minister.
By banning MMT her government is supporting the claims
and data brought forward by only the MVMA. This must mean
that the contrary scientific data from Ethyl Corporation is false
and incorrect.
What conclusive information does the minister have that
discredits the data provided by Ethyl Corporation that would
cause the government to side with the MVMA and thereby
perhaps place the environment at greater risk?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member has thought of a
different use for the product we all buy at the pumps. Perhaps he
has. I am not sure what it is. The last time I checked, most of it
goes into motor vehicles.
He will know that Canada has benefited very well from the
fact that there is a very strong continental market in motor
vehicles. We produce about 17 per cent of the North American
production and we only consume about 8 per cent. That benefits
us very directly in terms of jobs and economic growth.
The vehicles that are being produced use the product at the
pumps. It should have come to his attention that the new cars
require fuel without MMT. If he would like to have his
constituents purchasing vehicles that either cost a lot more or
have their diagnostic systems unplugged, then he ought to be in
support of keeping the MMT in the fuel. But until we find some
other use for it-and perhaps he breathes it, I do not know-we
have to have continental standards in fuel.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Aboriginal groups have criticized Bill C-68, the minister's
gun control legislation. As a treaty and First Nations member,
these criticisms are of great concern to me and I take them very
seriously.
Treaties form the fundamental relationship that exists
between the First Nations and the Government of Canada.
Treaty rights are recognized and protected under the Canadian
Constitution. Will the minister tell the House and assure the
aboriginal people of Canada that Bill C-68 will not take away,
abrogate, or derogate these treaty rights?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of
this government to treat all Canadians fairly in connection with
this legislation. We also are very much aware that aboriginal
people have both aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, and we
intend to respect them.
I learned for myself as I travelled the length and breadth of the
country last year and visited aboriginal communities how
firearms are often treated as a tool and how their use is very
much a part of their way of life.
The way we responded to this need is through consultation.
Just after the action plan was tabled in the House last November
30, some 690 letters went out with copies of the plan to the
aboriginal leadership across Canada. We wrote again to those
same 690 leaders of aboriginal communities early this year. We
followed up, with the help of about 70 of them, in assembling
one of the most comprehensive and unprecedented consultation
processes known to the government. In nine regions of Canada
we are meeting with representatives of rural, urban, on reserve
and off reserve aboriginal persons. In the coming months we
will conclude that very direct and personal discussion process to
determine how this bill can be implemented in a manner that is
sensitive to the reality of aboriginal lifestyles, culture, and
treaty rights. We will then prepare regulations, which will be
12845
sent in draft form for comment to those same people. We will
then table them in the House for the 30-day review.
We intend to comply with our obligations and respect the
rights to which the hon. member has referred.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is a shame that almost two years after having been
elected, the government has not yet amended the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Will the Minister of Justice have the courage and the sense of
responsibility to table amendments to the Canadian Human
Rights Act before the end of this session?
(1200)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is not an issue is
the commitment of the government to the changes in the human
rights act to which the hon. member has referred.
I must tell the hon. member today, as I have in the past, that
commitment remains unchanged. We have long recognized the
need to amend the human rights act as he has suggested, not only
to add sexual orientation as a ground upon which discrimination
is prohibited but in a variety of other important ways. This is to
bring that act up to date to reflect improvements that have been
introduced in provincial legislation on the same subject, to meet
the needs identified by the chief commissioner of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, and to fulfil commitments the
government has made. We will indeed proceed with those
changes.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently a program on Manitoba television, which
included an interview with the department of Indian affairs
supervisor in Manitoba, identified that the Jackhead Band had
misspent money, cheques had been forged and the RCMP were
investigating the disappearance of over $70,000 for house
construction. This situation has placed individual band
members in very tough financial circumstances. The department
of Indian affairs has exhibited no interest in their welfare.
What has the minister done to ensure these abuses will be
rectified and to obtain reimbursement of these moneys?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of what is
going on in Jackhead. This is under review by the department. I
am pleased the hon. member has risen today because he has not
risen in a week. Usually I find all 10 of his toes do not touch the
ground.
Last Friday, this hon. member made an allegation against the
member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. I thought today this
hon. member would stand up and withdraw. He said the hon.
member was honoured by the chiefs and he was in a conflict
position. Not only was he not honoured but it was not a conflict.
I would have thought that if he wanted work to progress with
aboriginal people, he would take Fridays and speak about the
dignity and respect we are supposed to bring to aboriginal
people, not bring unjust accusations which he usually does on
Fridays.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
North American security is threatened more on the
environment than on any other front. Now the U.S. clean water
act and the clean air act are under attack. We learned that the
U.S. House of Representatives has diluted the clean water act
making it easier for industry to continue polluting the Great
Lakes with airborne dioxins and furans.
What effect could these amendments have on Canada? What
action is being taken to ensure the Great Lakes water quality
agreement is upheld?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the member
has underlined a very serious concern. If the proposed
amendments that have passed the House of Representatives
proceed through the Senate without amendment, they will gut
the current provisions of an international agreement which
affects the drinking water of 50 million people on both sides of
the border.
The member will know the single largest international body of
water is the Great Lakes. We do not intend to allow the Great
Lakes water quality agreement to be watered down. We have
been in touch with the office of the president.
Today I myself have contacted by letter the administrator
responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency. We have
also been in contact with Ambassador Blanchard by way of
letter in advance of the decision of Congress.
We are going to do everything we can to ensure the
amendments put forth by Congress do not see the light of day.
We do not want to put Canadians' health and the environment at
risk, which would be the effect of accepting these amendments.
12846
The Speaker: That would bring to a conclusion the question
period. I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon.
member for Elk Island which I will hear now.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
over one and one-half years since I was elected as a new member
to this most important Chamber in the country. I came here full
of hope and anticipation of what the democratic process would
be. The breach of privilege of which I speak today is such a
severe aberration and breach of the most fundamental premises
of democracy that I am really sorry I have to raise it.
(1205 )
I also recognize that what I am going to say is important. I
realize your position, Mr. Speaker, is of tremendous importance
here. In your office and in your person lies the ability to
maintain the very basic premise of democracy and the rules
under which it operates. I am asking today not only for your
ruling, but also for your guidance because of my deep concerns.
I want to specifically give the reasons for my complaint. I was
a substitute authorized member of the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons on Tuesday
and Wednesday. I know, Mr. Speaker, you heard one question of
privilege already and you ruled on that, but my problem is a
different one and much more serious. It has to do with the
conducting of a vote in that committee.
Specifically, this is what happened. Our party moved an
amendment. When the chairman of the committee called for the
vote, we said yea. There was not a single nay heard. The
chairman ruled that the motion had been defeated. Now that is so
fundamental it is not even in the rule book. It is assumed in a
democracy that when everybody who casts a vote says yea and
the chairman says that it has been defeated that it is a flagrant
and violent abuse of democracy such as we cannot tolerate if we
want to maintain our system.
The chairman declared that motion defeated and of course I
immediately challenged the chair. When I did that, the chairman
of the committee said that his ruling would stand. I objected and
the chairman then invoked the rules of order which ask for the
majority of the people in the committee to decide if the ruling of
the chair stands. The Liberal majority woke up and they
faithfully fell into line and supported the ruling of the chair. I
could not accept that.
This was such a serious aberration that I told the chairman he
could not do that. He said he could. I suppose I should have
apologized at that stage for becoming a little upset, but to me
this was such a violent attack on the democratic process. I then
moved to report this incident to the Speaker because it was my
understanding that such an issue could not come to you unless it
was reported by the committee. I may be wrong here and I have
some reasons for considering that I may be wrong, but that was
my understanding at the time.
I moved the motion that this be reported, but the chairman
would not accept the motion and ruled it out of order. I told the
chairman it could not be out of order. He then proceeded to ask if
the ruling of the chair was sustained and the majority of the
members present said yes. Now that is unbelievable. I cannot
accept that.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that this be corrected. There
must be some things the committee does not have 100 per cent
autonomy to do. It cannot by vote alter the truth. This is a
democratic tradition that has been upheld for so long that an
arbitrary rule of a motion defeated when in fact it has passed
cannot be accepted.
If the majority of members were not paying attention and did
not vote when they should have, just wishing that they would
have been awake does not give them any justification for using
their majority to override the previous vote. Only a person who
voted on the side that won the vote can move a motion to
reconsider. That was not done in this case. The chairman
arbitrarily and incorrectly declared the vote lost and the
members were not paying attention and chimed into his defence.
This is so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I appeal to you that some
corrective action be taken. As I said in my preamble, I do require
your assistance as well as your ruling because I want to know
how to handle this. This cannot be accepted by this Parliament,
the highest court of the land, as such a serious aberration of the
democratic process.
(1210 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with great respect for the comments the hon. member
has made, there is a procedure for dealing with this matter. With
the greatest respect, I think the hon. member ought to follow that
accepted procedure.
The same point was raised in the House yesterday. Your
Honour very properly ruled that there was not a question of
privilege before the House because no report had been received
from the committee.
I think the hon. member is confused, again with great respect
to him, because I know he is trying to raise a very serious
concern. He misunderstood the import of Your Honour's ruling
yesterday, which was that this cannot be brought before the
House until there is a report from the committee. By that
statement I think he is inferring that there must be a report on the
incident from the committee or else he cannot raise the matter.
12847
I suggest that is not what Your Honour ruled or intended and it
is not in accordance with the practice of the House. I refer the
hon. member and Your Honour to citation 894 of Beauchesne's
6th edition. I will read paragraphs (1) and (3) under the citation:
(1) Until the report and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence have been
laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions
in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
Then I will skip to (3).
If alleged irregular proceedings take place in committee but are not referred
to in the report that the committee presented to the House, then it is not
competent for the House to go beyond that report to debate this matter.
The hon. member can clearly raise it in the House at the time
the report comes. Whether it will be debated, he can raise it and
ask Your Honour to rule. Certainly, there will be some indication
in a report if there was a vote taken that something happened.
There will be minutes of the proceedings of the committee
indicating there was an appeal from the ruling of the chairman.
That will be reported in the minutes of the committee and that
will come to the House.
All those things will be reported in there. The hon. member
will be able to debate those and comment on them in the House
and raise his question of privilege, if indeed there is a question
of privilege here, when that report has come to the House. Then
Your Honour will be seized of the matter, we will have the report
before the House and will be able to make some comment.
The difficulty and the reason that Speakers have taken the
view that the proceedings in committees are not within the
purview of the Chair is that until a committee has reported, the
committee is master of its own proceedings. It may change what
it has done and correct any errors. That is part of the reason for
the rule. Committees can undo what they have done in certain
circumstances and redo what they have done and thereby make
them correct if there has been some error.
I suggest it is incumbent upon the hon. member and his
colleagues on the committee in question to go back to the
chairman of the committee, raise the issues before the chair and
seek to have the matter rectified in the committee. I think the
hon. member knows that there have been efforts made to see that
this happens.
I suggest to him that the proper course to follow under the
circumstances is to raise the matter with the chairman of the
committee at another meeting of the committee instead of
boycotting the meetings of the committee and make an effort to
resolve the matter. I suggest if that is done it would be
unnecessary for him to come to the House with a question of
privilege. He would probably find that perhaps not all, but the
majority of his concerns would be fully dealt with. He would
realize the wisdom of the actions of the chair at one point or
another in the proceedings and we could get the matter resolved
there, which with all due respect, is where it should be resolved.
I do not want to suggest that this sort of thing has not
happened before. I was in opposition before. I know how
committees work. Sometimes things can happen in committees
that hon. members feel strongly about and they wish had not
happened. That happens on both sides of the House.
I assure the hon. member that I know in this case the chairman
of the committee is eminently reasonable. If the hon. member
will meet with the chairman in an effort to resolve the matter, I
think there can be a satisfactory resolution so far as we can
arrange it before the matter comes back to the House in the
report. At that time if the member wishes to debate the
proceedings of the committee, he is free to do so pursuant to the
standing orders.
The Speaker: I will listen to the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East.
At this point, it is my interpretation that with what was
brought up yesterday in the House there seems to be a slight
variation on the whole thing. May I ask, was the hon. member
present at the committee?
(1215 )
There seems to be a slight variation on the whole thing. Was
the hon. member for Fraser Valley East present at the
committee?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): No.
The Speaker: I will permit an intervention by the hon.
member but it should deal precisely with this point and not refer
to any other decision taken.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a
separate incident from the one I brought forward at a previous
date because of a series of events that continues to happen in the
committee.
The Speaker has asked for us to wait for the report to the
House. The problem is when incidents such as the one the hon.
member for Elk Island has mentioned come up in committee and
we ask it even to be reported to the House we are told it will not
be reported to the House. We not only cannot debate but we
cannot introduce amendments, we cannot ask questions of
witnesses, we cannot in some cases even vote.
Then when the votes happen sometimes they are overturned
by the hammer of the chairman. Then when we raise these issues
and say could it not be reported to the House we are told no.
Then they appeal to the committee and the committee says it
will not report it.
We are at wits end. We cannot do any of the democratic roles
of an opposition. We cannot do any of the things I have
described, the legitimate role in opposition. When we want to
12848
raise it for investigation or for future reference we are told we
cannot even do that. We cannot do any of the roles given to us,
privileges as members of Parliament. When we raise points of
privilege we are told they will not even be reported to the Chair.
We are at wits end. We cannot fulfil our job, our duty and our
responsibility to raise issues of great concern to Canadians. We
really feel the Chair needs to intervene. This is the second case, I
realize.
The transcripts are in. We could start to go over them. There is
a serious breach of democratic rights. We must get it addressed
before this committee continues.
To say we refuse now to attend is true. I cannot go to a
committee in which the chairman says I have no rights and asks
me to sit down.
The Speaker: I will hear from the hon. parliamentary
secretary first.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my only reason for
intervening is this incident has affected the Standing Committee
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
A Reform member came to bring in a motion that the
chairman abide by the standing orders because of an incident
which happened in that committee. I hope the Chair will not start
intervening in the affairs of individual standing committees.
Sometimes the opposition forgets it is in a minority position
in committees, as it is in the House. There is a steering
committee to decide the agenda. When something is put to a
vote, as it was yesterday in our committee, the majority has to
rule. Sometimes people are not satisfied with what the majority
has voted on.
I hope the Chair will respect the independence of each
committee and that what goes on in one committee should not be
brought to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
The Speaker: I will permit an intervention from the hon.
House leader of the Reform Party.
Before further intervention by members I would like them to
stay within the confines of the point of privilege the hon.
member for Elk Island has brought forth. Please do not go
outside of these confines.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate now to comment in light of the comments
you just made. Would you give me permission to very briefly
answer the concerns made by the parliamentary secretary?
(1220)
The Speaker: No. We are having a debate here. I do not want
to get into debate. I want to stick precisely to the question of
privilege. I am granting a great deal of leniency and latitude for
all members.
Again, I ask members to speak to the question of privilege. I
do not want the House to be seized of a debate.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the hon. member this morning
may be different from the incident raised yesterday.
No doubt it is a parallel one involving the same committee.
The Speaker's previous ruling on the issue brought by another
hon. member the day before would be applicable to the case
before the House this morning.
Furthermore, yesterday the committee of procedure and
House affairs, pursuant to part of the ruling by the Speaker, has
been doing some preliminary work in the whole area of rules as
they apply to the work of committees.
We adopted a motion proposed by one of the members who
has at least attempted to rise on a question of privilege this
morning from the Reform Party to address those very rules.
Earlier this morning there were informal negotiations to
attempt to solve the dispute at hand. I do not want to describe
them as it would be improper. I am hoping we will continue
those discussions in the next few minutes to come to some kind
of consensus by which we can afford the House to function
properly in its committees.
I recognize, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
has said, the importance of the work of the opposition in the
House. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have probably served
longer in opposition than anyone else in the Chamber. We served
too long in opposition.
In any case, we recognize that situation and we are attempting
through some of these negotiations to resolve it. I hoped to
continue with those private negotiations prior to this question of
privilege.
The Speaker: I will go to a final intervention by the hon.
member for Elk Island if he has new information to bring on my
ruling.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
very important things.
First, the incident I reported which grieves me so seriously
occurred after the member for Frazer Valley East came to you to
give his intervention yesterday. It happened afterwards. That is
very significant. It is also of a completely different nature.
Second, I was using the instruction as I understood it from
Standing Order 48(1):
Whenever any matter of privileges arises, it shall be taken into consideration
immediately.
This says to me I have the right to not wait until that
committee gave me the permission to come here. That is why I
took the initiative to come.
12849
The Speaker: Colleagues, the points are well taken on both
sides. I do not come from another venue. I am one of you and I
can understand many of the frustrations when a member is in
opposition.
I can also understand, having served in government, that the
government has a right to get on with its legislation. Therefore
there are two things to be balanced here.
Your Speaker is always guided by the rules of the House of
Commons. He is also guided by the precedents of other Speakers
and in other Parliaments.
(1225 )
I heard today that in this circumstance one of the committees
of the House is trying to-I hate to use the word rectify-at least
ameliorate the situation so all sides can get on with what the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East has said is their job, to represent
the people of their constituencies.
On the specific point of privilege, the Speaker will respond to
a report from the committee. That is the responsibility of the
Speaker. However, your Speaker cannot be expected to be in all
committees, to know precisely what is happening in all
committees, except through their chairs which the House has
approved.
We now have a circumstance of a committee's carrying out its
responsibilities. That all members do not agree with what is
happening in the committee is normal for this place.
However, I will wait until I have a report from the committee.
When the report comes in, whatever is in there, if the hon.
member at that time chooses to raise a point of privilege, I give
notice now, as is the precedent of the House, that I will hear the
point of privilege.
Concerning the rules stating a member must make
intervention as soon as possible, the hon. member has done that.
He is here now in front of me. Should it be brought up again at a
future date, when the report of the committee comes out your
Speaker will entertain such a point of privilege.
However, for the time being it is my decision that the
committees are masters of their own work and that committee
work must follow procedure and be brought to us here in the
House. If there is a problem which can only be resolved by the
House, then the House will become seized of it.
However, I rule at this time the hon. member, with all due
respect, does not have a point of privilege.
12849
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments made by the
government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order
110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing
committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
six petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while I am on my feet I will table the annual report for
1993-94 of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women, in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented
Canada at the standing committee meeting of the North Atlantic
Assembly, NATO parliamentarians, held in Marmaris, Turkey,
April 8 to 10, 1995.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association regarding the 22nd
annual meeting of the Canadian and European Parliaments held
in Brussels, Belgium, from March 18 to March 25, 1995.
12850
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 78th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
concerning the associate membership of the Standing
Committee on Finance. With the consent of the House, I intend
to move for concurrence in this report later today.
(1230)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on
Finance concerning Bill C-76, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27,
1995.
[English]
I have the honour as well to present, in both official
languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on
Finance on the implications arising out of Bill C-76, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 27, 1995.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition wants to express its dissent with
regard to the 15th report of the Liberal majority on the Standing
Committee on Finance. We are opposed, among other things, to
the promotion of national standards in relation to the Canada
social transfer.
The official opposition's dissenting opinion is annexed to
Liberal majority report.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to amend the
Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act
and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to proceed
with concurrence in the 78th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which I tabled earlier this day.
I move that the 78th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: Not at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also seek the unanimous consent of the House for the
following motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel
to Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Summerside, Barrington, Sydney, St. George
and Petty Harbour from June 5 to June 10, 1995, in order to study the
restructuring of the fisheries industry, and that a staff of five do accompany the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: Not at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That, pursuant to subsection 7(7) of the Referendum Act, chapter 30, Statutes
of Canada, 1992, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
the committee designated to review the proposed regulation made in
accordance with subsections 7(3) and 7(4) of this Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
12851
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present this petition. It is signed
primarily by residents and citizens of the Paradise Valley area of
Alberta.
They would draw to the attention of this House the fact that
they are very concerned about our streets being made safer for
citizens and are opposed to the current practice of early release
of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their
sentences.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few petitions to introduce.
As I am duty bound, I have a petition signed by constituents
mainly from Regina and from Fort Qu'Appelle and district that
asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicides are enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes to the law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as I am duty bound, I have a petition mainly from
constituents of Regina criticizing Bill C-41.
These petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am also duty bound to introduce this petition from
constituents of Fort Qu'Appelle.
The constituents and the petitioners are not happy with Image
Cablesystem, which has changed their programming and rates.
The petitioners ask Parliament to regulate Image Cablesystem
and all cable companies in regard to program services and rates,
regardless of subscriber numbers.
They also ask Parliament to address their immediate concern
of requesting the CRTC take the steps necessary to restore their
previous service, with new programming being offered in
additional group packages at a competitive rate.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not normally read the entire petition,
but in this case I will.
I have over 7,706 signatures that I have received from a group
in my community called Fair Justice, which came into effect
after a very tragic killing in our community.
Their petition reads: In 1990 an average of two Canadian
women per week were murdered by their husbands or male
partners. Over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was
nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a
stranger. Whereas the domestic killer is treated less harshly than
any other by Canadian courts, the crime is usually defined as
manslaughter. Killing family is much more likely to involve
provocation or the heat of passion than killing acquaintances or
killing for money or sex. While almost 60 per cent of those who
kill during the commission of another crime are sentenced to life
imprisonment, only 20 per cent of family killers receive this
penalty.
Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament
amend section 236 of the Criminal Code to include a minimum
sentence of 10 years when a person pleads guilty or is found
guilty of manslaughter of a spouse or partner.
I will therefore table these signatures that number 7,706, as I
mentioned before.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by
Cariboo-Chilcotin constituents from 100 Mile House, Forest
Grove, Canim Lake, and Lone Butte, British Columbia.
Those who signed the petition are of the opinion that existing
controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more
than enough to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon
Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime;
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own
and use recreational firearms; and support legislation that will
repeal or modify existing gun control laws, which have not
improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or
have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or
unenforceable.
(1240 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada. This particular petition
comes from the Calgary, Alberta, area.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession, which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also say that the
12852
Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have a petition from 258 residents of the
province of Saskatchewan, who request and call upon
Parliament to desist from legalizing the use of rBST in Canada.
They further request that legislation be passed requiring it to be
mandatory that all imported products from BST and rBST
treated cows be so identified.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to rise today and table in the House a
petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the
Islands, who call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
147, 148 and 168.
[Text]
Question No. 147-Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing):
For each of the calendar years 1990 to 1994, has the government developed
detailed data measuring actual cigarette consumption, and if so what are these
estimates for each province for which the data are available, and if not, why not?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): No
consumption data are available for 1990 to 1994. However,
domestic cigarette sales have always been considered an
accurate proxy of retail sales and therefore consumption in the
long term. All analysis of consumption have used these data in
this fashion.
For statistical data on domestic cigarette sales refer to answer
to Question No. 148.
Question No. 148-Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing):
For each of the calendar years 1990 to 1994, has the government received
data measuring domestic cigarette sales and if so what are the total sales in each
province for which data are available?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): The
following are figures on domestic cigarette sales, excluding
domestic sales of fine cut tobacco, for the years 1990 to 1993.
All data for 1994 have not yet been released by the third party
source and as such are not available for distribution.
![](/web/20061117180939im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2051201_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117180939im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2051201_r1.gif)
Question No. 168-Mr. Robinson:
On which occasions since September 1, 1994, has Gordon Campbell, the BC
Leader of the Official Opposition, communicated by letter, fax or telephone
with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or any officials
within their offices, concerning the Kemano II completion project and what
were the nature of the representations made on each occasion?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am
informed that in so far as the Prime Minister and his office are
concerned, Mr. Campbell sent a letter and other documents via
fax to the Prime Minister on October 11, 1994 in which he
outlined the British Columbia Liberal Party's position toward
the Kemano completion project.
In so far as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his office
are concerned, on October 11, 1994 Mr. Campbell wrote to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to express the British
Columbia Liberal Party's position toward the Kemano
completion project.
Also, there was one telephone communication on January 23,
1995, the day the province of British Columbia announced the
cancellation of Alcan's Kemano completion project. Mr.
Campbell was informed of the federal government's public
response.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
12853
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12853
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege
to rise again in the House to debate an issue that is of importance
to Canadians.
I would like to begin my intervention by simply stating that
the intent of Bill C-82 is to establish a new $2 coin for Canada.
The parliamentary secretary this morning, in introducing the
bill in the House, gave a fair amount of rationale for it. I will not
repeat those things, which we obviously agree on. They are
already on the record. However, I do want to make a number of
comments about what he said and refer directly to the provisions
of the bill.
One thing I think we ought to understand is that even though
in his presentation this morning he made rather voluminous
reference to the changing of other coins-the penny, the nickel,
the dime and the quarter, which are all being changed in content
and hence in weight-that has nothing to do with Bill C-82. He
was merely talking about another initiative, which is done by
regulation and which apparently is going to proceed whether
this bill is passed or not.
The fact of the matter is that if Bill C-82 does not pass and if
Parliament fails to approve the authorization of the new
two-dollar coin, then if the other regulations are implemented
there will be wholesale changes required in order to manage the
currency of our country by many, many merchants and vendors,
irrespective of what this bill does.
I am not proposing that we ought to change the rules and that
everything should be done in the House, because we would
undoubtedly run out of time. I believe there is a proper role for
setting of regulations that will determine certain aspects.
(1245 )
The introduction of the coin is not terribly controversial. We
have had very little feedback. That is probably due to the fact
that this initiative is not yet well known. I doubt whether it will
generate a great deal of public outcry. It could even be that the
bill will be passed before the public becomes aware of it. I do not
think it has sufficient importance that it will grab the attention
of the media. It looks as if it may be pushed through faster than
what we can normally communicate via usual communication
methods to our constituents.
In order to keep our options open we in the Reform Party will
most likely oppose the bill. When I say that immediately the cry
is: ``They are in opposition; they are against everything''. That
is not true. In this instance we are doing it with a very open
mind. In the event that the unanswered questions we have at this
time receive satisfactory answers, we will have no hesitation to
show support for the bill.
As I understand, the primary motivation for introducing the
$2 coin is as a cost saving measure for the government. Much is
made of this point. I cannot help at this stage to talk about the
very important issue of cost cutting. The government would like
Canadians to believe that it is cutting costs at every turn. If we
look at the issue we are down to a very small amount of petty
change. I say that in relation to the deficit and debt. If members
opposite listen carefully they will hear in the next few minutes
what I mean. I am not saying things to evoke a reaction. There is
empirical, numerical evidence of what I am saying now.
We have a tremendous debt and a huge deficit. We commend
the Liberals for bringing it down; it is better than increasing it. It
is good that the deficit has been reduced. We ought not to delude
Canadians into thinking that our debt problem is solved or that
our debt is decreasing because it is not.
Not only does the budget of this year call for total government
expenditures of $2 billion in excess of what was spent last year,
but at the end of the fiscal year we will have another $32 billion
of debt that we did not have when we entered this fiscal year.
That is the straight fiscal reality. I am merely echoing what was
reported by the Minister of Finance when he tabled his budget.
While I say that it is wonderful to be reducing spending and
thereby hopefully reducing the rate at which we are going into
debt, I also need to criticize it. Perhaps I can use a sports
analogy. It is wonderful for the football team to gain a yard. That
is better than losing a yard. On the next play it gains another
yard. However, if only two yards in two plays have been gained
in Canadian football the ball has to be kicked away. The
opportunity has been lost.
At this time the matter is severe. Even though the government
is saying this and I will echo it, there is a savings of $254 million
over the next 20 years. I am not opposed to that savings, but it is
as though we are gaining another yard and meanwhile the game
is slipping away from us. We need to be cognizant of that fact.
We need to address it very seriously.
I hesitate to say this. If Canadians hear me say that $254
million is petty change I will get hammered for it. I do not mean
it. It is a lot of money, but relative to the total picture what we
are doing in this measure is barely whittling away at the edge of
the problem. The problem is so large that it is as if we are trying
12854
to take the water out of the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. It will
never happen.
(1250)
Let me bring the numbers into perspective. I have shared
before in the House that mathematics is my game. I have had
some 31 years of experience teaching the subject. I have loved it
and have used mathematics since I was a child.
In preparing my speech I immediately got out my calculator,
did some number crunching and thought about what it meant.
We need to be aware that the mention of savings, which is so
highly touted by the other side, is extremely mediocre. Let me
tell members how little the savings really are. I am sorry that we
are spending time in the House today dealing with this one while
the big ones are getting away from us.
A famous politician one time said: ``I do not have time to be
shooting rabbits when I should be after bear''. That was a
quotation of Tommy Douglas. That is what we are doing.
I ask the House to listen to the numbers. The $254 million
savings is over 20 years. Usually when the government wants
accolades for its savings it says a quarter of a billion dollars,
which is a wonderfully big number. Then its voice drops when it
whispers quietly ``over 20 years'' so that nobody notices that it
is over 20 years.
What does this mean? It means $12.7 million in savings per
year. We are going to deny it but we need to get it into the
perspective of what it actually means in terms of the taxpayer.
I did a couple of side calculations. Here is one of them.
Because of our massive debt, our interest payments of some $40
billion per year work out to about $110 million per day. Let us
remember that I just said this was a cost saving of $12.7 million
per year. Therefore we will save in this measure $12.7 million
over the whole year. Meanwhile we are spending $110 million
per day on interest. In the perspective of how viciously we are
attacking the budget, this is not the measure.
Another way of putting it is that the savings ``to be realized''
by the implementation of the $2 coin will pay for our annual
interest. This savings will account for the interest payment for
two hours and 47 minutes of the year. That is the big saving.
Let us do it but let us recognize that if we are to do it and
finally bring the debt under control, we will have to take some
big steps. We will have to stop stepping gingerly. We will have
to start looking at the big expenditures and at the big savings.
Otherwise we will lose the game while busily wondering
whether we made a yard or six inches.
I would like to bring it down to the individual because it is
very appropriate. Not only does it put the savings into
perspective. It also puts the economics into perspective. I made
some assumptions because I do not have access to instantaneous
figures. We are not yet on Internet in the House. It is impossible
to get that technology going so it is difficult to get up to date
measures.
I made a few assumptions on data that was several years old. It
was the best I could get. Assuming 29 million Canadians, the
savings this will produce will amount to the sum of 44 cents per
year per Canadian. Over the whole year, after we have
implemented the plan, every Canadian will say: ``I have an extra
44 cents in my pocket this year''.
Let us stop to think about it. The change in coinage will
probably result in every coin operated machine in the country,
telephones, food vending machines and lottery machines which
I do not approve of in any case, having to be changed.
(1255 )
With the measure Canadians will save 44 cents per person per
year. If the merchants increase the price on vending machines by
10 cents to recoup the cost of changing the machinery, any
individual who uses a machine more than four times a year will
end up spending more money. That puts the economic
perspective of the measure into a different light. We need to
think about these matters. Whether Canadians are paying money
via their taxes or whether they are paying via the goods and
services they purchase, it is still money out of their pockets.
I did another calculation. There are approximately 13.5
million Canadians who while filing income tax also pay tax.
There are approximately six million taxpayers who file to
receive the refundable tax credits. They are really out of the tax
picture; they are only doing the paperwork. Those who are
actually contributing to government income via the tax system
number around 13.5 million to the best of my knowledge. If we
forget about the people of Canada and only talk about the 13.5
million taxpaying Canadians, the savings are quite a bit more
because there are now fewer people who are sharing the savings.
The $254 million that will be saved by introducing the $2 coin
gives every taxpayer a break of about 94 cents per year.
As a taxpayer I am sure that I use a coin operated machine
more than 10 times per year. I am presuming. Maybe they will
only increase the price by 5 cents. Maybe some of them will not
increase the price at all, which I doubt, because it is our
information that to change the coin recognition mechanism of
machines will cost $500 per machine. That is the smallest
number I have read about. I believe every coin operated machine
in the country will increase their prices. I can anticipate a Pepsi
or a chocolate bar which now costs 90 cents undoubtedly going
12855
up to $1, so it will require a loonie. Maybe the new machine will
accept a $2 coin and give a loonie back, so people will have
almost exactly the same money in their pocket in terms of
weight as before.
It has been mentioned that one of the reasons for doing this is
that $2 bills do not last. That is also true. I know I cannot use
props; I really know the rules around here. I cannot haul out a $2
bill, but I looked at one before I came here that was worn. The $2
bills get a lot of mileage. It reminds me a bit about the way the
Canadian government handles grain. The government likes to
put it on trains and give it a joy ride before it arrives at its
destination. We do that with our currency as well.
The $2 bill undoubtedly does a lot of travelling. Statistics tell
us that on average the $2 bill we have been using extensively
since the $1 bill was discontinued lasts only a year and then it
must be reprinted at a cost of 6 cents. It costs 6 cents every year
for every $2 bill in circulation.
The coin, because it will last for 20 years, will not have that
cost. It will cost approximately 16 cents to produce, but as we all
know coins last for a very long time. To show that I am a true
Reformer, when I was walking down the sidewalk the other day I
saw a penny and I stopped to pick it up, as Reformers would be
wont to do. I was amazed to see that the penny was almost as old
as I am. Somebody had just dropped it. It was not quite as old as I
am. The date on it as I recall was 1945 and I am six years older
than that. But I thought it was really significant that that coin
could last as long as I have. I assure you that no bill in
circulation would last that long.
(1300)
I have stated the cost per taxpayer and the saving per
Canadian of 44 cents per year as a counterbalance to the
statement of the parliamentary secretary. I think I wrote down
the quotation correctly. He said: ``This will be a big load off the
debt''. With all due respect, I think not.
I will indicate some other reasons for the temporary statement
that we are going to be resisting the bill. I have already indicated
that to the individual Canadian it may not be nearly as big a
saving as is being touted. I want to find out before I vote in
favour of the bill whether it actually is economically feasible. I
am not certain. I have not had sufficient data on it to convince
me.
Also I somehow feel that we ought to be presenting Canadians
with more than just this option. We now have a $1 coin and we
are jumping now to a $2 coin and then a $5 coin. The $2 coin is
the one in question.
To my knowledge no studies have been done on the viability
and feasibility of dropping the $2 bill and going from the $1 to
the $5. I cannot use props here, but I could hold up four coins and
show that those four loonies would represent two $2 bills. After
we pass the $4 dollar mark we could then use a $5 bill. You do
not ever need more than two $2 bills. That means we would
never need more than two $2 coins. Which means that if we did
not have a $2 coin we would have to have up to four loonies.
I looked at the spec sheet. The loonie weighs 7 grams. The
new proposed $2 coin is going to weigh 7.3 grams, just slightly
heavier. Canadians are going to say: ``If I have to have yet
another coin, then there is going to more weight in my pocket''.
Well, this is what it is: four loonies weigh 28 grams. My
generation likes to hear it in the old British system, which is
about an ounce. If you had two $2 coins they would weigh 14.6
grams, which for all intents and purposes is about half an ounce.
We are asking Canadians to approve the introduction of a new
$2 coin with huge costs to all the vending industries and all the
coin operated machines in order to save, at maximum, the
necessity of carrying an extra one-half ounce in their pockets. I
suppose that could be justified. I am interested in studying it
further. I am certainly interested in hearing from Canadians to
find out whether they are really going to say: ``Yes, let us go for
the $2 coin because I walk lopsided if I have an extra half ounce
on that side''. I am being facetious. My apologizes. That was
supposed to be a joke to wake up members opposite.
Too many questions of this type remain unanswered. In fact,
there are some problems with the bill itself. Consequently, our
initial response is that we respectfully submit that we are going
to oppose the bill, with the option that if proper answers are
given to our questions, then we will show that we are willing to
support the bill.
One thing the government has done based on the data we
received from it, was a poll which found that Canadians support
the $2 coin. We actually question the accuracy of the poll. The
difficulty with the poll is that the only option given was whether
they liked the $2 coin or not. They were not given the option of
not having the $2 denomination at all. Therefore, Canadians
were not given a number of choices, but a very narrow choice.
(1305)
I was also told, and I hope this is correct, that the first poll
taken was not supportive. The question was changed in order to
get a positive poll so that the proposal for the $2 coin could be
advertised as having the support of Canadians. When I found out
that this was done, I wondered about the motivation behind it.
Another question we definitely want answered is: Who will
actually benefit from the introduction of the coin? I am making
no allegations, but it is a question which we will always and
carefully ask on this side of the House. I am not going to say
which Liberal supporter, but we will ask who is going to benefit
from this. Who has the contract? Which are the businesses that
change the machines? If there are any problems with that, we are
12856
going to try to find that out and make sure that the motivations
are all above board.
I will also talk a little bit about the retailers. I am sure a lot of
Canadians are not aware that when a purchase is made with
currency there is almost always change. Very seldom does the
customer present the exact change. In any case, every merchant
has the option of having the facility to accept a credit card. We
understand that a great deal of merchandising is done via credit
cards. The mechanism for processing credit card and debit card
purchases has been refined to a great extent. That system is
fairly efficient, but we still have a coinage system. We still have
the rules of currency and legal tender. Therefore, the merchants
are required to have change.
If you were ever to look into the till, you would see that there
are different compartments for pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters
and loonies. We have very few 50-cent pieces in circulation; I
think most of them are hoarded by collectors. With the
introduction of a new coin, every tray in every till in the whole
country is going to be put on the garbage heap and replaced with
a new tray with an extra compartment because of the new coin.
Another aspect to that which was indicated by the
parliamentary secretary is when the $2 coin was introduced, the
government said it was going to do the vendors a favour by
changing the metal content and hence the weights of the other
coins at the same time. The vendors could then build new coin
recognition systems and do that change only once.
That is commendable, but the government is not going to
instantly take all of the old coins out of circulation. Therefore,
the job for the coin vendors is to have a coin recognition system
that no longer recognizes nickels, dimes, quarters and loonies,
which is a total of four coins, but they are going to need a total of
eight coins recognized. There will be two different kinds of
nickels, dimes, quarters, loonies and the $2 coin, doubloonies, I
guess we will call it.
When that happens the mechanism is going to have to be much
more sophisticated and undoubtedly more expensive. I read an
estimate that the vending machine industry is probably going to
have to lay out approximately $25 million to change the
machines. Remember I did the division by 20 on the projected
savings. I said that if the saving is $254 million in 20 years, it is
$12.7 million in one year. By the lowest estimates, we will be
spending twice the annual savings of the government in order to
change the machines when we start out.
(1310)
Hopefully if there is some stability to our currency system,
that change should not have to be made again soon. It is
interesting to note it was approximately eight years ago when all
the machines in the country had to be changed. I do submit one
of the things we would call for is a longer period to guarantee
Canadian businessmen the coinage will not change. Eight years
is really much too short a period.
I would also like answers to questions like these: What are the
actual total costs to industry? What are the total costs to
Canadians?
It would also be appropriate to talk about seigniorage, which
is the difference between the value of the coin and what it costs
to produce it. We are told that based on this component, we
expect to have an input into the Canadian government coffers of
$449 million in two and one-half years. I will admit I am a
mathematician but I am not an economist, so I do not fully
understand how that accrues to actual value to the Canadian
government.
I stand to be corrected but it seems to me that if we can
actually bring in $500 million in two and one-half years to the
Canadian government wealth and if it is real wealth, not
inflationary wealth, because of the introduction of the new
currency-and I understand that part-we will presumably be
taking the $2 bills out of circulation when we bring in the $2
coin. If there is an actual accrual to the government of $449
million of added value, then I ask a very elementary question:
Why do we not just greatly increase the number of $1 and $2
coins? Let us produce them in sufficient numbers to pay off the
debt. If it really works then we should do that.
Now I think I know enough about economics to know that
would not work. Unfortunately that is not the kind of economic
policy that would keep us as a country in good light with all of
the other trading partners. Our currency would undoubtedly be
devalued by that.
Another aspect of this is profit to the mint. I like the fact that
our mint is a money maker. I am sure many people are aware that
the Canadian mint not only produces Canadian currency, but
also provides a sizeable import of dollars by producing and
shipping coins to other countries.
I understand it is definitely economical for the mint to tool up
to produce a new $2 coin. Like a car manufacturer tooling up to
make a new model of car, it is always economical because that
will be recouped in sales. It is undoubtedly correct for the mint
to do this.
I would like to know the details of the mint's cash flow. How
is this actually going to work out? We also need to recognize
there are ramifications to moving from the printing of paper
currency to the production of the coins. Initially there will be a
large flurry of activity in producing the new coins, but what
happens to productivity once we have saturated the Canadian
currency with the required number of $2 coins? Those are
simple questions.
With respect to the bill itself there needs to be a long term plan
which is not present in this very short bill. All it says is that we
are going to make a new $2 coin. That is basically all it says in
12857
layman's language. What we really should have is some sort of
coherent, long term currency plan Canadians can count on.
(1315)
There is a really serious question we ought to be asking,
whether we should keep the penny. The penny costs about 70 per
cent more to produce than what it is worth. It costs about 1.7
cents to manufacture a penny. It does not make a great deal of
sense to keep manufacturing pennies. Think of the savings we
could incur if we stop doing that. We could presumably go for
many years utilizing the pennies out there now because their rate
of replacement is not great. They are very sturdy coins.
Has there been any study on replacing the $5 bill with a $5
coin? If it is so good for the two, could it also be done for the
five? Should it be done at the same time? Obviously if we are to
make a change, to do it at the same time makes a great deal more
sense than making this change now and then five or eight years
down the road saying introduce a new $5 coin requiring all the
vendors and all of the businesses once again to adjust.
These are some of the questions I want to have answered
before I can support this bill. It could be that we are missing an
opportunity of being very efficient if that is the long term
direction we are to go. We need to have studies. We need to have
answers to those questions.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this
question. Obviously in my limited knowledge I will not have
explored all aspects of it. Undoubtedly there are other things we
must also take into account. We will certainly be watching and
participating eagerly in the House and in committee, provided
we are allowed to vote in our committee and other things.
We will pay close attention in committee and we will be
eagerly asking for the answers to these questions. I want to
reiterate the bottom line for us is not a saving to government but
a saving to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer in total is to land up with
a higher expense then we will be opposed to this bill.
I seriously doubt, based on the numbers I gave at the
beginning of my intervention, the added costs of making the
changes to the commodities sold through vending machines
primarily will eat up the pockets of the taxpayers more than
what will be saved for those taxpayers through this avenue of
government.
I also want to make sure that before we give consent to this
bill all of the costs have been anticipated. Too often in
government we start on a project and hear the estimates. How
often have we heard of overruns? Over and over; it happens with
great frequency. We want to make sure there are very precise
accounting and estimates of the total anticipated costs to the
taxpayers. I want to make sure we have an open and honest
discussion.
In my first year and a half in the House there have been times
when I have really enjoyed the work. I have felt what I have been
contributing has been very helpful to the Canadians I was sent
here to represent, broader than the Elk Island constituency, all
Canadians from sea to sea.
I hope in this bill, which is such an innocuous bill, we will be
able to embark on a debate, a study in committee free from the
acrimony and the bull headedness that has been displayed in
some of the committees, particularly in the past several days.
It is so important that we as parliamentarians-in the
committee we are backbenchers-have, as the Liberal Party
promised in its red book, a more meaningful role. That role will
have to be found in committee because of the sheer numbers.
(1320 )
Not many members have the privilege I have today to make a
40 minute speech. Members on the Liberal side almost never get
that opportunity. When a bill is introduced either the minister or
the parliamentary secretary takes that opportunity. All of the
other backbenchers really do not have a role.
In committee we can have a real role provided it is permitted,
encouraged and acknowledged and that there is a genuine and
honest recognition that the recommendations of the committee
are to be taken seriously. I look forward to working on this bill in
the committee. Provided our answers can be forthcoming very
quickly I am sure we can come up with a solution to this
problem.
It is not a big problem for Canadians. It is a problem of some
significance. We can come up with a solution that will be best
for all Canadians. I am thinking of those ordinary Canadians
who work from day to day struggling to pay their bills,
struggling to pay their taxes. Those are the people we want to
represent. We want to make sure they get very best possible
shake out of this legislation and other legislation like it.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from Elk Island finished stating not very
many backbenchers have the opportunity to speak for 40
minutes on any bill. That is a very pithy comment.
Many people would have a great deal of difficulty trying to
figure how one could speak for 40 minutes on Bill C-82, which
is a major struggle. How on earth does one go about speaking for
40 minutes on a debate on the introduction of a $2 coin?
A few minutes ago I was told we need to keep this debate
going for another 10 minutes and do I have something to say
about this. I thought sure. The automatic response was who
needs a $2 coin? I have travelled extensively in the United States
and I have never seen a $2 bill. Why replace the $2 bill? If we do
12858
not want to have it, we should get rid of it. If we do not need it,
we do not need it.
That is a question that will be answered in committee where
wiser minds than mine will be debating this important
consideration of the day. With a $2 coin if we start trying to
figure out how much our country will be in debt on a daily basis,
it would only be $60 million $2 coins rather than 120 million
loonies. We could divide it that way and perhaps it does not seem
that much.
There are some really important considerations in this bill.
For those watching this debate, the country is into debt at $120
million a day. We have Bill C-68, the firearms bill. We have
looming on the horizon the most important question facing our
country outside of the debt, our relationship with Quebec and
how we will deal with and get past this hurdle. We will get past it
and it is my desire we will do it together. Here we are using up
the potential of five hours of debating time to talk about the
introduction of a $2 coin. We already have a $1 coin.
Some hon. members opposite said we are wasting our time.
How can we argue with that? Some things do not require the
same amount of consideration except if one happens to be in the
vending machine business. Everything we do in the House
affects someone somewhere. While it may not affect all of us to
the same degree all the time, it affects someone substantially
some of the time.
(1325)
If I were in the vending machine business now and a member
of Parliament asked what I thought of the debate on the $2 coin, I
would say it could very well be the difference between my
staying in business or going out of business. Think of the huge
cost to the vending machine business with the introduction of
the loonie a few years ago. It important we in the House have
some consideration of the effects of what we do on others
outside the House.
We all recall what happened with the introduction of the
loonie. What happened to the cost of newspapers from vending
machines? By and large there was an increase from $75 cents to
a loonie. The vending industry raised prices from 25 cents to 50
cents to 75 cents to a loonie. It was not taking advantage of a
situation. If it has to make mechanical changes it might as well
make them to last.
What will happen if we introduce a doubloonie, a $2 coin? A
vast number of ideas have come forward about what to call the
new coin. Ideas came from the west saying we should put a
picture of a deer on either side and call it the two buck coin.
Another member said we could put a picture of the leader of the
Reform Party on one side, the Leader of the Opposition on the
other and say flip a coin.
There is a substantial cost, particularly to the vending
machine business. As we make decisions and changes for the
nation, things that seem pretty simple and straightforward very
often have a result that extends far beyond what we are doing
here.
I have two $2 bills in my pocket and a loonie. One thing
brought to my attention the other day was if we get rid of the $2
bill, what will happen to the amount of change we carry in our
pockets. I have a loonie and some quarters. I am trying to stretch
this out. I suppose we are looking at effects this will have down
the road, beyond the vending machine industry and beyond
inflation. I suppose to some people the amount of coins they
would have to carry in their pocket would be something of a
consideration. Without a $2 bill and because we do not have a $1
bill, we would have to carry around a whole lot more loonies or
doubloonies.
Mr. Abbott: It would make the tailors happy.
Mr. McClelland: While it might upset the vending industry,
it would certainly make the tailoring industry happy since
people would be walking around with holes in their pockets or
their purses. However, it would be something of a problem.
As the debate winds to a conclusion I hope some of these
points will be considered. In my opinion we do not need another
coin. If we are to get rid of the $2 bill, let us get rid of it and
make do with our happy little loonies.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12858
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuance of the operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce Bill C-313
in the House today. However, I regret the fact that this
legislation is necessary to put an end to the dispute at ADM
Agri-Industries Ltd. The events leading up to Bill C-313 are as
follows: a labour dispute between ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.
and the National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills
Company Ltd. has affected about 150 employees involved in
production.
The parties started negotiations on the renewal of the
collective agreement that expired on January 31, 1992. A
conciliator and then a mediator were appointed to help the
parties settle their differences. Unfortunately, very little
progress was made.
12859
The union called a legal general strike on June 6, 1994. This
strike, which has been going on for 11 months, has not prevented
the employer from continuing operations, since the employer
hired replacement workers, which has undermined the
bargaining position of ADM's regular employees.
Bill C-313 proposes final offer selection as a way to settle the
dispute. Within 30 days after being appointed, or within such
greater period as will be specified by the Minister, the arbitrator
shall, first of all, determine the matters on which the employer
and the union were in agreement at cut-off time; second,
determine the matters remaining in dispute at cut-off time;
third, select, in order to resolve the matters remaining in
dispute, either the final offer submitted by the employer or the
final offer submitted by the union; fourth, determine a back to
work protocol.
Meanwhile, employees would go back to work in accordance
with the provisions of the protocol. The bill would contain
provisions obliging the parties to abide by the back to work
protocol and resume operations. The bill's enforcement
provisions include fines in the case of an individual who
contravenes a provision of this legislation. Bill C-313 is not
anti-scab legislation.
The purpose of this bill is to deal with a specific situation that
currently exists at ADM. Many of my constituents have worked
for ADM for more than 20 years. Today, they are out of work and
have little hope of getting back their jobs. They want to go back
to work, and they want to negotiate. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said the
employees' union wants to negotiate.
On April 26, following promises from the company that it
would go back to the bargaining table and because there was
some hope of obtaining a negotiated agreement, the National
Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Ltd.
sent me a fax in which they asked me to withdraw this bill.
(1335)
On May 1, the union met with the company, and by May 2,
before the bill could even be withdrawn, yet again, the union
sent me another fax saying: ``Since our letter of April 26, we
have been to two mediation sessions with Warren Edmunston
and Rock St-Hilaire. The attitude of ADM Ltd. at those
sessions, despite the fact that the strike has dragged on for 11
months now, has made us reconsider our position regarding the
bill that you tabled. Effectively, on the critical issues, ADM's
vice-president has said that there was no reason for
compromise''.
``Do you know what that means? That means that there is no
reason for them to compromise. Needless to say, the hope of
reaching a negotiated settlement has never been so dim''.
``That is why we are now asking you to bring Bill C-313
before the tripartite committee of the House of Commons. Of
course, when the time comes, we would like to be heard with
regard to this bill, because we could suggest a few
amendments''.
``Nevertheless, in principle, the bill is an acceptable mid term
solution and will at least guarantee that the workers at the
Ogilvie flour mill will have a decent future and that they can
return to work their pride intact''.
``It is certain that a negotiated settlement would be the
preferred solution. However, this cannot end up being a settling
of accounts in which one party squarely comes out the winner.
That is why we believe that this bill could very well be the
preferred solution to the stalemate in which we dread we will
find ourselves''.
``I hope to hear from you soon and would like to thank you for
the interest you have shown in the workers I represent''.
The letter was signed Claude Tremblay, president of the
National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Co.
Ltd.
I am convinced that it was very difficult for them to reverse
their decision about having the bill withdrawn. As some of you
already know, ADM Ltd.'s factory at Candiac and the union
came to an agreement very quickly. There is, however, a major
difference between the Candiac factory and the one in Montreal,
located in my riding. The difference is as follows: the Candiac
plant processes flour and is under the control of the provincial
government. It is covered by anti-strikebreaking legislation,
and the union could have halted ADM's activities there.
In Montreal, however, the ADM mills come under federal
legislation, which permits the hiring of replacement workers. As
we say, ``the company has the big end of the stick''. It can say to
the union, through its vice-president: ``We have no reasons for
compromise''.
This is no way to treat people. Faithful employees, who have
given twenty years of service or more to this company are now,
after an eleven month strike, in debt, without hope and unable to
feed their family.
Workers have pride too and are happy to earn their living. As
the Prime Minister put it in one his speeches, a father is proud to
earn a living in order to be able to put food on the table for his
children. When they came to see me at my office, they were not
looking for handouts. They simply wanted to be able to bargain
in good faith and to return to their jobs, which have been given to
replacement workers.
As we know, whenever a company has the upper hand, it is
forever critical of the people who have given their life for it.
People may have worked 30 years of their life for a company and
have it say today: ``No, not a chance. You will be out in the street
with no chance of renegotiating your seniority''. The employees
of ADM are not asking for a salary increase; they earn between
$17 and $19 an hour. They are proud of what they earn. All they
want is recognition of their seniority. The owner, Dwayne
12860
Andrew, a multimillionaire, does not want to negotiate with
ADM.
(1340)
I therefore request the unanimous consent of this House to
move:
That Bill C-313 be declared a votable item, pursuant to Standing Order 93.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion of our colleague for
Verdun-Saint-Paul?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has the floor.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-313, which was tabled in this House by the hon. member
for Verdun-Saint-Paul, who is a government member.
One can see that, while Ogilvie's may be experiencing
problems, this is also the case on the other side of this House.
Indeed, there seems to be a disagreement regarding the taking of
a vote on this bill. Some day, we may find out exactly why. In the
meantime, I want to make some comments on the legislation as
such. I will take a few moments to relate the chronology of this
dispute at Ogilvie Mills Ltd., which is located in Montreal, in
the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
The collective agreement in effect at Ogilvie's expired in
January 1992, and the company was sold in June of that year by
its owners, Labatt, to an American multinational, Archers
Daniel Midland.
After the change of ownership, bargaining became very
difficult. The new employer behaved somewhat as if it were in a
banana republic, brazenly trying to impose its rules and not
caring one bit about our traditional ways of bargaining. It
showed contempt towards the men and women who work for
Ogilvie's. Consequently, on June 6, 1994, the workers voted 97
per cent in favour of a strike.
Why did they make that decision? Contrary to what several
may think, particularly on the management side, people who
hold a regular, well paid job allowing them a decent quality of
life never decide gladly to do without their income and to go on
strike. Such a decision is never made for the fun of it but, rather,
for serious reasons.
This was the case at Ogilvie's, since the demands made by the
new management were utterly excessive in the eyes of any
objective observer.
(1345)
Since then, for close to a year now, the employees have been
out on the street, without any hope for a settlement, since the
company, taking advantage of the fact that it is federally
incorporated and that there is no federal anti-scab legislation,
has hired substitute workers and is operating as if nothing had
happened, while the real employees, those who worked for the
flour mill for over 20 years, are still out on the street and might
stay there for quite a while yet.
My colleague for Verdun-Saint-Paul insisted earlier on the
fact that this private member's bill is not an anti-scab bill. He is
right this bill has nothing in common with an anti-scab bill, but
this shows the lack of responsibility on the part of the
government which, despite the official opposition's repeated
requests over the years and especially recently, has refused to
pass anti-scab legislation in this House, which, I am convinced,
would have led to a quicker settlement.
Across Canada, 75 per cent of employees working for
provincially incorporated companies are protected by anti-scab
legislation. This means that, in all the companies governed by
provincial laws, in Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia,
employees can go through the collective bargaining process,
then go out on strike in a civilized and orderly manner, thus
establishing a real balance of power. The federal government
still refuses to pass such legislation which, as I said, would
certainly have solved the problem in this particular case.
I only have a few minutes left, but I want to stress that point,
because it is not the first time that we are confronted with this
kind of situation, which is likely to occur again many times in
the future. The government must realize anti-scab legislation is
a necessity. Members opposite seem to want to make absolutely
sure that this legislation is not passed in this House, so as not to
apply to federally registered companies.
The official opposition supports Bill C-313, which deals with
what is called the final offer selection. This is better than
nothing. It is reluctantly that the official opposition supports
such a measure since, in the context of labour negotiations, the
final offer is truly a last resort. Such a solution is often used
when every other avenue has been explored, and when workers
are at the end of their rope. I know that Ogilvie workers and their
representatives hope, after a work stoppage of almost a year, to
see such provisions come into effect.
(1350)
Again, as far as the official opposition is concerned, we
unanimously support this approach. We would have liked a vote
on this bill, which would have given every member of this House
an opportunity to express his or her views by voting for or
against it. We already know, however, that there are deep
divisions on this issue within the government majority, within
the Liberal Party. That is regrettable since, as I said earlier, we
12861
are discussing the fate of men and women who have been on the
street without any income for nearly a year. They have children
to support, mortgages and rents to pay. An agreement must be
negotiated as soon as possible.
I hope that, once this bill is passed, once these employees
have gone back to work, they can resume their activities in
acceptable conditions, in a climate that is not too hostile.
In conclusion, I hope that the government will think about,
really think about, introducing in this House an anti-scab bill
that would benefit all workers subject to the Canada Labour
Code.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the bill sponsored by the
hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul.
The bill proposes that the government implement final offer
selection as a mechanism for resolving the year long labour
dispute at ADM Agri-Industries, otherwise known as Ogilvie
Flour Mills.
I was a bit surprised that a member from the government side
would sponsor the bill. When the hon. member for Lethbridge
was seeking support for his final offer arbitration in Bill C-262,
which called for basically the same as the bill today only it
applied to grain handling disputes, government members did not
want any part of it.
If the hon. member from Verdun and perhaps the rest of his
caucus truly believed in the concept they would have spoken in
support of Bill C-262 at the time it was debated in the House.
How can he promote final offer selection or arbitration in one
case and oppose it in others? Since flour mill workers are
grouped into the same category as grain elevator operators they
fall under federal jurisdiction. If the hon. member and his
colleagues were really concerned about the workers at Ogilvie
Mills, they would have got the ball rolling on March 20 by
supporting the bill of the member for Lethbridge on final offer
arbitration in grain handling disputes.
We know the government runs hot and cold. The fact the
member could not get unanimous consent for his bill is a perfect
example as far as final offer arbitration is concerned. They did
not like Bill C-262 and they came out in force to ensure that it
did not survive.
The Minister of Human Resources Development in a news
release announcing that royal assent had been given to the West
Coast Ports Operations Act was quoted as saying:
The imposition of the final offer selection procedure in this particular
legislation should encourage the two sides to demonstrate a strong sense of
rationality in deciding on the positions they place before the arbitrator.
That is what we said in Bill C-262, that it was a tool that could
be used by either side in a dispute.
The transport committee in its recently released national
marine strategy recommended a final offer selection mechanism
for settlement of all disputes between pilots and their customers.
It seems to work in some areas. As the mover of the bill
mentioned, it is not something union people are objecting to.
There seems to be growing popularity for the concept of final
offer arbitration.
The committee also recommended that the new Marine
Transportation Act should provide for final offer selection for
the settlement of all disputes between the new not for profit
Seaway Corporation and its employees. The chairman of the
committee spoke on final offer arbitration during the debate on
Bill C-262. He spoke at length about the need to maintain
essential services. He also said:
Employees either have the right to strike or not.
(1355)
He went on to say:
We have to roll with the change. I do not feel the way to begin a positive and
co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which
begins to erode what labour considers a basic right.
We are getting mixed signals from the government.
Last week in the human resources development committee I
had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour if she would
consider implementing final offer arbitration as a solution to
ending disputes involving essential services. She conceded that
it might be an interesting concept but that it would be difficult to
use as a method of settling disputes, especially complicated
disputes like this one. I got the distinct feeling that she would
not support that sort of move. I am not surprised my hon. friend
could not get unanimous consent to make his motion votable.
Obviously he has one other colleague in his caucus that feels
the same as he does. The member for Vaudreuil introduced
exactly the same bill but it has apparently been withdrawn. I am
sure they both thought there would be no repercussions since the
government employed final offer selection as a way out of its
problems with the west coast ports.
My friend from Verdun-Saint-Paul is probably thankful in
some ways that it is not votable because if it were he would have
to vote in favour of it and we have seen the government
sometimes punish people who vote for their constituents.
The Reform Party believes in the bargaining process. We do
not want to interfere in the process of two parties coming to an
12862
agreement. We see final offer arbitration as tool that is useful to
both labour and management. Certainly my friend across the
way has alluded to having support of the union in this case.
We on this side are concerned about the impacts that strikes
and lockouts have on workers, employers and Canadians who
most often have to bear the brunt of the costs and
inconveniences when the services of monopolistic industries are
withdrawn. When all efforts to solve the disputes through the
regular collective bargaining process have been exhausted, final
offer arbitration should be available to all parties.
The recent strikes in the railway helped to underline the
weakness inherent in the Canada Labour Code from preventing a
shutdown to essential services. The federal government has a
responsibility in this area to act in the best interest of Canadians.
Transportation and communication services are essential to the
daily movement of people, goods and services.
Canada's competitive advantage is determined by the
efficiency and reliability of the transportation and
communication network that it relies on. We cannot afford any
major shutdowns in the network that links the country together.
A case in point was the recent railway strike that is estimated to
have cost the Canadian economy in the neighbourhood of $3
billion.
Final offer arbitration is the most effective and impartial
means of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and
management where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant
damage on Canadians. It requires both parties to negotiate in
good faith and quickly, while keeping in mind their overall
interest as an organization.
There is nothing to prevent both sides from achieving their
deal providing they are being fair, open and expedient with each
other. Tremendous pressure is put on both sides to reach an
agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt all of one or
all of the other side's proposals.
The threat of arbitration should be enough for both sides to
reach agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt either
side's proposals. The threat of arbitration should be enough for
both sides if they want to reach an agreement.
(1400 )
In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as
employment security, an agreement may never occur through
the collective bargaining process. A strike or lockout only
makes matters worse and nobody wins in those situations. The
best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make a
decision on the fairness of one proposal and for the process to be
viewed as legitimate by both sides.
Section 57 of the Canada Labour Code contains a provision
for final settlement by an arbitrator for disputes that occur
during the life of a collective agreement. The parliamentary
secretary from York North referred to this provision on March 2
when he said: ``Our system of compulsory collective agreement
settlement through arbitration or some other peaceful means
contributes to a high degree of stability in our industrial
relations system''. The message government is sending on this
issue is one of confusion. Government is for it in some instances
and not for it in other instances.
I am certainly not trying to circumvent the collective
agreement process. I do want to ensure that in areas of essential
services Canadian people are protected from costly disruptive
work stoppages that could affect their safety and their
livelihood. We need an amendment to the Canada Labour Code
which would expand the provisions contained in section 27 to
include final offer arbitration in work stoppages in essential
services as soon as the existing agreements expire.
The Ogilvie workers and their employers have been involved
in a bitter labour dispute as has been mentioned, for almost a
year. Those people would certainly like to get back to work. It is
unfortunate that this bill is not a votable one. If it were, I would
be suggesting to our caucus that we should support it.
I encourage the government to come forth with legislation
considerably similar to this that would work as a long term
solution and not a piecemeal approach to the problems.
_____________________________________________
12862
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt private
members' hour with House business but I think you will find
that there is now unanimous consent for one of the motions I
moved earlier. I move:
That, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to
travel to Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Summerside, Barrington, Sydney,
St-George and Petty Harbour from June 5 to June 10, 1995 in order to study the
restructuring of the fisheries industry, and that a staff of five do accompany the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
12863
12863
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of
the operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-313 which is an act to
provide for the resumption and continuance of operations at
ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.
In short, the bill uses final offer selection as a dispute
settlement mechanism. It would empower the minister to
appoint an arbitrator to select the final offer submitted either by
the employer or the union. In effect, the bill calls upon the
federal government to impose a settlement process on the two
parties.
On the face of it, the proposal sounds reasonable. However, I
am a firm believer in the free collective bargaining process and
the long term interest of collective bargaining would not be
served otherwise. Having said that, I want to express to the
member for Verdun-Saint-Paul that I share his concerns about
the dispute.
On June 6, less than a month from now, the strike will be a
year old. Surely in today's highly competitive economic
environment it is reasonable to expect the parties to a labour
management dispute to reconcile their differences in far less
time.
It is noteworthy that one of the parties, the employer, is owned
by Archer Daniels Midland, a very large U.S. based
transnational corporation. To be frank, I wonder how aware the
employer is that the industrial relations culture in this country is
different from the industrial relations culture that exists south of
the border.
(1405 )
Without overstating the differences between the two
countries, I think it is fair to say that generally, employers and
managers in this country possess a greater willingness and
ability to work with labour unions. They tend to avoid the kind
of power bargaining that seems to predominate in the U.S.
Dr. Pradeep Kumar, associate director of the Industrial
Relations Centre at Queens University, pointed out in his study
of industrial relations in Canada and the United States that:
``While U.S. employers have become increasingly hostile to
unions, practising a wide range of union substitution and union
avoidance activities in pursuit of lower cost and greater
flexibility in compensation and work arrangements, Canadian
managers appear to have shown greater willingness to work
together with unions to facilitate adjustment and adaptation to
changing markets and technology. The growing U.S. trend
toward a union free environment is less evident in Canada''.
Dr. Kumar goes on to say: ``Unlike U.S. employers who have
vigorously demanded concessions and forced unions into
submission using their enhanced bargaining strength, Canadian
managers, while jealously guarding their right to manage the
workplace free of influence of organized labour whenever
feasible, have been more accommodating and receptive to union
goals and objectives and have attempted to find consensus on
areas of mutual concern''.
Also, I think Canadian unions rely more and place a higher
value on the collective bargaining process. They certainly enjoy
greater public support as evidenced by the fact that the
percentage of unionized workers in the U.S. is about half of what
it is in Canada.
Professor Kumar and others have also noted that Canadian
labour legislation differs markedly from U.S. legislation in
many respects.
For example, Canadian collective bargaining legislation
provides a relatively simple procedure by which trade unions
can acquire collective bargaining rights. In most Canadian
jurisdictions a union can be certified without a vote upon
evidence that 51 to 60 per cent of employees in the bargaining
unit wish to be represented by the union. In the U.S. all
applications for certification are contested, requiring a vote to
establish that a union represent a majority of employees.
No Canadian jurisdiction has right to work laws, but 21 states
in the United States of America have such legislation. Canadian
labour legislation permits all forms of union security, closed
shop as well as union shop. Dues check off is a common
provision.
Most Canadian jurisdictions have successor right provisions,
providing that where a business is sold the successor employer
acquires all the rights, privileges and obligations of the
predecessor. The successor is bound by any collective
agreement in force. In the U.S. the effective change in
ownership on the union and the collective agreement is
uncertain, depending on various factors.
A number of Canadian jurisdictions provide for advance
notice and consultation on technological change. This provision
is not found in the U.S. legislation.
First contract arbitration is available in the federal
jurisdiction, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
There is no such provision in the United States.
The use of replacement workers during a strike is prohibited
in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In the U.S. if em-
12864
ployees choose to go on strike, their employer can immediately
and permanently replace them.
As Paul Weiler, professor of labour law at Harvard University
put it: ``For employees who may have spent 20 years with the
company building up a stake of experience and seniority that can
rarely be duplicated elsewhere, the stark reality is that if they do
go on strike, they can be replaced by the company with people
who in less than 20 minutes on the job gain permanent priority
over the striking veterans''.
Labour standards and occupational safety and health
legislation in the United States is also very different from such
legislation here in Canada. For example, U.S. legislation, unlike
Canadian legislation, does not require the establishment of a
joint health and safety committee, nor does it contain a right to
refuse unsafe work. The right to refuse unsafe work by health
and safety committees exists in every single jurisdiction in
Canada.
(1410)
While all Canadian jurisdictions have mandatory maternity
and paternity leave provisions, with the right to return to former
jobs and the continuation of benefits, very few jurisdictions in
the United States require employers to provide pregnancy leave.
There are no individual standards for notice of termination or
any severance pay legislation in the United States. In Canada, on
the other hand, all jurisdictions require an employer to give
notification to an individual being terminated, and Ontario and
the federal jurisdiction provide for mandatory severance pay.
In Canada most jurisdictions require advance notice of plant
closures involving 50 or more workers. Recent U.S. law sets
minimum notice requirements for plant closures and mass
lay-offs by employers of more than 100 employees, but there is
no provision for consultation with the unions similar to that
found in many Canadian jurisdictions.
My point is to show that the industrial relations climate or
culture in Canada differs in significant ways from that in the
United States.
In the dispute we are talking about today we have a relatively
new employer, perhaps used to another way of doing things and
having attitudes and assumptions not yet aligned with the
Canadian attitudes and assumptions, and perhaps too ready to
adopt a hard bargaining strategy. In this dispute the employer
has chosen to use replacement workers, a decision which, not
surprisingly, has greatly angered the workers. In their view, the
use of replacement workers is the reason the dispute has lasted
so long.
As members of the House know, the federal government has
been examining the Canada Labour Code very intensively. It has
been consulting with representatives from business, labour, and
other interested parties. One of the issues being studied is
whether the federal government ought to follow the examples
set by Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia in their legislation
to prohibit or restrict the use of replacement workers. Those who
favour restrictions on the use of replacements argue that when
an employer continues to operate during a strike the collective
bargaining process is frustrated and the employer's incentive to
negotiate is removed, work stoppages are lengthened, and picket
line violence is often inevitable.
It is also argued that the use of replacements serves as a
disincentive for employees to join unions. Workers who know
they can be replaced easily during a strike will wonder about
union effectiveness and will be less likely to opt for
unionization.
Those who oppose restrictions on the use of replacement
workers say that such a move would tilt the balance of power
toward labour, inevitably resulting in higher labour costs. They
claim that it would deter new investment. The point is also made
that most federally regulated industries are infrastructure
industries. If they are completely shut down the entire economy
would suffer.
The issue is complex and divisive. The arguments on both
sides are persuasive. Also persuasive is the fact that 75 per cent
of the workforce under provincial jurisdiction is governed by
legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers.
I will end my remarks by reiterating that I cannot support this
bill because I believe firmly in free collective bargaining. The
state has no business intervening in what are essentially private
disputes.
At the same time, I have concerns about the heavy handed and
less than accommodating attitude of the company. Like many
others, I whether the impasse would have lasted so long had
there been restrictions on the use of replacement workers in the
Canada Labour Code.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Verdun-Saint-Paul, on a point of order.
Mr. Lavigne (verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr. Speaker, I ask for
unanimous consent that the motion be amended by deleting all
the words after the word ``that'' and substituting the following
therefor:
Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of the
operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be not now read the second time but
that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred
to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion of the hon. member requesting that the bill
be dropped and the subject matter referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.
12865
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since no more members
wish to speak and the motion is not a votable item, the time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper,
pursuant to Standing Order 96.
[English]
It being 2.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
May 29, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)