CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 8, 1995
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 16357
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16360
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16366
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16366
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16367
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16368
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16374
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 16375
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16376
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16379
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16385
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16385
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 180; Nays, 41 16385
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 16386
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16386
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 178; Nays, 44 16386
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 16387
Bill C-322. Motion for second reading 16388
16357
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 8, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to recognize Wednesday, November 8, 1995 as
Take Our Kids to Work Day.
Today over 153,000 Ontario students will accompany a friend,
parent or volunteer sponsor to their workplace in an effort to learn
about the demands and opportunities of the working world. The
program is an initiative of The Learning Partnership which
provides students with an interactive hands on work experience in a
field of interest to them while emphasizing community
responsibility for the future of our young people.
I would like to welcome Anne McGuire, a grade nine student
from Bishop Allen Academy in my riding of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Anne is spending the day here in my office
on Parliament Hill to further her interest in politics. Perhaps at
some time in the future she will join us here as a colleague in the
House of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the week
of November 4 to 12 has been set aside to honour those Canadians
who fought and those who died in two world wars, in Korea and in
peacekeeping missions.
When veterans returned home from Europe 50 years ago they
were filled with hope, pride and optimism. They were ready to
build a strong Canada. How disappointed these veterans must be
today. The country they were willing to give their lives for is $567
billion in debt and is in danger of breaking apart.
If action is not taken immediately to solve the debt crisis, to
build a new Canada within a new federalism, to reform health care,
the Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance, if we do not
put justice back in the justice system and make Canadians feel safe
on their streets and in their homes again, the efforts of those valiant
Canadians will have been in vain.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, if our political
leaders in Canada have not grasped the very clear message sent by
Quebecers on October 30, they will have to live with the
consequences. Quebec wishes to regain its proper place within the
Canadian context. Rather than being purely symbolic, the proposed
changes should respond to the legitimate and traditional demands
of Quebec.
People of Canada, the steps that are taken must be in harmony
with what has been said in recent weeks. Let us put an end to
double talk. Federalism as we know it must be reshaped; moreover,
Quebec is not the only one calling for federal withdrawal from
areas of provincial jurisdiction. More than ever, we must
demonstrate a desire to make the changes necessary for national
unity, while respecting our differences.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
announce the addition of a high powered office consultant to my
constituency staff for one day, Mr. Travis Dolinski, who is
participating in the program called Take Our Kids to Work.
Today in Ontario over 153,000 grade nine students are at work
with a parent, guardian, relative, friend or volunteer host. They are
all experiencing possibly for the first time the challenges of the
workplace. They will spend a day on farms, in hospitals, factories,
offices, retail stores and many other places of work.
Often students do not fully understand the links between
education and work and how important successful work is to their
future. Through this exposure they will see the value of a good
education in our rapidly changing workplace. They will begin to
think about the choices they will have to make and the paths they
must follow
16358
to meet their career goals. They will also better appreciate what
their parents do to provide them with the necessities of life.
With the co-operation of Erie riding's business and industry, our
youth will have an informative, fascinating and stimulating
experience. I encourage my colleagues to support this program or
similar ones in their ridings.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to remind colleagues of the leading role Canadian
doctors play in the advancement of heart research.
In a report to be published in the European Heart Journal this
November, Canada is cited as one of the top three research leaders
in the field of cardiology despite ranking 13th in expenditure on
research and development per capita.
[Translation]
This year, Canadian physicians again made an enormous
contribution at the congress of the International Society for Heart
Research, held in Prague.
[English]
I was especially delighted to note the achievement of Dr.
Naranjan Dhalla of Winnipeg who has served as president of that
body for the past 25 years. Dr. Dhalla was identified at the congress
as ``the person primarily responsible for the remarkable
development of the International Society for Heart Research''. In
fact, with the assistance of others he was also able to bring the 17th
congress of this prestigious association to Winnipeg for the year
2001.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the impressive-
The Speaker: I am sorry, your time is up.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this Saturday, November 11, communities across Canada
will be holding special commemorative ceremonies in honour of
Canadian veterans to let them know Canada remembers their
valiant deeds.
In this century alone, over 100,000 Canadians have given their
lives in the service of their country. Some remember these
Canadians as friends of their youth, as comrades in arms in the
service, some as mothers and fathers, or brothers and sisters, or
spouses.
It is also a time for all Canadians to remember and pay tribute to
those who purchased peace and freedom for us through their
sacrifices, their suffering and with their lives.
We are what we are today, we have what we have today because
of the people we honour on Remembrance Day. Throughout
Carleton-Charlotte and indeed across Canada we will always
remember them and their deeds.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question on the unacceptable actions of certain
soldiers at Petawawa in celebrating, on at least two occasions, the
terrible events at the Ecole Polytechnique, the minister of defence
made remarks that were insulting, degrading and unworthy of his
position.
Rather than condemning his soldiers' actions unequivocally, the
minister unleashed his full contempt upon the Bloc, accusing its
members and all sovereignists of racism.
(1405)
In so doing the minister is insulting the half of the population of
Quebec which voted yes in the referendum, continuing the
mudslinging campaign begun by the Deputy Prime Minister last
week. These statements are odious and demonstrate the minister's
insensitivity toward the murder of young women in an incident
which outraged all Canadians.
The minister must stop making statements which are
unacceptable from a representative of the people, and must provide
serious responses to the legitimate questions asked by the official
opposition.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have continually asked how bad can it get. Now they are
asking how much worse will it get. They are talking about violence
and the fact this justice minister fiddles while Canadians burn.
Two teens club to death a retired senior couple. The justice
minister cancels a meeting in their riding and continues to fiddle. A
10-year old girl is kidnapped and murdered by a known dangerous
offender. The justice minister plays the same tune. Now in our
nation's capital youth gangs with adult leaders are gathering. They
use torture chambers to kill and maim our youth. Obviously the
justice minister has not the will nor the courage to get with it and
do his job.
16359
Here are some suggestions. Scrap the Young Offenders Act. The
act does not provide for proper correction for young offenders.
Publish the names and pictures of violent youth, especially violent
gang members. Let Canadians know whom they should protect
themselves from. Scrap the politically appointed parole board. Let
the frontline workers decide who is ready to return to society.
This Liberal minister and his justice system have failed. Now is
the time for a new Canada with new-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of a
constituent from the riding of Beaches-Woodbine.
In mid October Ms. Denise Meehan, the founder, president and
sole shareholder of Lick's Ice Cream and Burger Shops won the
quality plus award in the 1995 Canadian Woman Entrepreneur of
the Year awards. In winning the quality plus award Ms. Meehan has
demonstrated the ability to develop and maintain excellence in
every aspect of her company's offering to her customers,
employees, the community and the environment.
Ms. Meehan has six Lick's locations in the Toronto area as well
as six franchises in the cities of Sudbury, Ottawa and Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.
Ms. Meehan constantly pays attention to staff development and
customer concerns. She believes that instilling good work habits,
life skills and a caring attitude toward customers and the
community fosters creativity and self-confidence.
I commend Ms. Meehan for her outstanding contribution to
small business development in Canada.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bernie Newman, a former Liberal MPP for
Windsor-Walkerville, passed away on Monday night.
Bernie was a teacher, an Olympic gymnastics coach of some
renown, a great family man as well as a tremendous advocate for
the city of Windsor.
Bernie believed in what he called positive representation which
he defined as follows: ``Positive representation is standing up on
the floor of the legislature and hammering at problems others
would like to ignore. It is overcoming indifference and getting
action. It is the proper combination of the enterprise and energy of
youth together with the weapons of experience''.
Throughout eight successive victories and 28 years at Queen's
Park, Bernie is best known for his commitment to and his love of
his constituents. They kept sending him back to represent him over
all those years. I do not know very many people living in
Windsor-St. Clair during the years of Bernie's tenure at Queen's
Park who did not receive cards or letters from him for
anniversaries, birthdays and in sympathy.
I know all members of the House will join me in offering
condolences to the Newman family and in honouring the memory
of Bernie Newman.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw attention to the
National Spirit of Peace Run which has been happening in cities
across Canada and which will be concluded tomorrow by a
commemorative ceremony here on Parliament Hill and at the
peacekeeping memorial.
The peace run is an activity organized by the Canada Remembers
program as part of veterans week. I am pleased to say that in every
city the run has brought together Canadians of all ages in a tribute
to those who served our country during wartime.
Peace torches were carried in each city. These torches have been
transported to Ottawa where they will be carried by second world
war veterans to the centennial flame during a very special
ceremony tomorrow that will celebrate Canada's continuing
commitment to peace.
The ceremony will represent the passing of responsibility for
peace from the young men and women of 50 years ago who
defended it to the young men and women of today who will
continue to protect it in peacekeeping missions around the world.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
Minister of National Defence announced his plans to rent or
purchase 15 new search and rescue helicopters at a cost of
approximately $600 million.
The minister was unable to give any guarantees this morning that
the new helicopters would be less expensive than those the
Conservatives planned to buy.
Even worse, there will be no Canadian content requirement for
bidders. When we know that the aerospace industry is based mainly
16360
in the Montreal region and that barely two months ago, the same
minister awarded, without tender, a $2 billion contract for
armoured personnel carriers to Ontario, this is simply outrageous.
The minister announces his expenditures on military equipment
in dribs and drabs. How much will the final bill be, including on
board helicopters and submarines, the next items on his shopping
list?
While this government makes savage cuts in social programs
and unemployment insurance, the army gets the royal treatment.
This says a lot about the priorities of this government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week in Vancouver the Deputy Prime Minister
attacked my suggestion that the prompt and unconditional
devolution of some government functions to provincial
governments would meet the aspirations of Quebec and other
provinces and therefore would keep the country together.
My constituents have been irate over this attack. They feel the
minister's objections reflect her party's elitist attitudes and callous
disregard for the wisdom of ordinary Canadians, which have led to
a near break-up of the country.
What exactly does the federal government know that the
provincial governments do not know better about manpower
training, cultural, medical, language and other policies for the
benefit of their citizens who hold them accountable at every
election?
My constituents are happy to be Canadian and have Ottawa
remain responsible for the policies it can carry out best, but they
are tired of having distant politicians and bureaucrats run their
affairs. Pay attention, Liberals, before it is too late.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
creation yesterday of a committee on Canadian unity is typical of
the makeshift policies that are bogging down the government.
During the final days of the referendum campaign, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans invited Canadians and big business to
violate Quebec's referendum act by spending millions of dollars in
a last ditch effort to win a victory for the No side. He is a member
of this new committee.
The Minister of Indian Affairs has on several times mentioned
the possibility of dividing Quebec's territory. He is on this
committee.
And last week, the Minister of Justice wanted to resort to some
outdated legal tricks to prevent Quebecers from voting again on
their future. He is on the committee as well.
Because the government cannot keep the Prime Minister's
referendum promises, it creates a committee of ministers who
openly took positions that were hostile to the aspirations of
Quebecers. As a result, the committee's credibility will be almost
nil.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday, November 6 the leader of the NDP, Alexa
McDonough, and I had the honour of touring the site of the 1995
Grey Cup, Canada's national football championship. The Grey Cup
is being held at Taylor Field in my constituency of
Regina-Lumsden on November 19. It is already a huge success
with over 52,000 tickets sold.
From November 15 to November 19 the citizens of Regina
welcome all Canadians to the best Grey Cup celebration the
country has ever seen. Thanks to thousands of volunteers, Grey
Cup 1995 is expected to be a tremendous success. Special thanks
go to the Saskatchewan Roughriders football club, the Grey Cup
committee and its executive director, Ken Thomas, along with the
Grey Cup board of directors and executive committee members.
The theme of this year's Grey Cup is ``Huddle up in
Saskatchewan''. I invite all members of Parliament and all
Canadians to catch the spirit of Saskatchewan and experience our
famous western prairie hospitality. Join us in the huddle for one
terrific celebration in Regina. If they cannot make it to the
celebrations-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my friend the Bloc member for
Frontenac again demonstrated his complete ignorance of Canada
and its people.
The hon. member implied that the National Citizens Coalition
speaks for the real English Canada that came to demonstrate at a
rally in Montreal a few days before the referendum.
16361
This statement shows how far removed separatists are from the
real Canada. First of all, he ought to know that the vast majority
of the 150,000 participants in this rally were from Quebec.
(1415)
Second, unlike the separatists, the participants in this rally will
not renege on their commitment to recognize Quebec as a distinct
society.
There was no Jacques Parizeau in the crowd to say: ``I could not
care less about your distinct society''.
_____________________________________________
16361
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, whereas
many people, strangely enough, joined together prior to October 30
to promise Quebec constitutional changes that would satisfy it, all
attempts to fulfill these promises have failed one after the other, in
the days following the referendum. In desperation, the government
yesterday announced the creation of a mysterious committee, but
nobody yesterday knew its make-up, its mandate or its time frame.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Was the hasty set up of a committee to study the question of
constitutional and administrative changes to the federation not the
result of the government's inability to find a way out of the dead
end it found itself in because of the commitments made by the
Prime Minister and the fierce opposition by the provinces, certain
ministers and certain members?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the promises the Prime Minister made regarding changes
in connection with the distinct society, in particular, are promises
the Prime Minister will keep.
Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois has no interest in these promises
being kept, since their aim is to destroy the country. However, if we
look objectively at events in recent years, we will see there have
been significant changes in the federal government. We also know
that the Leader of the Opposition has said he is not interested in
discussing change of any sort until after a yes vote in the
referendum.
Therefore, the opponents of change benefitting Quebecers are
the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we do not
need to look too far back in the course of events to discover that
those who oppose the Prime Minister's commitments are those
sitting on that side-in the caucus and in cabinet-and the
provincial premiers.
Should I also remind the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
that the job of the Bloc Quebecois at the moment is to ensure that
Quebec is not cheated again, as it has so often been in the past?
The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that the federal
government could move without necessarily seeking provincial
approval, because, in any case, Quebec could block any initiative.
Are we to understand from her remarks that the federal government
has once again decided to work secretly to come up with a proposal
it will then try to impose on Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations by the member for Roberval are clearly in
error.
With regard to the distinct society, it was the leader of the Parti
Quebecois himself who said: ``Stop bothering me with this idea of
a distinct society''. This is a matter of public record and contradicts
what the member for Roberval has just said. So, he is the one
opposed to a distinct society and not our Prime Minister.
Furthermore, in talking about negotiating the best for Quebec,
let me read you, Mr. Speaker, what Lucien Bouchard himself
said-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1420)
The Speaker: My dear minister, I would ask you to give this
man's title.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of negotiations, the
Leader of the Opposition said the day they would be at a table
would be the day after Quebec had voted yes in a referendum,
which he hoped would be held in the very near future. This reveals
very clearly that the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with
73 per cent of Quebecers, who indicated they wanted negotiations
on Canada's future.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are the
accusations by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the
government's phoney committee whose establishment was
announced yesterday not simply delaying tactics aimed at keeping
a lid on the profound division not only in the Liberal caucus, but in
cabinet, where a number of members are still under the influence of
Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
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, I made no accusations and I based each of my statements
on remarks made by the leader of the Parti Quebecois and the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
16362
Furthermore, in the committee that was struck, we are going
to try to find a solution to the problems the country is facing, one
that will help Canadians, including Quebecers. And the Bloc
Quebecois is opposing our efforts at finding a solution to the
present problems and is opposing the resolution of difficulties in
jurisdictional matters, despite the fact that the majority of
Quebecers indicated in a democratic decision that they did not
want to leave Canada.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. All observers are still wondering what kind of logic
prompted the federal government to think it might be helpful to set
up a committee of ministers in charge of reviewing the possibility
of making constitutional and administrative changes to the
Canadian federation. Many people have questions, but few
ministers can answer them.
How can we believe that this phoney committee can propose
acceptable changes to Quebecers, when the real decision makers,
that is, the provincial premiers, are not even on it?
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, those who want to find a real solution to the problems met
to set up a working group whose mandate is to look at possible
changes.
It is clear that the official opposition-whose goal, as its leader
indicated, is to break up the country-has no interest whatsoever in
co-operating or in finding something positive to say about the
working group we have set up. Yet, this working group is clearly
needed to make a list of the changes required to reconcile all
Canadians.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal, the Deputy
Prime Minister made this short statement: ``We are now trying to
make it possible to fulfil the promises made by the Prime
Minister''. Let us be frank.
Is the creation of this phoney committee not simply a federal
trick to allow the Prime Minister to save face, since he is unable to
deliver the goods and to meet his commitments?
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, during the campaign, the Prime Minister made promises
with respect to distinct society and the right of veto. The Prime
Minister said he would keep these promises. Our Prime Minister is
a man who has kept his promises in the past, and people believe in
his integrity.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for months before the Quebec referendum the government
went to sleep on the national unity issue, failing to provide a strong
federalist vision of strategy to counter the separatist dreams and
strategy. Then the government got the mother of all wake up calls
on October 30 and the Prime Minister belatedly decided to act on
the demand for change inside and outside Quebec.
(1425)
Now, a week later, we find the government going back to sleep.
Instead of offering leadership it falls back on a tired, old precedent
of appointing a top down, closed door committee to come up with
some post-referendum strategy.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
What on earth happened to the sense of urgency that the Prime
Minister expressed on October 30? By what date will this cabinet
committee have something intelligent to report to the House?
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, it is curious to hear the Reform Party complain about the
unity task force.
Who wrote the 20 points in the Reform constitutional plan? Was
it the committee or was it a submission by one of the Reform
members? Did their leader agree without consultation with the
party and without consultation with the people?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the constitutional proposals in Reform's new
confederation package have been under discussion with the
Canadian public for five years. It came from the bottom up, not the
bottom down.
The fact remains that the only government response to the
Quebec referendum thus far has been to start down the same rocky
road that led to the failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords by establishing a top down, closed door committee of
cabinet to develop unity proposals without the involvement of
Canadian people. This is the process that doomed Meech, doomed
Charlottetown and will doom this post-referendum strategy unless
the public is involved.
What specifically does the government intend to do to bring the
Canadian people, the ones who pulled the no vote out of the fire,
into the development of its post-referendum strategy?
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, when we talk about the will of the people I think the leader
of the
16363
third party should remember that the Charlottetown accord passed
in his riding. If he were expressing the will of the people he
represents he would be in favour of these negotiations.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Chamber and the National Press Gallery have become
dangerously complacent about the failure of government ministers,
including this minister, to give direct answers to straight questions.
Maybe he can do that on a thousand different subjects and it is
considered clever in the Chamber although it is not considered
clever outside. If the government fails to directly answer straight
questions on the issue of the unity of the country, it is playing with
the life of the country and it will earn the just contempt of every
Canadian who cares about the unity of the country.
I will ask my question of the minister once again and I will go
slowly. What specifically does the government intend to do to
bring the Canadian people into the discussion of its national unity
proposal?
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, if we ask straight questions we get straight answers. If we
ask contorted questions unfortunately we get contorted answers.
In this case if the question is what is the mandate of the
committee, the mandate of the committee is very clear. The
promises the Prime Minister mentioned during the campaign will
be kept. At present we are looking at various ways in which
governments could be made more effective. This is part of the
changes we have carried through with the government in the last
two years and this will continue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. On the
government's phoney committee, we have the Minister of Justice,
who, last week, was looking for legal means to prevent Quebecers
from voting again on their future, the minister of fisheries, who
urged thousands of Canadians to act in violation of the Quebec
referendum act, the minister of Indian affairs, who raised the
possibility of dividing Quebec's territory, and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who will not recognize that Quebecers are a
people.
(1430)
Under these circumstances, how can this committee come up
with anything that would be acceptable to Quebecers?
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, when official opposition members refer to a phoney
committee, it is clear that they are choosing words that have no
connection with reality, just to discredit a tool used by the
government to try to improve the situation.
Again, this comes as no surprise to me, since the self-appointed
role of the official opposition is to destroy this country, which
strips it of any credibility when it comes to looking after the
interests of Quebecers. We are the ones looking after the interests
of Quebecers by respecting the wish of the majority, which is to
find, within Canada, ways of making the federation work better.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): This is the whole
point, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister admit that, in this committee,
the interests of Quebecers will be looked after only by ministers
who said repeatedly over the past two years that Quebecers did not
want to hear about the Constitution?
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, again, I think it is pointless to keep answering questions
from the opposition, whose sole goal is to promote the destruction
of this country, and not to help Quebecers.
We, on the other hand, have established a commission which has
been mandated, in accordance with the wish clearly and
democratically expressed by Quebecers in the referendum, to find
solutions within the Canadian federation.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
understatement to say that there was a massive breakdown in
security at 24 Sussex over the weekend. With every passing day the
revelations get more bizarre and Canadians are rightly concerned
and angered.
We have just learned that the Mounties guarding 24 Sussex that
night were inexperienced, having received only a couple of
months' training. At least one of them had been called from the
RCMP musical ride.
I ask the Solicitor General of Canada this. What sort of training
did these officers receive and who was responsible for putting these
people in the position of gatekeepers at 24 Sussex?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already reported to the House that a full investigation into
16364
the circumstances of the incident and what steps should be taken to
make sure it is never repeated is under way.
I expect this investigation will be completed and a report
available to me by the end of the week. In light of that I will have a
lot more to say about this incident which is certainly something
that should never have happened and something I never want to see
happen again.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
same night this tragedy happened, in Israel the security force
resigned; its members have either been thrown out or they have
resigned.
Why can that not happen here when our Prime Minister's life
was in great danger that night? Why was the intruder not spotted?
Why did it take seven minutes for the RCMP to respond? Why did
the RCMP secure the perimeter of the place without securing the
Prime Minister?
More amazingly, none of the three senior officers who are on
emergency standby duty 24 hours a day with cell telephones
answered when Mrs. Chrétien made the emergency call. They were
not available. They did not answer their phones even though they
were on 24-hour standby emergency duty.
Will these senior officers be held accountable? Can the solicitor
general assure the House, without the report having even been
tabled, that junior officers will not take the fall for their superiors?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the important thing is to determine in a factual way all the
circumstances and then to put steps in place to make sure the
incident is never repeated.
This is what we are doing. This is what is going to happen. I hope
to have the support of my hon. friend if she is serious about this.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, when asked about the mandate of the cabinet
committee, the minister could only say that the committee was
going to look at all the possibilities for constitutional and
administrative changes in the Canadian federation.
I put my question to the minister in the hope that he will provide
an answer. Can the minister tell us if the proposed resolution to
recognize Quebec's distinct character, as well as the bill on
regional referendums, are among the options which his committee
will look at?
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, once again, the commitments made by the Prime Minister
during the campaign concerning a distinct society clause and a
constitutional veto for Quebec will be fulfilled. Our committee will
also look at non constitutional measures, so as to not overlook any
means to make our federation more effective.
This is what we will do in the coming months. We should not
pre-judge the results. We, at least, are working in the best interests
of Canadians and Quebecers.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister admit that, if the government gave such a wide and vague
mandate to its committee, it is because it wants to keep all the
doors open? The government obviously does not know how to
fulfill the commitments made to Quebecers by the Prime Minister
during the referendum campaign?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no. The commitments made by the Prime
Minister during the campaign will be fulfilled and we will review,
with dedication, the changes that could be made to improve the
way Canada works.
Again, in establishing this committee, the government shows
that it cares for the well-being of Canadians and Quebecers. As for
the opposition, it has clearly indicated, through its leader, that it is
not interested in negotiating, and that its only goal is to destroy our
country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as usual I am asking questions concerning the
Minister of National Defence's mismanagement of his portfolio.
This morning the military police revealed documents alleging
fraud by the chief of the defence staff. Access to information
documents show the CDS has misused public funds.
Canadians have serious problems with the defence department's
continually having to investigate itself because of the minister's
mismanagement.
Has the CDS offered his resignation or has the minister
demanded the resignation of the CDS?
16365
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member goes on so many fishing expeditions that it is very difficult
to keep up with him most of the time.
As everyone knows, the chief of the defence staff is a
distinguished individual who has served the country well. He will
be leaving at the end of December. If the hon. member has any
charges to level, I hope he will do it in the appropriate place.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today we have strong evidence against at least two of
the minister's senior officials, the chief of the defence staff and
Lieutenant-General Boyle, who has denied the existence of
documents which have surfaced with his signature on them.
Was the minister's helicopter press conference today a feeble
attempt to divert the attention of Canadians away from yet more
reports of corruption, deception and misconduct by officials
surrounding the minister?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe
my ears when I hear the hon. member from the Reform Party. He
has been urging the government to re-equip the forces yet criticizes
the making of this very key announcement of providing new search
and rescue helicopters to the armed forces.
On the matter of the access to information inquiry, the hon.
member knows the department came to the person who requested
the information and stated there were some irregularities. An
investigation was launched by the deputy minister and
subsequently the military police were brought in. The information
commissioner was apprised and fully concurs with the way we are
handling the situation.
Here we have yet another attempt by members of the Reform
Party to malign public officials who are unable to defend
themselves on the floor of the House.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
A study prepared for the Krever inquiry once again indicates
significant shortcomings in Canada's blood supply system.
According to this report, we are apparently not yet protected from
another contamination like the one experienced in the early 1980s.
Is the minister aware that, still today, as a result of her inaction,
another tragedy such as was experienced in the early 1980s remains
possible?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly why the Government of Canada struck the Krever
commission to study the 1980s tragedy and to try to ensure it does
not recur.
Mr. Justice Krever has commissioned all sorts of studies to help
him decide what ought to be done. We continue to await his report
and in the meantime we are taking all the steps we can to ensure the
safety of the blood supply.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister still be hiding behind evasions, behind the skirts of the
Krever commission, when it is in her power to act now and prevent
another tragedy? What we expect from her is not excuses, but
action.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have not waited for Justice Krever's report before taking steps
to make the system safer. We have begun by stepping up, doubling
even, the resources allocated to the Bureau of Biologics. We have
begun to inspect blood donor centres on an annual basis. We also
have a system for making inspection findings public.
Among other things, we have set up an advisory committee to
help us continue to look at what is going on in other areas, in other
countries, so that we may continue to be in the forefront with all
new methods for increasing the safety of the system. We shall
continue to take all of the steps necessary.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs or for the
parliamentary secretary.
Yesterday it was reported that Canada is withdrawing its
co-sponsorship of a United Nations resolution seeking a stop to
nuclear weapon tests.
Why is Canada withdrawing its sponsorship over the wording of
the preamble when at the same time the Canadian delegation plans
to vote for the resolution?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the government has
repeatedly stated in the House and internationally, Canada is
deeply committed to early conclusion of the comprehensive test
treaty which will prohibit all nuclear testing for all time.
A draft resolution dealing with the nuclear testing issue is
currently being negotiated at the first committee of the United
Nations. As the text now stands, Canada intends to vote in favour
of the resolution.
While Canada had initially co-sponsored a draft resolution, we
had made very clear that we had reservations about one of the
paragraphs in the resolution that could have brought into question
16366
the commitments made by nuclear weapon states at the 1995 NPT
review and expansion conference.
Canada intends to vote in favour of the resolution, but it will not
be co-sponsoring it.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Industry about the
misappropriation of funds at the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal
Association.
In 1993 the minister's department was aware that its guidelines
were being seriously broken and the association was declared
insolvent by BDO Dunwoody.
How can the minister continue to leave President Henry
Wetelainen in charge under these circumstances, especially since
the minister said, on Goldhawk in June, that he would investigate
and act?
(1445 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member implies that I run the aboriginal capital corporation in
question, which is not the case.
Mr. Morrison: You fund it.
Mr. Manley: Another member suggests that I fund it. The fact is
that no funds have been advanced to that organization since 1991.
The facts that are alleged to be improper on the part of the hon.
member have been given to the RCMP for investigation.
Mr. Abbott: Why did you not say that yesterday?
Mr. Manley: I did say that yesterday. I am sorry you were not
listening.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that due process is sometimes seen by the
Reform Party to be a bit of an inconvenience, but in this case I
suggest it let the police do their work.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out to the minister that this organization has had a
cash flow constantly throughout the years, despite the cutting off of
federal funds. There are still moneys coming in from the previous
loans portfolio and they are being mismanaged, poorly managed.
I ask the minister again if he will not cease and desist with this
president running this organization to the detriment of the Métis
aboriginal people they are meant to benefit.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the efficiency of the administration and the
appropriateness of the conduct of the organization, the member is
right that we have concerns about it. That is why I indicated to
interviewers that we would be investigating it.
Not only has there been no additional federal money given to the
organization, not only has the agreement with the organization
terminated, but we are continuing to work with them to correct the
administrative conduct if necessary. If necessary we will take
whatever action is required to recover funds that were previously
given to the organization.
There are two files at issue here. One is the allegation the
member referred to earlier, which could lead to criminal charges.
The other issue is with respect to the administration of the
organization. He imputes to me powers I do not have, that of
appointing the president of the organization.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
After making a big production of cancelling the huge EH-101
deal two years ago, the Minister of National Defence now goes
ahead and buys 15 search and rescue helicopters, the same number
the Conservatives planned to buy, without any guarantees they will
be less expensive.
Since the minister refuses to say anything about purchasing
combat helicopters, does this mean that, to make its policies more
palatable to the taxpayers, the government is making these
announcements piecemeal and plans to invest in a program as
ambitious as the EH-101 deal?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, there were four major crown purchases that were
called for in the white paper that resulted from the special joint
committee's deliberations. The hon. member's party took part in
that.
We announced the contract for the APCs some weeks ago, and
now we have made the announcement of a competition for the
replacement of the Labrador search and rescue helicopters, which
are over 30 years of age and nearing the end of their life. This will
be an open competition. We hope to examine new ways of
financing that particular purchase, perhaps by leasing. The bottom
line will be to save the taxpayers money.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is right when he says we were part of that committee, but the Bloc
Quebecois proposed far more substantial cuts.
When we realize that the aerospace industry is mainly based in
the Montreal region, what explanation does the minister have for
the fact that, in the case of the 15 helicopters, there is no Canadian
content requirement and that two months ago, the same minister
16367
awarded, without tender, a $2 billion contract, for armoured
personnel carriers to Ontario?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
things called for in the white paper was to move to off the shelf
procurements, and that means to get the best deal for Canadian
taxpayers.
(1450 )
Unlike the hon. members opposite, I happen to know that
Canadian industry is very competitive, especially in the areas of
integrated systems and electronics. Many of those industries are in
Quebec. I am sure many of those industries will have a chance to
show to bidders that they are competitive and can be part of this
particular contract.
With respect to the question of the absolute price, we cannot talk
about an absolute price if we are to have a competition in which
price is to be one of the principal determinants. However, I will
guarantee that on the search and rescue helicopters it will be much
cheaper than the price that was to be paid for the EH-101 for the
same job. We have reviewed the specifications and have found out
that what the previous government ordered was really too rich for
even the application of search and rescue standards in the country.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
summer the CBC was ripped by the auditor general for being
bureaucratic, wasteful and inefficient. Today a leaked document
suggests that the CBC will soon be put in charge of the
administration of Telefilm.
Will the minister promise the House that he will not send the
arsonist to put out the fire?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the last budget it was announced that
there would be a review of the mandates of the CBC, Telefilm
Canada, and the National Film Board. We are on course. There will
be a report and recommendations put on my desk at the end of this
month. Only at that time will decisions be made. In the meantime, I
am waiting for that report.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
further make the point, in the recently released supplementary
estimates the CBC helped itself to another $56 million over and
above what it was budgeted for this year. It seems it is having a
little trouble with this restraint thing.
How can the minister justify giving the CBC another $56 million
when it has proven so wasteful in the past?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to understand how
downsizing works. This surprises me, coming from his party.
The CBC is downsizing and there is a cost to downsizing. The
economies will show this in the next few years. That is the way it
works.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is fully aware, women are making
a significant contribution to the work carried out by his department.
DFO is currently integrating the fleets of scientific research,
fisheries patrol and coast guard vessels.
Can the minister tell us what steps he is taking to promote a safe
and healthy working environment on board DFO vessels?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very thoughtful question,
which I know my colleagues in the Reform Party are interested in.
Her question acknowledged the contribution of women in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the contribution of women
on shipboard platforms in both DFO and the coast guard.
In response to the question about a safe and healthy working
environment for women within the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, we have recently taken steps to improve the environment,
including the removal of alcohol from research vessels in the
maritime region, sensitivity training for DFO vessel crew
members, and leadership training for senior officials, promoting a
safe and healthy working environment for all our employees.
Harassment will not be tolerated in 1995. We are taking steps to
ensure that the full contribution of women can be made in a safe,
healthy and secure environment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Members of the former airborne regiment held celebrations in
honour of Marc Lépine, who killed 14 young women at the École
polytechnique in Montreal. Members of this group were even
promoted by the Canadian Forces but, despite our questions on this
matter, the minister of defence still refuses to suspend these
promotions.
16368
Does the minister not agree that common decency requires him
to suspend immediately the promotions given to those involved
in the dinners honouring Marc Lépine?
(1455)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered
those questions two days ago. This incident has not been confirmed
but if it did occur, it is, of course, deplorable and unacceptable.
Canadian Forces do not condone such activities. An investigation is
under way and I hope that Lieutenant-General Baril, the
commander of the army, will submit his report in the near future.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister stubbornly refuses to suspend the promotions given to the
soldiers involved in the dinners honouring Marc Lépine and shows
little sensitivity in this matter, I will put my question to the Deputy
Prime Minister.
How can the government tolerate the fact that soldiers who took
part in celebrations in honour of someone who killed 14 young
women were promoted by the Canadian Forces and that these
promotions were not suspended, even after these events were
brought to the defence minister's attention?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
offensive that people would make judgment on people and convict
them without the evidence. Let us wait for General Baril's report
before we make any judgment.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a federal court judge struck down a
section of the Immigration Act that was used to keep members of
terrorist groups and criminal organizations out of the country. In
the court's questionable wisdom, the judge felt that to deny entry to
members of terrorist organizations is a violation of their charter of
rights and freedoms guarantee to freedom of association.
I ask the minister of immigration to confirm that it is the
intention of the government to appeal this decision and to advise
the House on what steps it plans on taking in the meantime to keep
members of criminal organizations and terrorist groups out of the
country.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
First, it would be advisable to understand this is one section in
the Immigration Act, which has probably been used twice in the
last 10 years.
Second, the judgment just came down yesterday. It is some 70
pages. Our officials and officials from the justice department and
the solicitor general's department are considering an appeal.
Third, it would be unfair to give the impression to Canadians that
because there may be a question on section 39 of the act the
department and the act are powerless with respect to those who
come to this country and are deemed to be undesirable. The power
of certificates in section 40 is still there. The power to detain is still
there. The power to deport and move to inquiry is still there. The
powers obtained under Bill C-44 that allow inquiries to stop
refugee claims if there is a threat to Canada are still there.
We are discussing one tool in a toolbox that gives plenty of
options to the Government of Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a court of Canada
saying it is okay for criminals and terrorists to enter our country.
Canadians want to know if the government is prepared to use the
notwithstanding clause in the charter of rights and freedoms to
keep terrorists and criminals out of the country.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should stop
fearmongering and begin to deal with decisions in a calm, fair, and
rational manner. I realize that is a bit much to ask of the Reform
Party.
The federal court said no such thing. The federal court made a
decision based on section 39 with respect to simple association
with various memberships of organizations. It did not say it was
okay for terrorists or others to come into the country.
(1500)
We are saying that this is one section of the Immigration Act. We
may indeed appeal this decision. It was only handed down
yesterday. Let us reflect on what the court took months to
deliberate on and let us do the right thing rather than jump into
scare mongering that does no one any good anywhere.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we approach the end of the calendar year many
Canadians focus their attention on the dreaded task of filing their
income tax returns. The Department of National Revenue sends out
millions of tax packages to individual Canadians each year.
16369
Given the budget restraints this year, could the Minister of
National Revenue tell the House what his department has done
to streamline the tax filing operation and to save money?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her continuing interest in
government deficiency and saving taxpayers' money. We
appreciate it very much.
The department introduced a number of changes to the 1995
income tax packages for individuals. This will save approximately
$3 million annually. It translates into an environmental saving of
some 320 million pages or, if we want to look at it somewhat
differently, 13,600 trees.
This is part of a continuing process in the department on which
we have embarked over the last few years and which will with the
$3 million save a total $9 million. It has been done through cost
efficiencies and savings rather than any cut in service. It is
eliminating duplication of information. It is simplifying the tax
filing of individuals and, as I mentioned, it is substantially helping
the environment.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and follows up on the question of the
member for Davenport.
Every party in the House except the Bloc Quebecois has
condemned French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Does the
parliamentary secretary not recognize that French nuclear tests in
the South Pacific clearly violate the undertaking that France gave at
the special conference in May of this year?
Will the parliamentary secretary make it very clear to the House
that Canada accepts the undertaking made by France was violated,
and will Canada do the right thing and restore its co-sponsorship of
this important resolution?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the international community
and the hon. member should know Canada's position on extending
indefinitely the ban on nuclear testing. He heard the explanation of
why Canada is supporting the resolution while withdrawing its
co-sponsorship.
Canada felt the wording was not strong enough. Canada
registered its objections at the time when France was intending to
set off another nuclear test. That is well known. The hon. member
is trying to score political points over nothing.
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Samak Sundaravej,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand, and his group
from Thailand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also I draw attention to the presence in the
gallery of the Earl of Lindsay, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry
and the Environment for the Scottish Office.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
The Speaker: It is not often we in the House of Commons
celebrate a day such as today. However it is very special for two
members of the House.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke belong to the class of 1965. They
were first elected to this place in a general election held on this day
30 years ago. I should like to salute them in the name of the
Parliament of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Some members want to make interventions and I
recognize the hon. House leader of the government.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to associate myself as do all members of the House
with your words of congratulation.
I believe it is time that I personally stopped thinking of the hon.
members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke as those two new guys around
here. Not many members have had the privilege of serving 30
consecutive years in the House. I am happy to note that the active
membership in this special club has just tripled. I assure new
members and the House that I could not have chosen any better
company.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gray: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce came
here as a passionately committed champion of the less fortunate
and the dispossessed, a relentless crusader for justice and equity,
and a forceful advocate of international understanding. He has
served in many capacities, including as a minister of the crown. He
has taken on every challenge with energy and persistence.
16370
If there are some newer members who marvel at his vigour, they
should take note that there are even hockey players only one third
his age who have trouble skating with him for an entire game.
The hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has
distinguished himself as a real tribune of his people. An educator
by profession, he has continually demonstrated the effectiveness of
speaking sometimes in soft tones but always in very plain
language.
He too has served in many capacities, earning a well justified
reputation in matters concerning defence and public
administration. When he speaks we all recognize that he is
accurately reflecting what his people are saying. He has often
proven the value of persistence and honest hard work.
A decade ago he had a close electoral call, being returned by
only 38 votes. This earned him the nickname of Landslide Len. He
rolled up his sleeves and in the next election proved his nickname
well earned. He won the next time by more than 10,000 votes.
To conclude, anyone who has been to the district of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in Montreal or who has visited the upper
Ottawa valley can soon learn how it came about that these areas
have returned the same members in nine consecutive elections. In
both cases one finds that almost everyone knows their member of
Parliament, and even if not a partisan supporter everyone can tell
about the personal service that each of these members has
provided. Of course these members probably do so as Liberals, as
members of our Liberal caucus.
These are two honourable and decent people who have served
Canada well for 30 years. May they both serve for many more.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me
to join my hon. colleague to convey, on behalf of my caucus, our
heartfelt congratulations to our two colleagues, the hon. members
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
on 30 years of parliamentary activity. That is unusual and, party
politics aside, we all have to respect such tenacity and commitment
to serving one's fellow citizens.
(1510)
All too often, the members of this House have to sacrifice their
health or families to uphold democracy, which makes those being
honoured today all the more deserving. I would therefore ask them,
on behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, to accept our
sincerest congratulations.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
should like to pay tribute to these two long serving members. I
think after having won two elections I am a veteran at this but in
fact I am just a kid. The hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce have had incredible careers here.
With respect to the hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, in the 30 years he has served
there has often been a cold and cynical environment in this place,
sad to say, but he has contributed immeasurably to making
members of the House remember that their purpose in Ottawa is to
serve those who elected them back home. There are no votes to
gain in the Chamber.
While in government he served as acting speaker of the House
and parliamentary secretary to the ministers of national defence
and energy, mines and resources. In opposition he served as official
opposition critic for national defence, financial management and
regional development. Yet, when asked about his great
achievements as a member of this place, the hon. member often
mentions funding for the Ottawa Heart Institute.
He has found an enviable role in Parliament that does not include
the high and mighty stature of being a minister. Funding for the
Ottawa Heart Institute was very important to him. I remember the
time he went in for heart surgery. We were grateful that our prayers
were answered and he was able to return here. We are glad he is in
good health and feeling well enough to be able to keep up a
rigorous schedule.
Regarding the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, again he
is somebody who has served here for 30 years. I was 13 years old
when these two men were elected. It gives me a sense of history.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has also had a wide
and varied career. He has served in a variety of capacities as
Solicitor General, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The titles go on and on. They show the wide diversity of knowledge
they have gained from this place.
He has worked in many areas, but it is amazing that he has
demonstrated his tenacious commitment to the convictions and
principles on which he has staked his political career, I am sure
more than once. In a firm commitment to the principles in which he
believes and on which he has been re-elected on eight successive
occasions, which truly distinguishes the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, his unwavering belief in the principles in
which he believes so firmly and for which he stands, has seen him
stand to be counted many times, including a recent personal and
difficult decision for him to oppose his own party.
The hallmark of that successful politician, someone who is
willing to stand to be counted, is that he is able to balance the
realities of the party system with the wishes of his constituents
while remaining true to his own beliefs. The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce retains the respect and support of his con-
16371
stituents. I know my party especially has appreciated him as
chairman of the justice committee on which he served.
I wish both gentlemen well and a happy anniversary. I wish
God's richest blessing on them as they continue in this place.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very sincerely thank the government House
leader and all my colleagues, the House leader for the official
opposition and its members, and the House leader of the Reform
Party and its members for their good wishes. If it were 30 years ago
today I would do it all over again.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hopkins: There is no greater calling in Canada than that of
a member of Parliament representing constituents and the nation
and participating with the nation in international affairs. Some of
the great things done by people in this place are the small things
they do for their constituents. It has always been rewarding for me
to travel through villages, towns, cities and communities and be
called by my first name and taken into confidence. The people of
Canada respect those who treat them with decency; I would say
today that a sense of decency toward our fellow citizens and to be
credible in their presence is one thing MPs should always bear in
mind.
(1515)
I have seen, met and befriended some wonderful people who
have passed through this great institution, people who have made a
fantastic contribution to Canada. Quite frankly, I can say at this
stage in my life on behalf of those people whom I have known and
many who are in the House today, I do not think that this country's
elected people get half the credit they deserve for the wonderful job
they are doing.
I say to all members, good luck and all the best to you as you go
on in your careers. Thank you very much for your friendship.
There is one thing that cannot go unmentioned here today.
Whenever there is a party for Len Hopkins, I do not want it to be a
party for Len Hopkins; I want it to be a party for my good wife Lois
who is in the gallery today-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hopkins: -and for the members of my family, Doug and
Sherri, who have tolerated me over these 30 years. There are many
in the House who know what it is all about.
The best thing for people in public life today is to be decent to
people, respect them and listen to them. Enjoy your career here by
doing useful things for those people and for the country. Remember
that this is a great institution through which many wonderful
people have passed in bygone years. It is up to those of us here
today to make certain that people in the years to come look back
and say that we respected the system and looked up to the Canadian
people and did the best we could for this great nation of ours.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the last word always falls to the
Speaker. Len and Warren, my words are also meant for you.
In the name of your colleagues here in the House and for those of
us who have served by your side over the decades, it is good to
know there are people like the two of you, fighters fighting quietly
at times and at other times more vociferously.
This House is an honourable place. The two of you, Warren and
Len, have brought greater honour to the House by being part of it.
Thank you for serving Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
16371
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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 which were recently 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.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to two petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table
before the House the
OECD's Environmental Performance Review
of Canada. The review was conducted over the last 18 months by a
team of international environmental policy experts. It looks at how
Canada is doing in meeting the goals we have set domestically and
internationally.
16372
(1520)
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having tabled the document,
how did Canada do?
Overall the OECD report is positive for Canada. It points to
areas where we are doing well. Equally important, it points to areas
where we must do better. The report credits co-operation among
various levels of government as a key reason for effective
environmental protection in Canada. It recognizes that Canadian
governments have embraced the concept of sustainable
development.
[Translation]
But Canada-like most OECD countries-continues to struggle
with turning the concept of sustainable development in reality. The
report says we have to do better-and we are. Over the past year,
we have taken significant steps to address this problem. Bill C-83,
which amends the Auditor General Act, is an example.
It requires that government departments prepare sustainable
development strategies and integrate sustainable development into
departmental policies, programs and operations. This means giving
the federal government the tools to start making the shift to
sustainable development.
[English]
The OECD report also has a lot to say about the way we are
bringing environmental policy to life in Canada. While the report
compliments the way we use voluntary agreements, it says that we
need to increase the use of economic instruments. The report is
right. We should use economic instruments in more cases to
achieve our environmental goals. However, the government also
believes there is a definite role for good legislation and good
regulation and a definite need for legislation to be vigorously
enforced.
The federal government's flagship environmental legislation is
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is here that good
regulation can shift society and industry to cleaner commercial
practices. As members of the House know, this legislation is
currently under the mandatory five year review. The government
will be tabling its response to the standing committee report very
soon.
[Translation]
In terms of wildlife and species protection, the OECD report
makes it clear that we still have a lot of work ahead. While we can
be pleased that population levels for many vulnerable species are
going up, the report points to many cases where the laws are weak.
It suggests that Canada give special consideration to protecting
wildlife in areas where there are severe pressures from human
activities.
The government recognizes this need. Last May, I released a
proposal for a new Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act.
This is the first time a federal government has moved to create a
co-ordinated and co-operative national approach to protect the 244
species of wild plants and animals that are endangered, threatened
or vulnerable.
[English]
On air pollution, the OECD report is positive about the
effectiveness of Canada's federal-provincial partnership in
reducing air pollution. We have met our goals for emissions of
many air pollutants, including sulphur dioxide, lead and carbon
monoxide causing acid rain. It also points to areas where air quality
is inadequate for human health and ecosystems.
In parts of Canada there are consistent breaches of national and
provincial ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone,
what we call smog. Environment ministers across Canada are
strongly aware of the need to take action to reduce pollution from
cars and from industry. We have begun to take action in concert to
address this problem.
Last month in Whitehorse, Yukon my provincial colleagues and I
endorsed a report calling for the tightening of regulations under the
federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Our report also calls for actions
to improve fuel efficiency and to promote advanced technology and
alternatively fuelled vehicles.
There will be new standards for cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel.
All in all, we believe these changes will significantly reduce the
level of smog in Canada. That means cleaner air and healthier
Canadians, which means Canadians will live longer.
The most sobering element of the OECD environmental
performance review report is that we are told we need to do more to
meet our climate change goals. The report says that Canada will
have a tough time meeting its climate change goals with our current
plans. Nor does it believe that our national action program will
allow Canada to meet its international commitment to stabilize
carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. Clearly,
tougher measures must be taken.
(1525)
The report encourages us to be more aggressive and to consider
the use of all instruments available to reduce our emissions of
carbon dioxide, instruments including charges, regulations and
indeed taxes. The world's leading scientists have confirmed that if
human beings do not reduce and eliminate their impact on the
world's climate, the repercussions for Canada and the planet earth
will be severe, crippling and irreversible. Aggressive actions must
be taken now. They must be taken if we are to fulfil our
responsibil-
16373
ity to protect the health and future of our children and
grandchildren.
[Translation]
And so, what messages can we take from the OECD
Environmental Performance Review of Canada? Yes, our efforts to
protect the environment are bearing fruit. But we cannot be
complacent. There are important environmental issues that we have
not resolved. And there are goals and commitments that we have
not successfully met.
In Canada, we have a record of working together to solve
problems. This is something we can be proud of. The OECD has
recognized this, but we must continue.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
the Minister of the Environment is tabling the OECD's report on
Canada's environmental performance.
This report also recognizes the efforts made by the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment, which proved itself to be
a useful instrument in several respects. The report highlights the
environmental strengths and weaknesses of the federal and
provincial governments, which made sustainable development a
central theoretical concept but with few concrete applications.
The minister states that, contrary to what the report says, her
government was able to translate the concept of sustainable
development into a reality. To prove her assertion, she used the
example of Bill C-83, which creates the position of commissioner
of the environment.
I simply want to point out to her that creating the position of
commissioner of the environment is no guarantee of sustainable
development for the federal government, let alone for Canadian
and Quebec society. On October 3, the auditor general admitted
before the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development that he would have no control over the
scope of departmental action plans. The departments themselves
will be responsible for setting objectives, which cannot be
questioned by anyone. In simple terms, nothing can prevent a
minister from setting meaningless or superficial objectives.
More importantly, the auditor general questioned the
departments' ability and willingness to find ways to assess the
effectiveness of their action plans. On this subject, he said, and I
quote: ``In an era of downsizing and restructuring, I fear that the
challenge will not be taken up. In our experience, in order to take
positive action, departments need leadership, support and
direction'', something that is obviously lacking.
How can the minister come here to brag, when she knows full
well that her government was unable to force her colleagues to
develop meaningful action plans that could set an example for the
private sector?
At report stage and third reading of Bill C-83, I will be pleased to
analyze more thoroughly the amendments put forward by the
committee, which open the door once again to federal meddling in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The minister admitted today that there is a real need for
environmental legislation to be vigorously enforced. I fully agree
with her. In this regard, she should be reminded again that Canada
is still acting illegally by exporting toxic waste to the third world
and that her officials simply cannot afford to put an end to this
practice.
(1530)
The minister is quite right. It is not enough to sign international
arrangements such as the Basel convention; we must also enforce
them. In that sense, instead of interfering in areas that are no
concern of hers, as she keeps doing, the minister should ensure that
those acts which are clearly under her responsibility are properly
enforced.
Moreover, the minister should also be reminded that, since her
government came to office, the number of proceedings under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act has clearly dropped
compared to previous years.
Similarly, the minister mentioned the CEPA regulations. The
report in which the standing committee criticized the fact that there
are hardly any regulations respecting the CEPA must have escaped
the minister's attention.
The minister also announced that the government's response to
the standing committee's report on the CEPA would follow shortly.
The minister might be tempted to table a bill reflecting the
centralizing designs of the Liberal members of the committee, but I
would caution her against it.
In the last referendum, the people of Quebec have clearly
indicated that they will no longer tolerate the federal government's
highhanded and centralizing approach. The Bloc Quebecois and
myself are anxious to see if the minister got the message and acted
on it.
I wish to stress the fact that this government's attitude since
coming to office and the episode of the Environmental Assessment
Act, which raised an outcry, have left a bad taste in the mouth of
provincial governments. Co-operation between the various levels
of government must not be taken for granted, and the minister has
already gone beyond the limit of what can be tolerated in many
respects.
As far as air pollution is concerned, it is obvious that the minister
is walking on eggs. According to the OECD, Canada's performance
is far from enviable. While, clearly, some provinces have simply
16374
not taken their responsibilities, the minister can hardly brag about
her own performance.
The minister's proposal at the recent summit in Berlin to literally
deliver permits to pollute, as well as her bill on MMT, which could
result in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, are
evidence of her poor performance.
I also note that Bill S-7, which seeks to introduce the use of more
environment friendly fuels for the federal fleet of vehicles, is not
an initiative of this government, but of Senator Colin Kenney.
Finally, I want to point out that the OECD report presented to us
today concerns the provincial governments just as much, if not
more. Indeed, in its report, the OECD recognizes that the provinces
assume most of the responsibilities related to management of the
environment. Canada still has a long way to go before it can claim
to be a leader in environmental issues.
The OECD's criticisms primarily concern provincial
governments. It is up to them to take the initiative and to reduce
pollution, improve management of our natural resources, and
improve integration of the economy and the environment.
I also think that it would be in the best interests of the provinces
to take a direct part in signing international agreements. That way,
they would have no excuse for not reaching objectives they
themselves have set.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the OECD report shows that we are doing fairly well, but
there is more that we can do. We have embraced the concept of
sustainable development, but like many countries we have had
trouble in translating this into reality. Encouragingly the minister
agreed with this.
In the face of this admission the government has produced a pea
soup agenda with respect to the environment, this even after a
superb report by the committee on the environment that was
completed earlier this year and was lauded in many quarters.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the
Environment: Why is she putting bills such as the environmental
auditor general forward when the functions of the environmental
auditor general can be co-opted by existing structures?
(1535 )
Why are we talking in the House about banning MMT and
spending enormous amounts of money and time on this issue when
there is no reason to ban it for reasons of health? There is a lot of
evidence to show that MMT does not damage onboard devices, the
basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to ban it.
The government is taking up these issues when there are other
larger, pressing, persistent and dangerous issues affecting Canada's
environment as we speak.
First, the OECD report states that Canada has not been exporting
toxic materials to other countries since we signed the Basel
convention in 1992. The investigative unit of the minister's
department shows that Canada is exporting highly toxic materials
to non-OECD developing nations such as Hong Kong, China, India,
Thailand and South Korea. The toxic substances being exported to
these countries cannot meet the environmental standards we have
in our country. These countries are taking toxic materials, stripping
parts away, and burning them or dumping them in a fashion that is
highly damaging to the environment.
Second, there are 26 sites in this country that pose a high degree
of hazard to people, flora and fauna. There is absolutely no plan to
address these toxic sites within our own border.
Third, the OECD analysis also showed that on a per capita basis
we emit the highest levels of such damaging agents as nitrous
oxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Yet in the face of this
the minister wants to ban MMT which will greatly increase nitrous
oxide emissions, which is a very important component of the smog
that exacerbates respiratory problems.
Fourth, Canada refused to agree to be a signatory of an important
section of the UN convention on the prevention of pollution from
ships. As a result, one-third of the garbage on some of the most
pristine and protected beaches in the British Isles comes from
Canada. I would ask the hon. minister to please look at that.
I agree with the minister's statement about working with
industry to try and develop economic ways to help them become
more sensitive to the environment, and in developing ways to use
industry in a sustainable fashion. We would be happy to work with
the minister on that.
I also applaud her statement on trying to protect our flora and
fauna. It is a heritage that the people of the country have been given
and in turn, we are obligated to give to future generations.
Our problems demand immediate action, not only for the benefit
of all Canadians but for the benefit of people around the world. Our
environment is not only shared with those within our country, it is
shared by all people on the planet. We have only one planet, only
one environment and only one opportunity to make sure our
environment will be sustainable and sound for coming generations.
We are at a watershed on the planet right now. If we choose to
put forward sound plans for sustainable utilization of the
environment, then we will have a world worth living in. But if we
choose not to take this course of action, then the planet we know
will not be what we were born into. It will be a very sorry place to
live.
16375
In southeast Asia a number of countries have gone full bore into
developing their nations with very little respect for the
environment. As a result great numbers of children are being born
with genetic defects which are directly due to the polluted
environment into which they are born. We must take heed of this
and develop our country for the future in a way that we will not
fall into this trap, for us and for the coming generations.
* * *
(1540 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to rise in the House today and present a petition on behalf of
2,500 constituents of my riding of Simcoe Centre. The signatures
were collected after the beating of a young girl by a gang of girls in
the city of Barrie.
The petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation to
strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including publishing the
names of young offenders, lowering the age of application and
transferring serious offenders to adult court. I support these
petitioners.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions under Standing Order 36. The first
petition is from residents in the communities of Athabasca and
Smith in my riding.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including the amending of the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from residents from the High Prairie area of my
constituency.
The petitioners request that Parliament support the laws which
would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime; to support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and to
support legislation which will repeal and 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 as to
be inefficient and/or unenforceable.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-90, an
act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; and Bill
C-105, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the
Republic of Latvia, a convention between Canada and the Republic
of Estonia, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago and a protocol between Canada and the
Republic of Hungary, for the avoidance of double taxation and the
prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
_____________________________________________
16375
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
November 8, 1995
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne
Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 8th day of November,
1995, at 4.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary
Policy, Program and Protocol
16376
Pursuant to our standing orders, I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended today by 19 minutes.
_____________________________________________
16376
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey has
the floor. Our hon. colleague still has 11 minutes remaining in his
intervention.
(1545 )
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to be here today to speak to Bill C-94, the manganese based
fuel additives act.
Yesterday I made the case for the onboard diagnostic equipment.
I spoke of the process in an engine during the four-stroke cycle and
the fact that when the fuel is burned in such a rapid sequence it
exits the tailpipe and how it affects the onboard diagnostic
equipment.
I will conclude my remarks by talking about the fuel as it comes
out of the exhaust pipe and enters into the catalytic converter. A
catalyst is a device that causes something to happen that would not
have happened without this device. It basically changes the
substance without changing itself.
I talked about what happens with regard to rhodium and
platinum and palladium used in this device and how it affects
adding or subtracting oxygen and the fact that we added or
subtracted oxygen by triggering certain devices by computer
controlled mechanisms.
In the House we talk about problems in Canada. We have
interprovincial problems. Sometimes because we do not have
natural enemies we spend a lot of time navel gazing or talking
about other things. It is important, particularly when it comes to the
environment, that we act collaboratively and work hard to try to do
the best for our country.
The environment is quite fragile. It is quite integrated. As we get
more and more knowledgable about it, we understand how
important it is and how important it is to interact with it and when
we do the right things what the environment can do for us in terms
of giving us healthy lifestyles. Given the fact that air will migrate
across states and across provinces, it is very important that we have
collaborative action to look after that. It does not matter how small
those applications are in terms of looking after the environment.
We have to act.
I am reminded of the fellow who said ``If you think cleaning up
the environment is hard, trying cleaning out your garage''.
As the House gives final consideration to Bill C-94, I would like
to explain the background to this legislation and what it seeks to
accomplish.
MMT is the commonly used acronym for a more tongue twisting
name: methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl. This is a
manganese based fuel additive used to increase the octane rating of
gasoline.
MMT was first viewed as a replacement for lead in gasoline. In
Canada it has been used since 1977. As all members are aware, lead
was phased out of virtually all Canadian gasoline by 1990. The
phase-out has brought considerable improvement to urban air
quality.
If I may compare MMT to lead, heaven forbid-I think lead was
probably more dastardly and more harmful-we would notice that
when we try to fill our car up the nozzles for the new gasolines are
smaller and the hole is smaller so we cannot use the old nozzles in
cases where they have lead.
Lead had its positive points. It was an octane additive. It was
used to increase the combustion chamber pressures. If you increase
the compression ratio you get higher initial pressure, higher final
pressure, and more power. Older cars went up to something like
11:1 compression ratio.
The lead itself actually stops the gasoline from blowing up.
Gasoline becomes unpredictable. For those who drive their
vehicles very hard, especially some of the older model cars, and
turn the ignition switch off with their foot on the accelerator pedal
and the car runs on, it is called dieseling or after-running. It is
sometimes caused by a hot carbon particle setting the gasoline on
fire, although it is not electronically triggered by the sparkplug. It
is just the heat that is left in the residual amount of carbon left in
the combustion chamber that actually sets the gasoline on fire.
These octane enhancers try to predict or control this
explosiveness or the volatility of the gasoline so that it works under
controlled processes. When it is controlled it burns a little better
and you get better reaction from it and you can control the work it
is doing. You are changing heat energy to mechanical work in an
engine.
(1550 )
Today almost every Canadian motorist uses MMT, simply
because Canadian refineries use it. The exact amount of MMT may
vary from one batch of gasoline to another. In general, premium
grade gasoline contains a higher MMT level than regular grade
gasoline.
MMT has always been controversial. In 1978 it was prohibited
for use in unleaded gasoline in the United States because it was
16377
suspected that the substance could damage emission control
equipment. Despite recent moves to reverse the U.S. prohibition,
MMT is certain to have no place in the high tech cleaner fuels for
the future.
Hon. members from the opposition party and the Reform Party
have made the case that there is not enough evidence. I have seen
films from the automotive manufacturers, and they have said
categorically and have shown that the catalysts in the converters
are coated at a faster rate. The person who will lose in this case is
the consumer.
If Ethyl Corporation and the automotive manufacturers want to
work something out, we do not want to be the referee. The federal
government has spent a lot of money because members of the
opposition and sometimes our own members have asked the
government to do certain things. We end up spending a lot of
money and sometimes the resultant solutions are not that good.
Look at the Krever report on blood contaminants concerning
things that have happened in the past. Those proceedings are going
on and on; it is going to cost us millions of dollars and will
probably result in a lot of lawsuits from people about things that
have happened in the past. It seems the only people who get a lot of
jobs are lawyers. I am sure my lawyer friends are going to be mad
at me, but that is a problem with some of the things that happen
here.
In this case, the federal government should not intervene in a
dispute between the Ethyl Corporation and the automotive
manufacturers. It has to make a decision on behalf of Canadians
and the environment. That is what this decision is all about.
Canada is being forced to confront the downside of MMT not
because a new environmental threat has emerged but because we
are getting better at countering those threats.
Cleaner air involves using cleaner fuels as well as cleaner cars
and trucks. While research has continued on the product we put
into our gas tanks, it has also continued on our hardware, the engine
that burns the fuel and the control equipment that lowers emissions.
Technological advances have steadily cut the harmful emissions
coming out of tailpipes.
Now we have taken another major step toward the introduction
of sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems, which are known as
OBDs. These systems are extremely valuable for the environment.
They are responsible for the monitoring of the vehicle's emission
controls and alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the
cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as
designed. They ensure automobiles are properly maintained,
resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel
economy.
This is a very important technology, but it is even more
important that it works, that it does the job properly on the new
cars. This is where the problem arises.
The automobile manufacturers are convinced that gasoline
containing MMT adversely affects the operation of sophisticated
onboard diagnostic pieces of equipment. Accordingly, the industry
has made the decision that it will not accept the risk of increased
warranty repair costs caused by MMT related damage. Some
companies have even indicated they will disconnect the OBD
systems in whole or in part if MMT continues to be used in
Canadian gasoline. That means the cost of maintaining these
systems could be passed on directly to Canadian consumers and
Canadian consumers would pay more to operate these new cars.
What we have here is a conflict between two key industrial
sectors, the automotive manufacturers and the oil industry. The car
makers insist that MMT harms their product, forcing them to adopt
practices that may raise prices for consumers.
(1555 )
The oil industry claims that MMT reduces nitrogen oxide
emissions by up to 20 per cent, but the figure is subject to dispute.
In any case, alternatives to MMT are available. By the industry's
own estimates, the cost of MMT removal translates into an increase
of 0.1 to 0.24 cents per litre at the pump, which is a negligible
amount, given that gasoline prices regularly fluctuate by a few
cents per litre.
The Minister of the Environment urged both industries to find a
voluntary resolution to the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of
1994. She said that if they did not do so the government would take
action. The deadline was subsequently extended into February of
this year to review automotive and petroleum industry proposals.
Unfortunately, the matter was not resolved, so the federal
government proceeded with Bill C-94.
Allow me briefly to explain the key provisions of the bill. The
legislation will prohibit the import or interprovincial trade for a
commercial purpose of MMT or unleaded gasoline containing
MMT. It will give the Minister of the Environment the power to
authorize exceptions for MMT, which will not be used in unleaded
gasoline, subject to a monitoring requirement. Coverage of the act
can be expanded by order in council to cover other manganese
based substances. The act is binding on all persons and entities,
including federal and provincial governments.
I believe that the initiative taken by the government is correct. I
feel that the onboard diagnostic equipment malfunctions outweigh
the gains we can achieve with respect to nitrous oxides. We could
control the nitrous oxides. The OBD systems will give us better
fuel economy and better burning engines, resulting in fewer
emissions to the environment.
16378
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to
third reading of Bill C-94. I am pleased to speak for two reasons.
First, it will give me the opportunity to show Canadians a sad
example of bad legislation. Second, speaking today allows me to
reveal again how the government's inability to display good
judgment will cause Canadian industry, the consumer, and the
overall environment to suffer.
On May 19, 1995 Bill C-94 was introduced in the House of
Commons by the Minister of the Environment. After introduction
the minister proceeded to hold a press conference, where she
informed reporters that the reason for banning MMT was because it
caused problems with onboard diagnostic systems in new
automobiles. That was not the only reason the minister proceeded
to ban MMT. She stated that Canada was one of the few countries
in the world using MMT in unleaded gasoline and that this should
change.
The minister knows very well what the best solution to the entire
debate would be. She knows that a series of independent third party
tests are needed, but she will not initiate this or facilitate it.
As members of the House and, more important, as
representatives of all Canadians it is important we weigh and
pursue every available option to come up with an appropriate
conclusion before we create legislation. We should be asking
ourselves: What indeed is the best science can tell us?
The Liberal government calls itself responsible. What is really
meant by the term responsibility, in view of Bill C-94? On these
technical matters it certainly does not hurt to demonstrate and then
legislate. That is not too much to ask.
We know that at the time the bill was introduced MMT was not
yet approved for use in unleaded gasoline in the United States.
Since 1978 MMT has not been in U.S. fuel. In 1978 the
Environmental Protection Agency did not approve MMT because it
felt it might be detrimental to the health of Americans.
Understanding what the Americans did with respect to MMT is
very significant to what this government is trying to do with Bill
C-94.
In the U.S. there was an air quality act brought forward by
Congress in 1967. The act established a registration program for
fuel additives. The regulations made registration a condition of sale
and required that manufacturers provide information on the
recommended range of concentration and use and chemical
composition and structure.
(1600 )
In 1970 Congress amended the act to transfer authorization of
the registration program over to the EPA. Congress required that
the EPA designate fuels and fuel additives for registration. The
clean air act required that manufacturers provide information on
the chemical composition to the EPA. The EPA also had the
authority to judge the effects of additives on emission control
performance and public health.
In 1977 Congress made more amendments to the clean air act.
One amendment dealt with the emergence of catalytic converters in
automobiles. I will read what the courts had to say about the new
amendment and the effect it would have on MMT:
As catalytic converters could not be used with leaded fuel, their adoption had
led to a sharp rise in the use of MMT as an octane booster, and Congress
responded to concerns that it and other fuel additives might harm the
effectiveness of these converters. Section 211(f)(3) required that manufacturers
of certain existing additives, those that were ``not substantially similar'' to
constituents of fuel used in the certification of vehicles for emission purposes
for 1975 or later model years, stop distributing such additives effective
September 15, 1978.
Congress directed the EPA to grant a waiver once it determined
that the additive would not cause or contribute to the failure of an
emission control device system. The EPA deliberately stalled on
making a decision until the courts instructed it to do the testing.
On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT did not cause
or contribute to the failure of emission control systems. However,
not wanting to be outdone by the courts, the EPA denied the waiver
on the grounds that the manufacturer, Ethyl, had not yet established
the absence of health effects.
The court wrangling continued until October 20, 1995 when the
United States Court of Appeals, in the case of Ethyl Corporation v.
Carol M. Browner, administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, ruled:
We order the EPA to register MMT for use as an additive in unleaded
gasoline, as of November 30, 1993.
What is significant with this ruling is not that Ethyl won and that
MMT could be sold in U.S. unleaded gasoline by the end of the
year, but rather it is the process that was undertaken by Congress
and then the EPA not to approve MMT in unleaded fuels. Back in
1978 the EPA said that MMT might pose a health problem and
cause adverse effects to catalytic converters, but through the
examination of all evidence by the courts these negative concerns
were put aside.
The EPA has until December 4, 1995 to appeal the decision made
by the court. Considering that it did not appeal an earlier decision
this year it is doubtful it will appeal the October 20 ruling. The
implications of this are rather ironic. When the bill was introduced
in May both the environment minister and the industry minister
said that eliminating MMT from our gasoline was essential to
achieve a North American harmonization of fuel. They said we
should copy the Americans.
Both ministers were confident that the ban on MMT would
remain in the United States. On May 5 I asked the environment
16379
minister during question period about the fact that the courts would
probably rule in Ethyl's favour. In response he stated:
I advise the hon. member that last week when I had the opportunity of
speaking with Carol Browner, head of the EPA, she reaffirmed the U.S.
commitment not to allow MMT. She decried the fact that there is only one
country, Canada, that still allows MMT. We intend to change that.
The Minister of Industry has gone further than his colleague, the
Minister of the Environment. On April 25 in a question period
response he told me:
Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. The
member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation.
It is crucial that we have uniformity of standards. The effort we put into trying to
ensure there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well
placed, but finally governments have to decide.
The Ministry of Industry has clearly stated on the record that it is
important U.S. and Canadian gasoline need to have the same
composition harmonization. That is his position and he will no
doubt vote in favour of Bill C-94. The government is confused. I
thought the definition of harmonization was two sides being in
harmony with each other. I guess the minister has a different
definition as MMT is now going to be used in the U.S.A.
The industry minister is not the only one who has different ideas
of harmonization. During the clause by clause consideration of the
bill I moved the motion that we hold off on the bill until December
5, 1995, one day after the EPA's 45 allotted days to appeal the court
ruling. The U.S. ruling was not only significant for Ethyl
Corporation but was equally important for the Canadian consumer.
I point out a statement by the member for York-Simcoe in rebuttal
to my motion:
I think in terms of what's going on in the United States. The decision that was
encountered recently regarding MMT was based on some technicality. We also have
to give consideration to the fact that MMT is banned in California and some of the
high ozone states.
(1605)
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
He may continue his intervention after we return from the Senate.
_____________________________________________
16379
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
(1610)
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name,
Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act,
1984-Chapter 34.
Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act-Chapter 35.
Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act-Chapter
36.
Bill C-105, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the
Republic of Latvia, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Estonia, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and a
protocol between Canada and the Republic of Hungary, for the avoidance of
double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on
income-Chapter 37.
_____________________________________________
16379
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be
read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby has the floor for his remaining 10 minutes.
(1615 )
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before we left for the Senate I was quoting the member for
York-Simcoe. She had said:
I think in terms of what's going on in the United States. The decision that was
encountered recently regarding MMT was based on some technicality. We also
have to give consideration to the fact that MMT is banned in California and
some of the high-ozone states- So any kind of justification for the fact that 100
per cent of the United States is not going to be using MMT is simply just not
acceptable because that's not true. At least 30 per cent of the country will not be
having MMT usage at all.
When I was a youngster in elementary school and I thought I
might be embarrassed, I would perhaps disassemble to get out of
16380
trouble. The comments made by the member for York-Simcoe in
the environment committee show that the government's back is up
against the wall and it is now saying anything it can to save face.
The policy of the government is clear: legislate how the minister
feels, or wants to favour someone, rather than by what is right in
view of legitimate evidence.
When MMT is reintroduced into the United States later this year
probably 70 per cent of the gasoline will have MMT in it, if we use
the numbers from the member for York-Simcoe. Let me also
point out that the environmental restrictions in California are
different from any of those used in other states. I have often heard
the description that California is a country all of its own. If
California lifted the ban on MMT I am certain the members of the
Liberal caucus would find some other reason it is important to ban
MMT.
When the EPA attempted to ban MMT it mistakenly believed it
was harmful. The Liberal government wants to ban not the
substance but rather the importation and interprovincial trade in the
substance. This is clearly an anti-free trade bill. Some would ask
the reason for doing it this way. The government has no other
choice. When it is unable to do something through the proper
channels, old style Liberals find other ways.
This is the government that told the Canadian electorate
following the last election that it would show credibility and
responsibility and be forthright with the public. Here is another
example that can be added to a long list of old style governance and
politics.
Every Canadian should ask the Minister of the Environment why
she did not go through the proper channels and ban MMT under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. She is the sponsor of this
legislation so why did she not use her department's act, an act that
was designed specifically for banning harmful substances. The
answer is simple. She could not. There is not a scientific basis for
it. MMT appears to be no more harmful than household dust on the
furniture.
In order to add a substance to the schedule of banned substances
under CEPA it must be proven by Health Canada that the substance
is hazardous to the health of Canadians. Anyone who has listened
to any of the debates on this bill is well aware of the December 6,
1994 Health Canada report called ``Risk Assessment for the
Combustion Products of MMT''. It states that ``all analyses
indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not
represent an added health risk to the Canadian population''.
On October 18 a Health Canada official appeared before the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development and concurred that the 1994 report remains the
position of the department. Therefore I urge all members of the
House not to include in their speeches during this third reading
stage any reference that the removal of MMT will improve health
quality. I
heard several government members make a mention of this during
second reading. It is a false and inaccurate assertion. A member
may make an unforeseen mistake, however in this case, the
evidence gives clear direction concerning what can be claimed.
From the outset Reformers have unequivocally stated that we
would support the banning of MMT if the government could prove
through an independent scientific test that MMT was harmful to the
automakers onboard diagnostic systems or OBD-IIs as they are
called in the industry. However the minister has only scoffed at
Reform for even suggesting independent testing. The Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association has provided her with their test
data and that is all the data she apparently needs or wants to see.
When the petroleum companies appeared before the committee
they suggested they would have a tremendous amount to lose
should MMT be removed from Canadian fuels. In their testimony it
was suggested that the removal of MMT could result in an increase
of manufacturing costs by as much as $69 million per year.
(1620 )
According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the $69
million increase would be due to the fact that refiners would have
to burn more crude in order to achieve the high octane levels
needed for today's automobiles. They would also have to retrofit
refineries. Other expensive additives would have to be used which
might eventually be revealed to be very harmful.
This bill has been through the various stages. I want to make it
clear that at every stage Reform has made every attempt to put the
bill on hold until conclusive proof is found. We have not been
obstructionist. We have called for common sense, not unreasonably
siding with any group, unlike the government.
I want to read into the record parts of three letters I have come
across, all from provincial ministers of the environment and all
concerning MMT. First, from the Hon. Vaughn Blaney, Minister of
the Environment for the province of New Brunswick:
Given that neither the federal government nor the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry have provided the information and assurances that this
province and the refining industry have requested regarding the economic and
environmental impacts of this bill, and given the current discussions on use of
this compound in the United States, I would hereby request that this bill be set
aside until the questions raised have been clearly responded to by Canada and a
decision on the continued use of this additive is taken in the United States.
From the Hon. Wayne Adams, Minister of the Environment for
the province of Nova Scotia:
I realize that there are conflicting reports respecting pros and cons of MMT use.
However, the task force should consider the potential increase in NOx emissions,
higher production costs, and higher energy demands associated with the
manufacture and use of a non-MMT gasoline. I believe that it would be prudent to
withhold a final decision with respect to fuel reformulation and MMT until such
16381
time as all stakeholders have had sufficient opportunity to assess the available
information and the question of MMT is settled in the U.S.
From the Hon. Bernard H. Wiens, Minister of the Environment
and Resource Management for the province of Saskatchewan:
The province understands the importance of the automobile manufacturing
industry in Canada, however, our petroleum refining industry continues to be
concerned that the removal of MMT would cause substantial cost increases for
their industry. In addition to the cost implications, increased greenhouse gas
emissions as a result of intensified refinery processes required to replace MMT,
and increased vehicle tail-pipe emissions of smog forming Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOx) would also occur. The data supplied to date by the automative industry
does not identify a net air quality benefit and as such, we have difficulty
rationalizing the cost to the refining industry or consumers.
The issue of NOx benefit is a serious one. NOx emissions are
major contributors to urban smog. As well, there is no disputing
that the presence of MMT in unleaded gasoline actually reduces
smog as it complements complete combustion. All of the experts
agree, including those from Environment Canada. The only dispute
is about the appropriate amount.
Environment Canada officials claim that the amount is 5 per cent
whereas Ethyl and the petroleum companies claim it is closer to 20
per cent. Whatever the number, the result is that MMT reduces
NOx emissions, it certainly does not increase it.
One of the most interesting aspects of this entire debate is the
absence of the Minister of Natural Resources. Within the minister's
purview are the many refineries and coming from the capital of the
oil industry one has to wonder what her opinions are. When asked
whether or not the natural resources minister is in agreement with
Bill C-94 the environment minister stood up and stated: ``I would
point out that any cabinet decision to move on MMT is supported
by all minister of government''.
However, in the final outcome, the Minister of Natural
Resources will have to explain her actions to her constituents. I
doubt the scientists and technicians of her department support the
bill. They have been muzzled and disallowed from expressing their
own personal and professional views.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources really stand in the House
and vote for such changes as proposed in Bill C-94? May I remind
her that she won by one of the smallest margins in the last federal
election. If I remember correctly there were several recounts. I
suggest the minister make her voice known around the cabinet
table instead of succumbing to the unreasonable pressure of the
Minister of the Environment.
Since the very beginning Reform has pushed the environment
minister to do independent testing and let the auto manufacturers
and Ethyl Corporation work things out themselves. The minister
could not believe that I would suggest such a thing. She was
adamant that the auto manufacturers were correct and that was that.
I have some new information about a recent development. I hope
each of my hon. friends across the floor, including the Minister of
the Environment, will be listening very closely. The American
Automobile Manufacturers Association and its members are
continuing to develop an MMT vehicle test program. They expect
to co-operate with the makers of MMT. The industry is talking
about the pursuing a sharing of data about the effects of MMT on
OBD systems. It looks like the industry can solve the problem itself
without government interference.
(1625)
It is time for the environment minister to change her headstrong
approach. When industries are willing to work together to find
common ground, the government should stay clear. If the Minister
of the Environment is too willing to interfere, I can only ask the
question, why? If the minister wants to have a credible legacy in
the environment portfolio I would suggest that she put aside this
bill and let it gather some household dust.
The government's lack of a meaningful legislative agenda for the
country is now noticed by the political observers. The country is
falling apart on the tenets of the fundamental agreements that made
the Confederation of Canada, yet we are dithering over MMT in car
gas. The sense of proportion for government is missing at this
critical point in our history.
If we must regulate gasoline additives for the country, then let
the minister come forward with a bill that deals with rules and an
open process for any substance that does not come under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This anti-free trade bill
before us today will likely be challenged on the reasonable basis
under the NAFTA provisions. I think the intervenor should win on
the merits against the government as everything our party has said
on this matter would support such a challenge. It is my assessment
that the government is in a very weak, unjustifiable position on that
count but is hoping that it will slip by.
In closing, Reformers say to the Minister of the Environment
who is the Deputy Prime Minister, give up on this misguided track
and get on with saving the country.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, seldom
in recent times have I witnessed a debate into which so much
misinformation has been injected and so much confusion has been
put on the record in order to create a lack of confidence in the
actions of the government.
With all due respect to the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby, this matter is not a new one. It is not one
that has prompted
16382
the Minister of the Environment and the government to make a
rash decision. It has been around for some time.
If I remember correctly, in October 1993, the Minister of the
Environment announced that if the petroleum industry would not
take voluntary action to resolve the issue of MMT in gasoline by
the end of 1994, she would have to take action to prohibit its use.
This deadline was extended to February 1995.
This decision has a long history. The government has carefully
watched a dispute between two industrial sectors and despite the
prompting and the time extension, a solution was not found and it
was found necessary to intervene. In the face of the inability of the
two major stakeholders and one proponent to meet and come to an
agreement on MMT, the onus must fall on the government to
determine what needs to be done in the public interest.
The most informed judgment available at the time in this case
was the judgment that MMT as a fuel additive had to go. So much
for the accusation that the government has not thought it over and
has not given the parties sufficient time to come to a solution on
their own. This matter was also pointed out when we had our
hearings in committee.
A number of issues are at stake. One issue is the question that
emission systems would fail prematurely because of the presence
of MMT in gasoline. There is the issue of unnecessary repair costs
when these emission systems are not plugged in. Millions of
motorists would be affected by the presence of MMT in the new
model cars. Data and analyses only come from companies that
make MMT or from automakers and the government as an
independent agency has to judge both and decide which way to go.
There is the risk of increased warranty repair costs to the consumer
and the possible reduction of the warranty coverage for Canadian
motorists.
(1630)
An overall encompassing issue and a matter I would like to bring
to the attention of those who oppose this bill is that technological
progress is pushing legislative changes. That is what it boils down
to. This is technology which is moving ahead and is impossible to
ignore. We must take that fact into account and find ways of
protecting the consumer. I am sure the constituents in Athabasca,
the constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby and the
constituents of that great Canadian patriot from Laurentides will all
benefit from this measure.
Cars coming onstream into the marketplace have OBDs, the
onboard diagnostic systems, which will ensure that the mix of
emissions produced are under control in the most advanced levels
that technology has reached. If we do not remove MMT from
gasoline, this technology cannot be utilized by the consumer. The
manufacturer of the car, as we were told in committee, will simply
disconnect the diagnostic system from the engine.
Initially I had some difficulty understanding what manganese
does. I found it very helpful to hear the explanation given to us by
people in the know who made two points.
The exhaust of an engine passes over the specially coated surface
of a catalytic converter, which we all know is that little box under
the car which was installed some time ago in order to reduce car
emissions. When the exhaust gas passes over it, certain pollutants
are removed. Manganese is produced by virtue of the consumption
of gasoline in the engine. If the manganese covers the surface of the
catalytic converter, then this type of catalytic converter cannot
function properly. As a result, vehicles will pollute more over time.
Here is the link between the effect of manganese and the catalytic
converter in a very linear form.
Engines in recent times have adopted the technology of oxygen
sensors. They determine how much oxygen goes into the air and
fuel mixture in the engine. If manganese is used in gasoline, over
time the manganese will coat the sensors. When it coats the
sensors, the sensors give a false signal that air must be injected into
the mixture. As a result the engine consumes more fuel because the
air-fuel mixture becomes too rich.
(1635)
The cars built for the North American market are equipped with
onboard diagnostic systems. The system tells the motorist when the
emission equipment must be looked at. Unlike the emission
inspection systems of the past, the onboard diagnostic system
identifies the first moment the vehicle begins to pollute
excessively. That is important to remember because unlike what we
were told by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby,
there are health implications. There is no need, thanks to the
onboard diagnostic system, to have inspection stations, to wait in
line ups, to pay inspection fees, and the like.
The majority of motorists whose vehicles are not polluting
excessively need not be inconvenienced. All they need is the
onboard diagnostic system. It helps the motorist and the
environment. It improves the control of the emission of various
gases produced in the combustion engine.
The oxygen sensors are important. We must keep that in mind.
The catalytic converter is important. The removal of manganese is
a function of the performance of these two items, the catalytic
converter and the sensors.
We want to achieve something which is good for the consumer
and which is also good for the quality of the air we breathe,
particularly in densely populated urban centres from Vancouver to
Halifax.
16383
A number of red herrings have been brought forward during the
debate. I will not spend too much time speaking on the comments
which were made the other day by the great patriot from
Laurentides when she had to drag in and quote Terence Corcoran
of the Globe and Mail who was criticizing the Minister of the
Environment in a rather pathetic way. If it were up to Mr.
Corcoran, our environmental standards would quickly return to the
middle ages. The criticism was that the removal of MMT would
produce more pollution. The theme of the hon. member for
Laurentides was also picked up quite extensively by the hon.
member for Athabasca. He was very strong in committee on that.
In committee we heard the views of Ethyl Corporation, which is
opposed to the bill, as it was opposed to the removal of lead in
gasoline 10 years ago, and quite adamantly so. We also heard views
from the car manufacturing industry. We had to conclude that the
claims about increased pollution as advanced by Ethyl Corporation
were seriously exaggerated. They were based on data collected by
Ethyl from test cars and not on data from a Canadian fleet. I am
told there is a big difference between the two.
The Canadian fleet tests took into account world operating
conditions and concluded that the NOx reduction was more in the
order of 5 per cent than the 20 per cent claimed by Ethyl. The claim
that removing MMT will lead to a higher production of NOx is one
that has not been sufficiently and clearly substantiated in our
committee hearings. Actually, the matter was put to rest quite
effectively when we heard that the operation of the diagnostic
system permits a control of all polluting gases produced during the
combustion process. This is important. The overall impact of the
diagnostic controlling system is that it will reduce the overall
engine pollution in all of its components, namely carbon
monoxides, NOx and hydrocarbons.
(1640)
With respect to the lack of provincial support, a letter was read
from the New Brunswick minister of the environment. I believe we
also received a letter from the Saskatchewan minister, but we
certainly have not received a letter from the minister of the
environment for British Columbia. We understand that British
Columbia is very much in favour of this legislation. We have not
heard from the province of Ontario, which I suspect is also very
much in favour. I suspect the same for the province of Quebec. I
believe that the provinces, by and large, have expressed either
directly or indirectly considerable support.
I submit with all due respect to my knowledgeable and esteemed
colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, it is hard to believe
that this matter could be put into the category of being an anti-free
trade measure. This measure really does not have to do with free
trade.
The NAFTA agreement gives much relevance to matters related
to labour and the environment. This comes clearly under the
environmental heading. It is a very legitimate initiative and it is
certainly not motivated by anti-free trade reasons.
I dealt with interference by the minister earlier. This is an
intervention by the government by two ministers who, after having
exhausted all alternative avenues, had to conclude there was no
other course of action relevant than to proceed and provide the
necessary protection for the consumer.
The technology is inexorably moving ahead. We have reached a
new plateau in the knowledge of how to control and reduce
pollution emitted by motor cars. We have to move with the
technology. We have very little alternative other than to allow the
disconnecting of the onboard diagnostic system by the car
manufacturer if manganese is not removed. Surely that measure
would be reminiscent of another era when we pretended that certain
evidence was not staring at us and we looked the other way because
we did not like the evidence.
We have to take the evidence into account. We would be
seriously criticized and quite rightly so by members of the
opposition if we were inactive on this matter. In the end this
measure will lead to a reduction in air pollution in highly populated
areas. The performance of the engines will be improved. There will
be an improvement in mileage with the same consumption of fuel,
and there will be an improvement in terms of reduced emissions.
(1645)
We all know from studies conducted by a number of esteemed
medical doctors that there is a connection between air pollution and
hospital admissions, particularly in connection with asthmatics.
These have been measured in the past. They have been
scientifically supported by way of printouts of admissions to
various hospitals in the province of Ontario. This fact cannot be
denied.
It seems to me that for all these reasons we are moving on the
right track. If we did not do that we would be in the same league as
countries like Bulgaria, Argentina, or perhaps Taiwan. Let me see
what other countries are still using manganese in gasoline: Russia,
the Ukraine. I am sure that sooner or later, if their automotive
technology will allow, they will be glad to also move away from
the use of MMT.
We are moving from one stage of improvement in technology to
the next. In the 1980s we were concerned with lead. In the 1990s
we are concerned with MMT. In another decade we will be
concerned with some other aspect of this technology. But it is quite
clear that as the number of vehicles on the roads increases and as
the population increases and as the number of people who want the
freedom of movement a car allows increases, we will have to
16384
tighten up the system and find ways to reduce the pollution that
accompanies the operation of a car.
In that context, this measure makes sense and fits into the
progression. It is not the first step of this nature, because we
already took an important step in the 1980s by removing lead from
gasoline, and it will not be the last. There will be other measures
following in the years to come.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of questions concerning the member's presentation.
He stated that this issue has gone on for some time. I would
accept that. I heard the suggestion that the two sides were unable to
reach a conclusion. I would ask him how he could realistically
expect the two sides to ever come to any agreement after the
minister made this statement, prior to October 1993, that she was
prepared to ban the use of MMT. How can he realistically expect
the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Association to continue to
bargain in good faith after that statement was made and it was clear
what would happen if no agreement was achieved?
This member in committee clearly stated that he was no expert in
these matters. We heard evidence presented before the EPA and
two court challenges in the U.S. that there has been significant
failure of OBD technology in the U.S. There is just as high a failure
rate there without MMT as there is in Canada. This evidence was
presented by experts in the court as well as before the EPA. Even
his own members on the committee expressed serious doubts as to
the validity of the evidence. Why does he then as a layman accept
unquestionably the evidence provided by MMT as to catalytic
converter problems and all the rest of it?
(1650)
Finally, why does the member insist that this has no implications
on trade or that it is not a trade matter when clearly section 1209 of
the energy chapter of the draft agreement on internal trade reached
with the provinces states that no party shall prohibit or hinder
access to its petroleum markets or its petroleum product markets?
How then can this bill not affect trade?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer some of his
questions.
The Minister of the Environment became a minister after the
election in 1993. She made the statement after being appointed in
October. I am not aware of any other statement she made before
that.
In the red book there was a commitment to sustainable
development. There was a commitment to a number of pollution
prevention measures. This fits perfectly within the general
principle of pollution prevention, I submit to the hon. member.
There was a valid question on how can the two parties come to a
realistic agreement. They can if they are given the time. Since a
year and a half as of last June has elapsed, one can conclude that the
two parties are unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. There
is a point when that institution called government, to which the
public entrusts its interests, has to move. One could argue that it
should have been done sooner. Some people would argue that it
should have been done at a later date. That is question of judgment
and a question of policy.
The other question had to do with trade and section 1209. The
NAFTA agreement states that matters that are related to
environmental policies would have to be taken into account before
this particular section 1209 is invoked and put into effect. In other
words, when Canada signed the NAFTA agreement in December
1993 it was done with a mutual understanding, and I think
reinforced by the Americans as well, that there would always have
to be consideration given to modifying the agreement either in the
field of labour or in the field of the environment. This is a classic
example that has been invoked.
As to the OBD systems in the U.S., I have been told that waivers
have been provided to automotive manufacturers because of the
complexity of the systems and not because they have failed in the
field. This is in answer to the third question.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Davenport began his speech by talking about red
herrings. I think it is appropriate, because he seems to be a master
at this.
The first red herring is the bill itself. At a time when our nation is
facing a debt increasing by $100 million a day, at a time when we
have a stalker who has killed and is taunting the police and our
justice system needs repair, at a time when we have a gaggle of
cabinet ministers huddling about what the meaning of national
unity is, we are here debating Bill C-94 about manganese additives.
The member has some of his own red herrings, like the red
herring of comparing manganese additives to lead based additives.
The health officials say that this additive has no bearing on health
and that it is not a harmful emission.
(1655 )
I would like to ask the member for Davenport why he would
compare in such a way the manganese additives with lead based
additives when the government itself has said there is no
comparison.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should be
flattered or offended by being called a master of red herrings. I will
leave it to my colleagues to judge me in that respect. Maybe I am
more effective on that front than I ever thought.
16385
The member from Chilcotin is very kind in drawing to my
attention that manganese has no health effects, according to health
authorities. He is correct. We were told that in committee. But it
is the effect on the diagnostic system on board that reduces the
totality of the gas emissions that is the important factor. If that
diagnostic system is not functioning properly, you have poor
performance and more pollution. You do not want to have more
pollution because that has an effect on health. It is in that context
that I made that statement.
Why compare manganese to lead? It is not a question of
comparing it. All I am saying is there is a progression. First we
fought the battle of removing lead in gasoline, which today
everybody accepts, but boy was it ever controversial 10 years ago:
the sky would fall, jobs would be lost, refineries would go out of
business-all things we were told in 1983. Perhaps I should also
offer the information that at that time I was environment minister
and this was part of my task. It was pretty dramatic as to the
consequences of removing lead in gasoline, believe me.
In any event, it was done gradually. Today we consider that as a
normal fact of life. There are positive effects in the health of
children, the ones who suffer from exposure to lead when it is
contained in gasoline. It is one of the reasons it was done.
I am saying it is part of a progression. First it was lead, now it is
manganese. Ten years from now perhaps it will be another
substance, because technology is moving ahead and legislators
have to move as well. If we do not move with technology, I submit
to you we will lose relevance. The public will justly think that the
political institutions are no longer performing the job they are
supposed to do. I think that is the last thing we collectively would
like to see happen.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Davenport why
we even have this bill, when MMT is proven by the Department of
Health not to be a health hazard to Canadians and there is ample
evidence demonstrating that MMT does not affect onboard devices
at all. I wonder why we are trying to ban this substance.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this a few times.
The Department of Health is saying that there is no proof that
manganese is damaging to health. That is how it is being put.
Nobody has said that manganese is a healthy thing. Nobody is
saying that manganese is good for the environment.
Manganese, I must draw to the member's attention, is a heavy
metal. Anyone who knows about heavy metals knows what that
means and the importance of dealing with this substance in a
proper manner.
I hope I have answered the question.
[Translation]
The House resumed, from November 7, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It being five o'clock, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division at second reading of
Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 368)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
16386
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-180
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-41
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Crawford
de Savoye
Gagliano
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Jacob
Jordan
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Nunez
Paradis
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1725)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health
and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on second reading of Bill C-95.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
there would be unanimous consent for applying the vote on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House, and Liberal
members will be recorded as voting yes to this motion.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members will vote for
the motion, except those who might choose to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I am voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I will vote for the
motion.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: Madam Speaker, I was unable to be here for the
first vote but I would like to be counted with the government on the
second vote.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 369)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
16387
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Young
Zed-178
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Solomon
Venne-44
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Canuel
Chan
Crawford
de Savoye
Gagliano
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Jacob
Jordan
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Nunez
Paradis
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing
Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know
the House is scheduled to terminate Government Orders at 5.49
p.m. If you were to seek it I think the House would give its consent
to call it 5.49 p.m. and to proceed immediately with private
members' hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House will now
proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
>
16388
16388
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1730 )
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-322, an act to respecting the office of the auditor general for the
family, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I count it a real privilege to rise this
afternoon to lend my support to the Canadian family. I can think of
few things in our country as important as the topic I am addressing
this afternoon. In fact, if I raise my sights just a little higher, it is
fair to say that worldwide few topics are as unifying as people's
desire to look after their families.
The UN declaration that 1994 be the year of the family means
that all of us, worldwide, need to care to preserve the family each
and every year.
We have just gone through a distressing period in our nation and
there may be more difficult times ahead before we are through.
However, if strong families make a strong nation then today, more
than ever before, we need strong families in Canada. I am proud to
say that strengthening the family is the purpose of Bill C-322.
Allow me to describe how this will happen by first describing the
role of a familiar Canadian institution, the Auditor General of
Canada.
As members know, Canada's auditor general does his excellent
work by choosing perhaps a dozen government programs and
departments every year and investigates them. He then reports any
waste or inefficiency to Parliament. That is all he does. However, it
seems to generate action in government. That is all the auditor
general for the family would do too, except that it would
investigate and report on behalf of the nuclear family in Canada.
The auditor general for the family would be a small, inexpensive
office set up by Parliament. The legislation restricts it to just 20
people. By contrast, the current auditor general employs 600
people. Even the Status of Women Canada has 93 employees.
Many positive and important legislative changes over the years
have been brought about by policy groups funded by the federal
government to examine government programs as they affect that
group. The government creates them when it perceives that a group
is at risk in society and needs some help.
I mentioned the Status of Women Canada a moment ago because
the secretaries of state also perform much the same function as
would the auditor general for the family. We have secretaries of
state for women, for youth, for veterans, for multiculturalism and
science, among others. We have an auditor general for the
environment. We have the National Council on Aging and the
National Council on Welfare. We have advisory councils on
forestry, on business, on libraries, on gender integration in the
Canadian Armed Forces, on native peoples, on racial equality in
the arts. I could go on and on.
What is there for the family? Precious little in the way of
recognition by governments.
The kinds of advisory groups, or think tanks, I just mentioned
are established when there is a broad public perception that a group
is at risk. They have a definite policy focus and have a real effect on
public policy.
Let us take the last annual report for the Canadian Council on the
Status of Women as an example. That report is now two years old
but it contains recommendations that sound very much like the
government's agenda today. There were recommendations on a
stalking bill, on female genital mutilation and on child custody, all
issues that are understandably high on the government's list of
priorities. In other words, by bringing these to the attention of the
government they eventually became government policy and a
government priority. I would like to see the family take a higher
priority too.
If we wanted to create a group that would speak for the family, it
begs an important question: Is the nuclear family in Canada really
at risk? Polls reveal a broad public perception that the family is in
trouble, but the federal government has not reacted to it. Perhaps it
is because the Canadian family, at least in times past, has not been
as politically correct an issue as hundreds of others that I could
name.
A poll done by the Angus Reid Group for the International Year
of the Family in 1994 told us that the public perceives the family as
a group in crisis. Sixty-three per cent of all respondents to the
survey agreed that the family is in crisis and 40 per cent agreed
strongly. The poll told us more. Even more Canadians, 68 per cent,
including single parents, agreed that the traditional two-parent
family is the best type of family in which to raise children. There is
certainly a clear, broad public consensus in Canada on the need to
help the family, even the so-called traditional family.
(1735)
There might be a broad public perception of need but are there
other more objective indicators of need to which we can point? You
bet there are. This year the Department of Human Resources
Development, a government department, wrote a report called ``A
Social Outlook'' that paints a picture of the family in crisis.
Family incomes are dropping. The poverty rate among
two-parent families has risen from 9 per cent to 12 per cent in the
last two decades. Families that would prefer the option to choose
whether parents work outside the home find that they are forced
into the
16389
workplace whether they like it or not. Those that would like to
choose to stay at home to look after the kids find that they cannot.
The study also shows that between 1960 and 1986 the time
parents had to spend with their kids, that important bonding time
with their own family, has fallen by 10 hours a week.
Families also suffer a discriminatory tax regime in Canada.
Often it is cheaper to live together than it is to get married. The tax
system also discriminates against homemakers.
A chartered accountant from New Brunswick has calculated that
a single income family in which one parent chooses to stay at home
will pay 36.2 per cent more in tax than a dual income family
earning the same gross amount. The tax system clearly
discriminates against those who choose to live in a more traditional
arrangement, the kind of arrangement that most people in Canada,
according to the Angus Reid poll, think is the best one to raise their
children, especially at a young age.
Without tax reform, at the very least, we risk losing that vital
middle class which forms the backbone of our nation. Unfair tax
policy harming the family is the kind of policy that the auditor
general for the family could investigate and expose, bring into the
light so the government could deal with it.
There is much more evidence. A U.S.-wide study called the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth followed 14,000 people
since 1979 and found that the children of single parents are almost
three times as likely to be single moms and drop out of high school.
They are less likely to graduate from college or university. One out
of four babies in the States are born to single moms and this adds
up to a cycle of continuing poverty, continuing lack of opportunity
and obviously something that we would not hope for those families
and those children.
The U.S. News and World Report ran its cover story on the
family in February this year. This is how its story began. I will
quote just the opening words: ``Dad is destiny. More than virtually
any other factor, a biological father's presence in the family will
determine a child's success and happiness, rich or poor, white or
black. The children of divorce and those born outside of marriage
struggle through life at a measurable disadvantage, according to a
growing chorus of social thinkers''.
The article goes on to describe the various attempts in the States
to reconnect fathers to their families. Fortunately, we are not yet as
bad off in Canada, but the operative word there is yet. We may trail
behind the States in our social trends, but we are on the same road.
For instance, the Vanier Institute for the Family tells us that
Canada's divorce rate has jumped from being one of the lowest in
the world in 1965 to being one of the highest in the world in 1988.
It is about one-third higher than in Sweden and France. We are
second only to the United States of America. The problem of
family break-up will have and is having measurable negative
effects on our economy, on our justice system and on government
spending.
If the family is under threat in Canada, then our future is also
threatened. This bill recognizes that the family is important, that it
is suffering, that children are suffering because families are
suffering. Families deserve a voice, a place of priority in the House
of Commons and in the legislation dealt with.
You may think this bill is a fringe idea coming from a Reformer,
Madam Speaker. I hope you do not think that, but perhaps
somebody listening thinks such a thing. This is far from the case.
The Canada Committee for the International Year of the Family
was struck by the federal government to examine federal family
policy during that year, 1994. In January 1995 it presented its
recommendations. The Canada committee recommended the
creation of a permanent federal secretariat for the family within the
Government of Canada. Its mandate would almost be the same as
that in my bill: ``To serve as a catalyst, to initiate research and
education on the changing structure and status of the Canadian
family and the impact of federal policies and programs on the
Canadian family; secondly, to work as a broker to develop tools
and resources to aid in the development of harmonized policies and
programs which support and strengthen families; and third, to
prepare a family impact assessment statement on all significant
new federal laws, policies and program initiatives''.
(1740)
These three functions correspond directly to the auditor general
for the family's three main functions that I have in my bill: ``To
examine government programs, to propose changes to them if
necessary, and to report to Parliament on all of its deliberations''.
This is a mainstream idea whose time has come. The government
needs to act now to preserve, enhance and support the nuclear
family in Canada.
I want to answer those who might say that the focus of this bill is
too narrow, that it touches on the nuclear family as opposed to
another more inclusive definition of the family. I have used the
term nuclear family in the bill to designate what is commonly
understood as a family in Canada.
This is in no way meant to be a pejorative statement or a
condemnation of the numerous social arrangements which society
accepts. There are many other acts of Parliament, for instance, that
target particular groups for assistance and help without any
pejorative connotation. For example, we have an act of Parliament
granting benefits for unemployed workers, but this is not a jab at
16390
those who have jobs. It simply targets one of the many groups in
society with which Parliament needs to concern itself.
It is the same for the auditor general for the family. Society
accepts many diverse living arrangements, as it should, but those
arrangements are simply not the focus of this particular bill. The
bill merely recognizes the importance of one needy group in our
society, the nuclear family, and it attempts to enhance its
well-being.
I have chosen the definition for the family found in the
Dictionary of Canadian Law. It states: ``The family includes a man
and a woman living together as husband and wife, whether or not
married, in a permanent relationship, or the survivor of either, and
includes the children of both or either, natural or adopted, and any
person lawfully related to any of the aforementioned persons''.
This is similar to the definition used by other dictionaries and
also the federal government and the governments of all 10
provinces. I realize that it is never a perfect definition but we do
have to try to do something and certainly this is the standard
definition found in the dictionary.
Finally, the nuclear family is hardly a narrow or isolated group.
In the enormous study done by Murdock some years ago in which
he studied 250 societies around the world, he found that ``the
nuclear family is a universal human social grouping. It exists as a
distinct and strongly functional group in every known society''.
Does this mean that all government programs must be focused
only on the family or only on married folk or only on their
children? Of course not. This bill merely recognizes the importance
of the family in our society and it attempts to enhance its
well-being.
I was reminded of the centrality of the family in Canada when I
attended a wedding just a few weeks ago. The bride was beautiful.
The husband to be was very nervous. He was determined to go
through with his decision and his promise to stick to his wife for
life. The father of the bride was pretty close to tears giving away
his little girl, but he was also pretty close to shedding a few tears of
joy as well. I should know because the father was myself and
Karina is and always will be my not so little girl anymore.
Even though there were a couple of hundred people there, there
was something very private, something very personal about that
ceremony, and that was the transmission of values from me to my
child, from the parents of the groom to him and the fusion of those
values into what was really a new family. We watched the creation
in a sense of another new family unit.
It is almost like running a race in which one runner passes the
torch on to the next one and together each runner helps run the race
for the whole team. If the torch is dropped, the race can still be
finished but it is not the same. In fact, the race cannot be won.
(1745)
The torch in this analogy is the invaluable inheritance of secure,
committed families. The race is the life of every Canadian.
Canadian families are too often too easily dropping the torch
during the race. As a result, individuals within families are
suffering and the whole country is suffering because our families
are suffering.
In Canada 13 per cent of all families are single parent families.
That is one million families. Nearly 30 per cent of all Canadian
marriages end in divorce. Even if we lay aside the arguments for
the family that are based on the emotional hardships suffered by
broken families, we can point to strong economic arguments of
why we want to promote and encourage the family.
Surely it is in the interests of all political parties, our
government, our nation, to find ways to promote the family unit,
where a loving, committed husband and wife nurture healthy,
happy children. Within that unit they pass on the values of
commitment and faithfulness and stability and responsibility to
their own children, who will in turn carry the torch in their
generation and will pass it on to the next.
Families are the root of a prosperous and peaceful nation. If
Parliament is to cultivate the ground from which strong families
grow, it must now begin to study the social environment for the
family and begin to change its policies to provide a more
favourable environment for families.
If the government for whatever reason finds that this auditor
general for the family is unacceptable, that this idea just does not
carry the day, I appeal to government members to create their own
body that would perform a similar function. Listen perhaps to the
recommendations of the commission which asked for a permanent
secretariat on behalf of the family, but find some ways to
encourage and enhance that important institution.
The family in Canada is in crisis. The time to act on its behalf is
now. I hope all members will lend their support to the principle of
an auditor general for the family.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if there is one thing we have in common as members of
this House, it is our shared belief in the value of family life and the
central role the family unit has within our society. Families are at
the very core of our social fabric.
[Translation]
That is why I congratulate my hon. colleague across the way for
introducing this bill for the creation of an auditor general for the
family.
[English]
I congratulate the hon. member. By bringing the bill forward he
provides those of us on this side with an opportunity to comment
constructively on this area of social policy. It also allows us to
16391
review the many ways this government is already working to
support individual Canadians in the pursuit of their social and
economic objectives, including in meeting the commitments to
their families.
[Translation]
Right at the start, I must express my disagreement with the
importance attached to the nuclear family in Bill C-322. This term
seems to define what constitutes today's Canadian family in too
narrow terms.
[English]
It may be that a generation or two ago the traditional family
structure was that of a male breadwinner and a stay at home mother
who looked after the house and their children and all lived under
the same roof. That may have represented a typical Canadian
family but that situation has changed dramatically.
[Translation]
The nuclear family is no longer the dominant model in Canadian
society. Now we have many different models: single parent
families, blended families, extended families and so on.
[English]
The two parent with children household now comprises less than
half the families in Canada. Our lifestyles have changed over the
years since the nuclear family defined society and the direction of
our social policy and any related legislation must reflect those
changes.
(1750)
[Translation]
It is our duty as legislators to base ourselves on today's realities
and not yesterday's ideals. Deciding a certain model merits our
attention more than another is tantamount to thumbing our noses at
all those Canadians whose family structure does not fit within the
model of the typical nuclear family.
[English]
Having said that, I want to emphasize that our government is not
against the nuclear family. We agree with the preamble of the bill
which says that the nuclear family is one of the foundations of
Canadian society.
[Translation]
It is true that the nuclear family is one of the foundations of our
society, but it is our opinion that the foundation of society is the
family unit, and family units may take different forms. We agree
that the nuclear family constitutes an important element in
Canadian society, but we contest the fact that it is the only family
structure that counts.
[English]
To this government all Canadians are important, whether they
are members of a nuclear family or not.
[Translation]
Finally, as we have stated in the red book, the Liberal
government's policy is to aim at greater equality of social
conditions for all Canadians. We wish to broaden the outlook, not it
narrower.
[English]
As hon. members know, it is the Liberal Party which has been
responsible for the major social policy initiatives of this country
over the years. It is Liberal governments, including this
government, which have confirmed time and time again our belief
in the value of the family as the basic unit of society. We have
signalled the commitment through many of our programs in
support of family members.
This is an important concept. Whereas my hon. colleagues
opposite would single out members of only one type of family unit
for attention, our government believes in looking at the needs of all
Canadians and all types of family structures and in doing that,
looking within a broad economic and social context and not within
a narrowly cast definition of family.
It is our belief that if we want to assist Canadians to meet their
family obligations, we must look at the overall environment within
which people live and work. We must look at and respond to needs
within the social, economic, technological and cultural
environments in which individual Canadians as family members
find themselves.
[Translation]
We do not feel that we must evaluate Canadians, or the effect of
federal programs and institutions, in terms of the needs of this or
that family model. If our goal is to improve the quality of life of all
Canadians, we shall improve the quality of life of the members of
all Canadian families.
[English]
Thus, we have programs designed to provide income assistance
to families with children. That means all families with children are
eligible, not just one kind of family. Income assistance to families
with children is one of the oldest parts of Canada's social security
system, dating back to 1918.
[Translation]
One of the most important elements is the child tax benefit, a
non taxable income-related benefit for those with children under
the age of eighteen years. It comprises a basic benefit, a
supplemental benefit for children under the age of seven years, and
a work income supplement.
16392
[English]
One of the best ways we can help Canadian families is to
enhance the ability of individual Canadians to find a job and keep
that job. This is a central objective of our economic and social
policy.
[Translation]
The objective is to help not only those Canadians who are part of
one type of family or another, but all Canadians.
(1755)
Very often, helping a Canadian to find and keep a job also means
helping him or her balance work and family responsibilities. In
today's world, increasing numbers of Canadians have to strike a
balance between responsibilities toward their employers and
family responsibilities. This is also a reflection of the changing
structure of the Canadian family.
[English]
For example, over the past few decades an increasing percentage
of women have remained in or re-entered the workforce while
raising young children. At the same time there have been
increasing demands for support for older relatives and friends
leading to the creation of the so-called sandwich generation.
[Translation]
Under these circumstances, a good child care system becomes a
vital necessity, and the possibility of assistance may have a
considerable impact on the family.
[English]
Nuclear family or not, many Canadians are feeling these
pressures. Governments need to be responsive to these
developments in the workplace and their impact on families as
well.
[Translation]
One of the ways our government is responding to those needs is
the ``child care visions'' research and development program
announced earlier this year by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
[English]
The child care visions program will lead to a better
understanding of emerging child care issues as well as increased
knowledge about the needs of Canadian families. One of the
objectives of this program is to encourage greater involvement by
all sectors of society in meeting child care needs.
Once again, we view these issues in the broad context of
economic and social policy needs and not in the narrower context
of a family definition. There are other programs in place and under
development to support workers to meet their family
responsibilities.
In the very near future, the Minister of Human Resources
Development will be meeting with his provincial counterparts to
discuss the best possible ways to take care of our children. This will
be a very important initiative for this government to help the
family.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to the bill standing in the name
of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and entitled, an act
respecting the office of the Auditor General for the Family. The
hon. member made an excellent presentation and explained very
clearly his reasons for proposing this legislation.
The purpose of this bill, after a preamble that stresses the
importance of the nuclear family and states that Canada should
encourage, support and protect it, is basically to appoint an Auditor
General for the Family who would examine federal policies and
make recommendations to ensure that the federal government
encourages the development of the nuclear family.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development made it very clear that this bill is well
intentioned. No one in this House wants to diminish the role of the
family in our society, and everyone wants children to have a family
in which they can develop their potential. The bill would, however,
create a number of problems.
First, there is the definition of family. The bill refers to the
nuclear family, the traditional family that is still very important.
This is the family where there is a father, mother and children.
However, for the past 20 or 30 years at least, we have seen changes
in the family structure in Canada and Quebec.
(1800)
We see families with only a father, or only a mother. We see
families made up of individuals who previously belonged to other
families. If we adopt the bill as presented by the hon. member for
Fraser Valley East, this would mean ignoring a number of families
that play just as important a role in bringing up their children as the
nuclear family. These families would, to a certain extent, be
discriminated against or overlooked.
My colleague, the member for Fraser Valley East, said this
would not preclude steps being taken to foster the development of
other kinds of families, but the fact remains that if we take the
trouble to appoint an Auditor General for the Family who will be
dedicated to the well-being of nuclear families, as it says in the bill,
we are excluding a certain number of families. As many as 20 per
cent of the families in this country do not correspond to the
description of a nuclear family.
Yet it is in these families that children are often likely to need
special programs. Not because their families are less competent
than other families, but because the responsibilities of a single
father or a single mother are tremendous. I think there is a case here
16393
for government support. We see no indication in the bill of how
these families would be helped by adopting this legislation.
The real problem, and the hon. member made this very clear, is
the children. We want children to develop in a satisfactory family
environment. I think that a satisfactory family environment, at least
for many people like me, in the Bloc Quebecois, is first of all an
environment in which there are sufficient resources to provide for
the children's development, to clothe them, feed them and educate
them. That is the kind of family environment in which a child has a
chance to develop its potential.
I think that any steps we would want the Canadian government to
take should be based on fighting poverty and maintaining social
programs, if we want to support children who live in a family
environment. It is vital to be clear on the problem: child poverty
and family poverty cause young people to have health, social
development and education problems. Therefore, I do not think the
bill before us, despite the hon. member's good intentions, will
contribute to improving the quality of children's lives in Canadian
families.
Another problem I notice in reading the bill-and I apologize,
Madam Speaker, perhaps many members in this House have heard
this argument, these remarks, too often for their liking-but are
again looking at a jurisdictional conflict between the provincial and
federal governments.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many of the Bloc members,
matters to do with family, marriage and families' private lives are
more matters of provincial jurisdiction. So, once again, there
would be a degree of conflict between an organization, an office of
the auditor general, at the federal level and provincial institutions.
Some provinces have family secretariats.
So again, we have not progressed from the stage where the
federal and provincial governments often take contradictory or
parallel measures, to the detriment of families and children needing
care and support.
(1805)
Even my colleague from the government said in his speech that
daycare services should be set up. This would perhaps be more
important at that point for the well-being of children living in a
family setting. Daycare services, however, come under provincial
jurisdiction. So we face the same dilemma, we are in stuck in this
situation. I think there comes a time to put a stop to it.
Finally, and my colleague for Fraser Valley East mentioned it as
well, there is the matter of taxation, a problem that can be
detrimental to family life. Every year, in Quebec, as in Canada,
there are reports and studies which tend to demonstrate that people
with families are disadvantaged from the taxation point of view.
This leads us to again bring up the question of tax reform in
Canada. Every year we hear the Minister of Finance, people from
the health department and human resources development,
government members saying that, yes, we will have to address the
taxation issue in order to help families and to ensure greater equity,
greater fiscal justice, in Canada. Good intentions still and again,
but we have seen nothing concrete in the two years that we in the
Bloc have been here.
We will vote against a measure such as this. The first reason, as I
said at the start, is that it is aimed at the nuclear family and we
believe, in light of recent changes-in the past ten, fifteen, twenty
years in Canada we have seen major changes-we must not give
preference to the nuclear family, despite all of its merits over the
centuries, which it continues to have.
Second, this is an area where overlap with provincial
jurisdictions is such that, in the long run, it would only fuel further
argumentation and might cancel out certain pro-family clauses in
provincial legislation.
Let me state once again that I am very much aware of the good
intentions of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. However, for
the reasons I have just set out in my address, I personally, and the
members of the Bloc Quebecois, will oppose such a measure.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a privilege to rise today in the House in support of private
member's Bill C-322, an act respecting the auditor general for the
family.
The bill would establish the position of the auditor general for
the family, tasked with identifying and examining federal
programs, exposing programs and policies detrimental to the
well-being of the nuclear family in Canada, and recommending
changes through an annual report to Parliament. The office would
be analogous to the auditor general's office, serving the same
function on behalf of the nuclear family in Canada. Unfortunately,
this bill is non-votable.
I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for taking
the initiative to advance this private member's bill in defence of the
rights of the traditional family.
On many occasions I have spoken both in the House and in
public forums across the nation in defence of the rights of the
traditional family. Unfortunately, it is not enough to just speak
about family, family life, and family values issues. It is time the
House gave formal recognition to the rights of the traditional
family.
16394
The family unit is the basic institution in life and the solid
foundation upon which our forefathers have built this great nation.
The protection of families, family life, and family values must be a
priority with the government.
The conventional terms of debate in matters of political, social,
economic, and legal issues tend to focus on individual rights and
the rights of the state and not the rights of the family. This is
unfortunate and must change, for the family is the most important
reality in our lives.
(1810 )
The rights of the family are being seriously undermined and
eroded. Families have inherent rights. Families have inviolable
rights. Families existed before the church. Families existed before
the state.
Parliament has no jurisdiction to redefine traditional family or to
enter into the realm of sanctity of marriage or sanctity of life. It is
important to be reminded that family is the basic institution of life.
Life begins from the moment of conception and continues until
natural death. The inherent and inviolable rights of family must be
protected, defended and safeguarded by Parliament.
Bill C-322 is offering the government a mechanism to identify,
examine, expose, and amend policies and legislation that encroach
on the rights of the traditional family.
Parents are the primary educators of their children and are solely
and fundamentally responsible for the emotional, psychological,
physical, social, spiritual and moral development of their children.
It is time the government funded the family and stopped funding
agendas designed to undermine and destroy traditional family
values.
For the government to promote and encourage institutionalized
child care by providing tax benefits is both inequitable and unjust.
It is removing the economic freedom and flexibility of families to
make a conscious choice of what is in the best interest of their
children and their family by imposing an economic hardship on
single income families.
The traditional two-parent family is under relentless attack from
special interest groups and others who regard the traditional family
as an impediment to their goals. For example, the feminist agenda
requires careful scrutiny, as the continuous quest to conquer the
alleged male oppression of women has placed pressure on society
to move the focus from family rights to individual rights and rights
of special interest groups. The advancement of the feminist agenda
in government policies has advanced an ideology predicated upon
equality of women that is more concerned with achieving formal
equity and has forsaken substantive equity. By doing so, the
feminist movement has done a great disservice to women,
motherhood, to our children, and to the traditional family.
The Canadian position advanced at the Beijing conference
appeared to be advancing and protecting the equality of women.
However, the Canadian position that was advanced called for
gender, not the family, to be the most important criterion for
determining government policies.
It is the feminist position that family is the initiator and cause of
the inequity between men and women, together with their failure to
recognize the importance of the role of women and motherhood
within the traditional family unit. It is against this relentless attack
upon the traditional family that government must protect and
safeguard.
In conclusion, the family is the basic institution of life and the
solid foundation upon which our forefathers built this great nation.
The protection of family, family life, and family values must be a
priority with the government.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-322, an act respecting the
office of the auditor general for the family, developed and
sponsored by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.
The Reform Party has long recognized the importance and value
of the Canadian family through our policies and actions, such as we
see here today in Bill C-322. As my colleague earlier so well
stated, few topics are as important to this nation at this time.
This bill seeks to establish the office of the auditor general for
the family. The mandate of the auditor general is based on the
premise of evaluating and assessing the impact, performance, and
effectiveness of government policy, programs and administration.
Clause 4 of this bill outlines this proposed auditor general's
duties. The auditor general for the family shall examine federal
programs and institutions to determine their impact on the nuclear
family in Canada; expose programs and policies that are
detrimental to the well-being of the nuclear family; and
recommend through his annual report to Parliament changes to
federal government programs and policies that would enhance the
well-being of the Canadian nuclear family.
(1815 )
Like the Auditor General of Canada, the auditor general of the
family would be an official officer of Parliament and would report
to the House on an annual basis. The auditor general of the family
would also be empowered to make special reports to Parliament on
``any matter of pressing importance or urgency'' as outlined in
clause 5 of the bill.
As I alluded to in my opening remarks, the family is the most
fundamental institution in society. The family nurtures its members
and provides for the security and needs of its members. The family
provides for the transfer and protection of our values, our heritage
and our culture. The family provides the stability and the prosperity
16395
of society. It is most appropriate to think in terms of an auditor
general in assessing the well-being of Canadian families.
Over the past decade the Canadian family has been under
increasing social, political and economic pressures. These
pressures originate from many facets of government policy
direction. For example, the mismanagement of our nation's
finances has created tremendous pressure both on the earning
power and even the job availability of Canadians and their families.
The average family income in 1984 was $43,204. In 1993 it was
$43,225. After tax income has actually fallen 6.5 per cent from
1989 to today. The tax bite out of money earned is over 30 cents on
the dollar. The facts indicate that it requires almost double the paid
working hours to support a family as it did 20 years ago. Translated
into action that means two income earners in a family as opposed to
one simply to survive.
Sixty-two per cent of mothers with children below the age of
three are now in the workforce compared to thirty-nine per cent in
1981. Economic pressures can be devastating to family stability.
A recent study has found that two-thirds of parents presently
experience moderate to severe levels of tension in balancing work
and family commitments. According to a recent study teen suicide
rates for young men has quadrupled since 1960. According to
UNICEF in 1995 we now have one of the highest rates of teen
suicide in the world after New Zealand and Finland.
Violent youth crime has been shown to have doubled since 1986.
Meanwhile our divorce rates have risen tenfold to where Canada is
second only to the United States with one divorce for every 2.4
marriages. Statistics such as these reveal what can only be
described as a social revolution taking place in the heart of our
homes. We as legislators in the House must do what we can to
strengthen and improve the condition of Canadian families.
What concrete measures has the government taken to improve
the state of families in Canada? Where are the legislation, the tax
relief, constructive and effective programs? Where is the sincere
commitment or are mere platitudes enough?
The Liberal government has been tragically absent and worse yet
in some cases culpable in this crisis. Citing facts as we heard a few
minutes ago that less than half of Canadian families are dual parent
with children is grossly misleading, or saying that we must face
reality and do nothing about ailing families.
Ms. Clancy: Why is it misleading? Finish the clause. Why is it
misleading?
Mrs. Hayes: To answer my colleague's question, two-parent
families with children now compose approximately 80 per cent of
families in Canada. That will answer my colleague's question.
Ms. Clancy: According to whose statistics?
Mrs. Hayes: I ask my Liberal colleagues if they walk into a
village that has been ravaged by some disease whether they would
simply walk away from those who are suffering while muttering
something like reality must be faced.
I shall highlight two specific and current examples of some
issues that the auditor general of the family could examine.
(1820 )
I recently attended the world conference in Beijing. I was there
to ensure that the views of the family and of family life were
represented within the Canadian delegation and the conference
itself. At the conference our government committed to the Beijing
platform for action which requires that the government implement
over 500 actions in the next five years. Although the conference
was supposedly about women, the document introduced barely
mentions family and when it does it is often depicted as a place of
oppression and violence.
One of the actions discussed deals with children's rights. The
document elevates children's rights above those of parents,
including unrestricted access to ``reproductive health services and
education'' and confers upon our children so-called sexual rights.
Parental prerogatives and authority are replaced routinely with
government and bureaucratic intrusion. The document ignores the
value of family relationships, seeking to use words such as
caretaker or girl child in place of beautiful words like mother and
daughter.
This platform for action has not been tabled in the House. It has
not been debated and it has not been examined by members of the
House. In short, it has simply not received the scrutiny that it
deserves. It is a Liberal government endorsed product without any
reference to the Canadian people that will have and has a profound
effect and impact on the Canadian family in society.
A second example is also related to the Beijing conference.
Before the conference started the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women publicly released a document entitled ``Setting the stage
for the next century, the federal plan for gender equality''. The plan
was released as the government's position on the objective of the
conference while it simultaneously instituted gender equality and
gender based analysis throughout the 24 departments and agencies
of the government. I quote the plan from page 17:
16396
A gender based approach ensures the development, analysis and
implementation of legislation and policies with an appreciation of gender
differences.
It makes gender, not family, a priority in all policy development
and seeks to deconstruct ``stereotypical roles'' and replace them
with a social revolution that shakes the very foundation of the
traditional family. In dismantling barriers that supposedly impede
the progress and equality of women, it denies the value of women
and families anywhere outside the workplace.
The plan and its implementation would have far reaching
consequences for families and society. That is what the minister
intended when she wrote that ``every aspect of our lives is being
reshaped'' by the plan. It is sad but true.
If there were an auditor general of the family he would be able to
assess the impact of programs like the platform for action, report
his or her findings to the House, make recommendations to the
government and the House, and raise the profile of these issues.
This Reform bill would do much toward attaining that goal in terms
of providing information about the family and introducing greater
accountability to the system.
Reports on the family would generate interest in family issues.
They would cultivate a culture of respect for the Canadian family
that is sorely lacking in federal legislation and throughout the
federal government.
These are basic, fundamental and significant accountability
measures that I believe will expose an anti-family agenda endorsed
by the Liberal government. An auditor general would strengthen
and improve the condition of the Canadian family.
Let me conclude by stating that Bill C-322 will do much to
establish a family first philosophy that will establish a culture of
recognition and respect for the Canadian family within government
and here in Ottawa.
Moreover, by establishing an auditor general of the family it will
do much to ensure that family friendly policies are developed and
implemented. Current policies and programs would be examined
from the perspective of benefit or harm to the family and not for
special interest groups.
It is with these considerations that I urge the House to support
the bill developed wisely by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.
(1825 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak however briefly on the bill which I do not support.
I am a feminist. I am a very proud feminist. I am very proud of
the government's record, particularly at the recent Beijing
conference, particularly on supporting the plan of action, and most
particularly on the matters mentioned by my hon. colleague with
respect to setting the stage for Beijing and gender analysis, a policy
which is long overdue.
I do not say that just to be combative. I do not say it just to
disagree with my hon. colleague over there, or indeed with my hon.
colleague from Central Nova. I say it because I think there is a deep
misunderstanding in certain segments of society.
Before I became a feminist and before I became a
parliamentarian I was a woman, a daughter and a granddaughter. I
am still all those things. I come from an amazingly wonderful
family. I was brought up by a single parent. My father died at the
age of 39, leaving mother with heavy burdens because there was no
medicare. My mother educated herself and she educated me. She
brought me up to believe in tolerance and equality for all. She also
brought me up within the context of a larger extended family, those
aforementioned grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins to the third
and fourth degree. It was a typical Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
family.
On behalf of feminists across the country I resent the insinuation
that we are not family oriented. Because we believe in gender
equality, because we believe in freedom from fear and freedom
from violence, because we believe in pay equity and employment
equity, because we believe women hold up half the sky, I resent the
theory that we should be told we are anti-family. We are not
anti-family. We are the people who hold the flame every bit as
much as my hon. colleague across the floor or my hon. colleague
from Central Nova.
On this side of the House there are mothers, grandmothers,
married women, single women and divorced women who have
children of their own or who are loving godparents, aunts or
whatever to many children. We care and we care deeply. No one
has the right to equate feminism with an anti-family stand. No one
has the right to question the way we feel about our families.
I love my family as much as I love my country and the two are
interchangeable. It is shameful for anyone to suggest otherwise.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I take the few
remaining moments in this private member's debate to say that I
am very proud to be part of a political party, an organization which
stands unashamedly for the family.
As the hon. member opposite just said, family is very important.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind in the event a father is taken
away by death or even by divorce that there are many additional
hardships on the mother who is left to raise the family as a single
parent. I cannot help but say that we are not in any way desirous of
adding any more hardships to the person who already has so many.
I presume I will have more time when this debate resumes.
16397
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)